FR AMING RUSSIAN ART

From Early Icons to Malevich

oleg tar asov
framing russian art
Framing Russian Art
From Early Icons to Malevich

Oleg Tarasov

Translated by Robin Milner-Gulland and Antony Wood

With an Editorial Preface by Robin Milner-Gulland

reaktion bo oks
Published by Reaktion Books Ltd
33 Great Sutton Street
London ec1v 0dx, uk
www.reaktionbooks.co.uk

This book was first published in 2007 by Progress-Traditsiya as Rama i obraz.

Ritorika obramleniya v russkom iskusstve. © Progress-Traditsiya, 2007

English language translation copyright © Reaktion Books 2011

All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

Printed and bound in China by C&C Offset Printing Co., Ltd

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Tarasov, O. IU. (Oleg IUrevich)
Framing Russian art : from early icons to Malevich.
1. Picture frames and framing.
2. Picture frames and framing – History.
3. Picture perception.
4. Art appreciation.
5. Icons – Russia (Federation)
6. Art, Russian.
7. Art, European.
I. Title
701.1-dc22

isbn 978 1 86189 762 6

Contents

Editorial Preface 7
Introduction: The Rhetoric of Framing in Russian Art 11

part one: Frame and Image

1 Symbolic Unity 27
Ark and Niche 27 – In the Mirror of Perspective 36 – Rhetoric and the
New Icon 46 – Frame as World 70
2 From the Middle Ages to Romanticism 105
Abramtsevo: Window into a Russian World 105 – Idea and Feeling 114
– The Boundary of Paradise 124 – Icon Case and Picture Frame 148
– The Museum 176

part two: Playing with Space

3 The Lustre of Power 207
The Palace: Frame, Picture and History 207 – The Rhetoric of Title 227
4 Between Industry and Art 261
Display 261 – The Painting as Photographic Exposure 282 – Artist, Frame-maker
and Client 300 – The Quest for Concord 317 – The Avant-garde: Overcoming the
Frame 331 – The Antiquary and Dismantlement 353
Conclusion 369
Abbreviations 377
References 379
Bibliography 395
Acknowledgements 409
Index 411
editorial preface

‘Framing’ may seem a minor aspect of art history and the artistic experience.
It is indeed peripheral: literally so, since it concerns boundaries, edges, without
which the central object or area of attention would have no defined existence.
Hence, as this book makes abundantly clear, framing is in fact a major, integral
aspect of the art object and of aesthetics generally. The frame lets us know where
we are in contemplating, appreciating or using the art object; furthermore, it adds
elements without which the object and its meanings would be incomplete – all
the more powerfully, if subliminally, because we may well not be immediately
conscious of them.
The frame of a work of pictorial art is (normally) a palpable and familiar
object. The framing of sculptures, architectural elements and whole buildings
may be less obvious, and of course seldom involves a separate, detachable object
like a picture frame, yet is of just as great significance. In this book Oleg Tarasov
is certainly concerned with physical, visible frames and how they act on our
perceptions; but he is equally at home in discussing the semiotic frame that
‘renders it [the visual image] distinctive within its surrounding space’, the setting,
from prayer-house to private collection to museum, within which images are
required and appreciated. Thence it is a natural step to the ‘conceptual frame’,
locating the image within a distinctive web of ideas and beliefs. This may seem
to be simply what we are used to calling ‘context’, and indeed may well overlap
with the latter; but the ‘conceptual frame’ is a more tightly drawn notion, of
structural significance for the art object, no mere penumbra of circumstances
that accompanied the accident of its emergence.
Of course, framing is not a characteristic of the visual arts alone. Stories,
poems, plays, musical works may not be physical objects in the way that pictures
or statues are, yet they are just as subject to the human urge – even need – for
framing. We all know narratives that frame other narratives (e.g. The Decameron,

7
‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’, Heart of Darkness), but subtler and more
convoluted framings are to be found in, and between, all the arts. In a Russian
context, imagine the pictures of the deceased Viktor Gartman (who happens to
make a brief but surprising appearance in Tarasov’s text), each framed physi-
cally and also semiotically within an exhibition space, around which his friend
Musorgsky perambulates before double-framing them individually and collectively
in a musical composition, with its own verbal frame, before it is ‘re-framed’ by
Ravel and others who orchestrate and re-present the piano original. Or take
Tolstoy’s short story ‘The Kreutzer Sonata’, a framed narrative that, as its title
implies, frames an implicit musical work, the whole subsequently re-framed,
for new polemic purposes, as a string quartet by the composer Janáček (and, as
has happened recently, capable of being framed again as drama – by its nature
an obviously ‘framing’ medium).
Many volumes would be needed to explore these ramifications extensively
(and we have not even touched upon the framing potential of, for example,
translation, titles of works, dedications and authorial signatures). Oleg Tarasov
wisely keeps to visual art – the visual art of one country, through 1,000 years –
as his central focus of attention, but continually points out how art is framed
by concepts that are expressed verbally, and indeed by the ‘rhetorical’ (i.e. persua-
sive) written word itself; he also touches upon the role of Russian religious art
as a component of what is essentially an enveloping Gesamtkunstwerk, a totaliz-
ing aesthetic experience. He draws of course on a great many examples, but it
would not be wrong to say that at the heart of the project realized in this book
stand three great, complex artistic ‘organisms’, multiple in both their significances
and their component parts: the huge (now dismantled) seventeenth-century
‘Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev’; the church ensemble and paintings of
Abramtsevo; and the grand series of ‘war pictures’ by the late nineteenth-
century painter Vereshchagin. Thorough and perceptive analysis shows how
each of these ambitious, complex ensembles is framed by intensely experienced
ideological signs in the spirit of its times. And just as in his previous book,
Icon and Devotion, there is referential breadth of vision that moves easily
beyond the circumscribed experience of one country’s culture into that of
European (even world) culture, illuminating how closely the Russian cultural
experience impinges on that of post-Renaissance, particularly Baroque, Europe
as a whole.
The details of the materials used in this book, and the conclusions Tarasov
draws from them, are set out in his Introduction and Conclusion; it would be

8
 editorial preface

superfluous to repeat them here. Nevertheless, the reader may well wish to have
a brief idea of the structure of the volume before engaging with it. It is chrono-
logically ordered, but falls essentially into two halves, whose differences are to
some extent thematic. The first half deals largely with art objects of religious
significance, most of them ‘icons’ in the generally accepted sense (for a short
account of icons, see the Editor’s Foreword to Icon and Devotion). The material
is thus largely ‘Old Russian’ (i.e. pre-1700), with extensive Western European
comparisons; but in the last couple of sections the argument is taken onward
through the ostensibly ‘secular’ age that followed, and finishes with a close
examination of how icons were ‘framed’ as exhibits in museums up to the
present. The second half concentrates on the framing of secular art objects,
starting with ‘palace art’ – the art of power and its rituals – then continuing
through the ideologically loaded paintings of the nineteenth-century Wanderers
to the avant-garde of the early twentieth century, and attempts to transcend or
do away with framing. On the way particular attention is paid to the development
and significance of photography; also to the trade in antiques, auctions and to
restorations of varying degrees of probity.
When a few years ago I was privileged to edit and translate Oleg Tarasov’s
Icon and Devotion, I wrote that ‘his aim emerges as nothing less than to rewrite
the cultural history of Russia since the sixteenth century’. In the present book,
it seems to me, the aim and the achievement are to rewrite the history of
Russian art – as a component of universal art – from the adoption of Christianity
to the end of the twentieth century. Just as previously, the examples Tarasov
takes are refreshingly far from the obvious art-historical commonplaces. This
book itself ‘frames’ Russian art history, just as it in turn is framed by Russian
art as a totality.

A book as intricate and substantial as this called for the efforts of two translators
if it might hope to be published in reasonable time. Antony Wood joined Robin
Milner-Gulland in undertaking the task, and the division of labour was simple:
R. M.-G. took the first half of the book, A. W. the second. But to have two
experienced translators at work on it turned out to be a great boon: we
continually exchanged ideas, resolved difficult problems together, and critically
examined each other’s drafts. Here Oleg Tarasov too was always ready with help
and ideas. It may be tedious to mention problems resistant to the ordinary
processes of translation, yet in this text they strike at the heart of the operation:
we have had to exercise particular care when faced with various ‘framing’ words:

9
rama, ramka, freymirovaniye, rama-okno (the last a much-used coinage of the
author’s, meaning approximately ‘frame-as-window’).
Beyond individual words or phrases, we were faced with the specific ways
in which art – and cultural – history is periodized in Russian scholarship. Russia,
as everyone knows, had no Renaissance; but, as Tarasov shows, a fairly compre-
hensive set of Renaissance ideas and methods trickled into the culture and arts
of Russia over a couple of hundred years. Thereafter Russia is shown to have
experienced every aspect of the Baroque – yet confusingly this period is divided
between what are conventionally considered the ‘Old’ and ‘Modern’ Russian
historical epochs. What Russians subsequently think of as the ‘Age of Classicism’
(c. 1760–1830) we tend to call ‘Neoclassicism’. From the later nineteenth century
we encounter the stylistic period of the ‘Modern’ (in Russian, stil’ modern)– a
concept that in Western parlance approaches, but does not quite overlap with,
Art Nouveau, Arts and Crafts, even Symbolism – predating as it does the full-
scale ‘Modern Movement’ that dates from early in the twentieth century.
We try to keep the reader aware of all these matters.
As far as transliteration is concerned, we have chosen (as with Icon and
Devotion) what we believe to be the user-friendly ‘British’ system, devised by
W. K. Matthews and set out, for example, in the three volumes of The Cambridge
Companion to Russian Studies. It gives a fair idea of pronunciation to English
speakers. Where standardized English forms exist (e.g. Moscow; Archangel;
St Sergius) we use them; we omit the soft sign (’) in well-known names; and
we spell the names Alexander and Alexandra in English fashion. Names of
rulers from Peter i (the Great) onwards have been put in anglicized form.

Robin Milner-Gulland

10
 introduction

The Rhetoric of Framing

in Russian Art

This book is neither the history of a craft, nor a multiform world. But it still assists spatial orienta-
history of the picture frame. Its aim is quite differ- tion: the frame directs the gaze upon the object
ent: to demonstrate the role and meaning of the that it so firmly holds in its embrace. This margin-
frame both in the organization of picture-space ality of the frame’s position within the process of
and in the very perception of the visual image – perception lends it very important cultural-historical
be it a building, an icon, a painting, a print or a meanings. But how and why does that happen? It
photograph. This relates not only to the frame as is important to realize that we shall never manage
a visual object surrounding the image, but to the to capture the original meaning of an icon or
sort of mental and conceptual frame exemplified painting if we know nothing about its original
by a text that serves to explain the visual image framing. Thus the meaning of the St Paul icon
in question. What is the significance of the frame from the Deisis row of a fifteenth-century Russian
in understanding what we see? Why does the frame iconostasis cannot be understood without a clear
seem necessary in some cases, but in others is conception of its whole iconographic programme
deliberately avoided? And what exactly is a frame and of the wooden structure of which it was a
in the broad sense, how is it understood in various constituent part. Deprived of this architectural/
cultural-historical periods, within various artistic sculptural framework, our icon is just a ‘fragment’,
and social settings? Those are simply the general merely a small part of the once-unified artistic
questions that define the range of this study. ensemble of the church for which it was painted at
It would be quite justifiable to call them ‘elusive’, a specific time and in a specific place. But let us go
‘ungraspable’, ‘not fully clarified’, yet still tangible on to imagine that in the mid-nineteenth century
and visible. this icon was placed in an Old Believer prayer-
We see frames all around us, and simultane- house, in the early twentieth century in a private
ously fail to notice them. This occurs because the collection of Old Russian art, and in our own time
frame is the point of contact between the picture in a contemporary museum. In each case its signifi-
and the viewer: it is located at the periphery of our cance is substantially changed. Thus the Old Believer
gaze, at the limit of perception of a complex and would perceive the ancient icon as a religious image.

11
An early twentieth-century collector might see it as through written and spoken pronouncements such
a ‘masterpiece’, a ‘work of high art’. As a museum as a guidebook and exhibition catalogue, a book or
display it acquires the status of a ‘scholarly exhibit’ article about an artist’s work, a note on attribution,
and takes its place in the inflexible chronology of etc. All these kinds of framing disclose the condi-
the history of Russian art. From such an example tional nature of our vision and reveal it as a dis-
we can draw the important conclusion that the tinct set of conventions. With some simplification
change in meaning of this icon happens as a result one can say that the frame of the visual image in
of the change in its material (visible) and imagi- the broad sense of the word can be understood as
nary (invisible) framing. The icon’s material frame a ‘meeting’ of the artist’s and the viewer’s gaze,
consists of its margins, metal cladding (oklad), icon as a result of which the artistic image is born. Since
case (kiot), the structure of its wooden iconostasis, at various times the same pictures are perceived
the church interior, the furnishings of the Old differently, so too the artistic image appears as
Believer prayer-house or the private house of the an object of historically variable magnitude.
collector. It also includes various scratches, written One simple example: changing a picture frame
notes, inscriptions and drawings on the back of the can imply the imposition of a different point of
icon-board, which as meaningful signs constitute view on what is within it.
a semiotic frame, or that ‘materialized’ immediate The differentiation and development of various
context of the visual image that is not only part forms of frame for the visual image is a most
of it, but also renders it distinctive within its important phenomenon in European culture.
surrounding space, makes one concentrate on it, It is linked by a multitude of invisible threads to
gives the image its own place and connections changes in humanity’s picture of the world and its
within the general flow of signs and significances value-system. On that level the frame suggests and
of one or another culture. permits the study of a picture not in isolation, but
There came a moment in European culture in its close interaction with the whole culture of an
when pictures and icons acquired not only material age. More concretely, out of this there also emerges
frames distinct from the image, but conceptual the fundamental object of our investigation – the
frames too. This happened in the Renaissance, history of the interaction of person and image,
when picture frames reminiscent of a ‘window in a in which the frame is problematized as a distinct
wall’ first saw the light of day, while simultaneously means for perceiving the world. The picture exists
we witness the birth of the ‘applied aesthetics’ of not only in its surrounding space, but also in the
Vasari and other artist-theoreticians such as Dürer space of our thought, our consciousness, whose
or Lomazzo. Later, at the time of Kant, this will most important property is the ability to delimit
be turned into academic art theory and will be and at the same time to connect the inner with the
amplified by a ‘system’ of current opinions about outer. After all, in order to understand something
pictures, linked with the trade in antiquities. That we have to separate it in our consciousness from
meant the pictorial representation itself was eluci- that which is ‘other’ and at the same time connect
dated not only though a material frame, but also ‘this’ with something else. But this process is quite

12
 introduction

impossible without a particular value-system the spectator, the artist, the collector, the antiquar-
defining a human world-picture. Today there can ian, and equally many other personages who are
be no doubting that visual images actively influence able to bring objects that had earlier attracted no
human consciousness. As far as we are concerned, attention into the field of scholarly investigation.
we find it important to emphasize that a frame, To pose the question in this way demands clarifica-
being the means of transmitting an image, has a tion of one’s initial theoretical positions, and first
far from insignificant role in this influence. of all answers to two questions: (1) what is a visual
Thus in the Middle Ages the frame was part of image? (2) what is ‘the rhetoric of framing’? Any
the ontology of the transcendental impulse for representation is of a world that is not real, but
the visual image. The framed section of the icon conventionalized, a world created according to
always took possession of surrounding space and defined rules and laws that are subject to change
‘deformed’ it according to the divine will, opening over the course of time. Thus the name ‘Napoleon’
in it a door or window onto another world, trans- (a linguistic sign) tells us nothing about the indi-
figured and illuminated. This world also stood in vidual features of the imperial personage; we learn
opposition to the earthly cosmos, and was alarm- about those by looking at his portrait (a visual
ingly juxtaposed to it, naturally or supernaturally. sign). This sort of reception of a picture is lodged
But with the coming of the modern age the human in human nature.1 But the visual image can also be
mind created an image on the basis of individual regarded as a ‘text’, which is to say that the recep-
imagination and personal connection with the tion and comprehension of a picture are the object
transcendental, making use of this ability to influ- of an agreement (a convention) between artist and
ence the general consciousness. A truly captivating viewer. In Russian scholarly literature the funda-
picture opens up before us on this trajectory in the mentals of such an approach were laid down in
modern history of European culture. We see how works on semiotics by the Moscow-Tartu school,
as images strive towards virtuality and start taking particularly those of Boris Uspensky and Yuriy M.
over reality, their framing is obliterated; it moves Lotman, and outside Russia by Meyer Schapiro
towards invisibility, to the point of ‘disappearance’, and Nelson Goodman, developed more recently by
in photography and film. Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson.2 Such an approach
The aim of the present work is to demonstrate lays no special weight on the distinction between
that both the real and the imaginative frame of a visual and linguistic signs: pictures and icons are
visual image are linked with a person’s picture of created and received as if literary texts, and have
the world, and to propose it as a most important the same rhetorical basis as written sources. This can
element of artistic space, possessing a multitude be seen to be so if we take into account the fact that
of functions; and finally to describe by means of from classical times up to the eighteenth century
the frame not only the actual picture-space of one the object itself in European representational art
or another work of art, but also cultural space in was defined by the written text. Artist and sculptor
general. On this level the frame as cultural phenom - would primarily create those artistic images that
enon allows us to introduce into our investigation were directly associated with religious, historical

13
and poetic discourse.3 The problem of framing, as it all began rather prosaically. In 1897 the Venetian
we have posed the question, is based on a second antiquarian and businessman Michelangelo
point of view, although it does hold out the possi- Guggenheim, concerning himself with the sale
bility of a relative harmonization of the method- and fashioning of furniture in historical styles,
ological approaches. This ‘harmonization’ does not published more than one hundred Italian
mean the absence of methodology. Rather, the Renaissance-period picture frames. This work,
present state of knowledge dictates understanding revolutionary for its time, opened up the frame
of ‘otherness’, comprehension of a culture as a as a work of art to scholars and drew attention to
whole, and thus pluralism of analytical methods. its significance in how a picture is apprehended.4
If we take that as our starting point the very choice Guggenheim laid down a whole new direction in
of object for investigation is often foregrounded, art-historical studies, which began to see the picture
and method will be subjected to it. frame as an independent aesthetic object, separate,
The methodological and historiographic that is to say, from the picture itself. This path was
preconditions for our task are to be found in the followed by other scholars of the origins and art
spiritual and intellectual atmosphere of the twentieth of the picture frame in Western European culture,
century, fast retreating into history. Research into including J. Falke, Wilhelm von Bode, Elfried Bock,
the frame appears in European scholarship at the Serge Roche, W. Ayrshire, Giuseppe Morazzoni and
moment when artistic practice witnesses a special Henry Heydenryk.5
type of play with it, beginning with experiments One of the first to pose the problem of the his-
by the Impressionists and continuing until its torical origin of the picture frame was Bock, in his
‘disappearance’ among the avant-garde. In this Florentinische und venezianische Bilderrahmen aus
concentration of attention on the frame we can see der Zeit der Gotik und Renaissance (Munich, 1902).
a peculiarity of scholarly and artistic thinking in Examining the peculiarities of altar-construction
the twentieth century – a time of analysis, of the in fifteenth-century Florence, he came to the
dissection of an object into component parts with conclusion that the picture frame appeared in
the aim of comprehending it better, of observing it the Renaissance as a result of the destruction of
from a variety of angles. Thus the twentieth century the Gothic tradition of altar construction. In this
began with the amassing of ‘antiquarian’ data on context he drew attention to Gentile da Fabriano’s
the history of the picture frame, and ended by Strozzi Altarpiece, the Adoration of the Magi (1423;
assigning the frame a leading role, as a demarcat- Uffizi, Florence), which many subsequent com-
ing and contextual element in postmodernism. mentators would consider the last link in the chain
The frame and everything related to it (the concept of events leading to the separation of frame from
of the mobile sign and the ‘framing’ of meaning) image.6 Bock also made comparisons between vari-
is no longer at the periphery of scholarly thought, ous depictions of frames on Florentine frescoes, in
but at its centre. Between these poles we find a particular Christ on the Cross Adored by St Dominic
complex historical, philosophical and culturological by Fra Angelico in the monastery of San Marco.
rethinking of the theme of the frame. It is true that He also drew attention to similarities between the

14
 introduction

shape of frames for altarpieces, the portals of It is interesting that at about the same time as
Venetian cathedrals and window surrounds. There Guggenheim was publishing his work on picture
are generalizing works along the same lines by frames, the Russian scholar N. I. Troitsky was the
Heydenryk and Claus Grimm, as well as by Paul first to present the iconostasis as a symbolic struc-
Mitchell and Lynn Roberts.7 They are amplified ture. It was he who drew attention to the decorative
by more and more new publications each year.8 artistic frame of the iconostasis, which for him was
Catalogues of exhibitions of picture frames are symbolically linked with the icons themselves.19
important in this process.9 Two of these, both from From that point on one may consider that Russian
exhibitions in Amsterdam, have made a great con- study of the iconostasis has made a serious contri-
tribution to our understanding of the synthesis bution to European scholarly work on the frame.
of picture and frame: Framing in the Golden Age: The fullest idea of this tradition is given in a series
Picture and Frame in 17th Century Holland10 and of essays, The Iconostasis: Origin – Development –
In Perfect Harmony. Picture + Frame, 1850–1920.11 Symbolism, edited by A. M. Lidov.20
The catalogue of the exhibition The Art of the Edge, In the 1960s and ’70s the frame of a work of art
featuring frames from the collection in the Art began to interest the world of semiotics. Here the
Institute of Chicago (1986), included an essay on writings of Yuriy Lotman and Boris Uspensky, in
the meaning of the picture frame by the famous which they examined the problems of the connec-
Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset.12 tion between the frame and cultural space, have
Against this background of a stream of Western particular relevance to the problems posed in the
literature, Russian scholarly interest in the picture present book: they discussed the frame on the one
frame is relatively insignificant and essentially limit- hand as part of the composition, on the other as
ed to the works of Valeriy Turchin, who turned his linked with the cultural-historical context.21 The
attention to the topic at the beginning of the 1970s, question of the frame as a component of the work
and also to some recent publications.13 Observations of art was also touched upon by Lev Zhegin in ‘The
on the picture frame can also be found in some more Language of the Artwork’.22 In Western scholarship
general works.14 But it was an exhibition from the questions concerning the frame in the context of
collection of the Russian Museum in St Petersburg – visual semiotics have been studied by Schapiro.23
Clothing the Picture: Artistic Frames in Russia, Nowadays the theoretical aspects of the semiotics
18th–Early 20th Centuries (2005) – that can be con- of the frame are most insistently resonant in works
sidered the first step in the study of picture frames of art history. The methodological and thematic
as works of Russian decorative applied art.15 A cult component of art-historical literature on this topic
urological approach to the symbolism of the icon (above all British and American) bear witness to
frame was undertaken in an article by Valentina a fundamental retreat from positivistic studies in
Chubinskaya,16 and also in various works by the the direction of the conceptual re-evaluation of
author of this book.17 The peculiarities of framing individual works and a widespread use of the tools
structures in eighteenth-century Russian theatrical of philosophy. The history of art appears to be
productions have been surveyed by L. A. Sofronova.18 close to the culturology and philosophy of history.

15
Erwin Panofsky was one of the first to demonstrate parameters. Nothing is logically closed off, and
such an approach when he adopted his iconological there is nothing that is permanent. Culture is
method. Taking drawings of picture frames by conceived as an open field for the movement of
Giorgio Vasari as his starting point, Panofsky signs that acquire and lose their definitions.
showed that the frame could exemplify the most For that reason, too, any representation is always
important cultural historical ideas of the age.24 ‘framing itself ’ with a variety of fluid meanings.
Jacques Derrida’s concept of the ‘openness’ and It is, as it were, imbued with them.
‘penetrability’ of the frame has exercised a great ‘The frame’ and ‘framing’ can be understood
influence on contemporary work in the field. In in Derrida both as the object of analysis and as
his essay ‘Parergon’ (Greek ‘addition’, ‘adornment’), a working concept. If in the word ‘framing’ we
the theme of framing is developed in close conjunc- emphasize its procedural and technical significance,
tion with his idea of the ‘mobile sign’.25 According it comes close to nothing less than a method of
to Derrida, the sign is not a link with a single, scientific analysis. It is clear that how something is
unique ‘signified’, meaning the same for everybody ‘framed’, or the idea of ‘framing’, are both closely
– rather, it is a movement, a flow from one signifier linked to the concept of ‘deconstruction’.26 One of
to another. Hence artistic space is understood by the concrete senses of the latter is actually the
him as open in principle: the aesthetic boundary is construction of a context. It has to be understood
obliterated, while the idea of the frame as closing that, in the words of the philosopher himself, decon-
off an artistic text is placed in doubt. A semiosis struction is not a negative operation. On the one
based on the destruction of the frame is proposed. hand, it is a question of dismantling and unpicking
In Derrida, first and foremost it is a question of the the structure (each of its component parts –
frame as an aesthetic and philosophical category. philosophical, linguistic, cultural, political, etc.);
His aim is to demonstrate that the idea that framing on the other hand, by ‘deconstruction’ is meant
an art object means ‘closing it off ’ and ‘separating ‘rather some sort of genealogical investigation,
it out’ is of no help in considering the frame itself than destruction’. This unpicking and dismantling
as a special cultural zone. The logic of ‘closure’ leads assume a comprehension of the fact that a given
to a description of the ‘external’ and clarification ‘ensemble’ was itself constructed: that is to say, the
of the ‘internal’, but the frame itself has neither reconstruction of the ensemble so that it can be
‘interior’ nor ‘exterior’: it is a special zone that deconstructed. If we take into account this multi-
permits the exterior and the interior to interpene- valency of the word ‘deconstruction’, ‘framing’ of
trate. This penetrability of the frame in fact also meaning becomes the chief basis for the new semi-
implies the destruction of an aesthetic boundary, otics. The ‘framing’ of an object of study can look
its mobility at will, opening the way to an endlessly like some kind of threading together or linking in a
mobile semiosis (with no beginning or end). The chain of more and more meaningful frames, that is
same penetrability also determines the dissolution to say endless meanings enclosed within each other.
of meaning, which according to Derrida takes This approach to the study of a work of art
place within certain kinds of social and historical was in fact prepared for by the emergence of inter-

16
 introduction

pretation as a form of analysis. It was discussed by Several scholars have attempted to understand
Hans Sedlmayr, when he made an appeal ‘to take the mechanism of visual perception itself.30 Side
equally into account that “sphere” of a work of by side with their works on the theme in question,
art that surrounds its visible form like a more great importance attaches to the psychoanalytic
spacious, subtler, invisible envelope, that has to be theory of Jacques Lacan, who developed the concept
reckoned with so as to fully understand that work of the visual symbolic field that has of course
of art’.27 It is noteworthy that Mikhail Alpatov too influenced numerous modern studies of cinema,
gave thought to the context of the frame, and his subjecting visual perception to the imagined world.
words were quoted by the German scholar: According to Lacan, a central problem of the psycho-
analysis of the visual field comes down to the
There is no need for the external limits of the question of illusion and is closely linked with the
work of art to coincide with its ‘essential limits’. concept of the ‘imagined’. What the human gaze
The substitution of external physical limits for defines as a visual field is only an illusion, since in
its essential limits would once again lead, from reality it is defined (as is language) by a sign system
another point of view, to the ‘objectification’ of for structuring the surrounding world that already
art, which is just what should be avoided. In fact exists in society.31 This position has a special signif-
much that lies beyond these limits stands closer icance for the understanding of such a conceptual
to the essence of the work of art than what is and spatial framing of the artwork as a museum
included in the limits of the frame.28 display. The museum and its organization is one of
the most discussed themes in contemporary scholar-
All these theoretical aspects of the frame ship.32 And this is no accident, since the museum
nowadays find a broad response in contemporary evidently exists not simply to serve as the ‘framing’
writings on art history, in which it is often empha- of cultural artefacts, but also so as to exercise an
sized that interpretation carries no ultimate truth ‘imperceptible’ effect on the mass consciousness,
in itself, whereas any historical fact reveals the since its galleries and display cases set out the
influence of whatever theory it is received from. means by which one or another historical epoch
The collection of articles published in 1996 as The can be elucidated. In this sense the museum is
Rhetoric of the Frame would seem to demonstrate one of the most elevated and complex frames for
almost the entire spectrum of problematics on human perception.
the theme of the frame.29 One can trace in it the In the last decades of the twentieth century
influence of the most varied theories: Saussurean it was not by chance that the theme of the frame
structuralism, ‘deconstruction’ and psychoanalysis. came to be (and has remained) the object of
The frame as a material boundary of the work of heightened attention on the part of philosophers,
art is analysed in close connection with the artistic culturologists, literary scholars and art historians.
image, and is studied as an inalienable part of the This is understandable: in the scholarship and art
work, introducing a multitude of cultural-historical of the last century interest in the frame was linked
meanings. with the historical displacement of rationalism and

17
the birth of a new type of logic. From the time of which was not – to demonstrate a flight of fancy?
Aristotle, logic had been understood as the science That is obviously one of those questions that
of correct thinking, guaranteeing that if the stimulate the sort of interdisciplinary methods that
premises were right the conclusion would be too. nowadays are so necessary: a bringing together of
The twentieth century first put this proposition structural typology with cultural anthropology,
in doubt. Scientific knowledge ceased to be know- reception theory and the history of concepts, value
ledge of Nature ‘as it really is’ and ceased to be systems, symbols and rituals. Certain principles of
objective in the sense of being independent of modern rhetorical theory and postmodern philos-
humanity. As a result scholars strove to inscribe a ophy have important significance for a deepened
subjective impulse into their picture of the world. understanding of the theme of the frame.
It is precisely in this connection that the theme If the expression ‘rhetoric of framing’ had been
of the frame has acquired a particular immediacy used as a subtitle to this book, we have in so doing
in the contemporary humanities. The frame as a aligned ourselves with the modern concept of rhet-
problem for scholarship represents a concentration oric, that is, with a broadened meaning of rhetoric
of scholarly attention on those difficulties and as the art of persuasion. Aristotle himself, father of
‘hindrances’ that prevent one from penetrating the subject, defined it as the ‘science of the general’.
through the text to the reality that gave rise to it, Rhetoric is the ‘commonplace’ (locus communus),
to the very people of the past. That certainly does the model and its invariant; it is a text based on a
not mean that this is absolutely impossible, that the text. Therefore modern scholarship sometimes
past ‘did not exist’, and does not exclude a search regards European cultural epochs before Romantic -
for precise knowledge about this or that document, ism as cultures of rhetorical type, at the basis of
icon or painting. But it would be hard to deny which lay the rhetorical principle of organization
nevertheless that the displacement of the framework of the text and notion of artistic space – the principle
of historical perceptions does not, in fact, produce of orientation towards a model and the creation
a new reality: historical cognition as a dialogue of of its invariant. Here it should be emphasized that,
cultures cannot help but reflect the actual observer. unlike previous cultural epochs, the period of
Hence the theme of the rhetoric of framing permits Romanticism made a point of individualism.
us to foreground not the task of attaining objective Rhetoric and the orientation towards models and
reality, as positivistic scholarship would have posed rules were criticized by the Romantics from their
it, but rather the task of reproducing an image of position of creative individuality.34 However, from
reality in its cultural-historical integrity. Pictures the point of view of the ‘new rhetoric’ even a real-
constructed according to a rhetorical principle, istic picture from the nineteenth century would
just like written sources, give the investigator only have a concealed rhetorical basis, inasmuch as it
a pallid, and sometimes even totally distorted, represented a projection of a three-dimensional
copy of historical reality.33 But how exactly did the object on the two dimensions of the surface of
frame employ its whole rich arsenal of rhetorical the canvas, and consequently a stylized sign system.
weaponry to demonstrate that which was and that Precisely such a stylized system of signs also

18
 introduction

represents a definite historical convention. From theory of a Renaissance type did the icon begin to
this point of view the frame of a visual image be regarded as art, that is to say did it turn into a
will fully reflect a concrete historical situation of learnedly aesthetic and philosophical ideal of divine
‘dialogue’ between picture and viewer. The frame wisdom, towards which there was one guide: the
merely fixes those meanings that are the product artist. Earlier, the power of an icon was a gift of
of a particular epoch. God; now it was to depend on the free choices of
Alongside this we shall also discuss framing the artist, whose art was taken into the service of the
specifically in ‘Russian art’, which implies paying Church. These new pictorial icons began to be made
special attention to those aesthetic theories that in the circle of the masters of the Armoury Chamber
determined the artistic peculiarities of the image. under Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, when Western
The frame of an icon or picture of course changed European artists arrived in Moscow and started
as concepts of the ‘beautiful’ changed. For that to teach Russian masters the fundamentals of
reason the ‘framing’ of the idea of beauty is an inner Renaissance art. Peter the Great, who invited archi-
motif of this book. And in this context it is impor- tects, engravers and painters from abroad, proposed
tant to underline that it is possible to speak of the initiating the teaching of the ‘liberal arts’ (painting
Russian icon as art in the strict sense of the word and sculpture) in an ‘Academy of Sciences and
only from the second half of the seventeenth Curious Arts’, which was provisionally realized
century, when the very concept of ‘liberal art’ first under his successor, Catherine i. Finally, in St
appeared in Rus’ – the concept, that is to say, of an Petersburg in 1757, at the initiative of Count Ivan
autonomous mimetic art claiming to apprehend the Shuvalov, an ‘Academy of the Three Most Distin-
surrounding world. It was then that there appeared guished Arts’ was set up, in which a general classical
in Russian art the mimetic (i.e. imitating nature) programme for the free arts – painting, sculpture
visual image – easel painting – which demands a and architecture – was laid down. It contained clear,
separate frame. Before then the Russian icon is the incontrovertible and mutually reinforcing rules, in
sort of canonical art that by Berdyayev’s definition the context of which frame and image were subordi-
‘belongs to a pre-creative epoch, still within the nated to the aesthetic theories regarding beauty.
limits of law and redemption’, since until the These were to lie at the basis of Russian art of
Renaissance ‘art in the final meaning of that word the Baroque, Neoclassical and Romantic periods.
did not exist and could not do so. The proper And if rhetoric was an internal mechanism of all
anthropology had not yet been discovered.’35 The art these cultural epochs, then the frame was a most
of the medieval icon painter consisted in a know- important indicator of those new ideals of beauty
ledge of the a priori rules of the craft, not in creative that lay at the basis of the creation of all kinds of
imagination. The Old Russian icon was a cult object visual images: icons, pictures, engravings and so
– a theological ideal of heavenly beauty, inseparable on. Thus the historical trajectory of the frame and
from the sacred space of the church and standing in the ways it existed within culture are closely linked
opposition to surrounding reality.36 And only with with the peculiarities of the human picture of
the appearance in Muscovite Rus’ of an aesthetic the world.

19
 In the course of our present study we shall dis- changed and were relocated within Russian and
tinguish two groups of problems. On the one hand Western European culture. In this context we
the frame will be examined as a vehicle for deliver- devote particular attention to the autonomy of the
ing the visual image, on the other as a threshold frame of the medieval sacred image, that is to say
for its perception. The first group directly relates to the close link between the appearance of the
to the active role of the frame in the construction of window-like frame with the development of the
the artistic space of a church, a palace or an exhibi- concept of an independent mimetic art. The icon
tion gallery, which has been defined as representing as a cult image was always directed towards the
‘the model of the world of a given author, expressed presentation, not the self-knowledge of its subject.
in the language of special relations’.37 In this respect The frame of a medieval icon is a blank wall,
we can assert that it is precisely the specific inter- emphasizing the inflexibility and permanence of
pretation of artistic space that brings the history divine truth. But as soon as the image becomes
of the framing of the icon, the pictorial window- art, it at once leads consciousness along the path
style frame, frame-like cropping of a photograph of imagination and conviction. Thus a separate
or film to life. The history of the frame is the history frame, which could allow a person to compare it
of the mastering of artistic space. From this comes with something else (say, a window), is essential
the significant broadening of the field of enquiry for the image. As soon as the idea of art acquires
concerning what might have seemed as narrow a autonomy, the frame is separated from the repre-
subject as the frame, since it involves the task of sentation, while the autonomous art itself is
global observation and its comprehension as a drawn into the service both of the Church and the
cultural-historical context. In any case to find government, which see the possibility of enrolling
out what is ‘particular’ we need to take as broad the idea of beauty in the cause of goodness, truth,
a background as possible. the affirmation of civic ideals and so on. Thus if the
Throughout this book the reader will encounter traditional icon is set in opposition to surrounding
certain constant expressions – ‘house’, ‘window’, reality, the icon as art object actively cooperates
‘door’, ‘stairs’. These constitute formative symbols with it. It ceaselessly affirms its profound, inviolable
of European culture, threading right through its connection with time: the autonomous theory of
cultural-historical strata and emerging in a multi- art is devoted to the elucidation of its existential
tude of contexts. Hence it is not by accident that riches. Hence the interior of a Russian eighteenth-
these framing constructs have always been those century church can remind one of the interior of a
that order artistic space, while changes in them palace, and the frame of an icon of that of a secular
have reflected alterations in major cultural mean- picture. For the same reason the icon as art object
ings of the sacred and the worldly, the visible and can be regarded from the point of view of its own
the invisible. In the first part of the book, devoted formal qualities, since it is based on the individual
to the framing of the icon, an attempt has been artistic intention of a master, and also on the set
made to show how these constructions were rules of rhetoric, the analysis of which permits us to
formed and in answer to what needs, how they understand the very mechanism of the formation

20
 introduction

of such religious images. It is to fulfil these tasks problem of imagination (as was Baroque aesthetics),
that the first half of this book is devoted to analyses nor of reason (like the aesthetics of Neoclassicism),
of numerous icons, arks, folding images, engrav- but of emotional experience and the psychological
ings, and of the grandiose iconostasis of Grigoriy perception of the object. Thus if the frames of the
Shumayev (late seventeenth–early eighteenth cen- Baroque or Neoclassical periods deployed fantasy
turies; now kept, dismantled, in the A. V. Shchusev or reason in the service of their mental images, the
Museum of Architecture, Moscow); and, finally, frames of famous pictures by Vereshchagin or the
to an analysis of the interior of the church of the Russian Wanderers brought their consciousness to
Saviour Not Made by Hands at Abramtsevo (1881–2), bear on a quite different objective: the naturalistic
which serves as an interesting example from which depiction of a moralistic maxim or of a historical
to trace the very history of the framing of the episode. This was the background against which the
Russian religious image. In the process particular Russian avant-garde declared the end of the age of
attention is paid to museum displays of Old easel painting, thereby ‘overcoming’ the frame-as-
Russian icons at the beginning of the twentieth window and putting forward a fundamentally new
century, when in the context of the aesthetics of aesthetic of images.
Romanticism, the artistic form of Old Russian icons Since the frame is indissolubly connected with
began to be erroneously regarded as analogous to the process of perception of an image, its analysis
Renaissance art. touches on anthropological questions. For that
The second part of the book is basically devoted reason in the last part of the book the frame is
to the framing of the secular picture. In chapter displaced from the artistic sphere of creativity into
Three we investigate the framing, thus the exaltation, marginal zones of culture and even into the realm
of persons of power (particularly in the halls of the of deviant thinking. Why, you might ask, is this
Great Kremlin Palace). Above all this concerns the necessary? The fact is that when the frame and image
function of the frame of the ceremonial portrait, are located in a variety of spaces the conditions arise
which changes in consequence not only of art theory, for their significance to alter. For example, the set-
but also of the conception of state power. The power tings of a museum, an auction house or a shabby
of an imperial portrait consists in its frame’s bearing antiques shop speak of very different evaluations
the formula of a title according to the proper pat- of one and the same picture for one and the same
tern. The frame links the portrait with the historical person, since their spatial framings vary in the status
and mythological context, since it is ‘in the name of their ‘authenticity’ and ‘worth’ as it affects the
that the whole most profound essence of social life, work of art. The frame is both an instrument of
in all its endless forms, is rooted’.38 Finally, chapter separation and of connection, and for that reason,
Four is devoted to the framing of pictures by the depending on one’s evaluative standpoint, these
nineteenth-century Russian Romantics, as well as separations and connections are organized around
to the problem of the frame in the culture of the historical, cultural and socio-psychological factors
Russian avant-garde of the 1910s and ’20s. The that are not simply subject to changes, but are in a
Romantic aesthetic was concerned not with the state of constant flux. Hence, using the example of

21
the historical forms that the antiques trade and can enter into a multitude of contexts. For this reason
the smuggling of icons and pictures have taken, we if we set ourselves the task of investigating how
are drawn into a complicated and almost limitless individual images change their framing over the
game of commentary. And here it is essential to centuries, we find ourselves in the territory of how
note that, since the frame is the threshold for our mutable context itself is. The picture ‘enters’ various
perception, it should alert the researcher (as also frames, just as it ‘enters’ various contexts; in the
the spectator) against excessive trustfulness. The process its old meanings are dissipated, and new
frame is not only an agent of persuasion, but also ones acquired that are very distant from an under-
of provocation, and surreptitiously hints at the standing of the original significances. In relation to
system of values within which the image should this we should bear in mind that it is the frame that
be viewed and ‘read’. The frame is the sign of is more ready to take on new meanings than the
its meaning, and since the frame can be altered image itself. Thus a medieval master strives to
for various reasons, so too can the meaning be follow the canonical depiction of Christ or a saint
changed. Once born into the world, the work of as closely as possible, but in elaborating the frame
art is immediately subject to all the vicissitudes of the icon – choosing the width of the margins,
of human perception. Religious and secular images including additional figures or decorations on them
embark on a long voyage, during which they will – he operates more freely. And it is precisely on such
be perceived by different spectators in different a journey that the Russian allegorical or symbolic
cultures at various times. ‘During their posthumous icon of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
lives they [i.e. great works] are enriched by new could acquire the frame practically of a secular
significances and meanings’, wrote Mikhail Bakhtin, picture, while on the contrary the portrait of a
‘and such works outgrow what they had been at monarch could be sacralized and receive a frame
the time of their creation’.39 The stages of this similar to that of an icon. These were games played
complicated journey – the birth, life and death of in the Baroque; but other periods – when the
images – are indeed fixed by frames. It is precisely picture, changing countries, owners and dwelling
for this reason that a fragment of an antique statue places, changed its frame too – are similar. Thus the
can find itself next to Impressionist canvases in frame is a ‘commentary’, without frontiers and in
a fashionable private collection, the Russian icon constant movement. Tracing this movement is an
of the apostle St Paul (discussed earlier) is in a enthralling pastime. The history of Russian art
contemporary museum, while a painting by some presents rich material of this kind: standing on the
eighteenth-century German artist, in the course crossroads between great cultures and constituting
of its 200-year journey, can acquire, from the hand a culture of its own, Russia from earliest times
of a skilful antiquary, the signature of a well-known underwent influences coming out of Byzantium,
Dutch artist of the seventeenth century and be put Western Europe and the Islamic East. For that reason
into an antiques auction. the disruptions and connections within Russian
All these new frames on ancient icons and old history, the multinational make-up of the Russian
frames on new pictures speak of how cultural signs empire, its cultural extensiveness, with a multitude

22
 introduction

of intersecting boundaries, was all reflected not

only in images but also in frames. These frames
were not only bearers of cultural influences,
however, but also caused what was within them
to change, could have an active effect on the image
inside. It was they that dictated a new manner of
reception, exercising a particular kind of stimulus
within Russian culture.
When we analyse framing as a cultural phe-
nomenon, we cannot fail to notice that the frame,
like the picture, also has its own space and time.
Here we find certain signs, figures, relationships
and structures that can be used again and again,
and with whose help any frame was bound to
establish both similarities and differences. The
interplay of these forces preconditioned the fluc-
tuations of the symbolic ties between frame and
image, which were founded on the understanding
and employment of such crucial cultural concepts
and categories as symbol, metaphor, emblem and
allegory. When included in one or another type
of framing, these caused the image to ‘speak’ in
either its natural language or in one that was
alien to it. So the history of the frame is also to
be understood as the history of how cultural
concepts of the sacred and the secular, the pious
and the blasphemous, the visible and the invisible,
the true and the false, relate to each other. The
frame is a bipolar field through which lies the
borderline between these universal oppositions.
Thus as one puts oneself into different epochs
one can very quickly reach the conclusion that the
frame represents some kind of field of conceptual
and theoretical connectedness: that it sensitively
answered to the general strivings of a culture,
reflecting its deep processes and the varied
influences upon it.

23
part one
FRAME AND IMAGE
1 Vladimir Mother of God. c. 1131, with later restorations. Made in Constantinople.
State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
 chapter 1

Symbolic Unity
Earth! Thou comest close to Heaven through God’s grace.
Heaven! Through God’s grace art thou reconciled with Earth.
Dimitriy Rostovsky 1

Ark and Niche

The frame of a medieval icon, whether of the
seventh century or the twelfth, is a border between
the sacred and the worldly that brings to mind the
severe wall of a Byzantine church, a safe strong-
hold that protects the space of the church from
our world that has gone astray. This is not acci-
dental. Byzantium intended the icon to be a com-
plex sign system with several layers of perception
and comprehension. The chief peculiarity of this
system is that all these layers formed an unbreak-
able symbolic unity and were strictly subordinated
to the theological and liturgical context. For that
reason the frame of the icon is the initial level at
which one perceives the central ‘countenance’;
it ‘highlights’ holiness, while always deliberately
implying distance and presuming the concealment
of that which lies behind it, not allowing one to
approach and scrutinize the object. The object has
to be taken as what it is and not what it might
seem to be. But the light also illuminates the person
standing before the object. Thus the light is capable
of giving out illumination: it potentially links the
object and the subject of cognition, since it can be
related to that ‘light’ which in the metaphysical

2 Detail of the ark.

27
part one: frame and image

writings of Dionysios the Pseudo-Areopagite is the image of Christ, the Mother of God or a saint
understood to be the unmediated divine energy.2 is painted. In the Russian language this icon frame
The glittering precious stones and gold of the was given a special name: ‘ark’ (kovcheg). Here is
framing of the icon both receive and give forth a how one commentator defined its profound basis
mysterious light. The adornments of an icon are in dogma:
human gifts to God, but their mystical highlights
are elucidated by invisible dimensions. For that Within icons there is nothing accidental. Even the
reason the icon frame and the depiction are for ark – the raised frame, containing the represen-
the religious consciousness indissolubly joined. tation in its hollow – has a dogmatic foundation:
The frame strives to make plain its fusion with the human being, located in the frames of space
symbol – the representation of God or a saint; in and time, of earthly existence, has the opportunity
its turn this representation strives to coincide with to contemplate the heavenly and the divine not
its meaning. This is the meaning of the icon. directly, not straightforwardly, but only when
In the medieval icon, frame and representation it is revealed by God as if from the depths. The
have a single material basis. The icon is painted light of Divine Revelation in heavenly phenomena
on one or more boards, joined together by special as it were moves aside the frames of earthly
fastenings. The margins of an icon – its ‘material existence and shines with a splendid radiance,
frame’ – come into being as a result of a hollow surpassing all earthly things, from out of a
being cut into the middle of the icon, on which mysterious distance.3

èë. 1

3 Portrait of an unknown person, 1st century ad. British 4 Heron and unidentified military god, c. ad 200.
Museum, London. Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Brussels.

28
 chapter one: symbolic unity

Hence it is clear that the ark

of an icon is a definite means of
linking the central image with
surrounding space. Just such a
construction characterizes the major
holy object of early Rus’, the icon
of the Virgin Eleousa (Vladimir
Mother of God), brought from
Constantinople in the early twelfth
century (illus. 1). In the central
recessed portion of the board on
the front of the icon the image of
the Mother of God with the infant
Christ is represented, separated
from the surrounding space by
broad margins, that is to say the
frame (illus. 2). Detailed investiga-
tions have shown that in its present
form this icon is a complex con-
struction of the remains of painting
and structural additions of various
periods. Thus the frame of the icon
(its margin) has changed several
times depending on the function
of the image. Originally the icon,
evidently, was portable. Subsequently
it was trimmed down and battens
were added to the frame, widening
the margins. The picture was repainted many noted, ‘In its present form the Vladimir icon is no
times. In the fifteenth century a representation of longer a painting that is the work of one hand and
the Hetimasia (Prepared Throne) was accommo- brush. Almost every century from the 13th to the
dated on the back of the board. In this way over 20th has left its traces in its complex texture.’4 All
the centuries this notable icon underwent several these additions, scars and marks are no less than ‘the
interferences, was decorated with a variety of capricious elements of memory’, that is to say the
metal casings and additions, and was placed in historical traces of the connection of the image and
surrounding structures – cases and iconostases. its frame with surrounding historical reality. But
As its restorer and investigator Alexander Anisimov the chief peculiarity of this famous icon from our

5 Christ in Glory, 7th century.

Monastery of St Catherine on Sinai.

