History of icon painting - Byzantium. Five Byzantine icons worth going to the Tretyakov Gallery for
The Athos style of icon painting was formed by the mid-19th century. At this time, Russia, the largest and richest Orthodox power, is experiencing unprecedented prosperity. A huge number of temples and monasteries are being built around the world. Icon-painting workshops are being created in large monasteries, including Athos and Valaam. It is in these icon painting workshops that a unique style of icon painting is created, called “Athos”. Its distinctive features are golden, embossed backgrounds, the finest painting of faces, and the use of oil paints instead of egg tempera.
Iveron Icon of the Mother of God, fragment, Athos, 19th century.
St. Sergius and Herman, fragment, Valaam, 19th century.
We must understand that the creation of an icon is a living process, directly related to prayer practice. Many monks on Mount Athos, under the guidance of experienced elders, practiced the Jesus Prayer and remained in contemplation and vision of the Tabor Light. The Mother of God and the saints appeared to many of them. I think it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that they lived surrounded by saints and angels. And at some point, they were no longer satisfied with the abstract Byzantine style, which by that time had turned into an endless repetition of the same conventional, schematic images. The fathers began to paint more vivid images, trying to make the “invisible” “visible,” but without crossing the line that turns a face into a face, and an icon into a portrait. It happened that way characteristic features Athonite style - golden, shimmering, embossed backgrounds - a symbol of the Light of Tabor, transparent layers of paint, subtle transitions of light and shadow giving the icon an internal glow, and realistic writing of the faces. Icons began to be painted in a similar manner in Russia, including on Valaam.
At this time, Byzantine and Greek icon painting was in decline. Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, which of course did not contribute to the flourishing of icon painting. The faces on the icons became more and more sketchy, the images more and more superficial and primitive. Things were no better in Russia. Numerous icon painting artels in Moscow, Yaroslavl, Nizhny Novgorod, Palekh, aimed at customers, most of whom were the merchant class, turned the icon into an interior decoration item, a kind of Palekh box. Usually the faces on such icons become something secondary, lost in numerous ornaments and decorative curls.
Icon painting workshop on Mount Athos. 19th century
Russian and Athonite masters are moving away from the schematic nature of late Byzantine designs and the decorative overload of Russians; return the icon to its original, spiritual meaning.
Our workshop, to the best of its modest strength, and with God’s help, hopes to revive this wonderful tradition of icon painting, and with all our hearts hopes that our icons will help everyone striving for perfection in Christ, purification of the heart, and the acquisition of Divine Love.
Academic style
Icons in the academic style can be seen in almost every church. And if the temple is from the 18th or 19th centuries, then icons in the academic style, as a rule, make up the majority of the temple icons. And at the same time, the academic style of icon painting causes heated controversy both among icon painters and connoisseurs of icon painting. The essence of the controversy is as follows. Supporters of the Byzantine style, who create icons “in the canon,” accuse icons in the academic style of lack of spirituality, and a departure from the traditions of icon painting.
Will try to understand these accusations. First about spirituality. Let's start with the fact that spirituality is a rather subtle and elusive matter; there are no tools for determining spirituality, and everything in this area is extremely subjective. And if someone claims that the miraculous image of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, painted in the academic style, and, according to legend, saved St. Petersburg during the war, is less spiritual than a similar icon in the Byzantine style... let this statement remain on his conscience.
Usually, as an argument, you can hear such statements. They say that icons in the academic style have physicality, rosy cheeks, sensual lips, etc. In fact, the predominance of the sensual, carnal principle in the icon is not a problem of style, but of the low professional level of individual icon painters. One can give many examples of icons painted in the “canon” itself, where the “cardboard” inexpressive face is lost in numerous curls of extremely sensual decorations, ornaments, etc.
Now about the departure of the academic style from the traditions of icon painting. The history of icon painting goes back more than one thousand five hundred years. And now in Athonite monasteries you can see blackened, ancient icons dating from the 7th to 10th centuries. But the heyday of icon painting in Byzantium occurred at the end of the 13th century, and is associated with the name of Panselin, the Greek Andrei Rublev. Panselin's paintings in Karey have reached us. Another outstanding Greek icon painter, Theophanes of Crete, worked on Mount Athos at the beginning of the 16th century. He created paintings in the Stavronikita monastery and in the refectory of the Great Lavra. In Rus', the icons of Andrei Rublev are rightly recognized as the pinnacle of icon painting.
If we take a closer look at this entire almost two-thousand-year history of icon painting, we will discover its amazing diversity. The first icons were painted using the encaustic technique (paints based on hot wax). This fact alone refutes the popular belief that a “real” icon must necessarily be painted in egg tempera. Moreover, the style of these early icons is much closer to icons in the academic style than to the “canon”. This is not surprising. To paint icons, the first icon painters took as a basis Fayum portraits, images of real people that were created using the encaustic technique.
Christ Pantocrator. Sinai.
7th century
encaustic
Savior. Andrey Rublev.
15th century
tempera
Lord Almighty. V. Vasnetsov
19th century
oil
Look at the examples above. After this, it is hardly possible to say with confidence that the icons in the academic style of V. Vasnetsov were a departure from the icon-painting tradition.
In fact, the tradition of icon painting, like everything in this world, develops cyclically. By the 18th century, the so-called "canonical" style had declined everywhere. In Greece and the Balkan countries this is partly due to the Turkish conquest, in Russia with Peter’s reforms. But main reason that's not the point anyway. Man’s perception of the world and his attitude towards the world around him, including the spiritual world, is changing. 19th century man perceived the world around us differently than a person of the 13th century. And icon painting is not an endless repetition of the same patterns according to the drawings, but a living process based both on the religious experience of the icon painter himself and on the perception spiritual world the whole generation.
Icon painting workshop Northern Athos. 2013
Icon in academic style.
Valaam Icon of the Mother of God
(fragment, face)
Icon painting workshop Northern Athos. 2010
Icon in Athonite style
The birth of a new icon-painting tradition is associated with the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon, and the organization of icon-painting workshops at the monastery. The so-called “Athos style” originated there. Russian icon painters made some changes to the traditional technique of painting icons.
