Romanesque Architecture

[+RakeInTheCache]

To complement our categories on gothic and Baroque architecture, I'm thinking of starting a category on Romanesque Architecture. Would anyone be interested in being an officer?

[+fi67]

There is a Romanesque Architecture category stuck somewhere before peer review. I don't know why, but maybe it makes sense to join forces with the ones who have already done some of the work and then bring the category back to life:

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/groups/details.aspx?f=1&guid=da39bed5-9f50-499f-ab4e-a09143bc30ac

[+Dorcadion Team]

Sorry for delay, but my e-mail account was stucked by badly set spam filter and also I did not check this forum during last 3 months (summer season is summer season ). So, we can finish the work on the R.A. category listing together...

 

Mike

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

I would happily vote yes on this category

[+RakeInTheCache]

Just reposting the description here to help in the discussion. I've annotated some of the grammar/wording changes that should be made.

 

Romanesque architecture is an architectural style of Medieval Europe characterized by semi-circular arches. There is no consensus for the beginning date of the Romanesque architecture, with proposals ranging from the 6th to the 12th century. It developed in the 12th century into the Gothic style, characterised by pointed arches. Examples of Romanesque architecture can be found across the continent, making it the first pan-European architectural style since Imperial Roman Architecture. The Romanesque style in England is traditionally referred to as Norman architecture.

 

Your mission is to find either an original Romanesque era building or structure to post in this category. Here There are no exceptions restrictions - so focus Your interest to on all kinds of Romanesque architecture, e.g. churches, castles, town palaces, burgerhouses, watch towers, bridges, city gates, bell towers etc.

 

Instructions for Posting a Romanesque Architecture Waymark:

 

At least two own photos of the Romanesque structure (no GPSr please). Coordinates near the entrance (or another important accessible location) to the structure. Additional information about the history of the structure to include architect, date built, original and current use of building…

 

[i am not personally in favor of the two photo criteria. Too often it happens that on travels you take only one photo and only realize when you get back that two photos are needed and you're waymark will be declined.]

Edited August 20, 2016 by RakeInTheCache

[+RakeInTheCache]

Another thought is that for the non specialist it can be difficult to identify a Romanesque structure simply by looking at it.

 

Maybe in the submission requirements we should include a requirement to cite a reference linking the structure to the Romanesque style.

[+RakeInTheCache]

Another thought I had, what about including Romanesque Revival (or Neo-Romanesque) in this category in order to broaden the geographic reach of the category.

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

Our 2 cents: the decision to accept Romanesque Revival buildings depends on what you want the category to DO. If you want it to show the evolution of Medieval era architecture from Romanesque to Gothic to Baroque, then the Revival styles should NOT be included, because the Revivals are all MODERN interpretations.

 

It might also be okay to have separate categories for the Revival styles. Then waymarkers can learn the differences between the medieval Original and modern Revival style and conventions. For example, Gothic usually features lots of Gargoyles and carved figures. They are visually fascinating and very decorated. Gothic Revival is more elegant and not so over-the-top decorated. It's the difference between the 1300s and 1900s.

 

Same with Romanesque and Romanesque Revival, but in reverse: Romanesque Revival buildings we have seen and enjoyed are more decorated than the medieval Romanesque style.

 

In my view it is perfectly OK to have categories that are limited with respect to time and geography, as long as they are interesting and informative. I think the idea for a pure early Medieval Romanesque category would be an excellent compliment to the existing Baroque and Gothic categories.

[+RakeInTheCache]

Something else to think about, many buildings started out Romanesque and then were heavily modified during the Gothic period. They may retain some elements of their Romanesque architecture. How much of the Romanesque features needs to have been retained to be included in this category?

 

In these cases, shouldn't the waymark be required to point out the specific Romanesque features?

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

Something else to think about, many buildings started out Romanesque and then were heavily modified during the Gothic period. They may retain some elements of their Romanesque architecture. How much of the Romanesque features needs to have been retained to be included in this category?

 

In these cases, shouldn't the waymark be required to point out the specific Romanesque features?