29
part one: frame and image

point of view – the presence of an ark – remained Roman wall paintings imitating landscapes we
unchanged. How then did it arise and what did it find frames in the form of a ‘window on the
mean? We just know one thing: ancient classical world’, while in theatrical decor we find the begin-
and Old Testament traditions stood behind it. nings of true perspective. However, the antique
Prehistoric cave art, of course, had no know- concept of the universal presence of the divine
ledge of any frame. An early artist’s drawings even principle in the world also failed to accentuate the
cut into one another: in his consciousness they frame as a boundary between the worldly and the
were not marked off from surrounding space and divine that was characteristic of pagan religions.
‘lived’ in different spatial dimensions. Neither did Thales of Miletus (c. 624–546 bc), the first of the
the art of Buddhism know the frame as a delimit- Seven Sages, pronounced that ‘everything is filled
ing boundary. In ancient China and Japan the with the gods’. For that reason the frame in antiq-
slightest nuances in brush strokes were valued. uity is a niche or the pedestal of a statue, or the
Nevertheless, the artist and viewer put stamps architectural composition of a door, a window or
onto the pictorial surface itself: they did not think a wall. Frames were also constituted by acanthus,
of it as connected with the background.5 In the palmate or meander ornaments and various geo-
context of pantheistic mysticism of the Buddhist metric figures surrounding the antique mosaics
picture, it represents reality itself, a striving to and frescoes that were so startlingly beautiful and
show the fusion of the natural and the divine in full of feeling. All these were a part of the work
the world. This determined its form in the shape of art itself, however, and their function was to
of a horizontal and vertical scroll, embodying underline anew the harmony and sensibility of the
not a window into another space, but actually the whole, to demarcate the temple, sculpture or picture
surrounding cosmos itself in all its uninterrupted- within surrounding space and simultaneously
ness and multiformity. On a horizontal scroll the to ‘open up’ one to the other, to dissolve the
pictures are not separated from one another, but boundary between the sacred and the profane
rather presented in a definite sequence from right in the cognitive model of divine omnipresence.
to left, while on a vertical scroll the landscape In this sense the severe and massive walls of a
is structured so that the human gaze grasps the Byzantine church are significantly different from
whole composition at once.6 Hence in Japanese the ‘transparent’ colonnades of Greek temples,
medieval architecture the idea of the façade as thanks to which a god does not seem remote
boundary between the house and surrounding from the world. An antique temple is ‘open’ to
space is also absent. In a traditional Japanese the surrounding world and, as Heidegger remarked,
house a person always looks from the interior ‘it contains within itself the aspect of the god and,
outwards: he or she surveys maybe the landscape, while shutting it away in its closed cell, permits
maybe a small garden, since the outside walls of the aspect of the god to come forth into the sacred
the house are able to slide apart. precinct of the temple through the open colonnade’.7
During antiquity the representation separated For the live figure of an emperor, an open portico
itself off from surrounding space. In numerous and a pedestal lifting him above the surroundings

30
 chapter one: symbolic unity

serve as an analogous type of framing. Accommo- Christianity borrowed all kinds of forms and
dating his statue or that of a pagan god there images, giving them a new symbolic meaning.
would be a three-dimensional niche in a wall, The icon Christ in Glory (seventh century, illus. 5)
shutting the figure off only from one side and from the Sinai monastery has retained an ancient
underlining its physical presence, or similarly a frame that distantly recalls both the frame of a
pedestal, lifting the statue upwards into the Faiyum portrait and those of late antique repre-
surrounding cosmos as if up a flight of stairs. sentations of gods. However, unlike the Faiyum
All these possibilities represent an ‘open’, spatially portrait frames, that of the icon has been given
constituted frame, whose chief function was to clear symbolic significance. This frame forms an
persuade humanity of its kinship with higher ark that is on the one hand uninterruptedly con-
personages in the universe. To put it another way, nected with the actual picture, and on the other
antique art considered the frame not as a symbolic with the surrounding space and with the person
barrier, but as an instrument for concentrating who no doubt placed it in the Sinai monastery:
attention on the image, as part of its composition so we read on the frame the Greek inscription
and of the organization of artistic and surround- ‘For the salvation and exculpation of the sins
ing real space.8 of Thy slave, who loveth Christ . . .’.
All the same in late antiquity we encounter Thus the tradition of antiquity encountered
certain framing constructions that in the future that of the Old Testament in the space of the
would be adapted to Christian images on boards. material frame of the medieval Christian icon. It
Scholarly observations on the Faiyyum portraits was in fact the Old Testament tradition, distancing
and on pictorial representations of pagan gods God from the world, that first accentuated the
are of particular interest here. A Faiyyum portrait symbolism of the frame as a distinct boundary
of the first century ad, discovered by the British between God and the world. The Old Testament
archaeologist Flinders Petrie in 1888, for example, Ark of the Covenant was a sealed box that would
has an eight-sided wooden frame reminiscent of safely keep holy objects away from the eyes of
frames on Christian icons of the sixth and seventh unconsecrated people. We read in the Bible
centuries recorded by Kurt Weitzmann in St (Exodus 25:1–14):
Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai (illus. 3).9
An analogous frame is found on an antique prayer And the Lord spake . . . they shall make an ark
image in the Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, of shittim wood . . . And thou shalt overlay it
Brussels (illus. 4).10 Moreover, on two Sinai icons with pure gold, within and without shalt thou
of the sixth or seventh century, regarded as among overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of
the earliest Christian icons, the representations gold round about . . . And thou shalt make
of Christ and the Apostle Peter are shown against staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with
the background of an antique niche, which will gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the
eventually become the ark of an icon. All this tells rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may
us that it was from classical antiquity that early be borne with them.

31
part one: frame and image

Traditionally, the ‘golden pot that had manna, be considered blasphemy in Russia as late as the
and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of eighteenth century, as witnessed by the accusations
the covenant’ (Hebrews 9:4) were kept in the ark. of blasphemy, between 1764 and 1767, levelled
Thus the icon frame in the Orthodox tradition against a certain Iust, who trimmed down an icon
was connected with the Old Testament tradition with the intention of putting it into an iconostasis.11
of concealment of holy objects and was considered This function of concealing the holy object
as inviolable as the image itself. Thus, for example, was performed also by the metal overlay of the
the sawing down of the margins of an icon might icon, its casing and curtain cloths. All these served

6 Smolensk Mother of God, c. 1250–1300.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

32
 chapter one: symbolic unity

as an ‘ark’ and ‘adornment’ for the sacred coun - wish, twice a week, on Wednesdays and Fridays,
tenance, separating it out and protecting it within when the doors were closed and fastened by the
the surrounding space. Early Byzantine texts tell most delicate fastenings that they call sceptres,
us that the original icon of Christ – the Saviour the image would be viewed by all present and
Not Made by Hands on a sacred shroud – was each person would honour its incomparable
kept above the city gate of Edessa, wrapped in a power with prayers. And it was not permitted
white cloth and placed in a chest (that is, an ark that anyone should approach it, nor touch it
or a case). This case had shutters that were opened with their lips nor gaze upon it, since from the
only on certain days, inspiring in believers the increase of divine fear faith too becomes more
sense of the sacred object’s inviolability and timid and hesitates to render obeisance to that
protection from the eyes of outsiders: which is honoured.12

And since the ancient case for the holy image It was from Edessa that the tradition of
was closed with small doors, so that it should installing an icon of the Saviour Not Made by
not be visible to all, where and when they might Hands in a case above city gates and the entrance

7 Detail of the text of the prayer on the top-le margin.

33
part one: frame and image

into a church derives; this can be judged on the himself would have appeared if he had wished to
basis of many monuments, and in particular from reveal himself to us.’ That is to say, the image of
the well-known church of the Saviour Not Made Zeus that the sculptor Phidias carried within
by Hands at Abramtsevo, about which we shall himself was not only a conception of Zeus, but his
have more to say. Meanwhile, the Old Testament essence. This meant that the idea of divine beauty
tradition insisted on the impossibility of repre- acquired a super-real existence and objectivity
senting God, and hence on the impenetrability of that would in the future have the most important
the ‘frame’ of the holy Face as a boundary between significance for establishing the nature of the
the visible and the invisible: ‘God has not been Christian icon. However, Plotinus himself repudi-
seen by anyone, anywhere.’ The truly revolutionary ated figurative portrayals, which is why he became
event was that Christianity, at least the branch of popular in the twentieth century among adherents
it that accepted icon veneration, permitted the of abstract art. For him, as for modern abstraction-
potential crossing of that boundary. That is why ists, frame and image were unnecessary: the world
we can say that the icon venerators united the of visible images was incapable of including divine
Old Testament ark chest with the antique niche, beauty: ‘The original nature of the Beautiful has
taking from antiquity not just the forms of the icon no form.’14
frame, but also even certain philosophical ideas. For that reason the current of thought in
This union was situated on the flexible boundary Christian theology deriving from Plato rejected
between the Byzantine theology of the image and icons of Christ, which in the period of Byzantine
iconoclastic Platonism, which insisted that the iconoclasm (726–843) were to become the object of
material image cannot conceivably render the bitter arguments. The abstract world of ornament,
glory of the supersensory divine beauty. which directed human consciousness exclusively
Plato, who lived in the fifth century bc, spoke inwards, was often contrasted to the image of
out against illusionism in art. For him the distance Christ by followers of this path. This kind of
between the visible world and the idea, or essence, adornment of a Christian church gave prominence
was too great for a human being to present this to the one symbol used – the cross – and essentially
idea visibly. Thus Plato arrived at denying the had no further function beyond symbolically
imitation of natural forms altogether. He made locking it in on itself. Architectural and painterly
his denunciation of art in the tenth book of his decoration existed only to help overcome the
Republic: the artist creates only deceptive and world of visible images that formed a stumbling
unreliable images, he leads people into error and block on the way of pure contemplation, the
sows chaos in their hearts.13 Incidentally, Plato’s inward turn of Plotinus. Iconoclast art was an
idea first establishes itself in the artist’s conscious- art for the ‘elect’, just like the abstract art of the
ness and even acquires ontological significance twentieth century. It was closer to the Monophysite
in the philosophy of Plotinus (ad 205–269/70). ideal, and only the visible material frame and
As Plotinus wrote, ‘Phidias created his Zeus not ornament remind us that the surrounding world
according to some visible appearance, but as Zeus is not totally forgotten.

34
 chapter one: symbolic unity

In the dispute with the Iconoclasts Byzantine object of early Rus’, the icon of the Vladimir
theology discovered not only a justification for Mother of God. The rhetorical foundation of the
sacred representation, but also a way of framing it. image orientated consciousness towards making
The ark as frame points in two directions: it is copies from the model and continually renovating
directed both to the centre – the image of Christ – it: the ‘countenance’ of the icon had to have recog-
and outwards, to the world itself and to humanity. nizable features. In the present instance the ‘model’
The frame of an icon not only delimits the image was the Mother of God herself as she appeared in
of Christ within the surrounding space, but also the given image, while the ‘likenesses’ are all the
links the two together. According to St John subsequent renewals and imitations, that is to say
Damascene, the icon partakes more of the sacred correspondences and similarities of the material
than the worldly, since the incarnation of Christ form to the divine essence. From this it followed
redeemed its materiality. Hence the frame, as that the material resemblance itself of the image
divinely appointed boundary between the sacred (in visible form, scheme or iconographic type)
and the worldly, is orientated towards the centre. relates rather to the world, which in Christ’s words
It is the threshold of perception, and thus carries is the ‘footstool’ of the Creator: ‘But I say unto you,
the believer up towards God as if in the opposite Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s
direction to that by which grace descends. Here throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool’
the Old Testament tradition of keeping sacredness (Matthew 5:34–5).
away from unconsecrated eyes is clearly actualized. Doubt about the excessive degree of sacredness
Theodore, abbot of the monastery of Studion attributed to the icon was expressed by Patriarch
in Constantinople, found an explanation in which Nicephoros, who rejected the concept of the image
we see the most original resolution of the problem as partaking of the essence of the prototype. In
of framing the sacred image. The icon conveys this way he diminished its worth, while opening up
neither the divine nor the human nature of Christ, greater possibilities of linking it with the world
but his hypostasis in which these two natures are and humanity. He declared that the image is only
united. Moreover, the icon itself has the same a likeness, and actualized the Old Testament desire
hypostasis as Christ. This meant that the icon was to see God. It was he who cited the disembodied
capable of fulfilling its preordained task only when angels as an example that gave a more precise
the features of the Holy Countenance on it were direction to the boundary between the sacred
not obscured, that is, when it bore the character and the worldly, not only within the icon, but
of this hypostasis. The visible form is the framing outside, towards the ‘world’. The iconoclasts
of the invisible: the presence in the icon of recog- always maintained that angels could not be depicted.
nizable features of Christ’s countenance is the actual To this Patriarch Nicephoros replied that artists
boundary between the divine and the human. delineate the disembodied angels because people
Hence in both Byzantium and Rus’ one icon might passionately wish to see them. This position served
be renovated many times over, as has already been to give particular profundity to the framing of
mentioned in connection with the major holy Christ. It is no accident that on the frame of an

35
part one: frame and image

icon – the threshold of the perception of the frame (‘frame-as-window’) and the perspectival
divine countenance – we often see inscribed representation, which was subjected to an entirely
the words of a prayer (or a donor inscription): new rhetorical task – the creation of an illusion
echoes of the human desire to come closer to it, of reality. But why was it this particular frame
the passionate wish to witness it. One of the earliest construction that was affirmed and acquired so
Russian works of art is the Smolensk Mother of God great a significance in European culture for almost
in a frame covered with the words of a prayer half a millennium? It was because from the epoch
(second half of the thirteenth century, Tretyakov of the Renaissance the emphasis in the psychology
Gallery, illus. 6, 7).15 In a certain sense the frame of the perception of the picture firmly shifted
plays the role here of spatial meeting ground away from the sacred representation (of Christ or
between a distant God and the sinful human being. a saint) onto humanity, its cognitive rationality,
For that reason portrayals of the sacred donors are the perceiving consciousness itself.
situated on the frames of many Byzantine and The frame-as-window is the ‘ego’ of the per-
Russian icons; they are intercessors before God ceiving subject, its ‘devouring’ of the surrounding
for the earthly sins of human beings. They are world and transformation of it into an object of
intermediaries between the sacred and the profane. cognition, since linear perspective, with which
It is therefore on their labour and intercession that this frame was directly linked, presumed a single
sinful humanity rests its hopes. viewpoint as one of its chief conditions. Hence the
artistic space of the perspectival picture acquired
a series of new, hidden qualities. On an icon the
In the Mirror of Perspective
image is set up as if on a blank wall. Thus the icon
Until Pavel Florensky published his article ‘Reverse is the world itself. In a picture the image is con-
Perspective’ in 1920, and Erwin Panofsky published structed as if in the transparent glass of a window.
his remarkable work Perspective as Symbolic Form For that reason the Renaissance picture is only a
in 1923, artists, historians and art lovers in general part of the world. An icon’s model of the world
had long assumed that the Renaissance picture does not permit the illusion of a spectator’s entry
was a window into the real world.16 Independently into it. A person stands before an icon with the
of each other, though simultaneously, the two utmost respect and accepts the world as it is. The
scholars concluded that linear perspective from model of the Renaissance picture, on the contrary,
a single viewpoint and with proportionately creates the illusion of a transition from the real
reduced lines of vision is only a symbolic form. world to a hypothetical world, and makes the
The transfer of a three-dimensional object to the person accept the world as it seems. It forces one
two-dimensional surface of a picture in itself dic- to apprehend this world by means of comparison
tates the conventionality of the Renaissance image, with perfect and absolute forms, ‘conquered’ by
the way the depiction is dependent on the rules of the artist within the surrounding space.17 Hence
perspectival construction of drawing. Thus was the Renaissance frame-as-window is a ‘forced
revealed the symbolic unity of the window-like harmony’ of the spectator’s perception. The frame

36
 chapter one: symbolic unity

proposes that the human being should identify The optical and perspectival experiments of
the space of the picture with the familiar space of Filippo Brunelleschi and the rules for setting out
the real world. As a result, the world of depiction linear perspective expounded in the treatise on
becomes a model of the real world for the specta- painting by Leon Battista Alberti (1435) proposed
tor, insofar as the limitlessness of the surrounding the imitation by painterly means of the three-
world can be fitted within the flat rectangular dimensional spatial image. Alberti also defined
surface demarcated by the frame. the painting as an open ‘window’. The meaning
In other words this frame answers to the of his famous visual pyramid consisted in his
concept of ‘world as image’, which according to projecting the imagined pyramid of light rays
Heidegger is ‘the presentation of the existing’. onto a representational surface that functioned
With the help of the frame a person places in as if it were the transparent glass of a window.
front of, and for, himself or herself an ‘image of On this surface he constructed with the help of
the world’.18 Thanks to the regular rules by which no longer imaginary, but actual lines a second
an object is projected onto the surface of a picture pyramid symmetrical with the first. In this way
(on the principle of Alberti’s well-known pyramid), the scheme of optical perception turned into a
the spectator is made not to notice how the visible scheme of visual representation. An anonymous
world, so familiar to us, is transformed. How then biographer thus described Alberti’s invention,
does this take place? which prefigured the camera obscura and was

8 Albrecht Dürer, ‘Portula Optica’, engraving from

Principles of Measurement (1525).

37
part one: frame and image

forever to link his name with the discovery of linear appear in fifteenth-century Florence in an atmos-
perspective: phere of heightened interest in optics – the science
of visual perception, already well known to antiquity
He wrote a brief treatise about painting in and the Middle Ages. In the first half of the fifteenth
several books, and in so doing established for century what was understood by this term was
the spectator something new and unheard of perspectiva naturalis – medieval optical theory;
with the help of painting: through a tiny open- and only in the second half of the Quattrocento
ing in a small box it was possible to see great did people begin to mean by it the linear perspective
mountains, extensive lands, a broad gulf of the now familiar to us, the way to represent three-
sea, and in the background such distant lands dimensional space on a flat surface, that is to say
that they would hardly be visible to the naked perspectiva artificialis.
eye. He named these things ‘demonstrations’, With the appearance of a new Quattrocento
and they were so made that both knowledgeable conception of the picture there also appears a new
and ignorant people would assert that they were conception of the frame, reminiscent now of the
seeing not something painted, but the actual frame of a mirror or window aperture in a wall.
objects themselves.19 Inseparably linked with the picture itself and with
the new method of perspectival structuring of a
Hence both linear perspective and the Renais- composition, the form of the frame was intended
sance window-like frame can be regarded as the to strengthen the illusion that the painterly surface
direct result of the union of science and art. They was transparent, since it was located on the
boundary of the visual field, that is between the
object delineated on the picture and the eye.
The frame eased the process of apprehending the
picture that was put forward for contemplation,
since it was structured as if a reflection in a mirror
or a view through a window. Thus the mirror
with all its illusionistic possibilities emerged as the
prime instrument for new optical demonstrations.
After all, a reflection in a mirror was considered
an important part of perspective. Therefore the
frames of Renaissance pictures are sometimes
hard to tell apart from the frames of Renaissance
mirrors.20
In the Renaissance period perspective became
not only a new method of artistic representation,
but also a new principle for seeing the world. The
criterion of authenticity in this visual experience

9 e architectural orders: (a) Doric, (b) Ionic,

(c) Corinthian.

38
 chapter one: symbolic unity

became the human eye – that very visual percep- reaches the point of ‘grasping it with one’s
tion, with all its optical distortions, that medieval hand’; imitation of external noises in music;
theologians (who well knew the laws of optics) ‘factography’ in poetry, etc. – in general any
condemned as profane and sinful. There was no substitution of art by an imitation of nature
place for optical illusions in the medieval system is a crime both against life and against art.22
of values embodied in the Byzantine icon or
Gothic altarpiece. This was precisely the analytical Surveying linear perspective in classical Greece
point of view on perspective that was first taken by at the time of Plato, and also in mural paintings
Pavel Florensky, for whom the Renaissance picture of first-century AD villas at Pompeii, the Russian
was ‘deceit’ and ‘a barrier blocking out the light of philosopher regarded it as no less than the ‘Baroque
existence’, while the icon was ‘a window wide open of antiquity’, whose aim was to ‘deceive’ the viewer.23
on reality’, that is, a world of authentic rather than Different aspects of perspective from ancient
counterfeit essences and values.21 As he wrote, times alternated with each other in art, depending
on the demands of religion and culture. Thus an
Representations that project themselves beyond image constructed according to linear perspective
the framed surface, painterly naturalism that and imitating reality is just as remote from it as is

10 Diagram of mid-16th-century Renaissance tabernacle 11 Desiderio da Settignano, Virgin and Child, relief in
frames: (a) Venetian frame in Mannerist style, (b) Tuscan tabernacle. Bode Museum, Berlin.
‘Sansovino’ frame.

39
part one: frame and image

any other, since mimesis is not absolute. Explaining In showing that such drawing was merely a
his position, Florensky wrote: ‘Different means geometric system, Florensky attempted to link his
of representation differ one from another not as criticism of Renaissance perspective with a criticism
an object does from its representation, but on a of the humanism and anthropocentrism of the Age
symbolic plane.’24 of Enlightenment, and also with a ‘Kantian’ world
This conventionality in the perspectival view, which for him meant nothing other than view-
construction of the world was affirmed by the ing the world as a field for scientific experiments.
very optical instruments that were described and Another scholar who came to the conclusion
depicted in Albrecht Dürer’s Principles of Measure- that different systems of perspective were insepa-
ment (Nuremberg, 1525, illus. 8). Since these all rable from historical ways of seeing the world
contained framing structures, Florensky’s observa- was Erwin Panofsky. For him perspective merely
tions on the dependence of perspective on a reflected a defined system of value judgements,
world view also affected the problem of the frame. since it was conditioned by historical conceptions
Explaining the construction of these contraptions of space. Panofsky’s work, which influenced prac-
for drawing, Florensky tried to demonstrate that tically all studies of perspective in the twentieth
the image obtained with their assistance was not century, was of course itself written under the
the result of a ‘visual synthesis’, but of geometric influence of the neo-Kantian ideas of Ernst
calculation: Cassirer, who understood representative form as
a symbol, linked with the problem of the mental
Dürer’s third instrument already bears no image.26 For that reason Panofsky, defining per-
relation to vision: the centre of projection is spective as symbolic form, analysed philosophical
here realized not through the eye, even were it theories of space and the metaphysics of light
to be artificially rendered immobile, but through within pagan and Christian Neoplatonism, which
a certain point on a wall, at which point a small allowed him to come to a deeper understanding of
ring is attached with a long thread tied to it.
The latter almost reaches to a frame with glass
in it, standing vertically on the table. The thread
is stretched, and an optical tube is attached to
it, directing the ‘visual ray’ to the point on the
object projected from the place where the thread
is fastened. Then it is not hard to make a mark
on the glass with a pen or a brush correspon-
ding to the projected point. Subsequently, taking
a sight on various points of the object, the
draughtsman can project it onto the glass, though
not ‘from a point of view’, but ‘from a point of the
wall’; vision here plays only a subsidiary role.25

12 Sebastiano del Piombo, Virgin and Child, with Saints

and Donor, c. 1519–20, in a type of cassetta frame of the
Sienese school. National Gallery, London.

40
 chapter one: symbolic unity

stage, and so reveals a striving for unity between

the figures and the milieu they inhabit.28 The view
through a window, closed off in the period of
antiquity, has once again been opened, and the
picture has become ‘a discrete segment of endless
space’. In Panofsky’s opinion it was this that con-
stituted the meaning of the revolution in painting
brought about by Duccio and Giotto, who came
to a new comprehension of the pictorial surface.
Henceforth the picture ceased to be perceived as a
‘wall’ or a ‘board’ carrying the forms of individual
figures and objects. Its surface acquired the prop-
erties of transparent glass, which in turn demanded
the Renaissance picture. The ancient theoreticians a frame in the form of a window.
did not understand space as a series of relations In connection with all this, by the middle of
between height, width and depth. For them what the fifteenth century in Italy the frame of an altar
was important was to envisage the object not image was gradually losing the form of a medieval
within a system of coordinates, but in its entirety. basilica and acquiring that of the façade of an
The world was perceived by them in discrete parts, antique temple, including the component elements
deprived of its continuity.27 However, the medieval of the classical architectural order system – the
space was a concept of space of the ‘closed interior’ well-defined compositional combination of load-
and ‘closed window’, in consequence of which bearing and other parts of an ancient building.
figures and objects in medieval representation As we know, the ancient order system included
appear to be ‘glued’ to a blank wall. In comparison load-bearing parts (the base and column with
with this medieval space, the space of the Renais - capital) and those they carried (architrave, frieze
sance picture was a homogeneous and measurable and cornice, which constituted the entablature).
space. It displays its ability to be endlessly prolonged The three types of order system devised in ancient
and shows itself to be inseparably linked with Greece (Doric, Ionic and Corinthian) had wide
objects and bodies. Now space was understood dissemination in the architecture of ancient
as a system of interrelationships of height, width Rome, the Renaissance and Neoclassicism (illus. 9).
and depth, and in conjunction with this the world In fifteenth-century Italy the order system first
appears as measurable in Renaissance art. This attracted serious interest with Brunelleschi. There-
concept of space was prepared for in the Gothic after the works of Vitruvius began to be studied,
period, as the relief of the Last Supper in Naumburg and subsequently notable architectural treatises by
Cathedral bears witness. The deep, arc-shaped Alberti, Palladio and Vignola appeared.29 Their
framing of the scene seems to cut a deep spatial particular significance for the development of the
zone into the wall, reminiscent of a theatrical Renaissance frame rests in the fact that the antique

13 Virgin with Child, John the Baptist and Angel,

c. 1460, in a tondo-type frame of the Florentine school.
National Gallery, London.

41
part one: frame and image

idea of beauty as harmony, which in formal respects finished and perfected forms. The classically beauti-
found its expression in the theory of proportional- ful art of the ancient world was taken into the
ity of artistic form, is revived in them. It was this service of the Christian Church. We must note
situation that in the Renaissance led also to the birth straight away that this type of frame was to appear in
of artistic autonomy and the appearance of aesthet- Russian culture only in the second half of the seven-
ics as the science of the beautiful, independent of teenth century, and would show that the new type
ethics and religion. For that reason the frame with of Russian icon was regarded as art in the modern
its elements of the antique order system served as sense. Its artistic system would thereafter develop on
an indicator of the classical canon for attaining the basis of antique and Renaissance ideals of beauty.

14 Giovanni Bellini, Coronation of the Virgin, 1471–4,

altarpiece for S. Francesco in Pesaro. Museo Civico, Pesaro.

42
 chapter one: symbolic unity

the fifteenth century is rather controversial, given

that the sacred and the worldly tended to mingle.
And it is into this vision of the world that the
secular tradition would bring an entirely novel
phenomenon within European culture: portraits
of admittedly notable, but all the same ordinary
simple human beings. For that reason the cultural
concept ‘picture frame’ appears in the history of
European art only when secular portraiture is
being disseminated. First of all they were painted
on boards with integral margins, and might be
kept in special boxes or be meshed into the fabric
of walls or furnishings, which could consequently
be regarded as the early framing of secular por-
traits. Later, secular portraits could be hung on the
walls of a bedroom, which Alberti, for example,
regarded as the safest and most convenient place
to keep painterly works.31 Later still they would
start to be painted on canvas, which would be put
into a separate frame. In Italy and the Netherlands
such portraits arose as early as the 1430s, in the
second half of the same century in France, at its
end in Germany. At the same time poetry, painting
Meanwhile, by the mid-fifteenth century two and sculpture migrated from the category of lowly
more types of Renaissance frame – cassetta and trades into that of the liberal arts, while the artist
tondo – also appeared in Italy. The word cassetta and his work acquired a new, higher status within
means a little box or case. The designation cassetta the system. His work was likened to that of nature,
for frames, universally accepted in Western scholar- since he created new entities. A picture painted in
ship, implies the well-known quadrilateral frames the system of direct perspective was called upon
of baton type that derived from the structure of not so much to reflect objective reality as to
a tabernacle; whereas the tondo type is a frame express a subjective response to it. Therefore by
in the form of a circle with flattened margins, the end of the Quattrocento it would break its
covered with ornamentation (illus. 12, 13).30 Such links with the liturgy, which would lead to the
forms were widespread throughout Europe, engen- appearance of a new symbolism and rhetorical
dering all sorts of national variants. But how and function of the frame; and this new ‘independent’
why did they arise? Specialists consider that the frame would be born as a result of the dissolution
question of the existence of secular framing before of the structure of the Gothic altar.

15 Albrecht Dürer, An altarpiece, 1508, drawing.

Musée Condé, Chantilly.

43
part one: frame and image

Here the tabernacle, echoing the form of the of an architectural niche, into which the scene
antique temple, had particular significance. It of the coronation of the Virgin Mary was placed.
became the chief form of framing for the type of The niche itself serves as an illusionistic window
picture called sacra conversazione (sacred conversa- frame, within which the veduta is painted.
tion), with its illusionism and direct perspective. In that way the frame belonging to the real
The architectural forms of the tabernacle symbol- world and the frame depicted in the painting
ized the Heavenly House or a Christian church, indicated the endless extension of space, which
embodying the model of the universe and built has an uninterrupted link with the figures and
according to the ancient rules of harmonious objects located within it. It indeed confirms the
construction. Thus the relief by Desiderio da Renaissance concept of perfection as varietà
Settignano of the Virgin and Child is housed in a (‘variegation’).32 For that reason if the picture
frame that imitates an architectural composition: attempts to represent the macrocosm as a whole,
its side parts are treated as pilasters with bases and then the frame embraces its unity with a ‘contour
Corinthian capitals, while the upper part represents of harmony’, correlating individual and disparate
an entablature, consisting of the architrave, frieze things of whatever kind with the antique ideal
and cornice of the classical order system (illus. 10, of beauty. In the process it strengthens the illusion-
11). In imitation of ‘the great picture of Nature’, the ism of the painting, since its link with the picture
artist accords the human appearance of the Mother is expressed through a mathematically structured
and Christ Child the perfection flowing from the perspective, strictly orientated on the viewpoint
gift of ideal beauty that God had granted them. of the spectator. Evidently it was this that gave
In its frame this ideal world acquires purity and its fundamental meaning to the Renaissance
completeness. The perfection of the human aspect tabernacle, with its architectural composition
and nature is emphasized by the perfection of the within whose space many currents of knowledge
frame, embodying the classical canons of beauty. and thought came together.33 Its classical forms
The famous altar image by Giovanni Bellini of pointed clearly to a new cultural orientation –
the Coronation of the Virgin (Museo Civico, Pesaro) the revival of ancient rhetoric and Neoplatonist
demonstrates that the form of the Renaissance philosophy, and together with them the canons
tabernacle with elements of classical architectural of antique art; in particular the revival of the
orders opened up a new epoch in the interactions ancient teaching on the connection between
between frame and picture (illus. 14). The frame architecture and the proportions of the human
was inextricably linked with linear perspective body. The frame as it were subjected the represen-
(perspectiva artificialis) and answered to the tation to defined laws of harmony, which were
demands of humanist anthropology – it allowed explained by rhetoric, that is the concrete methods
the human gaze to encompass the fullness of the for persuasion and for making an effect on the
universe. For that reason Bellini structured his spectator’s consciousness.
picture according to all the rules of perspectival The classic forms of the frame could also be
foreshortening of the orthogonals, giving the effect connected with a reconfiguration of the Platonic

44
 chapter one: symbolic unity

‘idea’. In Plato the divine idea is too remote from to something or someone located outside the picture
reality. In the Renaissance period the demand frame. They sometimes ‘go beyond’ the limits of
arose to bring it closer to humanity. Now it would frames and parapets, which in such cases can be
be awarded a place in human consciousness, and endowed with a mystical function.35
its identification with an artistic concept took All these devices and rules were also dictated
place; the Platonic idea is envisaged as the highest by the theory of art that arose in the fifteenth
image of beauty that is born in the artist’s con- century, and is persuasively expounded in the
sciousness.34 Moreover, according to Renaissance famous treatises of Alberti, Leonardo and Dürer
aesthetic theory the artistic idea precedes the in which the essence of beauty was regarded as that
form of a work, just as in the visual consciousness harmony of proportions whose ideal embodiment
the frame precedes the representation itself. was painting: ‘the flower of all the arts’.36 Leonardo
From this we can reasonably deduce that a da Vinci, like Alberti, compared a picture to a
frame in the form of an antique temple could mirror, in which all the variety of divine Nature
fully indicate the embodiment of that artistic was reflected. The artist’s consciousness too was
idea, or that ideal image of divine beauty that the likened to a mirror, which would take up as many
artist had been thought to carry within himself images as were ‘set against him’: ‘The artist’s mind
from as long ago as the time of Plotinus, as we must be like to a mirror, that always converts into
have seen. That to say it had become a sign of light that which it possesses in the role of an
the perfected embodiment in a picture of an object, and fills itself with as many images as there
artistic concept of the world. Since the task of are objects set against it.’37 We find the same in
Renaissance art was the unmediated imitation Dürer, who sometimes devoted no less attention
of reality, the artist emerged as rival of Nature; to the frames of his pictures than to the particular
he could correct its imperfections thanks to that nature of their perspectival structure.38 This is
image of perfect beauty that he had discovered witnessed by his sketches for altarpieces, whose
within himself as a God-given gift. Nobody even ideal proportions are emphasized by the antique
demanded a holy way of life from him, as would beauty of their framing (illus. 15). In other words,
have been the case in the Orthodox East: whatever in the Quattrocento period there emerged not only
his morals, thanks to this heavenly gift he was a separate material frame, but also a separate specu-
the connecting link between divine beauty and lative and conceptual frame – the autonomous
the crafted image. aesthetic theory of mimesis linked to it. Thus
It was just this embodiment of the divine idea from being an inseparable part of the Gothic
that was much assisted by the frame, which not only altarpiece the frame had turned into a means for
obliged the viewer to see the world in the way in the cognition of surrounding reality. The frame
which it was represented in the picture, but essen- had become an instrument for revealing a simu-
tially dictated to the artist his choice of means for lacrum of the world to its Prototype. The picture
this representation. It is no accident that personages frame, linear perspective and Renaissance aesthetic
on Renaissance pictures and portraits so often point theory would come to Russia together with Latin

45
part one: frame and image

and Western Baroque rhetoric and poetics, thanks In the West, on the contrary, the image had a
to which the chief holy object of Muscovite Rus’ – modest status. The image was a ‘Bible for simple
the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God (illus. 1) – people’, which had to instruct, to touch hearts
would be given new meaning within a new system and to bring pleasure; its role was limited to the
of likeness. defence of the Christian mission. And that rela-
tively modest status of the cult image in Catholic
culture was determined by the scholastic tradition.
Rhetoric and the New Icon
The quest for truth was given over to scholasticism,
The rhetoric of the frame of both the Byzantine not to the picture, for which it was too large
and the Old Russian icon is determined by its and complex. If the picture were to enter into a
basis in antiquity. It was the culture of antiquity dispute with theology, it would lose its quality
that presented Byzantium with one of the most of spectacle and visual persuasiveness, and as a
effective instruments for organizing human result its representational effect and the task it
thought: rhetoric; that is to say certain mental was set: actively to affect the human mind and
constructs whose use was necessitated by the heart. Because it was this that seemed its greatest
universal significance of Christianity for the task, Western Latin rhetoric with its five divisions
organization of Byzantine civilization. The ancient (inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, pronuntatio)
philosophers, orators and artists, armed with as early as the fifteenth century began to admit
rhetoric, made no attempt to guard their wisdom the use of the most varied artistic means in the
jealously, but on the contrary did all they could to image. Among them was sculpture in the round,
render what they knew about the righteous path forbidden in the Christian East, also music, and
clear, attractive and accessible. Rhetoric helped to those effects of light and colour that today seem
persuade people of truth and to touch their hearts so striking in the grandiose structures of Western
and minds. For this reason the rhetorical impulse altarpieces. Finally, they also included linear
constituted the inner framework of Christian perspective and framing that related the perception
culture. From the start, however, Western and of the image to the human gaze, to the growing
Eastern Christendom resolved the problem of role in it of personality and individuality.
the image in somewhat different ways that were After it accepted Christianity, early Russia of
to have great importance in determining the course adopted the Byzantine rhetorical tradition,
pathways along which later Christian art would which formed the basis of both its writing and its
develop. In the Byzantino-Slav world, including icon painting. This underlay too the icon of the
Muscovite Russia, the icon was conceived of as Vladimir Mother of God, brought to Kiev from
belonging to the realm of metaphysics rather Constantinople in the twelfth century. However,
than that of rhetoric. It was the major symbol of in the Old Russian context Byzantine rhetoric did
Christianity, witness to truth and to the ‘presence’ not become a scholarly discipline, as took place in
in the world of Christ and the saints. Thus it was the Catholic world.39 It was the icon that strove to
enveloped with a special respect and reverence. become speculative philosophy, and not the book.

46
 chapter one: symbolic unity

Requiring to be gazed at too long and too fixedly, various textbooks of rhetoric were disseminated in
the Russian icon attempted to be a kind of theo- dozens of copies.
logical means for attaining truth, although in the It is thought that the first manifestation of
process it also attained a rare degree of elegance Baroque artistic principles and of the new – for
and purity. Meanwhile, with the appearance in Russia – aesthetic theory came with the poetics of
Muscovite Russia during the second half of the Maciej Kazimierz Sarbewski (1595–1640), Emanuele
seventeenth century of Western Latin rhetoric and Tesauro (1591–1675), Daniello Bartoli (1608–1685),
Renaissance aesthetic theory, a new and formerly Bal’tazar Grasian (1601–1658) and some others. The
unwitnessed critical attitude towards the medieval earliest copies of the first Russian Rhetoric are dated
model was formulated. In essence the appearance 1620. It was based on a translation of the Rhetoric
of a new rhetoric means the appearance of a new by the German scholar Philip Melanchthon (1497–
universal cultural mechanism. The central idea 1560), which had been published at Frankfurt in
of this new rhetoric was belief in the universality 1577. The unknown translator, who knew both
of rules. Thus once planted in the local soil of Latin and Greek, translated the text word for word,
medieval Russian culture, rhetoric in its Latin but substituted Russian for Latin names and intro-
variant acquired, one may suppose, the function duced his own examples.41 The abundance of
of normative guidance, creating new rules not copies testifies to the book’s popularity in Russia.
only for the literary and visual text, but also even Particular interest is also attached to the volume
for social behaviour up to the end of the eight- The Key to Understanding by Ioannikiy Galyatovsky,
eenth century.40 This introduction of rhetoric in which first came out in Kiev in 1659 and was trans-
the form of universal cultural guidance meant no lated ten years later in Muscovite Russia. Besides
less than the replacement in Muscovite Russia of a literary works, the book contains a rhetorical tract
whole cultural tradition, which found widespread called ‘The Science of Composing Speeches’, which
reflection in the realm of visual culture. At first, is essentially a practical guide to writing sermons.42
of course, the process of absorbing rhetoric got It gives a detailed account of the structure and
under way in the Ukrainian and Belorussian stylistic adornments of oratorical works, the inter-
cultural milieux. Classical scholasticism with its relationship of parts and the means of introducing
‘seven liberal sciences’ (grammar, rhetoric, dialec- expressive examples. The individual points made
tics, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music) were also close to the recommendations in
was taught in the Peter Mogila College in Kiev, Bal’tazar Gracian’s book Wit; or, The Art of the Subtle
in ‘brotherhood schools’ and other educational Mind.43 At the end of the seventeenth century there
establishments. But as early as 1665 Simeon Polotsky appeared a tract by Andrey Belobotsky and the
had opened a school in the Moscow Zaikonospassky Rhetoric of Sofroniy Likhud, translated from Greek
Monastery, while in 1686 the Greek Likhud brothers by the monk Cosmas of the Chudov Monastery
founded the Moscow Slav-Greek-Latin Academy. (1698). It is important to emphasize throughout
An education of the European type was given in that in all these works there were special sections
these establishments. During the seventeenth century where these devices and methods of persuading

47
part one: frame and image

readers and listeners were discussed. As we would (detractio), transposition (transmutatio) and
say nowadays, they posed the problem of commu- substitution (immutatio). We must suppose that it
nication. Thus rhetoric in the hands of Baroque was just these categories that could have seriously
theoreticians often turned into philosophy, since it influenced the Baroque artist’s concept of the role
impinged on theory of knowledge. of the frame in the treatment of the work of art,
To arouse (movere), to instruct (docere) and to whether a book’s frontispiece, a poetic text or an
entertain (delectare) were the three main purposes icon. Though subject to the peculiarities of one
of the teaching of rhetoric. It was to the attainment or another rhetorical rule, framing complicated
of these goals that the complicated system of artis- its meaning, commented on it from various points
tic methods – on which orators, writers and artists of view, and related it to other forms of art. All this
relied to make their works vivid and persuasive – happened thanks to the fact that, unlike the symbol,
corresponded. The careful description in seven- metaphor, which lay at the foundation of the
teenth- and eighteenth-century works on poetics Renaissance and Baroque view of the world, always
and rhetoric of the techniques of inventio (content), strove to ‘draw up to the surface’ the hidden mean-
dispositio (arrangement) and elocutio (stylization) ings of the sign, to clarify it through broadening
essentially served as instructions not only for its context. The essence, the very purpose of the
composing the texts of sermons, panegyrics, framing of a Renaissance/Baroque image, which
verses and plays, but also for the creation of visual so often appears in the role of commentary on
images – icons, portraits, pictures and colophons. it or point of comparison with it, consists in just
This was the more apparent since it was the this. And as such it invariably led to a deepened
rhetorical organization of culture that from the comprehension of reality, striving to reveal the
time of Tsar Aleksey (reg 1645–76) stimulated the invisible essence of that object of contemplation
beginnings of the genre system both in literary that lay within.
and representational activity. Alongside the new All these tendencies, characteristic of the
icon there appeared the official portrait (parsuna), Catholic cultural sphere, were taken up and adapted
the historical painting, various forms of graphic to local cultural demands in Muscovite Russia
art, and a little later landscape and battle scenes. during the second half of the seventeenth century.
The genre system created the possibility of sepa- From that time the Russian icon ceased to be
rating out various kinds of representation. But the available to unmediated perception: it began to
process of its formation inevitably involved mutual belong to the realm of the imagination, of sensed
influences, interactions and mixed representational experience, and also of special ‘scholarly’ know-
types, giving rise to a conscious play of meanings. ledge. In this connection we invariably find icon
Particular significance was attributed to teach- painting taken both as a traditional craft (particu-
ings about content (inventio) and stylization larly among the Old Believers) and as a free ‘art’,
(elocutio). The latter included all the categories that is, autonomous and mimetic. In the first
that rhetoric could propose for transformation case the religious image was perceived as a truth
of the model: addition (adjectio), subtraction imposed upon the mind from outside, and

48
 chapter one: symbolic unity

revealed only to the Holy Fathers, not to the icon

painter whose role was to bear witness to it. So In the same tract we find the metaphor of the
the traditional craft continued to follow ancient mirror, which the artist uses not so much for a
models and copybooks. In the second case the medieval illustration of the interdependence of the
spectator was made to search for the artistic pur- visible with the invisible, as for the understanding
pose within the image, that is, for the interpretation of icon painting as a painterly art, that is, as the
of artistic truth. This new type of Russian icon basis of a new aesthetic theory of mimetic repre-
was also a synthesis of ancient devotion and the sentation. It was at this time that there arose the
modern European (or Renaissance) understanding term ‘art’ (zhivopis’, painting ‘as if from life’), as
of the image, which opened a new path in Russian well as the concept of the ‘intelligent gaze’ of the
art. In sum, the problem of the spectator’s percep- artist.45 Thus in a tract by another of the tsar’s
tion was for the first time raised before the Russian painters, Iosif Vladimirov, the icon painter is
icon painter: the old icons ceased to satisfy the endowed with a special ‘wisdom’, intellect and
demands of the imagination. divine ‘illumination’, surpassing those around him.46
If we look at the problem through the eyes of Thus beneath the mantle of traditional beliefs a
the artists themselves, it all becomes more concrete. quite new conception of art was being constructed,
In his ‘Discourse for one who would be diligent in in which the category of beauty was achieving
icon painting’, Simon Ushakov (1626–1686), chief autonomy. In the Middle Ages beauty was a specifi-
icon painter of the Armoury Palace under Tsar cally transcendental matter and led beyond the
Aleksey, spoke of his ‘talent that came from the framework of sensory perception. Now, at the edge
Lord God’, and his calling to create an ‘alphabet of of the modern age, it was given over to the artist’s
artistry’, that is, an anatomical atlas of the human consciousness, which called forth the concept of
figure: art in the modern sense of the word, that is, as
the creation of a work for aesthetic pleasure. Its
So possessing from the Lord God a talent foundation stone was a new rhetoric and a new
for the painting of icons, given to me in my theory of art, in which the ‘alphabet of art’ in Simon
unworthiness that I could profit by it, I wished Ushakov’s interpretation – a compendium of rules
not to hide it in the earth, so as not to be judged of proportionality, in harmony with the mode of
for that, but took pains with my skill in icon visual perception – was a component part. As a
painting to reveal the alphabet of this artistry, result the Old Russian icon gradually turned into
that is to say all parts of the human body, to the a Renaissance or Baroque mimetic image, whose
service of the various demands of our artfulness illusion of three-dimensional space also presupposes
as might be variously needed, and to inscribe the presence of a window-like frame as an inalienable
it on copper plates, so that the image might part of an integrated visual system. We shall speak
be more skilfully printed, for the benefit of all in more detail about the birth of the picture frame
those who would be diligent in this honourable in Russian art. Meanwhile, it is important for us
skill.44 to make clear that it is from this point on that the

49
part one: frame and image

Russian icon as an art form started to claim an tally new (for its time) version of the ‘first icon’ –
independent aesthetic task for itself, while the ‘most the image of Christ Not Made by Hands (illus. 16) –
wise’ artist – such as Simon Ushakov in the eyes of the basis for whose beauty was not a gift from God,
his contemporaries, in particular Iosif Vladimirov, rather the craftsman’s free choices. Transforming
seemed to be – became possessor and guardian of a lifelike face into a divine countenance, the icon
divine beauty. He it was who created a fundamen- painter, like artists of the Renaissance period,

16 Simon Ushakov, Christ Not Made by Hands, 1673.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

50
 chapter one: symbolic unity

of which the representational artist had taken

possession. It was from this that art, in becoming an
autonomous sphere of activity, showed itself to be
the way by which the transformative idea of absolute
beauty came to humankind.
This is clearly seen if we take the example of
the curtain or veil (a symbolic ‘frame’) of the sacred
image. The medieval icon was veiled (in an ark or
under cladding) in the same way that authentic
existence or beauty were concealed and inaccessible
to human imagination. By contrast, the new Russian
icons from the end of the seventeenth century to the
beginning of the nineteenth more and more often
contain half-opened curtains that no longer conceal
truth from the eyes of the unsanctified, but serve as
coverings to those zealous in the pursuit of the truth
that the artist had skilfully ‘veiled’. A characteristic
example is the icon of the Holy Metropolitan Aleksiy
and St Sergius of Radonezh (1801), where the half-
open curtain and the epigram included in the
framing constitute an explication of what is taking
place on the ‘theatrical stage’ (illus. 18, 19). They create
the illusion of dramatic action:

worked in cooperation with nature, and as a result The prelate Aleksiy invests Sergiy with his rank,
of this created a ‘second nature’ that was already But the latter declines to accept it.
subject to the laws of harmony. The same could The one does battle with the other,
also be said about the drawing by Simon Ushakov And both do a miraculous deed,
showing King David as psalmist, from which the But who then is victor?
famous engraving by Afanasiy Trukhmensky was Both the righteous prelate
made (illus. 17). The illusionism of its three-dimen- And Sergiy triumph:
sional space answers to the problem of visual per- To do the Lord’s will they both agree.
ception and of free intentionality, which became
the major qualities of the modern icon. The new The painter’s art transforms the new icon into
icon continued to conceal within itself the power to an admonition, an entertaining illustration of
transform reality. But the strength of its action upon models of holiness and virtue. The curtain in the
the surrounding world was the strength of art itself, depiction here points us towards the difficulty of

17 Afanasiy Trukhmensky, ‘King David as Psalmist’, frontis-

piece to a rhymed Psalter by Simeon Polotsky (1680).

51
part one: frame and image

apprehending the divine truth. It is no accident that tion. Hence the half-drawn curtain is always reliant
in the contemporary works of Grigoriy Skovoroda on a particular direction of the percipient gaze;
the sacred text of the Bible is often covered with a to be precise, on a reverent and lengthy process of
‘figurative curtain’ specially put there for ‘lowborn decoding, thanks to which the poses and gestures
hearts and those inclined to curiosity’.47 But as well of the saints are linked with the poetic text, with
as that the curtain acquires special trust: authentic the interior or with the further landscape.
existence is ‘dimly’ revealed through the veil of that In other words, the curtain on a modern icon
beauty, which is apprehended by prayer and reflec- demands a special visual activity as a condition of

18 Holy Metropolitan Aleksiy and St Sergius of Radonezh, 1801.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

52
19 Detail of the drapery hangings.
20 Nativity of Christ, early 19th century, on a 17th-century model (detail). State Open-air
Museum of Architectural History and Art ‘Kolomenskoye’, Moscow.
 chapter one: symbolic unity

Meanwhile, one of the most important

iconographic sources for the new icon was the
Renaissance/Baroque engraving, which appeared
in Muscovite Rus’ in the second half of the seven-
teenth century through the intermediary of Polish,
Belorussian and Ukrainian cultures and did not
lose its significance through the whole eighteenth
century.50 It assisted Russian icon painters to assim-
ilate the new aesthetic theory, on the one hand, in
mediated form, on the other in the cultural context
of the age. As a most powerful instrument of ‘visual
propaganda’ in the age of the Reformation and
Catholic Counter-Reformation, it was the engrav-
ing that possessed the range of artistic devices that
helped to overwhelm a person’s consciousness. For
that reason not only individual depictions, texts
and framing constructions, but also whole compo-
sitions were borrowed in it. Thus the framing
copied onto a seventeenth-century icon of the
Nativity of Christ repeats the framing around an
engraving of the evangelist Matthew from a gospel
book of 1627 (illus. 20, 21). Here only the framing
construction of the Renaissance tabernacle (see
above) is transferred onto the icon. But by the eight -
its new manner of apprehension: the spectator eenth century the artist and engraver could also
takes part in the ‘process of artistic creation’, in the give the icon painter a fundamentally new model
wake of the painter producing a ‘second nature’, for the prayer image. In part, it was fulfilled at
which is higher than the nature of surrounding the behest of Church hierarchs and monasteries.
reality. Thus according to the aesthetic theories Icons of St Alexander Nevsky and the Great Martyr
of the second half of the eighteenth century the Theodore (illus. 22), for example, copied the printed
power of the fine arts consisted in the fact that colophon to the Alexander Nevsky Monastery made
these arts could arouse in a person ‘an attachment by the engraver Grigoriy Kachalov from drawings
to beauty and goodness . . . to make him love truth by Elias Grimmel and Mikhail Makhayev at the
and virtue, turning him away from all evil’.48 And command of Archbishop Theodore of St Petersburg
the artist himself could be seen as a ‘theologian, in April 1747 (illus. 23, 24).51 The popularity of such
philosopher, subtle politician, skilled historian icons and printed sheets is explained by Dmitriy
and assiduous connoisseur of antiquities’.49 Rovinsky: Kachalov’s engraving ‘is academic, but

21 ‘e Evangelist Matthew’, engraving from a gospel

book (1627).

