|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Apr 23, 2010 14:12:27 GMT -5
 Hey All, I'm adding on to my model of the church and I'm currently working on the long barracks. Of course 5 minutes into it I run into a problem with potentially conflicting information (shocker for the Alamo, I know). So I thought of the many scholars, artists and historians on this site, some of you could help me out with what I'm sure will be a really simple answer. I know that the above painting has often been used for such details as the line of failure (the "crack"), and the quatrefoil and other design on the connecting wall, in addition to the put holes for the scaffolding. He seems to go to some lengths to put as much detail in as possible. In addition he also leaves out some other details (I would say really significant details) which kind of baffle me. On the southern face of the long barracks, Does anyone know why he would have "left out" the 2 upper windows/doors and the lower eastern door from his painting. He only show the western most opening and even has it placed in the proper location, which is on the western edge of the building and not centered in the room as it is today. In looking at the post battle drawings I don't see any of these openings as well. Of course in those, the westernn most opening would have probably been hidden by the remnants of the low wall. Some could argue that at the artists' angle that the windows/doors might not have been visible. However, when you look at Bolleart and Fulton's drawings, looking north, they show the western windows but do not show the southern 2nd floor openings, which I guess would also have been visible. Lysander Wells may be showing something, but my copy of that drawing is so bad I can't tell if those are lines or windows. There are lines all over that drawing. The only place I do see them is in Blake's 1845 drawing and the mention in the 1756 mission inventories of a second floor entrance to the temporary church. There is some ambiguity in some of the various inventories, but I won't completely discount them. And of course they are in Everett's '48 plan and '47 drawing and part of his memoir, "These quarters being elevated one story above the ground, and having plastered walls, glass windows and a wooden floor, were a vast improvement". So, my questions are: 1. Is Everett saying the "plastered walls, glass windows and wooden floor" were an improvement because they were repaired or was he saying they were added by him, which made for the improvement? 2. Has Blake's drawing been the "model" for that portion of the LB? 3. What was Gentilz thinking when he left them off-twice (Death of Dickinson)? Were they there in his sketch, which I read he did in 1844? This one really confuses me as his details in this and other paintings seem to be thorough and well executed. And I don't consider doors and windows to really be thought of as detail. Molding around a door is detail, not the door itself. 4. Is it possible the upper windows were just "bricked in" and not visible to the other artists? I guess my initial thought would be they were bricked in and not visible. My "way out there" thought would be, they weren't there and Gentilz was correct. Surely that's not the answer, but I know we all refer to post battle drawings for some detail or another and I just don't see them (Blake notwithstanding). Sorry for the lengthy post and thanks in advance for your responses. Mike |
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Apr 23, 2010 15:25:46 GMT -5
1. Is Everett saying the "plastered walls, glass windows and wooden floor" were an improvement because they were repaired or was he saying they were added by him, which made for the improvement? On the preceding page he wrote that, until moving into the new, second-story quarters, the office he worked in had been in a "Mexican building" with a tule-thatched roof and dirt floor. Dust had been a constant problem. I believe Everett is saying the new quarters were an improvement as far as comfort. source, plus see preceding page: books.google.com/books?id=zkXWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=These+quarters+being+elevated+one+story+above+the+ground,+and+having+plastered+walls,+glass+windows+and+a+wooden+floor,+were+a+vast+improvement%22&source=bl&ots=t21ge-1C5v&sig=CszqT8zPJNAqq1tTp3sXGl7EDbM&hl=en&ei=NQDSS7WzAsOBlAeBj4XuDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=These%20quarters%20being%20elevated%20one%20story%20above%20the%20ground%2C%20and%20having%20plastered%20walls%2C%20glass%20windows%20and%20a%20wooden%20floor%2C%20were%20a%20vast%20improvement%22&f=false |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Apr 23, 2010 15:37:17 GMT -5
