{Uncertain Dates}[21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:286][19910221:1142o]{Uncertain Dates}[21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

E[ncyclopaedia] B[ritannica] 2:401 gives the conversion to Christianity of Clovis, the Merovingian king of the Franks, at 493 +3 years + 2 years ie c[irca] 498[ce].

E[ncyclopaedia] B[ritannica] 25:335 gives his baptism in 506[ce].

E[ncyclopaedia] B[ritannica] 19:449 gives his baptism in 496 or 506, and explains the uncertainty.

All the same, the moral must be that dates up to at least 1024CE should be treated with caution.

[PostedBlogger18092023]

Irish Art [continued (3)][21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:285][19910221:1142n] Irish Art [continued (3)][21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘Styles in the book [of Kells]* show the wide range of sources at the disposal of Irish scriptoria. The canon tables are related to those used by the Carolingian Palace school; some of the animals are Merovingian derivatives; the vine scrolls come from Northumbria; the Black Devil in the Temptation is a Byzantine version; and the iconography of the Virgin and Child comes from Coptic or Armenian prototypes.’

**

*[Square brackets per ms indicating insertion in ms]

**– ibid [Encylopaedia of Visual Art 3:] 397

[A photocopy inserted at ms p285 (immediately following this entry) is captioned: ‘The Cross of Muirdach, Clonmacnoise, the west side showing the Crucifixion in the center of the cross’ – E[ncylopaedia of] V[isual] A[rt] 3:396]

[PostedBlogger15for17092023]

Irish Art [continued][21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:284][19910221:1142m] Irish Art [continued][21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘It is to the fields of metalwork and manuscript illumination that the epithet “Golden Age” truly refers. Ancient Celtic designs deriving from the LaTène period, consisting of abstract whorls and spirals,* remained a hallmark of Early Irish art (see Celtic Art)’

**

*(See illus[tration] from The book of Durrow, 1^st folio of St. Mark’s Gospel, – E[ncylopaedia of] V[isual] A[rt] 3:393.)

– & fr[om] Lindisfarne Gospels, E[ncylopaedia of] V[isual] A[rt] 3:394

**– E[ncylopaedia of] V[isual] A[rt] 3:392

[continued]

[PostedBlogger15for16092023]

Irish Art{: Celtic Crosses}[21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:284-285][19910221:1142l] Irish Art{: Celtic Crosses}[21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘Around a monastic compound there were usually several large stone crosses. It is possible that services were held in front of such crosses rather than inside the compound’s tiny chapel. The earliest crosses, at Aglish, Kifountain, and Reask (Kerry), are simply slabs of rock with an incised cross design. Later the slabs were slightly trimmed before being incised, for instance those at Falan Mura (Donegal) and Ballyvourney (Cork). Finally, they emerged in as freestanding crosses with arms joined by a circle. The most striking 8^th-century group is found in south-west Ireland, in the Slievenamon region, with examples at Kilamery, Ahenny, Kilrea, Kilkieran, and Kilklispeen. They are characterised by large rectangular bases, a thick cable outline in relief, indented armpits, and large bosses. The latter are placed where the circle joins the arms, where rivets would be expected in wood or metal constructions. Almost the entire surface is covered by a web of spiral whorls and ribbon interlace. The base of the North Cross at Ahenny bears some processional scenes of men, horses, and a funeral.

[– Encylopaedia of Visual Art 3:392]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger15092023]

{Byzantine Art [continued (8):] Byzantine Art as Religious Expression}[21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:283][19910221:1142k]{Byzantine Art [continued (8):] Byzantine Art as Religious Expression}[21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘Since Byzantine art defies attempts to interpret it in terms of individual genius, renaissance, or distinctive regional schools, it is clear that the art-historical approach to it must be different from that to most Western European art. This is not to deny the importance of individual artists and patrons in its development, but it is to recognise that the opaque quality of this culture was intentional, and needs appreciation. As an art to express Christian dogma in a permanently intelligible form, Byzantine art is unsurpassed. Its importance lies in its positive qualities as religious art. To regard Byzantine art as primarily the carrier of antique art through the Middle Ages would represent a failure to penetrate through it stylistic appearance to its true function as art.’