First of all, they abandoned egg tempera. Despite the strong opinion about the high durability of tempera paints, reality spoke otherwise. In a damp climate, tempera paints quickly became moldy and became covered with a cloudy, white coating. The situation was complicated by sea air. The salt settled on the icons and corroded the paint layer. I had to see on Athos modern icons, written in egg tempera. After 3-4 years they already required serious restoration. Therefore, Athonite masters abandoned tempera and switched to oil paints.
Another feature of Athonite Russian icons was their gold chased backgrounds. Theologically, the golden background in the icon symbolized the Light of Tabor. The doctrine of the Light of Tabor, first formulated by St. Dionysius the Areopagite was very popular on Mount Athos. To this was added the practice of the Jesus Prayer, which made it possible to purify the soul to such an extent that the Light of Tabor became visible and bodily vision. In addition to theological considerations, the use of a gold chased background also had its own aesthetics. The candlelight reflected in the numerous facets of the coinage, creating a golden shimmer effect.
Over time, in addition to the workshop in the monastery of St. Panteleimon, icon painting workshops were opened in Ilyinsky, Andreevsky and other large Russian monasteries. Almost simultaneously, in Russia, icon painting workshops opened on Valaam.
Also in Moscow and St. Petersburg, graduates of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts are beginning to engage in icon painting. The most talented of them, K. Bryullov, N. Bruni, V. Vereshchagin, V. Vasnetsov, created icons, which later became known as icons in the academic style.
>> Byzantine style in icon painting. Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir. Theophanes the Greek. Deesis of the iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin
BYZANTINE STYLE IN ICON PAINTING
Icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir. Theophanes Greek. Deesis of the iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin
The altar, where God dwells, is separated from the created world, where the parishioners are, in a Christian church by a low altar barrier - an iconostasis, beyond which only clergy are allowed.
Altar barrier of the era of early Christianity consisted of carved marble lattices with stylized floral patterns and symbolic images of doves, lambs, and crosses. The alternation of carvings and voids, and thereby white and black, creates a play of light and shadow, which in itself is extremely picturesque and enhances the picturesque effect of the mosaics.
Under Justinian it developed Byzantine iconostasis. It consisted of marble columns with a horizontal ceiling. A cross was placed on top. To the right and left of the entrance to the altar –
royal gates- they placed temple icons (from the Greek eicon - image) - images of saints made on boards. Above the gate, on the architrave, there was always an icon called Deesis(from Greek deesis - prayer). The Deesis expresses the idea of the intercession of the saints for the human race at the Last Judgment 17 to Jesus Christ right hand The Mother of God is in front, on the left is the prophet John the Baptist 18. They were usually depicted waist-deep.
The icon gave the believer a foretaste of heavenly bliss and was designed for long, concentrated contemplation. Since the icon is a symbol, it depicts not a face, but a face. Early icons were painted in a free, picturesque manner, such as, for example, the icon “The Mother of God with the Child and Saints Theodore and George” (see color incl., Fig. 37). Despite all the solemnity of the composition, the figures are quite naturally deployed in space, inseparable from the real architectural background and vital. The rich plastic sculpting of the forms indicates a connection with the traditions of Hellenism.
Over time, a sublime image began to dominate in icon painting, in which a skilled painter paid the main attention to the soul. The center of the soul is the eyes of the saint, from which thousands of invisible threads seem to stretch out to the person praying, drawing him into another, supersensible world.
The desire to reveal the soul as much as possible led to the emergence of such a spiritualized image as face of Our Lady of Vladimir iconography “Tenderness” 19 (XIII century) (see color incl., Fig. 38). Her eyes are exaggeratedly huge. The inescapable sadness of the Mother of God, whose heart is forever pierced by the great suffering of her Son, is poured out by her gaze turned to the viewer. The tiny scarlet mouth lacks even a hint of flesh. The nose appears on the face as a graceful, slightly curved line. The head is gently and tenderly bowed towards the Christ Child, clinging to his mother’s cheek. The spiritualized beauty of the Mother of God embodies the perfection of her nature, free from carnal sin. In general, this noble ascetic face with a sad look, as if expressing the sorrow of the whole world, a straight hooked nose and thin lips, became an ideal example of the Byzantine school of icon painting.
GREEK. Deesis series. Iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral
Moscow Kremlin. Late XIV – early XV centuries.
The stylistic features of this school also include the rejection of physicality. Unnaturally elongated figures resemble ethereal shadows, clothes fall in linear folds, trees and hills are dryly drawn, buildings are light and unstable. The golden touches on the clothes hint at spirituality. 3gold background replaces the real one three dimensional space, closing the ethereal images in your magic circle. This detachment from all external impressions allowed us to at least somehow isolate ourselves from the fear of death, overcome the sinful material nature, and see God with “smart eyes.” Detachment was shown through immobility, since it was in this state that a person’s inner gaze could better concentrate on the contemplation of God. Therefore, each saint on the icon was depicted in a state of dispassionate ascetic peace.
The images of saints painted by the Byzantine artist Theophanes the Greek (c. 1340 - after 1405) for the Deesis of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin (end of the 14th century - beginning of
XV century). Theophanes the Greek depicted full-length figures on boards more than two meters high, which gave the iconostasis a previously unseen monumentality. The figures stand out clearly as dark silhouettes against a golden background, their rhythmic combinations are subtly thought out.
The center of the composition is the icon of the Savior in the power of 20 - the image of Jesus Christ, characteristic of Russian iconography, deciding the fate of people at the Last Judgment. But the Last Judgment is not only the last “now”, after which there will be no “after”, it is an image of eternity, the moment of truth. The sign of eternity is the image of God in the circles of the heavenly spheres. Theophan the Greek shows Christ sitting on a throne in white robes and in a complex frame of red diamonds and a blue-green oval. White clothes (usually white considered a symbol of spiritual purity) here mean the greatness of God, for just as the white color combines all the colors of the rainbow, so God contains the whole world. A colorless image of the Savior on bright layers superimposed on a colorless background creates an absolutely disembodied mystical image that charges the surrounding space with energy.
The right blessing hand and left foot stand out sharply against a light background, almost brown in color. Together with the head in a light halo, they form the axis of the icon and, as it were, pull together all the neighboring images into a single whole (see color incl., Fig. 40). This axial construction of the iconostasis composition, designed to be captured by a single glance, was a new word in the history of medieval icon painting. 
GREEK. John the Baptist. Deesis. Iconostasis
Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.
Late XIV – early XV centuries.
