Painting Work Systems in the Fourteenth Century (Byzantina n. 33)

Βυζαντινά 33 (2013)

Constantinos M. Vafeiades

PAINTING WORK SYSTEMS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY:

THE CASE OF MARKOV MANASTIR

In recent years eminent researchers have intensified their efforts to under-stand the process of artistic creation in Byzantium by touching upon indi-vidual aspects of both artistic expression and technical procedures. In spite of all this, we know next to nothing about the “internal” artistic processes and how art works were produced. Between the patron’s commission and the final product that we nowadays behold lies a knowledge and infor-mation gap. This gap naturally raises a whole host of questions.

For example, what criteria were used to define the aesthetic and other coordinates of a work? What kind of stylistic subordination occurred when a number of different painters collaborated on equal terms? What were the aesthetic consequences of a joint undertaking to execute a decorative work? In other words, were painters, patrons and their public concerned by a de-mand for stylistic and technical uniformity of the kind that we all take for granted today? And if so, who determined the demand? Were productivity and the faster completion of projects goals pursued by Byzantine crews? And if so, was this connected with certain technological inventions or prac-tices? This last question leads to an even more popular issue that concerns the means by which a design was transferred or imprinted onto a wall or board –what we call, in a rather vague way it is true, an anthibolon (cartoon or preliminary drawing). How certain is it that cartoons existed and were used by the Byzantines? For no cartoons have survived from the Byzantine era and the sources are silent on the matter. What is more, conditions do not appear to have required their use, as M. Vassilaki has claimed.1 Even the correlation of similar figures that is occasionally attempted –usually in a selective manner and between different ensembles– does not prove the ex-

1 M. Βασιλάκη, Από τους εικονογραφικούς οδηγούς στα σχέδια εργασίας των

μεταβυζαντινών ζωγράφων. Το τεχνολογικό υπόβαθρο της βυζαντινής εικονογραφίας, Αθήνα 1995, 60.


2

istence of cartoons, and even less so does it prove the universal application of such a system and its expediency.

This article aims to provide answers to some of the above questions through the study of a Palaeologan monument which furnishes sufficient evidence for the interpretation of these issues and in which the use of car-toons is obvious and excessive. The monument in question is the katholi-kon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios at Sušica near Skopje, familiarly known as Markov Manastir (fig. 1).

The monastery was founded during the reign of Stephen Uroš V (1355-1371) by the official Vukašin Mrnjavčević, who acquired the title of King of Southern Serbia and Western Macedonia in 1366. Vukašin, like his brother the despot Jovan Uglješa, was killed in the battle that took place near the village of Černomen on the Marica River on 26 September 1371. The mon-astery was expanded and completed by Vukašin’s son and heir Marko (1371-1395), known in Serbian heroic folk tradition as Marko Kraljević.2 This leader, after the defeat at Černomen and his father’s death, assumed control over the territories stretching from the Axios River to central Alba-nia as a vassal of Sultan Murad I. Ultimately, however, any control he had over these territories was lost for good when the Serbian forces were defeat-ed once again by the Ottomans at Rovine in May 1395 and Marko himself was killed on the field of battle. The monastery, however, continued to en-joy the favour of Marko’s royal house and to receive generous grants. Im-mediately after the defeat at Rovine, Helena Dragaš Palaeologina (the nun Hypomone [†1450], daughter of the Serbian ruler Constantine Dragaš [†1395], wife of the emperor Manuel II Palaeologos and mother of the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologos) supported the monastery financially and, it appears, dedicated to it the celebrated icons on the tem-plon of the katholikon which are now on display in the Skopje Archaeologi-cal Museum.3

These facts show that we are not dealing here with a minor provincial monument that received low-level funding but with a royal foundation of exceptional importance, whose special political importance is shown not

2 On Marko Kraljević see indicatively G. Ch. Soulis, The Serbs and Byzantium during the

Reign of Tsar Stephen Dušan (1331-1355) and his Successors, Athens 1995, especially 93-97, with earlier bibliography.

3 P. Miljković-Pepek, Nepoznat trezor ikoni, Skopje 2001(= Miljković-Pepek, Ikoni). The damaged wall-paintings of the monastery’s old refectory, which have now been removed, are probably also of fifteenth-century date; a high-quality work, their authorship is as yet un-known.

Painting work systems in the fourteenth century

3

3

only by its royal patronage but also by the particularities of its iconograph-ical programme. The clear and catalytic presence in such a monument of a system of artistic thought and practice that provides answers to the ques-tions I posed at the beginning of this study lends extra weight to my inten-tions and reinforces the view that is expressed here.

Typologically, the katholikon of the Monastery of St. Demetrios is a simple four-columned cross-in-square church with a tripartite domed nar-thex open to the naos. The beautifully executed porch is of later date.

The katholikon was decorated with wall-paintings during Marko’s reign, in the year 1376/7 or 1380/1, according to the founder’s inscription.4 In the dome the iconographical programme includes the figure of Christ Pantokrator and, below this, frontal figures of angels and prophets, eight of which are full-length and eight half-length (fig. 2). Evangelists adorn the pendentives. In the naos the mural decoration is divided into six concentric superimposed zones. The top zone, which includes Christological scenes, adorns the vaults and the semicircular ends of the lateral walls (fig. 3). In the zone immediately beneath this, which terminates in the springing of the arches, there are also scenes from the Gospels (mainly miracles of Christ) which in narrative terms are related to the scene in the zone above. In the third zone, which marks the lower edge of the superstructure and runs round the naos and the sanctuary, a decorative floral band has been created

