ИКОНА КАК ОБРАЗ И КАК ИДЕЯ: АСПЕКТЫ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО МОНУМЕНТАЛЬНОГО ИСКУССТВА В ИХ ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИИ

Дарья Андреевна Лунгина

doi:10.21638/11701/spbu17.2017.206

Authors

Дарья Андреевна Лунгина Lomonosov Moscow State University named, Lomonosovskiy pr., 44, building 4, Moscow, 119992, Russian Federation;

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu17.2017.206

Abstract

As church architecture evolved from the 5th century, monumental Byzantine art marked out several aspects of icon: the religious, the anthropological, the political, the aesthetic and others. A connection between the political aspect of the icon (as expressed in the figure of the basileus who represented God on Earth), the anthropological aspect (any human being in his expression of the likeness of God, ac-cording to Christian dogma), the aesthetic aspect (mosaics of fresco pictures of biblical personages) became evident by that time. But the correlation of a living creature and its motionless image was interpreted in different ways during different periods of Byzantine history (divided into periods by the epoch of the first Ecumenical Councils of the 4th to 5th centuries), the period of the canonical establish-ment of icon-painting The ‘Second Iconoclasm’ of the 8th century, the Komnenian dynasty (11–13th century) and the 14th and 15th century Palaiologian Renaissance. The subject of the article is the versatility of the icon which strived to affirm God’s presence in the world and sought not only for abstract theological but also for plastic and visual solutions to divine subjects. The aim of the article is to clarify the phenomenon of the icon as resting upon dogmatic, anthropological, political and aesthetic principles of such an image.
The article is methodologically corroborated by the art-historical theories (those of Hans Sedlmayr, Erwin Panofsky and Otto Demus) which explain the transition from the ancient mimesis to the principle which make the image selfsufficient. The former painting, illusionist mission is now assigned to architecture which stresses the corporal and material elements of the Divine cosmos. As the iconpainting canon is established, painting accepts a new principle the spiritualization of the flesh, the principle of joining of the ideal and the material (which set the ground of the Renaissance).
The author researches this multilateralism which aimed at the statement of God on Earth by force of not only theological arguments but also by plastic and visual means. The author concludes that indissoluble aesthetic, religious, and political aspects of the icon make for a specific type of Medieval figurativeness. Refs 12.

Keywords:

image (signum), lack of distance, between a viewer and the icon, iconoclasm, rise of canon, hesychasm, formation of spectator

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Литература

Гегель Г. В .Ф. Эстетика: в 4 т. М.: Искусство 1969. Т. 2. 326 с.

Гегель Г. В. Ф. Эстетика: в 4 т. М.: Искусство 1971. Т. 3. 596 с.

Бибихин В. В. Введение в философию права. М.: ИФ РАН 2005. 138 с.

Агамбен Дж. Homo sacer. Суверенная власть и голая жизнь. М.: Европа 2011. 256 с.

Зедльмайр Х. Утрата середины. М.: Прогресс-Традиция 2008. 640 с.

Панофский Э. Перспектива как «символическая форма». М.: Азбука-классика 2004. 336 с.

Демус О. Мозаики византийских храмов. Принципы монументального искусства Византии. М.: Индрик 2001. 160 с.

Лихачев Д. С. Русские летописи и их культурно-историческое значение. М.; Л.: Изд-во АН СССР 1947. 492 с.

Соколов М. Н. Принцип рая. Главы об иконологии сада парка и прекрасного вида. М.: Прогресс-Традиция 2011. 704 с.

Флоренский П. А. свящ. Обратная перспектива // Флоренский П. А. свящ. Соч.: в 4 т. М.: Мысль 1990. Т. 3 (1). С. 46–99.

Раушенбах Б. В. Пространственные построения в живописи. М.: Наука 1980. 288 с.

Успенский Л. А. Богословие иконы православной церкви. Н. Новгород: Изд-во братства во имя святого князя Александра Невского 1997. 475 с.

References

Hegel G. W. F. Estetika: v 4 t. [Lectures on Esthetics]. Moscow Iskusstvo1969 vol. 2 326 p. (In Russian)

Hegel G. W. F. Estetika [Lectures on Esthetics]: in 4 vols. Vol. 3. Moscow Iskusstvo Publ. 1971. 569 p. (In Russian)

Bibikhin V. V. Vvedenie v filosofiiu prava [Introduction to philosophy of right]. Moscow Institute of Philosophy Publ. 2005. 138 p. (In Russian)

Agamben G. Homo sacer. Suverennaia vlast’ i golaia zhizn’ [Homo sacer. Sovereign power and bare life]. Moscow Evropa Publ. 2011. 256 p. (In Russian)

Zedlmayr H. Utrata serediny [Art in crisis: The lost center]. Moscow Progress-Traditsiia Publ. 2008. 640 p. (In Russian)

Panofsky E. Perspektiva kak «simvolicheskaia forma» [Perspective as symbolic form]. Moscow Azbuka Klaccika Publ. 2004. 336 p. (In Russian)

Demus O. Mozaiki vizantiyskikh khramov. Printsipy monumental’nogo iskusstva Vizantii [Byzantine mosaic decoration: aspects of monumental art in Byzantium]. Moscow Indrik Publ. 2001. 160 p. (In Russian)

Likhachev D. S. Russkie letopisi i ikh kul’turno-istoricheskoe znachenie [Russian manuscripts and their cultural and historical significance]. Moscow Leningrad Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR Publ. 1947. 492 p. (In Russian)

Sokolov M. N. Printsip raia. Glavy ob ikonologii sada parka i prekrasnogo vida [The principle of Eden. Chapters on iconology of garden park and belleview]. Moscow Progress-Traditsiia Publ. 2011. 704 p.(In Russian)

Florenskii P. A. priest. Obratnaia perspektiva [Inverse perspective]. Florenskii P. A. priest. Sochinenia [Works]: in 4 vols. vol. 3 (1). Moscow Mysl Publ.1990 pp. 46–99. (In Russian)

Raushenbakh B. V. Prostranstvennye postroeniia v zhivopisi [Spatial composition in painting]. Moscow Nauka Publ. 1980. 288 p. (In Russian)

Uspenskii L. A. Bogoslovie ikony pravoslavnoi tserkvi [Theology of Orthodox icon]. Nizhniy Novgorod: Izdatel’stvo bratstva vo imya svyatogo knyazya Aleksandra Nevskogo Publ. 1997. 475 p. (In Russian)