Brick by brick: Textuality and Texturality in the Architecture during the Age of King Milutin,...

206

Brick by Brick: Texturality in the ArchitectureDuring the Age of king Milutin

Jasmina S. Ćirić*

The analysis of buildings of the late 13th and 14th century monumental architec-ture helps us to assemble a cohesive group of churches sited primarily in distant Constantinople, Thessaloniki and Serbia. Architecture during the reign of King

Milutin has traditionally formed the connective tissue in constructing a corpus of related monuments in the region. In this paper, however there are examined various aspects of the facade ornaments, its placement and meaning during the patronage of King Milutin or pre-cisely addressed: question of textuality/texturality of facades in time in question and how monumental decoration in Thessaloniki’s churches may have been connected to a represen-tation of specific theological subjects represented with architectural devices.1 Direction of King Milutin’s state to Byzantium strongly influenced the monumental architecture. The re-ception of the model was given a symbolic meaning, which means that it should be included in a long-accepted notion of architectural iconography. In this sense, the ratio of building

1 * Jasmina S. Ćirić, Research Assistant, Institute for Art History, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bel-grade, Serbia; [email protected] This article is written within the framework of two projects: “Christian culture on the Balkans in Middle Ages: Byzantium, Serbs and Bulgars from 9th to 15th century“ (177015) and “Medieval Art in Serbia and its European context“ (177036) financed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia. The article was read on the conference conference «Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs» held 28 – 30th November 2013 at the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thes-saloniki.My most profound gratitude goes to Dr Slobodan Ćurčić, professor emeritus for providing me fruitful discus-sion during the conference «Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs» on the general idea of exterior interpretation of the walls in the age of King Milutin.

Cyril and Methodius: ByzantiuM and the World of the slavs (thessaloniKi 2015): pp. 206-214

207

towards the model produced specific architectural solutions. At the end of the 13th century certain brickwork irradiation of Constantinopolitan and Thessalonians aesthetics were trans-lated in Serbia during the reign of King Milutin and certainly in a later period during the 14th century.2 It is previously concluded in architectural historiography of this period, that in Thessaloniki external decoration was approached in a different way and that “In some monu-ments of Thessaloniki such as the church of H. Apostoloi and H. Aikaterini there can be seen certain basic features belonging to Constantinople.3

Nevertheless, in terms of architectural and artistic praxis it may not be justified the usage of the term secondity or secondicity of Thessaloniki but synchronicity. Not necessary to remind that in the foci are not dependence, nor repetition or usage of the so called Macedonian dome or Thessalonian dome,4 questions which could be in addition discussed in order of intentional symmetry or asymmetry,5 but the same theological background recognized and put in the language of exterior décor and narrative interaction.

Recognizing the manifold ways in which narrative and space interact is fundamental to our understanding of narrative depictions, spatial turn and architectural representations. Therefore the process of recognizing of upmost importance is: the sphere of sensitivity of methodological devices operated by researcher, and the fact that, in historiography, dedicated to the Byzantine society, architectural decoration made by brick has so far not been observed from the proposed vantage points of narration of visual exegesis.6 Understanding the original context for any specific place, building or object is impossible due to the limits of our own modern/contemporary perspective. Subjectivity must be integrated within the practices of scholarship and should inform any general truths we attempt to gain from the analysis of par-ticulars. Our work can thus aim at an inter-locative engagement with the material of study, situating our own position in relation to that of other times and places and remaining open to the multiple voices and narratives that emerge from such an approach. How accessible are general truths before falling into the danger of over-essentializing? And third, the importance of situating our own subjectivity – acknowledging our relative position vis-à-vis the subject