4 On the inscription and the dating of the monument see V. J. Djurić, Markov Manastir – Ohrid, Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 8 (1972) 133 (= Djurić, Markov Manastir); C. Groz-danov / G. Subotić, Crkva Svetog Djordja u Rečici kod Ohrida, Zograf 12 (1981) 73-74. On the wall-paintings see Sv. Radojčić, Staro Srpsko Slikarstvo, Beograd 1966, 156; Djurić, Mar-kov Manastir, 131-60; V. J. Djurić, Vyzantijske freske u Jugoslaviji, Beograd 1974, 80-83; C. Grozdanov, La peinture murale d’Ohrid au XIVe siècle, Ohrid 1980 (= Grozdanov, La pein-ture murale d’Ohrid), 121-50; S. Gabelić, A Local Painters’ Workshop from the Mid-fourteenth Century. Dečani – Lesnovo – Mark’s Monastery – Čelopek, in: V.J. Djurić (ed.), Dečani et l’art byzantin au milieu du XIVe siècle, Beograd 1989, 367-77 (in Serbian); S. Gabelić, Diversity in Fresco Painting of the Mid-fourteenth Century: the Case of Lesnovo, in S. Ćurčić / D. Mouriki (eds.), The Twilight of Byzantium, Princeton / New Jersey 1991, 190-91 (= Gabelić, Diversity in Fresco Painting); T. Παπαμαστοράκης, Ο διάκοσμος του τρούλου των ναών της παλαιολόγειας περιόδου στη βαλκανική χερσόνησο και την Κύπρο, Aθήνα 2001, 2-33, 306 and passim; Miljković-Pepek (as n.3 above); C. Kopynovskj / E. Dinitrova, Byzantine Macedonia. History of Art of Macedonia (9th-15th Century), Milano 2006, 202-206; C. Grozdanov, Les scènes de l’Acathiste de la Vierge nouvellement découvertes à Markov Manastir, in: C. Grozdanov (ed.), Zivopisot na Ohridskaja arhiepiskopija, Studii, Skopje 2007, 255-67; id., Sur l’iconographie des fresques du monastère de Marko, op. cit., 271-91. M. Radujko, Spesific authorial features in history of Art: the frescoes of the upper bays of the narthex and porch of St. Sophia in Ohrid and the neighbouring Regions, Zograf 35 (2011), 155-83 (in Serbian) (= Radujko, Authorial features), passim.


4

on a white ground. From the calyces of the flowers emerge figures of the Righteous and saints. There follows a zone with an extensive clockwise cy-cle of the Lord’s Passion, which begins and ends in the sanctuary, the first scene of which is the Last Supper and the last that of the Lord’s Appearance to the Myrrh-bearing Women. Directly beneath this follows the cycle of the Akathistos Hymn, which also extends to the narthex (fig. 4). The springings of the vaults and the soffits of the arches are also adorned with paintings. Examples of these are the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary on the east side, the Lamentation of the Virgin and the Man of Sorrows on the west side, and Christ Emmanuel flanked by the apostles in pairs in the soffit of the arch that separates the narthex from the naos. Finally, a broad zone of full-length figures adorns the lower sections of the walls (fig. 5). The north wall includes the figures of the church’s founders (faded) and an imposing Deesis with Christ Enthroned (fig. 4).

The sanctuary apse contains four iconographical zones. At the apex of the conch is depicted the figure of Christ Emmanuel in a glory, a picture understood as a continuation of the full-length figure of the Virgin Mary between angels. The Virgin is also flanked by Joachim and Anna. Beneath the Virgin in the apse lies a depiction of the Communion of the Apostles (fig. 6), which is flanked by depictions of the Noli Me Tangere scene and the Last Supper. In the next zone there are four Oikoi from the Akathistos Hymn and, lower down, a depiction of the Heavenly Liturgy (Great En-trance) combined with concelebrating hierarchs (fig. 7). In the conch of the prothesis there is a depiction of the Melismos and in the diakonikon two figures of deacons. Full-length figures of hierarchs occupy the remaining sections of the sanctuary.

In the central section of the superstructure of the narthex there is a de-piction of the Ainoi (fig. 8), while in the vaults on either side and on the adjacent wall there are scenes from the life of St. Demetrios. Lower down runs a perimetric band with individual half-length figures of saints. Round the narthex also runs a frieze with scenes from the life of St. Nicholas, di-rectly beneath the previous band (fig. 9). Next comes the zone with the Akathistos Hymn, as has already been mentioned, and that with the full-length figures of saints, as a continuation of that in the naos. The cycles of St. Nicholas and the Akathistos Hymn are interrupted on the west side by the imposing scene of the Dormition of the Virgin (fig. 10).

The church was also adorned with wall-paintings on the exterior. On the west face survives a fragment which possibly belongs to a depiction of the Root of Jesse. On the relieving arch and the tympanum of the west door


5

5

lies a depiction of St. Demetrios on horseback, flanked by two full-length figures of saints and half-length figures of angels presenting him with his arms and emblems of power. The lintel of the south door also bears a half-length depiction of St. Demetrios with Christ emerging from a semicircle of heaven. The saint is flanked by King Marko and a faded figure, probably that of King Vukašin Mrnjavčević.

The wall-paintings in the katholikon of Markov Manastir were not all executed by a single painter. As has been stressed by V. J. Djurić,5 two sty-listically different teams of artists were responsible for the painting of the monument. A closer examination, however, reveals that we are dealing with two different hands and not teams. The first painter was responsible for the bulk of the decoration, while the lowest zone in the sanctuary, the Akathis-tos zone in the naos, part of the biographical cycle of St. Nicholas in the narthex and a few individual figures were executed by the other painter, whom I shall call the “Akathistos painter”. The latter did not belong to the same crew as the first painter, and did not participate in the work from the beginning but only after the completion of the fourth zone down from the top. For some reason that remains unknown to us, he was called upon to contribute as an extra hand, preserving his artistic autonomy.