Despite the fact that the Deesis traditionally represents the detached presence of the praying saints at the Last Judgment before the throne of the almighty Heavenly King for the entire sinful human race, each figure is endowed with a bright individuality and seems to live a separate life. Internal dynamism, passion and sadness make themselves felt through gestures, distribution of light and shadow, lines and shapes of clothing, and color. The placement of saints is provided for by the canon and is never violated. On the right hand of the Savior are the Mother of God, Archangel Michael 21, Apostle Peter 22. On the left are John the Baptist, Archangel Gabriel, Apostle Paul 23. To them are always added figures of saints as continuers of the work of the apostles, sometimes martyrs as defenders of the Fatherland, especially revered in the church.
The Mother of God in the Deesis of the Annunciation Cathedral is depicted with her hands raised to her face. This gesture endows the image with pathos and elevates the prayer to crying. Maria is dressed in dark blue maforia, reminiscent of the velvety color of the southern sky. Its light folds flowing over the body, blue highlights on the shoulders and folds of the fabric determine the incorporeality of the form. The blue cap, visible from under the maforia, amazingly beautifully sets off the dark, mournful face with gaps around the eyes and a slight blush on the cheeks. The expressiveness of the clothing is so great that if the Mother of God did not have a head and arms, like Greek statues, her dynamic aspiration to the center and passionate plea would be felt no less (see color incl., Fig. 39).
On the other side of the central icon, John the Baptist humbly prays to Christ for the salvation of people. The outline of the figure, the gesture of the hands, the bare feet put together emphasize his humility and submission. And even the mantle, a cloak made of coarse camel hair, falls from his shoulder as a sign of a humiliated request.
One of the saints represented in the Deesis (on the left hand of Christ) is John 3latoust (c. 350–407), a Byzantine church leader and patriarch of Constantinople. He holds the book with both hands and therefore offers prayer, as it seems, with all the nature of a passionate preacher and zealot of asceticism. His bony, emaciated face and the tight, inflexible fabric of sakkos * green, as if nailed to the red lining, are an external echo of his internal intransigence and uncompromisingness in the fight against luxury, wealth and the free morals of the Byzantine clergy and the imperial court.
There is palpable anxiety in Archangel Gabriel’s prayer. It is evident in the tilt of the body, the head on the thin neck, the bent knee, the open wings, but most of all in the almost aggressive combination of orange in the cloak, hair, wings and dark blue in the tunic and wing flaps, reflecting blue.
* Sakkos - the outer vestment of the patriarch, the robe of repentance. Symbolizes the chlamys in which Christ was clothed during the days of trial and execution.
The variety of types, characters, colors Feofan the Greek skillfully leads to balance, using various techniques for this. It unites the figures of all the saints with green soil (a strip of earth). He increases the width of the boards with archangels by a third, so that the wide plane of the central icon does not dominate the narrow side ones. He alternates the figures in simple clothes and precious vestments, equally using a thick, sonorous coloring that has an undoubted dramatism. The contrast of the brown-green lining tone with the light top layer, modeling the volume, gives the effect of smoldering terracotta-red, coffee-yellow, cherry-pink tones. Cinnabar stains sound artistic on the lips, in the blush, along the line of the nose, in the tear duct - the inner corner of the eye. On top of the faces and clothes, white and bluish highlights, gray and black “movers” seem to flare up - energetic and unusually expressive short strokes that sculpt the form and constitute the main nerve of the icon painter’s skill.
Having captured in the images of saints the Byzantines' craving for passive spiritual contemplation and suppression of the flesh on the path to enlightenment, Theophanes the Greek thereby reminded of the coming Retribution. Only in Rus', with its strong pagan origins, was he able to realize how far the real earthly man was from those spiritual ideals toward which the uncompromising Byzantine ascetics were guided. Therefore, Christ is interpreted as a terrible Judge of the world, not inclined to forgive anyone. That is why the image of the Mother of God is so pathetic, John the Baptist is so humble, the archangels are so reverent, and the thick, dramatic coloring is devoid of cheerfulness. In the Deesis, Theophan the Greek emphasizes not the moment of forgiveness, but the prayer of merciful intercessors for the entire human race before the stern Christ.
Questions and tasks
1. Tell us about the features of Byzantine icon painting. Complete task number 15 from the workbook.
2. By what artistic techniques did Theophan the Greek achieve the impression of the saints’ complete detachment from the sinful material world?
Z. (Creative task.) Based on the material from the SO and the text of the textbook, analyze how Theophan the Greek connects the detached state with the individual characteristics of each character.
Emokhonova L. G., World artistic culture: textbook for grade 10: secondary (complete) general education (basic level) - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2008.
Planning art lessons online, tasks and answers by grade, homework for art class 10 download
Lesson content lesson notes supporting frame lesson presentation acceleration methods interactive technologies Practice tasks and exercises self-test workshops, trainings, cases, quests homework discussion questions rhetorical questions from students Illustrations audio, video clips and multimedia photographs, pictures, graphics, tables, diagrams, humor, anecdotes, jokes, comics, parables, sayings, crosswords, quotes Add-ons abstracts articles tricks for the curious cribs textbooks basic and additional dictionary of terms other Improving textbooks and lessonscorrecting errors in the textbook updating a fragment in a textbook, elements of innovation in the lesson, replacing outdated knowledge with new ones Only for teachers perfect lessons calendar plan for the year methodological recommendations discussion programs Integrated LessonsIcon painting is the creation of sacred images intended to mediate between the Divine and earthly worlds during individual prayer or during Christian worship. Christian tradition considers St. Luke to be the first icon painter, who painted the first faces of the Savior. The oldest surviving iconographic images are wall images in catacomb churches in Asia Minor, Greece and Italy, dating back to the 2nd-4th centuries. They are stylistically close to the Fayum portraits. The oldest icon painting technique is encaustic - melted paint mixed with wax. Hellenistic traditions were gradually reworked and adapted to Christian concepts.
Spread in the 8th century. Iconoclasm did not destroy icon painting in Byzantium, because icons continued to be created in the provinces. Based on the teachings of John of Damascus, the dogma of icon veneration was adopted at the VII Ecumenical Council (787), which brought a deeper understanding of the icon as a bearer of a piece of divine holiness.
