Relativizing the Lateness of Late Gothic: Contrasting Approaches

A fundamental question in framing the discussion of Late Gothic architecture is “late relative to what?” In an architectural framework, the High Gothic age of the thirteenth century provides one prominent point of comparison, while the emergence of Renaissance classicism in fifteenth-century Italy provides another. In a broader cultural framework, Late Gothic architecture has been derided as a decadent product of the waning Middle Ages, even though the figural art of the same period has been celebrated as characteristic of a uniquely northern Renaissance. These contrasting interpretations have historiographical roots in the writings of prominent authors including J. Huizinga and E. Panofsky, and they continue to inflect scholarly approaches to Late Gothic architecture. The past decade has witnessed an increasing pace of publication in the field, with several new synthetic works offering contrasting approaches to the question of lateness. Matt Kavaler treats the period between 1470 and 1540 largely on its own terms, while noting that growing interest in classicism could spur the creativity of builders working in both Gothic and hybrid modes. Pablo de la Riestra emphasizes the emancipation of the German Late Gothic tradition from French High Gothic and Rayonnnant standards, thus echoing Roland Sanfaçon’s treatment of the French Flamboyant. My new book on Late Gothic instead follows Paul Frankl’s approach, emphasizing the continuity of the Gothic tradition until its fateful collision with Renaissance classicism in the sixteenth century. Consideration of these complementary glosses helps to situate the study of Late Gothic architecture within the larger narratives of art history.