2 P. L. Vocotopoulos, «The role of Constantinopolitan Architecture during the Middle and Late Byzantine Period», Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/2 (1981), 556, 557; S. Ćurčić, «The Role of Byz-antine Thessalonike in Church Architecture in the Balkans»,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003), 65-84. 3 G. Velenis, «Building techniques and external decoration during the 14th century in Macedonia», L’art de Thessalonique et des pays bakaniques et les courants spirituelles au XIVe siècle, Belgrade 1987, 95.4 Velenis, «Building techniques», 99.5 On the idea of asymmetry: B. Cvetkovic,« Intentional Asymmetry in Byzantine Imagery: The Commu-nion of the Apostles in St. Sophia of Ochrid and later instances», Byzantion 76 (2006), 74-96.6 K. Tsoures, O κεραμοπλαστικός διάκοσμος των υστεροβυζαντινών μνημείων της βορειοδυτικής Ελλάδος, Καβάλα 1988; Ch. Bouras, Master craftsmen, craftsmen and building activities in Byzantium, The economic history of Byzantium, ed. A. E. Laiou, Washington, DOS XXXIX, 539-554;

JAsMINA s. ĆIrIĆ: BrIcK BY BrIcK: TExTurAlITY IN THE ArcHITEcTurE DurINg THE AgE Of KINg MIluTIN

208

matter (or material substance) that we seek to understand or contextualize historically. It is impossible to place ourselves in the past through scholarly effort alone and it is important to remember that materiality as a point of entry does not transcend the limits of any religion or ideology. As a methodology and/or theoretical approach, focusing on material form does not erase our own creed(s).

It is scholarly known, that King Milutin succeded to conquer the Byzantine territory and gain a considerable part of Byzantium as his own domain in northern Macedonia and made Serbia a great power.7 King Milutin’s usage of art for validating his rule was masterly. He launched a vast program of building activities in architecture on a large scale, both in Serbia, in Greece, Jerusalem and Constantinople.8 The way he manifests himself in royal portraits was an efficient means to proclaim legitimacy, what was recognized as imitatio Constantini.9 In Milutin endowments certainly it is possible to recall elements emanated most likely as Constantinopolitan but synchronously present in Thessaloniki. His imperial allusions as the thirteenth Apostle and Episkopos ton ektos, bishop in external matters are emphasized by Archbishop Danilo II in his work Životi kraljeva I arhiepiskopa srpskih.10 But these ideas are not represented only with king Milutin’s imperial portraits, which nevertheless stay as proof par excellence of pretentions, than exterior architectural decoration which, synchronosly re-call believer’s eye-catching.11

Visual narrative between King Milutin endowments and Thessalonian ones, resists the evi-dentiary sequential models of written narrative. The complex visual structures trouble the linear logic of written text, and have often left modern interpreters in their lack of allegiance to those texts, so in the past we often analyzed sources of the architecture or influences but not the universal message of narrative in architecture, which has very same meaning as fres-coe narrating. It is the practice or art of narration or story-telling by words, paintings and brickwork decoration.12

7 E. Piltz, Kral Milutin and the Paleologan Tradition, Byzantinoslavica LXIX 2011, 173-188.8 B. Todić, Serbian Medieval Painting: The Age of King Milutin, Belgrade 1999.9 S. Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija Nemanjića. Diplomatička studija, Beograd 1997, 287 – 300; V. J. Djurić, «Le nouveau Constantin dans l’art serbe médiéval», Lithostrôton : Studien zur Byzantinischen Kunst und Geschichte : Festschrift für Marcell Restle, Stuttgart/Anton Hiersemann 2000, 55-65.10 Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih. Službe, napisao arhiepiskop Danilo II, prir. Gordon Mak Danijel, Damnjan Petrović ; današnja jezička varijanta Lazar Mirković, Dimitrije bogdanović, damnjan Petrović, Beograd 1988, 109-150 ; I. Mavromatis, La foundation de l’Empire serbe, Le kralj Milutin, Thessalonique 1978, 16sq.11 S. Ćurčić, Gračanica. Istorija i arhitektura, 2nd ed, Beograd 1998, 87-140.12 For narration in wall painting in the age of King Milutin: B. Djurić, «Plato, Plutarch and the Sibyl in the Fresco Decoration of the Episcopal Church of the Virgin Ljeviska in Prizren», Byzantine Narrative. Papers in honour of John Scott, ed. J. Burke, U. Betka, P. Buckley, K. Hay, R. Scott, A. Stephenson, Australian As-sociation for Byzantine Studies, Melbourne 2006, 274 – 283.


