Greek and Medieval Architecture

There are 2 parts of this assignment:
1. Comparing Greek and Medieval Architecture:
Please look again at ground plans of the Parthenon and Amiens Cathedral. As we move from Ancient Greek to Medieval architecture, consider how architecture (from Greek to Medieval) may be evolving along similar lines as Greek sculpture was evolving. If this were the case, does the design of the Parthenon seem closest to the Archaic, the classical, or the Hellenistic? And Amiens? If you were to compare the Parthenon with one sculpture we've seen so far in class, which one would it be, and why? Likewise for Amiens, which sculpture would you compare this to?
Please Note: Do not let the fact that the Parthenon was designed during the Classical period in Greek art mislead you! We are not asking what period the Parthenon belongs to in the simple sense. Instead, we are asking how you would describe the Parthenon's spatial tendencies and spatial tendencies of Amiens (St. Cecilia's) in comparison to each other. Are there aspects of the Parthenon that seem most like the Archaic, the Classical, or the Hellenistic?
This will require that you recall the tell-tale traits of each period. For example, perpendicularity, parallelism, symmetry and frontality were important to Archaic sculpture, while realism was a key aspect of the Hellenistic; and, the Classical places a strong emphasis on diagonality, with a strong sense of idealism fused to a relatively naturalistic conception of a human figure. But above all else, we were talking about how, as sculpture proceeds forward in time, there is a tendency to move toward a greater and greater degree of openness. So the question here is: what are the architectural features that describe a more contained/closed space versus one that is more open? What, in other words, makes for a greater division between inside and outside, and what helps to connect the two realms?
As you compare and contrast these two examples, be sure to take into account the spatial shifts (from the Greek temple to the Gothic church) that Anthony stressed in the St. Cecilia's video. Keep in mind that St. Cecilia's is an example comparable to Amiens. In addition, be precise in making formal observations. Use words such as "doorways," "windows," "walls," "columns," and so on. Precision comes from employing concrete terms that give the reader a vivid mental; picture of what you are describing. Do not simply say that the Parthenon is "like" one of the Greek sculptures we studied, but say how.
Finally, how may the organization of these sacred buildings be used to help better understand each culture's understanding of their relationship to God and to the universe as a whole? Keep in mind that, with both buildings, the interior has a special quality about it, in that it is a sacred precinct, while the world outside the building is, generally, more secular; though there may be room to discuss the fact that the Parthenon exists within a larger sacred precinct that is the Acropolis.
A reminder:
Remember our advice from the Kritios Boy question, in which we encourage you to describe the work without negative connotations. Keep that in mind here as well. This is a key life skill. The Parthenon and Amiens are both equally interesting, and one is not to be chosen over the other in this context. We are merely comparing and contrasting the two, in order to understand how each works, and not to select a favorite. Consider a parallel: if you were describing two people (say, family members) you love, you would (ideally) not need to choose between them; but instead, you would appreciate both, but for perhaps very different reasons, for who they are. That is what we mean when we encourage you to find alternative renderings for overtly negative words (stiff, rigid, etc.) in describing (especially) first-phase works. Appreciate the work for what it is.
Your post should be at least two paragraphs long.
2. God in Art
We have spent this lesson looking at approaches to sacred imagery in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
When you visit just about any art museum today, you are bound to encounter paintings of Jesus, Mary, and the Saints, perhaps ceremonial vessels from a medieval synagogue, or elaborate tiles decorated with patterns or Islamic script from a mosque.
These sacred artifacts have been divorced from their original setting and are now experienced more as "art" and not as functional objects. A majority of objects that we consider a part of the history of "art" today were originally not conceived as such. Also, with the development of modern aesthetics came the notion that art is defined as that which is, somehow, understood as separate from the realms of "usefulness," in the way that a hammer might be useful to build a house.
Your question for this week is: What are your thoughts about this? What happens to a religious work (a piece conceived to be embedded in the everyday rituals of a religious practice) when it is removed from that context, placed into a museum, and understood as a "work of art"? What changes about the work? What stays the same (if anything)? To what extent does the context in which a work is placed, determine its "meaning?" Does a medieval altarpiece in the Metropolitan Museum "mean" the same thing as when it was originally in a medieval church? What is the role of the viewer in this situation? How does that potentially alter the "meaning" of the situation? Is a museum a modern-day church? And what does all of this tell you about the nature of art and sacred imagery, and how artistic meaning is understood?
Your post should be at least two paragraphs long.