It should be pointed out here that identifying the joint participation on equal terms of two or more painters in the decoration of the same monu-ment requires systematic recording and more accurate documentation. This is because a differentiation of style, and in the same zones or areas at that, does not always constitute proof of a collaboration. In the case of Markov Manastir evidence of the collaboration between the two painters lies in their joint execution of certain representations, such as the imposing Deesis on the north wall, where the “Akathistos painter” painted only the figure of John (fig. 4), the cycle of the life of St. Nicholas (fig. 9) and the representation of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary above the west door (fig. 10).

In the latter representation the upper half was painted by the first paint-er, painter A, while the lower half was executed by painter B, the “Akathis-tos painter”. The reason for this arrangement is the fact that these two sec-tions fall within the two painters’ respective work zones. It is even possible to discern the dividing line on the plaster, which runs round the representa-tion above the heads of the apostles and Christ’s glory dividing the scene into two. This observation raises yet another question: what plastering sys-

5 Djurić, Markov Manastir (as n.4 above); Miljković-Pepek, Ikoni (as n.3 above), 160.


6

tem was used and what logic was used to define the zones or areas that were to be plastered? And, last but not least, what effect did this system have on the construction of a church’s iconographical programme? The case of Markov Manastir shows that, in the narthex at least, the plasterer advanced in horizontal zones, working from the top downwards. Consequently, the two painters did not work simultaneously on the representation in ques-tion. This was completed by painter B when the scaffolding was adjusted to the height of his work zone.

This did not happen, however, in the case of the cycle of St. Nicholas. Here the two painters worked at the same time and not in sequence. This zone, which runs round all four sides of the narthex, was all plastered at the same time. This is demonstrated not only by the absence of joints but also the fact that the figures and enclosures depicted in the corners of the walls extend onto the two adjacent vertical surfaces. Indeed, it is both noteworthy and odd that the first artist did not restrict himself to his own work zone but “encroached” onto the end of the east section that was painted by the “Akathistos painter”.

Stylistically, the wall paintings of the two painters who decorated the katholikon of Markov Manastir appear to correspond with an artistic cur-rent characterised by a return to, or rather persistence in the use of late thir-teenth-century and early fourteenth-century models such as the church of Sv. Kliment (Peribleptos) in Ohrid (1294/5) and the Protaton at Karyes on Mount Athos (ca. 1300).6 This persistence and the consequent codification of the artistic techniques in use round the turn of the thirteenth century are already evident at Lesnovo (1346/7 and 1349).7 However, it ought to be pointed out here that the return to the art of the previous decades was not all in the same direction. Both at Lesnovo and in other churches, such as the katholikon of the Pantokrator Monastery (1363), the church of Hagios Ath-anasios of Mouzaki in Kastoria (1383/4), the Prophet Elias church in Thes-

6 The bibliography on these two monuments is very extensive. See indicatively P. Mil-

jković-Pepek, L’oeuvre des peintres Michel et Eutych, Skopje 1967; B. Todić, “Signatures” des peintres Michel Astrapas et Eutychios. Fonction et signification, in : Κ. Καλαμαρτζή-Κατσαρού / Σ. Ταμπάκη (επιμ.), Αφιέρωμα στη Μνήμη του Σωτήρη Κίσσα, Θεσσαλονίκη 2001, 643-62; M. Marković, Michael’s and Eutychios’ Artistic Work. Present Knowledge, Dubious Issues and Direction of Future Research, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 17/2 (2004) 95-113. On the Protaton see indicatively E.N. Tσιγαρίδας (επιμ.), Μανουήλ Πανσέληνος. Εκ του ιερού ναού του Πρωτάτου, Θεσσαλονίκη 2003 (= Tσιγαρίδας, Μανουήλ Πανσέληνος).

7 On Lesnovo and the conservative trends of the period mentioned above see Gabelić, Diversity in Fresco Painting (as n.4 above) 187-215.


7

7

salonike (early 15th cent.)8 and, of course, in the katholikon under examina-tion here, wide divergences may be seen not only in the quality and tech-nique of the paintings but also in their artistic conception.

This conservative trend, which also concerns works executed outside Macedonia, has not been adequately explained. Researchers regard the se-cond half of the fourteenth century as a period of decline in artistic creativi-ty, at least as far as monumental painting is concerned. And it is true that in southern Serbia and Macedonia painters and their public do not appear to have wanted to break away from the local “folk” style of the recent past, even though another, “learned” trend, which seems to have originated in Constantinople, had already made its appearance in Thessalonike in the Church of the Holy Apostles (1310-1314). This trend was to turn into an idealistic idiom, as can be seen in an example at the Peribleptos at Mystras (ca. 1350).9

This fact reveals, above all, a lack of awareness, or rather an indifference towards new artistic developments and stylistic changes. At the same time it also reveals a desire for artistic self-determination and a need to crystallise and preserve a style that had been fully developed in the Thessalonike re-gion during the time of Stephen Uroš II Milutin (1282-1321) and prevailed during the glorious reigns of Uroš III Dećanski (1321-1331) and Uroš IV Dušan (1331-1355).10

Both these facts can be connected with the historical and political con-ditions and expediencies that prevailed in the fourteenth century. In other

8 On the katholikon of the Pantokrator Monastery see Τ. Παπαμαστοράκης, Εικόνες

13ου-16ου αιώνα, in: Εικόνες μονής Παντοκράτορος, Άγιον Όρος 1998 (= Παπαμαστοράκης, Εικόνες μονής Παντοκράτορος) 41-48. On Hagios Athanasios see V. Djurić, Mali Grad – Saint Athanase à Kastoria, Borje, Zograf 6 (1975) 31-50 (in Serbian); Σ. Πελεκανίδης / M. Χατζηδάκης, Βυζαντινή τέχνη στην Ελλάδα. Καστοριά, Aθήνα 1992 (= Πελεκανίδης / Χατζηδάκης), 106-19. On the wall-paintings in the lete of Prophet Elias no special study exists. See indicatively Χ. Μαυροπούλου-Τσιούμη, Η μνημειακή ζωγραφική στη Θεσσαλονίκη στο δεύτερο μισό του 14ου αιώνα, in: Ευφρόσυνον. Αφιέρωμα στον Μανόλη Χατζηδάκη, 2, Athens 1992, 663.

