Page 124 - Uros Todorovic Byzantine Painting Contemporary Eyes

Byzantine Painting through Contemporary Eyes
given the same level of attention in respect to the hesychast influences. That said, due to the difference in technique, it is to some extent appropriate that fresco painting and icon painting are examined separately, and our hope is that this work, which focuses on fres- coes, might trigger further research of the hesychast influences in Byzantine icon painting.
The general hypothesis of this chapter is that the aesthetic manifestations of Hesy- chasm in Byzantine fresco painting should be seen as analogous to the intensity of the eschatological meanings in each painted composition. Of course, such meanings are subject to interpretation, and thus, a proper interpretation must be well grounded in historical facts and archeological evidence – a condition which has guided this research. In this context, one of the issues that we shall discuss is how the reason behind the phe- nomenon of Byzantine painters frequently turning towards the deep past of their herit- age in search of aesthetic prototypes, has been harshly misconstrued by certain scholars.
In 1974, John Meyendorff stated that: “Art historians wonder whether the ‘Paleologan Renaissance’ in Byzantine art is connected with secular, ‘humanist’ trends or with hesy- chast spirituality. The first point of view seems to be widely accepted and implies that the triumph of palamite theology in the middle of the fourteenth century led to the end of the artistic ‘Renaissance’ as such. Meanwhile, the relationship between ‘Hesychasm’ and artistic developments in Slavic lands, particularly Russia, is generally recognized.”2 We shall demonstrate that contrary to the widely accepted view mentioned above, which still prevails, Palaiologan Renaissance is very much related to the influences of Hesy- chasm, which, given that it propagates the salvation of man through a visionary experi- ence, can justly be attributed with theanthropism – which constitutes a humanism of its own kind. In other words, the painting of the Palaiologan Renaissance entails a non-sec- ular kind of humanism, which is not at odds with the teachings of Hesychasm.
But why give so much attention to the work of a painter of the Late Byzantine period at all? The Bishop of Diokleia, Kallsitos Ware, unassumingly provides us with an ideal answer: “Again and again, not only in Palaeologan Byzantium but in many other periods and places as well, it is the men and women of inner stillness – not the activists but the quietists – who have in fact exercised the most far-reaching impact upon the world in
2 See: John Meyendorff, Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theological and Social Problems. Collected Studies (London: Variorum Reprints, 1974), 5. Note: in the introduction of this publication pages are not numbered. Meyendorff then continues: “Can then ‘Hesychasm’ be considered as ‘anti-humanistic’? To answer this question a rather arbitrary as- sumption is often made – that it was the ‘contemplative Hesychasm’ of Gregory of Sinai, and not the ‘scholastic,’ or ‘dogmatic,’ formulae of Palamas, which inspired the Russian icon-painters (11). The assumption is in fact nothing but a truism: doctrinal ‘formulae’ as such hardly ever inspired artists, but the content of the formulae did. In fact, it is rather difficult to establish any significant differences in the positive teaching of the various groups of ‘hesychasts’ in the four- teenth century about man, about God, and about spiritual life. They certainly possessed a common set of cultural, social and religious values.”
122