– ibid [Encylopaedia of Visual Art 3:] 390

[PostedBlogger12for14092023]

{Byzantine Art [continued (7):] Late Byzantine Art}[21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:282][19910221:1142j]{Byzantine Art [continued (7):] Late Byzantine Art}[21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘Late Byzantine Art. The sack of Constantinople 1204 cut short artistic development in the capital. The city never recovered from the depredations of the Latin occupation (1204-61),* when churches were stripped of their physical protection of relics and their physical protection of bead roofing. After the recovery of the city and its rule under the Palaeologan dynasty until its fall to the Turks in 1453, **Constantinople inside its walls remained a partial wilderness of ruins and fields. Only a few of its churches were restored in the early 14^th century, to act as family mausoleums for a small and inter-related aristocracy, *** and received an expensive mosaic and marble decoration. After the civil wars of the mid 14^th century,**** further economic decline set in while intellectuals consciously watched the decline and fall of the Empire.

‘Yet the period of Byzantine painting after 1204* is one of major achievement in the history of European painting. Examples of painting in the “Agitated” style continue to occur in the 13^th century, but the best work is painted in a quite different manner, in which the figures are calm, softly modelled, and three dimensional.’

#

‘...There is an implication that Byzantine art could flourish without the stable central stimulus of Constantinople. Probably this is because the late 12^th century was also a period of decentralisation.’

#

*2048J~1280CE

**(2048G~1536CE)

***[sic]

****{2048J~1280

(But nearing end of Byz[antine] cycle)}

#– ibid [Encylopaedia of Visual Art 3:] 388

[continued]

[PostedBlogger12for13092023]

{Byzantine Art [continued (6):] Byzantine Agitated Style}[21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:281][19910221:1142i]{Byzantine Art [continued (6):] Byzantine Agitated Style}[21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘There is a distinctive style found throughout the Byzantine world (and in the West) which is so consciously artificial as to suggest that its popularity was due to public appreciation, rather than its expressiveness. This late-12th-century* development is one particularly conspicuous to modern scholarship, in which it is variously described as “the Monreale style”, the Dynamic style”, “the Agitated style”, “the Storm style”, or even as “Byzantine rococo”.** At its best, as, for example, in the Monreale mosaics of the 1180s, this stylistic mode was effective as a means of expression. The perceptions of the observer were stimulated not only by the garments of the figures drawn with convoluted, fluttering folds, but by the integration of figure groups into a complex mass of overlapping bodies, often placed in a setting in depth suggested by landscape or architecture, though the elements are never aligned from a single viewpoint. Furthermore, the scenes are not always composed as a series of single units, but, when possible, a whole wall was laid out with the various compositions set in harmony or counterpoint.’

***

*2048J~1280CE

**{cf [[Redbook8:312][19910306:0930s]{Romanesque Art [continued (15)}[6th March 1991],] 312 (Romanesque);

IX: [] 298 (Baroque)}

***– ibid [Encylopaedia of Visual Art 3:] 386

[continued]

[PostedBlogger12092023]

{Byzantine Art [continued (5):] The 12th century Byzantine “Renaissance”}[21st February 1991]

[Redbook8:280][19910221:1142i]{Byzantine Art [continued (5):] The 12^th century Byzantine “Renaissance”}[21st February 1991]

19910221.1142

[continued]

‘... 12^th century “Renaissance”. As usual, the term seems acceptable only as a characterisation and recognition of a high quality execution of a mode ultimately deriving from Antiquity. The actual source of inspiration for the artist of Daphni seems to be relatively recent....’*

‘The highest achievement of this period is the fresco decoration of the church of S. Pantaleimon at Nerezi, near Skopje (Yugoslavia), which is dated by an inscription to 1164. The workshop,** commissioned by a member of the Comnene family, is marked by its interest in narrative. Such scenes as the Deposition of Christ and the Lamentation over the body of Christ*** succeed in conveying to the spectator a real impression of the emotions of the participants. This is achieved by both composition and the individual expressions of the figures. This 12th-century movement in art cannot be explained simply by postulating a direct study of surviving antique art. It may document both a social change in Byzantine religious experience and also the development of a greater artistic individualism. It is at any rate notable that in the 12^th century**** more Byzantine artists began to sign their work and to gain some social notoriety.’#

#*

*[– Encylopaedia of Visual Art 3:383]

**[sic]

***(See illus[tration] E[ncylopaedia of] V[isual] A[rt] 3:383)

****2048A~-J~

cf? 1100-900BCE (2048A~-J~) Protogeometric Period – Reworking of old forms and patterns with new precision and eye for proportion and design: beginnings of Greek classical art. The point is not the direct comparision with 12^th c[entury] Byzantine art but of the relationship of each of these periods with the major artistic phase of the 2048G~ff period following, ie Greek Classical art and the European Renaissance respectively.

#{cf IX: [] 143-4 (Islamic art, 16th-17th c[enturies]}

#*– ibid [Encylopaedia of Visual Art 3:] 383-4

[continued]

[PostedBlogger11092023]

{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]

{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]