9 See D. Mouriki, Stylistic Trends in Monumental Painting of Greece at the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century, in: ead., Studies in Late Byzantine Painting, London 1995, 1-80.

10 V. J. Djurić, L’Art des Paléologues et l’État serbe. Rôle de la Cour et de l’Église serbes dans la Première Moitié du XIVe siècle, in: Art et Société à Byzance sous les Paléologues. Actes du Colloque organisé par l’Association International des Études Byzantines à Venise en septembre 1968, Venise 1971, 177-91. See also A. E. Laiou, Byzantium and the Neighbouring Powers: Small-State Policies and Complexities, in: Sarah T. Brooks (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557). Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, New York / New Haven / London 2006, 42-53.


8

words, in my opinion, the indifference towards stylistic development or conforming to “unfamiliar” currents was connected with the Serbian rulers’ ideological intentions, that is, their desire to break away from the capital and usurp imperial power.11 The adherence to the dominant official style of Dušan’s era, as is expressed in the Dečani Monastery (1346/7), probably aimed to preserve collective memory and to consolidate a particular ethnic identity at a time when the Serbian kingdom was in decline and in a state of gradual collapse.

Nevertheless, despite their common stylistic idiom, the two painters of Markov Manastir diverge in terms of artistic execution and neither influ-ences the other in his work, even when they both collaborate on the same composition. In the art of painter A the representation of space (both natu-ral and architectural) is utterly two-dimensional and decorative in charac-ter, in a way that is too modern by today’s criteria. The main characteristic of his artistic conception is the symmetrical, if not geometrical, arrange-ment of the figural elements and their strict rhythmical structuring. This two-dimensional and geometrical structuring is intensified by certain col-our choices, something which is equally unusual in Byzantine art (fig. 6, 8). Of particular interest is the way in which the painter can highlight or isolate a scene or group of figures in his continuous friezes. The figures are placed in front of a flat semicircular ground resembling a glory,12 as in the scene of the Betrayal (fig.11). Sometimes these grounds are linked together in a kind of arcade or are alternated with horizontal walls (fig. 3, 8).

Although the human figures of painter A are proportionate and in cer-tain cases particularly slender, the scaling of the figures in relation to each other is rudimentary. The movements of the human figures appear exag-gerated. The figures themselves have not been sufficiently integrated into their settings; indeed, some of them appear to hover, like Peter in the scene of the Denial (fig. 12). The drawing is conventional, with a constant repeti-tion of the same physiognomic types and gestures. The figures are roughly modelled and pervaded by an expressionistic quality, with the bare parts rendered entirely schematically and calligraphically (fig. 3). The under-painting (proplasmos) is a warm brown with broad pink flesh tones sup-

11 See T. Παπαμαστοράκης, Εικαστικές εκφάνσεις της πολιτικής ιδεολογίας του

Στέφανου Dušan σε μνημεία της εποχής του και τα βυζαντινά πρότυπά τους, in: Eυτυχία Παπαδοπούλου / Δ. Κομίνη-Διαλέτη (επιμ.), Βυζάντιο και Σερβία κατά το 14ο αιώνα (Eθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών. Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Διεθνή Συμπόσια 3), Aθήνα 1996, 140-57.

12 Djurić, Markov Manastir (as n.4 above), plates 4-6.


9

9

plemented by red glykasmoi (sweetening tones) on the cheeks and green glykasmoi on the sections facing the light. Crude white brushstrokes focus the light onto the protruding points. The heads are almost round, with the eyes almost bulging (fig. 13). The drapery is also expressive, with the linear highlights on the thighs extending a long way with rudimentary tonal gra-dations. The painter’s colours are exquisitely bold and pure, without any admixture of grey. He is particularly fond of blue, red, ochre, bright grey and pink, all of them in whitish tones.

This painter displays a primitiveness of expression, with the outlines in-tended to describe rather than model the forms, with the ungraded high-lights serving a compositional function, and an interest in complete sym-metry and rhythm that is unprecedented in Palaeologan painting.13

According to Djurić,14 the artistic conception of painter A at Markov Manastir is characteristic of the Ohrid region. Indeed, similarities exist in the decoration of the pronaos and Chapel of St. Nicholas at the Virgin Peri-bleptos (1364/5), the Sv. Bogorodica at Peštani (1370), the Chapel of St. Demetrios at the Dečani Monastery (2nd half of 14th cent.), the Sv. Bogo-rodica at Zaum (1376/7) and in the first phase –again according to Djurić– of the wall-paintings in Sv. Bogorodica at Bolniča (1368).15 Of these church-es, the latter is closest in style to the work of painter A at Markov Manastir, although it is not safe to attribute it to him, as characteristic features of his art, such as the compositional strictness and his characteristic use of the glory-like semicircular grounds in the depiction of episodes, are absent. This last feature occurs in the work of the painter who decorated the Chapel of St. Demetrios at the Dečani Monastery but, apart from this, nothing else connects him with the style of painter A at Markov Manastir. The latter’s work is more closely connected to that of the painter who decorated the narrative scenes in the small church of Hagios Georgios “tou Vounou” near Kastoria (pre-1385).16 In this church there is evidence both of his rough

13 It should be noted that his frescoes present problems of conservation. The figures and

in particular the areas of flesh have flaked or turned powdery. 14 Djurić, Markov Manastir (as n.4 above) 158 and 160-61. 15 Djurić Markov Manastir (as n.4 above), 131-60. See also Grozdanov, La peinture mu-

rale d’Ohrid (as n.4 above) 121-50. About the stylistic connections between the art of Ohrid and that of Markov Manastir see also Radujko, Authorial features (as n.4 above).

