Lindau Gospel vs. Gero Crucifix


Lindau Gospel vs. Gero Crucifix

Both the book and sculpture are a representation of Early Medievalart’s stylistic distinctiveness. This is because they use religioussubjects and the main figures are more highlighted than those aroundthem (Nees 9). In both works, the main subject is Christ’s figure.The book cover and sculpture thematically connect by using Christ. Itis obvious that the works aim at communicating something aboutChrist. Second, the main figure, who is Christ, is more noticeablebecause He is more highlighted than other surrounding figures. In thebook cover, the figure of Christ is centrally located while the otherfigures are smaller. The same is apparent by observing the sculpturewhere one first gets to sight Jesus.

A different comparison is that both works are representative ofcultural contexts. The book cover represents a period whenindividuals were unable to read. Hence, the arts acted as a figure ofspeech for the story meant to be communicated. The story could becommunicated using the cover. The cover aims at communicating thatJesus is triumphant. Additionally, the cover is created at a timewhen wealth is signified through gold and jewelry. The surrounding ofgold and jewelry creates a feeling of awe. The view of Christ as heswims in wealth attracts more people to Christ. The Gero Crucifixseems to have borrowed from Byzantium art. It possibly stems from themarriage of Otto II to a princess from Byzantine. As such thesculpture forms a cultural link amid Byzantine kingdom and theCatholic Church. It is also a representation of Ottoman art whenBiblical art was communicated through the use of sculptures.

Work Cited

Nees, Lawrence. Early Medieval Art. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2002.