Page 28 - Uros Todorovic Byzantine Painting Contemporary Eyes

Byzantine Painting through Contemporary Eyes
abstract painting. The entire first part of this book focuses more on the frescoes than on the icons, mainly because in the existing scholarly work attention is notably directed in favor of the icons.
We then leave the Late Byzantine period and enter directly into the 20th century in order to examine how the aesthetics of Late Byzantine painting became creatively trans- planted within the realm of the Modern experience. The three chapters of the second part of this book are committed to the work of three major 20th century abstractionists: (a.) Vasily Kandinsky, (b.) Kazimir Malevich and (c.) Mark Rothko respectively. The com- mon criterion for the selection of these painters is the fact that the Byzantine element in their work constitutes an influence of essential importance.
Of course, there are a number of other 20th century artists who found inspiration in Byzantine art, such as French painters George Roualt19 (1871–1958) and Henri Matisse (1869–1954). Matisse visited Russia in 1911 and believed that the study of the theory and technique of iconography was of great significance for contemporary art.20 In relation to this experience, Matisse also stated: “You surrender yourself that much better when you see your efforts confirmed by such an ancient tradition. It helps you jump over the ditch.”21 Thus, in his essay entitled Matisse and Russian Icons: The Metaphysics of Pictorial Space, James Patrick Reid rightly observes: “It is not wrong to say that the icons influ- enced Matisse; but it is truer, and more to the point, to say that they confirmed his orig- inality.”22 To the best of our knowledge, a statement this strong has not been made in regards to the relationship of Byzantine aesthetics to the painting of Kandinsky, Ma- levich or Rothko. The exception to this is the overall argument of the book entitled The Byzantine Malevich, written by Yannis Ziogas (Athens, 2000); we shall discuss this book later in regards to Malevich’s painting. Also, the book by Andrew Spira (2008), entitled The Avant Garde Icon: Russian avant-garde art and the icon painting tradition, explores the complex and intricate role that icons have played in the development of avant-garde
19 David Talbot-Rice, The Appreciation of Byzantine Art (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), 39.
20 See: John Stuart, Ikons (London: Faber & Faber, 1975), 23.
21 Jack Flam, ed. Matisse on Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 178.
22 Reid then continues: “A certain kinship can be noted between ancient icons and Matisse's paintings even before
the artist visited Russia. The Painter's Family was finished just before Matisse left for Moscow in October, 1911; yet the brilliant reds and black – and white checkerboard patterning are already reminiscent of icons. Matisse had very likely seen icons in 1906 in the exhibition organized by Sergei Diaghilev as part of the Salon d’Automne, and was probably familiar with more examples of iconography through reproductions. Interest in icons was ‘in the air’ at that time. The 1911 Salon des Independants included works by several contemporary Russian artists working in a neo-Byzantine or archaic style; Guillame Apollinaire said they seemed to have ‘fooled the centuries.’ Painters and patrons of contempo- rary art in Russia at this time, like Riabushinskii and Oustrukhov, collected icons.” URL: http://www.sacredpaintings. org/matisse-and-russian-icons
26