16 See E. N. Tσιγαρίδας, Οι τοιχογραφίες του Αγίου Γεωργίου του Βουνού Καστοριάς, in: idem (επιμ.), Τοιχογραφίες της περιόδου των Παλαιολόγων σε ναούς της Μακεδονίας, Θεσσαλονίκη 1999, 211-50.


10

decorative style and his peculiar mechanical method of tracing figures onto the walls, of which I shall speak shortly.

Now, as far as the “Akathistos painter” is concerned, I would say that his conception of artistic space is exactly like that of his fellow painter. In any event, the architectural settings and mountains are formed in a refined and affected manner; indeed, the former are overloaded with decorative elements (fig. 7). His drawing is carefully executed, his figures robust, with powerful thighs and restrained movement. His outlines are less stark than those of painter A. The flesh tones on the faces and bare parts of the bodies are broad and fade smoothly into the greyish-brown underpainting. The individual white brushstrokes are organically connected with the patches of light (fig. 14). His treatment of the drapery is much more detailed, breaking the surface up into smaller forms, which are triangular on the thighs. His colours contain a considerable amount of grey, which reduces their bold-ness and brightness. Even so, his haloes display a variety of colours, includ-ing bright blue, red, ochre, greyish-green and pink.

Djurić connects the art of the “Akathistos painter” with workshops of the kind that decorated the church of Sv. Nikola at Šiševski (late 14th cent.), the church of Sv. Andrej at Treska (1388/9), the church at Lipljan in Koso-vo (late 14th cent.) and, finally, the workshop that worked at Lesnovo.17 Alt-hough the above ensembles of wall-paintings, to which I would add that at Matejić (1346-1355), may be considered stylistically similar to the work of the “Akathistos painter”, I do not think that he played a part in them. On the other hand, S. Gabelić claims that this painter had previously worked at Lesnovo, where he painted part of the dome, the Christological cycle and several other figures, and then, after finishing his work at Markov Manastir, painted the church of Sv. Nikola in the village of Čelopek (last quarter of the 14th cent.). Indeed, she claims that the said painter probably began his career by painting the narthex of the katholikon of the Dečani Monastery “in an expressionistic, though pleasingly balanced style” but later developed his style in an “intensely anti-classical direction”.18

In my opinion, the “Akathistos painter” expresses a conservative acad-emicism and a manneristic tendency. If there are “anti-classical” or expres-sionistic features in his art, they are subdued or underdeveloped. Of course,

17 Djurić, Markov Manastir (as n.4 above), 160. 18 Gabelić, Diversity in Fresco Painting (as n.4 above), 377. G. Gabelić quite rightly at-

tributes to the “Akathistos painter” the lowest zone in the sanctuary and part of the cycle of St. Nicholas (pp. 190-91). On Lesnovo see also S. Gabelić, Manastir Lesnovo. Istorija i Slikarstvo, Beograd 1998.


11

11

expressionism, as a tendency, often presupposes realism, which certainly does characterise this painter. Nonetheless, realism is not a feature of the work of the three (and not two) painters at Lesnovo.

However, the aim of this study is not to distinguish or interpret the ar-tistic idiom of the two painters at Markov Manastir but to investigate the phenomenon of stylistic “otherness” and its reception, as well as the inher-ent problem posed by the painters’ individual working methods.

It is clear that the disparity in artistic conception does not appear to have concerned either the painters themselves or their royal patrons. Nev-ertheless, was there an aesthetic demand amongst medieval Orthodox Christians for uniformity of style? Another question related to this is whether any collaboration between independent painters contained an el-ement of subordination, within the context of their jointly engaging in a common enterprise. The example of Markov Manastir, like those of many other monuments and portable works, shows that such demands did not exist or at least were not universal. Wherever a certain uniformity of style may be observed, and this does indeed occur in many works, it is probably coincidental; that is to say, it is connected with the presence of a crew or team of painters who have received a common artistic training, a fact that has already been asserted by R. Nelson and J. Lowden in respect of various illuminated manuscripts that have been connected with Theodora Ra-oulaina.19 The only case known to me of a deliberate mixing of the styles of individual painters collaborating in a joint project on equal terms, and in-deed one under the guidance of one of the painters themselves, is that of the Menologion of Basil II (early 11th cent.),20 although even in this case there are quite a few objections. Let us not forget that in medieval Greek art style takes precedence over individual expression and the rule over artistic initia-tive.

The importance and contribution of the decoration in the Markov Manastir katholikon to research into the internal processes involved in the production of a work of art in Byzantium does not stem merely from the presence in it of a type of collaboration that ignores any demands for stylis-

19 R. Nelson / J. Lowden, The Palaiologina Group: Additional Manuscripts and New

Questions, DOP 45 (1991) 59-68. 20 See I. Ševčenko, The Illuminators of the Menologium of Basil II, DOP 16 (1962) 243-

76. See also R. Cormack, Ο καλλιτέχνης στην Κωνσταντινούπολη: αριθμοί, κοινωνική θέση, ζητήματα απόδοσης, in: M. Βασιλάκη (επιμ.), Το πορτραίτο του καλλιτέχνη στο Βυζάντιο, Ηράκλειο 1997, 45-76.


12

tic uniformity but also from the prevalence of a system of wall-painting that has so far not been adequately documented.