209

Repeating or selective replication of specific architectural designs in sacred medieval archi-tecture was the basis for making conclusions about the scope of architectural practice. The formation of the whole was the result of appreciation of the program in important respects, similar to the spiritual and cultural framework within a particular area. Selective replica-tion of parts of earlier models or visual narrative is what Marcus Rautman has convincingly

demonstrated in his examinations of plans of Palaeologan churches in Thessaloniki and aims of ktetors.13

King Milutin also used extensively selective replication in his endowments: interrelations between Staro Nagoričino Church [fig. 01], precisely its façade decoration or precisely said “economia” and most important monuments of that time in Constantinople and Thessaloniki. Questions pertaining to the meaning of the ornaments and its substance became key for understanding the notion of Byzantine art and the way that materials were linked through its transformative forces. What follows is the ‘jargon’ or preferably an attempt of in-terpretation. How to describe the phenomena of architectural narratives made brick by brick?14 Is it adequate to join two monuments: for instance Staro Nagoričino brickwork and St. Elias [fig. 02, 03] or Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki or to connect it with Constantinopolitan streams? Is it adequate to join it with simple ‘and’ as invariable conjunction and non-contrasting joining ideas? Is it possible to understand the nature of relationship suggested and exactly what consti-tutes an exact visual communication of these monuments? For whom these interconnectedness had meaning?

To ponder these concerns attention will be turned to sub-stance of materials used as a fundamental concept in archi-tecture. In the architecture during the reign of King Milutin and generally during the period of Palaiologoi brick was

13 M.L. Rautman, The Church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki: a Study in Early Palaeologian Archi-tecture, UMI 8417210, Ann Arbor MI, 1984, 281sq.14 In Serbian historiography the only one study published with the aim of further examinations of brick and differential brick thermal analysis is: Bricks from serbian medieval monasteries, ed. M. Ristić, S. M. Ćirković, V. R. Korać, Beograd 1989, 80, 81.


210

used extensively as one of the materials for creating of narrative.15 Visual narrative resists the evidentiary sequential models of written narrative. The complex visual structures trouble the linear logic of written text, and have often left modern interpreters frustrated in their lack of allegiance to those texts. Narrative is not only written, it can be spoken as well and the impact of this duality is keenly felt in Byzantine narrative imagery. It is the practice or art of narration or story-telling.16 In attempting to provide a more propositional sense to our un-derstanding of ritual, one approach would be to return to the substance of used materials that stood in for holy places and/or people with a minimum of craftsmanship or human interven-tion, affecting their Like the metonymic link eulogia that bore his imprint, brick and building might correspond to body and soul, informing human experience in ways that similarly range from the intimate and personal to the symbolic and universal form.

Brick as product of dry exaltation of earth17 was the main execution material in several late Byzantine wall structures: Virgin Ljeviška Church, Holy Apostles and Prophet Elijah in Thessaloniki.18 This was an important architectural achievement, testimony of architectural poly-chromy made by earthly materials and “fire” of the eye coming from the object seen, which results in a visual stream.19 It must be stressed, that such kind of vision blurs the distinction between subject and object; it unifies seen and seer.20 Fire is immanence; it is why the heavenly beings are described as fiery: “For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebr. 12: 29).21 Earth seems to pervade brick and animates it; brick is traversed by an invisible stream which transfigures and ensouls the epidermis of wall. Fire is a mode of being uplifted to God “the power of fire causes a lifting up to the godlike”.22

