{Byzantine Art [continued (4)]}[21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:278-279][19910221:1142h]{Byzantine Art [continued (4)]}[21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘It must be admitted that Byzantine patrons failed to develop any critical language in which to characterise their art. Their unchanging use of classical terms may have promoted the continuing repetition of classical motives and settings, but since there is a dislocation between the superficial appearance of this art and its underlying purpose, it is difficult to accept the characterisation of any period, including that of *the Macedonian Emperors, as one of “Renaissance”. Unlike Western Europe, Byzantium hardly stood in such a relation to Antiquity that it could rediscover its values after their loss because of a period of discontinuity. Because of this it might be argued that the history of Byzantine art is one of a decline from the achievements of Greek art. The view accepted here is that it may be interpreted as a positive successor to both Greek and Roman art, and that it was perhaps the most successful religious figurative art at portraying a belief in the overwhelming power of the divine over mankind. The religious content of their art apparently inhibited Byzantine spectators from developing an analytical appreciation of form.’

**

*843-1025/1056(?)CE

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

[following directly on from text quoted in last previous entry]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger10092023]