For the main part, painter A used a mechanical method of reproducing and tracing the designs of the figures onto the walls. In order to realise his work, he did not draw holding a model-book in front of him but used a kind of transfer cartoon, as is shown by the notable examples of the way in which certain figural types have been exactly repeated. But what kind of transfer cartoon and what type of figures were used? After numerous at-tempts at experimental simulation in my studio, which was especially equipped for the purpose, I have come to the following conclusions: the cartoon may have taken the form of a figure made out of paper coated with glue, with a few basic openings or holes cut within the perimeter in order to allow the brush or charcoal to trace the design onto the wall (fig. 15). In the case of the large figures the cartoon would not have been of one piece. It would have consisted of different pieces of paper, either joined together or separate, an arrangement that is at least implied by western sources.21 It is much more likely that the cartoon would have consisted of a piece of cloth on a wooden frame coated with plaster or layers of glue in order to make it more solid. This cloth cartoon would also have been cut around the perime-ter, or it may have functioned as a kind of stamp in which the outlines of the design, coated with colour or charcoal, would have been imprinted on the moist surface of the wall by exerting slight pressure on the outer surface.

However, it is not the technique itself that impresses but its extreme and excessive use, together with the lack of a variety of figural types. There are no more than two of the latter, in terms of individual figures. The entire decoration of the church, from the dome to the wall-paintings on the exte-rior, has been fashioned and executed with an average of two cartoons in each zone! And this is not all. The same applies to the use of colour, which only serves to emphasise the preponderance of the abovementioned meth-od. In each case, the painter uses two main colours, which he applies con-stantly and alternately in both compositions and individual figures. The positioning and arrangement of these two colours serves a compositional purpose and expediency. That is to say, they organise the layout and the rhythm of the composition as a whole.

To be more precise, in order to illustrate this point, for the depiction of the eight angels in the dome (fig. 2) the painter has used only one cartoon,

21 See Mary P. Merrifield, The Art of Fresco Painting as practiced by the Old Italian and

Spanish Masters, London / Brighton 1846, 28, 37.


13

13

only one type of garment and only one colour in the tunics and mantles. In the case of the prophets in the drum (fig. 16), as has been aptly observed by my teacher T. Papamastorakis (†2010),22 again only one cartoon has been used, that of a figure turning slightly to the right with the right hand raised in a gesture of blessing and the left hand down by the thigh holding an open scroll; only Abbakoum differs because of the peculiarity of his iconograph-ical type. The same thing happens in the case of the half-length prophets (fig. 17, 18). Only one type of figure prevails, which is reversed so that all of the prophets can face east.23 It is worth noting that the use of only one car-toon for the angels constitutes the rule in the decoration of the katholikon. The angel caryatids on the capitals come from a single cartoon, like those in the representation of the Ainoi in the dome of the narthex. The two angels that accompany the Mother of God in the apse also come from a single car-toon, which was reversed (fig. 6). The same is true in the case of the angles flanking the enthroned Christ in the narthex (fig. 8).

The full-length saints that adorn the lateral walls of the katholikon (fig. 5) can be distinguished into two basic types: the frontal type (type A) and the three-quarter-view type (type B). The frontal type holds his right hand in a gesture of supplication before his chest or extended in space, while his left hand rests on his thigh; the three-quarter-view type, on the other hand, holds his hands on his waist or his right hand on his waist and his left down by his thigh. The first type is also used in reverse. Slight adjustments are due to limitations in the amount of available space. It should be noted that the two types coincide in terms of the type of clothing they wear. As for the colour of their clothing, this alternates between red and cherry.

In the zone of the half-length saints in the narthex two cartoons were used (fig. 9): a) a cartoon of a figure with the head turned to the left, both hands covered in front of the chest and the two ends of the omophorion dropping down in front; b) another of a figure with the head turned to the right, the left hand covered, the right hand uncovered in a gesture of sup-plication before the chest, and only one end of the omophorion draped down in front. It should be noted that these figures are alternated in such a way as to face each other in pairs. The colours they bear alternate between red, cherry, ochre and ash-grey. On the outer face of the west lintel St. De-metrios is accompanied by two saints that also derive from a common car-toon.

22 Παπαμαστοράκης, Eικόνες Μονής Παντοκράτορος (as n.8 above) 316, πίν. 120-22. 23 Ibid., πίν. 122-23.


14

It should be noted that some of the figural types have a more general application as they occur at various points in the decoration, such as a run-ning figure (Road to Calvary and other scenes), a figure moving to the right with large strides and his right hand raised (Life of St. Demetrios, Slaughter of the Innocents, Crucifixion) and a mourning figure (Burial of Christ, Slaughter of the Innocents).

As for the narrative scenes, the following may be added. In the sanctu-ary apse there is a depiction of the Communion of the Apostles (fig. 6). The scene is divided into two equal parts, the one being a reverse version of the other. It should be noted that St. Paul, who of course cannot have exactly the same posture as St. Peter, has been rendered with the same cartoon that was used to render the apostle standing to the left of the group opposite. Lower down there is a depiction of the Heavenly Liturgy, which was exe-cuted by the “Akathistos painter”. The angels on either side of Christ, like those which are partially visible in the Great Entrance, have been composed with a common cartoon that was reversed when necessary. In the angels in the Baptism of Christ the same figural type is exactly repeated. In the Last Supper (fig. 7) the two apostles in the foreground are exactly alike, as are the first two apostles in the Entry into Jerusalem scene. The young men in the depiction of the Marriage at Cana were also produced with exactly the same cartoon. In the Judgement of Pilate the figures of the Jews with their hands raised in a gesture of supplication to the left of Christ are exactly re-peated on the right-hand side. The two young men dressed in white who taunt the Lord with their long sleeves in the Mocking of Christ scene also come from the same cartoon (fig. 4). In the Noli Me Tangere scene (fig. 19) the two myrrh-bearing women at Christ’s feet are mirror images of each other. On the north wall of the narthex there are depictions of scenes from the life of St. Nicholas. The two consecrations of the saint are based on the same cartoon, which in fact was also used in the scene of the consecration of St. Demetrios. In the depiction of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary (fig. 10) the angels bearing the Apostles share a common cartoon, as do the an-gels who are opening the doors of heaven. In the Ainoi both the Kings and other figures are divided into two sub-choirs in which each is a reverse im-age of the other.

