|
For centuries medieval Christian art — architecture, painting, poetry, music — was ignored or misinterpreted, was regarded as a lower, almost barbaric form of art. Although this attitude has changed in recent times, still medieval Christian art has not been properly understood and hence sufficiently appreciated. This is especially true of Byzantine art, the art that flourished in the Byzantine Empire from the fourth to the fifteenth century, and which down to the present day has been the art of the Greek Orthodox Church.
Panayiotis A. Michelis, professor of theory of architecture at the National Technical University at Athens and foremost modern Greek aesthetician, undertakes an aesthetic analysis and justification of Byzantine art in his book An Aesthetic Approach to Byzantine Art.[1] Byzantium has been condemned as "artistically inferior and sterile," says Michelis. But this charge, he holds, is very unjust. Byzantium was artistically very creative and its works of art are equal to those that have been produced by other great civilizations. Michelis undertakes to prove this by examining Byzantine architecture and painting with the technical equipment of modern aesthetics. He suggests that the same could be shown by examining the other arts of Byzantium, especially its religious music and poetry.
Let us see how Michelis proceeds to develop his argument. He begins by pointing out that in order to determine whether or not the art of a particular place or epoch is outstanding, we must judge it by the proper criteria. If our criteria are not appropriate, then our judgments will be amiss. This is what has occurred in the case of most modern aestheticians who have expressed their opinions on Byzantine art and, more generally, on the art of the Middle Ages. Byzantine art and medieval Christian art in general had for centuries been regarded "as inferior and not worthy of being called art in comparison with the art of Classical Antiquity, the art of the Italian Renaissance, and the subsequent art of the Neoclassical period." Moliere, for example, called the Gothic cathedrals "horrible monsters of ignorant centuries." Hegel characterized Byzantine painting as lifeless and of inferior craftsmanship, while Vischer stigmatized the figures depicted in Byzantine icons as "mummies." Why? Because, says Michelis, they judged them by the criteria of the humanistic mentality. They thought that all works of art must fit in the same mold. Whatever did not fit in it they rejected. For them a work that did not conform to the requirements of classical art was not a work of art.[2]
Michelis undertakes to vindicate Byzantine art on the basis of a well-defined system of aesthetic categories. He maintains that the misinterpretation of Byzantine art is due to the recognition of only one basic aesthetic category, that of beauty, of which the other aesthetic categories, such as grace and sublimity, are only "modes." It is not true that there exists only one aesthetic category: there exist six. These are the beautiful, the sublime, the tragic, the comic, the ugly, and the graceful. That is, "every artistic synthesis has a specific character: we call the work beautiful, sublime, tragic, comic, ugly, or graceful." This specific character is termed an "aesthetic category."
Of these aesthetic categories, the sublime and the beautiful are basic, opposed, and equal in value. The other four participate essentially in one or the other or both of these.
Now Byzantine art is dominated by the category of the sublime. And since this is basically different from the category of the beautiful, when a person criticizes Byzantine art because it lacks the beauty that characterizes the works of Classical Antiquity or of the Italian Renaissance, he commits a basic fallacy.
The study of the history of art, says Michelis, shows that there are three kinds of epochs, and that each of these is dominated by one definite aesthetic category. There are anthropocentric epochs, that is, epochs in which man dominates the scene. There are other epochs, which are theocentric, where there is a domination of the Divine. And there are epochs that are transitional. "Each transitional period . . . from theocentrism towards anthropocentrism humanizes the gods. And every transitional epoch from anthropocentrism towards theocentrism deifies men, and thus prepares psychologically for the turn to its antithesis." Now the anthropocentric epochs are dominated by the category of the beautiful; the theocentric, by the category of the sublime; and the transitional, by the category of grace. These epochs succeed one another. Epochs which are dominated by the categories of the tragic, the comic, or the ugly do not exist.
All this Michelis attempts to prove both inductively and deductively. He holds that Greek Antiquity was an anthropocentric period, and that its art expresses chiefly the beautiful. The same is true of the Renaissance. The Medieval period was theocentric, and its chief aesthetic category was the sublime. It was preceded and accompanied by a Rococo period, which was dominated by the category of grace. Underlying this argument is the thesis that there is an essential relation between the religious and philosophical outlook of an age and its art. Michelis maintains that art expresses in aesthetic symbols man's ideas and experiences regarding the great problems of God, Man, and the Cosmos; and its development follows fatefully the upward or downward course of these ideas and experiences.
Let us now see what sublimity is and how, as the dominant aesthetic category of Byzantium, it expresses the ideas and the experiences of the Byzantines regarding the great problems. What the "sublime" is can be understood better by comparing it with the "beautiful." The difference between the beautiful and the sublime can be explained in two ways: we can either indicate the respective intrinsic qualities of the beautiful and the sublime, or we can describe how the aesthetically sensitive person reacts towards them. If we examine works expressing these two categories, we shall see that in the beautiful there is a primacy of form, of measure, of the static, of quality, of the synthesis of antitheses, whereas in the sublime there is a primacy of the formless, of the unmeasured, of the dynamic, of quantity, of the resolution of antitheses. If, on the other hand, we turn our attention to our responses to these two categories, we shall observe the following. Towards the beautiful we feel serenity; towards the sublime, exaltation. Towards the beautiful we feel delight; towards the sublime, wonder. Again, the beautiful appeals more to our intellectual side; the sublime, more to our emotional side. Finally, the beautiful leads us towards the outer world; the sublime, towards the inner world.