 

Yes, and perhaps also point out the Gothic-era modifications. Why were the modifications made? For most of these buildings, which will be historical and therefore studied, that information should be available, we would think.

[+Dorcadion Team]

Something else to think about, many buildings started out Romanesque and then were heavily modified during the Gothic period. They may retain some elements of their Romanesque architecture. How much of the Romanesque features needs to have been retained to be included in this category?

 

In these cases, shouldn't the waymark be required to point out the specific Romanesque features?

 

Yes, and perhaps also point out the Gothic-era modifications. Why were the modifications made? For most of these buildings, which will be historical and therefore studied, that information should be available, we would think.

 

YES, preserved Romanesque elements (windows, portals, crypts etc.) qualify structures into Romanesque architecture category.

 

NEO-ROMANESQUE (pseudo-R or also R-revival) - NO, I think that we can prepare special revival category for VALUABLE neo-romanesque, neo-gothic, neo-renaissance and neo-baroque architecture. Problem is with MANY of these buildings in downtowns of European cities. For example in Prague we can find hundreds and hundreds of nice neo-Renaissance residential houses from the end of the XIXth century. So, it needs discussion about the category limitations - e.g. only for public buildings (theatres, museums, churches, concert halls, reilway stations, town halls, hospitals et cetera)....

Edited August 21, 2016 by Dorcadion Team

[+Dorcadion Team]

Just reposting the description here to help in the discussion. I've annotated some of the grammar/wording changes that should be made.

 

Romanesque architecture is an architectural style of Medieval Europe characterized by semi-circular arches. There is no consensus for the beginning date of the Romanesque architecture, with proposals ranging from the 6th to the 12th century. It developed in the 12th century into the Gothic style, characterised by pointed arches. Examples of Romanesque architecture can be found across the continent, making it the first pan-European architectural style since Imperial Roman Architecture. The Romanesque style in England is traditionally referred to as Norman architecture.

 

Your mission is to find either an original Romanesque era building or structure to post in this category. Here There are no exceptions restrictions - so focus Your interest to on all kinds of Romanesque architecture, e.g. churches, castles, town palaces, burgerhouses, watch towers, bridges, city gates, bell towers etc.

 

Instructions for Posting a Romanesque Architecture Waymark:

 

At least two own photos of the Romanesque structure (no GPSr please). Coordinates near the entrance (or another important accessible location) to the structure. Additional information about the history of the structure to include architect, date built, original and current use of building…

 

[i am not personally in favor of the two photo criteria. Too often it happens that on travels you take only one photo and only realize when you get back that two photos are needed and you're waymark will be declined.]

 

thanks for changes!!!

[+RakeInTheCache]

Ok how about a required variable which would be a web link to a site which would prove that the location has Romanesque style elements.

[+Dorcadion Team]

Ok how about a required variable which would be a web link to a site which would prove that the location has Romanesque style elements.

 

I have very poor meaning about OBLIGATORY web links, because majority of weblinks is unstable - it means that they are changing URL every several months (exception is for example Wiki). But photo of the element is needful, link not-obligatory is OK.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Dorcadion Team

[+fi67]

Ok how about a required variable which would be a web link to a site which would prove that the location has Romanesque style elements.

 

I have very poor meaning about OBLIGATORY web links, because majority of weblinks is unstable - it means that they are changing URL every several months (exception is for example Wiki). But photo of the element is needful, link not-obligatory is OK.

I see Dorcadion Team's point. The core information should be in the waymark description. A link is often just a cheap excuse for not including valuable facts.

 

But in this case a mandatory link to a page that verifies the style of the structure would be very helpful for the officers. It is just important that the link is active during the review process and that should not be a problem.

 

I am also not in favor of including Romanesque Revival buildings. There are too many 19th and early 20th century buildings that are a blend of many different historic styles.

[+RakeInTheCache]

But in this case a mandatory link to a page that verifies the style of the structure would be very helpful for the officers. It is just important that the link is active during the review process and that should not be a problem.

 

Yes, this would be the reason to include the mandatory link. Rather than just trusting the description. Thank you fi67 for saying what I forgot to explain.