55
22 Ivan Grekov, St Alexander Nevsky and the Great Martyr Theodore, with a View of the Alexander Nevsky
Monastery, mid-18th century. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
 chapter one: symbolic unity

was sold in great quantities at the monastery shop,

which is why it is numbered among popular works’.52
In the mid-eighteenth century the word ‘sum-
mary’ (tezis) came to be used instead of the word
‘colophon’ (konklyuziya). Both meant a scholastic
panegyric that united a depiction with an extensive
text and was distinguished by a complex allegorical
composition that linked the heavenly realm and
the earthly world. Thus in the ‘earthly world’ the
printed sheet by Kachalov linked the encomium
to the monastery with its real buildings, while in
the ‘heavenly realm’ there were representations of
the saints with angels and the three persons of the
Holy Trinity. Meanwhile, the spectator would see
not stern, holy figures apparently dwelling in the
‘ark’ of a medieval icon, but a theatricalized scene,
whose reality was vouched for by two archangels,
‘emerging’ out of the system of the depiction and
located on the frame, like the personages in many
Renaissance and Baroque pictures and prints. The
holy men were carrying on a conversation, as their selves and to the monastery, and to those royal
poses and gestures indicated, while the angels acted personages who had assisted its foundation.
as intermediaries between heaven and earth, bear- Everything was filled with hints and meanings,
ing wreaths and crowns. One might consider that saturated with illusionism and wrapped in a special
all of them had entered into a dialogue with that picturesque poetry, clearly flowing from a new
laudatory encomium that related both to them- type of metaphorical thought and aesthetics. By

23 Mikhail Makhayev, Alexander Nevsky Monastery, 1747, 24 Colophon in praise of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery,
drawing. Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, engraving aer a drawing by Elias Grimmel and Mikhail
St Petersburg. Makhayev, 1748.

57
part one: frame and image

subjecting this icon to Baroque poetics, its authors Under the influence of etchings, and seeking
multiplied its levels of meaning, making it not to demonstrate the equal validity (in response to
only excite the imagination, but also touch and Protestant doctrines) of sacred text and illustration,
delight people as useful, attractive and accessible. post-medieval Russian icons of the eighteenth
They also brought it close to the panegyric and century are heavily laden with extensive texts:
the sermon, setting up new relations between word akathists, quotations from the Lives of the saints,
and image. testimonies to the miracles wrought by icons, and

25 SS Zosima and Savva of Solovki, with a View of the Solovki Monastery, early 18th centu-
ry. Museum of Pictorial Arts, Archangel.

58
 chapter one: symbolic unity

same applies to Russian engravings that show a

‘portrait’ of the saint and a text representing his
teaching, clearly made under the influence of
Catholic and Protestant prints with a two-part
composition in which the text commented on the
illustration and vice versa.54 Finally, representations
of Russian saints could acquire a fundamentally new
treatment. The frame of an engraving by Martin
Nekhoroshevsky of the Holy Martyr Dimitriy (1735)
carries a text of the Life of the saint, so creating a
sort of ‘verbal icon’ that is on an equal footing with
the illustration. Set within the frame resembling a
Western European altar, a commentary is provided
not only through the text of the troparion and
kontakion but also by information taken from the
history of the murdered tsarevich. Engravings also
served as models for later icons.55
New ways of perceiving the world also began
to be reflected in the frame of the icon represent-
ing a saint’s life. This becomes evident if we
compare, for example, an icon of this kind of St
Alexander Svirsky (mid-sixteenth century, from
the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin)
with an icon of St Sergius of Radonezh from the
second half of the seventeenth century (illus. 27,
also verses written in the genre of the ‘iconological 28). Florensky seems to have been the first to pose
epigram’. Even making a signature beneath an icon the question of how to apprehend icons showing
became a special theme of Russian syllabic verse ‘Lives’, and the function of their frame in the
in the last quarter of the seventeenth century. This organization of time and space. The middle part
was a concern, for example, of Karion Istomin and of an icon of a Life is ‘the spiritual aspect of the
Yevfimiy Chudovsky.53 The framed compositions given person’, its ‘idea in the Platonic sense, or
of these later icons, and engravings of SS Zosima entelechy’, ‘the centre of all relationships’. The frame
and Savva of Solovki with a View of the Solovki with its individual scenes from the Life may be
Monastery, may be compared with Protestant altars regarded, so the scholar thought, as ‘revealing and
that bear biblical texts on the predella. In Russia elucidating this central element’. Its historical time
these were replaced by texts from the Lives of the is characterized by movement, that is, by change
saints, an anthem or akathist (illus. 25, 26). The and development in the holy personage shown at

26 SS Zosima and Savva of Solovki, with a View of the

Solovki Monastery, early 18th century engraving, from
Dmitriy Rovinsky, Russian Popular Pictures: Atlas, vol. iv
(1893), no. 6.
59
part one: frame and image

the centre. After ‘sliding’ ceaselessly around the longer ‘slide’, but move towards the centre, relating
individual scenes of the Life on the frame, the each small quadrilateral with the scene of the Life
viewer’s gaze would return to the central element portrayed in the middle. Each temporal slice of
and the repose to be beheld in it. But the same the frame round the Life was apprehended through
effect could be produced if the gaze went in the the single centre, which caused the central element
opposite direction, whereby the viewer would and the frame to be indissolubly linked and
apprehend the ‘fullness’ and ‘absolute quality’ dependent on one another.56 In other words, the
of the central element in the construction of frame depicting the Life made no commentary on
the artistic frame, over which his gaze would no the central element and did not direct the viewer’s

27 St Alexander Svirsky, with Life, mid-16th century. Museums of the Moscow Kremlin.

60
28 St Sergius of Radonezh, with Life, c. 1680. Yaroslavl Open-air Museum of Architectural History.
part one: frame and image

imagination towards its understanding, but made mitting varied material to memory. The images
the viewer apprehend it as a metaphysical entity, that we have disposed in them for memorizing
since it was inseparable from the image in the a particular series of things fade and are
central rectangle. Such a frame served the purposes obliterated if we do not use them any more.
of ‘mnemotechnics’ (skilled memory). Each of its But places stay in the mind and can be used
compartments is reminiscent of a ‘locus’ – a distinct again to install a different set of images, relating
place for each separate image, since according to to different material.57
medieval ideas the skilled memory consisted of
places and images. As one scholar notes, Drawn into the reading of images on frames
that define ‘loci’, the gaze is summoned only to
The formation of places has great significance, recognize and memorize things according to a
since one and the same disposition of ‘loci’ priori rules that were not subject to alteration. That
[places] can be used many times over in com- is why a frame displaying a Life on a medieval icon

29 Gentile da Fabriano, Adoration of the Magi, 1423, altarpiece for S. Trinità, Florence.
Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.

62
 chapter one: symbolic unity

could be quantitatively overloaded with individual

scenes (there are 128 on the icon of St Alexander
Svirsky) and not change its form.
This icon of St Sergius of Radonezh is unusual
in that the painter located the scenes of his Life not
only on the traditional frame around the ‘portrait’
of the saint, but also within the central element.
With the help of Western European pictures and
engravings a new system of representation, in
which elements of linear and reverse perspective
found it possible to coexist, was coming into being.
For the time being this coexistence was supported
by the traditional frame with a Life, but the frame
itself acquired additional compositional ‘little
frames’, so defining the background and organiza-
tion of the main level on which the figure of
Sergius of Radonezh was depicted.58 His ‘portrait’
thereby acquired a fundamentally new ‘commen-
tary’ as compared with the ‘portrait’ of Alexander
Svirsky on the Moscow Kremlin icon. It was made
while the path of art was deviating from the former
rules into the context of the new aesthetic theory
of the period. And it was this theory that permitted
the Russian icon painter of the second half of
the seventeenth century to locate scenes of the
saint’s Life not only outside the central element,
as previously, but also within it in imitation of West (illus. 29).59 It also accommodates various
Western European pictures, which had to have the planes of representation and discloses elements of
frame separate. The image started to lean towards linear perspective, saturated with new visual rhetoric.
illusionism and multi-layered content. In this Rounded windows within Gothic pointed arches
respect the icon of Sergius of Radonezh with his showing Christ and the Virgin and scenes on the
Life is distantly reminiscent of Gentile da Fabriano’s predella of the altar casing still speak of a link with
Adoration of the Magi altarpiece (1423; Uffizi, medieval forms. But all the same they are on the
Florence), made for Santa Trinità in Florence, point of losing the earlier symbolism, and it will
which many specialists, as was mentioned in the not be long before their complete disappearance
Introduction, view as the very beginning of the will present the frame itself with an opportunity
appearance of the separate picture frame in the to choose between the ecclesiastical and secular

30 St Barbara, c. 1750–1800. State Historical Museum,

Moscow.

63
31 Ivan Dorofeyev, frame for the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God, with a compendium
of Mother of God icons, 1722. Private collection.
 chapter one: symbolic unity

image. Something similar happened with Russian a delicate frame, one in which you might expect a
art too in the second half of the seventeenth century. picture. All the same, there is a corresponding sym-
In the following century linear perspective and bolism in the representational system of this frame,
the picture frame finally established their positions which the craftsman borrowed from collections of
in Russian church art. In the icon with Life of St engraved emblems and whose aim is to conquer a
Barbara (second half of the eighteenth century; person’s heart and imagination. The holy martyr
Historical Museum, Moscow, illus. 30) the medieval crushes underfoot the sword with which the execu-
‘ark’ has disappeared, while the margins of the icon tioner beheads her in the background of the pic-
have transformed themselves into a delicate pictur- ture. This one scene from the Life reveals the main
esque frame – linear perspective and the new rhetoric idea of the image: the Gospels and faith in the Holy
of the image have made the master re-examine his Trinity give victory over death. In this instance the
concept of the frame of representation. It is no sword serves as a sort of ‘pedestal’ for the figure,
accident that this icon is nowadays displayed in its ‘symbolic framing’, just as does the picturesque

32 Engraving with a compendium of Mother of God

icons, aer Grigory Tepchegorsky, 18th century, a detail
from Dmitry Rovinsky, Russian Popular Pictures: Atlas,
vol. iii (1881), no. 1216.
65
part one: frame and image

background with its scene of execution and a Radiant Sun’, put together between 1713 and 1716 by
church building. Simeon Mokhovitov, the guardian of the Kremlin
The new rhetoric and aesthetic were also capa- Annunciation Cathedral, for which, as scholars
ble of featuring in the iconography of individual surmise, Tepchegorsky’s engravings too were pre-
pictorial frames, on which traditionally not only pared.60 The task of artist and writer was to create
scenes from Lives of the saints had been located, a full compendium of the miracle-working icons of
but also illustrated accounts of famous miracle- the Mother of God that were revered not only in
working images – the Saviour Not Made by Hands, Russia, but also in other Christian lands. With this
and the Vladimir, Tikhvin, Smolensk and Kazan in mind they made use of literary works on similar
versions of the Mother of God. Often polemics with themes: The New Heavens by Ioannikiy Galyatovsky,
Protestants and a defence of the main Orthodox The Garden of Mary Mother of God by Antoniy
ideas would be carried on in the conceptual space Radivilovsky, tales of miracles performed by the
of the frame. The Protestant rejection of the cult of icons and also other models and sources. On every
the Mother of God and the saints led to the wide- page of the book there was an engraving by
spread diffusion of these frames. Such, for example, Tepchegorsky showing an icon of the Mother
is the frame for an icon of the Vladimir Mother of of God, and beside it a text by Mokhovikov giving
God with a comprehensive array of Mother of God brief accounts of the date and circumstances of the
icons, made by the icon painter Ivan Dorofeyev in appearance of the icon and of the miracles that
1722 and commissioned by the abbot of the Chudov flowed from it. The various images, for example
Monastery in the Kremlin, Nikon Dranitsyn (illus. of the Yevtropiy, Yaksinsky, Galansky, Tumbovsky
31). The frame was a ‘contribution’ by the patron and other icons of the Mother of God, were creat-
to the Moscow church of SS Peter and Paul as ed by Tepchegorsky solely according to literary
an ‘eternal remembrance’, and most likely was descriptions from The New Heavens.61 Embracing
modelled on engravings by Grigory Tepchegorsky, the sphere of the imagination, these images clearly
showing miracle-working icons of the Mother of came close to poetry, since they obliterated the
God, that were reissued several times in the course boundary between similarity to the old image and
of the eighteenth century (illus. 32). It embodied the concept of this image, about which Bal’tazar
the concept of the icon as a free work of art, since Grasian wrote: ‘Comparison is the source of a
it included images bearing the new iconography great multitude of subtle thoughts. It is the third
that had been created by Tepchegorsky in 1713–14 impulse for wit, providing limitless opportunities;
from various sources, including literary ones. The from it can issue elegant parallels and contrasts,
engraver and his icon-painting follower emerged metaphors, allegories, metamorphoses, nomencla-
as creators of novel prayer images thanks to that tures and similar inexhaustible varieties of subtle
‘subtle design’ that Baroque poetics and rhetoric thoughts.’62 That is to say, the medieval category
had dictated to him. of similitude had given way to the Renaissance
The same concept of the new icon emerged and Baroque concept of metaphor. Baroque ‘wit’
from the manuscript collection called ‘Most (acutezza) was understood not only as sharp-

66
 chapter one: symbolic unity

witted speech, but also as the free play of thoughts of God by the painter Ivan Dorofeyev revealed a
and images. Thus there is nothing surprising in host of cultural historical meanings. It contained
the fact that scholars have found a multitude of not only a complex symbolic programme linked
invented dates and historical facts in Mokhovikov’s with the ecclesiastical scholastic Baroque, but also
texts, and equally as many drawings of the Mother reflected the religious and political realities of
of God invented by Tepchegorsky. In other words, the time – the defence of icon veneration and the
the frame with its collection of icons of the Mother Orthodox Church’s concern to strengthen the cult

33 Aleksey Kholmogorets, Frame with akathist to the 34 Northern European pictorial frame, c. 1450–60.
Mother of God, 1746. Velikiy Ustyug Open-air Museum Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
of Architectural History and Art.
67
part one: frame and image

of wonder-working images. For this reason both

Mokhovikov’s compendium and Tepchegorsky’s
engravings were created in precisely the years when
the iconoclastic heresy of Dmitriy Tveritinov
appeared in Moscow.63 The rhetorical structure
developed in Mokhovnikov’s compendium was
essentially carried over into Ivan Dorofeyev’s icon,
although in a more laconic form: the icon painter
had the opportunity to reveal the major holy
object of Muscovite Russia – the icon of the
Vladimir Mother of God – in the framing of a new
type of image, endowing it with a new type of aura
that heightened its cult significance and role.64
Of course, picturesque icon frames are
encountered as far back as Byzantine art between
the eleventh century and the early fifteenth.65
However, the Baroque age clearly chose to privi-
lege this structure, in the context of full attention
to the frame as an instrument with which to
heighten the didactic impulse of the religious
image. Hence, if earlier the painterly frame played
the part of reliquary and ark, now it was striving
to project a doctrinaire role, as is witnessed not the defence of the major ideas of Orthodoxy were
only by Ivan Dorofeyev’s frame, but also by a pursued.
multitude of other frames with scenes of akathists Thus the frame with the akathist to the Mother
and tales about famous wonder-working images – of God, painted in 1746 by the craftsman Aleksey
the Saviour Not Made by Hands and the Vladimir, Kholmogorets, is in form reminiscent of Renais-
Kazan, Tikhvin and Smolensk icons of the Mother sance and Baroque framings of altar images (illus.
of God. And we should note that all of them begin 33, 34). Its iconography, decorations and construc-
to be disseminated from the early sixteenth century, tion are typical of the time and once again confirm
that is, from the time that the Orthodox Church the conception of the frame in the Baroque age as
was obliged vigorously to resist the pressure of an independent work of art. Representing the ark
the Reformation, which denied the veneration of an ancient shrine, the frame does not so much
of icons and the cult of the Mother of God and conceal it from the eyes of the multitude as
the saints. It was not only on the pages of theo - attempt to tell the people about it, to bring it close
logical tracts, but also in the iconography of icon to the world and to the individual. And here the
framing that the polemics with Protestants and rhetoric of Kholmogorets clearly vied with that of

35 Coronation of the Mother of God, 1794. State Open-air

Museum of Architectural History and Art ‘Kolomenskoye’,
Moscow.

68
 chapter one: symbolic unity

religious poetry, persuading the spectator that On either side of the frame are placed the four
the ancient image of the Hodegitria had particular Evangelists and two female martyrs, while above is
significance in the work of salvation. a scene of the Mother of God with the Child and
Ultimately, Baroque aesthetics and rhetoric angels. Higher up on the icon space are depicted
led to the appearance of icons with complex frames John the Baptist, a chariot with Christ seated
of multiple components, or rather with separate within it, and affixed to it the symbols of the
marginal frames, which replaced the medieval ‘ark’ four Evangelists – a lion, a calf, an angel and
with margins that were integral with the board or an eagle. The figure of John the Baptist, towards
boards. The framing of the icon of the Coronation which the chariot is moving, is surrounded by a
of the Mother of God (1794), created under the Star of David, from which come forth rays in the
influence of Catholic engravings of particularly form of words: ‘forerunner’, ‘to the sun’, ‘to all’,
revered miraculous images, carries interesting ‘morning star’, ‘to people’, ‘crying out’. On nearby
meanings (illus. 35, 36, 37). In the middle of the scrolls we can read: ‘this comes after me’, ‘raise up
icon is a depiction of the Mother of God, enclosed thy voice as a fortress’, ‘I beheld the likeness of
in a Baroque frame resembling a Catholic altar. four beasts with the likeness of faces: a human

36 Frame of the icon. 37 Altar with a miracle-working icon of the Virgin Mary,
1621; engraving in the Paolino Chapel, S. Maria
Maggiore, Rome.
69
part one: frame and image

face, a lion’s face, a calf ’s face, an eagle’s face’, ‘divine metamorphoses and of the interpenetration of the
love poured forth’, ‘seeking into hearts’. This whole heavenly and earthly cosmos. Between the depiction
complex composition with verses was painted on and the frame a new system of symbolic connec-
a board that was set into a separate board with tions, belonging to the sphere of the imagination,
silver adornment. had been set up. The frame took upon itself the
Created in the context of Baroque poetics, image’s excess of meaningfulness, and turned from
this icon represented a many-layered symbolic a means of preserving the divine countenance into
image, whose meaning could be revealed only in an instrument for its comprehension. That was
the process of contemplative visual activity. ‘So as the essence of the separation of the image from
to display sharpness of wit’, as Emanuele Tesauro the frame, which in Western Europe took place at
explained of similar examples, ‘one must refer to the time of the Renaissance in the fifteenth century,
concepts not straightforwardly, but figuratively, but in Russia about two centuries later. This is
employing the power of invention, that is to say attested by the so-called iconostasis of Grigoriy
new and unexpected methods’.66 Shumayev, one of the most grandiose frames of
In other words, all the icons examined earlier the Russian Baroque period, in which Western
in this chapter can be considered worthy works Latin rhetoric and the new aesthetics reached
of art only in so far as they displayed subtlety of perhaps the limits of their joint powers. It is a
wit, through which the image could attain multiple unique monument of Orthodox visual scholasticism,
layers of meaning. That is why the margins of in which powerful images of the Middle Ages and
the icon could unexpectedly be separated from the Renaissance encountered each other and were
the portrayal, while the picture itself could be sur- inseparably intertwined.
rounded by additional lesser textual and pictorial
frames that had come from other forms of art:
Frame as World
engravings, easel paintings, the theatre or architec-
ture. As we know, Tesauro, like other Baroque On 21 October 1754 the Moscow office of the
theoreticians, extended his theory of metaphor governmental Senate was faced with an unusual
to all forms of artistic creativity. In the Baroque item of business. It was occasioned by a report
period the whole world seemed a metaphor that from the procurator general, Ivan Ivanovich
ceaselessly opened up other facets of existence. Bekhmetev, concerning an iconostasis that was
In consequence of this formula there took place astonishing for its times: a vast frame within which
a gradual ascent from ornamental decoration and was set an icon of Christ’s Crucifixion (illus. 38).
details to emblems, and from them to allegories The document read as follows:
and thence to symbols.
Hence the frame of the work of art could In Moscow the merchant Shumayev has for a
fully be regarded as the first step (or threshold) long time caused to be constructed the Life-
towards a comprehension of the authentic world, Giving Cross with very remarkable ornamenta-
of the penetration into the mysteries of ceaseless tion, which has almost come to completion.

70
 chapter one: symbolic unity

And now it is known that the merchant A specially created commission resolved to
Shumayev, because of his great age, is already assist the 90-year-old master craftsman in com-
becoming forgetful, and there is a danger pleting the iconostasis and to transfer it to the
that at the death of this Shumayev the said Sretensky Monastery in Moscow. On 22 January
cross could be lost, and therefore would it 1755 the order came ‘to dismantle that cross and
not be expeditious to take the aforementioned to set it up in the appointed place’. As a result a
cross under the special purview of the thick file of documents has survived from 1754 to
Senate office?67 1761 that puts unique materials in the hands of
the researcher. These deal with the dismantling of

38 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev: Crucifixion, with the Mother of God

and St John the Divine, c. 1675–1750.

71
part one: frame and image

number’. In the same documents we encounter

the names ‘cross’ – ‘cross in a casing with orna-
mentations’ and ‘cross with all its appropriate
ornamentations’. All these testify to the fact that
both the master and his contemporaries regarded
the iconostasis as a casing frame that in their
minds was not something separate from the icon
of the Crucifixion itself. It is known that in the
eighteenth century the word iconostasis referred
both to an altar screen and to the casing in which
an icon would be placed. In 1755 the iconostasis
was set up in the main cathedral of the Sretensky
Monastery, ‘within the cathedral church behind
the altar on the left by the church wall’, and
attracted immediate attention: ‘and now into that
Sretensky monastery for prayer, and even more
to gaze at that Cross during divine service, there
come a multitude of people and are squeezed
together looking at it’.69 As a result a safety barrier
was placed in front of the iconostasis. It acted
like a magnet, drawing the people’s gaze towards
the striking spectacle: before the viewer there
opened up an astonishing panorama of the
the iconostasis into its component parts, making imagination – the entire Christian cosmos in
drawings of it and transferring it to the Sretensky all its variety and detail.
Monastery, orders to seek tenders for completing The chief artistic peculiarity of the iconostasis
and setting up the iconostasis; and finally a was the inventive manner in which all the seven-
detailed description compiled in 1762, after its teenth-century aesthetic concepts were brought
transfer to the monastery, on the basis of infor- together on Russian soil. Responding to the basic
mation provided by Grigoriy Shumayev himself.68 Baroque theory of ‘symbolic metaphor’ and
According to the documents, the master himself ‘speedy power of thought’, Shumayev’s craftsmen
called his work ‘an iconostasis of the Life-giving devised the iconostasis as a grandiose frame for
Cross’, while the title ‘Cross with iconostasis’ is the redemptive sacrifice of the Saviour. The path
also found in his handwriting. In the official of the ‘intelligent’ gaze of the spectator led from
documents it was emphasized that Grigoriy the decorations surrounding the composition to
Shumayev called his ‘cross’ an iconostasis that the emblems, from the emblems to the allegories
‘consists of small carved components in great and from the allegories to the central symbol,

39 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev, glazed case,

mid-18th century.

72
 chapter one: symbolic unity

Christ’s Crucifixion. And in so far as the world recalled a window in a wall; closed, it was a
itself was understood as metaphor during the Renaissance tabernacle for a picture, a relief
Baroque period, so too the Christian cosmos was composition or a sculpture.
likened to God’s ‘footstool’ (Matthew 5:34–5), that These two ‘windows’ were called upon to
is, to his symbolic ‘framing’. Following the Baroque symbolize the ability of two worlds – the visible
aesthetic, all the ‘curious decoration’ that had so and the invisible – to communicate with each
struck the senator Ivan Ivanovich Bekhmetev was other. The first was the real world in which the
nothing other than the ornament of the frame, viewer was located; the second, the theoretical
‘swollen’ to a remarkable extent; at its basis there world that embodied the model of the Christian
were the same rules of Baroque rhetoric discussed cosmos. Each of the windows, moreover, was
above. The frame and its decoration (ornament) characterized by a particular play with space, in
were elevated by the originator of the iconostasis so far as the viewer’s gaze had to move from less
into a complex metaphor, signifying a window, a to more conventionalized space. Thus the inner
door and a ladder into the heavenly kingdom. But frame was square in shape with a canopy-like
in so far as the idea of the salvational sacrifice of structure above it that took the place of a classical
Christ lay at the basis of this metaphor, the frame pediment or cornice, as in many Russian encased
was not to be separated from the central represen- icons of the later seventeenth century and the
tation of the Crucifixion. The frame and the central eighteenth (illus. 38). The side wings of the case
image constituted a single artistic space that were covered with scenes of the Apocalypse using
embodied a model of the Christian picture of subjects from the Old Testament and the gospels,
the world. Its axis of comprehension was a vertical while the lower part of the casing carried scenes
at whose centre was the figure of Jesus, with depicting hell. The boundary between the visible
the Mother of God and St John the Divine in and invisible worlds was erased by the fact that the
attendance, against a background of the city of scenes of hell placed underneath spread outside
Jerusalem. This unusual icon of the Crucifixion the frame, as it were disrupting it and rendering
was contained within two large framing construc- it unnecessary.
tions that dictated various levels of conventionality In the construction of its external housing this
to the viewer’s gaze. Thus the craftsman placed striving of the frame towards invisibility was real-
the Crucifixion itself with the Mother of God and ized in a different way: it created the illusion of
St John in an enormous casing with a multitude looking through a window, which was achieved
of sculptural representations. In its turn this case by making the doors semi-transparent through
was situated in an equally large housing (more than fretted shuttering. Moreover, these doors opened
7 m high and 4 m broad, illus. 39), adorned with only halfway, displaying the central scene of the
iconic representations on its two sides, while in Crucifixion, while the other scenes remained cov-
front it was closed by glazed shutters with transoms. ered with glass in gilded frames. Hence a view of
In this way a complex rhetorical construction the whole composition depended on perceiving
confronted the viewer: opened up, the iconostasis the saint’s life icon, since the ‘window-like shutters’

73
part one: frame and image

gave the impression of a transparent casing,

through which the viewer beheld the sculptural
adornments. This was also emphasized by the
artist’s intention to ‘adorn the closing frames with
ready-prepared stones’, that is, to decorate them
like the casing of an icon, as mentioned in a note
written before the iconostasis was finished. In this
process the dependence on the symbolism of the
window and the saint’s life icon was strengthened
by the way in which the sidepieces of the casing
were arranged. If the view from in front (through
glass) embraced sculpture, then that from the side
took in lively pictures, since icons with representa-
tions of Christian feasts and New Testament para-
bles, rather than pieces of glass, were set into it.
The coordination of the two great frames of the
Shumayev iconostasis is merely the general scheme
of the whole composition. In practice, it was
realized with typical Baroque inventiveness and
through the employment of a variety of artistic
means: that is to say that the craftsman’s play with
space revealed a close dependence on the many
visual arts of the Baroque period, in which the
frame ‘at times occupied more space than the
central representation, and gathered into itself the
fundamental symbols of the age’.70 For that reason as a synthesis of the arts – of theatre, painting,
we cannot doubt that Grigoriy Shumayev was well architecture, sculpture and literature. The artistic
acquainted with icon painting, and specially with language that embodied this synthesis was known
the Russian iconostasis from the mid-seventeenth as the ‘mirror of life’ or ‘theatre of the world’, and in
century to the early eighteenth. But he also knew consequence this was also applied to the Christian
examples of late Gothic altars, the popular vertep model of the world. In embodying this, the theatre
puppet theatre, as well as decorative sculpture, played a special role, because the formula ‘vita est
graphic art and the stylized painted portrait scaena similis’ was one of the most popular such
(parsuna). Clearly, he also had available to him formulations of Baroque culture, representing the
compendia of emblems and allegories, as well as world as a theatre and people as actors. And every-
textbooks on poetics and rhetoric – the basis of all thing that the viewer of the iconostasis of Grigoriy
the arts and learning. As a result his work was taken Shumayev saw belonged to a complex semiotic

40 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev: detail showing the

Mother of God.

74
 chapter one: symbolic unity

icon. The optical system of the Renaissance

‘window’ presupposed the illusion of entering
into another world, and was orientated towards
metaphor and the apprehension of the heavenly
world by analogy with the earthly sphere. The
iconic perspective reinforced such cognition,
since it was predicated on the prospect of the
other world, on apprehending it as it really was,
and not on how it might seem to be.
This collision of iconic perspective with that of
the Renaissance picture was clearly manifest in the
picturesque treatment of the huge relief figures of
Christ, the Mother of God and St John that clearly
dominated all the remaining painted, sculptural
and architectural representations (illus. 40, 41).
Here the craftsman attempted to locate a middle
ground on which the real human forms were not
distinctly perceptible. They only seemed real,
alluding to reality and stirring the imagination.
The abstraction and unworldliness of the medieval
icon are here agitated by a wave of emotion. The
head of Christ is angled towards the left shoulder.
His face expresses calmness and suffering, empha-
sized by the appearance of the figures of the Mother
of God and St John. Their poses and gestures
system. Its peculiarity was that it did not copy convey not only the grief, but also the magnitude
reality, but on the contrary strove for differentiation of the action unfolding. Their lines of vision meet
from it. at a point directly in front of Christ’s face. A clear
A special role in the conception of the icono- linear perspective is seen also in the depiction
stasis was played by painting and its system of of paradise as the Heavenly Jerusalem. It is includ-
perspective. The spectator’s gaze and play of ed within the canopy and clearly has a symbolic
imagination were dictated by the fact that the top sense: paradise had been lost, but has been
and lateral sides of the casing-frame were canted returned to us thanks to the redemptive sacrifice
inwards. This presupposed a single point of view, of Christ (illus. 38). We can assume that the illusion-
hence Renaissance linear perspective. This per- ism of Renaissance perspective also corresponded
spectival scheme, however, was augmented by the to this possibility of entering into paradise and
reverse perspective characteristic of the medieval viewing it through a window as something ‘real’.

41 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev: detail showing

St John the Divine.

75
part one: frame and image

Incidentally, this feeling would have been strength- thereof.’ In it is ‘a pure water of the river of life
ened by the fact that the canopy was inclined proceeding out of the throne of God and of the
towards the centre, as though reflecting the Lamb . . . and on either side of the river was
earthly Jerusalem that was the background to there the tree of life . . . and yielded her fruit
Christ’s Crucifixion. That is to say that the every month: and the leaves of the tree were for
Heavenly Jerusalem was to be taken as a mirror the healing of the nations . . . the throne of God
image of the earthly Jerusalem. The world was and the Lamb shall be in it . . . blessed are they
revealed as ‘crowned with the beauty of Heaven’, which are called unto the marriage supper of
if we recollect the words of Dmitriy Rostovsky the Lamb’.72
from his ‘Comedy on the Nativity of Christ’.71
In 1762 a description of the cross was compiled From this description we can see that the
according to information given by Grigoriy craftsman took the description of the Heavenly
Shumayev himself. ‘Such shall be the cross’, began Jerusalem by St John the Divine (Revelation 21–2)
this document, clearly revealing the peculiarities as a mirror image (‘and here there shall be the
of the rhetorical mindset of the age. First came world’) of the historic earthly Jerusalem.
a description of paradise as it was depicted on In Old Russian icons, as a rule, paradise was
the canopy. denoted by a separate segment of space that made
it distinct from heaven. Usually it was separated
Up above, in the clouds, there shall also be a off by a delicate framing line. In icons of the second
world. Peter and Paul and the great martyr half of the seventeenth century and the eighteenth,
Catherine hold wreaths and crowns, also paradise, as a segment of heaven, began to be
branches. The heavenly Jerusalem, with twelve framed with clouds. The heavenly powers – angels,
gates. The city is four sided by the measure of seraphim, cherubim – might also form this frame,
the angel. The construction of its wall has 144 symbolizing the propinquity of the heavenly and
cubits. And in the making of this city its walls the earthly, as we have also seen the reflection
of clear glass are adorned with all kinds of pre- of the heavenly in the earthly. But the depiction
cious stones: ‘the first foundation was jasper; of paradise as the Heavenly City, surrounded by a
the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; fortress wall, appears in Russia under the influence
the fourth, an emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; of Western iconography, particularly from illustra-
the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the tions in Johannes Piscator’s German translation
eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, of the Bible, and also of the new Western Latin
a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the rhetoric, which dictated new devices for construct-
twelfth, an amethyst . . . and the street of the ing the artistic space of the icon.73
city was pure gold, as if it were transparent All twelve gates of the city, in form like
glass . . . and the city had no need of the sun, Renaissance portals with columns and triangular
neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory porticos, were closed, and in front of them, facing
of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light the spectator, were figures of the Righteous with

76
 chapter one: symbolic unity

kneeling angels. Within the city one could discern To ‘know’ something in the Baroque period meant
churches and monasteries, and also the ‘River of to explicate it, as the margins of books and icons
Life’, whose source was the scene of the Last make clear. As we know, in the Middle Ages the
Supper within a circular frame – the origin of the margins of a manuscript could contain notes
Mystery of the Eucharist. In accordance with the relating to everyday life: in the scribe’s and reader’s
Baroque principle of contrastive opposition, on consciousness they were not of a piece with the
the lower (opposite) side of the frame is represented sacred text; thus the marginal space represented a
the ‘River of Fire’ in hell where the souls of sinners ‘blank wall’, an externally impenetrable boundary
are tormented, while the perspectival picture of for the sacred central area.75 In the Baroque period
New Jerusalem is contrasted with a representation the same margins of books and icons are covered
of earthly Jerusalem, where the Crucifixion of with innumerable references and comments; the
Jesus Christ took place. Following the principles latter incidentally are not backed up by proof,
of Baroque poetics, the dark space of evil is located rather by simple juxtaposition – the particular
beside the space of virtue. Thus hell was deliber- form of knowledge that differentiated the scholar-
ately placed at the very bottom, implying that ship of the seventeenth century from that of the
it continued outside the frame. Incidentally, the nineteenth. The spectator would also find exposi-
description of sins was so detailed that the most tions and commentaries included on the frames
varied social types who had ‘left the true path’ of the iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev. They
could be made out in hell. Thither went ‘those were situated low down, in cartouches depicting
consumed in fire who died not having recognized cherubs intended to symbolize the link between
the Lord’, ‘bishops who did not provide their religious experience and scholarly knowledge.
flock with a message of delivery’, ‘nuns who were In the medieval icon the word strove for fusion
unworthy of their holy calling and did not live with the picture. It is no coincidence that the
appropriately’, ‘tradesmen who bought and sold Byzantines gave both a pictorial representation
by intrigue and deception’, ‘the female sex for their and a written description the single name ‘writing’,
charms and for excessive whitening of their faces’, while the verb ‘to write’ applied (and in Russian
‘farmers who did not respect Sabbath days’, ‘beggars still applies) to both.76 The numerous comments
who became rich through accepting alms’, and and elucidations on the iconostasis of Grigoriy
also drunkards, fornicators, usurers and bearers Shumayev bear witness to the fact that in a Baroque
of false witness.74 All these wicked souls had fallen icon the word attempted to represent the multi-
into ‘deepest Hell’, whose reality was made more valency of the symbol; it was after all a component
convincing by the way all scenes ‘departed’ beyond of the play with time and space. For that reason the
the limits of the frame. names of the heavenly powers, of all kinds of saints
The Neoplatonic aesthetic of the Renaissance and biblical passages, were invitations to apprehend
and the Baroque never for a moment let it be the meaning of the pictures, causing the apprehend-
forgotten that the world surrounding the human ing consciousness now to be transported to biblical
being was full of signs that needed to be deciphered. times, now to live within the time-span of human

77
part one: frame and image

history – for example side by side with the names of schools in its precincts’, a ‘monastery of the Syrians’
Russian saints or of the tsars Peter i and Peter iii. and a ‘church of All Saints within which are 80
This superimposition of the real upon mytho- chapels of various heretical beliefs’ enter into the
poetic space also affected the very detailed map of same space. But here there are also places men-
the land of Judaea (illus. 38). Aspiring to historical tioned in the Gospels as being connected with the
and geographical exactitude, the Holy Land Saviour’s Way of the Cross: the house of Pilate and
included a variety of ‘locations’ derived from the the house of Caiaphas, the cell where Christ was
biblical and historical scholarship of the time; imprisoned, the Garden of Gethsemane. Here is the
and in accordance with these ideas it was totally inscription: ‘The place where Christ was made to
filled with churches and monasteries in which the carry the cross, and Simon the Cyrenian helped
righteous life could be led, such as the Armenian him, and the woman Veronica wiped his face with
monastery of St James, the son of Zebedee, the a cloth’, and also references to the events following
Armenian church of St George, the church of the on from the Crucifixion – the Entombment, the
Mother of God of the Nestorians, and also a mass Resurrection and the Ascension. All these were
of Greek churches and monasteries. To strengthen signs of the world in whose decipherment the ‘frame
the illusion of reality, a ‘Turkish shrine and various of tabulation’ is to be included. Within it the

42 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev: detail showing

cartouches with explanatory inscriptions.

78
 chapter one: symbolic unity

viewer would find a world of numbers, letters and deeds, the painted parables framed a space of
words (illus. 42). The numbers beside the pictures absolute sinlessness and harmony. This is no
directed the consciousness precisely to that frame accident. A parable is both a direct and allegorical
of tabulation that signified the appearance of a vehicle for advice, easy to remember, close to indi-
new type of visual rhetoric. rect converse, to proverb, to riddle. Hence in the
The rhetorical rules of the Baroque were on Baroque period parables totally dominated visual
clear display in the representation of biblical, par- art and literature with their concern for the human
ticularly Gospel, parables on the outer sides of the soul. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
casing frame. In this respect they resembled the the Church, naturally, concerned itself with the
sermons that would frame the texts of the Lives dissemination of Old and New Testament parables,
of the saints in printed editions.77 The educated among which in Russia the most popular were
person, being well acquainted with literature of this those of the Prodigal Son, the Lost Sheep, the Blind
kind, picked up their meaning without difficulty. and the Lame, the Rich Man and the Poor Man
Moreover, their composition also revealed the (Dives and Lazarus), the Idle Servant who buried
Baroque ‘framing-up of meaning’, since at its centre his talent in the earth, and others that came within
the viewer would find scenes of the life of Christ and the painterly frame of the Shumayev iconostasis. As
the Mother of God, and only afterwards pictures of the ‘threshold’ to understanding the central image,
the parables of the beggar Lazarus, of the blind it was they that were called upon to purify the soul
and the lame, of the vineyard and other scenes that of a person, before he or she gazed upon the picture
surrounded these. All of them summoned one to of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice.
considerations of moral values and of the righteous As far as the painterly composition of the
life, revealed as the main condition for entry into parables was concerned, it repeated, for example,
that heavenly kingdom revealed at the very top of the composition of the engraving of King David
the casing. Here the person was instructed by the the Psalmist by Afanasiy Trukhmensky (see above)
frame – as to what he was supposed, or supposed and the compositional motifs in a well-known
not, to be. But how was a Christian supposed to Russian text, The Spiritual Book of Emblems for
behave? He should be respectable and God-fearing, Instruction in the Christian Faith with Consoling
while leading a hardworking life. And it was just Figures and Edifying Words (1743), whose source
such themes that echoed through these painted was a book of emblems, Emblemata sacra (1625),
tales and legends, which strove mightily to persuade by Johann Saubert.78 Thus the discrete scenes on
people that the meaning and goal of human history the outer sides of the Shumayev casing were con-
resided in the central image of Christ crucified. structed on the principle of an unbreakable link
In other words, a complex sermon in paint was between text and image, as if they were emblems,
revealed to the spectator’s gaze, reminding him and represented a new type of Baroque icon of
or her of the sacred core of Christian culture: the moral-philosophical character. Following the
Nativity, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of aesthetic principles of the Baroque, this was based
Christ. Establishing a hierarchy of sins and good on the category of ‘swift reason’ as an inventive

79
part one: frame and image

capability closely linked with feelings and sensations. of Grigoriy Shumayev as well. If in the central part
It is noteworthy that the same type of composition the complexities of the frame were a commentary
is also found in popular prints, where the top half on the main symbol, the Crucifixion, at the sides
is occupied by the figure of the saint, and the by contrast the picturesque frame with edifying
lower by a relevant homily. This kind of composi- stories revealed its full powers: it was a commen-
tion is in general terms reflected in the iconostasis tary on humanity, the products of its mind, its

43 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev: detail of the central composition.

80
 chapter one: symbolic unity

strivings and activity, finally its body. In other theatrical architectural decor, which in the Baroque
words, the textual frame in the Baroque period, age aimed towards imaginary rather than authentic
in explicating sacred images, required one to put images. And this architectural decor drew the
faith in the products of human reason. In becom- picture of a fantastical city before a person’s eyes.
ing objects of faith, they turned into icons. In it the roofs of houses were of gold and silver,
Many of the other framing constructions of while their windows were inlaid with thousands
Grigoriy Shumayev’s iconostasis turn out to be of pieces of mirror glass. The trees were laden
distant copies of lesser architectural forms. But with bunches of bright red grapes, while the River
how did rhetoric adapt them to the tasks before it? Jordan was adorned with coloured and reflective
The crucified Christ in the centre of the whole glass. All this was aimed towards creating the
composition is shown against a background of the effect of a reality, the creation of an illusion of
earthly city of Jerusalem, embodied in numerous indescribable beauty in the appearance of the land
architectural elements – a fortified wall, houses, of the Bible.
churches and monasteries – whose forms are In the lower part of the Shumayev iconostasis
reminiscent of the architecture of the Moscow the spectator could find the symbolic architecture
Kremlin in the second half of the seventeenth of the church where Christ was entombed (illus.
century (illus. 43).79 The spectator saw these not 44). Here the culture of the Baroque displayed its
only in the central part of the composition, but also affection for spaces that were laden with the half-
on the upper and lateral elements of the casing. light of secrecy, such as the cell, the sacristy, the
Their picturesque brilliance united the aesthetic crypt and every kind of concealed corner. All these
space of the frame and the centre into a single were favoured images of writers, artists and archi-
whole. But the main peculiarity of these structures tects of the Baroque age.80 It was in the hidden
lay in their being only simulacra of architectural niches of these quasi-‘monasteries’ that Grigoriy
forms, signs standing in for them, not the archi- Shumayev located the main events of the
tectural forms themselves. These were architectural Golgotha drama: the Entry into Jerusalem, the
fantasies, distantly related to the architectural Entombment and the Ascension. On one of these
visions of Giovanni Piranesi or Hubert Robert. structures can be seen a fairly long canopy woven
Elements of real architecture were here placed in on to Solomonic columns, symbolizing a garden.
fantastical combinations, whose aim was merely The peculiarity of its architecture derived from
to produce an effect of reality. Thus the Russian the biblical description of the Temple of Solomon,
onion domes on churches, the white window which mentioned pillars interwoven with a network
surrounds with broken pediments, the high of branches symbolizing eternal life (1 Kings 7:8,
porches, the fortress towers resembling those of 20, 42). But, striving for multivalency of the symbol
the Moscow Kremlin, and much else were linked and for making this canopy comprehensible as a
or collided with each other not by the rules of complex metaphor, the craftsman situated the
architecture but by those of painting – of direct scene in the Garden of Gethsemane beneath it,
and reverse perspective. They were striving towards giving it the title ‘The garden in which Judas with

81
44 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev: detail of lower le,
showing the church of the Holy Sepulchre.
45 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev: details of the framing showing allegories
of Christ’s torments, with mirror glass and vegetal decorative motifs.
part one: frame and image

a kiss betrayed Christ to the lawless Jews’. Beside on a banner above the Russian imperial crest.
the sculpted figures in the centre of the scene there Here Baroque rhetoric made play with symbol,
was placed a twisted column with the symbol of and once again strove for multivalency and com-
the threefold nature of God – an eight-pointed plication; it was responsible for placing these sim-
star sparkling with mirror glass and precious ulacra of architectural forms at the very dividing
stones, with a triangle inside it. In the eyes of line between the real and the unreal, the sacral and
contemporary viewers it represented a comparison the mundane. Finally, all these games with space
of the space of the Garden of Gethsemane with also inspired the forms of the pictorial frame.
that of paradise, within which God resided. But it These were lesser baguette frames of wood and
also indicated that the canopy was the architectural beaten tinplate, painted and gilded to look like
framing for a throne. That is why it was placed strings of pearls and laurel branches – baguettes
above the tomb of the Lord. Moreover, this column smooth and stepped, convex and concave. Their
clearly caused the viewer to associate the whole architectural decor had lost its former function
lower part of the framing structure with an altar, of organizing the wall: it had turned into simple
as it projected forward like a Western altar predella. ornament, permitting the eye to concentrate on
The canopy was crowned with a multitude of what was within. The viewer would find these lesser
angels and cherubim: their purpose was to serve frames at the very bottom, in the foreground of
at the throne of the Almighty, supporting and the iconostasis.
framing it. At its front was John the Baptist, who A particular role was played in the Shumayev
was turned to the spectators, gesturing towards iconostasis by the mirror, actual and metaphorical.
the events of the Gospel story taking place on As we may recollect, Plato condemned the ‘mirror’
earth. Above other recesses there rose up churches of imitative painting. The age of the Renaissance
of fantastic architecture, with translucent glass made the mirror into an instrument of cognition.
domes and crowned with crosses of varying kinds. But in the visual rhetoric of the Baroque in the
All of them, forming components of the ‘intelli- seventeenth century and the mid-eighteenth the
gent design’, were dedicated to the name of Christ illusionism of the mirror became one of the most
Crucified and glorified the purifying power of the important concepts for generating meaning.
Crucifixion; they too were a commentary on the A re-evaluation of the category of likeness, of the
drama of Golgotha. The attentive viewer could contrast of light and darkness, and also the further
make out crosses with the body of Christ, in each development of the idea of optical illusion, are
case different in form from the others, so as to linked with this: as a result, the theory of percep-
emphasize the sufferings of the God-Man. The tion underwent a series of substantial shifts – the
very symbol of the Crucifixion itself – the Cross – greatest minds of the age, Newton and Locke,
took various forms. The domes of the churches addressed themselves to the very subject of per-
were crowned with four-pointed or eight-pointed ception, that is, to the observer.81 The category of
crosses, some of them featuring a circular mandorla the ‘microcosm’, which thanks to the Neoplatonic
and rays. Among them too was a cross inscribed tradition occupied a dominant position in the

84
 chapter one: symbolic unity

epistemology of that time, is linked with the device attempted to bring everything right before a
of mirrored reflection. The concept of ‘microcosm’ person’s eyes. In activating the imagination, they
indicated that the existing earthly sphere is really a carried a person into the ‘looking-glass land’ of
mirrored reflection of the heavenly sphere, that is, heavenly beings; they transformed a person from
of a sequence and configuration of the highest an observer into the object of observation from
spheres. For that reason the mirror was taken to the point of view of the heavenly powers. That
be an instrument of cognition: it reproduced the implies that with the help of the Baroque mirror
mysteries of the world, bringing to the surface the representation could ‘exit’ the frame, and also
everything that might have slipped beyond the include within its conventional space actual
direct human gaze. objects – something that found a multitude of
It has already been noted that on the level of analogues in the visual art of the period. Thus
iconography the canopy of the Shumayev iconos- documents state that the Moscow metropolitan
tasis reflected the earthly Jerusalem. But the essen- Platon (1737–1812) permitted a ‘royal door’ to be
tial thing is that this effect was supported by actual made for an iconostasis ‘from pieces of mirror
mirror reflections. In the context of Neoplatonic glass, in which every object would be reflected a
aesthetics they invited one to comprehend heaven thousand times before the hierarch and the deacon
by analogy with the earth. Pieces of mirror glass in prayer’.83 Pieces of glass could also decorate the
adorned not just the walls of the Heavenly exterior of a Baroque church. In Tsarskoye Selo,
Jerusalem, but were met with abundantly on for example, the Empress Elizabeth ordered the
frames, backgrounds, objects and windows.82 architect Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli to build
Two ‘mirror’ frames were particularly prominent a church dedicated to the Ascension of Our Lord
within the whole grandiose composition: one of (1746–8), in whose altar windows (facing the garden)
them was formed of allegorical representations of mirror glass was likewise inserted.84
the sufferings of Christ (beloved of the Baroque), To remove the boundary between the conven-
between which were located little octagons of tional world of the picture and the real world of
mirror glass, the other of multi-faceted glass the spectator was one of the chief tasks of artists
crystals resembling cut gemstones. Their reflective in the Baroque age. Hence some of the most out-
facets were in fact intersected by cubes that glit- standing paintings of the time devoted attention
tered with the riches of both divine and down-to- to framed mirrors. One of the best-known examples
earth colours, so letting the spectator behold not is the picture by Velázquez known as Las Meninas
only the surrounding world, but also the heavenly (1656), to which Foucault devoted a famous essay.
world as well – the very space within the iconosta- In this painting Velázquez depicted himself in his
sis. We know that the Russian iconostasis of the studio or in one of the rooms in the Escorial at
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries contained images work on a portrait of King Philip iv and his queen
and texts that a human being could not scrutinize Marianna: we see the figures that served the artist
– only the eyes of the Highest could behold them. as models; they have been taken outside the frame
But the mirrors of the Shumayev iconostasis and are located on the same side as the spectator.

