All three Mathews had the same function, to illustrate the opening page of the Gospel of Mathew as both

an aid to religious contemplation as well as to provide an aesthetic experience. Do you believe that one of these is more effective than the others? What elements do you feel support your opinion? The Christian Church was the one unifying authority during the early medieval period. To what extent did the monks in monasteries who copied manuscripts preserve Western Culture and in what ways did they invent something entirely new?

The book of Mathew is one of the 4 gospel accounts in the bible of the life of Christ. Matthew was a tax collector called by Jesus to join apostils. We see how the early medieval world didnt have one specific style of representation. From the lindustform gospals, documents the style of hiberno-saxon art. They developed independent art forms, due to their remoteness from Rome. Matthew is depicted unrealistically, almost as though he is floating midair. During the Carolingian period, we have two images. Early medieval art cannot be understood in one particular style, as witnessed in the two drastically different images, both from the Carolingian period. I feel that the image from the Coronation Gospals is the most effective, both as an aid to religious contemplation and as an aesthetic experience. It is the most aesthetically accurate piece, with beautiful attention to detail. This gives the image a realistic feel, drawing the viewer into the experience. The accuracy of the image helps in communicating the story of Matthew and his purpose. Matthew was a tax collector summoned by Jesus to join the apostals. The book of Matthew is one of the four gospel accounts in the Bible of the life of Christ. Here, Matthew is shown recounting and recording the life of Christ. This is much more understandable in a visual sense than the other two images. I think that when copying the manuscripts, the monks both preserved and changed Western Culture. They copied the same themes and overall information, however, some ideas and phrases were of course altered to suit their needs.

The telling of events both leading up to and the subsequent invasion and victory of the Normans is clearly from the Norman perspective. Is it too strong to label this as propaganda? What is propaganda and do you think this is an appropriate term to describe the tapestry? How much information can we glean from the tapestry regarding social/political/military customs of the time? Visual representations are documents of a culture but how valid are they in giving us an accurate perspective? Think of some representations of our culture that might go down in history as accurate reflections of how we live and what biases they may present to future people.