In the work done by painter A cartoons have been used not only to ren-der figures but the background of scenes as well. In the Judgement of Pilate the buildings on the left are a reverse version of those on the right. In the narthex there are, as I have already mentioned, scenes from the life of St. Demetrios. In the scene depicting the Great Martyr before the emperor (fig.


15

15

20) an architectural background has been drawn that is a reverse version of the cartoon used in the adjacent representation.

The case of the decoration in the katholikon of Markov Manastir is not of course unique. At Hagios Stephanos in Kastoria (first half of 10th cent.) the depiction of the Second Coming in the narthex24 is based on the repeti-tion of a single type of figure. In the katholikon of the Nea Moni on Chios (mid-11th cent.) the figure of St. John the Theologian in the Crucifixion25 is repeated in the Deposition from the Cross. The same happens in the case of many other independent figures, particularly those set within medallions, as can be seen in the case of saints Arsenios, Euthymios, Maximos and Pa-chomios, which are identical.26 Also, the two apostles seated opposite each other in the foreground of the depiction of Pentecost27 are mirror images of each other. In Hagios Nikolaos tou Kasnitze (2nd half of 12th cent.) the fig-ures of St. George and St. Merkourios28 come from the same cartoon. In the church of the Protaton on Mount Athos (ca. 1300), in the scene of the Bap-tism of Christ,29 the most fully visible angels, despite their superficial differ-ences in clothing, actually derive from a common cartoon. The same is true of the bowing apostles in the scene of the Appearance of Christ after the Resurrection, as well as the two angels who are raising Christ aloft in the scene of the Ascension.30 It is noteworthy that the Protaton painter, while using only one design for a group of figures, differentiated them by altering superficial details. On the other hand, he faithfully and steadfastly applied certain physiognomic types in a variety of holy figures, which may coexist in the same composition or be scattered round the church at different points. For example, the face of the Prophet Jeremiah31 reoccurs in identical form in various forefather figures. In the scene of the Prayer in Gethsemane three of the apostles are identical, with their heads inclined in exactly the same way, as are the handmaids in the Presentation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple.32 Similar phenomena may also be found in the Pantanassa at Mystras (1428). For example, the angels on either side of the Virgin Mary in

24 Πελεκανίδης / Χατζηδάκης (as n.8 above ), εικ. 6. 25 Ντ.Μουρίκη, Τα ψηφιδωτά της Νέας Μονής Χίου, Αθήνα 1985, 2, εικ. 33 and 45. 26 Ibid., εικ. 78, 79, 83, 235. 27 Ibid., εικ. 112-13. 28 Ibid., εικ. 12, 13. 29 Tσιγαρίδας, Μανουήλ Πανσέληνος (as n. 6 above), εικ. 6. 30 Ibid, εικ. 6, 20, 22, 27. 31 Ibid., εικ. 60. 32 Ibid εικ. 60 (Prophet Jeremiah), 37 (forefathers), 73 (Gethsemane), 122 (handmaids).


16

the apse, the partially visible angels in the scene of the Nativity of Christ, those that are flying over in the scene of Christ Teaching in the Temple, and also those bearing Christ’s glory in the Ascension33 are all of the same figu-ral type, which is reversed in order to create two identical figures facing each other.

Many more examples could be mentioned. However, I think that those I have already noted suffice to demonstrate the obvious: the fact that paint-ers and teams of church decorators in Byzantium used mechanical means of transferring and tracing designs of figures onto the walls. Indeed, at the Protaton the small number of portrait types that are repeated with great faithfulness and accuracy reveals that the painters worked in an entirely mechanical manner, on the basis of a specific and predetermined technical procedure. However, in the late Palaeologan period, in southern Serbian monuments such as Markov Manastir and, to a lesser extent, in Sv. Andrej at Treska, this mechanical conception found its most extreme expression as it now extended to all aspects of the artistic act: the composition, the set-tings, the colours, etc.

It is reasonable to assume that the degree to which these mechanical methods were used is connected with the questions of productivity and available time, that is to say, issues that probably have more to do with the practical business of earning a living rather than art as it is understood to-day. This, of course, confirms the general view among researchers that there was a decline in artistic creativity during this period, although this practice is not necessarily connected with quality, just as it is not connected with the question of style. I have already shown that evidence of such a practice may be found in leading monuments from the Middle Byzantine period on-wards.

As has become clear, the decoration in the katholikon of Markov Manastir constitutes an extremely interesting reference point for the inves-tigation of work systems and methods of collaboration in the Late Byzan-tine era. The mechanical tracing of scenes and individual figures in this monument indicates, above all, a lack of creativity or, more precisely, an art dictated by the practical business of earning a livelihood. At the same time the systematic use of transfer cartoons here leaves no doubt as to the use of this method during the Byzantine era. The “silence” of post-Byzantine painting manuals on this subject does not refute this view since, as I intend

33 M. Ασπρά-Βαρδαβάκη/ M. Eμμανουήλ, Η μονή της Παντάνασσας στον Μυστρά. Οι

τοιχογραφίες του 15ου αιώνα, Aθήνα 2005, εικ. 25-6, 31, 44, 55.


17

17

to show in a forthcoming study, the information they give us is not only fragmentary and biased but relates to a variety of heterogeneous contexts.

Furthermore, the obvious stylistic disparity in Markov Manastir is not only related to the independence and equality that often govern the rela-tionship between the two collaborating painters. Together with the sophis-ticated iconographical programme, it highlights both the lack of interest in aesthetic values and also the insistence on a political (in its broadest sense) use and reception of the decoration. What is important here is not how but what. It is the typology that is important and not the style or the quality.