After a period of controversy about the Tabor light, icon painting becomes a distinctive feature of the Orthodox branch of Christianity. The dispute between the monk Varlaam, who came to Constantinople from Calabria in Italy, and Gregory Palamas, a scholar-monk from Athos, concerned practice hesychasm- the ancient Eastern Christian tradition of prayer. Its essence was silent, inner prayer, which allowed a person to see the divine light, the same as the apostles saw on Mount Tabor at the moment of the Transfiguration. Varlaam denied the possibility of any mystical connection between man and God, therefore he denied the practice of hesychasm that existed on Athos. Gregory Palamas defended hesychasm as the original Orthodox teaching about human salvation. The dispute ended with the victory of Gregory Palamas. At the Council of Constantinople in 1352, hesychasm was recognized as true, and Divine energies as uncreated, manifestations of God himself in the created world. Since the victory of hesychasm, there has been an extraordinary rise in icon painting and a surge of amazing new visual solutions. Light was understood in Byzantine painting symbolically as a manifestation Divine power, permeating the world. And in the second half of the 14th century. in connection with the teachings of hesychasm, such an understanding of light in the icon became all the more important.
In icon painting, this manifested itself in the rejection of realistic depictions of faces and things and in the desire to convey the sensory world. It becomes more conventional: the painted images are not faces, but faces that reflect something more spiritual than physical. In the Western branch of Christianity at this time, painting with religious content was developing, based on the author’s interpretation of the biblical story and addressed to the sensory experience of the viewer.
The process of icon painting has its own symbolism. An icon painter, when creating an icon, like the Creator, first draws the light, then the earth and water, plants, animals, buildings, clothes, etc. are “revealed,” and the last to appear is the face of a person. After painting is completed, the icon is covered with oil, which is considered as an analogue of the rite of anointing.
Icon painting is characterized by stylistic features. 1. Using " reverse perspective", when objects depicted in the foreground can be significantly smaller in size than those depicted behind them. 2. The combination in one image of events that occurred at different times and in different places, or the same character is depicted several times at different points in the action. 3. All characters are depicted in certain poses and clothes adopted by the iconographic tradition. 4. Absence of a specific lighting source and falling shadows; volume is conveyed using special shading or tone. 5. Stylization of the proportions of the human body, clothing, trees, mountains, buildings. 6. Use of special symbolism of color, light, gestures, attributes.
Periodization of Byzantine icon painting.
The Macedonian Renaissance (IX-X centuries) is distinguished by ascetic figures in frozen poses and in clothes with rigid lines of folds. The heavy, bulky figures of saints were endowed with large arms and legs like those of peasants. Their images are completely devoid of anything temporary and changeable.
Komnenian period (XI-XII centuries). Our Lady of Vladimir, one of the most elegant and poetic, dates back to this period. Byzantine icons. A characteristic physiognomy develops: an elongated face, narrow eyes, a thin nose with a triangular pit on the bridge of the nose. In the latest works of the 12th century, the linear stylization of the image intensifies, the draperies of clothes and even faces are covered with a network of bright white lines, which play a decisive role in the expression of form.
The Paleologian “Renaissance” is the name given to the phenomenon in the art of Byzantium in the first quarter of the 14th century. Characterized by impeccable proportions, flexible movements, impressive posing of figures, stable poses and easy-to-read, precise compositions. There is a moment of entertainment, concreteness of the situation and the presence of characters in space, their communication. The icons acquired complex symbolism associated with the interpretation of Holy Scripture.
Icon painting is characterized by a certain set of subjects with traditional, easily recognizable iconographies. Savior Not Made by Hands - face on a towel; Savior Almighty - with the Gospel and with his hand raised for blessing; looks like Nicholas the Pleasant, but the halo is lined with a cross; Nicholas the Wonderworker is depicted as an old man with a book in a bishop's robe.
So, is it enough to follow the iconographic canon - even if it is undisputed, impeccable - for an image to be an icon? Or are there other criteria? For some rigorists, with the light hand of famous authors of the 20th century, style is such a criterion.
In everyday, philistine understanding, style is simply confused with canon. In order not to return to this issue, we repeat once again that the iconographic canon is a purely literary, nominal side of the image: who, in what clothes, setting, action should be represented on the icon - so, theoretically, even a photograph of costumed extras in famous the scenery can be flawless in terms of iconography. Style is a system of artistic vision of the world, completely independent of the subject of the image, internally harmonious and unified, the prism through which the artist - and after him the viewer - looks at everything - be it a grandiose painting Last Judgment or the smallest blade of grass, a house, a rock, a person and every hair on that person's head. The individual style of the artist is distinguished (there are infinitely many such styles, or manners, and each of them is unique, being an expression of a unique human soul) - and style in a broader sense, expressing the spirit of an era, nation, school. In this chapter we will use the term “style” only in the second meaning.
So, there is an opinion that only those painted in the so-called “Byzantine style” are a real icon. The “academic” or “Italian” style, which in Russia was called “Fryazhsky” in the transitional era, is supposedly a rotten product of the false theology of the Western Church, and a work written in this style is supposedly not a real icon, simply not an icon at all.
This point of view is false simply because the icon as a phenomenon belongs primarily to the Church, while the Church unconditionally recognizes the icon in the academic style. And it recognizes not only at the level of everyday practice, the tastes and preferences of ordinary parishioners (here, as is known, misconceptions, ingrained bad habits, and superstitions can take place). The great saints of the 18th - 20th centuries prayed in front of icons painted in the “academic” style; monastery workshops worked in this style, including workshops of outstanding spiritual centers such as Valaam or the monasteries of Athos. The highest hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church ordered icons from academic artists. Some of these icons, for example, the works of Viktor Vasnetsov, remain known and loved by the people for several generations, without coming into conflict with the growing lately the popularity of the “Byzantine” style. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky in ZOe. called V. Vasnetsov and M. Nesterov national geniuses of icon painting, exponents of conciliar, folk art, an outstanding phenomenon among all Christian peoples who, in his opinion, at that time did not have any icon painting at all in the true sense of the word.