15 R. Ousterhout, The Memory of Jerusalem: Text, Architecture and the Craft of Thought, Jerusalem as Nar-rative Space: Erzählaum Jerusalem, ed. by Annette Hoffmann, Gerhard Wolf, Leiden – Boston, Brill 2012, 130 – 154.16 I. Jevtić, Narration or Visual Story-telling in Late Byzantine painting (1261 – 1453), lecture held at BFA Visual & Critical Studies Department NYC, 29th October 2013; Eadem, “Being inside a book?” Some thoughts about Narrative Expression in Palaeologian Monumental Painting, Symposium on Visual Culture of Byzantium, Getty Foundation-Pera Museum, Istanbul 2012 [forthcoming publication].17 “I presume to everyone that fire and earth and water and air are solid bodies; and the form of a body, in every case, possesses depth also. Further, it is absolutely necessary that depth should be bounded by a plane surface; and the rectilinear plane is composed of triangles.” Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9 transl. by W.R.M. Lamb. London 1925, Timaeus, 53c.18 Rautman, The Church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki, 281; J. S. Ćirić, «Décryptage du mur : l’Arbre de Vie dans l’architecture byzantine tardive», Collection of Works “Spaces of Memory: Art, Architecture and Heritage”, ed. A. Kadijević, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade 2012, 19 - 31.19 R. Nelson, «Emphatetic Vision: Looking at and with a performative Byzantine Miniature», AH 30 / 4 (2007), 489 – 502.20 C. Mango – J. Parker, «A Twelfth-century Description of St. Sophia», Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14 (1960), 237.21 The Celestial Hierarchy 15.2, 329C; 15.7, 336C.22 The Celestial Hierarchy 13.4, 305A.


211

Regarding brickwork compositions preserved at several examples of architecture during the reign of King Milutin (Staro Nagoričino, Ljeviška in Prizren, Gračanica), art historians followed the convention and used the term “aniconic” to designate the nature of the wall exterior articula-tion: system of semiotic signifiers disguised as non-figural representations of crosses or vegetal patterns but imbued with symbolic meanings.23 Narrative voice of these patterns zigzags, dog – tooth friezes, meanders, chess fields, Tree of Life motives and heraldic signs, such as patterns based on swastika, play substantional role in reading of these brickwork narratives: the entire surface of the façade as sacred skin and substance of the church turns into a kind of texturized

tapestry.24 Brick structures the meaning of visual communication and di-

rects the viewer to understand what is seen in a particular way.25 Although it exceeds by far the temporal span of Byzantine Art History, the exterior surfaces of churches at the end of the 13th and in 14th century profoundly reflect the spiritual climate of society.26 As Slobodan Ćurčić emphasised: «religious setting» implied «the church building as a three-dimensional form with its own exterior aesthetic characteristic», along with all other types of contents of each individual building, stating that «our task...requires that we look at individual components of such entities, not only outside their original settings but often sub-

stantionally removed from each other in time and space. Combining these elements mentally into a new «virtual» entity, we can begin to appreciate the vision expressed by the Byzantines in their churches.»27

Upper structures of exterior are often parts of a vaster ornamentation. One example of narra-

23 J. S. Ćirić, «West facade of Holy Archangels church in Štip: Economy of the wall», PATRIMONIUM. MK Year 5, N°10 (2012), 139 – 148.

24 Eadem, «Les emblèmes sur l’abside de l’église de Lesnovo», Zograf 35 (2012), 189 – 197.25 Eadem, «Optic desires: toward better understanding of wall arrangement at the late 13th century Byz-antine Architecture», Before and After the Fall of Constantinople The Center and Peripheries of Byzantine World in the Turbulent Times Before and After the Conquests of Constantinople in 1204 and 1453, ed. V. Stanković (forthcoming).26 The problem of exterior decoration of the apse in byzantine architecture is almost completely excluded from broader analyses and interpretations of space and ritual. By so far study of Sheron Gerstel is the only one dedicated to the problem of painting in this compartment of the church. S. Gerstel, Beholding the Sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanctuary, Seattle – London, Washington University Press 1999 [with bibliography].27 S. Ćurčić, «Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere», Byzantium. Faith and Power (1261-1557), ed. H. Evans, New York 2004, 65.