85
part one: frame and image

Nevertheless, they can be seen in the mirror on Then in looking at it one knows what is clear,
the opposite wall. Thus the two rulers’ figures what dark,
have been, as it were, transferred outside the space And directs one’s thoughts thereto.87
of the studio, beyond the frame of the mirror,
which is depicted hanging side by side with other The mirror helped one more vividly to behold
pictures.85 God, overcoming death itself – so supposed
What we have here is the typical principle in Stephan Yavorsky in his epitaph on Varlaam
Renaissance and Baroque poetics of double reflec- Yasinsky:
tion, a sign of the new poetics. An actual mirror
changed the meaning of the category of likeness, and The dead body was shrouded in gloom.
brought within the frame something that was for- I could not clearly make out the threefold light,
eign in principle to the medieval icon – the real But as in a mirror immeasurably far off
world of the viewer. It used to be thought that in I beheld my Saviour with the eye of faith.
so far as the world had been created by God, it But after this mirror will have destroyed death
carried God’s features upon it. Moreover, God was I expect to see God more vividly.88
perfecting the world, endowing it with motion
towards Himself. Hence the revelation in the With the help of a mirror the countenances of
Renaissance and Baroque periods of the world’s saints were illuminated with flashes of unearthly
variegation was an aspect of the cognition of the light:
divine. And if the medieval icon excluded shadow
– since divine beauty presupposed an inner source The saints will be surrounded by clear light,
of light – the icon of the Baroque age admitted They shall see themselves with real flesh,
shadows even in the rendering of Christ and the Possessing splendid illumination upon
saints.86 Thereby it pointed to the resemblance of themselves.89
the world to its Creator, to the fact that resem-
blance was a much more complex thing than had So if in the Middle Ages mirrors were forbidden
previously been supposed: resemblance included in Russian churches, in the seventeenth and eight-
the principle of mirrored reflection, thanks to eenth centuries they could not only be found there,
which optical illusion could gather into itself all but were also lavishly framed as if they were icons.
the multifarious nature of the world – directing Mirrors even had little doors in front of them as if
it towards a single centre, God. This was why the they were folding ‘arks’ (illus. 46).90
mirror, presented by Karion Istomin as a tool In other words, the mirror frames of the
of cognition and salvation, was also capable of Shumayev iconostasis evoked a harmonious
reflecting shadow: ‘movement’ of the artistic space between the
sacred and the worldly along their conjoined axis.
When to a person an angel rightfully It was they that dictated the typical Baroque
Reveals a looking glass for his salvation procedure involving light, which transformed

86
 chapter one: symbolic unity

everything that took place into unbroken halluci- of Baroque poetics light was contrasted with dark-
nation. Real and illusory pictures continually ness, the embodiment of the force of evil. God
changed their status thanks to the play of reflections permitted evil, so as to set off the good. Thus
of a huge number of mirrors great and small. shadow, gloom, the cracks and hollows of the
Whatever the illumination, daylight or candlelight, Shumayev iconostasis reminded the viewer over
the reflective frames ‘caught’ the form and and over again that it was precisely God who
enveloped it in an effect of mistiness. The light uttered the words ‘Let there be light’, and simulta-
was ceaselessly laden with shadow, while the dark- neously created the splendid mirror of the world,
ness of niches and hollows was perceived as no which created clear light and colour. In the artistic
less than ever-thickening shade, since by the rules space of the iconostasis the world of light was

46 A 17th-century framed looking-glass.

87
part one: frame and image

drawn forth out of the gloom, was created as if at something secret. In this sense the domes of the
the very boundary of the visible and invisible, the churches, which the craftsman had made of
worldly and the sacred. The purpose after all of translucent coloured glass, became – remarkably
playing with light was both to hide and to reveal numerous as they were – symbols of the divine

47 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev, an icon on a mirror

background: The Cross of Christ is a Spiritual Sword.

88
 chapter one: symbolic unity

light, capable of penetrating the ‘unclarity’ of cherubic powers’. This small frame is the boundary
earthly darkness. These glass domes bore colour of the flow between, and mutual interpenetration
and light simultaneously within them, reflecting of, the centre and the periphery. The frame of an
them, defining and strengthening them, and they icon, which once served as an impenetrable ark
themselves were reflected in the mirror of the fused defending a holy site, has suddenly acquired an
materials that had been turned into precious stones unstable, wavering quality. Its mirror has begun
in honour of the Universal Creator. to reflect the real world just like the ‘mirror’ of
The nimbus or halo represents a concentration the central iconic panel. Meanwhile, the flickering
of the divine energies. As with a church dome, it is quality of this boundary was strengthened by the
perceived as framing the realm of grace. But the location on it of those heavenly powers that were
craftsman of the Baroque period transformed the called upon to mediate between the heavenly and
haloes into a complex commentary on this idea. the earthly: angels, seraphim and cherubim. In the
Thus the head of Christ was surrounded by a biblical texts they are characterized as the powers
crown adorned with precious stones set upon a closest to God, since they surround his heavenly
gold background, itself segmented. This halo was throne. They are also the guardians of paradise and
very luxuriant: its richness and brilliance matched supporters of God in his earthly manifestations
the status of the figure represented. Those of (Genesis 3:24). Thus the appearance of the heavenly
the Mother of God and the Baptist, by contrast, powers on the frames of icons and iconostases
included figures of angels as well as precious rhetorically juxtaposed the Creator to creation,
stones. The haloes of the four Evangelists were and brought the icon close to the viewer. But here
even more complex. Within them the viewer could a special part in the aesthetic space of the Shumayev
find ‘reflected’ images of the Saviour Not Made by iconostasis begins to be played by three-dimensional
Hands and of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. sculpture.
They were bordered by lines of angelic heads and We know that from time to time the Orthodox
stars, as though repeating insistently the message Church would criticize sculpture, the three-dimen-
that this sphere was fully accessible to the world sional representation of the human form, which
in which the spectator was located. was widespread in the art of the Catholic world.
Finally, the particular role that light plays in Meanwhile, however, the new type of culture that
the penetrability of the boundary between the had begun to take shape in Russia after the mid-
sacred and the profane was reinforced by the two seventeenth century paid close attention to sculp-
large icons on a reflective background – the Cross ture, which began to find its way into the official
of Christ is a Spiritual Sword and the Resurrection, churches of Muscovite Russia under the influence
symmetrically located either side of the icon casing of new aesthetic ideas that came from Poland and
(illus. 47). The margins and background of these Lithuania through Ukraine and Belorussia. Conse-
icons were made of mirror glass, but they are sepa- quently, Russian iconostases of the later seventeenth
rated one from the other by a moulded tinware century and the eighteenth began to feature carved
frame showing, in the words of the craftsman, ‘the representations of God the Father, Christ, the

89
part one: frame and image

abroad (Belorussia and Poland) worked. One

such crucifix was in a chapel for prayer at the
church of the Elevation of the Cross in the Great
Kremlin Palace; it was attributed to the Belorussian
senior monk Ippolit, while its painting was by
the artist Karp Zolotaryov (illus. 48).91 Crucifixes
in the round with attendant figures also began
to be placed on the upper parts of iconostases.
The iconostasis of the church of the Ascension
in the Residential Palace of the Moscow Kremlin,
for example, is surmounted by such a crucifix.
It was made, again, by craftsmen at the Armoury
Chamber, led by the Belorussian master Klim
Mikhaylov in 1678–9. N. Sobolev comments on
all these innovations:

On ledges of these splendid iconostases and

casings an abundance of figures of apostles,
prophets and angels holding fans or instru-
ments of the passion in their hands appear;
they are dressed in garments wafted by the
wind around their bodies and are placed in
somewhat theatrical poses, full of emotion.
Above the iconostases, painted and carved
Crucifixion scenes with attendant figures are
attached . . . Often these Crucifixions are
encased in an enveloping frame of fantastical
Mother of God, the prophets, apostles and heavenly form, consisting of carved clouds, heads of
powers. In the church of the Sign (1690–1704) at cherubim or flowers.92
Dubrovitsy, near Moscow, sculpture even takes
the place of wall painting, and is explained It was under the influence of such models that
through ‘Latin’ titles at the command of its the crucifix of the merchant Shumayev was made,
patron, Prince B. A. Golitsyn. A little earlier, free- set within a Renaissance ‘window’-style frame.
standing crucifixes with an attendant Mother of The three-dimensional sculpture, located in a frame
God and John the Evangelist appeared in Moscow more suitable for an icon or secular painting, was
court churches. They were made in the workshops subject to the rules of painterly form rather than
of the Armoury Chamber, where carvers from sculptural. The craftsman executed the figures of

48 e Elder Ippolit(?), Karp Zolotaryov. Crucifixion

(detail), 1680. Museums of the Moscow Kremlin.

90
 chapter one: symbolic unity

Christ, the Mother of God and the apostle in low For example, on Ivan Grekov’s icon of the Loyal
relief, so no more than hinting at sculptural form, Prince Alexander Nevsky and the Great Martyr
which potentially could have made it look like Theodore (illus. 19) the outlines of the winged figures
real sculpture. As it was painted, the sculpture seemed to go beyond the system of representation
responded to the task of creating the effect of and were placed on the frame, strengthening
‘presence’. The same task was fulfilled by other rep- the illusory quality of the representation. In this
resentations of God the Father, Christ, the Mother respect they corresponded to numerous sculptural
of God, biblical figures and saints, and the materi- and painterly figures from the Renaissance and
alized souls of the righteous and the sinful; there Baroque periods, striving to go beyond the limits
were also two imperial personages – Peter i and of frames and parapets in their readiness to erase
Peter iii. All these numberless little figures were the boundary between the real and conventional-
facing in different directions: some towards each ized worlds. And if the optics of Renaissance and
other, some to the centre, some to the spectator. Baroque painting permitted the viewer to enter
Full of passionate feeling, they gave a visible out- freely into another world, as if through a door or
line to the space; at the same time all played their a window, then a frame bearing sculpture always
roles, whose meanings, being derived from biblical created the illusion of movement the opposite
texts, were known in advance. In some respects way, since it ‘transposed’ personages from the
they resembled figures from the dolls’ houses that conventional into the real world.
were particularly widespread in Western Europe In Grigoriy Shumayev’s iconostasis this
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.93 movement in the direction of the spectator was
This ‘doll-like’ quality of the people within the strengthened by the representations of heavenly
frame evoked associations beyond popular mythol- powers on the framing structures – angels, cherubim
ogy and popular prints: thanks to the mirrors and and seraphim – and also of the souls of the right-
their reflections they were ‘animated’ and ‘moved eous and sinners. In the representational system of
about’. We should remember that a statue always Baroque culture a human soul perpetually resided
demands seriousness, presence and contemplation between heaven and hell. Hence the image of
– a doll, playfulness and participation. But when a Jacob’s ladder acquired a particular significance
statue tends towards simplification, it at once stim- within this system: a dangerous mode of trans-
ulates an ambivalent attitude towards itself.94 For port, with many steps, between eternal torment
that reason, as if on the stage of a popular theatre, and the blessed condition of paradise. Hence too
a puppet show or in a ‘play house’, Shumayev’s the movement of souls of the righteous and sinners
sculptures actively inaugurated an artistic space. along the vertical axis of Shumayev’s framing-case
In this they were reminiscent both of school theatre did not only emphasize the community of all the
of the Baroque age, in which ‘living sculpture’ made tiers of the universe (paradise, earth and hell),
play with special kinds of gestures,95 and also of how but also temporarily deprived it of the function
sculpture was represented in eighteenth-century of a ‘window into the world’, and turned it into
art, on the frames of paintings and drawings. a ‘stepladder to heaven’, an image that goes back

91
part one: frame and image

to the first vision of the patriarch Jacob: ‘And he of our iconostasis, which begins with a description
dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, of heaven and paradise, ending with a description
and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold of hell. So the understanding of the Christian
the angels of God ascending and descending on it’ picture of the world moved along a strict vertical
(Genesis 28:12). In Catholic iconography we know axis: paradise – earth – hell. Before beginning a
of numerous interpretations of the cross of Jesus description of the Crucifixion, the central part
as a stairway to heaven, and doubtless they were of the iconostasis, however, the compiler gave
reconfigured and incorporated into our iconosta- an interpretation of its frame as a ladder along
sis.96 This was all the more so since in the later which angels and human souls passed in each
seventeenth century and early eighteenth the direction:
‘ladder’ was often encountered in literature and
in theatrical pieces, on icons, the ‘royal gates’ of On the right-hand side there is the glory of
iconostases and engravings. Even looking at an God and the righteous go into the heavenly
icon of the Mother of God, a person of that time kingdom and there will be a meeting on the
might see a ladder – her primeval symbol – as clouds and in heaven. On the left-hand side
Stefan Yavorsky wrote: is the Lord’s crown of thorns and the casting
down of Satan from the heavens and from the
I behold thee, O ladder, leading us to God! throne into a fiery lake and all those with him
Conduct me, Maria, to the lofty mansions.97 doing his will.99

Often the ladder would be understood as a In other words the construction of a window-
hierarchical model of the world, whose steps were like frame was close, in the mentality of people of
the levels of the Christian cosmos, communicating the time, to the building of a ladder.
with each other as a result of descent and eleva- On the Shumayev iconostasis this movement
tion. That is why Baroque eschatological poems, started from above, where the nine orders of
as a rule, consisted of several parts, each of which angels were shown, and continued down to the
would be dedicated to one of the levels of creation ground, towards which angels bore Eucharistic
and the problem of reconciling them, as indeed in vessels and the good tidings of the gospel. And it
the Shumayev iconostasis. Thus ‘The Ladder to was precisely in the Baroque age that this move-
Heaven’, by an anonymous author of the first half ment of angels became more violently energized
of the seventeenth century, consisted of chapters that ever before. Like the angels in Catholic pic-
titled ‘Death’, ‘Judgement’, ‘Debate between the tures, the hosts of angels on Russian icons of the
Body and the Soul’, ‘Gehenna’ and ‘The Heavenly period hasten towards the holy figures with
Kingdom’, and its description fully corresponded Eucharistic chalices bringing the gift of life eternal,
to the particular representation of the picture of thanks to communion with the unique Body of
the world in our iconostasis.98 Interesting data can Christ. The iconography of angels in the seven-
be extracted from an inventory item, made in 1762, teenth century becomes noticeably more complex,

92
 chapter one: symbolic unity

since with their aid the invisible metaphysical

space became visible and animated, while the
‘world of objects’ became dematerialized, turning
simply into signs and images.100 After all, the func-
tion of angels was constantly to comment upon
and elucidate to humanity the mysteries of divine
wisdom. Hence on the Shumayev iconostasis the
angels ‘receive the flowing blood of the Saviour’,
referring thus to the mystery of the Eucharist.
It is they who plant crosses upon the cupolas
of the churches, so indicating the main symbol
of redemption, and also support the crowns of
saints, emphasizing the descent upon them of
divine grace. They also proclaim tidings of the
Last Judgment: on the left-hand side of the frame
we find numerous apocalyptic scenes and ‘seven
trumpeting angels’. Angels are likewise seated on
the gateways to the Heavenly Jerusalem, since they
are intermediaries between the earthly and heav-
enly realms. Finally, a special space is also reserved
for an angelic manifestation: ‘the place where an
angel appeared to the shepherds’. In all this the
sculptural representations of angels in the likeness
of puppets on a stage constantly varied their form.
They reincarnated themselves, appearing in differ-
ent kinds of clothing and crowns. And only at
the very bottom does their agitated movement
calm down. Between the scenes of the Entry into
Jerusalem and the Entombment two angels, winged
but without haloes, stand quietly at the parapet.
Their expressions, poses and gestures are directed
towards the spectators, and it looks as if they
might come to life, just as a ‘dead’ sculpture in a
Baroque theatre might take on life and start acting.
Meanwhile, their poses were inscribed into the
general scheme of movement characteristic of
all figures in the composition. This scheme did

49 Iconostasis of Grigoriy Shumayev: a goblet symbolizing

thirst, one of Christ’s torments.

93
part one: frame and image

even bordered by a whole frame made of allegorical

representations of the Lord’s sufferings, placed in
cartouches between which were multifaceted
pieces of mirror glass, in which they were reflected
and multiplied (illus. 49). All this speaks of the
fact that the craftsman had an excellent knowledge
of iconological literature, which he employed to
realize his conceptus (intention), understood in
seventeenth-century Baroque aesthetics as the link
between objects that were very remote from each
other. Alongside Western European rhetorical
concepts and poetics this literature had broad
penetration into Russia at the time of Tsar Aleksey:
in the libraries of Simeon Polotsky and Sil’vestr
Medvedev, for example, there were what is con-
sidered the first book of emblems, Andrea Alciati’s
Emblematum liber (1531), together with such
volumes as Iconologia (1593) by Cesare Ripa,
Symbolorum et emblematum (1593) by Joachim
Camerarius (illus. 50) and De symbolica aegyptiorum
sapientia (1618) by Nicolas Caussin.101 In the
eighteenth century these books were augmented
by Russian volumes, the first of which was the
not copy reality: the gestures merely indicated famous Symbols and Emblems, derived from
movement, as if they were puppets on a stage, emblem books by Daniel de la Feuille and
and were calculated as an element of the effect Camerarius, that Peter the Great had published in
of the composition as a whole. Amsterdam in 1705. In 1788 Nestor Maksimovich-
In Grigoriy Shumayev’s iconostasis we also see Ambodik (1744–1812) published the first edition of
a multitude of representations and compositions Selected Emblems and Symbols, a Russian edition
that answer to descriptions in collections of of an emblem book by the seventeenth-century
emblems and allegories. Here there is a heavenly Spanish writer Diego de Saavedra Fajardo.102
sphere in the form of a shining ‘glory’ with angels Finally, the two volumes of Iconology; or, A Full
inside, God the Father in the form of the Ancient Collection of Allegories, Emblems etc. appeared in
of Days, saints with wreaths and palm leaves 1803.103 All these books were not only well known
in their hands and numerous symbols of the to artists, sculptors, architects and decorators,
Orthodox faith contained in separate small but also served them as an immediate guide in
frames. The central icon of the Crucifixion was the construction of every kind of framing that

50 ‘Virtue is hard but fruitful’, an emblem from the

compendium by Joachim Camerarius, Symbolorum et
emblematum (1593).

94
 chapter one: symbolic unity

the culture of the seventeenth, eighteenth and even God is shown on windblown wings, ancient of
early nineteenth centuries might demand.104 days, raised up above the heavens, carried on
The understanding of emblems is opened up clouds by angels, holding in his hand the orb
to us by the supplements and commentaries of as a sign of his universal might. Or a revered
Maksimovich-Ambodik (1744–1812), who gave ancient man, filled with greatness, seated on
detailed descriptions of emblems with the aim not light clouds, making a blessing with his hand,
only of presenting the artist with an understanding partially covered by a wafting robe, and
of the emblem, but also of inspiring him to the surrounded by angels, planets and stars.
creation of symbolic images ‘to attain to the signifi- Or is presented in the form of a great shining
cance of further emblems and symbols through undimmed light, towards which a great multi-
his own reason’. In his opinion, the diligent study tude of angels, seraphim, cherubim and others,
of such books could ‘open the hidden mysteries of directing their eyes, looking upwards with
many other designs like these ones’.105 In a section wonder, ceaselessly chant praise and glory to
called ‘A Brief Explanation of Emblems and the eternal and unattainable Godhead.
Symbols’ readers could find an interesting commen-
tary on the structure and content of an emblem. The angels, named as ‘Servants of God’, were
The latter was defined as an ‘intricate’ small picture emblematically illustrated in the form of ‘splendid
with a ‘deliberated’ inscription, and was a represen- youths’ with unfurled wings behind their shoul-
tation of some ‘natural substance’ or ‘animated ders, to ‘express the swift execution by them of
being’. The subscriptio of the classic emblem is divine commands’. The cherubim must be repre-
defined by the editor as a ‘symbol’, that is to say sented with a single head that is ‘supported’ by
a ‘brief text, consisting of the witty expression of two wings, while the seraphim must be shown
something in a few words’. The uniting of this image ‘with one face amid four or six wings’.106 The pre-
with a representation served as a ‘guide’ to the scriptions for representing saints are particularly
apprehension of the historical, political, moral interesting: ‘Saints or blessed people are to be in
or concealed meaning of ‘another thing’, since it the form of youths and maidens, garbed in white
summoned up a figure of the intellect in a human or red garments, and represented with palm
consciousness. In the process emblems were divided branches in their hands. On their faces holiness,
into ‘divine’, ‘spiritual’, ‘historical’, ‘political’, ‘heraldic’, wisdom, innocence and meekness are revealed’.
‘moral’ and ‘mysterious’ categories. Amid the ‘virtues, vices and passions’, personifica-
The section called ‘Iconological Description tions of concepts linked with Christian piety and
of Emblematic Representations’ was devoted to morality attract the attention. It is here that the
allegories of God, the angels and saints. It referred reader would find a description of Fortuna, one of
in particular to illustrations of God the Father in the major Renaissance concepts, and also the alle-
the form of the Ancient of Days, and also to some gory of Christian Faith, which was shown in the
that had arrived from Catholic and Protestant form of a tablet, the Gospels, a cross or a chalice,
iconography: all surrounded by a shining light. Faith was thus

95
part one: frame and image

represented in the image of ‘a seated woman, holding phrase, usually in Latin, which was called the
a cross in her hand, on her knees a New Testament; inscriptio (or sometimes the titulus, motto or
on her right side two Genii hold the tablets, while lemna). This represented the ‘signature’ of the
on the left there is one Angel with a cup’.107 emblem. Below it the illustration (picture) was
Adornment of a religious image with emblems located. Beneath the illustration there was placed
had the purpose of broadening its semantic space. the text that explained the drawing – subscription,
It is no accident that the poetics of the emblem that is, ‘device’. This kind of structure demon-
were inspired by the rhetorical theory of ‘ingenu- strates that the picture is contained within a textu-
ity’ (acumen) and referred to a mixed genre of art al frame, constituted by the ‘signature’ and ‘device’
in which word and image were inextricably linked. of the emblem. The textual frame emerged as the
For this reason Alciati himself defined mastery semiotic frame of the representation. Where the
of the emblem as tacitis scribere, that is ‘writing picture made a greater appeal to feeling, its textual
silently’, while Barthélemy Aneau called his 1552 frame appealed rather to the intellect. As a result,
book Picta Poesis (‘pictured poetry’).108 ‘By emblem the textual framing and the picture contained
in the true sense of the word’, Emanuele Tesauro within it turned out to be indissolubly connected
explained: in the creation of a ‘mental image’: the one could
not exist without the other.
the humanists of our day mean a commonly This symbolic construction of the emblem
comprehensible sign, consisting of words and might change, but the main thing is that it exer-
pictures, expressing something that relates to cised a vast influence on the visual culture of the
human life. For that reason emblematic represen- Baroque. Entering Russia in the middle of the
tations appear in paintings; they are also exhibited seventeenth century, in the following century the
in halls, luxurious apartments and in academies, emblem was to become one of the chief models
or else they are printed in books with explanations for the formation of visual cultural stereotypes,
for the enlightenment of the people.109 while various techniques of its sectional framing
became an effective device for the symbolic linkage
In connection with this we should again bear of text with representation, hence for the elucida-
in mind one peculiarity of the construction of the tion of the object in the spectator’s comprehension.
emblem. It is quite correct to regard word and As Mario Praz observed, the emblem was a mighty
depiction as having equal rights within it.110 weapon in the hands of the Jesuit order, since it
Nevertheless, in the context of the interaction of helped to conquer human minds. Thanks to this
frame and image the words of an emblem can be the picture turned into a full-scale hallucination,
fully understood as commentary upon the depic- since it attached feelings to reason.111 We might
tion, and conversely the picture as illustration to add that it also assisted the spectator to step
the words. Thus the classic emblem, which always across the frame of representation and to find
expressed some general concept or idea (God, him or herself within it. We have already touched
wisdom, faith, time, etc.), was initiated by a short on the question of the appearance of a new

96
 chapter one: symbolic unity

composition in the Baroque icon, based upon the icon was put on the margins or next to the repre-
construction of an emblem. As also in the emblem, sentation of the saint, above or beside it. Indeed,
the depiction of a Christian hero from the middle the name of Christ or a saint could be split into
of the seventeenth century began to be placed two halves by the figure itself – it was as if it were
between the title of the icon and the display of a fused together with the image, in response to the
text that explained everything (that is, through urge of the medieval symbol to coincide with its
the metamorphosis of a ‘device’ that changed into meaning. Thus was achieved the symbolic unity
the troparion, kontakion and so on).112 Represen- of frame, inscription and representation itself.
tations on the theme of parables in the Shumayev By contrast, on the new Russian icons of the seven-
iconostasis were a widely disseminated reflection teenth and eighteenth centuries labellings and
of just this phenomenon. Now is the moment to inscriptions are given every kind of miniature
examine more closely the role of the cartouche framing that Western Latin rhetoric could specify.
in this structure. It is no coincidence that it was at this time that
The word ‘cartouche’ (from French) means a monogram-style frames make their appearance
small decorative frame in the form of a partially in Russian culture; their basis is a metaphor that
opened scroll, which since the Renaissance could includes the picture in the interplay of comparison
serve as the symbolic equivalent of a book.113 When and commentary. Such, for example, is a represen-
framing a picture, the cartouche acted as a special tation of the abbreviated name of Christ formed
signal as to how it should be understood: it indicat- out of the Instruments of the Passion – tongs,
ed its unbroken connection with the written word. lances, pillar and 30 pieces of silver – in a book by
From the second half of the seventeenth century Ioannikiy Galyatovsky, The Souls of Those Departed
the cartouche became one of the most widely used (Chernigov, 1687). As specialist research has shown,
framing devices for giving the name of an icon Russian culture of the seventeenth century chiefly
and various inscriptions on it, and often too of adopted that strain of Western Latin rhetoric
the representation itself, since it introduced new orientated towards the theory of ‘moderate
meanings (as compared with the Middle Ages) metaphors’ – of course, not excluding the develop-
into the link between text and image. The form ment of the Baroque tradition (ornamentum) too.
of the scroll bore witness also to the fact that the It is simply that this position determined the
frame of the text and representation had begun ‘moderation’ of the Russian Baroque, which as
to orientate itself towards the comparison of a rule did not admit the same metaphorism of
symbols. On this level the cartouche had from the frame into the Russian icon that we find in
the first been directed towards broadening the Western art.
context, ‘enveloping’ the symbol with a torrent In a certain sense this was reinforced by the
of meanings. It drew heightened attention to the cartouche. Unlike, say, that of the Sacred Heart of
symbol by its ‘strangeness’. Jesus, its form was fairly ‘neutral’, and always
On Byzantine and early Russian icons the subject to change. For that reason in the form of
inscriptions had no special frame. The title of the the cartouche frame, as in no other, the Baroque

97
part one: frame and image

tradition in Russian culture was able to

manifest itself. With some reservations
one can even say that the cartouche took
upon itself the ideological function of
reinventing the older structures. For a
certain length of time it became the indi-
cator of changes, even of a new orientation
in official and popular culture. Cartouches
first appear in icons by the craftsmen of
the Armoury Chamber, under the influ-
ence of Western European engravings.
Cartouche frames then spring up almost
simultaneously on iconostases, their sur-
rounds and casings, portraits, architecture
and printed texts, in the popular print
and even as part of the decorative milieu
of the Baroque didactic theatre. Thus in
the church of the Pokrov at Fili, near
Moscow, cartouche frames adorned not
only the iconostasis, but also the casing
surrounds, for example of the icon of
SS Andrian and Nataliya (illus. 51). From
then on, throughout the eighteenth
century and even into the first half of the
nineteenth, cartouche frames were a wide-
spread phenomenon, responding to the
particular characteristics of the Russian
Baroque and to the Western European
influence on Russian culture.
Framing both text and picture, the
cartouche acted as a signal to pay particu-
lar attention to what was within it. In this
connection it could occupy the central
position in an image for prayer, for exam-
ple in the composition of the icon of the
Saviour Not Made by Hands, with associ-
ated legends (1706; Tretyakov Gallery,

51 SS Andrian and Nataliya, late 17th century or early 18th. Church of

the Pokrov at Fili. Rublyov Central Museum of Early Russian Culture
and Art, Moscow.

98
52 Saviour Not Made by Hands, with associated legends,
1706. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
part one: frame and image

Moscow), which is a typical rhetorical construction Not Made by Hands, and in the other a crown.
consisting of many frames (illus. 52). Thus the Beneath them was located the earth, with the story
upper margin of the icon is ‘interrupted’ by a of how the image ‘not made by hands’ arrived in
golden cartouche in the form of a half-opened Edessa. Hence the cartouche, with its elements of
scroll on which a text is placed, while a cartouche the imperial throne, turned out to be a key to the
in the middle of the icon occupies practically all understanding of the real substitution of Christ’s
the central space. In the service of its rhetorical presence by his icon.
strategy, it seems to reveal and assimilate the golden The cartouche also reflected a new aesthetic
throne on which the Lord Pantocrator is seated. attitude towards the image, since it was subject to
This is suggested by certain elements of the throne the teachings of rhetoric and acted as one of the
(these too are figurative elements of the cartouche) chief devices of that ‘curious adornment’ that
– its back, semicircular on top, and also two seated flooded into a huge number of Baroque icons in
angels, holding laurel branches and looking glasses the eighteenth century. This link between the car-
set with scenes from legends. Within the cartouche touche and the rhetoric of the frame was a direct
the spectator could see two more angels, holding reflection of the Western tradition, in which we find
in one hand the cloth with the image of the Saviour every kind of cartouche with figurative elements:

53 Federico Zuccaro, Cartouche, c. 1600, engraving. 54 An engraving from Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia showing
a cartouche illuminated by Diogenes.

100
55 Rocaille framing of an icon of The Entry into Jerusalem, mid-18th century.
State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
part one: frame and image

the engravings, for example, in the edition of Cesare Cartouches containing allusions and figurative
Ripa’s Iconologia by Johann Hertel (1669–1700) elements were a favourite theme of Mannerist and
entered the Russian cultural context together with Baroque artists such as Federico Zuccaro and Jan
other books on the same theme.114 Essentially, Lutma the Younger, who were working just at the
Hertel realized Ripa’s principal aim of putting time when the cartouche became a universal fram-
visual analogies to abstract concepts at the dis - ing construction and could be met with everywhere
posal of artists and poets. Hertel illustrated Ripa’s (illus. 53). Indeed, entire sets of ornamental engrav-
allegories with pictures contained within cartouche ings with illustrations of cartouches, such as one
frames. A notable feature of these designs is that inscribed ‘Many new cartouches, drawn by Jan
their address to the reader and the chapter head- Lutma the Younger in Amsterdam, 1653’, made their
ings were placed in cartouches set with figurative appearance and inspired a specific area of creative
elements, so that the cartouche may look like a fantasy.115
sort of half-opened scroll, or perhaps like a cave in The frame as a decorative motif here turned
a cliff, complete with figures, sprouting trees and into an independent aesthetic problem for many
vegetation (illus. 54). When they framed emblems, artists and engravers, jewellers and architects, who
however, these cartouches became simplified, sometimes did not so much focus on the practical
offering no more than a hint that their origin requirements of their craft as seek means to express
lay in the medieval symbolic concept of ‘the specific ideas. Unusually interesting and complex
world as a book’. cartouches carrying motifs from the organic world

56 Rocaille detail of the cover of the icon 57 Looking-glass in frame, mid-18th century.
The Tikhvin Mother of God, mid-18th century. State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg.

102
 chapter one: symbolic unity

and from astonishing realms of fantasy began to tion. At a late stage of the Baroque this caprice
appear. In this connection one may also recall the evidently gave the impulse for the emergence of a
part that the concept of the ‘monad’ played in the new kind of cartouche frame in the artistic system
natural philosophical picture of the world during of the rococo. Rocaille could represent either a
the seventeenth century. According to Leibniz, who cartouche of irregular form, surrounded by asym-
was familiar with the semantics of the originating metrical offshoots, or it could take on the character
primal foundation of the world, the monad was the of a volute, or be filled with flowers and architectural
fluid multiplicity of potential states deriving from detail in profile (illus. 55). This multitude of oppor-
an amorphous origin. Consequently, the Baroque tunities to create ‘rumpled’ effects lies at the basis of
monad could identify itself not only with that ‘dark framing both heavenly and earthly beauty. On the
room’ (whether a crypt, sacristy, cell or the like) casing of one icon from the time of the Empress
about which Deleuze writes, but also with the Elizabeth the abbreviated name of the Mother of
cartouche, in which the ‘principle of enclosure’ is God is encased in rocaille (illus. 56). Leaves, shells,
no less clearly apparent.116 The cartouche was the roses and a bird’s wing are woven within its small
true ‘fault line’ of the Baroque, the fundamental frame. Roses could indeed be taken as a symbol
frame and one of the chief ‘nerves’ of Baroque art, of the Mother of God, but they are encountered
at the basis of which lay a comprehension of the in many other situations, for example in mirror
world as a metaphor that opened up ever newer surrounds (illus. 57). This once again demonstrates
meanings. Thus in the framing of a cartouche the that here art served the interests of the Church in
idea of absolute beauty could be apprehended. just the same way as it served the ideals of worldly
Thanks to that frame something splendid had come beauty and luxury. In Russia during the second
into the world, although it could well have arisen half of the seventeenth century and the eighteenth,
from something quite dissimilar. The Mannerists the cartouche, connected as it was to the full
were convinced that the sublime could emerge from force of symbol and metaphor, became the sign
the hideous, form from chaos, and vice versa. So, of Baroque aesthetics and rhetoric of a Western
when filling the void presented by the edge of the European type. This led to the final defeat of the
cartouche with fantastic beings, texts, vegetation symbolic significance of the frame of the medieval
or animals, the Mannerist or Baroque artists trans- icon, as is emphasized by the complex poetic system
formed its frame into a vehicle for apprehending of the Shumayev iconostasis. In the subsequent age
the world around them. of Russian Romanticism a movement back towards
It was by this route, as it happens, that in the country’s Middle Ages and Renaissance would
the second quarter of the eighteenth century the cause art to seek new forms with which to frame
scroll-type cartouche transformed itself into the divine essence.
rocaille. The root of this French word is roc (‘rock’
or ‘cliff ’ in English). In the seventeenth century
gardens, fountains and grottos were decorated
with pieces of stone, seashells or marine vegeta-

103
58 Viktor Vasnetsov and Vasily Polenov, church of the Saviour Not Made by Hands,
1881–2, at Abramtsevo, with the chapel built later.
 chapter 2

From the Middle Ages

to Romanticism
In this place of worship / a person passes through a forest of symbols, /
they accompany him with affectionate / knowing glances.
Vyacheslav Ivanov1

Abramtsevo: Window into a Russian World

In 1881–2 a white limestone church, of a type impressive, creating a sense of ‘fundamental antiq-
unusual for its time and dedicated to the Saviour uity’. Meanwhile, as important a feature of the
Not Made by Hands, was built at Abramtsevo, church as the drum and the dome on top of it
the estate of Savva Ivanovich Mamontov in the revealed the concepts of a recent master. The dome
Moscow province (illus. 58). Its strange and unex- itself was encircled by a glazed tile frieze, charac-
pected collision of ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ struck teristic of the period of Russian stil’ modern, while
and astonished the viewer: the eye encountered a the drum was intersected by elongated windows
combination of medievalism and Romanticism, with a stepped profile at the top, not at all usual
relating not only to the exterior architectural in ancient architecture.
forms, but also to the interior of the church itself. But one’s eye might be struck by an even more
At first sight it stirred a memory of Old Russian unexpected combination of ancient and modern
churches of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, elements in the forms of the chapel constructed
but at the same time there was something a little ten years later over the grave of Andrey Mamontov.
different about it. Its façade was clearly designed No such combination of forms had been encoun-
under the inspiration of Novgorod or Yaroslavl’ tered before, and an artist had clearly worked them
architecture. The carved limestone portal repro- out in response to modern creative impulses. The
duced fifteenth- and sixteenth-century forms and zakomara (gable end) and the kokoshnik (a pointed
decoration, while the belfry above it, crowned with feature, fancifully suggesting a headdress, interrupt-
a little dome, clearly repeated the forms of a differ- ing the roof line) were characteristic decorative
ent building style, that of Novgorod and Pskov. elements of Old Russian building. The zakomara
The church created no impression of rearing was always a semicircular or ogee-shaped top of a
upwards and floating in the air. The massive walls section of walling, flush with the internal rounded
with their buttresses, the heavy dome and narrow vault adjoining it, while the kokoshnik was a false
windows, semicircular on top, were calculatedly gable end, the meaning of which was exclusively

overleaf: 59 Interior of the church at Abramtsevo,

built 1881–2; modern photograph.

105
part one: frame and image

decorative. The zakomara turned into a kokoshnik were symmetrically located, and one of the three
if it were separated from the wall by an uninter- seemed to join the upper and lower sections of the
rupted cornice. Here, however, the architect wall together. The chapel was crowned with an
employed these decorative elements quite differ- onion-shaped dome, an evident borrowing from a
ently. Two projecting walls of the chapel bore the later architectural manner than the helmet-shaped
burden of these altered forms. The front wall, dome over the main space of the church – most
used as the background for a grave marker cross likely from Muscovite, Vladimir-Suzdal or Yaroslavl
in limestone, was crowned with a kokoshnik, while architecture.
the side wall had the appearance of a zakomara All these external architectural forms corre-
and kokoshnik simultaneously, since the strip of sponded to an interior that was just as unusual
tiled ornament running along the edge of the wall (illus. 59). It can be assessed both by the surviving
did not cut through it completely as it did in the decoration of the church, which is now part of the
first case. The placing of the windows topped with Abramtsevo museum complex, and by the old
semicircles was also unusual. On the front wall photographs located in the museum archive. On
of the chapel they were placed right inside the entering the church the visitor would immediately
kokoshnik, while on the side wall three of them be face to face with the iconostasis, since the interior

60 Detail of the iconostasis at the church at Abramtsevo.

State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History
‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.

108
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

space was very small, designed for the family But even more surprising and unfamiliar to
devotions of only a very few people. It was an the eye was the way the icons of the second tier
early, two-tier iconostasis, whose architectural were disposed (illus. 60). Its chief peculiarity was
framing had undergone significant alterations. the total absence of symmetry and the bringing
From ancient times this frame had served as a together of images that were different in period,
means for displaying the icons, which had repre- style and theme. Here there were icons of the
sented a visual embodiment of the Heavenly Christian feasts, painted evidently by craftsmen
Church. In this sense it was like a theatrical stage, from Mstyora or Palekh, and two nineteenth-
on which the dramatic action of the heavenly life century crucifixes, one carved from wood, the
unrolled from age to age. other of copper. Standing apart from these there
This concept also corresponded to the generally were icons of the Mother of God, The Joy of All Who
accepted distribution of the icons in rows, of which Sorrow and the Resurrection of Christ of the same
there might be two, three or even up to five or six. period. Finally, the traditional row of apostles had
The first tier was always occupied by local icons, been replaced by saints connected with Russian
those that one should ‘greet’, whereas the second – history. These included the enlighteners of the
icons of the Church feasts or Deisis – is a symbolic Slavs, SS Cyril and Methodius, the canonized
image of prayer and of the intercession of the Prince Vladimir who baptized Rus’, his grandmother
apostles and saints before Christ, the Great Judge. Princess Olga, who converted to Christianity and
In this connection the iconostasis of the was known as ‘Equal of the Apostles’, the Metro-
Abramtsevo church caused some consternation: it politan of Moscow Aleksiy, the legendary first
lacked symmetry. For the process of apprehending Russian icon painter Alimpiy, and also Nestor, the
it, this signified a violation of the normal logic of early twelfth-century chronicler. To these images
internal coherence that had been established long was added an icon of Faith, Hope, Charity and their
before, in the Middle Ages. To left and right of the Mother Holy Wisdom (Sophia).
‘royal doors’ it was traditional to place icons of the The unusual composition of the second tier
Mother of God and of Jesus Christ – the Saviour Not of the iconostasis was further complicated by the
Made By Hands, in honour of whom the church unfamiliar location of the icons. Closest to the
itself had been built. The icons manifestly embodied edges, to left and right of the ‘royal doors’, there
the Renaissance ideal of beauty, which unexpectedly were groups of icons of the feasts and saints, sepa-
conflicted with the medieval forms of its framing. rated from one another by small columns, while
This also affected other images for prayer. To the closer to the middle, on a background of dark blue
left of the Mother of God there was an icon of St brocade with gold flowers, were placed the two
Nicholas the Wonder Worker, and to the right of crucifixes and (in random order) the Mother of
the Saviour there was a picture of St Sergius God of Kazan, that of The Joy of All Who Sorrow,
of Radonezh, with a bright ornamental frame, and the Resurrection of Christ. In other words,
causing the quite large painterly image to resemble there were gathered into a single space images so
a miniature from a book. disparate in style, period and content that one’s

109
part one: frame and image

attention could not fail to be arrested. It was only

the architectural frame of the iconostasis itself,
the form through which all these images were
displayed, that made them coexist and gave them
a sort of specially defined order of their own; and
it was just this other order that demanded a more
attentive scrutiny. An inexperienced and naive eye
could notice only an intentional arbitrariness; but
a more attentive one could discern an independent
logic in it all. The architectural frame of the
iconostasis really did seem to dispute with the
theatrical stage on which this new conception of
heavenly personages and real-life people was being
played out. And it was precisely the linking role of
the frame that gave such an understanding particu-
lar depth, unexpected rhetorical constructions and
new meanings within the whole complex semantic
network that united the conventionalized space of
the church and the real space of the world.
The iconostasis of the Abramtsevo church is
both the ‘border of paradise’ and also a ‘window
into the world of Russia’ – of Holy Rus’. The archi-
tectural details of its construction, its ornaments,
the pictorial images and their distribution – all
were there to convince the spectator that the altar
space and the space of Holy Rus’ were almost one
and the same. This rhetorical standpoint was clari-
fied and became quite clearly recognizable when
the iconostasis was calmly and consistently exam-
ined. Thus the figures of apostles in the second
tier were changed, as we noted, to figures of saints
connected with Russian national history and art.
The choice of them explains much. All of them were
not only intercessors but also enlighteners of Rus’,
bearers of the idea of a national Russian culture. In a
medieval iconostasis the figures of the apostles are
represented turning towards the centre, to Jesus

61 Viktor Vasnetsov, e Metropolitan Aleksiy, 1881–2.

State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History
‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.

110
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

Christ, which symbolizes their interceding and the guise of a young Russian lad, and the Virgin
praying for the human race before the Great Judge. Mary in the form of a ‘beautiful maiden’, thus
In the Abramtsevo iconostasis those who pray making them figures from Russian popular tales.
for the human race are the Russian saints, whose The brightness of their colouring corresponded
images are distinguished by their narrative content. to the brightness of the Russian popular tale and
Their figures are shown frontally, and their gaze is mythology. The same was also true of the land-
directed straight at the viewer (illus. 61). In this scape and clothing of the Russian saints. The
way the economy of salvation becomes clear not peaceful hermitage, the river and sunset probably
only by way of the saints’ intercession before Christ, become the chief components of the symbolic
but also by way of individual contact of the Russian landscape of Holy Rus’, which would be much
national saints with the person performing an act explored in Russian painting of the end of the
of worship. nineteenth century and the beginning of the
The same thing concerns other representations: twentieth, from the example of this icon. The
the icons of the Saviour and the Mother of God, architectural frame of iconostasis and icon casing
of the Tsaritsa Alexandra and Prince Vsevolod (over responded to the same spirit. They aroused not
the ‘royal doors’), of St Sergius of Radonezh and only a certain mood, but also the idea of life as
St Nicholas the Wonder Worker in the ‘local’ tier folk tale and myth, which could be set against the
of the iconostasis. Like actors on a heavenly stage, all-embracing civilization that alienated anything
they carried on a quiet conversation and simulta- life-enhancing. Thus the national Russian cosmos
neously turned towards the viewer. Their figures appeared as indissolubly linked with grace-bestow-
‘swam forth’ in front of one’s gaze as if in an epic ing religious gifts and with the question of the
or folkloric mist, since where they resided was the descent of the Holy Spirit on the world.
paradise of Holy Rus’, while they themselves were The time has now come to solve the ‘historical
not only Christian, but also popular heroes, active riddle’ of our church and give the names of its
in metaphysical time and space. The Russian creators. The Abramtsevo church was built accord-
cultural landscape, interiors and clothing localized ing to plans by Viktor Vasnetsov and Vasil’y
their interplay within the national history and Polenov in 1881–2. A decade later the chapel above
the topos of Holy Rus’. the grave of Andrey Mamontov was built, follow-
In this sense icons wrestled with theatre and ing Vasnetsov’s design – as a result of which the
literature, the last of which was at that time totally space of the church as a setting for the Eucharist
filled with epic and folkloric themes and plots was amplified by a space for a memorial cult.
deriving from Holy Rus’. The scene of the However, as contemporaries recollected, the church
Annunciation on the individual gates of the ‘royal as a whole was conceived in honour of the ‘religion
doors’ was executed in the manner of perspectival of the beautiful’, as a memorial church to art,
painting. The artist clearly wanted to transfer the required to embody the particular novel type of
central scene of the gospel story from Palestine to spirituality of the modern period, in which tradi-
Russia. He represented the Archangel Gabriel in tional religiosity was united with the cult of art

111
part one: frame and image

and beauty.2 Hence the Abramtsevo church stands of expertise, but gripped by new utopian ideas
before us as a unique ‘museum of contemporary of universal harmony and beauty, came to work
art’, in which works of famous Russian artists were on the realization of the Abramtsevo church.
assembled.3 The icon of the legendary Russian icon Thus the very project for the church came out of a
painter Alimpiy, painted by Polenov, was deliber- creative competition in which not only Vasnetsov
ately placed in the second tier of the Abramtsevo and Polenov, but also the historian of Byzantine
iconostasis: Alimpiy was understood to be the and Old Russian art A. V. Prakhov and the restorer
patron of artists, who bade them to propagate and architect P. Samarin, took part.
new ideals. For the same reason, perhaps, Alimpiy Within this creative and intellectual atmosphere
was also depicted by Vasnetsov in the St Vladimir were conceived those new principles for the stylized
Cathedral in Kiev. In brief, this was the church adoption of works of Old Russian art that, as
of a guild or fellowship of artists that arose in scholars have established, secured the birth of
Abramtsevo rather like the Western European the ‘Neo-Russian’ style in the culture of Russian
communities at Barbizon and Nancy, the Glasgow modernism.4 We should nevertheless emphasize
School of Art and the artists’ colony in Darmstadt, that in the context of our present theme there were
the Vienna artists’ studios (Wiener Werkstätte) and born, on the one hand, a new concept of the church
Talashkino, where the programme of the famous as museum, and on the other a new rhetoric of
Arts and Crafts movement, which gripped Europe the Russian romantic icon as ‘absolute work of art’,
in the 1860s and ’70s, was realized and called forth to use Schelling’s expression.
a veritable revolution in the realm of applied art. This rhetoric strove to make religious images
Its ideologist, the English thinker John Ruskin, not only accessible to broad strata of society, but
sought his ideals in the past, did battle for a new also capable of leading to the ‘Rebuilding of the
religious ethic and proclaimed the creative worth World’ preached by John Ruskin and his adherents
of handicraft. The organizer of the fellowship at all over Europe. William Morris, the founder of
Abramtsevo, by contrast, was Savva Mamontov, a the Arts and Crafts movement, and William Dyce,
major financier and Maecenas figure, who is rightly Ford Madox Brown, Dante Gabriel Rossetti and
considered an outstanding personality in the history others of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, who
of Russian art. The Moscow Metropole Hotel, the wished to unite art and ethics and visualized such
first Russian private opera house in Moscow, the a union in Italian painting before Raphael, partici-
journal World of Art: these were just some of his pated in this more than anyone else. Art (being
initiatives. In the smaller world of his Abramtsevo regarded as a form of religion) was capable of
fellowship, though, he managed to realize two transforming life: this was their common idea, one
tasks by bringing together young, educated and that found many adherents in Russia, particularly
outstandingly talented individuals – artists, archi- Mamontov, who was convinced that art was
tects, historians, poets and writers – and then destined to play a major role in the re-education
instilling in them a sense of common purpose. of the Russian people.5 Hence the artists of the
That is how a group of people with different fields Abramtsevo circle entered Russian culture as direct

112
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

followers of William Morris and the Pre-Raphaelites. decorations on ecclesiastical vessels and objects of
Polenov used as the basis for his project at everyday use – all these became sources of inspira-
Abramtsevo the ancient twelfth-century church of tion in the creation of a new type of architecture,
the Saviour on Nereditsa Hill near Novgorod; of painting and works of decorative applied art.
Vasnetsov too reconfigured its architectural details. This was emphasized not only by the exterior of
In their enthusiasm for the art of Novgorod and the Abramtsevo church, but also by its interior,
Pskov between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, in whose construction Polenov played the chief
the Russian artists drew upon the unity of art, role. Indeed, it was according to his plans that
craft and spirituality that had been such a revela- the iconostasis, the main conceptual centre of the
tion to their Western colleagues in the Gothic and entire interior, was created (illus. 62).
Byzantine periods, especially Edward Burne-Jones, The artist chose for his model the seventeenth-
who assiduously visited the Gothic cathedrals of century iconostasis from the church of St John the
northern France in the 1870s.6 In medieval art they Divine on the River Ishna near Rostov the Great.
attempted to discover the impulse for the trans - This is clear both from the recollections of his
formation of life. Ancient architectural forms, contemporaries and from late nineteenth-century
calligraphic complexities adorning old books, folk photographs. He himself made the drawings for
carving in wood, patterns of popular embroidery the chief casings and ornaments. He also had the
that were receding into history, the brilliant icons of the second tier painted in 1882 (Cyril and

62 Vasiliy Polenov, Design for the Iconostasis of the Church

at Abramtsevo, 1881–2, drawing. State Open-air Museum
of Fine Arts and Literary History ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow
province.
113
part one: frame and image

Methodius, Princess Olga, The Icon Painter Alimpiy, strengthens the game of recognition, and actively
Nestor the Chronicler) and also the icons on the includes itself in the process of perception. As it
‘royal doors’: the Annunciation on the gates, the looks attentively at such an unusual iconostasis,
Last Supper, Tsaritsa Alexandra and Prince Vsevolod. one’s eye might gradually but inescapably come to
He made the sketches for the mosaic floor in the the conclusion that its framing has been granted
manner of those in ancient Byzantine churches, the possibility of not only representing the ‘heav-
as also for the painting of the choir gallery. Others enly’, but also ‘thought’, ‘idea’, and more than that –
who took part in the actual painting of the icons a definite religious mood and aesthetic experience
included Viktor Vasnetsov, Ilya Repin, Nikolay emphasized by the complex and unusual ornament,
Nevrev and Yelena Polenova. Vasnetsov himself which includes, besides the traditional church
undertook the Mother of God with Christ Child to symbolism, stylizations of fruit and of wild flowers.
the left of the ‘royal doors’, Sergius of Radonezh, The architectural frame of the iconostasis clearly
and also some of those in the second tier: Prince made images tangible by some special means.
Vladimir and Metropolitan Aleksiy. The icon of All the questions concerning the icons in the
Nicholas the Wonder Worker was made by Nevrev, Abramtsevo church turned on the Romantic ideal
and the Saviour Not Made by Hands by Repin. of beauty and the religious cult of art. Equally,
Finally, in 1882 the sculptor Antokolsky sent from around these same concepts there also revolved the
Italy, as a gift, a relief of the head of St John the problematics of icon frames, thanks to which (as
Baptist that was set into the wall. they thought) images were saturated with a special
One can only imagine what a brilliant effect transformational power. For that reason we have
services and prayers made in that temple to reli- every reason to believe that the chief creators of
gion and art, within which gathered those able to the Abramtsevo church, Vasnetsov and Polenov,
feel the excitement of the beauty of ancient artistic may justly be considered the originators of the
forms and the meaning of national images, to see ‘modern Romantic icon’, which at the end of the
Holy Rus’ before their inner eye. Evidently, too, nineteenth century and the early twentieth found
they were equally united by their consciousness its embodiment in a multitude of works of Russian
that what they were praying before was modern modernism. This ‘modern’ Russian icon had not
Russian icon painting. only to stimulate religious questing amid the
educated segment of society, but also to inject an
understanding of Russian ‘high’ art into the popular
Idea and Feeling
religious experience. Furthermore, the conception
A frame always reaches our senses a moment of such icons rested on a conviction of the special
before the image itself. For that reason, when a religious sense of beauty, and bore the clear imprint
frame continually draws attention to itself owing of the theurgical aesthetic attitude that declared
to its luxuriance, fanciful quality or over-empha- beauty as being of absolute value.
sized beauty, it does not merely remain on the As the highest embodiment of this ideal people
periphery of our vision. Such a frame always often cited Raphael’s Sistine Madonna, which so

114
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

‘Perfect art must as its ultimate task embody an

absolute ideal not just in the imagination, but in
actuality – it must inspire and transubstantiate
our real lives. If one is told such a task goes beyond
the limits of art, one should ask: who set these
limits?’7
The Russian philosopher was reviving the
Kantian idea of absolute beauty, but brought
together the concepts of beauty and goodness.
Kant, understanding beauty as disinterested pleas-
ure, assumed that people enjoy a splendid picture
(or object) without any particular goal, without
experiencing any desire to possess it. A picture is a
representative of beauty as a universal and absolute
rule, independent of our judgement of it. And the
frame merely underlines the fact that a splendid
picture is organized in the best way for ‘disinterested’
enjoyment. In the same way, too, the decoration
of a frame is an example of a ‘splendid object’ and
of ‘beauty in freedom’, which people contemplate
without experiencing the desire to attribute partic-
excited Dostoyevsky towards the end of his life and ular meanings to it. After all, flowers are splendid
a reproduction of which hung prominently in his for their own sake: they objectively embody beauty
study in St Petersburg (illus. 63). Dostoyevsky also irrespective of what we say about them. ‘Thus
wrote the famous words ‘Beauty can save the drawings à la grecque’, according to Kant, ‘an orna-
world’, adopted by Vladimir Solovyov as the ment of leaves carved onto a picture frame, on
epigraph to his article ‘Beauty and Nature’, in which wallpaper and so on, in themselves mean nothing,
he set out the basic points of his aesthetic views and they represent nothing – nothing that can be
and which had a strong influence on many artists, included under the definite concept of an object;
poets and thinkers in the ‘Silver Age’ of Russian they are beauty in freedom’.8 The Russian aesthetic
culture. Beauty was understood by Solovyov as goes further, and adorns this idea of beauty in mys-
a palpable and transformative force, as ‘an idea tical tones, linking the contemplation of a picture
embodied’, the absolute value of existence. Hence or a flower with religious experience. Hence the
the aim of art was declared to be theurgy, that is an aesthetic contemplation of a picture summons the
act of creativity whose purpose was to ‘inspire our world and the individual person to transfiguration,
lives’, and within them to embody perfected ideals while the ornament of the frame is interpreted as
of goodness, truth and beauty. As Solovyov wrote, ‘practical power’.

