Neocasism
Neocasism (also spelt Neo-Casism) was a Vinyan cultural revitalisation of ancient Casaterran arts, literature, music, and architecture. Neocasism originates from 17th-century Fyrland, perpetuated by the coastal demographic metamorphosis period. This period led to the scholarly refinement of Casaterran-Vinyan culture, propelled by the rediscovery of social history, ultimately coalescing with the Fyrish age of enlightenment.
Through the 18th-century, Neocasism's prevalence spread across Lower-Vinya as a new generation of Fyrs completed their cultural studies. Principally, the Vinyan expansion of Neocasist ideas cultivated a more profound interest in public expressions of cultural history, forming the backbone of Fyrish arts to this day. Furthermore, the perception of Casaterran arts in the isolated Vinyan eye presented a holistic take on the evolution of Casaterran society. Proffered as the historical struggle of man against nature, this evolution provided depth to a newly arising Fyrish identity centred around purity and corruption.
History
Early period
Neocasism is the resurgence of Casaterran classical antiquity styles and spirit, presented from the sequestered Vinyan perspective. As a movement, Neocasism harmonised with the Fyrish enlightenment period, principally as a reaction to Casaterran colonial excesses; comprising domination, appropriation, and exhibition. Importantly, the works of influential writer David Godric Pelham arose in this period, comprising comparative works on contemporary and historical Casa-Vinyan culture. Pelham's books Thoughts on the Imitation of Casaterran Styles (1689) and History of Classical Casaterran Art (1706) presented the first distinction between Casa-Vinyan and purely Casaterran arts. These books thematically described the departure, trajectory, and present artistic nature of Casa-Vinya, which represented a formal scholarly differentiation of Vinyan and Casaterran arts. Pelham believed that classical Casaterran styles fundamentally encapsulated a noble simplicity and calm grandeur, remarking that contemporary Casaterran styles contrasted in their excess, praising the idealism of the former.
Shortly hereafter, Nikitas Iliasou Mandrapilas compiled his thoughts on classical Niranic and Kerenevoian aesthetic parallels, in his book Classical Niranic and Kerenevoian Aesthetics (1709). Predominantly concerned with ancient Niranic styles, Mandrapilas' book nevertheless touches upon the late Vinyan classical period, ultimately referencing Casa-Vinyan influence. Pointing to styles emerging during this late period, Mandrapilas describes them as representing:
"...not only the most beautiful of nature but something beyond nature, particularly ideal forms of its beauty, which, as an ancient interpreter of Peleus teaches us, come from images created within the mind alone."
— Nikitas I. Mandrapilas, "Late classical period", Classical Niranic and Kerenevoian Aesthetics (1709)
Mandrapilas concludes this period analysis by denoting the manifested forms as "the true styles", which he believed represented a pinnacle of artistic expression.