Having pointed out the undoubted recognition of the non-Byzantine icon painting style by the Orthodox Church, we cannot, however, be satisfied with this. The opinion about the contrast between the “Byzantine” and “Italian” styles, about the spirituality of the first and the lack of spirituality of the second, is too widespread to not be taken into account at all. But let us note that this opinion, at first glance justified, is in fact an arbitrary fabrication. Not only the conclusion itself, but also its premises are highly questionable. These very concepts, which we put in quotation marks here for a reason, “Byzantine” and “Italian”, or academic style, are conventional and artificial concepts. The church ignores them scientific history and the theory of art also does not know such a simplified dichotomy (we hope there is no need to explain that these terms do not carry any territorial-historical content). They are used only in the context of polemics between partisans of the first and second. And here we are forced to define concepts that, for us, are essentially nonsense - but which, unfortunately, are firmly entrenched in the philistine consciousness. Above we have already talked about many “secondary features” of what is considered the “Byzantine style,” but the real divide between “styles,” of course, lies elsewhere. This fictitious and easily digestible opposition for semi-educated people comes down to the following primitive formula: academic style is when it “looks like” from nature (or rather, it seems to the founder of the “theology of the icon” L. Uspensky that it is similar), and Byzantine style - when it “does not look like” (according to opinion of the same Uspensky). True, the renowned “theologian of the icon” does not give definitions in such a direct form - as, indeed, in any other form. His book is a wonderful example complete absence methodology and absolute voluntarism in terminology. There is no place at all for definitions and basic provisions in this fundamental work; conclusions are immediately laid out on the table, interspersed with preventive kicks to those who are not used to agreeing with conclusions out of nothing. So the formulas “similar - academic - unspiritual” and “dissimilar - Byzantine - spiritual” are nowhere presented by Uspensky in their charming nakedness, but are gradually presented to the reader in small digestible doses with the appearance that these are axioms signed by the fathers of the seven Ecumenical Councils - not without reason and the book itself is called - no more nor less - “Theology of the Icon of the Orthodox Church.” To be fair, we add that the original title of the book was more modest and was translated from French as “Theology of the Icon in the Orthodox Church,” but in the Russian edition the small preposition “in” disappeared somewhere, elegantly identifying Orthodox Church with a high school dropout without a theological education.
46 - Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky. The main distinctive features of the Russian people are in icon painting and in the feast of the Resurrection of Christ. - "The Tsar's Messenger". (Serbia), 1931. No. 221. - In the book. Theology of the image. Icon and icon painters. Anthology. M. 2002. p. 274.
But let's return to the question of style. We call the opposition between “Byzantine” and “Italian” primitive and vulgar because:
- a) The idea of what is similar to nature and what is not similar to it is extremely
- relatively. Even in the same person it can occur over time.
- change quite a lot. To bestow your own ideas about similarities with the nature of another person, and even more so of other eras and nations, is more than naive.
- b) In figurative fine art of any style and any era, imitation of nature does not consist in passively copying it, but in the skillful transfer of its deep properties, logic and harmony of the visible world, subtle play and unity of correspondences that we constantly observe in Creation.
- c) Therefore, in the psychology of artistic creativity, in the audience’s assessment, resemblance to nature is an undoubtedly positive phenomenon. An artist who is sound in heart and mind strives for it, the viewer expects it and recognizes it in the act of co-creation.
- d) An attempt at a serious theological substantiation of the depravity of similarity with nature and the blessing of dissimilarity with it would lead either to a logical dead end or to heresy. Apparently, this is why no one has made such an attempt so far.
- But in this work, as mentioned above, we refrain from theological analysis. We will limit ourselves to only showing the incorrectness of dividing sacred art into “fallen academic” and “spiritual Byzantine” from the point of view of history and theory of art.
And what is unhesitatingly called “Byzantine style”? Here we encounter an even cruder, even more unlawful unification under one term of almost two thousand years of history of church painting, with all the diversity of schools and manners: from the extreme, most primitive generalization of natural forms to an almost naturalistic interpretation of them, from the extreme In the special geographical and political conditions of the existence of the Cretan school manifested itself in a particularly vivid and concentrated form, the unity in the main thing that is always inherent in Christian art - and mutual interest, mutual enrichment of schools and cultures. Attempts by obscurantists to interpret such phenomena as theological and moral decadence, as something originally unusual for Russian icon painting, are untenable from either theological or historical-cultural points of view. Russia has never been an exception to this rule, and it was precisely to the abundance and freedom of contacts that it owed the flourishing of national icon painting.
But then what about the famous polemic of the 17th century? about icon painting styles? Then what about the division of Russian church art into two branches: “spirit-bearing traditional” and “fallen Italianizing”? We cannot close our eyes to these all-too-famous (and over-interpreted) in a known way) phenomena. We will talk about them - but, unlike icon theologians popular in Western Europe, we will not attribute to these phenomena a spiritual meaning that they do not have.
The “dispute about style” took place in difficult political conditions and against the backdrop of a church schism. The clear contrast between the refined works of centuries-old polished national style and the first awkward attempts to master the “Italian” style gave the ideologists of “holy antiquity” a powerful weapon, which they were not slow to use. The fact that traditional icon painting of the 17th century. no longer had power and vitality XVb., and, becoming more and more frozen, deviating into detail and embellishment, marched in its own way towards the Baroque, they preferred not to notice. All their arrows are directed against “lifelikeness” - this term, coined by Archpriest Avvakum, is, by the way, extremely inconvenient for its opponents, suggesting as the opposite a kind of “deathlikeness”.
We will not quote in our summary the arguments of both sides, not always logical and theologically justified. We will not subject it to analysis - especially since such works already exist. But we should still remember that since we do not take the theology of the Russian schism seriously, we are in no way obliged to see the indisputable truth in the schismatic “theology of the icon.” And even more so, we are not obliged to see the indisputable truth in the superficial, biased and divorced from Russian cultural fabrications about the icon, which are still widespread in Western Europe. Those who like to repeat easily digestible incantations about the “spiritual Byzantine” and “fallen academic” styles would do well to read the works of true professionals who lived their entire lives in Russia, through whose hands thousands of ancient icons passed - F. I. Buslaev, N. V. Pokrovsky, N. P. Kondakova. All of them saw the conflict between the “old manner” and “livelikeness” much more deeply and soberly, and were not at all the partisans of Avvakum and Ivan Pleshkovich, with their “gross split and ignorant Old Belief.” All of them stood for artistry, professionalism and beauty in icon painting and denounced carrion, cheap handicrafts, stupidity and obscurantism, even if in the purest “Byzantine style”.