63 Raphael, Sistine Madonna, 1515–16. Gemäldegalerie,

Dresden.

115
part one: frame and image

In the culture of Romanticism this under- mystical penetration into the secret spheres of
standing of beauty led to the development of an nature. The beauty of a living flower transforms
idiosyncratic philosophy of the flower, assigning to itself (according to Solovyov’s philosophy, and
the splendid organic forms of nature the function also to the artistic practice of members of the
of a boundary zone linking heaven and earth. In Abramtsevo circle) into a way of emphasizing the
living flowers and their stylized representations life-building power of art. But in so far as beauty,
(particularly on the framework of an iconostasis, for the Symbolist or Romantic artist, was always
an individual image for prayer or a picture), revealed through feeling, the creators of the
Russian philosophers, poets and artists began to Abramtsevo church relied in the first place
discern possibilities inherent in Renaissance natural on an emotional and aesthetic-religious contact
philosophy, investing the symbol with real force. between the work of art and the viewer.
A frame with vegetative ornament including the In setting about this task, the Abramtsevo
stylization of a living flower becomes as it were a artists moved the problem of ornament and frame
zone consisting of some weightless medium, join- to the foreground, as witnessed by the numerous
ing two worlds together. And in this ‘vegetative sketches they made from living plants; such motifs
realm’, for the first time, clarity of form and dark- were often turned into ornament, on every kind of
ness of matter are inseparably welded into a single framing, that is astonishing in its beauty and sensi-
whole, since vegetation, as Solovyov thought, ‘is the tivity (illus. 64, 65, 66). It seemed here as if Nature
first true and living embodiment of the heavenly herself, the very landscape around the famous
impulse on earth, the first real transfiguration of Abramtsevo estate, was idealized and spiritualized
the earthly element’.9 Some notable lines by the in contact with the sacred sphere of the icon,
poet Fet are dedicated to the same blend of the undergoing a transformation in the zone of contact
heavenly and the earthly essences of flowers: between the earthly and heavenly cosmos. And in
this the Abramtsevo artists differed in principle
As though sensing their double life from the theoreticians and practitioners of the
And doubly enveloped by it – so-called Russian style in art and architecture,
They feel the earth as native to them such as Fyodor Solntsev, Lev Dal’, Viktor Butovsky,
And strive towards heaven.10 Vladimir Stasov, Konstantin Ton, Georg’y Filimonov,
Fyodor Buslayev and many others, who regarded
It seems as if nature has its hidden soul, and ornamental forms as mere elements of the
the artist through his or her poetic skill is called Byzantine-Slav tradition, and whose purpose
to give it value, to bring the hidden truth before was to emphasize the striving of Russian society
God’s daylight world. In the living flower is con- for national renewal. Within ornament they found
cealed the very secret of divine beauty, since its only general laws of development of national art,
form is the jeweller’s work of nature, in which the and saw in it too a combination of art and scholar-
artist too participates, making a stylization of the ship, since they began taking such motifs directly
flower and changing its form in the process of out of the realm of archaeology, which at the time

116
64 Viktor Vasnetsov, St Sergius of Radonezh, 1881–2. State Open-air
Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow
province.
Botanical decoration on the frame of Vasnetsov’s St Sergius.
part one: frame and image

was concerned with the investigation of Old among the people, and by degrees it fashions from
Russian manuscripts and relics of popular creativity. this a new Russian style.’11 Basic reference works
That was why the study and publication of exam- began to come out one after another, aiming to
ples of ornament also famously became the first define and make sense of the historic styles of
priority in the task of developing historicizing Russian art, including The History of Russian
styles in Russian architecture and artistic manufac- Ornament from the 11th to the 16th Centuries,
ture. ‘Our contemporary Russian style’, according from Ancient Manuscripts (1870) by Viktor
to Vladimir Dal’ in the pages of Zodchiy (‘The Butovsky, Russian Popular Ornament (1872) and
Builder’, 1876), ‘borrows its motifs not from the Slavonic and Eastern Ornament, from Ancient and
fundamental forms in which the ancient building Modern Manuscripts (1884–7) by Vladimir Stasov,
was set out . . . but limits itself to the reproduction and A Compendium of Byzantine and Old Russian
and reworking of ornamentation of Russian origin.’ Ornaments (1887) by Grigoriy Gagarin.12 These,
Then he adds: ‘In its hunt for originality our however, were all sample albums promoting national
modern art hungrily seizes on every motif used for forms of ornament, and made available to artists
ornamentation, which it seeks out in antiquity or and craftsmen only those essential models of

65 Mikhail Vrubel, Decorative motif with flowering white

water-lilies. State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and
Literary History ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.

118
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

intended to penetrate into the everyday life of the

humblest person and operate upon his or her
national feeling and experiences.
Meanwhile, the artists of the Abramtsevo circle
did not blindly copy all these ancient models, but
used them as a basis to create new ornamental
forms, aimed not so much at the development of
national self-awareness, as at the creative under-
standing and religio-aesthetic activity of the
romantic image, which had to aestheticize the
milieu of one’s existence. For that reason natural
motifs were boldly introduced into the ornamenta-
tion of all sorts of products by the Abramtsevo
workshop, such as icon cases, picture and photo-
graph frames, furniture and household goods:
stylized daisies, lilies of the valley, cornflowers,
harebells, water lilies, irises, sunflowers, herbs and
so on, which appeared together with mythological
animals and the flowers of paradise. As a result, the
ornament ‘came to life’, ‘was idealized’, acquired its
own life force, and became the bearer of the mysti-
cal experience and complex emotions of the artist.
design that were to adorn an incalculable number Elements of such ornament could also receive a
of churches, iconostases, frames of icon cases and symbolic meaning. Orchids, lilies and water lilies
pictures, liturgical vessels, public buildings and indicated, for example, tragedy and death; hare-
everyday objects from the second half of the nine- bells – longing; sunflowers – the sun and thirst
teenth century to the beginning of the twentieth. for life. The same applied to representations of
Viktor Butovsky, director of the artistic and indus- birds: the swan allegorically represented doom, for
trial museum of the Stroganov Institute of Technical example, and the peacock a bird of paradise.14 The
Draughtsmanship in Moscow, who was at the fore- peculiarity of the Abramtsevo artists’ quest lay in
front in assembling and publishing Old Russian the fact that they sought all these motifs simultane-
ornament, emphasized in the preface to his atlas: ously in Russian popular art. As Polenova, writing
‘The aim of this publication is exclusively technical on this topic, put it:
and industrial. It inclines in the direction of
showing Russian masters and artists in the fields In our Russian ornament I have noticed one
of manufacture and trade examples and sources feature that I have not encountered among any
of our individual style.’13 From this, ornament was other peoples: the use not only of geometrical

66 Yelena Polenova, Lilies of the Valley, ornamental sketch.

State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History
‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.

119
part one: frame and image

configurations, always somewhat dry, but also ‘dreamt of the resurrection of the spirit, and not
of more lively motifs, imbued with impressions just of mere primitive devices, he wished not for a
of nature – that is, the stylization of plants and new deception, rather for a new religious ecstasy,
animals: for example the reworking of the leaf, expressed through modern artistic means’.17 This
the flower, the fish and the bird.15 comment once again shows that Viktor Vasnetsov
was a typical Symbolist artist of the period of stil’
Synthesis and stylization of motifs from folk modern. He possessed the talents of an icon-maker
art and nature in ornament affected the artistic and a ‘high’ artist, a book illustrator and a monu-
experiments of Vasnetsov, Polenova, Mikhail mental painter, an architect and a theatre designer.
Vrubel and a series of other artists who had a great In his work Byzantine mosaics and frescoes, archi-
influence on the formation of new methods of tecture and folk tale, an interest in the Renaissance
configuring ornament at the end of the nineteenth and in other currents of European painting all
century and the early twentieth. In religious art, came together. Vasnetsov was also the first to turn
particularly, ornament could acquire complicated to the sources of Russian popular creativity that
symbolic and moral dimensions that were sup- had previously failed to attract artists’ attention.
ported by not only the Russian theurgic aesthetic, Thus his icons with their hints of the folk epic and
but also the theoretical arguments of John Ruskin. fairy tale clearly embodied the ‘spirit of the time’ and
The problem of ornament was perceived as a reli- in their particular milieu were becoming ‘bearers’
gious problem. Understanding art as a synthesis of of the new religious and aesthetic inclinations.
beauty and Christian morality, Ruskin considered As the writer Vasiliy Rozanov (1856–1919) put it,
the ‘true material’ of ornament to be nature as ‘We can say about Nesterov and Vasnetsov that the
created by God, that which ‘is in agreement with two of them changed the character of “Russian
the divine law’ and ‘is its symbol’. The very ‘spirit Orthodox painting” when they introduced the
of the people’, its hidden ideas and feelings, were strain of music, lyricism and personal impulse
to be embodied in ornament, since art was called into its calm epic waters.’18 Maybe unconsciously
upon to serve the heightening of religious experi- Vasnetsov also expressed his dissatisfaction with
ences and the improvement of morality.16 the epoch he was living through, and felt a mood
Hence, in large part thanks to the frame and gripping society that changes in the Church and
to ornament, the modern Romantic icons of the the country were obligatory. In Russian philosophy
Abramtsevo church were meant to achieve a partic- such moods were expressed in a special attention to
ular power of emotional effect on the spectator. the doctrine of Sophia, the Wisdom of God, of the
They were clearly reckoned to connect not with transfiguration of the flesh and in posing problems
one’s reason, but with one’s mystical and religious- of new religious consciousness; while in the literature
aesthetic experiences. In this connection Igor of the Symbolists it led to full-scale myth-making.
Grabar’ noted that Vasnetsov was ‘carried away’ For its part, Vasnetsov’s modern icon not only
by the prospect of resurrecting the ‘ancient ardent embodied the Romantic ideal of beauty, but set
faith’ when he created the Abramtsevo church; he itself a task that had colossal political significance.

120
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

In acting upon the perceptions of the community For these reasons Vasnetsov’s icons exercised a
in general, it was meant to accomplish the libera- great influence on Russian icon painting of the late
tion of the very ‘spirit’ of the Russian people. And nineteenth century and the early twentieth, which
at this point the rhetoric of Vasnetsov’s painting saw the appearance of vast numbers of run-of-the-
found precise means for a swift entry into the mass mill imitations with characteristic ‘Vasnetsovian’
consciousness. figures of saints, landscapes and ornaments, making
In his pictures people discerned a true ‘Orthodox the very icon come close to theatre and literature.21
Christian’ philosophy; they were taken as icons In other words, Vasnetsov’s type of Romantic icon
representing the coming ecclesiastical and conciliar begins to do battle with surrounding reality using
state of humanity. As one contemporary wrote: weaponry taken not from icon painters’ pattern
books (as existed in the sixteenth and seventeenth
These paintings are a whole philosophy in centuries), not from iconological compendia (char-
themselves, and moreover a Christian philoso- acteristic of the Baroque), and not from the ancient
phy. Striking us with the depth and integrity classical heritage (as in the period of Classicism),
of this ideological content, they are significant but from the Romantic religious tradition, from its
precisely because of the severe restraint of their philosophy and from the national epics.
Orthodox Russo-Byzantine style, because of The notion of beauty as embodied in the
which it seems somehow awkward to call them Romantic icons of Vasnetsov resulted from his
pictures, rather than icons, and their appearance subjective aesthetic experience and was achieved
in the galleries of a museum, finely displayed as as a result of the mystical contemplation of the
they may here be, seems somehow accidental: national culture and natural world. That is why we
their place is in a church, and what is more a find in them a characteristic landscape, national
cathedral church . . .19 costumes, and a Russian historical environment
that by the end of the nineteenth century and the
These icons by Vasnetsov bore upon them beginning of the twentieth would become charac-
echoes of a cult of religious exclusivity. ‘I seriously teristic markers in the religious images of Mikhail
believe’, said Vasnetsov, ‘that it is precisely the Nesterov as well as of other artists of the Russian
Russian artist who is fated to discover the image stil’ modern. One could sense in it too a clear influ-
of the Universal Christ.’ He went on: ence of that new ‘aesthetic devotion’ that in the
nineteenth century was linked with the cult of
Christ, of course, must unavoidably be personal, the ‘divine’ Raphael, and which regarded pictorial
but the personal conception of him must rise expressions of the Romantic genius as an interpre-
up to the universal conception, that is, he must tation of divine providence, the product of Christian
inescapably be imagined by the whole world in thought. It was this devotion that attributed to
that and no other way, and a personal concep- art the power to penetrate the divine mysteries of
tion of an individual artist must in the end nature, where religious truths were revealed and
coincide with this universal conception.20 generated.

121
part one: frame and image

We should remind ourselves again that in the

Middle Ages the icon was considered to be capable
of transfiguring mankind thanks to its ontology
of the divine, to the transcendental impulse that
could be attained through the revelations of the
Fathers of the Church. It did not permit invention,
since truth and beauty existed inseparably within it,
while its aesthetic side was valued only in so far as
it brought a person closer to God. In Vasnetsov’s
Romantic icon we discover that its action upon a
person is conditioned by the subjective aesthetic
idea that was put into it by the artist himself. That
is, if in the ancient icon truth in some sense engen-
dered beauty, in the Romantic icon by contrast
(as in the Baroque- and Classical-period icon),
it is beauty that engenders truth, emerges as its
synonym, and is the ‘aesthetic revelation’ of the
artist’s personality. That is why the Vasnetsov Mother
of God from Abramtsevo (illus. 67) is so similar to
Raphael’s Sistine Madonna, taken during the
German Romantic period as an icon of beauty and
symbol of the new aesthetic religion. According to
Romantic legend, the Virgin appeared to Raphael Madonna’, a modern Romantic icon, embodying the
in a dream, just as she had earlier appeared to idea of absolute beauty that ‘revealed’ itself to the
saints.22 It was not only in Germany, however, artist in the creative act. After the reproduction of
but also in the Russian Academy of Arts that this image in the altar scheme of the St Vladimir
Winckelmann’s advice – that the works of Raphael Cathedral in Kiev (1885–96), and its diffusion in a
should be imitated, together with works from huge number of copies, Vasnetsov was called the
antiquity – was followed. Winckelmann considered ‘Russian Raphael’ and was seen as one of the
that the age of Raphael corresponded to that of prophets of the age.24 In other words, ‘revelation’ in
Phidias in classical Greece.23 In Raphael’s paintings the creation of a new type of Russian icon belonged
could be seen the very laws of classically perfected not to the saint, but to the artist – since the time,
form. Russian artists too were aware of the legend we should remember, of Simon Ushakov in the
of Raphael’s dream. seventeenth century – who carries within himself a
Hence in Russian Romanticism Vasnetsov’s concept of ideal beauty, and strives to embody this
Mother of God changed from being synonymous concept in an artistic image. The Romantic icon as
with the Sistine Madonna, and became the ‘Russian embodied beauty, people supposed, was capable of

67 Viktor Vasnetsov, Mother of God and Christ Child,

1881–2. State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary
History ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.

122
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

transcending its own form and of causing the work the work of art ‘is possessed of reality’; ‘it is in itself
of art to play a vigorously active role in the world. an emanation of the absolute’.27
As Erwin Panofsky has shown, in the Neopla- Hence in the age of Russian Romanticism the
tonic aesthetic system of the Renaissance the artistic role of art in the cognition of the surrounding
idea had a metaphysical basis. As his divine gift, it world is raised, and there also appears an urge to
had an a priori presence within the artist: it was his create the ‘absolute work of art’, the ‘icon of beauty’.
natural ability to carry within himself a notion of Sometimes the image of the Mother of God by
unsullied beauty, on the model of which he would Vasnetsov, which first appeared in the iconostasis
‘improve’ both nature and human nature through of the Abramtsevo church, was taken as such an
his art. But as early as 1664, in a lecture to the icon. So far as the frame of this picture (or icon) is
Accademia di San Luca at Rome by the art theorist concerned, in the context of these ideas it pointed
Giovanni Pietro Bellori (published later as the intro- unambiguously to the striving of art to influence
duction to his collection of artists’ lives under the the world. The frame became more and more
title ‘The Idea of the Painter, the Sculptor and the subject to the will of the artist, to his or her effort
Architect’), this concept has lost its metaphysical to embody the idea of absolute beauty and to
meaning. The artistic idea is understood as deriving underline the capacity of the image to act upon
from sensual contemplation.25 surrounding reality. In the Romantic age the frame
In German idealism the artistic idea became again took its place in the artistic project of the
a fundamental concern of philosophy. If Kant, dis- picture or icon, just as in the Renaissance or the
cussing the idea of the artistic imagination, tried to Baroque period. The frame now demonstrated that
limit the interaction of the picture and the world to art itself had acquired new limits and new horizons.
the category of the ‘disinterested pleasure’ obtained Thus in the Abramtsevo church the frames,
from one’s encounter with it, by contrast Schelling covered with stylizations of living flowers, not
and Hegel found in the artist’s consciousness the only decorated the interior, but also took an active
constructive impulse that builds up and transforms part in creating a special religious-aesthetic
surrounding reality. Considering reality as the out- atmosphere in which the spiritual vision of the
come of human reason, they began to regard the viewer would be opened up, and would also be
artist too as the very type of the creative genius, sharpened, so they assumed, by exposure to the
creating his or her own world, one that has objective national religious experience. The special role of
significance. This particularly concerned the ‘philos- the frames was also conditioned by the fact that
ophy of art’ of Schelling, whom Berdyayev called for Vasnetsov, Polenov, Nesterov, Repin and other
‘to a considerable degree a Russian philosopher’ in artists of the Abramtsevo circle the very artistic
view of his influence on Russian thought in the system of the ancient cult image did not correspond
nineteenth century and the early twentieth.26 to those ‘rules of art’ that derived from the period
Schelling was responsible for the concept of the of the Italian Renaissance and following which
‘absolute work of art’, which embodies both God they created their new icons. Therefore, so as to
and ‘eternal beauty’. Born in the head of a genius, express the ‘spirit’ of national forms, transformed

123
part one: frame and image

motifs were borrowed from early architecture and the theoreticians of the period called ‘national’,
ornaments. ‘ancient’, ‘popular’ or ‘spiritual’, which also involved
This way of thinking led to a direct clash greater complexity in the domain of artistic rhet -
between the old and the new. This clash was, of oric. In the future all this would be reflected in the
course, noted on a theoretical level of modern St Vladimir Cathedral in Kiev, in the church of
culture, which was happy to connect medieval Christ the Saviour in Moscow, and in many other
forms with contemporary elements. Equipped with church buildings of that age in Russia.
these connections, the architectural solutions and Thus the individual frames of the Abramtsevo
the framings of the Abramtsevo church prompted church bore witness to nothing less than the
thoughts about the beauty of Old Russian art, the appearance of the modern Romantic icon and the
depth of the national tradition, and finally about modern Romantic attitude towards Old Russian
the exotic and the fantastical. These frames invited art. They opened up the opportunity for imitation
the viewer to sense the atmosphere of a romantic and stylization of works of medieval art as models
sanctuary, in which the foreground was occupied for the generation of new forms and new subject
not by the historical and archaeological significance matter. And just for that reason these frames are
of medieval art works, but by their mystical-aesthetic in some ways less paradoxical than might be imag-
reworking that would result in the revelation of ined at first glance. To understand that we have to
their authentic beauty. look a little further: we need the historical grounding
In this sense we have firm reason to assert that that will let us see how the framing of a medieval
it was within the space of the frame, this artistic cult image can gradually change into the framing
frontier zone, that a rethinking of the concept of of an icon as work of art. And whether it is an
beauty and its link with spirituality was to arise in iconostasis, a casing frame, a wall and a window
the age of stil’ modern. On the one hand it was here of a church, or just the space of a church used as a
that this style accepted the fundamental axioms museum, each of these at a certain moment begins
concerning beauty from Renaissance culture. We do to answer to the free artistic embodiment of the
not know the feelings that Vasnetsov experienced as idea of divine beauty. Between religious and secular
he worked on his icons; but we can hardly doubt art an active exchange of signs and discoveries is
that his creative mind was saturated with deeply in progress.
religious convictions of the transformative role of
just that kind of beauty that derived from the period
The Boundary of Paradise
of the Italian Renaissance, as he himself suggested:
‘Since for us the highest beauty is the beauty of the As has been seen, the frame of the Abramtsevo
human image, and the greatest goodness is that of iconostasis inherited ancient forms that underwent
the human soul (the reflection of God), so too metamorphosis under the influence of the culture
the reflection of the spirit in human guise must of the age. But we have only to observe how this
become the ideal of art.’28 On the other hand, how- succession of changes takes place and how it
ever, beauty in practice also approached that which unfolds in the historical perspective for it to

124
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

become more and more evident how active a role expressed a principle of duality that derived from
the frame plays in the process of displaying the the greatest opposition in Christian thinking: that
image. The icon and its frame change over time, between the holy and the most holy. Hence the
reflecting how not only religious feelings change, altar table was regarded as the holiest ‘frame’ of the
but also the aesthetic theories that evoke them. Eucharist, while the ciborium overhead was a holy
Of course, in the context of Christian thought the frame, decorated with silver and gold, resembling
transubstantiation of the Holy Sacraments, the the margins or case of an icon. The altar is Christ’s
mystery of the Eucharist, is no figure of speech footstool, the lowest step on the ladder into this
but reality. For the believer’s consciousness the real world that the Saviour descends during the liturgy.
transubstantiation of bread and wine into the But the altar could be regarded also as a step on a
body and blood of Jesus Christ takes place in the staircase leading in the opposite direction: partici-
Eucharist. The entire peculiarity of this way of pating in the sacraments, a person would choose
thinking resides in the fact that in relation to the a path that led straight to heaven. So the ‘framing’
Eucharist the image, whether painterly (picture, of the Eucharist and altar always had a heightened
icon), sculptural (statue) or architectural (church), significance in the rhetorical system of Christian
finds itself in a subordinate position. In the culture. It was invariably linked with a person’s
Christian system of thought the image should conception of the salvation of his or her soul, and
essentially fulfil only a rhetorical, auxiliary and more broadly with ideas about the interrelations
explanatory function; in other words, that of between God, the world and the human being.
framing the act of the Eucharist, which is the A special place in the system of these concepts
unwavering condition for the human soul’s was consistently occupied by the iconostasis, that is
acceptance into paradise. Because of this the the altar barrier as a symbolic ‘frame’ to the altar –
chief elements of the sacred space of the church – the ‘boundary of paradise’, the line between the
the iconostasis, the ‘royal doors’, the wall and the sacred space of the nave, where ordinary people
window – were understood and constructed as an could attend, and the most holy space beyond, in
ark or altar frame, where transubstantiation of which the altar table was located. As with the fram-
the sacraments took place. ing of an icon, historical changes in the altar barrier
For that reason the Christian place of worship were always connected with changes in how a person
was always arranged as if a simulacrum of the interacted with the divine, or more precisely with
Tabernacle, since from ancient times theological the individualization of religious feeling and the
and liturgical interpretations viewed it as the foregrounding of personal contact between the
culmination of Old Testament prototypes. The individual gaze and the icon, as is so clearly reflected
church altar, for example, was likened to the Holy in the iconostasis of the Abramtsevo church. But
of Holies, and the ciborium above the altar to how was this reflected? We should remember that
the Ark of the Covenant or to the New Jerusalem. the altar barrier of a Byzantine church, the templon,
From the most ancient period every one of the consisted of a parapet on small columns carrying
symbolic structures of a church designedly an architrave (in Greek epistylion). It was a relatively

125
part one: frame and image

independent architectural structure, a meta- number of icon rows and supports was corre-
morphosis of the form of the façade of an ancient spondingly increased.29 Thus at the turn of the
building. It was this form that Polenov joined with fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a two-tier altar
the later Old Russian structure of the ‘royal doors’ barrier in the Annunciation Cathedral of the
(illus. 59). On top of circular columns, of the Moscow Kremlin became a complete wall of icons –
ancient type with capitals, he placed an architrave a collective image of the economy of salvation, the
or epistylion, turning the latter into a supplemen- chief dogmatic idea of which was embodied in the
tary ‘frame’ for the image of the Last Supper (we iconography of the Deisis and of the ‘royal doors’.
shall say more on this below). In early times only But whereas the Byzantine altar barrier permitted
the icons of the Deisis stood on the architrave. (In believers to see into the altar space, the Russian
Orthodox iconography, an image of Christ flanked iconostasis created a ‘boundary of paradise’ – the
by the Mother of God and John the Baptist, often boundary between the sacred space of the nave and
with other holy figures, interceding for mankind.) the super-sacred space of the altar – completely
This supporting structure, carrying the icons, impenetrable to people’s gaze. Like the severe and
served as no more than a symbolic ‘framing’, not ‘impenetrable’ framing of a medieval icon, the
differentiated from the representation itself, like high iconostasis totally closed off the space in
the margins (or ‘ark’) of an icon. The same applied which the altar table stood and the mystery of
to the icons of the first, ‘local’, tier, which were the Eucharist was enacted.
there to be worshipped and were connected with The icons stood in it butted up against each
the dedication of the church. In the past they had other, while the rows themselves were separated
been placed on a small board in the gaps between by supporting members. The peculiarity of this
the columns, which resulted in the appearance structure was that in itself, as the material fram-
of a two-tier iconostasis that contained only two ing of a painterly image, it was not specially
rows: that of the Deisis and of the local icons. marked out: what was important in the Middle
This kind of ancient iconostasis was a distant Ages was the image of the end of history and the
relative of the structure of the iconostasis within fulfilment of time in itself, calculated to look
the Abramtsevo church. solemnly impressive, rather than the framing that
In Russian churches of the twelfth and thir- might hint at the significance of feelings and of
teenth centuries the ancient Byzantine epistylion personal experiences. Meanwhile, it was from
was transformed into a simple squared support the development of this beamed structure in the
beam on which the icons of the Deisis tier were fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that the gradually
placed, while the icons of the local tier were fixed growing complexity of the architectural-sculptural
onto a lower board. In iconostases of this kind frame of the iconostasis as a whole also began.
there was only one supporting member: it was From the second half of the seventeenth century
fastened to the wall or the two eastern piers of right up to the beginning of the twentieth, the
the building. When, however, the tiers of prophets number of icons in the high iconostasis was slowly
and forefathers were added to the first two, the reduced, while its architectural frame acquired a

126
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

massive quality and a dominating role in the a new, Baroque frame, dictating a rhetorical reorder-
organization of the interior. And all this happened ing of one’s gaze. The latter reveals and puts in
thanks to the fact that under the influence of order a multitude of disparate images, linked into
Western Latin rhetoric and the aesthetic theory a single picture in the human consciousness.
of the Baroque, of Classicism and Romanticism, Furthermore, the framing of the ideal beauty
the form and function of the frame as instrument of paradise points for the first time towards an
of commentary on the pictorial image were con- ancient model. The new frame on the iconostasis
tinually being reconfigured. The frame underwent of the Trinity Cathedral is presented in the forms
changes that corresponded to changes in the of the Renaissance architectural order system,
concept of the sublime. using small columns, cornices and capitals typical
Thus in the medieval church neither the frescoes of Renaissance tabernacles, through which there
nor the iconostasis were subject to the parameters shines the Renaissance ideal of beauty that took
of a viewer’s perception. A person could not make the beauty of the classical world as its model.
out either the top tier of the iconostasis or, still Demonstrating its full power over the perceiving
less, the inscriptions on wall paintings or icons. consciousness, the frame evokes joyous emotions.
All this was ‘seen’ by God, which was considered The icons are apprehended simply and quickly.
much more important. From the second half of They indeed arouse a heartfelt excitement thanks
the seventeenth century the interior of a church, to the abundant ornamental brilliance of the
including the iconostasis, gradually began to frame, which opens up imagination and fantasy
respond to the peculiarities of human vision. to one’s perception. In other words, the beamed
This immediately increased the significance of the framing of the medieval image of paradise is
frame in the process of displaying an image: the turned in such iconostases into the framing of
frame directs the gaze towards the individual icon, individual icons as works of art. Henceforth, both
inviting us to calm and prolonged contemplation; the ornament and the form of the frame, and the
that is, it sets up contact between the individual artistic system of the icon itself, would be subject
viewer’s gaze and the image. It also makes its com- to clear-cut aesthetic theories.
ment on this ‘encounter’ through ornament and This is clearly evident on the iconostasis of
form. As a result there comes a definite historical the Nativity (‘Stroganov’) Church in Nizhniy
moment when the icons on an iconostasis received Novgorod (1697–1703, 1719), which is covered in
individual frames.30 Thus the icons in the beam- so-called Flemish carving (illus. 70). This incor-
structured iconostasis of the church of St John the porates an unimaginable variety of vegetal motifs
Divine on the River Ishna, for example, are intended – bunches of grapes, acanthus leaves, pomegran-
not for contemplation, but for solemn and reveren- ates, exotic flowers and so on – while the icon of
tial presentation (illus. 68). By contrast, the icons the Mother of God set into this frame is itself
of the Trinity Cathedral of the Ipat’yevsky Monastery painted under the influence of Renaissance art.
in Kostroma (1652, 1757) are intended for a radically As specialist studies have demonstrated, all these
different type of scrutiny (illus. 69). They are set in decorative motifs were a reflection of the Western

127
part one: frame and image

European iconography of the hortus conclusus or objects, such as furniture, crockery and textiles.31
Garden of Paradise. And it must be noted that The ornament on a frame of the Baroque period
they were all encountered not only on the fram- reveals to us the close interactions between reli-
ing of Western European religious and secular gious and secular culture. The Western European
paintings and prints of the sixteenth and seven- symbolism of vegetation is transferred into
teenth centuries, but also even on everyday another milieu and acquires new subtleties, but

68 Church of St John the Divine on the River Ishna near

Rostov the Great, 1685.

128
69 Iconostasis in the Trinity Cathedral of the Ipat’yevsky Monastery, Kostroma, 1652 and 1757.
70 Detail of the iconostasis in the Nativity (‘Stroganov’) Church, Nizhniy
Novgorod, 1697–1703, 1719.
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

does not thereby cease to be active and effective in while also expressing the general Renaissance-
the space between the human being and the image. inspired world view of Russian culture.
It simply acquires additional meanings, new inter- During the reign of Empress Elizabeth (reg
pretations; turns the gaze towards new situations. 1741–62) the addition of a myriad of scrolls, shells
The flowers and herbs here enlarge the figurative and flowers to the rocaille frames of iconostases
concept of the iconostasis as a ‘wall of paradise’, supplied the ‘innocuous’ decoration that witnessed

71 Palace Church of the Resurrection, Tsarskoye Selo, 1746–8,

by Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli.

131
part one: frame and image

to the highest development of Baroque aesthetics

and on the basis of which, as we have remarked,
Immanuel Kant developed his theory of ‘disinter-
ested pleasure’ from looking at a picture and its
frame. Such are the iconostases by Rastrelli.
By giving the imagination scope to soar, their
decor helps us to understand how the ideal of
beauty in the middle of the eighteenth century
was contained not only in their reasoned useful-
ness, but also in their capacity to evoke feeling and
pleasure. It is not unreasonable to suppose that a
condition for the development of this decor was
the Russian nobility’s inclination to give itself over
to the pleasures of life. Not only secular but also
religious paintings in fine frames were vehicles
for aesthetic enjoyment and the sheer pleasure of
beholding them. Beauty and goodness, beauty and
religious exhortations were brought as close as
possible in their elegant and weightless decor.
Just this sense of the beauty of heavenly and
earthly life was evoked by the iconostasis of the
Resurrection church in Tsarskoye Selo, created the ‘disturbance’ of the contours of a Baroque
according to Rastrelli’s plans in 1746–8 (illus. 71). work of art.33 Incidentally, Rastrelli’s iconostases,
Alexander Benua elucidated the richness of the sometimes echoing the façades of Baroque build-
framing structures of this magnificent church: ings, speak to us of the very special understanding
of the correspondence of the inner and outer in
The iconostasis, going right up to the ceiling, the aesthetics of this time. Thus, like the façade
is adorned all over with images in luxuriant of a building, the iconostasis of the St Andrew
rocaille manner. At the top are placed the Cathedral in Kiev (1748–62), also by Rastrelli,
Apostles, shown at full height. Below them is a strains towards expressiveness. It was in this sense
row of circular images of the Prophets, two in that Deleuze, following Wölfflin, notes that ‘the
each. The frames of these images are connected contrast between the excessive expressionism of
with the frames of the lower tier, and together the façade and the serene calm of the interior gives
with them constitute one elegant whole.32 rise to one of the most powerful impressions that
the art of the Baroque can produce on us’.34
The frame of the iconostasis also initiates us If the Baroque strained to turn every form
into the mysteries of Wölfflin’s formula concerning into decoration, Classicism by contrast attempted

72 Matvey Kazakov, Design for the iconostasis at the

church in Semyonovskoye village, 1778.

132
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

to give it loftiness and lucidity. The ‘boundary designed both public and religious buildings while
of paradise’ achieves in both architecture and following the same set of canons.
Russian church painting of the last quarter of the ‘It had become difficult to distinguish between
eighteenth century the embodied ideal of beauty a church and a riding school or stock exchange,
of the ancient world. We can convincingly see and the colonnade of the classical portico greeted
this in the iconostasis of the village church of you in such a way that going into a theatre was just
Semyonovskoye, near Moscow, completed in 1778 like going into a church’, noted Nikolay Tarabukin.35
by one of the founders of Russian Classicism, That was hardly accidental, since models of universal
Matvey Kazakov (1738–1813) (illus. 72). In his hands validity, such as the architectural order system
the Russian iconostasis acquired the appearance of and ornaments, became far more characteristic
an antique façade, reminiscent of a Renaissance of Classicism than they had been in the Baroque.
tabernacle of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. What Tarabukin considered a glaring contradiction
It included a small barrier, comprising two icons was quite justifiably regarded as aesthetically ‘regu-
of the local tier, that scarcely managed to close off lar’ by contemporary culture.36 For representatives
the vast altar space, an open rotunda with rows of Classicism, clarity and contemplative quality
of Corinthian columns. The representation of the were the criterion of ‘good taste’, which suggested
Resurrection was located in this half-dome. This to the artist the correct choice of artistic means
meant that, when viewing the iconostasis directly, by which the idea of absolute beauty should be
one was not met by a solid wall of icons, but by an embodied. Thus in the circumstances of the new
ancient type of sacred niche with an image beyond aesthetic, the classically sublime art of the Greeks
the altar, the significance of which in the perceptual was interpreted as the most suitable for the symbolic
process was emphasized by a half-opened curtain, and allegorical expression of Christian doctrine.
and indeed by the whole complex formation of the One of the teachers in the St Petersburg Academy
façade, which was richly adorned with sculptural of Arts explained it thus: ‘The Greeks had a most
groups, bas-reliefs and pictures on medallions. correct idea about the fine arts. They respected
Columns and pilasters demarcated the walls, which them as an appropriate means for the improvement
were crowned with a classical pediment containing of morals and for the confirmation of the rules of
the scene of the Last Supper, while the pictures on philosophy and the law.’37
the wall were surrounded with carved or moulded Hence the Russian Orthodox icon of the age
frames. Thus we have before us a strict selection of Classicism followed classical proportions and
and reproduction of antique motifs that reflect a attributes. The ornament on its frame, as also on an
new understanding of art’s role in conveying the iconostasis, consisted of acanthus leaves, garlands,
truths of the Christian Church, and finding its memorial urns half concealed by drapery and
embodiment not only in the classicism of Kazakov, medallions suspended from ribbons. This was
but also in the work of Vasiliy Bazhenov, Andrey intended to determine the trajectory of one’s gaze
Voronikhin, Andreyan Zakharov, Ivan Starov and towards those canons of antique beauty through
many other architects who in the age of Classicism which the tasks of the Orthodox Church could be

133
part one: frame and image

realized, in a manner that was more appro-

priate to the grandeur of the Christian
story, or so it was supposed, than the
‘eccentric’ fantasies and ornaments of the
Baroque. Thus according to the rules of
Classicism it was appropriate to borrow
from the full range of antique sculptural
form, decor or architectural detail, thus
getting closer to a true representation of
the earthly and heavenly life of Christ, the
Mother of God and the saints. Furthermore,
thanks to these rules it was possible to
maintain order and persuasiveness in the
artist’s aesthetic imagination. For that reason
the artist was not interested in the multi-
fariously picturesque world that would
later captivate the Romantics, but rather
the internalized and ruling principles of the
sublime in our existence – that is to say the laws perfect beauty not in the works of ancient art, but
of harmony that appear to lie beyond the visible in the Russian nation’s path towards independence
and chaotic phenomena of the surrounding world. and understanding of its history. Thus the
The route to achieving verisimilitude was found by demands of elegance gave way to demands for
following these laws, since it was their stability alone strength of feeling and religious exclusivity.
that could explain the orderliness and connectivity Such was the iconostasis and the ornamenta-
of the phenomena of nature. This accounted for the tion of the church of Christ the Saviour (illus. 73).
full meaning of the difference between the religious The ‘boundary of paradise’ here takes the form of
imagery of, say, Vasiliy Shebuyev or Vladimir an Old Russian tent-shaped church, which brings a
Borovikovsky in the St Petersburg Kazan Cathedral national and patriotic intonation into the resonant
(1811) on the one hand, and on the other the natura- beauty of the religious image. In so far as one or
listic Romantic painting of Fyodor Bronnikov, another conception of art was called upon to serve
Yevgraf Sorokin or Vasiliy Vereshchagin in the the cult demands, the form of this frame unambig-
church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow (1883). uously points to a reorientation of the political
This too accounts for the difference between the outlook of the Russian Church towards the theory
plans for the iconostasis proposed by Matvey of ‘Moscow, the Third Rome’. During the period of
Kazakov and by the architect Konstantin Ton, whose Classicism people extracted a hint of the nobility
aesthetic views were already close to those of the and the harmonious spirituality of the religious
Romantic age. Ton and his supporters looked for image from statues of Greek gods and the ornament

73 Design for the iconostasis of the church of Christ the Saviour,

Moscow, 1860s, architect Konstantin Ton.

134
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

of Greek temples. In the frames and ornaments of of the doors has always seemed important. Writing
the church of Christ the Saviour, as planned by about the symbolic meaning of a door as a bound-
so brilliant a representative of the ‘Russian style’ ary between the sacred and the profane, Mircea
as Lev Dal’, national independence and the official Eliade noted:
Church’s inheritance from Byzantium and Muscovite
Russia were specially emphasized. The power of A door opening into the interior of a church
Orthodox art was seen in the beauty of the national signifies an interruption of connection. The
tradition. And here the ‘Russian style’ differed in threshold that separates the two spaces simulta-
principle from the aesthetics of those who designed neously indicates the distance between two
the Abramtsevo church. The Abramtsevo artists images of life: the secular and the religious.
gave priority to sincerity of feelings and experiences It is also a barrier, a frontier, that separates two
in their understanding of the beauty of frame and worlds and sets them in opposition; and from
image. Finally we have to note that the ‘Russian the other point of view it is that paradoxical
style’ and stil’ modern of the 1880s, by turning place where they encounter each other, where
attention to the reconfiguration of the Byzantine the secular world may make its transition into
and Old Russian heritage, assisted the emergence the sacred world.38
of the most varied types of altar barriers: from the
neo-Byzantine templon (as, for example, in the On this level the ‘royal doors’ of the Abramtsevo
St Vladimir Cathedral in Kiev) to the multi-tiered church, as well as its portal, can reveal much to
Old Russian iconostases in Old Believer churches the historian. They follow on from Old Russian
built to designs by Vladimir Pokrovsky, Ilya structures of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-
Bondarenko, Aleksey Shchusev and other leading turies, but bring to them both a new arrangement
architects of Russian stil’ modern at the beginning of elements and new devices for displaying the
of the twentieth century. The selection of ancient images (illus. 74, 76). This particularly affects the
forms of altar barrier in official places of worship canopy over the ‘royal doors’, the placing of the
in Moscow, St Petersburg and in the Orthodox East icon of the Last Supper in the iconostasis, and the
shows an awareness of the ecclesiastical and imperial choice of symbols that form the ornamental decor
might of the Russian empire inherited from the of the church portal. The canopy is an ancient
ancient empires of Rome and Constantinople. dome-shaped structure, the roots of which go
Meanwhile, the ‘boundary of paradise’ acquires back through Byzantium to the ancient Near East.
an even more interesting cultural historical sense Framings in the form of a canopy, a baldachin and
if we look more closely at the ‘royal doors’ of the a ciborium were long employed to symbolize the
iconostasis, that is, the gateway to paradise. It is heavenly paradise as a cosmic dwelling place or a
not by chance that in Old Russia these were called city – the Heavenly Jerusalem. In the iconostasis
the ‘Holy’ (or the ‘Paradise’) gates. Following on of the Abramtsevo church, however, the canopy
from the description of ‘a door was opened in crowns not only the ‘royal doors’, but also the
heaven’ (Revelation 4:10), the form and decoration composition as a whole. It includes characteristic

135
part one: frame and image

ornament from the Gardens

of Paradise, which, being a
realm of peace and tranquillity,
are located beyond the limit
of historical time and have
long been symbolized by
representations of flowers,
fruits and birds. The motif of
paradise is visible in the orna-
ment of the upper section of
the iconostasis frame, where
there is a row of carved
kokoshniki on top, below
which run bands of vegetal
ornament showing harebells,
ox-eye daisies and wild herbs.
Also included in the design
of the canopy are a leafy vine
scroll, framed on each side
by ears of wheat, ancient
symbols of life and abundance,
and further down twigs carry-
ing red pomegranates and
white field daisies (illus. 78).
In the context of the ‘paradise’
semantics of the New
Jerusalem, pomegranates
represent symbolic fruits in
Solomon’s temple (1 Kings
7:18, 20, 42). The biblical
description of the temple mentions columns The appearance of the canopy as a decorative
linked with ‘networks’ of woven vine motifs and form over the ‘royal doors’ is of interest in the
crowned with an abundance of pomegranates, context of Baroque aesthetic theory. Since the
which symbolize eternal life, fruitfulness and second half of the seventeenth century the beauty
resurrection; the columns of the Abramtsevo of these doors as the chief framing for the altar of
iconostasis follow this, with vine stems woven an Orthodox church had been explained through
about the capitals. various interpretations and symbolic meanings.

74 ‘Royal doors’: iconostasis of the church of St John the Divine on the River Ishna,
near Rostov the Great, 1685.

136
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

Their treatment led in the direction of ‘liberated century as a gateway, a window or a staircase lead-
art’. Baroque illusionism, metaphorical allusion ing to the Heavenly Kingdom. In interpretations of
and the master craftsman’s skill in design all min- the Akathist she is seen as a ‘closed gate’, ‘gateway
gled together in the embellishment of the doors, to the East’ and ‘gate of paradise’. She is also
and hence in the organization of the open or likened to a mirror adorned with a frame in the
closed quality of the altar space. As with the new ‘Discourse on the Introduction of the Mother of
type of Baroque icon, fundamental symbolic repre- God into the Temple’ published in a collection of
sentations and elements readily change places in sermons by Antoniy Radivilovsky called The
the system of the ‘royal doors’. Now their place is Garden of Mary Mother of God (Kiev, 1676). If the
defined by the artistic concept of the craftsman stern Middle Ages as a rule linked the symbolism
undertaking the church commission. Hence the of the ‘royal doors’ primarily with Christ, following
canopy above the ‘royal doors’ of 1685 from the biblical passages where his symbol is a ‘door’ (John
church of St John the Divine on the River Ishna 10:1, 3, 7, 9) or ‘light’ (John 8:12; 9:5), by contrast
near Rostov the Great, which Polenov took as the from the second half of the seventeenth century to
model for his own doors, is complex in form, has the nineteenth this symbolism could change and
very rich carving and a multitude of recesses for gain additional meanings depending on the role of
icons. When icons are set in this manner they may the Church in the world, and also on the under-
be likened to precious stones in the diadem of the standing of that role by patron and artist.
Mother of God, who is increasingly described in A special place in the construction of the ‘royal
the literature of the second half of the seventeenth doors’, for example, might be allocated to the image

75 Church of the Saviour Not Made by Hands at Abramtsevo in 1881–2. Postcard.

137
part one: frame and image

of the Last Supper – Christ’s testament of the tran- above the doors in a special niche.39 Gradually,
substantiation of the bread and the wine into his however, this image was moved closer to the kat-
body and blood – in connection with a person’s apetasma, the hanging that covered the space of the
belief in the power of the Church. As early as the doors above their two leaves, and by the eighteenth
second half of the sixteenth century the desire to century it could be seen on the doors themselves,
show the central significance of the mystery of the often in sculptural relief. One characteristic example
Eucharist for the soul’s attainment of paradise is on the ‘royal doors’ in the church of St Nikola
resulted in the image of the Last Supper being placed Nadein at Yaroslavl (1751) (illus. 76). Attributed

76 ‘Royal doors’: iconostasis of the church of St Nikola Nadein, Yaroslavl, 1751.