212

tive texture is a motif in Staro Nagoricino and Gračanica apse [fig. 4, 5]: the chevron or «opus spicatum» disappearing under its lower sides at the main window, window of north apse, north and south window of east bay.28 Similar brickwork textures are visible on lateral sides of Staro Nagoričino, also at Hagia Ekaterine Church in Thessaloniki, and Church of Prophetis Elias in

Thessaloniki.These ornaments represented various attributes of the

Divine, whose presence they announced to the faithful be-fore they entered into the church. Part of this imagery is also the meander, a motif of equally antique origin, but incompa-rably more commonly present in Byzantine art.29

In context of narratives and its usage it is also important to mention something about heraldry usage in architecture and its exteriorisation. It is well known, that double headed eagles are depicted on the painted socle in the narthex of the church of the Mother of God Ljeviska in Prizren. Fresco painting in Prizren bishopric was characterized as a work

which visually presented the adoption of the Byzantine court ceremonies by King Milutin, so he accepted “the Palaeologus emblem of double headed eagle”, and therefore “the rich draperies, decorated with the double-headed eagle, stretched under the feet of bishops, was depicted in the sanctuary and under the portraits of Nemanjić dynasty”.30 Linear ornament placed between the double-headed eagles remained unnoticed in the literature. It is the same motif of the two crossed diagonal lines that appears on the portraits of Jovan Oliver and apse in Lesnovo. Judging by these two diagonal cross lines depicted in the narthex, where the patron is presented, with his ancestors,31 it could be assumed that this motif belonged to a group of dynastic emblems.32 These ornaments of two diagonally crossed lines are similar to the deco-rations on the remains of the sarcophagi dated to the end of the 13th century in the Monastery

28 Ćurčić, Gračanica, 78, fig.65, 67, 68, 69.29 For this motif in Late Byzantine architecture cf. J. S. Ćirić, «“Writing in Light”: Same as Different at the West Façade of St. Sophia Church in Ochrid», International Conference: Serbian Language - Literature - Art - Art History, Faculty of Philology and Arts, Kragujevac, Serbia (forthcoming).30 D. Panić — G. Babić, Bogorodica Ljeviška, Beograd 1975, 61.31 B. Todić, «Natpis uz Jovana Olivera u naosu Lesnova», Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 38 (1999/2000), 313 – 314.32 Two crossed V ornaments also could be found in Dečani Monastery fresco illustrating the 20th verse of Theotokos Akathistos. Cf. N. Patterson Ševcenko, «Icons in the Liturgy», Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991), pl. 11; B. Todić – M. Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani, Beograd 2005, 368; Ousterhout, «Symbole der Macht», 100, note 45.


213

of Constantine Lips [fig.15],33 in the exonarthex of Monastery Chora in Constantinople,34 and finally apses and domes of Holy Apostles in and St. Elias in Thessaloniki.35

In an effort to make ornamental tremolo more readable, it is necessary to point to some concerns about the aim of these brick by brick narrating. If the brick is placed directly below or above the arches, presenting meticulously executed motifs as Life Giving Tree or fret pat-terns, same participate in the semantic conception of the facade. When one or several signs are understood as a detail and as an organic part of the wall, same are transformed into a dynamic visual experience and become an instrument of artistic creativity of the facade.36

If brickwork decoration of mentioned examples contribute to the complexity of architec-ture during the reign of King Milutin and later, whose text, picture and name are on it, to paraphrase verse from Matthew 22:20? These constructions are complex brickwork text and textures of strong visual codes which, depending surely on the level of education of each beholder not only in state of King Milutin but generally in Byzantine world were identi-fied as phantasiae37 or image producing tablets of memory of various contents and depth of meaning.38

As a specific wall-membrane made of brickwork cloisonné, the facades of the church re-veals on its exterior surface the hidden mystery performed behind the altar.39 It creates illu-sion that the wall is transparent; it is a paradoxical vision which gives rise to the effect of the walls having been de-materialised Transfiguration - μετεμορφώθη and Transubstatiaton -μετουσίωσις.40 The membrane-like wall falls down around the church like a curtain, drap-ing the body of the edifice, like a new skin. As Gregory of Nyssa stated, sense perception is

