Please explain Byzantine art

[White_Russian]

Now that I know all about the Pallium, can anybody enlighten me as to the Byzantine form of art. What are the reasons for that art form? Did the early Eastern Church lose the classical Greek form or repress it as “paganistic” as one of my college professors said? He said it was one-dimensional because the Christian Church was one-dimensional repressive. This is the kind of propaganda that colleges spewed out when I was there and today it is more pronounced.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

White Russian, what you asked is a complex question which few people on earth are qualified to answer. To some degree Christians themselves gradually repressed the naturalistic form as a way of rejecting pagan lifestyle, than as a result of combination of repression of naturalism in the church images as well as gradual collapse of artistic training along with collapse of advanced roman secular artwork there became less ability of artists to use naturalism.
( Though this can be said much more so in the west than the east. Though if you look at secular art in the east it tended to be quite dismal by the year 1100 whereas up to 800 AD it still competed with antiquity

Also the period of iconoclasm (730-787 AD) changed not only western images but eastern images as well. Only after iconoloclasm did naturalism in church images tend to gradually decline to its lowest point ever, while increasing again by 1200 both in east and west. I suggest you look at 6 books in the following order:

# 1 “Likeness and Presence; A History of the Image before the Era of Art” by Hans Belting

# 2 “The Pictorial Arts of the West, 800-1200 by C.R. Dodwell”

3 The Glory of Byzantium; Arts and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261 (2000)​

4 Early Christian Iconography and A School of Ivory Carvers in Provence by Earl Baldwin (1918).pdf​

[

5 “Ars Sacra 800-1200 by Peter Lasko”](Ars Sacra New Edition: Second Edition - Peter Lasko - Google Books)​

6 “Byzantine Art in the Collections of Soviet Museums by Alice Bank” (1978)​

as is said in the transaltion from Fr. Braun, the pallium in the West from the beginnig had precisely the opposite meaning -
it was by right only worn by the Pope, not by Bishops, who were only allowed to wear it by papal concession, signifying their bond to the See of Peter. With the metropolitans it symbolised the partaking in the plenitudo pontificalis officii entrusted to them in the name of the pope for their province.

The interesting thing is that almost all the images of bishops that I have observed from the years 800-1200 show them wearing palliums.

Either I am witnessing images consistently of metropolitans and priviledged roman-friendly bishops or else their must have already been by this time an idea that the pallium was something so common that it could be worn by any latin bishop?

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

[Abbot] Desiderius, who was anxious to develop Montecassino as a centre of culture, drew to himself writers such as Albericus, whose poetical themes in some ways anticipate those of Dante, and Alphanus, who translated Nemesius of Euresa from the Greek, as well as scientists such as Constantinus of Africa, whose translations from the Arabic influenced the future course of medical science. But most important for us was his patronage of art and artists. He threw all his considerable energies into the renovationn, rebuilding, and embellishment of the churches beloning to Montecassino, and not least into an ambitious transformation of the monastic basilica itself, which was described by no less a personage than the Byzantine emperor as ‘the most celebrated and famous church… praised … in the West as well as the East’. It was to Constantinople that Desiderius turned for both his bronze doors and - as we have seen - for mosaicists both to embellish his church and to train his monks in their craft. We cannot do better than to turn once again to Leo of Ostia’s famous account of this important undertaking:

He [Desiderius] sent envoys to Constantinople to hire craftsmen skilled in the arts of mosaic and of stone-cutting, of whom the ones were to decorate the apse, the arch, and narthex of the main basilica with mosaics, while others would lay the pavement of the entire church using stone of different varieties. The degree of perfection that had been attained by the masters of these arts who were then despatched to him can be judged from their works: for in the mosaics you would almost suppose you were looking at living figures and all sorts of plant-life, while in the marble pavement you might think that flowers of every colour bloomed in lovely variety. And seeing that western Christendom had lost the talent for these arts for five hundred years and more, and was now, thanks to his efforts and God’s help, in a position to recover it in our time, in order that it might not suffer further demise in Italy this man of utmost foresight took care to have several of the boys of the monastery assiduously instructed in the same arts. And from among his own monks he prepared for himself the keenest of craftsman, not only in these, but in all branches of workmanship that can be accomplished with gold and silver, with bronze, with iron, with glass, with ivory, with wood, with gypsum and with stone.

 

[White_Russian]

White Russian, what you asked is a complex question which few people on earth are qualified to answer. To some degree Christians themselves gradually repressed the naturalistic form as a way of rejecting pagan lifestyle, than as a result of combination of repression of naturalism in the church images as well as gradual collapse of artistic training along with collapse of advanced roman secular artwork there became less ability of artists to use naturalism.
( Though this can be said much more so in the west than the east. Though if you look at secular art in the east it tended to be quite dismal by the year 1100 whereas up to 800 AD it still competed with antiquity

Fantastic. Thank you. Yes, you are right, it is a complex question. When I visited the Vatican Museum, our guide, an art history major, compared the pre-Christian Roman sculptures with the scultpures of the 3rd to 5th century and she noted that there was a decline of quality. But she gave no explanation as the cause of the decline. However when I was in the Holy Land and spoke with one of the Greek Orthodox priests, he said the art form was deliberative in the same way that Western churches used stained glass – to instruct those that could not read. He said the big eyes look for the spiritual and the big ears are for listening to the Word of God. He said it was not to repress paganism but to “preach.” I remember one of the nuns saying “our eyes are the window of the soul.” Thank you. I am auditing an art history class the Fall semester and I will certainly save this

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Well the idea of naturalistic art is more concerned with this world.

The idea with ancient christian/current eastern catholic/orthodox iconography is to have images which reflect the limitations of this world.

The idea is to have a christian image be something coming from heaven from a world which we have limitations in understanding…This will naturally encourage more prayer it is a whole important mentality.

If you look at the earliest christian images they do come from the funerary artwork which was done in egypt (where most examples probably survive from) and eventually throughout the entire church. if you look on my page you can see a fine example of a western tomb with mosaic from Carthage on the “Last Christians of North Africa” post. Tarragona, Spain also has a few obscure suviving examples in its cemetery.

Remember also that many times things in churches are done for practical reasons relating to the time period and only later when circumstances change do they come up with defenses or explanations for why a practice continues.

ordoromanusprimus.wordpress.com/

 

[prodromos]

Now that I know all about the Pallium, can anybody enlighten me as to the Byzantine form of art. What are the reasons for that art form? Did the early Eastern Church lose the classical Greek form or repress it as “paganistic” as one of my college professors said? He said it was one-dimensional because the Christian Church was one-dimensional repressive. This is the kind of propaganda that colleges spewed out when I was there and today it is more pronounced.

I’ve seen examples of most elements of Byzantine icons in pre-christian Greek art. I believe it is simply a case of the Church using what was suitable for its purposes and leaving aside that which was not, in the same manner as the eight modes of Byzantine Chant were chosen from among the many other modes which were in use throughout the empire.
The purpose of both includes to teach truth, to lift our spirits towards the heavens without inflaming the passions and to fill the Church with beauty. Just as certain kinds of music would not be appropriate in worship, so too some kinds of imagery are not necessarily appropriate or suitable. As St Basil instructed his students with regards to reading the Ancient Greek philosophers, we only take the honey, using only that which is beneficial and leaving aside that which can distract or lead us astray.

John.