138
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

to designs by the Russian craftsman Fyodor Volkov, As has already been mentioned, the architect
these doors are a typical example of ‘Elizabethan Matvey Kazakov placed the image of the Last
Baroque’, tending towards luxuriance and illusion- Supper as if on the pediment of a Greek temple.
ism. By representing the figure of Christ against a By contrast, the Abramtsevo ‘royal doors’ follow
background of the altar barrier as the ‘First Priest’ an older tradition by setting this scene in a special
before the altar, the creators of the doors attempted niche above the door-leaves. On either side of the
to bring the scene of the Eucharist into maximal leaves, however, Polenov placed black columns
proximity with the space of the nave. Flying angels with carved capitals supporting the kosmitis, the
pull back a symbolic curtain (katapetasma), reveal- name given in Old Russia to an architrave. A special
ing the space of the altar to the believers’ view. feature of its structure was that the kosmitis was
The whole scene is reminiscent of a Baroque rhetorically compatible with the Last Supper repre-
theatre and contains all kinds of elements of sentation. The scene in the niche takes place at
Baroque decoration: cartouches, shells, volutes, night and is in turn attached to a kosmitis imitating
scrolls with inscriptions, fruits and plants. All a night sky, with planets, stars and comets shown
available means were used to convince people of against a dark background (illus. 77). From this
the power of the mystery of the Eucharist through the viewer is given to understand that the action of
the artistic embellishment of the chief frame of the Last Supper is taking place in a Russian church
the altar. against a background of the night sky, since the

77 Detail of Vasiliy Polenov’s iconostasis in the church of the Saviour Not Made by
Hands at Abramtsevo, 1881–2. State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary
History ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow.

139
part one: frame and image

action appears to extend beyond the limits of the Byzantine church, curtains, and later the gates of the
first frame-niche and is bound together with the templon, merely fenced off the altar, by contrast
whole symbolic structure of the ‘royal doors’ and in the Russian medieval iconostasis they gave it
of the iconostasis generally. There are definite an inaccessible appearance. The mystery of the
grounds for accepting that this kosmitis was executed Eucharist was concealed behind an impenetrable
after drawings by Polenov, since in part it echoes wall of icons and a door that was opened only at
the starry sky of his 1885 stage designs for Rimsky- the moment of the Divine Liturgy when the Holy
Korsakov’s opera Snegurochka (The Snow Maiden, Gifts (the sacraments) were carried out through
illus. 78). it. Thus during the thirteenth and fourteenth
Religious and secular art also offered similar centuries the gates might consist of two elongated
solutions to resolving the problem of the openness icons, serving as solid shutters, as may be found
or enclosure of altar space, in the planning of in the ‘royal doors’ (c. 1400) from the Nektariyev
which the structure of the ‘royal doors’ was always Pokrov monastery in the Tver region, now in the
important. The doors hindered viewing and served Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, on which are depicted
as the fundamental barrier against beholding the St John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great.40
liturgical act. They also linked the community of Significant changes in this arrangement can be
believers with the secret space of the altar, to which observed from the second half of the seventeenth
entry was forbidden for ordinary mortals. If in a century as the ‘royal doors’ began to lose their

78 Viktor Vasnetsov, e Hall of Tsar Berendey, sketch for decor of Rimsky-Korsakov’s

opera e Snow Maiden, 1885. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

140
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

medieval inaccessibility and, to some extent, even roof topped by a spire symbolizing the vault of
became penetrable to the viewer’s gaze. Their leaves heaven. A similar spire could be seen above the
began to be covered with fretwork carving, allow- altar table when the ‘royal doors’ were opened.
ing one to catch a glimpse of what was happening Finally, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
at the altar. The leaves themselves were made lower, when the structure of the iconostasis turned into
thus opening up the altar space, as for example in the architectural simulacrum of a temple, the ‘royal
the SS Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg doors’ attempted to preserve the form of earlier
(1722–6) or in the iconostasis project, already types of portal, since the ‘wall of paradise’ (the
mentioned, by Kazakov. Through the openwork architectural frame of an iconostasis) was per-
grid or over a low barrier the altar space could be ceived as nothing less than the ‘wall of a sacred
mysteriously glimpsed by the light of candles, so building’. This is particularly characteristic of
working on people’s imagination. To the extent that official churches at the time of the ‘Elizabethan
a Renaissance cultural pattern was adopted, the Baroque’. The same thing is encountered during
frame of the ‘royal doors’ aimed to open up the altar the Classicism of Alexander i and the ‘Empire
space in a comparable way to how the casing of Style’ under Nicholas i, echoing Catholic altars
Russian icons of the eighteenth century at times from between the seventeenth and nineteenth
tended towards revealing the sacred pictures. centuries. In the Abramtsevo church, however, the
Under the influence of the new aesthetic theo- symbolic link between portal and iconostasis has
ries the ‘royal doors’ could also be regarded as the become less obvious. Symbols from different periods
entrance to a church. This communicated additional are located capriciously on its limestone portal,
meanings. The ‘royal doors’ in the Chapel of the their components evidently mixed up: here we can
Three Hierarchs of the Church of the Resurrection find a fish, the ancient symbol of Christ, symbols
on the Debra in Kostroma (1651) are reminiscent, of the evangelists (an eagle, a bull, a man and a lion),
for example, of the portal of a Renaissance cathedral. and representations of a horse, an ass, a cockerel
In addition, however, the door of a church could and a goat, all linked with various events of the
remind one of the entrance to the altar space, gospel story (illus. 79). They all carry an enhanced
or rather the ‘gates of paradise’ on the boundary ornamental character, since their intention is to
between the sacred space of the nave and the conduct a person into the very ‘atmosphere’ of
super-sacred altar space. Not only the portals of ancient culture, to create a particular religious
cathedrals acquired new forms: many gateways mood. This effect is repeated in the interwoven
into a church or monastic compound were given ornament.41 In this way, from the beginning of the
the profiles of bell-towers or churches, in the same post-medieval period, the outlines of portals and
way that the small frames set with portraits of the ‘royal doors’ more and more actively engaged the
evangelists on ‘royal doors’ increasingly resemble human imagination in the creation of a mental
churches. From around the middle of the seven- image of ‘paradise’ – that is, just like icon frames
teenth century the entrances to Russian sacred they strove for a greater effect on the perceiving
buildings are also adorned by a porch, with the consciousness.

141
part one: frame and image

cut through by window openings in a new kind

of pattern – Vasnetsov took as their formal basis
the round-headed windows found in Old Russian
architecture up to the sixteenth century. On the
inside Polenov also left the walls white, but allowed
the window recesses to be adorned with vegetal
ornament taken from living plants and painted
from sketches by Andrey Mamontov (illus. 80, 81).
This created not only a particular mood (evoking a
sense of the ‘mysterious’ atmosphere of an ancient
place of worship), but also played an important
part in displaying the icons. The white background
of the walls lent the icons what might be called an
extra charge of transcendentalism, emphasizing
their uniqueness as works of art. And in this sense
the white walls of our church, perhaps, fore-
shadowed the architecture of the ‘white cube’ as a
contemporary art gallery, with its urge towards a
neo-sacral worship of aesthetic objects. To reach
that point, however, its forms had to undergo a
long journey.
With the arrival of Baroque aesthetic theory
in Muscovite Russia during the second half of the
seventeenth century, we again come across that
Finally, so as to comprehend the ‘boundary new, stylized and concentrated beauty in whose
of paradise’, something should be said about the language the artist speaks about the meanings of
particular qualities of wall and window. A wall the Christian faith. From that moment on, the
separates the sacred building from the world, while window frame receives heightened attention. As
a window joins them. Consequently, the wall and one of the most important forms of Renaissance
the window can always be relied upon to unravel illusionistic art, it plays a special role in demarcating
some sort of mystery that is concealed within. the boundary between the visible and the invisible.
All forms of religious art contain hidden meaning. It also acquires additional meanings, and is imbued
Thus Old Russian sacred buildings were always with the capability to speak of fundamental changes
distinguished by the smoothness of their walls, in the culture. Thus the widening of the window
which Vasnetsov and Polenov reconfigured in the aperture in Russian churches of the seventeenth and
Abramtsevo church in the spirit of stil’ modern eighteenth centuries enables the new allocation of
culture. From the outside the limestone walls are the zones of divine grace, to embody which the

79 Detail of ornamental carving on the portal of the church of the Saviour Not Made by
Hands at Abramtsevo, 1881–2. State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History
‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.

142
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

artist draws upon external painting of the walls, the two worlds. The window apertures themselves
the decoration of the window surrounds and a new remain small, and they are closed off by a grille,
system of the dramaturgy of light. This grasps one’s creating a ‘defence’ for the Christian holy place.
attention, for example, in the painting of the walls But to the extent that the architectural decoration
and the framing of windows of the church of the of the Russian church internalizes general European
Resurrection in Kostroma (illus. 82). The window elements and renounces the pre-Petrine tradition,
surrounds and external paintwork deliberately lead window spaces become considerably wider and
here to a sense of the walls’ instability, since the adopt various forms, while the wall acquires
builder’s aim seems to have become the creation tectonic elements. False windows, framed with the
of an effect of a flickering boundary between space same surrounds as real ones, appear on the facades
within the church and space outside. Against the of eighteenth-century churches, as they also do
background of this wall painting, the window sur- on secular buildings.42 As a result the windows of
rounds try to make a gap in the boundary between Russian places of worship in the seventeenth and

80 Andrey Mamontov, Sketch of ornament for a window 81 Ornamental wall painting for the church of the Saviour
niche of the church of the Saviour Not Made by Hands Not Made by Hands at Abramtsevo, 1881–2. State Open-air
at Abramtsevo. State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History ‘Abramtsevo’,
Literary History ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province. Moscow province.
143
part one: frame and image

eighteenth centuries let in great streams of light. Here too the window surrounds themselves
Daylight becomes a most important element of the could also acquire additional meanings. It may be
church interior. That is to say, just as on Baroque cautiously asserted that the appearance of a crown-
icons the boundary between heaven and earth was shaped element at the top of window surrounds in
opened up a little with the help of a curtain, so in the later seventeenth century was connected with
architecture it was opened up by a window, which an enhancement of the cult of the Mother of God.
played a major part in the dramaturgy of light.43 Like the luxuriant ‘crown’ in the system of the ‘royal
Different degrees of lighting lent particular beauty doors’, this window decoration could symbolize the
to a church interior. Since the windows had been crown of the Mother of God. The connection can
given complex shapes, light fell in sharply defined be discerned, for example, if we compare the icon
masses of irregular form. Setting out from new aes- of the Vladimir Mother of God from Volokolamsk
thetic principles, the heart was made glad by light, (1572, illus. 84) and a window surround with
and was enthused with the plan of divine beauty. crown-shaped decoration in the church of the

82 Wall of the north chapel of the church of the

Resurrection, Kostroma. 1651.

144
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

Kazan Mother of God (1690) in the village of coeli’ (‘crystal clear window’ and ‘heavenly window’).
Markovo, Moscow Province (illus. 83).44 It is known With the rise in significance of themes connected
that, in accordance with biblical texts, commentaries with the Virgin during the Counter-Reformation,
and prayers, the walls and windows of a sacred this symbolism more frequently emerged in the
building were identified with Christ and the Mother foreground. Rays of the sun, symbolizing Christ,
of God themselves. In the Middle Ages it was basic - penetrate through the glass of the window,
ally the Christological symbolism of the window leaving it untouched. They simply transform it
that was recognized. But in the Renaissance and into a symbol of the Immaculate Conception of
Baroque periods this symbolism more often began the Virgin Mary as ‘fenestra crystallina’. Thus too
to touch upon the theme of the Mother of God, at the end of the Middle Ages in Italy and northern
which had indeed been known earlier. As early as Europe the descent of the Holy Spirit in composi-
the fifteenth century Western art had known the tions of the Annunciation was shown in the form
Virgin Mary as ‘fenestra crystallina’ and ‘fenestra of a cluster of rays of the sun, penetrating the

83 Window surround at the church of the Icon of 84 Vladimir Mother of God from Volokolamsk, 1572.
the Mother of God of Kazan in the village of Markovo, Rublyov Central Museum of Early Russian Culture
Moscow province, 1690. and Art, Moscow.

145
part one: frame and image

window glass. Hence the Virgin was also

understood to be the ‘fenestra coeli’,
since this was the window through
which Christ came to earth.45 A com-
mentary on part of the Song of Songs,
where the bridegroom sees his beloved
in a window, serves as the basis for this
symbolism. The Church is the Bride,
awaiting her Bridegroom, which is the
reason why her appearance, her wall,
her windows through which divine light
symbolizing Christ can arrive, are so
important. And here we clearly encounter
the frame as a locus for the reunion of
God – remote from us – and Eros.
In the art of the Russian Baroque,
though, this rich symbolic system
underwent an interesting change of
direction in its application both to the
iconostasis and to the forms of window
surrounds. Optical illusion, one of the
main foundations of the Renaissance
and Baroque cast of mind, reminds
us once again that the frame is drawn
towards a particular role it can play in
the process of perception. For just that
reason the window surround in the
late seventeenth century and early eight-
eenth could easily serve as the casing
frame for an icon. Thus icons of saints
were placed in the false windows of the
Resurrection Church in Kostroma (illus.
82). Such examples can easily be multi-
plied. Between the domes on the roof
of the church of the Smolensk Mother
of God (1694–7) in the village of
Gordeyevka, near Nizhniy Novgorod,

85 Window surround with evangelist icon, church of St John the Baptist,

over the gatehouse of the Solotchinsky monastery, 1695, Ryazan.

146
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

the bell-tower itself was rebuilt

after fires in 1635 and 1668.
All this speaks to us of the fact
that in the new aesthetic circum-
stances the frame of a window
of a Russian church was tending to
turn towards resembling the frame
for an image, as had happened in
Italy during the Quattrocento. Thus
either a painted icon or a relief
carving might appear in a window
frame. The frame, also a window,
itself gradually adopted the order
system in its forms. This trend
unambiguously indicated that
Renaissance ideals of beauty were
actively securing their positions
in Russian church architecture.
If the keystones and cornices of
a window frame with a depiction
in relief of an evangelist at the
Solotchinsky monastery (1695) are
already accompanied by ‘Baroque’
columns (illus. 85), then in the period
of Classicism the ancient order
system is finally affirmed. Entire
compositions undergo transforma-
tion in the embellishment of
great stone casing windows with icons have been windows and niches, now reproducing ancient
placed. On the east wall of the Trinity Church entablatures with architrave, frieze and cornice.
(1668) at Ostankino, close to Moscow, there was The beauty of a Baroque frame was measured
a representation of the Deisis in stone casings. by how much its superfluity of adornment aston-
Finally, a large painted casing with an icon of the ished the viewer. What counted as beauty in
Mother of God, looking like a window in a wall, can the framing of a window or niche in the age of
be seen on the bell-tower of the church of Basil the Classicism was its severity and its smooth surfaces
Blessed in Moscow. Most likely it was constructed with clear, unfussy decoration. These qualities
in the second half of the seventeenth century, when were to persuade the viewer that he or she was

86 Statue on a salient of the chapel wall of the St Michael

Castle in St Petersburg, 1798-1800.

147
part one: frame and image

standing before the very embodiment of the laws mystery, to put a person further from it or closer to
of divine harmony. Such is the framing of a niche it. The ornament and structure of the Abramtsevo
for a statue on a salient of the chapel in the St church are connected with this rhetoric. The
Michael Castle (1797–1800), St Petersburg (illus. Vasnetsov Mother of God to the left of the ‘royal
86). Situated so as to be an adornment for the doors’ is the clearest image within this system. Shut
chapel’s wall, and derived from classical artistic into a case in the form of an Old Russian church, it
ideals, the statue was meant to evoke enthusiasm is obviously set apart within the interior (illus. 87).
in the eyes of believers as a manifestation of And the first thing that strikes the eye is this: that
absolute beauty. The statue’s pose and gesture the case attempts to align itself with a quite differ-
are calculated to evoke the attainment of higher ent culture from that of the Mother of God icon,
reason. Its classical proportions and forms corre- which resembles the Sistine Madonna. In the second
sponded to a striving towards the beauty of another, half of the nineteenth century Raphael’s picture
superior world: ‘Christian art does not content itself was displayed in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister,
with this world, with achieved and perfected beauty, Dresden, within a Renaissance-style tabernacle
but leads off elsewhere, towards a beauty that is (illus. 88). In comparison with this frame, the case
unlimited and beyond this world.’46 designed by Polenov symbolizes a ‘Russian house’
In other words, the ideal proportions of this for the Mother of God: Vasnetsov’s modern
statue and the framing of its niche reflected not Romantic icon. The case underlines the ‘national’
only serene majesty but also the heavenly joys. quality of religion and the exceptional quality of
According to the classical conception of the the image, rendering homage to Slavophile ideas.
sublime, sculpture is the loftiest manifestation of Just the same can be said about the casing for the
beauty, as Winckelmann (for whom Bernini was image of the Saviour Not Made by Hands, painted
the ‘destroyer of art’47) had asserted. Therefore, the by Ilya Repin (illus. 89). In Christian tradition this
luxuriant beauty of Baroque framings could serve image of the Saviour is the first icon (or icon-
only as a negative example. Nonetheless, in the reliquary) of Christ, receiving the name of the
nineteenth century the classical forms of the window Mandylion, that is, an uncreated image. According
surround and niche turned out to be adaptable to the legend about Abgar, King of Edessa, the
to the new, Romantic currents in art. Mandylion appeared miraculously on a cloth after
the Saviour had covered his face with it.48 The
location of this image to the right of the ‘royal
Icon Case and Picture Frame
doors’ was connected with the dedication of the
A closed casing implies that the meaning of Creation Abramtsevo church to it. Consequently, it played a
and of human life is concealed and vanishes into leading role in the decoration of the whole church.
mystery; an open one demonstrates that everything So while Vasnetsov, in working on an image of the
is on show – it is accessible, close by and compre- Mother of God, created a new Romantic icon, Repin
hensible. This is the whole rhetoric of the casing of set himself no less responsible a task by creating
a holy image: the case strives to hide or convey a his own ‘First Icon’ of Christ. In response to the

148
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

aesthetic of naturalism, the portrait itself was taken towards the world, in which people sensed a break-
from life: it was the artist and architect Viktor through into the world of genuine, absolute beauty.
Gartman, whose paintings and drawings later Polenov distinctly complicated this image by
served as the theme for the composer Mussorgsky’s shutting it inside a traditional Russian casing,
famous Pictures at an Exhibition, who posed for in which a medieval aesthetic was combined
Repin. Consequently, in this new temple to the with Renaissance allegory. It is not by chance
aesthetic religion, it was an artist who took on the that Vasnetsov once compared his work on the
role of Christ as Creator of the world. The new Abramtsevo church with ‘the artistic break between
Mandylion creatively affirmed the artistic attitude the Middle Ages and the age of the Renaissance’.49

87 Vasiliy Polenov, case for the icon of the Mother of God 88 Raphael, e Sistine Madonna, 1515–16, displayed in
with Child by Viktor Vasnetsov, 1881–2. State Open-air the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden, in 1855.
Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History ‘Abramtsevo’,
Moscow province.
149
89 Vasiliy Polenov, case for Repin’s icon of the Saviour Not Made by Hands, 1881–2.
State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

The interaction of frames and pictures made this pictorial means’ and was a ‘commemoration of the
comparison quite evident. Reviving the symbolic invisible in the visible’.50 In addition, on the lower
nature of ornament, Polenov ‘encoded’ the title of side of the case, on the ‘ground’, the eye encoun-
the image – the word ‘Saviour’ – into the decor of tered an ouroboros (a snake consuming its own
the frame, and put it on the crown of the casing, tail), which was a Renaissance symbol for the closed
that is in the very zone that symbolized paradise nature of time (illus. 91). In the iconographic
(or the dome of the heavens, illus 90). Hence the tradition of the Renaissance this creature united
title of the image, as it were, augmented the heavenly Time and Reason.51 It was also included in the
space of the frame and entered ‘into the image as a Hieroglyphics of Horapollo, and was elucidated by

90 Ornamental inscription on the crown of the case.

91 Ouroboros: another detail of the case.

151
part one: frame and image

many Italian humanists, in particular Ficino.52 As a we cannot help but notice that the Old Russian
result the Polenov casing included an additional idea texts basically give us information about church
affecting the perception of the modern icon of casings. Thus according to the tale in the Kiev
Christ. Its ornament created a quite special visual Patericon of the Caves Monastery, the great-grand-
and verbal reality. The frame made one’s gaze son of a rich man who had been ill, but was cured
embrace the image as a whole, while additional by the miracle-working icon painter Alimpiy,
messages were received from the periphery of placed ‘golden bands above the kivot over the holy
vision. Thus the frame induced the image to play table to keep it clean’.54 But producing a new casing
an active part in the world, dictating the creative for the chief holy object of Muscovite Russia, the
perception of the object. icon of the Vladimir Mother of God, was considered
But where did the forms of Polenov’s casings a pious act with state significance. In a narrative
come from, what meanings did they have, how did called ‘About the Most Pure Vladimir Icon’ of 1514
they expand within the milieu of Russian culture, we learn that Prince Vasily iii ordered a new case
and finally have any of the intended meanings to be made for the famous holy object, decorated
been lost? In the Russian language the word kiot or ‘with silver and gold’ and inscribed: ‘In the year
kivot (‘casing’) has a double meaning. It can mean 7022 (1514) this kivot was made for the image of the
a box or a frame within which an icon is placed. most holy Mother of God, painted by the evangelist
It can also be applied to the biblical Ark of the Luke’.55 Later, in an inventory of 1627 from the
Covenant (Exodus 25:10). Appearing under various Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin,
spellings, the word is defined in the nineteenth- we read:
century dictionary compiled by Dal’ as ‘Repository
for holy icons’, and it goes on to say that ‘the Jews The image of the most holy Mother of God,
used to keep the tablets of the covenant within a painted by the evangelist Luke, in a casing, the
cedar-wood and golden kivot’, while nowadays in case set about with silver and with shuttering,
synagogues the Pentateuch of Moses is kept there . . . and on the shutters the image of the Annuncia -
they call the kivot Oron-ga-kodesh’.53 In the Middle tion to the most holy Mother of God, also the
Ages the construction of a kivot was a most impor- evangelists in silver high relief, and also on
tant part of ‘church making’, which required the the case a cross of silver wrought into an apple
adornment of a church through such means as all shape . . . 56
kinds of ciboria, decorated altar rails, ‘royal doors’,
hangings and prayer images with cloths. All of these As it happens, important state events were
brought the church closer to the Old Testament associated with the casing of the Vladimir Mother of
Temple of Solomon. In this process a canopy over God. Thus, since the election of Russian patriarchs
an altar, the framing structure of the iconostasis, and prelates took place in the presence of this icon,
and the individual frame of an icon could all be the lots were placed in the casing. According to the
called kivot. The construction of a kivot was always ritual one of them carried the name of the future
considered an act that was pleasing to God; however prelate, who would be made known after one of the

152
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

lots was taken out of the case by an archbishop and The noble government servitor Mikhaylo
the other – the winning one – by the Tsar himself.57 Timofeyevich Likhachov has handed over . . .
With the arrival of a new rhetoric and new from the chambers of the Tsarevna Yekaterina
aesthetics in Muscovite Russia during the second Alekseyevna an image of the most holy Mother
half of the seventeenth century, however, we of God, seated upon a throne, with the eternal
encounter some very important changes. It was Child, in height 2½ vershoks [11 cm], 3½ vershoks
at this time that the gradual destruction of the wide; the image of the great martyr Catherine,
ark of the medieval icon, and its replacement on painted on ochre coloured damask, in gilded
the prayer image by a ‘picture frame’, took place; fluted framing, in width two arshins [142 cm]
the latter could be detached from it in order to less two vershoks [9 cm]; the half -length figure
adorn a secular image on paper, canvas or metal. of the great martyr Demetrios . . . the image of
Under these conditions, there is overwhelming the martyr Barbara . . . in gilded frames, the
archival information about orders for individual image of the most holy Martha, above whom
casing frames, whether for church icons or for are two angels, on each side, who hold branches,
personal prayer images. We can reasonably specu- and in the middle – above – the image of the
late that the mass dissemination of domestic Saviour on a cloud . . . the image of the martyr
casings for personal and family icons answered Barbara, painted on iron . . . And it has been
to the new Renaissance world outlook of Russian commanded to paint a carved casing for the
culture. It was linked with the individualization image of the most holy Mother of God, just as
of religious feeling and the formation of norms the martyr Catherine has, and they should do
for personal piety.58 This first had an impact on for her as has been done for the image of the
court culture. Documents concerning the Armoury martyr Barbara, who is painted on iron, and
Chamber under Tsar Aleksey (reg 1645–76) are for the image of the most holy Martha in the
peppered with orders for frames for prayer images: pattern of the same frame as for the martyr
on 10 October 1684, for example, the tsar’s painter Barbara, who is painted on iron, and for the
Ivan Bezmin was commanded to ‘make frames image of the martyr Catherine a carpented
with small wavy parallel fluting on it, to paint frame with fluting, in size to the height of 5½
them with colours and sprinkle them with glass vershoks [24 cm], in width two arshins less two
beads’ for the image of the holy martyr Sofiya, vershoks, to be completed, and whatever does
‘to be drawn and painted’. In December 1685 the not reach up to the image should have the same
same Ivan Bezmin was given a special order from damask attached to it and have new painting.
the government official Mikhail Timofeyevich And the dimensions of those frames have been
Likhachov for the preparation, and also apparently sent to Ivan Bezmin lest he should forget.59
the renovation, of casings for personal images
from the chambers of Tsarevna Yekaterina Ivan Bogdanov Saltanov (1630–1703), a pupil of
Alekseyevna: Ivan Besmin and a famous artist in the Armoury
Chamber, also made some frames. In January 1676

153
part one: frame and image

Glorification of the Cross with images of SS

Constantine and Helena, and also Tsar Aleksey
Mikhaylovich, Tsaritsa Mariya Ilyinichna and
Patriarch Nikon (illus. 92). Alexander Uspensky
notes that ‘Saltanov painted the frame, of course,
for his work; this is all the more assured since in
1679 he painted a similar picture, with the differ-
ence that the image of the Patriarch had been
replaced by Tsarevich Aleksey Alekseyevich.’ In
January 1690 he was again commanded ‘for the
rooms of the Tsaritsa Natalya Kirillovna to paint
on canvases – the Crucifixion, the Deposition from
the Cross, the Entombment of our Lord and God
Jesus Christ, and to make for them frames with
flutings’.60 All these orders to make a wide variety
of frames, and the possibility of identifying
archival documents with actual surviving objects,
allow us to define the existence in early modern
Russian culture of three types of icon case.
The first is an ornamented frame, resembling a
cut-out section from the horizontal structure of
a later sixteenth-century or early seventeenth-
century iconostasis, or an ‘ark’ separated from
he painted two boards ‘for prayer’ and ‘for the its icon – more precisely the ornamental margins
rooms of the Tsar’, ‘a chair, little tables, a table, a of an icon (illus. 93). The second type of case
board and a support’, and painted ‘with coloured actually inherits the architectural composition
pigments . . . a case for the chapel of St Theodore of the Russian iconostasis of the sixteenth and
Stratilates’; here too he painted ‘flowers for the seventeenth centuries. This can be a rectangular
upper border in the middle of the cross’. In July frame topped with something like a canopy or a
1677 Saltanov gilded a chair for the tsar and at the tabernacle with Renaissance features and elements
same time ‘gilded and silvered three frames as well of the classical order system (illus. 99, 101, 103).
. . . for the Lord’s Crucifix and for the portrait of Finally, the third type of case is a small frame
Tsar Constantine, and also for the portrait of the in profile, which turns into a ‘picture frame’ and
blessed . . . Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, and for deliberately adopts the forms and decor of a
the portrait too of Tsaritsa Yelena, and also for secular interior (illus. 92, 113). All these types
the portrait in memory of the Tsaritsa Mariya of framing for icons carry interesting cultural
Ilyinichna’. In the same year Saltanov painted the historical meanings.

92 Ivan Saltanov(?), Glorification of the Cross, with SS

Constantine and Helena, Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, Tsaritsa
Mariya Ilyinichna and Patriarch Nikon, c. 1650–1700.

154
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

Aloys Riegl, analysing the development of ‘basma’ (a thin layer of metal plate, moulded in
ornament in various civilizations over 5,000 years, low relief, concealing the painted surface), just
came to what was in his time the sensational con- as were the margins and background of old icons.
clusion that ornamental forms are more strongly However, as we have noted, from around the
subject to their own laws than to any urge to imitate middle of the sixteenth century these horizontal
nature. At the same time the creation of ornament members were linked together with smooth laths,
is often based not on functional necessity but on as a result of which each icon received its own
Kunstwollen, the unconscious striving for artistic separate frame. As N. N. Sobolev wrote when
expressiveness, the insuperable ‘will towards artistic discussing this topic,
creation’. This ‘artistic will’ was reflected both in
the formal properties of art and in the aesthetic The location of icons in distinct rows and
theories contemporary with it.61 In view of our places within such multi-tiered iconostases
topic we could also say that it forced ornament to was sanctioned by the Moscow church councils
separate out the frame, which was always fated to of 1547 and 1549. Horizontal beams with broad
underscore representational form. This can clearly smooth boards separating the icons were at
be discerned as early as the appearance of the first first decorated with paintwork; later the chisel
casings, closely linked with the medieval tradition. replaced the brush, and on the smooth surface
It has long been established that the horizontal of the beams appeared the first incisions,
beams of a Russian iconostasis had been adorned linking all the icons together in a single
with carved or painted decoration as far back as compositional unit with their beautiful frames
the fifteenth century. They were also covered with [my emphasis].62

93 Deisis. second half of 16th century. State Tretyakov

Gallery, Moscow.

155
part one: frame and image

It was these carved and painted frames that in noted that, in parallel with the icons of the icono-
the sixteenth century began to be detached from stasis being allocated separate small frames, the
the structure of the iconostasis, and were increas- ornamental margins of the medieval icon also
ingly transferred to separate icons, so being turned began gradually to become distinct: thus such an
into ark-casings. A carved frame of this type, icon received an extra frame to embellish it, as if in
for example, may be seen on the portable icon response to the Kunstwollen, but still existing with-
of the Mother of God of the Sign (sixteenth century; in the sacred space of medieval culture. Just such a
Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow) (illus. 94). Such an frame accompanies a Deisis of the second half of
ornamental frame, reminiscent of iconostasis the sixteenth century in the Tretyakov Gallery,
beams, is also to be seen on the icon of the which resembles a cutaway section of an iconostasis
Saviour Not Made by Hands of the last quarter of beam or margins removed from an icon (illus. 95,
the sixteenth century (illus. 98). It should also be 96). Incidentally, it is the appearance of such

94 Mother of God of the Sign, mid-16th century.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

156
95 Saviour Not Made by Hands,
late 16th century. Private collection.

96 Deisis, second half of 16th century, detail of case.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
part one: frame and image

marginal frames, as they begin to stand apart, that surrounding space. But by approximately the end
indicates the arrival of the early modern period, of the sixteenth century an ornamental framing
and also of those cultural orientations that prepare case increasingly became the decoration for an
for the arrival of the picture frame of the Western icon, and later would acquire the function of a
European image in Russian culture. And this is frame for a secular illustration.
no accident: if in the West the picture frame grew Between the seventeenth and nineteenth
out of the structure of the Gothic altar, in Russia centuries cases and frames covered with brilliant
it developed from the symbolic structure of the ornament were widely disseminated in popular and
iconostasis or the icon case. At first this differentia- Old Believer culture. In this context we should also
tion takes place in the field of visual perception: the remember the attraction that folk art has towards
frame is covered with brilliant ornament, making ornamentalism, about which Białostocki has
the image stand out, conflicting indeed with the written.63 There are so many examples of this that

97 Icon case, 18th century, Vologda province. Private collection.

158
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

there would be no point in listing them all here. frame, but also with a brightly coloured curtain
We shall note only that just such casings were and such additions as fresh flowers, branches of
invariably used to adorn the ‘fine corner’ of a peas- pussy willow or osiers brought from a church on
ant house. According to popular beliefs, the frame Palm Sunday. The ‘fine corner’ is a ‘window’ into
of a sacred location possessed a ritual and magical the world of heavenly beauty, possessing a ritual
function, linked with the mythopoetic symbolism function, and its frame is the same as a ‘casing’, an
of the window as a way to make contact with super- ‘ark’ or the ‘metal covering’ of an icon. In Russian
natural forces.64 It was a place where in everyday popular art of the eighteenth century such a sacred
life a ‘hierophany’ took place, if one may borrow place could be converted into a luxuriant carved
Eliade’s term – that is, a manifestation of the ‘sacred’ frame (illus. 97). In the hands of an anonymous
in the secular.65 Thus there was always a desire to master craftsman it would turn into the embodi-
adorn the ‘fine corner’ not only with an ornamental ment of the Baroque tendencies that were formed

98 Framing case with icon, c. 1650–1700, church of Nikola Mokryy,

Yaroslavl.

159
part one: frame and image

in the second half of the seventeenth century. during the Renaissance, enclosing a mimetic image.
Convincing testimony to this is an icon case from It is evident that forms deriving from the order
the church of Nikola Mokryy in Yaroslavl, known system appeared in Muscovite Russia simultaneously
from a photograph taken by Ivan Barshchevsky at both in the system of the Russian iconostasis and
the end of the nineteenth century (illus. 98). in the frames of icons and shapes of window
In the Baroque period such frames were surrounds, with the Renaissance frame beginning
evidently regarded as independent works of art, to be adapted to new cultural circumstances. Here
sometimes taking up more space than the objects it also began to undergo changes typical of any
for which they were intended.66 Meanwhile, from cultural phenomenon that has arrived in a new
the 1670s Moscow witnessed an influx of ‘masters cultural context. As a result, Russian casings with
of the trade of architecture’ and also wood-carvers an architectural composition divide themselves
from the Belorussian, Ukrainian and Polish lands. into rectangular frames with a topmost element
This was underscored by the introduction of like a canopy, and Renaissance-style tabernacles
‘German’ vocabulary into the Russian language. with elements of the order system.
In the agreement between Miron Klimov and Ivan Icon cases of the first type represent an ancient
Tyutrin, craftsmen at the Armoury Chamber, and universal construct of the Heavenly House, in which
the boyar Pyotr Sheremetev about the construction the canopy has from ancient times symbolized
of an iconostasis for the church of the Veil (Pokrov) paradise or the cosmic home, something already
at the Novodevichiy Convent, we find several discussed in connection with the iconostasis of
distorted Western European linguistic forms
concerning frames.67 In the history of Russian
culture this indicated the appearance of the classical
order system, as formulated in ancient Greece,
which lay at the basis of the window-type frame

99 Case for two icons, late 17th century. Museum of 100 Frame, Florence c, 1500–20.
Pictorial Arts, Archangel.

160
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

Grigoriy Shumayev. It is encountered long before from the Smolensk Cathedral of the Novodevichiy
the Renaissance. As to its place in Russian culture, Convent, which was a casing in which two rows
the period of its greatest extent is the seventeenth of the tsar’s family icons were placed. The upper
century, when it appears to detach itself from the tier included icons of the Mother of God and the
richly decorated canopy structure of ‘royal doors’. Blessed Aleksey, belonging to Marfa Ivanovna
It was just such a form that Polenov took as the Sitskaya, mother of Tsar Mikhail Romanov, while
basis of his casing for Repin’s image of the Saviour the lower contained the icon of the Mother of God
Not Made by Hands. This was the form of the the Protecting Veil (Pokrov) and the Old Testament
‘domestic iconostasis’ of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich Trinity, relating to the election to the throne of

101 e ‘domestic iconostasis’ of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich,

mid-17th century. State Historical Museum, Moscow.

161
part one: frame and image

the Romanov family. It followed the example of the stages of development are speeded up, the old
Renaissance tabernacles, and was one of the most is in no hurry to give way to the new. So it was, for
widespread types of familial and personal casing in example, in the Orthodox Balkan lands, and in the
the second half of the seventeenth century (illus. 99, zones of Catholic influence in the Mediterranean
100, 101). (In popular culture, indeed, it remained area. And here it is that the frame of the Orthodox
in use throughout the following century.) Rich icon speaks to us about Christian culture’s tendency
ornamentation was regularly applied, but the precise towards unification. In the museum of the Hellenic
form was always subject to change depending on Institute in Venice there is an early sixteenth-century
the number of icons involved. icon of the Nativity of Christ by a Greek master,
The Russian icon case with elements of the set in a Renaissance tabernacle of that period (illus.
order system show the Western influence on Russian 102). The depiction of the prophets testifies to the
culture and was a departure from the medieval icon painter’s attempts to adapt a Renaissance
tradition. It is true that in many cases it still frame-as-window to a medieval image. They are
contained a traditional rather than modern (i.e. placed above columns, and augment the classical
Baroque) icon, but such are the peculiarities of order system with a medieval system of representa-
the internal mechanisms of any culture. Even when tion: just as in late seventeenth-century Muscovite

102 Nativity of Christ, early 16th century. Icon Collection of the

Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies,
Venice.

162
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

Russia, the ‘window’ like frame, which should only to reappear again in the art of Classicism and
demand true perspective, has been adapted to the Empire style. Russian cases from the end of the
receive a medieval icon. Moreover, the figures of eighteenth century to the first quarter of the nine-
the biblical prophets on the frame evidently sym- teenth nearly always seek to present the appearance
bolized the ‘religion of the Law’, which was visibly of an antique temple, reminiscent of Renaissance
displaced (within the frame) by the ‘religion of tabernacles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
Grace’; an analogy to this may be found in the (illus. 103, 104). Icons corresponding in style were
arrangement of many Western European altars of placed within them: sometimes they are copies
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, where New of Renaissance works, or are works by Russian
Testament figures were presented within a frame- masters from the Petersburg Academy of Arts, for
work that depicted Old Testament subjects.68 whom in the classical period beauty meant in
From the second half of the seventeenth century particular ‘the correct measure, disposition and
the Russian icon case employing the ancient order interrelation of objects’.69 From the time of the
system was subjected to general European aesthetic early excavations at Pompeii (1748), Renaissance
norms. During the eighteenth it would disappear architecture was often perceived as a ‘distorted’
under the weight of Baroque and Rococo ornament, idea of ‘genuine’ Greek art. Consequently, not only

103 Russian icon case, c. 1800–25. Private collection. 104 Diagram of two types of Renaissance frame with
elements of the classical orders.

163
105 Alexander Ivanov, Resurrection of Christ with Righteous Figures Soaring Above Empty
Tombs, 1845, a sketch for an image to be placed behind the altar of the church of Christ the
Saviour, Moscow. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
106 Yelena Polenova, e Holy Princes of Yaroslavl: eodore, David and Constantine, 1880s.
State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.
part one: frame and image

Russian iconostases but also icon cases modelled sanctuary of the church of Christ the Saviour in
on the façades of ancient temples began to aim to Moscow (1845; Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, illus. 105).
convince viewers of the beauty of the Christian He has not only thought out a new composition
image. Saints in the pictures of Yegorov, Shebuyev, for the Resurrection, but also reconciled its form
Borovikovsky and other artists are clothed in with that of a Renaissance tabernacle, locating a
ancient dress, and sometimes operate within a circle enclosing the main part of the scene beneath
metaphysical space similar to that of actors in the ‘dome’ of the Heavenly Mansion. The framing
Greek tragedy. For the sake of a more believable of the icon by Polenova of the Holy Princes of
narrative they are located within the period of late Yaroslavl: Theodore, David and Constantine is
antiquity, with all the attributes of which Russian distinguished by similar originality (illus. 106).
academic art was well aware. What Romanticism The holy personages are located in a luxuriant
brings to the construction of the icon case, as far as picturesque frame, and also within a wooden case
the order system is concerned, may be called inter- with columns and a canopy. The picturesque
ference from the author’s inspiration. In the quest frame with its stylized, living flowers, and the case
for originality the Romantic artist attempts to with its motif of the gardens of paradise, induce
discover some unique link between frame and considerable movement in one’s gaze. If the
image. Just such meanings are carried by a sketch wooden frame gives ‘shelter’ to the Russian saints,
by Alexander Ivanov for an image intended for the the picturesque one by contrast ‘pushes them

107 Vladimir Mother of God, 1395 or 1408. Museums of 108 Vladimir Mother of God with Scenes from the Gospels
the Moscow Kremlin. and Holy Figures on the Margins, c. 1514. Museums of the
Moscow Kremlin.

166
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

out’ into the world, creating an active effect on icon by Kirill Ulanov with two other well-known
surrounding reality. copies of the Vladimir Mother of God. Thus on
Finally, we reach the third type of casing, or the earlier of the Muscovite copies (1395 or 1408),
more precisely the appearance in Russian art supposedly made by Andrey Rublyov or a master
of the picture frame, which in the second half of in his circle, what the chronicler calls the ‘similarity
the seventeenth century temporarily and capri- and measure’ of the original are observed (illus.
ciously takes upon itself the sacred function of 107). The image of the Mother of God is placed
‘concealing’ the holy object, since it abandons it in an ark-type frame, corresponding with the ark
at the first opportunity, overturning it in favour of the ancient icon. On the other copy, made
of the secular representation. It is this kind of around 1514, we notice that its frame, or margins,
frame that we see on an icon by the tsar’s painter contains an artistic repetition of the feast days
Kirill Ulanov of ‘the Vladimir Mother of God with represented on the gold covering ordered by the
a Depicted Account of her Miracles (illus. 109). Its Metropolitan Fotiy (1410–31, illus. 108). Finally,
appearance on the horizon of Russian culture was we observe that in the copy by Kirill Ulanov the
proclaimed in the dissolution of the symbolism of frame, with its smaller scenes of the miracles, has
the ark round the icon board, and more broadly detached itself from the central representation,
in the dissolution of the medieval system of resem- and between them is placed a carved and gilded
blances. This is made clear by a comparison of the inner frame (illus. 110).

109 Kirill Ulanov, Vladimir Mother of God with a 110 Detail of framing.
Depicted Account of her Miracles, 1717.
Pereslavl-Zalessky Art Museum.

167
part one: frame and image

We see almost the same on a

Renaissance frame, by an unknown
master, showing the Instruments of
Christ’s Passion, in which is included
an image of the Virgin and Child,
attributed to Lazzaro Bastiani
(1430–1512, illus. 111). The 1514 icon
and its picturesque frame show that
the master, while copying a model,
still had at his command the
medieval system of likenesses – the
chief category of medieval thinking.
Since the world was perceived
through likenesses, the master,
imitating a medieval sacred model,
was concerned in the first place
about establishing resemblance.
For that reason the picturesque
frame of his copied icon repeats
the metal covering on the wonder-
working image, observing ‘measure’
(that is, the dimensions of the icon)
and ‘likeness’ (that is, resemblance)
in the process. There is no place in
his consciousness for imagination: model and copy amplification with each other. As earlier, the pictur-
are for him inseparable, because to make a likeness esque frame with its individual scenes of miracles
means to identify, not merely to compare. That was corresponds to the metaphysical beauty of the
how the mechanism of identification operated in central countenance. This countenance, however,
the Middle Ages. A master of the Baroque period has been created by an artist who is part way to
such as Kirill Ulanov was governed by different departing from the medieval canon: the contours
principles, and his category of likeness was intended of a natural human face are detectable in it.
to present an object more clearly to the understand- Therefore the ‘smaller frame’ between the pictur-
ing. The separation of the picturesque frame from esque frame and the central element – known in the
the central element, and the appearance between seventeenth century as flemovannaya ramka, possibly
them of a ‘picture frame’, is a sign of the fact that from the same root as ‘Flemish’ – indicates that the
the ‘depicted account’ and the image itself enter artistic idea of the absolute beauty of the central
into a relationship of mutual commentary and countenance had begun to be the possession of the

111 Lazzaro Bastiani, Virgin and Child, late 15th-century Italian frame.
Gemäldegalerie, Berlin.

168
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

artist. This idea assigned the central image to the concept of authorship in Russian art and the eleva-
sphere of art. Nowadays it may seem to us modest tion of the artist above his familiar craft status.70
and ordinary, but three hundred or more years ago An even more obvious example of the demise of
even the smallest detail was perceived as being full the ark and the appearance of the ‘picture frame’ is
of meanings and implications. Most likely the inner seen in the structure of the icon of the Tree of Jesse
frame made clear that the narrative scenes round (Drevo Iyeseyevo; second half of seventeenth century;
the icon are not merely depicted miracles, but also a Tretyakov Gallery, illus. 113, 115). A comparison
valuable framing device, decoration and adornment between it and a traditional icon of SS Prokopiy and
of the central image. It not only awakened the imagi- John of Ustyug from the same period shows how the
nation, emphasizing the real presence of the icon of picture frame was replacing the medieval ark (illus.
the Mother of God, but also imposed a vision of the 112, 114). For the time being it constitutes a unified
artistic excellence attained by the master craftsman. whole together with its board; but it is on the point
Another testimony to this was a signature on an of separating itself from the board and acquiring the
icon, reflecting the very beginning of the developing function of the framing of a religious picture or a

112 SS Prokopiy and Ioann of Ustyug, c. 1650–1700. State 113 Tree of Jesse (Genealogy of Jesus Christ),
Open-air Museum of Architectural History and Art c. 1650–1700. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
‘Kolomenskoye’, Moscow.

169
114 Detail from ark of SS Prokopiy and Ioann 115 Detail of the frame of the Tree of Jesse.
of Ustyug.
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

secular portrait on canvas.71 A characteristic Moscow in the middle of the seventeenth century
example is the picture titled the Glorification and certainly had a huge influence on the appear-
of the Cross with SS Constantine and Helena, Tsar ance of the Western European picture and frame in
Aleksey Mikhaylovich, Tsaritsa Mariya Ilyinichna Russia.73 Thus even at the time of Peter the Great,
and Patriarch Nikon (second half of seventeenth paintings, and icons in picture frames, had become
century, illus. 92). Until 1917 the picture was at the a normal phenomenon in the furnishing of palace
Novodevichiy Convent, and it is quite possible that interiors. In the hallway of the Petrine palace at
it was painted by Ivan Saltanov in fulfilment of one Preobrazhenskoye, near Moscow, for example,
of the commissions discussed above. In this connec- according to documentary evidence there was ‘a
tion there is every reason to affirm that a structure great image of the most holy Mother of God paint-
like this was one of the early kinds of picture ed on white cloth framed in black . . . the image of
frame in Russian art. Ivan Zabelin commented the Saviour on copper behind mica framed in black
pertinently that in the ‘bed chambers’ of Tsar . . . an image of the Mother of God on paper framed
Aleksey Mikhaylovich: in black’. In the dining room were ‘an image of the
Saviour on cloth in an ancient gilded frame . . . a
there normally hung pictures, parsuny, persony, framed image of the most holy Mother of God on
that is to say portraits, and ‘Frankish leaves’ fine cloth’. There were also secular pictures hanging
[prints] in ‘unglazed frames’. The
content of the pictures was sub-
ordinated to the same dominant
edificatory religious character of
the painting . . . The subjects rep-
resented were mostly taken from
Old Testament biblical history
and had the general title of ‘para-
bles’. Irrespective of that, these
pictures were quite sharply dif-
ferentiated from icons, since they
were done in a painterly style by
foreign artists living in Moscow
at the invitation of the Tsar.72

The Dutch artists Pieter

Dettersohn and Daniel Wuchters
and the Poles Stanisław Lopucki and
Wasili Poznański are only the best-
known painters who came to

116 Filippo Lippi, Annunciation, 1457, sketch for an altarpiece.

Archivio di Stato, Florence.