1. Is Everett saying the "plastered walls, glass windows and wooden floor" were an improvement because they were repaired or was he saying they were added by him, which made for the improvement? On the preceding page he wrote that, until moving into the new, second-story quarters, the office he worked in had been in a "Mexican building" with a tule-thatched roof and dirt floor. Dust had been a constant problem. I believe Everett is saying the new quarters were an improvement as far as comfort. That certainly helps with putting his statement into the proper context. I have only read the part of the memoir that was in Nelson's book. Thanks, TRK! |
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 28, 2010 4:48:37 GMT -5
One has to wonder where Gentilz got the information that the main gate was entirely closed with stones of different sizes...let alone that its outer ditch was so puny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Apr 28, 2010 9:10:27 GMT -5
One has to wonder where Gentilz got the information that the main gate was entirely closed with stones of different sizes...let alone that its outer ditch was so puny. Yeah, Gary, The first time I saw the painting, I thought he was showing sandbags, because of their smooth almost pillow like appearance. But he clearly appears to be showing stones based on the various sizes. Perhaps Madam Candelaria was an advisor of Mr. Gentilz. I wonder who advised him on the choir loft in the church. At least it appears he is showing the top of a "wall" between the confessional and the baptistry. |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 28, 2010 9:39:11 GMT -5
Mike,
The evidence that there was a choir loft, or at least a partial one, is to me about as strong as the evidence that there was absolutely nothing there. As you may have noticed last March, there is what clearly appears as the beginning of groin vault construction in the NW interior corner, at the meeting of the facade interior, with the confessional. No one has been able to answer with certainty what that is, if not the beginning of vault construction. And as you may know, the vault was never begun unless the "tie-point" or arch, was completed first. This means that, based on the evidence, the arch between the short pilasters outside both Confessional and Baptistry, was at some point completed.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the arch was there in 1836, but the evidence seems to indicate that it was probably there at some point before hand.
Neither Sanchez-Navarro, or Labastida tell us anything on the matter, but there is an eye-witness reference of the "1824" flag being flown "between the saints" atop the church (implying the middle top), after the fall of Bexar in 1835, so this begs the question, how did they mount it there if there was nothing inside for support of the workers? Scaffold?......?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Apr 28, 2010 10:03:38 GMT -5
I do believe those stones were the remnants of a groin vault to support the choir loft. I always thought in looking at the Everett's painting of the interior, that the south side of the smaller arch support appear to be in even worse condition than the other supports in the building. Especially above it where he shows the dark "hole", and the wall above it and slightly to the east appear to be almost completely collapsed. That indicates to me anyway, that something was there.
Eastman also shows the outside of that area appears to have fallen significantly in his painting of the south side exterior.
Wouldn't the construction of the choir loft been the same as the one at San Jose (I think it's San Jose)? The lower arch supports for the loft itself, and then continuing above with taller supports for the domed or arched roof. Much like it is today.
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 28, 2010 10:03:42 GMT -5
Re: choir loft: there's also suggestive evidence that it may have been been there, in Everett's watercolor of the church interior. He shows what seems to be the mark left by the arch of the choir loft where it may have touched the wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 28, 2010 10:11:01 GMT -5
Re: choir loft: there's also suggestive evidence that it may have been been there, in Everett's watercolor of the church interior. He shows what seems to be the mark left by the arch of the choir loft where it may have touched the wall. Agreed....Yes, this is a clear indication that either the vault was at one time actually there, or either the interior face of the facade had been "dug out" in preparation to accept "keying" stones that would be inserted into the stonework and help to tie the vault to the interior face. |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 28, 2010 10:16:58 GMT -5
Mike,
Yes, without looking at the plans, I do believe that this (pilasters continuing up from the shorter ones to the roof) would be the case. I think the spacing would be correct for that to happen.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by savethealamo on Jul 10, 2010 14:52:07 GMT -5
Martha at the DRT library is the expert on Gentilz. She is on vacation until August. She will be happy to help you.
|
|
