To begin our discussion, I'd like to propose a few purposes of the griffins drawn from our readings from this week.

            As we pointed out at the Littlefield House yesterday, perhaps griffins are meant to guard the area they adorn.  Gothic architecture originated at a time of intellectual progression, and people commonly recognize the inspiration and radiation of knowledge of Gothic structures.  In our I Am Charlotte Simmons reading from last semester, Charlotte commonly reflects on the greatness of the Gothic buildings of the campus and how they seem to be fortresses of knowledge.  In this sense, the griffins protect the hub of intellect.

            On the other hand, maybe the griffins represent directness and interpretation.  According to Ruskin,      

"the Greek sculptor could neither bear to confess his own feebleness, nor to tell the faults of the forms that he portrayed.  But the Christian workman, believing that all is finally to work together for good, freely confesses both, and neither seeks to disguise his own roughness of work, nor his subject's roughness of make" (220). 

Maybe the designers of the griffins and buildings they adorned wished to directly portray the realness of life.  In our readings, however, we find a contradiction.  The scenes depicted also stand as a representation or symbolism.  For example, "a pair of lovers might represent the marriage of reason and revelation, and a harvester with a sickle was obviously both Time and He who would come at time's end to bind up the wheat and the tares" (286B).  At what point does a work cross the line between being symbolic and direct?  What is the significance of portraying the "roughness"?   What benefit does this have for the people who see the works?

            Logically, gargoyles could just be there to serve a necessary function: draining water.  But if this were the case, why didn't architects depict them in another way?  Perhaps as scenes or pretty animals instead of the grotesque figures they are today?  Why is it important that gargoyles look like they do? 

            And, finally, maybe gargoyles just represent freedom.  Their differentiation characteristics create a building where variation is key.  According to Ruskin,

"Wherever the workman is utterly enslaved, the parts of the building must of course be absolutely like each other; for the perfection of his execution can only be reached by exercising him in doing one thing, and giving him noting else to do.  The degree in which the workman is degraded may be thus known at a glance, by observing whether the several parts of the building are similar or not" (213B).

Realistically, do you think people sense this freedom when they see buildings adorned with gargoyles?  Do they derive pleasure from the variety of the building, recognizing the mundane nature of monotony?