The objectives of our research do not allow us to dwell long on the polemics of the 17th century. between representatives and ideologists of two directions in Russian church art. Let us turn rather to the fruits of these directions. One of them did not impose any stylistic restrictions on artists and self-regulated through orders and subsequent recognition or non-recognition of icons by the clergy and laity, the other, conservative, for the first time in history tried to prescribe an artistic style to icon painters, the subtlest, deeply personal instrument of knowledge of God and the created world.
Sacred art of the first, main direction, being closely connected with life and culture Orthodox people, underwent a certain period of reorientation and, having somewhat changed technical techniques, ideas about convention and realism, the system of spatial constructions, continued in its best representatives the sacred mission of knowledge of God in images. The knowledge of God is truly honest and responsible, not allowing the artist’s personality to hide under the mask of an external style.
And what happened at this time, from the end of the 17th to the 20th centuries, with “traditional” icon painting? We put this word in quotation marks, because in reality this phenomenon is not at all traditional, but unprecedented: until now, the icon painting style was at the same time a historical style, a living expression of the spiritual essence of the era and nation, and only now one of these styles has frozen into immobility and declared himself the only true one. This replacement of a living effort to communicate with God by an irresponsible repetition of well-known formulas significantly lowered the level of icon painting in the “traditional manner.” The average “traditional” icon of this period, in its artistic and spiritual-expressive qualities, is significantly lower not only than icons of earlier eras, but also contemporary icons painted in an academic manner - due to the fact that any even talented artist sought to master the academic manner , seeing in it a perfect instrument for understanding the visible and invisible world, and in Byzantine techniques - only boredom and barbarism. And we cannot but recognize this understanding of things as healthy and correct, since this boredom and barbarism were indeed inherent in the “Byzantine style”, which had degenerated in the hands of artisans, and were its late, shameful contribution to the church treasury. It is very significant that those very few high-class masters who were able to “find themselves” in this historically dead style did not work for the Church. The clients of such icon painters (usually Old Believers) were for the most part not monasteries or parish churches, but individual amateur collectors. Thus, the very purpose of the icon for communication with God and knowledge of God became secondary: in best case scenario such a masterfully painted icon became an object of admiration, or, at worst, an object of investment and acquisition. This blasphemous substitution distorted the meaning and specificity of the work of the “old-fashioned” icon painters. Let us note this significant term with a clear flavor of artificiality and counterfeit. Creative work, which was once a deeply personal service to the Lord in the Church and for the Church, has undergone degeneration, even to the point of outright sinfulness: from a talented imitator to a talented forger is one step.
49 I. Buslaev. Original according to the 18th century edition. - In the book. Theology of the image. Icon and icon painters. Anthology. M. 2002. p. 227
Let us recall the classic story by N. A. Leskov “The Sealed Angel.” The famous master, who at the cost of so much effort and sacrifice was found by the Old Believer community, who values his sacred art so highly that he flatly refuses to dirty his hands with a secular order, turns out to be, in essence, a virtuoso master of forgery. He paints an icon with a light heart, not in order to consecrate it and place it in a church for prayer, but then, by using cunning techniques to cover the painting with cracks, wiping it with oily mud, to turn it into an object for substitution. Even if Leskov’s heroes were not ordinary swindlers, they only wanted to return the image unjustly seized by the police - is it possible to assume that the virtuoso dexterity of this imitator of antiquity was acquired by him exclusively in the sphere of such “righteous fraud”? And what about the Moscow masters from the same story, selling icons of marvelous “antique” work to gullible provincials? Under the layer of the most delicate colors of these icons, demons are discovered drawn on gesso, and the cynically deceived provincials throw away the “hell-like” image in tears... The next day the scammers will restore it and sell it again to another victim who is ready to pay any money for the “true” one, i.e. in the old-fashioned way written, icon...
This is the sad but inevitable fate of a style that is not connected with the personal spiritual and creative experience of the icon painter, a style divorced from the aesthetics and culture of its time. Due to cultural tradition, we call icons not only the works of medieval masters, for whom their style was not stylization, but a worldview. We call icons both the cheap images thoughtlessly stamped by mediocre artisans (monks and laymen), and the works of “old-timers” of the 18th-20th centuries, brilliant in their performing technique, sometimes originally intended by the authors as fakes. But this product does not have any preemptive right to the title of icon in the church sense of the word. Neither in relation to contemporary icons of the academic style, nor in relation to any stylistically intermediate phenomena, nor in relation to the icon painting of our days. Any attempts to dictate the artist's style for reasons extraneous to art, intellectual and theoretical considerations, are doomed to failure. Even if the sophisticated icon painters are not isolated from the medieval heritage (as was the case with the first Russian emigration), but have access to it (as, for example, in Greece). It is not enough to “discuss and decide” that the “Byzantine” icon is much holier than the non-Byzantine one or even has a monopoly on holiness - one must also be able to reproduce the style declared to be the only sacred one, but no theory will provide this. Let us give the floor to Archimandrite Cyprian (Pyzhov), the author of a number of unfairly forgotten articles on icon painting:
“Currently in Greece there is an artificial revival of the Byzantine style, which is expressed in the mutilation of beautiful forms and lines and, in general, the stylistically developed, spiritually sublime creativity of the ancient artists of Byzantium. The modern Greek icon painter Kondoglu, with the assistance of the Synod of the Greek Church, released a number of reproductions of his production, which cannot but be recognized as mediocre imitations of the famous Greek artist Panselin... Fans of Kondoglu and his disciples say that saints “should not look like real people” - who are they? are they supposed to look alike?! The primitiveness of such an interpretation is very harmful to those who see and superficially understand the spiritual and aesthetic beauty of ancient icon painting and reject its surrogates, offered as examples of the supposedly restored Byzantine style. Often the manifestation of enthusiasm for the “ancient style” is insincere, revealing only in its supporters pretentiousness and the inability to distinguish between genuine art and crude imitation.”
50 - Archimandrite Cyprian (Pyzhov). Towards knowledge of Orthodox icon painting. In the book. Theology of the image. Icon and icon painters. Anthology. M. 2002. p. 422.
Such enthusiasm for the ancient style at any cost is inherent in individuals or groups, out of unreason or out of certain, usually quite earthly, considerations, but no church prohibitory decrees that would concern the style still do not exist and never have existed.
