Page 375 - Uros Todorovic Byzantine Painting Contemporary Eyes

Apendix
Earlier in the same chapter Spira noted that Orthodox icons were originally not con- ceived as works of art or with a view to creating aesthetic impressions.13 Thus, the least that one could conclude from both Spira’s and Ziogas’ views is that the “non-art” Byzan- tine experience is closely related to Malevich’s “non-art” experience, and by extension, to global revolution in art which started taking place at the beginning of the 20th century in Russia.
The fifth chapter of Spira’s book discusses the Soviet usurpation of icons while in the sixth chapter he recapitulates the fact that from approximately the middle of the 17th century, “just as Christ is believed, in the Orthodox Church, to have descended into hell after the Crucifixion and before Resurrection,”14 the icons had undergone their own “de- scent into hell” and were then reinvented in the early 20th century.15 Spira then adds: “It was as if the wisdom of icons had deliberately chosen to withdraw itself from the visible world, both in order to protect itself against the corruption of secularised humanity and to subject man – just when he was ready to experience it – to the ordeal of knowing for himself that life without the wisdom of the divine is a barren wilderness.”16
In conclusion, the pivotal point of Spira’s overall undoubtedly enlightening book is precisely the placement of Malevich’s Suprematism in the context of the heritage of icons, which is realised in the fourth chapter entitled Imagery, Iconography and Self-Tran- scendence. Further, our view is that, while among the Russian avant-garde artists it right- ly draws emphasis on Malevich’s work, perhaps intentionally, Spira’s book leaves much to be said on the topic of Byzantine influence in Rothko’s work, who having a Rus- sian-Jewish heritage, could in a certain sense be regarded as Malevich’s artistic descend- ant in the West. This is one of the main reasons we have committed the last chapter of our book to the Byzantine influences in Rothko’s work of the classic (abstract) phase. Thus, most importantly, Spira’s book seems to open as many questions as it solves. Al- though Spira’s overall view that there exists an immense significance of icons for the formation of Russian avant-garde art and by extension for the formation of 20th century Modernism as a whole, is shared in our work, our selected topics in each of the chapters as well as our particular arguments significantly depart from those in Spira’s book—by extending its arguments and insights towards new directions.
13 Ibid., 147. 14 Ibid., 210. 15 Ibid., 209. 16 Ibid., 210.
373