Page 22 - Uros Todorovic Byzantine Painting Contemporary Eyes

Byzantine Painting through Contemporary Eyes
scholars such as André Grabar (1896–1990), David Talbot-Rice (1903–1972), Robert Byron (1905–1941), Gervase Mathew (1905–1976), Steven Runciman (1903–2000), and others, have provided us with an understanding of Byzantine aesthetics rather contrary to the dismissive views propagated by the movement of Enlightenment. Critics of the 20th cen- tury, headed by Roger Fry (1866–1934), had also rediscovered El Greco and thereby con- tributed immensely to what was by then a growing appreciation of the true significance of Byzantine art.5 Within this new wave of interest, El Greco was often perceived as the last great Byzantine artist. Other scholars of the 20th century, such as Cyril Mango and Charles Delvoye, have at certain instances tended to interpret the painting of the Late Byzantine period somewhat negatively, as a style that was prevented by its theological nature to follow the aesthetic standards and values of the Renaissance art of the West.
Also, certain scholars whose own heritage is Byzantine or Slavic-Byzantine, such as Pavel Florensky (1882–1937) and Leonid Alexandrovich Ouspensky (1902–1987), have perceived the painting of Byzantium with a particular level of fondness but also with a level of subjectivity. Notwithstanding the sometimes justified contemporary criticism of their work6 these scholars have undoubtedly contributed to a deeper understanding of Byzantine painting; particularly significant is Florensky’s essay entitled Reverse Perspec- tive.7 Within this deeper understanding of Byzantine painting, the significant shift to- wards a renewal of methodology in the examination of Byzantine aesthetics is realised most clearly in the insightful book entitled An Aesthetic Approach to Byzantine Art (1946)8 by Panayotis Michelis (1903–1969). Michelis has constructed the first ever systematic theoretical basis upon which the aesthetics of Byzantine art can be approached and in- terpreted, as well as compared with the arts of other traditions and periods, based on Immanuel Kant’s categories of the naïve and the sublime. Despite its shortcomings, Michelis’ study inaugurated a new chapter in the appreciation and appropriation of Byz- antine art by stressing the experimental spatial arrangements and the luminosity of hu-
5 In relation to Roger Fry’s criticism see also: Fried Michael, Roger Fry’s Formalism, delivered as part of the lecture series “Tanner Lectures on Human Values” at University of Michigan, November 2 and 3, 2001. URL: https://tannerlectu- res.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/f/fried_2001.pdf
6 For example, Kordis mentions the fact that in their discussion of icons, L. Ouspensky and P. Florensky hardly take into consideration the fact that the Orthodox Church already has a formulated theology regarding the icon – which is the theology that was formulated during the period of Iconoclasm and is legitimised by the 7th Ecumenical Council (787). See: Γιώργος Κόρδης, Ἱεροτύπως, Ἡ εἰκονολογία τοῦ ἱ. Φωτίου καὶ ἡ τέχνη τῆς μετεικονομαχικῆς περιόδου (Ἀθήνα: Ἐκδόσεις Ἁρμός, 2002), 17.
7 Although this essay was written in 1919 it was first published (in Russian) in 1967. For the English translation of Reverse Perspective see: Pavel Florensky, Beyond Vision: Essays on the Perception of Art, translated by Wendy Salmond and edited by Nicoletta Misler (London: Reaktion, 2002).
8 More precisely, the original Greek version was published in 1946. For the Greek version see: Παναγιώτης Μιχε- λής, Αἰσθητικὴ Θεώρηση τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Τέχνης (Ἀθήνα: Ίδρυμα Παναγιώτη & Έφης Μιχελή, 2006).
20