33 C. Mango - E. J. W. Hawkins, «Additional Finds at Fenari Isa Camii, Istanbul», Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22 (1968), 181 (with bibliography).34 R. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, XXV), Wash-ington D. C. 1987, 70-71.35 Velenis, «Building techniques», 96 fig 1, 101 fig.7.36 D. Massaro, F. Savazzi, C. Di Dio, D. Freedberg, V. Gallese, G. Gilli, A. Marchetti, «When Art Moves the Eyes: A Behavioral and Eye-Tracking Study», PloS ONE 7 (5), May 2012, 1-16, esp. 2, 11.37 M. Featherstone, «Theodore Metochites’s Seimeioseis Gnomikai: Personal Encyclopedism», Encyclo-paedic Trends in Byzantium, ed. P. van Deun—C. Macé [Orientalia Analecta Lovanensia 212], Leuven 2011, 333, 337.38 M.Carruthers, The Poet as Master Builder: Composition and Locational Memory in the Middle Ages, New Literary History 24-4 (1993), 881-904; eadem, Mental Images, Memory Storage, and Composition in the High Middle Ages, Das Mittelalter 13 (2008), 63-79; Cutler, op. cit, 92; Pentcheva, op. cit,238. See also M.H. Caviness, Images of Divine Order and the Third Mode of Seeing, Gesta 22-2 (1983), 99-120, as well as significant insights relevant for future research presented in texts by N. Isar, Chorography-A Space for Cho-reographic Inscription, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov 2-51 (2009), 263-268.39 N. Isar, Le mur aboli: Le sacrement de la Parole dans les absides des eglises moldaves, Byzantinoslavica 60.2 (1999), 611 – 632.40 A. Andreopoulos, Metamorphosis: The Transfiguration in Byzantine Theology And Iconography, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press 2005.


214

a means of reaching the spiritual or as written in Ps 18: 29: “In your strength I can crush an army with my God I can scale any wall”.41 It begun with the visitor seeing the church from a remote point and observing its approximate framework; the perception of the building intensified, became more visible and clearer with the approaching. Brick thus facilitated not only choral notion, observer’s perception of the wall, than the universality of the messages displayed in Byzantine art, which tissue contained deep theological ideas.42 One issue in all this that needs emphasis is, that observable differences in the material record may not reflect temporal change but rather different forms of theological experiments and philosophical po-sitions.43 That is Late Byzantine visual ekphrasis which resonates with Divine perfection. With façades as true living imagery religious reality evoked by visual texturized stimuli to unify in synchronous manner. This was the reason why the famous contemporary of King Milutin, Theodore Metochites, at the end of his Praise of his endowment in Chora compared walls with sacred substance through viewers/beholders dancing than with “treasury of all or-naments, image of Heaven stretched like a skin”.44 This ornamentation frames and punctuates the viewers experience, it structures viewers interpretation and worshipper’s understanding of his position in the Church itself. It was evidently a question of understanding that orna-ments are best framed human contact with the holiness of interior and exterior.

The entire repertoire of such architectural potential was the product of further practical Constantinopolitan elaboration of the fundamental idea of the Christ’s skin incarnated in the temple, the same as Holy Keramidion ”a tile once made by hand now bears your form not made by hand”45 hides meaning of brickwork in its material texture.

41 Gregory of Nyssa, De Sancto Theodoro, trans. Leemans et al., Let us Die That We May Live, 86.42 S. K. Kissas, Srpski srednjovekovni spomenici u Solunu. Zograf 11 (1980), 29-43; S. Ćurčić “The Role of Late Byzantine Thessaloniki in Church Architecture in the Balkans,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003), pp. 65-84.43 For instance starting positions of the Church perception found in poetry of Theodore Methochites: Feath-erstone, «Theodore Metochites’s Seimeioseis Gnomikai», 333-344.44 I. Ševčenko, «The Logos on Gregory of Nazianzus by Theodore Metochites», Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit, ed. W. Seibt (Vienna, 1996),114 – 115; M.Featherstone, Metochites Poems, Kariye Camii Yeniden, Istanbul 2012, 225.45 A. Nikiphorova, «Nicholaos Mesarites: The Dekalog on the Passion Relics, kept in the church of the Virgin of the Pharos», Relikvii v Vizantii i Drevnei Rusi. Pismennye Istochniki (Relics in Byzantium and Medieval Rus’. Written Sources), ed. by Alexei Lidov, Moscow 2006, 205.


Brick by brick: Textuality and Texturality in the Architecture during the Age of King Milutin,...

Documents

Transcript of Brick by brick: Textuality and Texturality in the Architecture during the Age of King Milutin,...