Yet it would be a mistake to connect this attitude with the artistic taste of the patron or his possible lack of artistic cultivation. Very simply, the Serbian ruler and the public he was relating to did not perceive of a figure’s autonomy of expression or usefulness as a means of exerting ideologico-political influence: this was to happen later.


18

Περίληψη

ΣΥΣΤΗΜΑΤΑ ΕΙΚΟΝΟΓΡΑΦΗΣΗΣ ΣΤΟ 14Ο ΑΙΩΝΑ. Η ΠΕΡΙΠΤΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΜΟΝΗΣ ΜΑΡΚΟV

Το καθολικό της μονής Markov στα Σκόπια ιστορήθηκε το έτος 1376/7 ή το 1380/1, σύμφωνα με την κτητορική επιγραφή. Οι τοιχογραφίες δεν ανήκουν στο χρωστήρα ενός μόνο καλλιτέχνη. Στον πρώτο κατά σειρά, κύριο, ζωγράφο οφείλεται το μεγαλύτερο μέρος του διακόσμου, ενώ η κατώτερη ζώνη του Βήματος, η ζώνη του Ακαθίστου στο ναό, μέρος του βιογραφικού κύκλου του αγίου Νικολάου στο νάρθηκα και ορισμένες μεμονωμένες μορφές οφείλονται σε έτερο ζωγράφο, που θα τον ονομάσω «ζωγράφο του Ακαθίστου».

Από τεχνοτροπική άποψη οι τοιχογραφίες των δύο καλλιτεχνών του καθολικού της μονής Markov φαίνεται να συντάσσονται με ένα ρεύμα εμμονής σε πρότυπα των αρχών του 14ου αιώνα. Ωστόσο, παρά την κοινή τεχνοτροπική τους καλύπτρα, οι δύο ζωγράφοι ουδόλως συγχρωτίζονται εικαστικά. Ο πρώτος ζωγράφος εκδηλώνει έναν εκφραστικό πριμιτιβισμό, και ένα πρωτοφανές, για τα δεδομένα της παλαιολόγειας ζωγραφικής, ενδιαφέρον για απόλυτη συμμετρία και ρυθμό. Ο δε «ζωγράφος του Ακαθίστου» εκφράζει, αντίθετα, έναν συντηρητικό ακαδημαϊσμό.

Η σημασία και η συμβολή του διακόσμου του καθολικού της μονής Markοv στην έρευνα των εσωτερικών διεργασιών για την παραγωγή του καλλιτεχνικού έργου στο Βυζάντιο δεν προκύπτει μόνον από την παρουσία σε αυτό ενός τύπου συνεργασίας, που αγνοεί το όποιο αίτημα για υφολογική ενότητα, αλλά και από την κυριαρχία ενός συστήματος εικονογράφησης, που δεν έχει ως σήμερα τεκμηριωθεί επαρκώς.

Ο πρώτος ζωγράφος, κυρίως, χρησιμοποιεί σύστημα μηχανικής αναπαραγωγής και αποτύπωσης του σχεδίου των μορφών στον τοίχο, όπως αποδεικνύει η αξιοσημείωτα ακριβής επανάληψη συγκεκριμένων μορφικών τύπων. Εντούτοις, δεν είναι η τεχνική καθαυτή που εντυπωσιάζει, αλλά η ακραία και υπερβολική της χρήση. Ολόκληρος ο διάκοσμος του ναού πραγματώνεται με δύο κατά κανόνα ανθίβολα! Και αυτό δεν είναι παράδοξο: τα συνεργεία ιστόρησης μνημείων της βυζαντινής περιόδου


19

19

χρησιμοποιούσαν μηχανιστικούς τρόπους μεταφοράς και αποτύπωσης του σχεδίου των μορφών στον τοίχο.

Η μηχανιστική αποτύπωση σκηνών και μεμονωμένων μορφών στο εξεταζόμενο μνημείο δεν αφήνει πλέον περιθώριο για αμφιβολίες, όσον αφορά στη χρήση ανθιβόλων κατά τη βυζαντινή περίοδο. Η δε εξαρτώμενη με αυτό υφολογική ασυμφωνία υποδηλώνει όχι μόνον την απουσία ενδιαφέροντος για αξίες αισθητικές αλλά και την εμμονή της ηγεμονικής χορηγίας της ύστερης παλαιολόγειας περιόδου στην πολιτική (με την ευρεία έννοια) χρήση και πρόσληψη του διακόσμου.


Fig. 1. Markov Manastir Katholikon.

Fig. 2. General view of the dome.


Fig. 3. The Ascension of the Christ. Detail.

Fig. 4. View of the south wall of the naos.


Fig. 5. Saints en pied.

Fig. 6. View of the East wall of the sanctuary.


Fig. 7. View of South-east wall of the sanctuary.

Fig. 8. The Ainoi. Detail.


Fig. 9. View of North-east wall of the narthex.

Fig. 10. The Dormition of the Virgin.


Fig. 11. The Betrayal of Judas.

Fig. 12. The Denial of St. Peter.


Fig. 13. Unknown Saint. Detail.

Fig.14. Angel of the Great Entrance. Detail.


Fig. 15. Paper Cartoon in form of an angel.

Fig. 16. Prophets of the dome en pied (Salomon, Moses, Elias).


Fig. 17. Prophets of the dome (Ezekiel, Zacharias).

Fig.18. Prophets of the dome (Jacob, Micheas).


Fig. 19. Noli Me Trangere.

Fig. 20. Scenes of St. Demetrios Life.

Painting Work Systems in the Fourteenth Century (Byzantina n. 33)

Documents

Transcript of Painting Work Systems in the Fourteenth Century (Byzantina n. 33)