Byzantine art, says Michelis, as Christian art par excellence,[3] is dominated by the category of the sublime. The Byzantines were Christians, and their Christianity was deep. The religious lyricism of the Byzantines overflowed their souls, because "both collectively and individually they raised their souls towards heaven. They believed in transcendent realities, in Divine persons, in the holy history, in the miraculous, as though these were the only reality." Their Christianity was directed inwards, was mystical. It was not a religion of the external, material world, but a religion of the inner, spiritual world. Important for them was not life here, but the life beyond this. Earthly life was for them "but a trial journey."
Fig. 1 Hagia Sphia
532-7. South View. Constantinople.
Photo: Constantine Cavarnos. Courtesy of the author.
Fig.2 Saints Theodore
XIth century. West View. Athens.
Photo: Constantine Cavarnos. Courtesy of the author.
Now Byzantine art employs various means in order to express the religious faith of the Byzantines and their aspiration towards the Divine. In architecture it succeeds in doing this through the proper use of space and light. The Byzantine architect was more concerned with the decoration of the interior of the church than with that of the exterior. Externally the Byzantine church is relatively plain, free of all superfluity, while inside it has an unsurpassed wealth of decoration. (See Figs. 1, 2.) As a Christian church, it "could not be, like the temple of the heathens, a dwelling of a god according to the prototype of the dwellings of men, that is, a mansion built out of marble, but had to become a miniature of the universe, because in it dwells the one and only God." The Byzantine architect succeeded in producing such an effect (a) by employing the principle of dematerialization - concealing the masses, polishing the surfaces or perforating them so that they looked like embroidery (e.g. the capitals, the lintels, etc.), and making many of the surfaces curved, causing by these means the materials to lose their heaviness and crassness (See Fig. 3); (b) by emphasizing the length and height of the building, unifying the inner space; and (c) by making proper use of sunlight. In the case of the basilica, there is a graded towering of the three or five roofs, and an intense illumination at the nave, producing a sense of religious exaltation. (See Figs. 4, 5.) In the case of the domed church, a similar effect is produced by the gradual rise of the vaults that support the dome and the piercing of the dome with windows. This upward movement "raises the gaze and the spirit of the spectator towards the light. Thus, in a likeness of the universe, the infinite but unified space is clearly exhibited as a bearer of the sublime idea of the omnipresent Divine Spirit." (See Fig. 6.)
In iconography, likewise, the Byzantines emphasized spirituality. By covering up with clothes the anatomically distorted body, by the stiffness of the representations, by the indifference to the ugliness of a person's characteristic features, the Byzantine painter accentuates "the inwardness of the representations and impresses the spectator with the idea that these beings have forgotten their body.... The icon painter is not afraid to distort the natural proportions of the body, to exaggerate the size of some parts and diminish that of others, because in this way he expresses inner qualities. He is indifferent to the correct proportions of the boay, to the outer form of man, because he wants chiefly to represent the inner man. All the expression of the soul is concentrated in the face. "The interest of the onlooker is withdrawn from the body and focused on the face and especially on the eyes.... Here are expressed the virtues of meekness, humility, purity, spiritual love and wisdom, and so on. (See Figs. 7, 8.)
Fig. 6 Hagia Sophia
Constantinople (Drawing by Gaspard Fossati, 1852).
Photo: Courtesy of the author.
Byzantine art, says Michelis, does not express simply Christianity; it expresses the Hellenic conception of Christianity. This can be seen by a comparison of Byzantine with classical Greek art on the one hand and Gothic art on the other. Ancient Greek art is characterized by simplicity, clarity, idealism; Gothic art, by complexity, lack of clarity, uniqueness of form. Now Byzantine art does not lapse into complexity: it has simplicity. Nor does it lapse into vagueness: it has clarity. And it combines uniqueness of form with idealism: it has measure and rhythm. Both Byzantine and Gothic art express the sublime, but they do so differently: Byzantine art blends the sublime, which it took from the East, 'from Christianity, with the beautiful, which it inherited from Greece, whereas Gothic art expresses the sublime without the beautiful.
Fig. 7 St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nizianzen. Detail.
Middle of the Xvth century. Fresco in the eastern apse of the Church of
Kaisariani, near Athens.
Photo: Constantine Cavarnos. Courtesy of the author.
But is it possible for a work of art to express simultaneously the two fundamental and opposed aesthetic categories, the sublime and the beautiful, without being deprived of organic unity, without becoming falsified? Michelis anticipates this objection and provides an affirmative answer. A work of art, he says, can unite in itself elements or characteristics of different aesthetic categories, provided it is dominated by one aesthetic category. Byzantine art has the marks of the beautiful, but it is dominated by the category of the sublime. In this resides its originality.