The canonicity of iconography and the acceptability of style are determined by the Church “by touch”, without any prescriptions, but by direct feeling - in each individual case. And if in iconography the number of historical precedents for each subject is still limited, then in the field of style it is not at all possible to formulate any prohibitive regulations. An icon that has deviated from the “Greek manner” to the “Latin” and even painted in a purely academic manner cannot, for this one reason, be excluded from the category of icons. Likewise, the “Byzantine style” in itself does not make the image sacred - neither in our time, nor centuries ago.
In this regard, we will present here another observation that has escaped the attention of the “theologians of the icon” of the famous school. Anyone who is at least superficially familiar with the history of art in Christian countries knows that the style called “Byzantine” served not only for sacred images, but during a certain historical period was simply the only style - for lack of another, for the inability of another.
Icon painting - easel and monumental - was in those days the main field of activity of artists, but still there were other areas, other genres.
The same craftsmen who painted icons and decorated liturgical manuscripts with miniatures had to illustrate historical chronicles and scientific treatises. But none of them resorted to any special “non-sacred” style for these “non-sacred” works. In the front (illuminated, containing illustrations) chronicles we see images of battle scenes, panoramas of cities, pictures of everyday life, including feasts and dances, figures of representatives of the Basurman peoples - interpreted in the same style as sacred images of the same era, preserving all those features that are so easily attributed to spirituality and an evangelical view of the world.
There is also a so-called “reverse perspective” in these pictures (or rather, combinations of various projections that give stable, typified images of objects), there is also the notorious “lack of shadows” (more correctly called the reduction of shadows, reducing them to a distinct contour line). There is also a simultaneous display of events remote from one another in space and time. There is also what the “theologians” of a well-known school take for dispassion - the statuary nature of human figures, conventionality and some theatricality of gestures, a calm and detached expression of faces, usually turned to the viewer full-face or in 3/4. Why, one might ask, is this dispassion for warriors in battle, dancing buffoons, executioners or murderers, whose images are found in chronicles? It’s just that the medieval artist did not know how to convey emotional state through facial expression, he did not know how and did not really strive for this - in the Middle Ages, the subject of the image was the typical, stable, universal, and the particular, transient, random did not arouse interest. Changeable emotions and subtle psychological nuances were not reflected either in literature, or in music, or in painting - neither in secular art, nor in sacred art.
Perhaps it will be objected to us that historical chronicles in the Middle Ages were in a certain sense a high genre, which was compiled and decorated by monks, and that therefore there is nothing surprising in the transfer of “sacred style” to them. Well, let’s go down one more step, proving what is obvious not only for a professional art critic, but also for any person at all sensitive to art: a great historical style is not automatically spiritual or automatically profane, it is equally applied to high , and to low.
Let us turn to Russian popular prints, widespread since the 17th century. (but existed before). At first these were drawings, colored with water paints, then colored prints of engravings on wood, and then on copper. They were produced by both monastic and secular printing houses, their authors were persons from the different levels artistic and general educational training, and all of Russia bought them - urban and rural, literate and illiterate, rich and poor, pious and not at all pious. Some bought icons, moral stories in pictures, views of monasteries and portraits of bishops. Others preferred portraits of generals, scenes of battles, parades and celebrations, historical paintings and views of overseas cities. Still others chose illustrated lyrics of songs and fairy tales, funny jokes, anecdotes - even the saltiest and most frank.
In the collection of Russian popular prints by D. Rovinsky there were a fair number of such ungodly images - they are given a whole separate volume in the famous facsimile edition. Stylistically, this “cherished” volume is absolutely similar to others, which contain “neutral” and sacred pictures. The only difference is in the plot: here is cheerful Khersonya, supportive of everyone, here is a funny gentleman squeezing a pancake cook, here is a soldier with a vigorous girl on his lap - and no traces of “fallen liveliness”. The perspective is “reverse”, shadows are “absent”, the coloring is based on local colors, the space is flat and conditional. Combinations of different projections and changes in natural proportions are widely used. The characters appear hieratically to the viewer, facing him full-face (occasionally in % and almost never in profile), their legs hover above the conventional pose, their hands are frozen in theatrical gestures. Their clothes fall in sharp folds and are often covered with flat, spreading designs. Their faces, finally, are not just similar, but identical to the faces of the saints from another volume of the same collection. The same blissful and perfect oval, the same clear, calm eyes, the same archaic smile of the lips, carved with the same movements of the pen: the artist simply did not know how to depict a libertine other than an ascetic, a whore other than a saint.
What a pity that E. Trubetskoy, L. Uspensky and the disseminators of their wisdom were three hundred years late with their “theology”: they would have explained to the artist for which pictures lifelikeness would be more suitable for him, and for which only the “Byzantine” style is suitable. Now nothing can be done: without asking their advice, the masters of the Russian popular print were using the “only spiritual style” for other purposes. And they haven’t forgotten anything, these villains: even the inscriptions are present in their funny pictures. “Pan Tryk”, “Khersonya”, “Paramoshka” - we read large Slavic letters next to the images of characters who are not at all holy. Explanatory inscriptions are also included in the composition - we will refrain from quoting them: these common folk verses, although witty, are completely obscene. Even symbolism, the language of signs that only an initiate can read, has a place. For example, on the completely impassive face of a lady standing before the viewer in a completely impassive pose, one can see a combination of flies (artificial moles), meaning, for example, a passionate appeal to share the joys of love, or a contemptuous refusal, or despondency in separation from one’s subject. In addition to the language of flies, there was also a very developed symbolic language of flowers - certainly not with sublime theological interpretations of scarlet and purple, gold and black, but with other interpretations adapted to the needs of flirting ladies and gentlemen. There are also simpler symbols, understandable without explanation in their straightforward imagery - for example, a huge red flower with a black center on the skirt of an approachable girl or a saucer with a pair of chicken eggs at the feet of a daring young man preparing for a fist fight... It remains to add that in the art of Western Europe , whether in the Middle Ages or in the New Age, “unsacred images in a sacred style” existed in the same way - apparently, no one there bothered to explain to the artists in time which style was profane and which was sacred.
