{Byzantine Art [continued (3)]}[21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:278][19910221:1142g]{Byzantine Art [continued (3)]}[21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘The perpetual emphasis of Classical art criticism had been on the appreciation of the lifelike representation of figures. From this tradition the Byzantine intellectuals were conditioned to use the same concepts and vocabulary when referring to their own art. Photius in his homily inaugurating the apse mosaic of S. Sophia, incredibly to modern eyes, describes the virgin as “lifelike”.* Byzantine artists may have continued to work within the conventions and formulae** of Classical style, but they should be credited with the transformation of this tradition into a Christian art which rejected illusionism for its own sake and used the human figure to express abstract dogma rather than the purely narrative.***

****

*[A photocopy inserted at ms p279 (immediately following the next entry) is captioned: ‘Virgin and Child, in the conch of the apse of S. Sophia, Istanbul, late 9^th century’ – E[ncylopaedia of] V[isual] A[rt] 3:378, against which is written the following marginal note: {I hate to say it, in the circumstances, but this one reminds me of the Princess of Wales....}]

**{NB}

******{ie idealised art appropriate to M~ff? (or even U~ff?)

(See IX: [[Redbook9:124-125][19910415:0840aa]{Visual Arts [continued –] Art Cycles (1)}[15th April 1991]] 125,

[[Redbook9:133][19910420#]{Visual Arts [continued –] Art Cycles (2)}[20th April 1991],] 133)

(& IX: [[Redbook9:9][19910326:2315b]{Fascism and Art [(1)]}[26th March 1991],] 9,

[[Redbook9:19][19910331:1706b]{Fascism and Art (2)}[31st March 1991],] 19)

[Underlining in ts represents marginal vertical line added highlighting ms text]

****[– ibid (Encylopaedia of Visual Art 3:) 380]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger08for09092023]