This answer does not seem to me sufficient. I would add the following explanation. The "sublime" and the "beautiful" are not two fundamentally different aesthetic categories if considered formally, but only if considered materially, that is, with respect to the level of being they represent. By the "sublime" is meant inner or spiritual beauty, and by the "beautiful" is meant outer or physical beauty. Both are distinguished by the same formal characteristics: simplicity, measure, clarity, harmony, and the like. Spiritual beauty differs from physical beauty in that it belongs to a higher level of being than the latter. To use the language of Plato, spiritual beauty belongs to the level of intelligible things or true being, whereas physical beauty belongs to the level of sensible things or phenomena.
It is worth noting that Michelis himself sometimes employs the term "inner beauty" or similar expressions to refer to the sublime, and contrasts this beauty with that which is "outer." Refferring, for instance, to the first Christians, he observes that "the spell of outer form stopped the moment when human nature was discovering another beauty within it." And elsewhere he remarks that in Byzantine iconography "facial ugliness is not avoided, but utilized whenever the supremacy of the beauty of the soul is thereby emphasized...." In such cases "ugliness plays the role of repelling us momentarily, yet by this very fact compelling us to take note of the expression of inner beauty."
Fig. 8 St. Barlaam. Detail
1566. Fresco in the narthex of the Church of All Saints,
Monastery of Barlaam, Meteora.
Photo: Pericles Papahatzidakis. Courtesy of the author.
The distinction between inner or spiritual beauty and outer or physical beauty is far from being new. It is encountered in many religious, philosophical, and other writings of Antiquity and the Medieval period. The view that spiritual beauty or the sublime is superior to physical beauty is closely connected with this distinction, and is implicit in the view that the soul is superior to the body and that God is superior to the physical world. '
Now if we take seriously the distinction between spiritual and physical beauty, we must, I submit, go beyond Michelis in giving Byzantine art its proper place in the history of art. If it is true that spiritual beauty or the sublime is a value superior to physical beauty, and that-as Michelis argues and as I am convincedByzantine art has as its direct aim to express the sublime and succeeds in this aim to a superlative degree, then we are led to the - conclusion that Byzantine art is not simply equal in value to the art of Classical Antiquity and of the Renaissance, but is superior.
Certain other considerations lead us to the same conclusion. Examining Byzantine art from the standpoint of aesthetics, Michelis dwells upon the aesthetic experience that Byzantine art elicits, not upon the effects it has on the moral and spiritual nature of man. Now Byzantine writers such as John Damascene, Theodore the Studite, Symeon of Thessaloniki and many others, looking at art from a psychological and religious rather than from an aesthetic standpoint, while recognizing the aesthetic experience evoked by Byzantine churches and icons, regarded this experience as something secondary. For them these sacred art objects have an additional value, far more important than aesthetic experience. This value resides in the effects these objects have upon the moral and spiritual nature of those who contemplate them. The church building and the icon are regarded not merely as objects that delight us, but rather as vivid reminders of a reality beyond themselves, of things transcendent, supernatural, and as potent aids for our inner purification and transformation. The important thing about a church for the Byzantines is the fact that its form and beauty are such that they remind us of Heaven, of God, and of the soul as a temple of God to be made pure and to be adorned with every virtue. Similarly, the important thing about icons is that they cause us to recall the sacred persons and events depicted, and the truths of Christian religion, thereby arousing our moral and spiritual zeal, and reinforcing our efforts to imitate the sacred persons and live in the light of religious truth.4 Classical and Renaissance art lack this important property. Such art evokes delight, aesthetic experience, but does not lead us beyond nature to the plane of spiritual reality, and thus fails to effect a transformation of our inner being. '
______________
Footnotes
1. London, Batsford, 1955. In writing this paper in 1952 I made use of the original Greek edition, entitled Aisthetike Theorese tes Byzantines Technes (Athens, 1946).
2. Cf. Santayana, The Sense of Beauty, New York, 1896, p.109, where he refers to Byzantine architecture as “vague and barbarous” compared with classical Greek architecture. Herbert Read expresses the opinion that “it is Gibbon, with his inability to appreciate Christian values, who more than anyone else has retarded the true appreciation of Byzantine art” (The Meaning of Art, New York, 1951, pp. 116-117).
3. Cf. Read: “Byzantine art…is the purest form of religious art that Christianity has experienced” (op. cit., p. 117).
4. For an extensive treatment of the subject see my study “Iconographic Decoration in the Orthodox Church,” in The Orthodox Ethos, ed. By A.J. Philippou, 1964.
________________
Constantine Cavarnos, PhD is the founder of the Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies (IBMGS). He is a scholar of Byzantine arts, religion and Classical philosophy. His many book titles on these subjects include: Byzantine Sacred Art, Aristotle's Theory of Fine Arts, Plato's Theory of Fine Art, and Meetings With Kontoglou. The present article is Chapter 5 of his book, Byzantine Thought and Art. It has been republished here with permission of the author.
Dr. Cavarnos may be contacted through the IBMGS at:
115 Gilbert Road, Belmont, MA 02178
For a full list of Dr. Cavarnos' books/writings, visit the IBMGS website at:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ibmgs/art.htm
|
|