As we see, it is not at all so simple - to determine the stylistic features that make an icon an icon; they make a significant difference between a sacred image and a profane, even obscene one. It is even more difficult for a non-specialist. Anyone who undertakes to talk about an icon as a work of art must have at least basic knowledge in the field of history and theory of art. Otherwise, he risks not only ruining himself in the eyes of experts with his ridiculous conclusions, but also contributing to the development of heresy - after all, an icon, whatever you say, is still not only a work of art. Everything false that is said about the icon in the scientific field also affects the spiritual field.
So, we have to admit that attempts to sacralize the “Byzantine” style - as, indeed, any other great historical style - are fictitious and false. Style differences belong to the field of pure art criticism, the Church ignores them - or rather, she accepts them, since the great historical style is an era in the life of the Church, an expression of its spirit, which cannot be fallen or profane. Only the spirit of an individual artist can be fallen.
That is why the Church maintains the custom of submitting each newly painted icon to the hierarchy for consideration. The priest or bishop recognizes and consecrates the icon - or, keeping the spirit of truth, rejects the dissimilar icon. What does the representative of the hierarchy consider in the icon presented to him, what does he examine?
The level of theological training of the artist? But the iconographic canon exists for this reason, so that masters of the brush can, without further ado, devote themselves entirely to their sacred craft - all the dogmatic development of icon subjects has already been done for them. To judge whether an icon corresponds to one or another known scheme, one does not need to be a member of the hierarchy, or even a Christian. Any scientific specialist, regardless of his religious views, can judge the dogmatic correctness of the icon - precisely because the dogma is stable, clearly expressed in the iconographic scheme and thus intelligible. Then, perhaps, the hierarch subjects the style of the icon to judgment and evaluation? But we have already shown - on a wide historical material- that the opposition between the “Byzantine-unlike-from-nature” and the “academic-like” styles, invented by the end of the second millennium AD, never existed in the Church. The fact that individual members of the hierarchy recognize only the first does not prove anything, since there are - and in considerable numbers - members of the hierarchy who recognize only the second, and find the first rude, outdated and primitive. This is a matter of their taste, habits, cultural outlook, and not of their right-wing or perverted spirit. And conflicts do not arise on this basis, since the issue of style is resolved peacefully, through market demand or when ordering - an artist is invited, whose stylistic orientation is known and close to the customer, a sample is selected, etc. We allow ourselves to express the opinion that this is free competition styles that exist in Russia today is very beneficial for the icon, since it forces both sides to improve quality, to achieve true artistic depth, convincing not only for supporters, but also for opponents of a particular style. Thus, the proximity of the “Byzantine” school forces the “academic” to be stricter, more sober, and more expressive. The “Byzantine” school’s proximity to the “academic” school keeps it from degenerating into primitive craftsmanship.
So, what then does the hierarchy accept - or reject - to whose judgment sacred images are presented, if issues of iconography are decided in advance, and issues of style are external to the Church? What other criterion have we missed? Why not - with such freedom granted to the icon painter by the Church, it still does not recognize every image that claims to be an icon? This - in essence, the most important - criterion will be discussed in the next chapter.
During the existence of the Byzantine state, the period of which was the 4th-15th centuries, the cultural worldview of society managed to transform significantly, thanks to the emergence of new creative views and trends in art. Their unique diversity works of art, which differently reflected the current reality in the world, contributed to the inevitable development of the highest spiritual values, encouraging new generations of society to the greatest enlightenment. Among the most widespread types of cultural property of the Roman Empire, special attention should be given to icon painting.
History of Byzantine icons
This is an ancient religious genre of medieval painting, where the authors had to visually illustrate images of mythical characters taken from the Bible. Images of sacred persons, which Roman artists were able to fully display on a solid surface, began to be called an icon. The creation of the first Byzantine icons was based on an ancient writing technique that gained wide popularity in ancient times. It was called encaustic. In the process of using it, icon painters had to dilute their paints by mixing them with wax, which was the main active ingredient. Its unique formula, covering the outer side of the sacred cloth, allowed the icon for a long time maintain its original appearance in its original original form. In addition, the main facial features that reflect the true view of religious personalities were presented by artistic creators very superficially, with a lack of precise detail. That is why in the first works, the Pre-Iconoclastic period, covering the period of the 6th - 7th centuries, one can immediately draw attention to the rough and in some places blurred facial features. Among their main works is the Sinai icon of the Apostle Peter.
Further, with the advent of the Iconoclastic period, the traditional creation of religious icons turned out to be extremely difficult. First of all, this was due to new socio-political movements that were actively undertaken in Byzantium for several hundred years. Ardent opponents of religious culture sought to completely ban the centuries-old veneration of icons, through their complete destruction.
However, Byzantine icons continued to be created, carrying out this process in strict secrecy from government supervision. At that point in time, the current icon painters decided to completely change the previously established attitude towards understanding the church faith.
Symbolism and images of the Byzantine icon
The new artistic concept contributed to the final change in the previous symbolism, which was marked by a transition from the old naturalistic perception of the sensory world to a more religious and sacred reflection of it. Now the images of Byzantine icons adhere to other handwritten canons. In them, ordinary human faces replaced by faces, around which a golden halo shone in a semicircular shape. Depending on the degree of holiness of the heroes who are presented in biblical mythology, the names of their faces began to be divided into categories such as Apostles; Unmercenary; The faithful; Great Martyrs; Martyrs, etc. There are 18 species in total. A clear example demonstrating the application of new artistic canons is the icon of Jesus Christ in the Byzantine style, which is called Christ Pantocrator.
Its creation was based on new color forms, which are a combination of natural and powder paints mixed in liquid. The main facial features that the artist managed to give to this shrine turned out to be so natural and correctly conveyed that in other subsequent works, God’s gaze began to be presented in exactly the same form that preceded the previously created original.
The meaning of the icons
In difficult times mass starvation, plague epidemics and popular uprisings, when the life and health of people were in serious danger, the significance of Byzantine shrines turned out to be extremely great in providing assistance and salvation. Their miraculous properties made it possible to heal young children and adults from many cardiovascular and headache diseases. In addition, people tried to contact them in advance, in order to create well-being for their family and friends.
Influence on Old Russian iconography
The icons of Byzantium, in all their aesthetic splendor, managed to make an invaluable contribution to the development of ancient Russian iconography. Since the main founders of cultural and religious education, first of all, it is the Roman icon painters who should be singled out. They managed to pass on their accumulated knowledge on creating church splendor not only to their future generation, but also to other states that existed at that time, one of which was Ancient Rus'.
