I chose the words romantic and kinaesthetic with some care. The classic definition of romanticism being action contemplated in repose. That is a reflection on an experience containing an element of danger, but one of which you are no longer a part. It started in the late eighteenth century with the pursuit of the sublime in nature; wild, uncultivated and terrifying and ends up in the nineteenth century with the gothic novel and a confused aesthetic based on experiences that were often entirely imaginary. Hence the century is shot through with revivalist styles of one kind or another. Not unique to this century as we see a similar thing happening in the sixteenth century with the revival of chivalry. Romantic reflection on the past is thing that occurs at the point at which something is about to become lost.
Kinaesthetic, as in aesthetic as referring to the senses, but also kinetic, as referring to movement which taken together describe the sensation of the pleasure in handling things and things that move. Implying an aesthetic that is developed or understood through an actual tactile experience as opposed to simply looking at something. One based on real experience of materials, process and activity. Things that I would have thought relevant to a study of ancient arms and amour and also say something about why we like the things we do. Which of course is also described by the reflections of contributors whose personal history becomes part of the how they understand the subject and how an aesthetic is formed. Whether they are acceptable or desirable from a modern standpoint is entirely irrelevant. But it does explain why I think a debate about ancient arms and amour can never be wholly academic.
|