171
part one: frame and image

in frames: ‘two pictures in black frames on paper, In the same process the ‘pictorial frame’ set the
depicting galleys’, ‘two pictures in black frames medieval icon face to face with the surrounding
depicting ships’.74 During the Renaissance frames world, with poetry, philosophy and the whole of
were sometimes designed, decorated and gilded by the worldly culture that was actively developing in
the most eminent artists and sculptors. The docu- the complex processes of secularization and the
ments tell us that the frame for Leonardo da Vinci’s conflicts of real life. Through attachment to the
Virgin of the Rocks (c. 1485; Louvre, Paris) had been Renaissance ideal of beauty, the inner frame associ-
made by the sculptor Giacomo del Maino before ated Russian culture with the values of the classical
the artist had begun his work; but it was Leonardo heritage. It also pointed to a new understanding
himself who had to gild the frame.75 Botticelli, of creativity and the value of feelings. With the
Filippo Lippi and Dürer designed frames for their ‘pictorial frame’ the traditional icon strove in the
pictures (illus. 116).76 As was demonstrated earlier, direction of uniqueness. With it too the meaning
the painters employed by Tsar Aleksey undertook of the icon as art was becoming clear. As something
the same tasks, underlining the important changes new and unusual, the pictorial frame was in its way
in culture connected with the separation of the an embellishment of the traditional icon. Hence it
frame from the image and their particular regard was meant to evoke astonishment and, even more,
for its aesthetic and symbolic side. pleasure from contemplation of the image.
Thus the inner frame on the icon of the Tree of In medieval aesthetics we note ‘an extremely
Jesse (as also on Kirill Ulanov’s icon) posed the functionalistic understanding of art, whereby the
problem of aesthetic perception, which had been elements giving pleasure do not belong to the
conditioned by the change in status of art itself. This specifically artistic idea’.77 In Renaissance and
casing frame (or ark frame) no longer presupposed Baroque art theory these elements have come to
the partial covering over of the paintwork by a sheet have very great significance. They are part of the
of metal, as we see on the icon of SS Prokopiy and artistic purpose and reveal themselves through the
John of Ustyug, but ‘demanded’ that the icon should power of the creative imagination. In this sense a
be perceived both as the target of prayer and as a pictorial frame on a canonical icon moves subjec-
splendid object. And it is just this dualism that tivity and emotionality into the foreground for
admitted the subjectivity of the potential viewer. the first time. Gradually, the self-awareness of both
Unlike the medieval ark, the inner frame forced the artist and of the viewer makes itself evident. The
one’s gaze to embrace the icon as a whole, which inner frame has shown that the medieval canonical
presupposed its evaluation. Therefore, on the path representation has not been able to satisfy people:
from the Middle Ages to Romanticism it is the con- it refuses them the possibility of cognition. For that
necting link between the age of medieval aesthetics reason if the medieval casing presupposed a knowl-
and the art of modern times. This inner frame edge of beauty as the eternal essence of things,
clearly showed that ‘beauty’ was gradually changing then the pictorial frame went out in search of it:
from a medieval attribute of an abstract world view it attempted to give elucidation to that which is
into beauty as a self-sufficient aesthetic category. unseen. And it is just in this field of relations

172
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

between the medieval icon and the pictorial frame

that the latter convinces us that very soon the reli-
gious image will be created with the Renaissance
‘window’ frame taken into account – something
that allows the gaze to take it in as a totality and
thus to make an evaluation of it. The inner frame
will ‘subordinate’ the representation to the laws of
optics and the gaze of the spectator.
From this transitional point the ‘pictorial frame’
senses itself to be in full ‘authority’ both in the space
of a Russian church and in a palace. As Catherine
the Great noted, the interior of a religious building
was ‘often hard to distinguish from a ballroom’.78
This is no accident: the picture frame might some-
times get away from church symbolism, and in the
late Baroque could even go over onto the territory
of walls and ceiling, but Rococo ornament knew
no obstacles. Rastrelli used it both for adorning
the icons of the church of the Resurrection in
Tsarskoye Selo, and equally for the adornment
of walls, furniture and decorative panels in the
palaces. A famous court carver, Dunker, followed
his designs in making the frames for the church Chernigov province, in which Empress Elizabeth
of the Resurrection. They were valued so highly as often used to stay ‘on the road to Kiev’ (illus. 117).80
works of art that when fire broke out in 1820 and The inner frame, painted onto the icon, ‘dissolved’
1863 they ‘were taken with haste out of the walls the image into the general decor of the wall, and
and saved’.79 This comment by Alexander Benua also into that sensuous feeling of pleasure towards
once again emphasizes that in the period of the which the whole furnishing of the palace was
‘Elizabethan’ Baroque religious pictures were set orientated. Such icons had clearly moved away
into walls in the same way as decorative panels. from the concept of contemplation. In the process
Thus having first destroyed the medieval ark, of prayer the soul was elevated by the experience
or having abandoned it to the zone where ‘Old of beauty and immersed itself ever more deeply in
Ritualist’ faith and strictness ruled, the ‘Baroque the contemplated image. The inner frame enhanced
inner frame’ could perfectly well turn up in the the joy received from the encounter with the icon.
space of the icon itself. Just such an icon may be A quite different significance is borne by the
seen on an old photograph of the interior of one frame of the Ascent to Heaven of the Holy Tsaritsa
of the Razumovsky family’s palaces in the Alexandra (1845) by Karl Bryullov (illus. 118). The

117 Icon and wall painting in Razumovsky Palace,

Chernigov province, mid-18th century.

173
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

painting was commissioned by the officers of the Romantic artist feels within himself. After all,
the Preobrazhensky regiment for a chapel in the he is an agent of the world’s evolution, and his
Alexander Palace at Tsarskoye Selo, set up in the picture potentially contains an idea dictating
room where the Princess Alexandra Nikolayevna certain meanings to this world. This is all the more
had died at nineteen years old. The artist has given evident if the world itself can be viewed, following
to the saint the facial features of the grand princess. Schelling, as a work of art, and the artist as one
After being mounted in a heavy silver frame, like the who expresses absolute and objective truth. For
casing or metal cover of an icon, the prayer portrait that reason the game played out between picture
image was presented to Emperor Nicholas i and and frame that we observe in the first half of the
placed on the lectern of the prayer room. nineteenth century will make itself fully apparent
This picture and its frame show obvious features at the last stage of the development of the Romantic
of Romanticism. On the one hand the frame corre- aesthetic, that is to say the time of stil’ modern.
sponds with the perspectival drawing of the picture; The basic meaning of the sketch of a frame
on the other it is close to being an icon case, thanks decorated with stylized lilies by Andrey Mamontov
to its Christian symbolism. At the top centre is is the transformation of the world under the ban-
located the symbol of God the Father – a three- ner of sublimity (illus. 119, 120). The same meaning
pointed nimbus with rays coming out of it and is also present in the icon frame by Polenova repre-
carrying the abbreviated word for ‘God’.81 In the senting the canonized Russian princes (illus. 106),
deeper part of the frame the words of a prayer and also essentially in all the framings in the
seem to issue forth from the mouth of the Abramtsevo church, that temple to the religion of
holy Alexandra, the subject of the
picture. So the frame conveys a
quiet conversation with God. This
is a ‘frame as prayer’, an address to
God begging for mercy and salva-
tion. At the same time it presents
a metaphysical liminal space into
which the saint’s soul is ascending.
For that reason the frame is adorn -
ed with stars, and its gilding is
associated with the gold of an icon.
We may detect sincere religious
feelings in the picture, and a sense
of the frame timidly – as yet –
striving in the direction of the
surrounding reality. But they are
predicated by the same mission as

opposite: 118 Karl Bryullov, Ascent to Heaven of the 119–120 Andrey Mamontov, designs for framing, 1899.
Holy Tsaritsa Alexandra, 1845. State Open-air State Open-air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History
Museum of Art and Architecture, Tsarskoye Selo. ‘Abramtsevo’, Moscow province.
175
part one: frame and image

beauty in which the religious world of ornament This ‘theurgic task’ of the frame will become
as praise of God (‘Let everything that hath breath more evident if we examine the decoration of the
praise the Lord’, Psalms 150:6) was complemented Abramtsevo church from the point of view of the
by the natural philosophical mysticism of the display of icons as works of art. Russian church
Renaissance, by German Romanticism and by the decoration of the eighteenth and nineteenth cen-
ideas of Vladimir Solovyov. The very beauty of art turies continued to embody the Christian view of
itself was concentrated in the space of the iconic the world, but only in the language of the canons
and pictorial frame – art that could transform the of academic art. From the point of view of these
external world and whose beauty wholly captivated canons the forms of the traditional icon were
it in both the Romantic and the absolute sense. declared ‘naive’ and ‘clumsy’ even by those artists
Consequently, that frame by Mamontov could who created the Abramtsevo church, specifically
display ambivalence, being able to contain either Vasnetsov, Polenov and Repin. But at the same
a religious image or a secular picture. The world time certain traditional icons were included in the
depicted on the icons and paintings of a Vasnetsov iconostasis as monuments of the national religious
or a Nesterov appeared essentially one and the ‘spirit’ and of popular creativity. On this level the
same: it was seen in an eschatological perspective, Abramtsevo iconostasis foreshadowed the arrival at
that is, the same as it appeared to Vladimir the beginning of the twentieth century of a new
Solovyov at the end of time – translucent and aesthetic and religious (theurgic) way of exhibiting
transfigured.82 Old Russian icons, which in the conditions of
Lilies, so popular a flower in Art Nouveau, Romantic aesthetics and new advances in art history
appeared on frames equally altered and transfig- began to be regarded as works of free, unfettered art.
ured. The aura of their new meanings was already
observed by V. N. Veselovsky: ‘The rose and the
The Museum
lily . . . have not as yet faded, and as before serve
the same symbolic goals as they had expressed We have become used to seeing icons in a museum,
over the centuries. The means remained; the or a church, a shop, or a private house. In each,
content of the symbol had become something however, one’s perception of them is different.
other, more abstract, personal, nervous, less concen- This happens because the very way in which the
trated.’83 Thus if the flowers in Rastrelli’s Rococo icon itself is displayed changes, something that also
frames are rather an external and elegant decora- helps one concentrate on one or another aspect of
tion, on the Abramtsevo frames and cases they the object of representation. The whole history of
are one of the chief ways in which poetic motifs the framing of the Old Russian icon tells us that it
are brought into the image. In the space between was only from the start of the twentieth century
representation and human being the stylized that it began to be perceived as a ‘masterpiece’, that
flowers on the frames perform a complex theurgic is as a product of independent artistic creation.
task: they draw the eye into the image in a manner Before that it fulfilled a quite different role in the
that is sensitive to aesthetics and to creativity. culture. The collection and safe keeping of ancient

176
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

icons started in Russia in the ‘Old Ritualist’ circles less than ‘the theurgic work of art’, the ideal beauty
as far back as the second half of the seventeenth of which was capable of renewing the world.
century, while its full flowering came in the middle It was just such an understanding of the Old
and second half of the nineteenth. However for an Russian icon that was reflected in the famous exhi-
Old Ritualist, looking at it from a truly religious bition called ‘The Novgorod Icon Hall’, designed by
perspective, the icon was not a work of art, but the architect Aleksey Shchusev (1873–1949) in 1914
something infinitely higher. Its artistic side was at Emperor Alexander iii’s Russian Museum in St
valued to the extent that it called forth religious Petersburg (illus. 121). As was discussed above, a
feeling and brought one closer to God. An exclu- visitor to Abramtsevo could fully appreciate the
sively aesthetic perception of the medieval icon, country estate church as museum, in which were
from the Old Ritualist point of view, could even gathered together works by famous artists and
be seen as blasphemous. Icon collecting, as it items of folk art and craft. Visitors at Shchusev’s
developed in Russia in the second half of the nine- exhibition were instead invited to perceive the
teenth century, whether privately or for a museum, museum as church, a space that brought together
also failed to regard the ancient icon as a work of the features of medieval church decoration, an
art, only as an object from the popular way of life, Old Ritualist prayer room and an archaeological
capable of informing the archaeologist about the museum. A comparison of their rhetoric and
history of the people. In its turn, academic artistic meanings illuminates aspects of both how icons
opinion in the nineteenth century considered old were displayed in the age of stil’ modern and also
icons to be clumsy works: from the moment that the nature of contemporary museums.
academic theory began to distinguish between If the contemporary museum exhibition is
antique, medieval and contemporary architecture, based upon a well-defined scholarly conception,
ancient architecture itself, and correspondingly the by contrast the decoration of a medieval church
icon too, were thought of as ‘deprived of rights’. was based on the idea of the Christian cosmos.
This was the case in the eighteenth century. The The display of icons in a church embodied the
situation, however, changed radically in the context Christian picture of the world, in which only the
of Russian theurgic aesthetics at the beginning of richly meaningful connection of the icons with its
the twentieth century. After 1905 collectors of a new other elements, such as wall paintings and mosaics,
generation, including the artist Ilya Ostroukhov objects for liturgical use and vestments for the
(1858–1929) and the Old Ritualist financier Stepan clergy, was symbolically on display. The artistic
Ryabushinsky (1874–1943), applied new methods of side of the icon had only a secondary significance.
restoration, allowing the authentic early painting It was part of that visual symbolic field that also
to be uncovered. They also became not only the determined a person’s ‘logic of seeing’. Icons made
first collectors of ancient icons as masterpieces, him or her see the world in this way. In this sense
but the main propagandists for them. The new beauty, not as a means for cognition of the world,
generation of scholars, collectors, artists, writers but as a metaphysical property, was a concomitant
and philosophers saw in the ancient icon nothing both of the artistic space of the church and also of

177
121 Novgorod Icon Hall, 1914, an exhibition of icons in the Russian Museum of Emperor Alexander iii,
designed by Aleksey Shchusev, St Petersburg.
chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

the artistic form of the Old Russian icon. The

icon’s beauty could only be transcendental, and
was perceived only in the aspect of the religious
picture of the world as a property of sacred space.
Within a church the meaningful centre of this
space was the iconostasis, that picture of paradise
and of the economy of salvation that we discussed
earlier. Meanwhile, in the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries the Old Russian icon migrates
from the space of the official church into the space
of the Old Ritualist prayer room, in which the
meaning and the strict symbolism of the iconosta-
sis are destroyed. The liturgy is not celebrated in it,
and consequently the iconostasis no longer serves
as the ‘theatrical’ stage on which the sacred action
would be played out from century to century, not
only by the personages depicted, but also by live
priests, deacons and choristers. In a prayer room
the iconostasis turns into a solid icon wall with the
‘royal doors’ closed, in correspondence with the
rules of Old Ritualist devotion. Hence the viewer’s
whole attention was directed not at the link
between the iconostasis and the liturgy and
elements of the church decoration, but rather at
the icon itself. Its significance in the process of
meditation increased considerably. Correspondingly,
there is also a heightening of the significance of its
framing: the case frame, the precision of the image
and the actual place of its display.
In the Old Ritualist prayer room an ancient
icon was taken as a perfected revelation, communi-
cated to the Old Believer alone through a language
of symbols, letters and words. For the Old Believer
what was important was not so much the authentic
ancient paintwork as the medieval canon, that is
to say ancient art as ‘knowledge of the rules of the
craft’, which a priori had an objective significance.

179
part one: frame and image

Fedor Buslayev (1818–1897) found a special term Believer was a clear sign system proper to the
for it: ‘church art’. In the middle of the nineteenth ancient image: a clearly defined countenance or
century this scholar wrote that the Old Ritualists an ‘ancient inscription’ that it was essential to be
able to read. For that reason the real artistic form
know by name the best masters of Stroganov of the ancient icon was always being corrected
and Novgorod art, and will spare no expense by the Old Ritualists. It was often even distorted
in obtaining icons by some well-known master according to ideas that had taken shape. For the
or other, and, reverencing it as if it were a holy Old Ritualists it was more important to apply
relic, they can at the same time also discourse their knowledge of the sacred rules of the craft,
on its artistic merits, to the extent that their which permitted them to ‘discover’ the artistic
technical and archaeological remarks could form as transcendental object and protect it
provide valuable material for the history of from the surrounding world. This is shown by
Russian church art. a special type of framing of an ancient icon that

Further on we read:

I have chanced to be in many of

the Moscow prayer rooms, and
have always carried away from
them the most joyous impres-
sion, inspired by that freshness
of artistic enthusiasm with
which their honourable owners
relate to the treasures they have
collected. They take down
icons from their places on the
wall so as the better to examine
all the details of their execution
or to make out the ancient
inscription.84

Within the limits of Old

Ritualist culture, however, the
Old Believers’ understanding of the
‘art’ of the icon, which so excited
Buslayev, was not the chief thing.
Far more important for the Old

122 Annunciation, 16th century, an Old Ritualist ‘inserted’ icon.

Private collection, Moscow.

180
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

Old Believer icon-makers would call ‘insertion’. board (illus. 122). In the nineteenth century the
The paint surface of an ancient icon would be whole icon, including the margins, was painted
partially cleared and repainted with fresh pigments over with new pigments. Nowadays, cleared of later
so that the countenance, background and inscrip- accretions by a restorer, it graphically displays the
tions might acquire the shape that the Old function of a new frame in the preservation of a
Believers found so significant. To preserve it better, holy object (illus. 123).
and to give back to the icon its traditional form, In an analogous way, the prayer room of an
the ancient representation would be inserted into Old Ritualist was also a secluded space, concealed
another board that then played the part of a frame, from the eyes of outsiders, for which a special place
or more precisely of a new ark for the ancient was set aside in a private house. As Buslayev also
icon. This construction was not intended to be observed, the prayer room as a rule occupied a
an instrument of cognition, like a Renaissance location far away from the front door. Sometimes
‘window’ frame, but remained a medieval device it would be entered via the back porch; often it
for preserving the sacred countenance. A sixteenth- would be beside the bedroom or the storeroom
century icon of the Annunciation is a typical Old where money and valuables were kept. Whenever
Ritualist ‘insertion’ of an ancient image into a new the prayer room served as a place for collective

123 Detail of framing case.

181
part one: frame and image

worship, it would be separated from the living in its arrangement on the system of knowledge
quarters by a hallway. The whole space would be dominant at a particular period, the exhibits within
filled with icons: it are constantly being recombined, each time
forming a specific system of conventions, in which
The prayer room itself, from around 3–4 feet scholarly discoveries often stand cheek by jowl
above the floor right up to the very ceiling, is with the mythologemes of cultural history.
entirely covered with icons, usually on three The exhibiting of a private collection of rarities
sides so that during prayer one can stand with in the middle of the nineteenth century was char-
one’s back to the wall that does not have any. acterized more by an emotional re-experiencing
A multitude of lamps and candles glow in front of ancient times than a well-thought-through plan
of the icons.85 for studying them. The objects within it were united
by the special passion of the collector of antiquities,
This impressive icon exhibition undoubtedly who gathered about him an ‘archaeological
corresponded with the tastes of the householder, museum’ of the kind that originated in the
but basically it embodied the concept of the European Chamber of Curiosities in the sixteenth
traditional icon as prayer image, whose beauty century, and was in turn derived from the famous
was revealed only in the ritual process. cabinet of rarities (1570–75) of Duke Francesco i
From the middle of the nineteenth century of Tuscany at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence,
into the second half, the period when Old Ritualist designed by Vasari. ‘Chambers of Curiosities’ were
collecting most flourished, the ancient icon finally inspired by the Renaissance pattern of thinking,
entered into the museum, where it embarked on a and in the age of Renaissance and Baroque human-
quite different life. The space of a museum exhibi- ism and of the Enlightenment not only reflected
tion is fundamentally unlike that of a church or the universal capabilities of human cognition, but
prayer room. Within it the icon, like other ancient the very order of the surrounding world.86 In Russia
art objects, such as a miniature, medal, engraving, they do not appear until the eighteenth century,
portrait and wooden sculpture, loses its primary when the Russian upper class started to make
functions and ruptures its links with its previous domestic arrangements along European lines.
framing. Nonetheless, they acquire additional In the Chamber of Curiosities of 1750 at his house
meanings, since they turn into ‘monuments’, on the Fontanka, St Petersburg, for example, Pyotr
evoking ‘images of the past’ in the spectator’s Borisovich Sheremetev kept paintings alongside
consciousness. For that reason it has always been all kinds of oddities and remarkable things such as
easy to juxtapose genuine works with copies or fossils.87 Subsequently, these universal exhibitions,
models of them, illustrated by verbal texts, figures organized like scientific compendia, would be
and index numbers in glass cases, since they are all broken up: they would be separated out into natural
merely witnesses to reality, to some kind of ‘history’. history collections, picture galleries, and also
Such is the sign system of any museum. But in so far ‘cabinets of the arts’ with their indiscriminate
as the space of a museum exhibition is dependent gatherings of ancient artworks.

182
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

In the nineteenth century one such cabinet was the renowned owners of icon-painting workshops.88
owned by Count Sergey Stroganov (1794–1882). The ‘cabinet of the arts’ belonging to the famous
According to Buslayev’s memoirs, the count’s cabinet artist and restorer Nikolay Podklyuchnikov
in his detached house by the Neva in St Petersburg (1813–1877) was an analogous type of setting: in
was in the shape of an elongated room, all the one of his paintings he depicted himself in the
walls of which, including the spaces between the gallery, where an icon (possibly painted by him)
windows, were occupied by cupboards with book- is to be seen amid the ancient pictures and the
shelves and ‘various rarities in sliding drawers’, attributes of an artist – a female mannequin and
including his collections of Greek, Roman and ‘antiques’ (illus. 124). What is more the icon stands
Byzantine coins. On top of the cupboards there on an easel, and in that way demonstrates that it
stood precious decorative sculptures, most notably is an ‘object of art’.
a gold vase by Benvenuto Cellini, while above them Old icons were regarded somewhat differently
hung pictures by old Italian and Flemish masters. in public and private collections of national rarities,
It was in this environment that icons of the where they came under the general umbrella of
Stroganov school from Old Ritualist collections the ‘ancient’ national way of life. These collections
also had a place. The count had started acquiring were still innocent of scholarly classification: they
them as early as the 1840s; apart from their belong- merely created an image of ‘primitive’ or ‘ancient’
ing to the history of Christian antiquities, they civilizations and cultures. In the middle and second
reminded the count of his illustrious forebears, half of the nineteenth century the private collections

124 Nikolay Podklyuchnikov, A Cabinet of the Arts, c. 1860.

Museums of the Moscow Kremlin.

183
125 Fyodor Plyushkin’s ‘antiquities store’, c. 1900.
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

of Pavel Korobanov (1767–1851), Mikhail Pogodin that counted. The former system of conventions
(1800–1911) and Fyodor Plyushkin (1837–1911) were retreated into the background as museum collec-
outstanding. The special galleries of the Korobanov tions appeared that demanded a different order of
house in Moscow, where the famous Pogodin allocating objects. The creation of public museums
antiquities collection was housed, were totally throughout Europe gave much popular pleasure,
inundated with Russian antiques. Here one might and this was also the case in Russia. This affected
encounter anything: ‘Scythian’ accoutrements and not only the national museums in the capitals, but
cloth, dishes and medals, portraits and wooden also numerous city museums and those attached
sculptures, manuscripts and old printed books, to various institutions. Their general aim was the
icons and portraits. All this was hung on the walls, enlightenment of the people and the creation
kept in cupboards, placed on tables or chests of of some great ‘Image of History’: pictures of a
drawers.89 Even more curious was Plyushkin’s sequential development of the artistic life of the
collection, in which numerous icons of different country and of its specific place among the other
periods jostled not only with objects of everyday nations. If today museums are associated with the
life, including costume, playing cards and ‘freaks preservation of things valuable within the culture,
of nature’, but also with numismatic and Masonic then at the moment of their inception they were
collections that were considered the best in Russia destined to formulate the national sense of self-
(illus. 125).90 Here, judging by old photographs, hood, which found its reflection in the creation of
the ecclesiastical antiquities were given a special great exhibitions, in their way a visual equivalent
room, in which painted icons found themselves of the multi-volume scholarly works on history
next to utensils in boxes and an impressive glass and archaeology. We should remember that
case full of small cast copper images and crosses. national museums were opening one after another
Their placement did not imply any scholarly system, all over Europe: the Louvre in Paris opened in 1793,
nor any close scrutiny of intended aesthetic satis- what was later to become the Museo del Prado in
faction. It was really an ‘iconic treasure house’, an Madrid in 1820, the National Gallery in London
‘antiquities store’ in which the assembled objects in 1824, and the British Museum in 1852. The Altes
were only signs of the ‘cultural past’ and of the Museum was founded in Berlin in 1830. And in all
cultural mythologeme that reigned at a given period. these museums art became not only the property
They have a quantitative dimension, but no scholarly of the whole people, but also the object of scholarly
elucidation. analysis. It became involved with politics, too, since
Meanwhile the moment was coming when the it had to respond to the national myth about the
collection of cultural monuments, including icons, past with its heroes and geniuses, its triumphant
would be determined by scholarly information. victories and its faith in historical progress. At the
Formerly, objects had to have the attraction of an same time the museums participated in the creation
‘ancient’ appearance in order to get into a collec- of this past, questioning historical evidence in a
tion; now it became their provenance and signifi- new way and taking over, essentially, the ‘sacred’
cance for clarifying the history of Russian culture functions of defining the goal and meaning of

185
part one: frame and image

human history. In an age when religious precon- same power of evolutionary positivism. Thus the
ceptions were in crisis, the museum even began to way in which the museum framed a sixteenth-
usurp the role of the sacred building, which was century travelling iconostasis (now in the Tretyakov
frequently reflected in the very architecture of the Gallery, Moscow) was essentially a rationalistic
museum itself. Classical forms of the ancient tem- commentary on the work. Its medieval folding
ple or medieval basilica turned it into a sort of cult structure was cut up into its individual hinged
structure, all the more obviously so since museums panels, on which attention was necessarily concen-
were built, as a rule, on the most visible sites, trated, and each was given an explanation: under-
where once cathedrals would have been erected. neath each panel there was a small brass label
And if romantics saw in the museum a temple of giving the name of its subject. The dominance of
art, then positivists, democrats and liberals viewed the natural sciences at that time brought close to
it as a temple of learning, throughout which one one another the labelling of archaeological and
might sense the dominance of scholarly positivism. natural scientific showcases. The icon would have
Thus the ancient icons in the historical- a glassed-in showcase distantly reminiscent of an
archaeological exhibition held at the Historical icon casing. But if the latter was meant for the
Museum in Moscow, designed by the architect preservation and safe keeping of a holy object, the
Vladimir Shervud in 1875–81 (almost at the same museum showcase aimed at the preservation of a
time as the Abramtsevo church), began to be under- national cultural monument. The fact that it was
stood precisely as monuments of national history the preservative function of a museum showcase
and of the everyday religious life of the people. that primarily concerned learned archaeologists is
They took their place in the inflexible chronological illustrated by a letter sent by Nikodim Kondakov
ordering of a newly conceptualized Russian history, to Pyotr Neradovsky (1844–1925), Director of the
since the whole artistic space of this exhibition, Russian Museum:
grandiose for its time, was subjected to the idea of
the sequential evolution of the artistic historical I merely hasten to give you one piece of advice
process. Even the decoration of individual halls on the problem of the conservation of icons . . .
was modified according to changes of art-historical The point is that, as I have observed, to keep
epoch, in order to persuade the spectators that they icons in any kind of showcase lying flat is harm-
were not confronting objects for aesthetic enjoy- ful and even dangerous for them. Lying flat, the
ment, but for scholarly research. As curious ‘museum icons are soon covered with dust. The dust dries
landscapes’, the decoration around the monuments out, then gets damp; cracks appear in the icons,
of art and culture created not just a specific historic the dust gets into them, an icon . . . is ruined.
context, but also a particular museum ‘aura’, that I know of an instance (in the Rumyantsev
‘historical framing’ that could have such an effect Museum) when if I remember right dozens of
upon the process of the spectator’s perception. icons were damaged in this way. For that reason
Framing constructions, labels, texts, signs, all I consider that the one proper way of conserving
kinds of guidebooks and catalogues spoke of the icons is to keep them hanging in an upright

186
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

position – best of all, of course, in glass cases tute for the text of a kontakion, troparion or some
on the wall. As if on purpose, you have your sort of dedication that the viewer of that time was
best icons lying in showcases under windows. used to seeing on icons from between the seven-
Just the same has been done in the Historical teenth and nineteenth centuries. But when the
Museum in Moscow.91 label on the front had only a number, it served as
an indicator sign. Its significance would be revealed
In other words, not only the architecture of a in a guidebook or catalogue to the given exhibi-
museum building, but also its internal space with tion. It was as if such a label served as a link
its painted decor, windows, barriers, pedestals and between the material framing of an icon, its textual
architectural niches for the most significant and explication in a catalogue and a scholarly concep-
valuable exhibits were assimilated to its sacred tion. Just such a label, looking like a postage stamp,
furnishing of a religious structure. The aesthetic of still adheres to an icon of St Paraskeva with ‘Life’
such an exhibition was inspired by the nineteenth- (Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow) from the former col-
century scholarly theory of positivism with its lection of Aleksey Morozov (1857–1934, illus. 126).
principles of historicism and systemization. Thus The catalogue is a rationalistic ‘table’, whose aim
the archaeological scholar who arranged such an is systematization. And in this sense any catalogue
exhibition would always strive to systematize a is subject to the rules of rhetoric in its meaning
huge range of material, attempting to find a place of the ‘science of persuasion’. Just like an ordinary
for one icon or another in a chronological order. material frame, the catalogue persuades and directs
Since, however, the spectator was in no position the viewer’s consciousness, makes classifications
to assimilate so elaborately organized a series of and clarifications, ‘compelling’ the work of art to
works, the label, the guidebook and the catalogue be understandable and accessible. The catalogue
came to his or her aid. can also be considered the ‘threshold of cognition’
Nowadays we can read the name of an icon, of an artwork; it is the network of evaluative atti-
its date and where it was painted on a label placed tudes cast over our viewers’ perceptions. It is no
either next to it or somewhere near the start of accident that it was in the second half of the nine-
the exhibition. When such exhibitions of icons teenth century that catalogues and guidebooks,
were first introduced in the second half of the informative notes and descriptions of museums’
nineteenth century, however, instead of this there galleries became an independent genre of popular
would be a label stuck directly onto the edge of the scholarly literature: the nineteenth century, the
icon – that is, on the frame or the glass that housed ‘age of museums’, took care to transmit this genre
it – as if it were a collection of minerals or butter- to modern times. In the historical-archaeological
flies. In the spirit of positivism such labels carrying exposition the artistic value of an old icon was
written texts on the front of the work were part of invariably introduced at the expense of the posi-
the rationalistic commentary that was provided by tivist idea of evolution. This is witnessed by the
a specialist for the viewer. In the ‘neo-sacral’ system substitution of originals by copies that were then
of museum exposition they were clearly a substi- widespread in many European museums, and also

187
126 St Paraskeva with ‘Life’, 15th century, with early 20th-century restorations.
Collection of Aleksey Morozov. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

in the Historical Museum in Moscow, where there were still exhibited alongside cast copper or brass
were copies by Adrian Prakhov of the mosaics of crosses, wooden sculptures, icon lamps and copies
St Sophia in Novgorod, a copy of the famous icon of mosaics and frescoes from Mount Athos. But
Novgorodians at Prayer and many others. By the end the greater part of them had already been set aside
of the nineteenth century, however, the situation in a special exhibition. The written description of
began to change. Special galleries began to be set this was compiled by the famous Russian scholar
aside for ancient icons and in catalogues they are and collector Nikolay Likhachov (1862–1935),
described in a different way from other works. The whereas the ‘objects of material culture’ were
exhibition of the Christian Antiquities department described separately by Mikhail Botkin. In the
of Alexander iii’s Russian Museum in St Petersburg introduction to their ‘Survey’ the authors indicated
had just such a character (illus. 127). A few icons that ‘the objects are ordered according to their

127 Preparations for an exhibition in the gallery of the

department of Christian Antiquities of the Emperor
Alexander iii’s Russian Museum, 1898, St Petersburg.

189
part one: frame and image

chronological and historical sequence’, thereby tak- Thus the old icons long stayed silent, and their
ing as their foundation the principle of sequential artistic form remained incomprehensible: it was
succession of ‘schools’ and ‘manners’ of Old Russian on the whole of no interest to an Old Ritualist,
icon painting. The theoretical basis of this method a scholar or a collector. For interest to be kindled
was laid down as far back as the eighteenth century what was needed was, in the first place, for the
by the Jesuit Luigi Lanzi, who in his History of original paint surface to be uncovered (and this
Italian Painting (1789) created the system of chrono- became possible only with the application of new
logical ordering of schools of painters, thus defining methods of restoration), and secondly the elucida-
the principles whereby art is exhibited in all major tion of this beauty of form in the context of the
museums up to the present day. The actual assign- Romantic aesthetic and of the new directions that
ment of old icons to ‘schools’ and ‘styles’ was art scholarship was taking. However, this happened
undertaken by the archaeologist Ivan Sakharov, only at the beginning of the twentieth century.
an historian, Ivan Snegiryov (1793–1868) and Positivism and the logic of linear progress, which
Dmitriy Rovinsky, who drew their overall conclu- had inspired exhibition settings of the previous
sions in this field from the fundamentally fantastical century, were put in doubt by a new, irrational
ideas of Old Ritualist ‘popular’ wisdom. With a trend in knowledge. The ‘intuition’ of Schopenhauer
few amendments, Nikolay Likhachov too adopted and the neo-Kantian ‘theory of empathy’ as applied
this classification, merely pointing out the complex- to art came into the foreground. Through ‘intuition’
ity of classifying icons of the seventeenth and there arose a type of cognition that brought art
eighteenth centuries: scholarship close to artistic creation, while accord-
ing to the theory of ‘empathy’, worked out by
Styles of the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries Dilthey, Lipps and others, beauty began to be seen
are divided into a multitude of manners. While not as an objective quality, but as the result of feel-
not a single competent icon painter will confuse ings ‘put into’ the object by the perceiving subject.
icons of the ‘Novgorod’ and ‘Muscovite’ styles, Lipps understood beauty as ‘pleasure objectified
in more modern styles everyone gets confused in itself ’, while according to Dilthey empathy
and people contradict each other. Such stylistic (Einfühlung) is the central category of a Romantic
terms as ‘Tikhvin’, Tver’, Yaroslavl’, ‘Vologda’, attitude to life in general.93 The work of Wöllflin,
‘Romanov’ and many others still demand too, in which universal categories of artistic form
detailed verification.92 are foregrounded, has particular significance.94
In the context of these Romantic and neo-
The hanging of icons on a wall from bottom to Kantian aesthetic views, the beauty of the Old
top for the sake of symmetry also spoke of the Russian icon began to be seen as an ‘aesthetic dis-
fact that the ancient icon was still regarded not covery’ of the artist, analogous to that of the Italian
so much from the point of view of artistic worth, Renaissance. In works by a newer generation of
as of historical significance. This was confirmed Russian scholars, including Pavel Muratov (1881–
by the labels stuck on the face of the icons. 1950), Nikolay Shchekotov (1883–1945), Nikolay

190
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

Sychov (1883–1965) and Nikolay Punin (1888–1953), In this same context another important detail
the Old Russian icon was interpreted in terms of with a bearing on the meaning of the new exhibi-
a painterly art that could be understood only by tions is apparent. In the circumstances of the
a profound examination of its artistic form as a theurgic aesthetic, the original layer of paint of the
closed system. The beauty of an ancient icon had Old Russian icon could change its form. This took
to bring aesthetic satisfaction. Furthermore, in the place in the process of restoration of practically
context of Solovyov’s theurgic teachings this beauty all icons from the collections of Ostroukhov,
could bring about the transformation of surround- Ryabushinsky, Morozov, Pavel Kharitonenko and
ing reality, since it acquired a metaphysical dimension others.97 Some parts of the icon could receive addi-
by way of its ‘intuitive’ and mystical components. tional paint, others could have it removed; outlines
These were just the tasks that began to be served were freely changed, colours were made brighter
by issues of the special scholarly collection Russian and faces were given more emotion. By such means
Icon (1914), as well as the new, religious-aesthetic a ‘masterpiece’ of ancient icon painting might be
exhibitions of ancient Russian icons that were created, aimed at a particular response from the
organized at the Tretyakov Gallery (1904), the viewer. The expression of artistic form was called
museum house of Ilya Ostroukhov on Trubnikov upon to remove consciousness into a zone of
Lane in Moscow (c. 1912) and finally at Emperor emotional excitement and aesthetic pleasure,
Alexander iii’s Russian Museum in St Petersburg which was in fact the aim less of medieval than
(1914). Since modern scholarship, and also the of illusionistic art.
aesthetics of stil’ modern, was primarily concerned Thus in 1911, under instructions from the artist
with the problem of artistic expression, the aim of and collector Ostroukhov, and no doubt following
the collection was stated as being ‘the living study his specifications, the restorer and icon painter
of icon painting’, and the penetration of one’s I. A. Baranov changed the face on a sixteenth-
‘mind and heart into the sacred realm of ancient century icon of St George Slaying the Dragon
icon painting’.95 Articles published in the collection (Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow) from Ostroukhov’s
were devoted to the stylistic peculiarities of the collection (illus. 128), removed the gold on the
icon, including its composition, contours and the background, replaced the actual stylized hillocks
interrelationship of areas of colour. Responses of with a flat background, and added a painted shield
artists to the discovery of the ancient icon were and a red cloak blowing in the wind.98 As a result
also published. In the first issue Nikolay Rerikh the icon was changed almost beyond recognition.
defined this discovery as a ‘striving towards iconic Within its space the ontology of a medieval
beauty’, while this beauty was itself seen as ‘the depiction and metaphysical beauty met with the
bold art of the ancient painters’, the result of romantic beauty of aesthetic religion. Ostroukhov,
‘authentic creativity’ and even of ‘ecstasy’, in which with the help of an icon painting restorer, created
the culture of stil’ modern inevitably observed a an ‘absolute masterpiece’ of Old Russian art, which
breakthrough that took it beyond the limit of was a ‘displaced likeness’, a kind of ‘theurgical
observable reality.96 object’ let loose upon the world so as to lead to the

191
128 St George Slaying the Dragon, 16th century (with restorations 1911).
Collection of Ilya Ostroukhov. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

reconfiguration of life according to the rules of a the initial impulse of the steed away from the
lost, and then rediscovered, beauty. The location of viewer to the right, as if beyond the edge of the
such icons in a religious-aesthetic exhibition, and icon, and the unexpectedly bold twist of the
also their wide distribution as illustrative prints in holy warrior and his steed in the other direction.
an age of mechanical reproduction, was a response The line of the lance, thrust into the maw of the
to this task. If previously the Old Ritualist would dragon, merely strengthens the latter movement
strive only to follow medieval models and rules, within the limits of the icon, according to the
which established definite bounds for him, and principle of the internal closure of the iconic
changing the ancient image’s forms was imagined world. St George’s elegant twisted posture can
as a sacred process of discovery of transcendental be explained by the desire to place the head of
beauty, now this altered form appeared as beauty the saint in a nimbus in the centre of the icon-
discovered by way of experiment, attained in the board, as the main prayerful theme of the icon.
process of the creative act. This beauty was an From another point of view, this twist gives a
embodied artistic idea, located in the conscious- special lightness, a feeling of his having been
ness of the artist and the imitator. singled out, to the deed of the holy warrior,
Moreover, inspired by ‘intuition’ and the ‘theory who leans his angelic face on his own shoulder
of empathy’, scholarly interpretation of this idea as if in sorrow.
made it even more active in its effect on the per-
ceiving consciousness. By this stage the text, close This description, by no means free from a
as it was to a creative work, shifted the ‘frame of touch of romantic mystification, was supplemen-
reality’ further away, laying bare the expression of ted by a scholarly Romantic hypothesis about the
a new ‘art object’ and ‘forcing’ its form as it were creativity of the Old Russian artist: as Shchekotov
to go beyond its limits in having an active effect said in the same article, ‘Following how the artist
on the world. Here, for example, is how Nikolay “arranged” various parts of the depiction so as the
Shchekotov describes the Ostroukhov icon: better to express his artistic intentions, we see, as if
waking up to it, the activity of his creative powers,
Splendid, too, is the silhouette of St George under whose influence the icon was crystallized.’99
Slaying the Dragon in the collection of I. S. Employing the same intermediary of the aesthetic
Ostroukhov. Certain of the features of a multi- act as had also been used for the perception of the
figured iconic composition that we have already beauty of the ancient icon, the emotions and views
established are interestingly applied in it. Here of the scholar himself were projected upon it.
the main action has no need for support from ‘Empathy’ towards the artistic form conditioned
surroundings. It is forceful enough in itself – the power and depth of aesthetic pleasure. For that
fiery enough, I should indeed like to say, as I reason the altered forms of the Ostroukhov icon
recollect the billowing red cloak of St George. were not so much a ‘falsification’ in the modern
Despite its impetuousness, movement in this sense of the term, but rather an insertion of the
composition is derived from two factors: from ‘feelings of the perceiving subject’ into it, and

193
129–130 Ilya Ostroukhov’s museum of icons and various paintings, c. 1912–20.
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

hence a rhetorical ‘summons’ of the perceiving beauty and destined to carry out the ‘theurgic
consciousness to a dialogue whose aim was the work’ in the space between the image and the
discovery of the romantic beauty of the Old perceiving consciousness. Essentially, ‘theurgic’
Russian image.100 exhibitions set themselves the same tasks as did
It was precisely this romantic understanding of the iconostasis of the Abramtsevo church. They
the beauty of the Old Russian icon that demanded presupposed the possibility of transforming the
a corresponding manner of framing it in muse- world through the power of art itself. It is hardly
ums. The ancient icon was cleaned and partly accidental that the exhibition of Old Russian icons
given additional paintwork with the aim of putting in the Tretyakov Gallery in 1904 was planned
it in a theurgic exhibition reminiscent of an Old following a design by Vasnetsov, who took as his
Russian iconostasis, a prayer house or an ‘icon hall’. starting point the iconostasis of the Abramtsevo
In other words, the icon of St George Slaying the church (illus. 75, 131). Indeed, the display cabinets
Dragon was thought of as part of an integrated were prepared in the same Abramtsevo carpenters’
ensemble, which had to produce an impression of shop. The stylized form of the Old Russian icono-
the overwhelming beauty of Old Russian painting, stasis at once gave one’s perception of museum icons
to evoke by the ‘expressionism’ of its contours and the aura of religion. So it made one feel as if the
its areas of colour the ‘ecstasy’ of feelings and ex- museum were the distant semblance of a church.
periences so beloved of the art of stil’ modern (illus. A similar feeling was aroused in Ostroukhov’s
129, 130). In the creation of such an exhibition the museum of paintings and icons. While rendering
artist, Ilya Ostroukhov, played no less a role than the aesthetic of stil’ modern its due, around 1912
the scholar, since the exhibition itself was planned this collector set up an icon exhibition in a suite
as a work of art, embodying the idea of absolute of rooms in his house, which in Pavel Muratov’s

131 Exhibition of Old Russian icons in the Tretyakov Gallery,

1904, designed by Viktor Vasnetsov.

195
part one: frame and image

words ‘replicated the ancient model of a Moscow aesthetic perception of the beauty of the Old
boyar’s seventeenth century museum chapel’.101 Russian icon.105 In this, incidentally, resides the
Pride of place in the exhibition went to some large- unique quality of such works, their particular
format icons made by the school of Novgorod in significance not only for the history of Old Russian
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.102 In nine- icon painting, but also for Russian culture of the
teenth-century domestic Old Ritualist prayer so-called Silver Age.
rooms, small, ‘measured’ images for personal The powerful emotional effect of Ostroukhov’s
devotion predominated. Particularly valued were collection evidently came from his innovation of
Stroganov school icons of the early seventeenth displaying authentic and large-format ‘master-
century, noted for their exciting miniature tech- pieces’ of Old Russian painting not in a church,
nique and for ‘bringing the mind to astonishment’, but in the special ‘frame’ of an exhibition, allowing
to quote Paul of Aleppo.103 Meanwhile, the opening their beauty to be appreciated within the aura of
up of Old Ritualist sanctuaries in 1905, and the the national religion. If the metaphysical properties
official permission granted to Old Ritualists to of this beauty were revealed in an Old Ritualist
build their own churches, led to the revelation of church in the context of the liturgy, then in
a wave of large-format icons, which were brought Ostroukhov’s museum house the beauty of the
down from the north to be placed in multi-tiered ancient icon came to the fore as the power of art
iconostases in the newly built Old Ritualist churches. itself. The religious dimension of the exhibition
Some of the major architects of the period of was deeply hidden and was ranked below aesthetic
Russian stil’ modern – Shchusev, Bondarenko, pleasure. The icons were put in special showcases
Krichinsky and others – worked on their design. and were set along the walls: the lower rank was
Certain of these churches, too, were built by the occupied primarily by icons of saints’ lives and
Old Ritualist and banker Stepan Ryabushinsky, the Orthodox feasts, while the upper row held the
who first devised the idea of opening up this native apostles and prophets. Putting ‘royal doors’ in the
seam of the Old Russian icon.104 Freeing large icons middle of the wall of icons turned it into the like-
from subsequent layers of paint in the first place ness of a two-tier iconostasis. The icons were also
spared Ryabushinsky the trouble of ordering new hung in the corners of the rooms, recalling the
ones, and secondly was dictated by his interests ‘fine corner’ of the traditional Russian living cham-
as a collector. It is incidentally important to note ber. Elements of Old Russian architecture and pieces
that his icons underwent a type of restoration of old furniture enhanced the atmosphere of
analogous to those of Ostroukhov: the first layer the ‘museum chapel’. Judging by contemporary
of paintwork, revealed by cleaning, was partially reactions, Ostroukhov’s collection produced an
repainted and then the tonal juxtapositions and unusually powerful impact. Muratov, for example,
the expressiveness of the contours could be changed. wrote of Ostroukhov’s collection that:
It is usual to regard this kind of restoration as
‘antiquarian’, but it would be more precise to term In Ilya Sergeyevich’s activity as a collector, in the
it ‘theurgic’, that is to say aimed at a special, religio- first place one must say that the purely artistic

196
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

point of view has taken precedence over any of veil has fallen from before our eyes, able at
other. The concepts of ‘age’ and ‘rarity’ have last to see clearly and with astonishment our
finally given way to artistry. Only now has it own Russian iconic art, now standing side by
[i.e. the Russian icon] been awarded its place side with the highest works of world renown
in the hierarchy of eternal and worldwide in Ravenna, with the best frescoes of the Italian
artistic treasures.106 cathedrals, the best primitives – meanwhile
differentiated from all we know in the field of
Nikolay Shchekotov discussed the fact that only religious art by a special Russian affective quality,
an artist could make such a collection: together with seriousness and a festive joy
in colour.109
Ilya Ostroukhov was the first to go along the
road of collecting works of ancient art, guided Shcherbatov’s comparison of the Ostroukhov
primarily by his artistic taste; such an attitude icons with ‘the best primitives’ was no accident.
to the monuments of antiquity was to some The large-format Novgorod icons produced
extent natural for him: being himself a talented between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries
artist, he could not of course understand any clearly reminded his contemporaries of the prod-
kind of works of art in any other way.107 ucts of the Italian proto-Renaissance: the altar
images of Cimabue and Duccio. In the age of stil’
The avant-garde artist Aleksey Grishchenko modern the whole of European painting before
(1883–1977) noted that: the High Renaissance was assigned to the category
of ‘primitives’. In Western Europe a real discovery
Ostroukhov, beginning his collection in 1909, in this context was the exhibition of ‘Flemish
was one of the first to draw attention to the Primitives and Early Art’, held in Bruges in 1902,
artistic side of the Old Russian icon. He boldly where the painting of Flemish fifteenth-century
undertook the task of cleaning off the darkened masters was shown to the astonishment of scholars,
varnish and overpainting, and exposed the critics and artists.110 In Russia the ‘Exhibition of
authentic work of our ancient masters.108 Old Russian Art’ held in Moscow in 1913, organized
by Ryabushinsky and dedicated to the three-
Prince Sergey Shcherbatov (1875 –1962), who hundredth anniversary of the Romanov dynasty,
agreed with Ostroukhov’s views on studying and had a similar significance.111 A considerable number
collecting icons, recalled the aesthetic impact of of visitors were shown large-format icons from the
icon painting: Ryabushinsky and Ostroukhov collections for the
first time at this exhibition. Muratov, Shchekotorov,
Something so great, so undervalued, till then Punin, Benois and many other scholars, artists,
so unexpected in Russian art, that it eclipsed all writers and critics wrote excited reviews. Repre-
its erstwhile achievements in painting, that now sentatives of the new school of art historians
seem pathetic and insignificant. It is as if a sort underlined ‘the discovery of a whole new art’,

197
part one: frame and image

whose anonymity was ‘mere chance’. Russian icon corresponding system of concepts. It is no accident
painters, they reckoned, possessed ‘artistic capabili- that Pavel Florensky criticized the icon museum in
ties’. Moreover, the forms of the ancient icons also the context of his philosophy of religion, putting
answered to the particular ‘artistic taste’ of those forward the proposition that ‘in a church we stand
who prayed before them, as Muratov surmised: face to face with a Platonic world of ideas, whereas
in a museum we see no icons, only caricatures of
Novgorod icons without doubt answered to them’. Since for Florensky the icon was indissolubly
some sort of exclusive and aristocratic demands bound up with ‘liturgical action as synthesis of
of feelings and imagination. Their anonymity is the arts’, its place was exclusively within the sacred
just pure chance. Individual masters were able space of a church, where it ‘has its genuine artistic
with exceptional delicacy and subtlety to express meaning and can be contemplated in all its
their individuality in their comprehension of authentic artistry’.114
form and in their use of colour.112 Meanwhile, it was on this level that the organ-
izers of the Novgorod Icon Hall in the Russian
Stylistic analysis of Novgorod icons permitted Museum, St Petersburg, clearly attempted to find
scholars also to detect a link between fifteenth- ways of approaching a museum exhibition. By
century Russian art and Byzantine painting of comparison with Vasnetsov’s and Ostroukhov’s
the Palaeologan period, and hence to draw the exhibitions, the Novgorod Icon Hall was the most
conclusion that Russian history possessed its precise, and from the artistic point of view also the
own proto-Renaissance age. The Old Russian icon more interesting, way in which a museum and reli-
turned out to be an inheritor of the beauty of gious building could be approximated. According
antiquity: ‘Russian icon painting of the fourteenth to the second issue of Russian Icon, the opening
and fifteenth centuries, emerging from Byzantine and dedication of the Department of Old Russian
art of the fourteenth century, upheld much of its Art – known in full as the Archive of Monuments
Hellenistic tradition.’113 So it was that for the first of Russian Icon Painting and Church Antiquities,
time the methods of neo-Kantian art scholarship Dedicated to the Emperor Nicholas ii – took place
in the spirit of Wölfflin were applied to the analy- on 18 March 1914.115 The Novgorod Icon Hall was
sis of the Old Russian icon. In the framework of a part of this ‘archive’ (illus. 121). It was created
the Romantic perception of the world these led to at the expense of the Moscow collector Pavel
the emancipation of the idea of beauty, which was Kharitonenko, who commissioned the architect
mistakenly transferred from the realm of the indi- Aleksey Shchusev to design a church of the Trans -
vidual intention and emotional experience of the figuration of Christ (1908–12) at his country estate
artistic creator to the field of medieval applied of Natal’yevka in the Kharkov province, where he
aesthetics. The rhetorical basis of medieval culture, also deposited his collection of Old Russian icons
with its fusion of the aesthetic with the theological, (illus. 132).
naturally enough excluded the development of the Thus an ‘icon hall’ was envisaged as a ‘museum
‘free’ art of painting within the framework of a analogue’ to a church. One of the walls of the

198
132 Church of the Transfiguration of Christ at Natal’yevka,
1908–12, architect Aleksey Shchusev.
part one: frame and image

museum hall was occupied by the stylized con- framing. And if in Natal’yevka the beauty of an
struction of a three-tier iconostasis, adorned with icon was interpreted through the liturgy and the
silver basma (metal plating) and built in the work- whole ecclesiastical cosmos, then in the Russian
shop of the Mishukov brothers ‘according to Museum it was a part of scholarly and artistic
ancient Novgorod models’. A great round khoros interpretation and of the Orthodox world view
(candelabrum) took the place of a chandelier up simultaneously.
above, while in front of the ‘royal doors’ there were The work of art as objective reality (Schelling),
free-standing candle holders, and lecterns display- art as a higher form of cognition (Schopenhauer),
ing examples of Old Russian textiles, upholstered the theory of ‘empathy’ in artistic form (Dilthey and
with luxurious material. Brocade, made in Rome Lipps), art setting itself theurgic tasks (Solov’yov)
following ancient patterns, covered the floor of the – all these ideas, caught up with scholarship, litera-
showcases. We are told that ‘to display the icons the ture and painting, were part of the intellectual
art historical process, rather than an archaeological baggage of the ‘Silver Age’. Indeed, the exhibitions of
arrangement of the material, has fundamentally Old Russian art examined above nourished them-
been followed’, also taking into account the ‘colour selves on them too. Meanwhile, these exhibitions
relations’ of the objects on show.116 As a result, a brought in their wake not only new scholarly inter-
genuine chef-d’oeuvre of theurgic art of the mod- pretations of the works themselves, but also exer-
ernist age was set before the viewer; according to cised an influence on Russian religious-philosophical
contemporary reviews, it was perceived as no less thought between 1910 and 1920. Under the direct
than a ‘temple of new artistic discoveries’ and as a influence of Ostroukhov’s collection and of
‘museum-temple, just as the early Russian church- Shchusev’s Novgorod Icon Hall, for example,
es were’.117 But the same could have been said about Yevgeniy Trubetskoy (1863–1920) wrote his notable
the church in Natal’yevka, which according to the essays ‘Philosophy through Paint’ (1916) and ‘The
recollections of Prince Sergey Shcherbatov was Two Worlds of Russian Icon Painting’ (1916), which
envisaged as ‘the sacred archive of a whole muse- both relate to the religious and aesthetic experiences
um of splendid icons in an ancient style of the best of encountering the beauty of the early icon, and
period’.118 Its iconostasis and wall-mounted cases the impact of the theurgical exhibition on a creative
contained genuine icons of the fifteenth and six- and aesthetically sensitive perception. These essays
teenth centuries, many of which had been displayed could also be understood as philosophical fantasies
at the 1913 ‘Exhibition of Old Russian Art’ in in the style of late Schelling and Vladimir Solovyov.
Moscow.119 For that reason there is every reason to The icon attracted Trubetskoy by its ‘national
believe that the architectural forms of the church countenance’ and ‘conciliar impulse’ on the path
of the Transfiguration of Christ, its white limestone to the formation of independent Russian thought.
carvings by Alexander Matveyev and the wall paint- The philosopher saw in them theurgic art – a bridge
ings by A. Savinov were inspired by the theurgic to a renewed and transfigured life, ‘a depiction of
concept of the beauty of the Old Russian icon – the coming ecclesiastical and conciliar humanity’.120
more precisely, they served as its curious romantic One could cautiously suppose that it was under

200
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

the influence of such exhibitions that Sergey a fundamentally new, revolutionary ideology into
Bulgakov too developed his original teachings. the mass consciousness. Museum exhibitions are
Within the framework of his ‘Sophiology’ he could by no means backward in this respect, as is
regard icon painting as a ‘theurgic act, in which demonstrated both by the Louvre in Napoleon’s
the revelation of the supermundane is witnessed time and by the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow
in the images of this earth’, where ‘God reveals between 1928 and 1932 at the time of the ‘cultural
himself in human creation’.121 revolution’. In 1929 art historian Aleksey Fyodorov-
Meanwhile, in 1917 the theurgic exhibitions of Davydov drew up a famous plan for the Soviet
icons, which gave art an obviously exaggerated sig- museum, the ‘sociological exposition’ of which
nificance and role, were superseded in the course proposed that works of art should be appreciated
of a revolutionary and far from religious-aesthetic solely as ‘documents of their age’, having ‘socio-
transformation of Russian history. Of course, in material and ideological significance’.122 For that
ages of revolution art not only undergoes reinter- reason the ‘Marxist Overview Exhibition’ of 1931–2
pretation – it is summoned to the task of instilling displayed Old Russian icons in the ‘framing’ of

133 Exhibition of icons by Andrey Rublyov in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow,

1931–2.

