Stil als Bedeutung in der Nordalpinen Renaissance. Wiederentdeckung einer methodischen Nachbarschaft pages:102-123
This essay means to offer a closer look at the period of creativity coinciding with the first decades of the 16th century, which has been undervalued all too often in current literature on the Netherlandish Renaissance. Most twentieth-century architectural historians of the period adopt the yardstick of Italianism to judge these works, and even a truly inappropriate Vasarian perspective. It should be noted here that the Vasarian standard was already contested for the Netherlandish pictural arts by Carel van Mander in his 1604 Schilderboeck. The question, however, is not whether the first experiments of so-called Renaissance architecture were correct according to contemporary Central-Italian practice as codified by Sebastiano Serlio, but whether the traditional stylistic concept of Renaissance is capable of encompassing the whole of the architectural productivity and inventiveness in the Low Countries at the time. This is emphatically not the case. In particular, the label of Renaissance does not adequately cover Netherlandish stylistic pluralism, i.e. the peaceful coexistence or even the conscious combination of different stylistic phenomena in architecture. Contemporary textual sources show that both the “Renaissance” and “gothic” repertories of forms (“antique” and “modern”) were equally appreciated at first and were used in analogous ways; both can be, and were, assimilated into the indigenous manner of building, a phenomenon of the longue durée which prevailed over every surface change in form.