201
part one: frame and image

quotations from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, for the image in icon painting, is juxtaposed
which deflected consciousness from the aesthetic with the conservative art of the boyar elite,
perception of the works towards their understand- continuing the fossilized tradition of the stylized
ing as ‘documents’, reflecting the class struggle of and ceremonial art of Rublyov and Dionisy.123
their times. ‘Juxtapositions of class styles’, wrote
Fyodorov-Davydov about this exhibition, Archival photographs show us that icons as
significant for the history of Old Russian culture
are presented without a large amount of material as the Vladimir Mother of God (first quarter of the
in one and the same gallery, as for example twelfth century; Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow) and
when the progressive ideology of the trading the Trinity by Andrey Rublyov (c. 1400; Tretyakov
landowners of the second half of the sixteenth Gallery) have been given additional framing (illus.
century, who showed solidarity with the 134, 134). We have previously discussed the sacred
merchants and put forward a new set of themes meaning of the ark of the Vladimir Mother of God

134 Exhibition of Old Russian icons at the Tretyakov Gallery, 1936.

202
 chapter two: from the middle ages to romanticism

as dictated by the medieval aesthetic of the cult form in the context of the scholarly stereotypes
image (see chapter One). Framing of the stil’ that have been formed. In comparison with this
modern period could cause us to perceive the ancient system the contemporary exhibition of a private
icon as a work of theurgic art. The ‘showcase’ frame collection seems closer to improvisation. It cannot
of the Marxist exhibition then ‘thrusts’ upon us its be separated from the interior space of a house,
role as a ‘document of its age’. The museum frame and attempts to reflect the personal enthusiasms
thus inexorably ‘makes’ us perceive the work in a of the collector, his or her taste, self-imposed tasks,
way that depends on a given value system. Once interests and social position. Hence in framing
the ‘cultural revolution’ in the Tretyakov Gallery an ancient icon the modern collector displays a
had ended, people once again remembered the personal attitude towards it, provoking the viewer
artistic form of Old Russian icons. The choice of to dialogue and reflection. The ‘active’ role of such a
works was governed from the standpoint of artistic frame also nowadays evokes the heightened interest
styles, while the museum display was conceived of theoreticians of culture. After all, the frame is
of as both a scholarly and a touristic guide to the always a threshold for the perception of what
periods and ‘schools’ of Old Russian painting. is within and what is outside it: it is the historical
The museum exhibition was once again orientated stereotype of our consciousness. Such, evidently,
towards the display of the icon as ‘masterpiece’. is the essence of any frame, including too that of
In framing the icon, the contemporary museum a modern frame for an ancient icon.
showcase designedly ‘tears it out’ of its historical
framing structures (casings or iconostases) and
treats it as an object intended for aesthetic enjoy-
ment. Hence a single icon can be placed in a
separate showcase with a coloured background
and a spotlight upon it. The particular organiza-
tion of the wall surfaces, holding as they do the
least possible number of exhibits, is also linked
with this purpose. Incidentally, in Western European
museums such exhibitions came into being from
the 1930s onwards, when the Louvre began to reject
the hanging of pictures like ‘wallpaper’.124
In other words the contemporary icon exhibi-
tion is an elegant and rigorous system whereby the
viewer engages with the work of art. But it is inter-
esting to observe that bringing art close to politics
mythologizes history as scholarship, whereas putting
an exclusively aesthetic appreciation of the icon
in the foreground leads to an understanding of its

203
part two
PLAYING WITH SPACE
 chapter 3

e Lustre of Power
His Majesty was at home in his workshop,
turning a frame for his portrait . . .
Documents from the court of Peter the Great1

The Palace: Frame, Picture and History

In the seventeenth, eighteenth and even nineteenth Konstantin Ton (1794–1881), which was designed
centuries the Russian autocrat’s palace was the for the ceremonial of coronations. This palace had
heart of the realm, in which beat all that was most a number of singularities that were dictated by the
astonishing and precious in the arts. From the very aesthetics of Russian Romanticism. At the behest
beginnings of Russian absolutism the monarch’s of Nicholas i it included within its precincts build-
palace was always seen as ‘the shrine of power’, ings of the Old Russian period, from the fifteenth
and everything in it that surrounded the person to the seventeenth centuries: the Iranovitaya Palata
of the all-powerful monarch was part of a carefully (Hall of Facets) and Terem Palace, the Golden
thought-out system of levels of meaning, in which Chamber of the Tsaritsa and private churches.
the great sovereign was God’s deputy on earth. Thus the Great Kremlin Palace became a setting –
A persuasive role in it was played by the framing, a frame – for Old Russian monuments and sacred
in the widest sense of the term, that the palace objects, paying tribute to its own century, the ‘cen-
provided: the frames of paintings and graphic work, tury of museums’, with its prodigious appetite for
and frames formed by entrance gates, doors and collecting national antiquities and historical sym-
balustrades, walls and windows, floors and ceilings. bols of national power. It was not by chance that
Exquisite and sumptuous decoration, unbelievably the rebuilt Armoury Palace stood next to the Great
complex spatial articulation – it all went into the Kremlin Palace as its own museum. The conception
functions of framing. Infinite invention and ingenu - of a ‘frame’, in the form of a new palace, for an
ity, and of course lavish expenditure, created an ancient national sacred place and the glorious
overpowering aesthetic space that obliged anyone history of the Russian Empire determined not only
who entered it to have one and the same thought the main characteristics of its facade, on which the
in his head: the monarch was the centre of all forms of window embrasures repeated the carved
things on earth. nalichniki (ornamental surrounds) of the Terem
Such was the nature of the huge variety of Palace, but also the chief distinction of the Great
framing effects in the Great Kremlin Palace, rebuilt Kremlin Palace – the architectural ornamentation
between 1839 and 1848 under the direction of and decoration of the ceremonial rooms, which

135 St Basil the Great and the Grand Prince Vasiliy iii,
named ‘Varlaam’ when a Monk, 1530s–40s, tomb icon.
State Historical Museum, Moscow.

0
part two: playing with space

were unique for its time, and are regarded as the keeping an eye on everything and setting his hand
last attempt at palatial programming on such a to everything, not only shipbuilding and making
scale in European architecture. frames for palace pictures, but even painting palace
The monarch and the state were one and the portraits: on 25 January 1715 ‘His Majesty painted a
same. This was the principal meaning of the rhetoric portrait of the Tsaritsa Paraskov’ya Feodorovna.’2
of the palatial picture frame, inseparable in Russia In the Baroque period a court ritual was estab-
throughout its history from portraits of the tsar. lished in Russia that became fixed in many different
On Russian icons through the sixteenth and seven- visual forms. The chief of these was the ceremonial
teenth centuries, depictions of the Russian tsars portrait. This was a privilege of the aristocracy, an
invariably obeyed the norms of icon painting: the inseparable part of court and estate life. In all its
tsar was included in the divine order alongside artistic characteristics – idealization of the subject,
the saints (illus. 135). The icon frame undoubtedly setting, landscape, palette – it always served the
sacralized the subject portrayed, inasmuch as it purpose of glorification of the person depicted.
served as a sign that the representation was to be And the same purpose was served by the picture
received within the genre of icon painting. Only frame. From the moment when Russian art bent
a very little later, however, portrayals of Russian to the task of demonstrating imperial power, the
autocrats appeared with a separate frame bearing frame of a portrait of an important person actively
depictions of trophies and heraldic patterns, helped the viewer to appreciate his or her greatness.
unequivocally expressing an enhanced idea of the The main themes here were the triumph and
State. This development began to take place at the apotheosis of the autocratic ruler, his or her sacral-
dawn of Russian absolutism in the reign of Aleksey ization, and his or her connections with the most
Mikhaylovich (reg 1645–76), and by the time of important figures in the world. In other words,
Peter the Great (reg 1682–1725) such portraits were if ceremonial portraits served the function of
widespread and had achieved their final form. glorification and demonstration of prestige, then
The fact that Peter the Great was ‘turning’, so did their frames.
on a special machine, a frame for his portrait The Petrine reforms brought the problem of
(‘a carpenter on the throne’, as Pushkin has it) in European cultural invasion, which changed not
1715 is a clear sign of the times, although the claim only the way of life but also the way of thinking of
can be taken metaphorically. This was the period, the Russian aristocracy. Western culture, as we have
the Baroque, when the genre of the ceremonial seen, was already making its mark in the second
portrait was established in Russia, when patronage half of the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth
of the arts passed decisively from the Church to the century and the first half of the nineteenth Russia
monarch and the upper aristocracy. Peter imitated was deeply permeated with the brilliant culture of
Western European architectural style and court Italy and France, with its high valuation of thought,
etiquette in his palaces. And one way and another he fashion and the arts. Famous Western architects,
took up the idea of extolling the absolute monarch. painters and sculptors therefore worked in Russia,
The Russian tsar set out to do everything himself, together with Russian masters, to create the kind of

0
 chapter three: the lustre of power

‘framing’ that would be worthy of the ruler of a A graphic example in art is Ilya Repin’s painting
great empire. Drawing on all the power of symbol Emperor Alexander III Receiving the Leaders of the
and metaphor, the frame of a depiction of a Volosts in the Courtyard of the Petrovsky Palace,
Russian monarch was intended to elevate his Moscow (1886; Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow), com-
portrait against the background of other portraits, missioned on the new tsar’s accession to the throne
to single it out and give it concrete expression, (illus. 136). (A volost was the smallest rural adminis-
to make the imperial personality familiar and trative area in imperial Russia.) The painting
irresistible in its power and renown; to convey depicts his speech at a feast held in the courtyard
that in a leading empire such as Russia, the state of the Petrovsky Palace on 21 May 1883, which was
embodied in the crowned sovereign was always part of the coronation celebrations.3 The painting
and everywhere the principal player. The symboli- originally had an elaborate gilded frame adorned
cally fused construction of the palace portrait and with motifs symbolic of the state, and before the
its frame was, in short, a proclamation of the well- October Revolution it hung in the Antechamber
known absolutist formula l’état, c’est moi. of the Great Kremlin Palace. Through its frame the
The idea of the divinely protected ruler reached picture partook of a special symbolism of time and
Russia from distant sources. It was familiar in Egypt, place,4 and was inseparable from court ritual and
the Byzantine Empire and the West. The nineteenth coronation ceremonies calculated to reflect the
century brought a distinctively Russian flavour brilliance, power and infallibility of the central
to the idea: sacralization of the Russian autocrat figures (illus. 137, 138). After the Revolution, however,
proceeded in the context of Nicolas i’s proclaimed the picture, with its portrait of Emperor Alexander
system of ‘orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality’, which iii, was removed from its place in the Antechamber,
became, in essence, the official programme for and from 1950 to 1991 its place was taken by the
the construction of the state under Alexander ii painting Vladimir Lenin Speaking at the Third
(reg 1855–81), Alexander iii (reg 1883–94) and Komsomol Congress (1950; Historical Museum,
Nicholas ii (reg 1894–1917). The ideological and Moscow), from the studio of the Soviet artist
philosophical premises of this programme were in Boris Ioganson (illus. 145). Repin’s painting displays
tune with the new understanding of national history the special significance of its location in the Ante-
stirring in Europe at the time. The turning to the chamber of the Great Kremlin Palace, and it is
past of the Russian state took the form of develop- inseparably linked with the rebuilding of the palace
ment of the idea of Holy Rus’ or Moscow as the in the 1930s and the cultural-historical realia of
Third Rome, which was turned into the ideological the Soviet period.
state programme in domestic and foreign policy. Repin’s painting depicts the emperor speaking,
This theme runs through Russian literature, theatre, surrounded by his people, represented by the heads
music, painting and architecture of the second half of the volosts, who have travelled from all over
of the nineteenth century. The doctrine of ‘official Russia to this spot. His words are displayed on the
nationality’ is reflected most clearly in Russian picture frame, which is an element in the whole
Romantic art and in Alexander iii’s general policy. composition and covered with ornamental images

0
part two: playing with space

of fantastic beasts and various emblems and of his people. His gaze is fixed on some point that
symbols associated with the state. This ornament the viewer cannot locate within the painting; it is
links the frame not only with the picture, as do the evidently outside the frame. It is as if the emperor
emperor’s words, but also with the palace wall that is viewing the heavens, which will confer on him
surrounds the painting with architectural space the wisdom needed to rule, confound his enemies
and the mythology of Holy Rus’. The emperor is and judge his subjects according to the justice of
placed at the central point of the whole composi- the law; as if he is contemplating the heavenly
tion, his rising figure seeming to stand on a pedi- equivalent of the harmony that man seeks to real-
ment, represented by his shadow. He is represented ize on earth. This is why there is a strongly drawn
full-length; his dark, massive figure in full-dress line from the emperor’s eyes to the object of his
uniform and his lucid, serene face mediate between attention, of which no one looking at the painting
the visible and the invisible; he seems to possess can fail to be aware; it cuts across the picture frame
power not given by this world. His head slightly and makes the area it delimits seem to move and
turned, he looks into the distance, above the heads become displaced, so that the whole composition,

136 Ilya Repin, Emperor Alexander III Receiving the

Leaders of the Volosts in the Courtyard of the Petrovsky
Palace, Moscow, 16. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

10
 chapter three: the lustre of power

which at first sight looks so stable, becomes airy, and the figure of the emperor. And on this vertical
almost weightless. This otherworldliness of the axis the emperor is again at the fixed centre of the
scene is also brought out by the emperor’s pose. composition – as he is from all viewpoints, both
He stands on his own shadow, as if on a cloud, those of all the people in the painting and ours,
and consequently the light source (the sunlight) the viewers’. This exact coincidence of viewpoints
is localized almost exactly above his head. Sunlight yet further enhances the emperor’s glorification.
floods both foreground and background, and the Another contribution to the effect of stability is
viewer again feels the heavens’ reflection on earth, made by the walls of the Petrovsky Palace, which
the closeness of the light yellowish colour of the neither limit nor enclose the space; on the contrary,
ground to that of the gilt surround, reminiscent of they bring out its openness and perform the
the background of an icon. We seem to have before compositional function of columns, traditionally
us a scene of complete and harmonious mutual taken as symbolic of power and stability.
understanding: the emperor listens to God and The emperor’s gesture with his right hand
speaks to his people; and the people listening to emphasizes the gravity of every word he speaks.
him hear the words of the Heavenly Father. This gesture, like the emperor’s whole figure, is a
How are the people depicted? They surround confirmation of truth and justice. It is also an
their sovereign. The figures in the foreground are indicator that the action is taking place exclusively
not so tall as the emperor: the artist employs the at the centre of the scene; the emperor speaks, but
device of reverse perspective, highlighting the the people surrounding him are completely still.
proportions of the most important figure placed at The two extreme figures on either side in the fore-
the centre. Thus, as in an icon painting, the figures ground gently set the tone of the whole composi-
in the foreground form the true frame for the tion: the listener at the left-hand edge of the picture
emperor’s portrait. Furthermore, they are shown raises his hands to his eyes either in protection
in back view; it was important to the artist to bring against the sunlight or in reaction to the grandeur
out their respect and attentiveness to the emperor. of the emperor’s person, while the right-hand figure
In the background the emperor’s family are depicted, is depicted in astonishment at some revelation in
standing in front of courtiers, Cossacks and the the emperor’s words. The rest of the people are
opened gates with a view through to the packed filled with concentrated attentiveness, and their
Khodynka Field, where traditionally the people bodily attitudes and facial expressions register
held celebrations in honour of a coronation. The profound respect for the emperor. Someone else
volost leaders depicted in the foreground are clearly inclines his head as if before a living icon. In other
to be taken as representatives of the people who words, in all the crowd framing the emperor there
are seen in the distance, beyond the precincts of is no action, or almost none. And it might seem as
the palace and the main action of the painting. It is if the viewer is excluded from the whole situation.
significant, however, that the palace gates are open; However, this is not so. Between the eye of the
on the vertical axis of the picture this symbolizes viewer and the event taking place on the canvas
the link between the people and its representatives the frame intervenes. The images on it make one

11
part two: playing with space

wonder to what extent they transform the compo- doing so automatically participate in what is taking
sition into a complex metaphor. Read as an addition place in the picture. The function of the inscrip-
to the picture, the frame convinces the viewer that tion is to return us to the picture but not to forget
the state system of Alexander iii is built on the the frame or the space around it. The frame
ideal of an orthodox monarchy and popular belief proclaims that it is a picture too, but in another
in the reality of some imaginary realm. medium – that of ornament, in which visual and
On first looking at the painting the viewer’s linguistic symbols are intentionally placed side
attention is immediately caught by the large panel by side. The content of the painting and the text
on the bottom of the frame. In the middle of the on the picture frame have mutual reference,
panel, directly in front of the eyes of the viewer – sometimes as commentary, sometimes as illustra-
that is, straight in front of us – is a rectangular tion. The frame serves as a transition from verbal
inner frame, reminiscent of icon frames of the to visual space.
seventeenth century to the nineteenth. These The inner frame surrounding the words of the
usually bore the words of prayers or psalms monarch can be interpreted in a further way – as a
addressed by mortal man to Christ, the Mother pedestal or podium for the emperor; one more step,
of God or a saint. In this case the inner frame and he will come out of the frame. But this never
contains the words of the emperor addressed to happens. It is the emperor’s speech inscribed on
the people depicted in the painting: the frame that moves out into our real world, that
begins to be physically present in another space, a
I am very glad to see you again; I heartily thank space nearer the viewer; it serves as an intermediate
you for your participation in our celebrations, link, summoned to regulate events both real and
to which the whole of Russia has responded imaginary – those that take place beyond the picture
with such enthusiasm. When you go home, frame, inside the picture. For the words placed on
give everyone my warmest thanks; follow the the frame are as always an indicator, an invitation to
advice and guidance of your leaders amongst personal involvement, the first step towards formu-
the nobility and do not believe the nonsensical lation of the meaning of the whole composition.
and absurd rumours and talk of redistribution Therefore, reading the text on the frame, the viewer
of land, free donations of plots and suchlike. is led back to the picture once more. The words of
These rumours are being spread by our enemies. the emperor take us across the frame again, and
All property, just the same as yours, must be in - offer us a place amongst the people by the emperor’s
violable. May God give you happiness and health. side. The effect is assisted and even made inevitable
by the passage formed by the parting of the two
Placed within the main picture frame, between groups of figures in the foreground, and strength-
us and the picture, these words are received by, ened by the bright light and the ground colour,
and are indeed addressed to, the viewer. The main harmonizing closely with the hue of the gilt frame.
frame closes the space occupied by the words and In this movement from bottom to top the
the visual image: we read the inscription, and by viewer’s eye again meets the frame, the centre of

1
 chapter three: the lustre of power

its upper part displaying the arms

of the Russian Empire, clearly
establishing a symbolic link along
the axis: speech – emperor – coat of
arms. The speech, addressed to the
people in the picture and to the
viewer simultaneously, obliges the
latter to enter the picture and stand
before the emperor, who personifies
the state, symbolized by the coat of
arms surmounted by a crown. The
whole effect of the frame, however,
works on the viewer’s eye in the
opposite direction, from the top
downwards along the same axis:
coat of arms – emperor – speech.
And then it seems as if it is not the
viewer but the emperor who has
to step over the frame and his own
words contained within its space –
and that this will be only the first
step upon his way. We alternate
between immersing ourselves in
the picture and what is taking place
there and leaving it to return to
the space that surrounds the scene,
looking slowly over the whole and
connecting what is to be seen on
the frame with the content of
the painting. Now that the frame
significantly enters our visual
perception of the work, we are
led to examine it not in a vertical
direction but looking round it,
clockwise.
The viewer’s eye is caught by
the brightly coloured coats of arms

13 Emperor Alexander III Receiving the Leaders of the Volosts.

Detail showing the central portion.

13
part two: playing with space

of all the lands and provinces of the Russian

Empire, composing the ornament of the picture
frame, threaded along it like jewels in the gold
cladding of an icon. And they are indeed the jewels
on the imperial crown, displayed as visual symbols
of the title of the emperor, including the two-headed
eagle, the emperor’s full name. A name always
expresses its own meaning. The ways in which
naming relates to what and who is named is in
the present case the most important aspect of
reception. The use to which a name is put is an
essential side of the cognitive activity of the viewer’s
eye. And here aesthetics maximally converges with
politics.
The beauty of this picture frame is tantamount
to the beauty of the imperial title, embracing the
concept of the unity of the Russian Empire. It is
here that the frame contains heightened cognitive
interest for the eye, which must relate the coats
of arms to the volost leaders who surround the
emperor and read the symbolic links between
them. The coats of arms on the frame convey that
the volost leaders are representative of the whole
Russian people and of all the lands making up the
Russian Empire. In other words, the ornament on
the frame is a garland of symbols with reference
to the state, a heraldic image of the state, and the
title of the emperor displayed in visual form. These
symbols encompass not only the specific historical
event that took place on 21 May 1883 in the court-
yard of the Petrovsky Palace in Moscow, but also
a mythological space and time evocative of the
whole complex of ideas connected with the build-
ing of the Russian Empire and of Moscow as the
Third Rome. This is confirmed by other ornamental
elements with allusions to the Bible and folk
mythology. In particular, the fantastic beasts

13 Detail of the frame.

14
 chapter three: the lustre of power

to be interpreted differently according to whether

it was to be considered as from a divine or a
human viewpoint. It was the frame, executed in
close symbolic relationship with the St George,
St Alexander and St Andrew halls in the Great
Kremlin Palace, that carried the image of the
emperor into a mythological context. Furthermore,
the picture and its frame hanging in the Ante-
chamber acted as a window into the spaces of
the ceremonial halls, as is borne out by the very
construction of the frame. On the one hand, the
frame drew together the monumental ceiling of the
Antechamber and the wall on which the painting
hung, its flat form, embellished with griffons and
the like, facilitating this function; and on the other
hand, it imitated the form of the window surrounds
belong to the order of griffons, dragons and of a Russian izba, in this adopting the rhetoric of
basilisks frequently found in Russian manuscripts the ‘common home’ of national autocracy and
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries with orthodoxy. Through this ‘window’ the visitor saw
ornamental teratological motifs (illus. 139), and an idealized Russia: as he or she walked through
which also occur on the exteriors of Early Russian the ceremonial halls, with their repeated depictions
churches, for example the cathedral of St George in of the coats of arms of the lands and provinces of
Yur’yev-Pol’sky. All these fantastic beasts, according the Russian Empire, the visitor became immersed
to popular tradition, lived at the edge of the earth, in the wondrous atmosphere of merged history and
the meeting-point of the sky and the earth, in that myth. In the Antechamber an image of the emperor
far-off unknown realm in search of which the met the eye (illus. 140), but in the St Andrew Hall,
supernatural heroes of Russian folk tales so often or Throne Hall, one met his living person (illus. 143).
set out on their expeditions. The boats depicted on In other words, if Repin’s painting in its frame told
either side of the imperial coat of arms at the top the viewer that the state of Alexander iii was built
of the frame could belong either to these mytho- on the ideal of the unity of Orthodoxy, autocracy
logical personages or to the historical Varangian and nationality, then the architectural decoration
warriors, setting out to acquire the Russian lands of the ceremonial halls, where the living emperor
and to discover Holy Rus’, the mythological land and images of him constantly came face to face
of universal prosperity and peace. and at the same time related to all that surrounded
At the same time, if Repin’s painting imitated them in the palace, was ample testimony of this.
reality, its frame divided it, subdivided it and artic- The Antechamber where Repin’s painting
ulated it, and indicated that the picture space was hung, with the St George, St Alexander, St Andrew

13 Ornamental headpiece from a Gospel book, 1409. overleaf: 140 Main staircase at the Great Kremlin Palace,
Pskov. showing Repin’s Alexander III Receiving the Leaders of the
Volosts in the Antechamber.

15
part two: playing with space

and St Vladimir halls, was the setting for corona- St George, long revered by the Russian people as a
tion ceremonies. It was here that the last Russian valiant and glorious warrior (illus. 141). His image
monarchs were crowned: Alexander ii in 1856, adorned the coat of arms of Moscow, whose patron
Alexander iii in 1883, and Nicholas ii in 1896. saint he was, and also the arms of the Russian
By tradition, each of these halls had its special Empire. St George was therefore depicted next
use. Those of highest military ranks assembled in to the most conspicuous point on our frame, the
the St George Hall; civil servants, local government national coat of arms at the top. Two bas-reliefs
officials and representatives of the nobility in the of the saint by P. K. Klodt were incorporated in
St Alexander Hall; and in the St Andrew Hall the stucco mouldings on the south and north walls
(Throne Hall) were the emperor and empress and of the St George Hall, presenting the saint’s image
members of the imperial family, members of the to the public eye in magnified form.
State Council and leading members of the nobility. In comparison with the other ceremonial halls,
Finally, in the St Vladimir Hall a company from the St George Hall had a markedly memorial char-
the Alexander Military School and four platoons acter, in keeping with its function as a sanctified
of Moscow cadets assembled. In all these halls an ‘shrine’ in glorification of Russian arms; and this
idealized portrayal of the orthodox monarchy was clearly seen in the design of walls and ceiling.
was to be found; the decorative detail throughout The unusual paleness of the walls was the effect
was a powerful demonstration that the construc- of a continuous series of white memorial plaques
tion and the might of the Russian Empire enjoyed on which names of distinguished army units and
divine protection and that emperor, state and warship crews and lists of holders of the St George
people constituted a mystic unity. This conception Cross from 1769 to 1885 were inscribed in gold
of the orthodox polity was revealed in the very lettering. Among the many names recorded with
names of the halls, which were dedicated to the the St George Cross and the motto ‘For service
principal national orders, bearing the names of and bravery’, those of Suvorov, Kutuzov, Bagration,
those saints particularly associated with the Ushakov and Nakhimov were to be seen. But the
history of the Russian state. names of living heroes also adorned the walls, on
An order was a mark of service to the sover- which St George Crosses and ribbons of the order
eign and the state, but the association of an order everywhere echoed the overall architectural design.
with a saint was not only a symbol of this or that Though the St George Hall was conceived as a
saint’s patronage of activities for the benefit of the shrine to military valour, the idea of glorification
fatherland, but also a special symbol for the principle of the monarch and the building of empire was
of orthodoxy determining the course of Russian not forgotten there. Above each list of holders
history. Hence in each of the halls, Repin’s painting of the St George Cross were monograms of the
and its frame found many analogous meanings Russian autocrats: e ii, p i, a i, n i, a ii, a iii, n ii.
to explicate and enrich them, chief among them They signified that the history of the Russian Empire
that springing from religious ideology. Thus the was to be understood as the history of the linear
St George Hall was dedicated to the order of progress of the state, expressed in the successive

1
 chapter three: the lustre of power

reigns of Russian monarchs. They testified that Armenia. We have already seen these coats of arms
every military victory of the Russian people had on the frame of the picture in the Antechamber of
been won not only during the reign of this or that the palace. Now the history of the growth of the
monarch but also under that monarch’s personal empire represented on the frame of Repin’s paint-
patronage. At this point the memorial theme was ing acquires a more visible outline and is fleshed
combined with the triumphal. The vaulted ceiling out with triumphal subject matter.
of the hall rested on eighteen massive piers with The triumphal idea has been symbolized by
attached columns, nine on each side. The triumphal armour since antiquity. On our frame it is repre-
idea was embodied in the sculptor Ivan Vitali’s sented not only by the shield bearing the imperial
allegorical figures of Victory placed upon the coat of arms but also by the Varangian motifs, the
entablatures, holding shields displaying the coats of stylized boats lined with warriors launched on a
arms of the Russian tsars and territories with dates campaign to acquire the Russian territories repre-
of conquests. On the shield of the first of these sented by the coats of arms seen round the frame.
statues, at the entrance of the hall, was the date These boats are being launched in different direc-
1472, the year of the conquest of Perm’, and on tions from the centre of the upper part of the
that of the last 1828, the date of the annexation of frame, clearly, once they have made their long

141 St George Hall, Great Kremlin Palace, 13–4;

architect Konstantin Ton.

1
part two: playing with space

historical journey, to be reunited on the spot where

the words of Emperor Alexander iii are displayed.
In the decorative scheme of the ceremonial halls
armaments and weaponry featured with more
variety, in motifs of banners, shields, helmets,
arrows, guns and shot, symbolizing almost the
entire history of Russian arms, from the earliest
times up to the era of Nicholas i, Alexander ii and
Alexander iii. In this scheme clocks with ornamen-
tal sculptural groups were prominent. The bases
of such clocks were ornamented with depictions
of various kinds of armament acting as symbolic
framing, complementing and commenting on the
meaning of the corresponding sculpture above, for
example, portrayals of St George the dragon-killer
and popular champion of justice, and of Minin
and Pozharsky, liberators of Russia from the
Polish-Lithuanian invaders, by the firm of Nichols
and Plinke after designs by the sculptor Alexander
Loganovsky (1812–55). The ‘framing’ clock bases
not only inseparably linked the sculptural images
with each other but also, placed against the memo-
rial panels bearing the names of military units and
of holders of the St George Cross and monograms
of emperors, lent these a triumphal meaning. Moller (1812–75) depicting episodes from the life of
In the next hall, walls, ceiling, floor, windows Alexander Nevsky, such as Papal Envoys from Rome
and door all created a special atmosphere and Convert Alexander Nevsky to Catholicism, Marriage
contributed to a perception of the greatness of the of Alexander Nevsky to Alexandra, Daughter of the
Russian monarchy. This hall was dedicated to the Prince of Polotsk and Alexander, in Battle with the
military order of Alexander Nevsky, founded in 1725 Swedes, Strikes the Enemy Leader Birger with his
by Empress Elizabeth i with the motto ‘For services Spear. These depictions were backed up by gilded
and country’. Whereas in the St George Hall the allegorical sculptural figures by Alexander
emphasis of the decorative setting was sculptural Loganovsky. Above the entrance doors were two
and verbal, in the Alexander Hall the focus was representations of Alexander Nevsky (one as a
on paintings, emblems and mirrors. The story of prince, the other having taken monastic vows),
Alexander iii’s patron saint was told in detail in a which stood as the beginning and the end of the
series of framed paintings on the walls by Fyodor story that the viewer would read in the paintings on

14 St Alexander Hall, Great Kremlin Palace, 13–4;

mid-1th-century engraving.

0
 chapter three: the lustre of power

the walls.5 These paintings were clearly to be under- and on the frame of Repin’s painting in the
stood in the context of the struggle waged for faith Antechamber. All this ‘almost barbarian abun-
and fatherland by the leading patron saint of the dance of lustre’ (in the words of an eyewitness)
Russian warrior; whereas St George belonged to was achieved and strengthened by the dramatic
the whole Christian world, St Alexander Nevsky play of light through the windows on the south
was the chief hero of the mythology of the Russian side. Meeting the mirrors on doors and windows
state, standing at the very beginning of the military of the opposite wall, light flooded the hall with
campaign to build the Russian Empire. In the reflected images: floor, windows, pictures, symbols
design of the cupola of the hall this message was of orders on walls and on people – everything was
given tangible form by the sacred monogram of suddenly reflected in everything else, stirring the
the order, sa (Sanctus Alexander), incorporated in viewer’s imagination.
gilt bas-reliefs. And in the corners of the cupola the One more step, into the next hall, and the picture
state coat of arms reappeared, the two-headed would reach its culmination. In the Throne Hall
eagle with the imperial crown, and between gilded (St Andrew Hall) the visitor would come face to face
twisted columns, the coats of arms of the lands and with a living icon: the emperor himself (illus. 143).
provinces of Russia, as seen in the St George Hall But the entrant was first prepared by the framing of

143 St Andrew Hall, Great Kremlin Palace, 13–4.

1
part two: playing with space

the doorway (illus. 142). This was an elaborate S. P. Bartenev observed in the last days of the tsarist
portal resembling both a triumphal arch and an era, ‘is reminiscent of a church, thus marking the
Empire-style Russian iconostasis. Seeing these sacred dignity of tsarist power.’6
doors, no one could fail to be reminded of the ‘royal The sacredness of the Throne Hall was indicated
doors’ of the high iconostasis – similar to those by its dedication to St Andrew, one of the apostles
from the first half of the nineteenth century, with and brother of St Peter, baptizer of heathen Rome,
classical pediment and Empire-style side columns, in his Russian version. The tradition of St Andrew
which we have already met with. When first as the baptizer of Rus’ and founder of a new, Third
glimpsed through half-opened doors, the throne Rome/Muscovite tsardom ruled by an Orthodox
and its setting were reminiscent of the design of the monarch emerged during the formation of the
throne with canopy and altar seen in the engraving Muscovite tsardom in the sixteenth century. From
of the St Alexander Hall shown above. However, the reign of Peter the Great, the cult of Andrew
above the entrance to the Throne Hall one saw not the First-called (protokletos in the early Byzantine
a religious representation of the Last Supper (as dis- tradition) took on a new dimension in that the
cussed earlier), but the coat of arms of the Russian Russian tsar claimed to be the heir of the apostle
Empire, the two-headed eagle with the imperial Andrew, now patron saint of Rus’ – the Third
crown, as depicted on the frame of Repin’s picture. Rome.7 On 10 March 1698 Peter founded the Order
There the crown was shown above an image of the of Andrew the First-called with the monogram
emperor, but in the framing of the entrance to the sapr (Sanctus Andreas Patronus Russiae) and the
Throne Hall it was seen above the living person of motto ‘For faith and loyalty’. In the formula
the emperor. It was to the imperial figure that the ‘Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality’ the nineteenth-
line of sight was drawn, emerging in the doorway century Russian tsars claimed to be the successors
as the doors of the St Alexander Hall slowly opened. of the rulers of Muscovy. In the Throne Hall this
We may recall that the doors of the Antechamber idea was clearly expressed in the baldachin above
gradually revealed the image of the emperor to any- the imperial throne, which echoed the canopy
one ascending the stairway. The doors opening into over the ‘Tsar’s Place’ of Ivan the Terrible in the
the Throne Hall presented a real-life scene from the cathedral of the Dormition (illus. 144): it was
‘theatre of power’. What met the eye was the sacred tent-shaped, with the imperial coat of arms on
heart of the empire established by God, and the the front facet, and was borne on four twisted
whole design of the wall at the centre of which the columns in symbolic reference to the Temple of
throne was set conveyed just this. Its hemispherical Solomon – signifying wisdom and strength – and
upper part took the form of the upper segment of surmounted with the symbols of the Order of
a rotunda, with a representation of the All-Seeing St Andrew, two-headed eagles and the St Andrew’s
Eye of God. ‘The architecture of the St Andrew (decussate) cross, representing the death and glory
Throne Hall, with its pointed vaulting, two rows of of the apostle. The capitals of the columns were
square piers and the All-Seeing Eye of God in rays repeated throughout the Throne Hall, with unified
of light above the imperial throne,’ the historian significance symbolic of the power of empire. Like


 chapter three: the lustre of power

the main windows were doors with mirrors and

more windows.
Finally, the decorative scheme of all the cere-
monial halls included the symbols and coloured
ribbons of the orders, planned by the architects
to link architecture with the dress of living people.
Thus the heraldic ornamentation of the frame of
Repin’s painting Emperor Alexander iii Receiving
the Leaders of the Volosts was repeated and devel-
oped not only in the architecture of the St George
and St Alexander halls but also in the ceremonial
atmosphere of the principal hall, the Throne Hall,
its ornamental scheme embodying the religio-
political idea of the national unity of the Russian
Empire. This ideal of unity was coded in symbolic
terms of Slavic nationalism: gilded articles of
early Slavic armour clearly corresponded with the
‘Varangian’ ships depicted on the frame of Repin’s
picture in the Antechamber, and lent a triumphal
air to all the halls.
After 1917 everything changed. Repin’s picture
disappeared from the Antechamber, and from 1950
to 1991 its place was taken, as already mentioned,
by a painting from the studio of Boris Ioganson
(1893–1973), Vladimir Lenin Speaking at the Third
Komsomol Congress (illus. 145). The style and sym-
bolism of the new picture dictated fundamentally
different analogues in its architectural setting.
Between 1932 and 1934 the St Alexander and
St Andrew halls were demolished and replaced
by the Hall of Congresses, used for meetings of
the preceding St Alexander Hall, the Throne Hall the Supreme Soviets of the ussr and the rsfsr
received light in daytime through two rows of (illus. 146). Since the painting from Ioganson’s stu-
windows, and it was illuminated in the evenings dio was not put on display until nearly two decades
by ten bronze chandeliers, with hoops ornamented after the Hall of Congresses was built, there is every
with the two-headed eagle and the symbols of reason to suppose that it was conceived specially for
the Order of St Andrew. On the wall opposite its place on the wall of the Antechamber, crucial as

144 ‘Tsar’s Place’ of Ivan Iv, c. 1551, Dormition Cathedral

in the Moscow Kremlin.

3
part two: playing with space

it is for an understanding of the whole spatial- pointing the way, his gaze is directed straight ahead,
symbolic scheme of the Great Kremlin Palace the link with the heavens is emphatically lost. And
complex. And indeed, a comparison between this the people? The delegates to the congress do not
painting and Repin’s yields interesting results. simply take in the words of their leader, they listen
In the Ioganson picture the figure of the emperor to him with rapt attention, faces showing their living
is replaced by that of the leader of the world’s response. As in Repin’s painting, the speaker is
proletariat, and the heads of the volosts by the surrounded by his listeners, but with one significant
Komsomol members who have journeyed to difference. Whereas the emperor stood on the
Moscow from all parts of the Soviet Union. The ground, Lenin seems to stand on a platform, serving
figure of Emperor Alexander iii was placed in the as an open tribune, raising him above his listeners.
centre of the painting, and was static. The figure This tribune effect provides a frame for the depic-
of Lenin is dynamic: as he speaks he is teaching, tion of the leader and his audience.

145 Studio of Boris Ioganson, Vladimir Lenin Speaking at the Third

Komsomol Congress, 150. State Historical Museum, Moscow.

4
 chapter three: the lustre of power

The socialist realist painting represents, once often functioning like an advertisement; it was a
again, a utopian world of ideal harmony. It submits species of simulacrum, or more exactly a falsified
to a new normative aesthetic the rules of which image actively formulating imagined reality.
are no longer laid down by the artist but by the Consequently, its connection with its frame
autocrat – Lenin (or Stalin). The autocrat is now and architectural setting displayed qualitatively
the possessor of the aesthetic idea that previously new features.
belonged to the artist, inasmuch as it is he who lays At first glance, the frame did not appear to be
down the canon for the new visual image. He may part of the artistic purpose of Ioganson’s studio.
reject one or another image as failing to correspond There seemed to be no play with the content of
to his plans for the transformation of the material the painting. Its function appeared to consist purely
world. The artist is allotted the role of mere illus- in presenting the picture to the viewer, sharpening
trator for the new political project. As a result, the limits of the picture area and making it clearer
the socialist realist depiction enacting the Stalinist and more distinct, heightening its impact as a
experience became an instrument of hypnosis, colourful patch on the wall. However, as in the case

146 Hall of Congresses of the Supreme Soviets of the uSSR and RSfSR,
Great Kremlin Palace, 13–4; architect Illarion Ivanov-Shits.

5
part two: playing with space

of Repin’s painting, it was actually calculated to to resurrect the pagan past, excising its mythological
relate the depicted scene to the architectural style or poetic presentiments’.8
of the Hall of Congresses, that is, it not only picked The weight and significance Lenin’s statue had
the painting out from the surrounding wall but for the entire hall was enhanced by further details
through its Neoclassical decoration also linked it of the architectural setting. A projecting cornice
to the new interior (illus. 146). The frame of this supported by two pillars with Corinthian capitals
socialist realist work could carry Neoclassical distanced the figure in the alcove from the members
decoration – acanthus leaves, laurel sprigs and the of the preasidium and created the feeling of a
like – and at the same time Soviet symbolism, which church, an effect to which six pillars further con-
always linked images with the new state mythology. tributed, three on each side of the statue of Lenin.
The new Hall of Congresses was designed in the Moreover, the projecting cornice was repeated on
official state style, Stalinist Empire, by the architect the rear wall itself, dividing it into two, the upper
Illarion Ivanov-Shits (1865–1937). As with the other part consisting of an arch and the lower of the
visual arts, Neoclassical architecture of the time was alcove with the centrally placed statue of Lenin.
called upon to demonstrate the grand ideas of the The All-Seeing Eye in the arch of the former
greatest architect, Lenin (or Stalin). It was also part Throne Hall was replaced by the coat of arms
of the programme of return to a Graeco-Roman of the ussr.
ideal. Features of classical architecture and pagan On this same vertical axis the eye took in
mythology were interestingly interwoven in the Hall the clock and the statue, a symbolic whole being
of Congresses with Soviet ideology and twentieth- formed, with the coat of arms, clock and statue
century functionalism, and elements of the antique emblematic of the new era in human history. The
– niches, columns, arches, cornices and so on – had praesidium seats were set on either side of a large
major significance in its design. table, looking down and out into the hall, reminis-
The alcove, for example, was a sacralized space cent of a multi-stepped pediment of living people,
carrying not a few symbolic allusions. The temple with the statue of Lenin rising above them. And
of antiquity usually contained a statue of a divinity the chairman of the preasidium, speaking on the
or hero. In the alcove at the far wall of the Hall of tribune, was located on the very same axis as the
Congresses, above the praesidium seats, was placed Soviet coat of arms, the clock and the statue of
a statue of Lenin (1939) by the well-known Soviet Lenin, creating a mythological model of the social-
sculptor Sergey Merkurov (1881–1952) for which ist state.
a death mask was used. Thus the huge figure of Thus everything seen in the Ioganson painting
Lenin took command over the whole hall, and at corresponded in essence with what took place in
times it seemed as if the leader of the world prole- the architectural space of the Hall of Congresses,
tariat might come out of the alcove and take part which the picture correlated with events that had
in proceedings in the hall. Reverence for this statue taken place in the hall at the beginning of the
bore all the hallmarks of religious worship: for history of the Soviet state founded by Lenin, and
totalitarianism always ‘sought one way or another the chairman of the praesidium, standing on the

6
 chapter three: the lustre of power

tribune of the Hall of Congresses that had replaced Rome but also embodies a visual equivalent of the
the imperial throne in the former St Andrew Hall, displayed title of the Russian emperor. And to the
was taken for his living analogue. extent, as Vladimir Solovyov has noted, ‘that grand
The tribune as a setting for a political leader titles, when not self-aggrandizing, are symbols of
received, of course, special theoretical interpreta- historical tasks’, they repay study for the specific
tion and artistic treatment at the hands of Soviet cultural meanings they contain.10
artists from 1920 to 1930. In the field of graphic At a cursory glance, the eye would often be
art it is sufficient to remember El Lissitzky’s well- caught in a net of cunningly placed symbols.
known sketch of Lenin on his tribune, and in From the dawn of history, the title of a monarch
architecture the Palace of Soviets and the Lenin or leader, like the name of God, was of prime
Mausoleum, which were designed as tribunes, importance in human portrayals. In human con-
pedestals and ‘shrines’. The architects had the idea sciousness a title was inseparable from the identity
of crowning the huge multi-tiered Palace of Soviets of the person bearing it and could even stand in
with a 75-metre-high statue of Lenin, while the its place. Therefore, as has already been noted,
Mausoleum, designed by Aleksey Shchusev a representation of Christ or a saint had to be
(1873–1949), was conceived as a memorial to a accompanied by his name. Following the decree
dead leader – the principal tribune of the nation, of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787, it was
from which the Soviet leaders ruled its people. naming that gave icons their force, that is, the
inscription accompanying the ‘portrait’ of a saint.
But in the genre of the official portrait the situation
The Rhetoric of Title
became more complex. A portrait of a monarch
In ancient Rome the word titulus denoted a short contained symbols of virtue that in time were
inscription in a shrine or on a statue. Inscriptions supplemented by a monogram, that is, a variant
on tombs were called tituli sepulcrales. The Latin of the name of the portrayed.
word translates as ‘name’, ‘designation’ or ‘title’. The title of ‘tsar’ first appears in early Rus’ in
Here lies the origin of the title of emperor, for the reign of Ivan iii. The word tsar’ is derived from
example. The titulus was a form of address used Caesar, the title used by Roman emperors after
towards God, a monarch or a distinguished person. Augustus and then by Christian rulers following
Ordinary people had no titulus. Specialists have them. Ivan iv (the Terrible, reg 1533–84) had every
studied the different forms of naming and address- right to have himself crowned tsar in 1547, and
ing Russian monarchs and highlighted their con- it was from this time that the term became the
nection with sacred semantics.9 And the history official title of the Russian monarch; accompanying
of the palatial frame offers us all kinds of visual depictions of the monarch, it embarked on a long
equivalents of such forms of address. Thus the historical journey during which it found expression
symbolism of the frame of Repin’s painting in the in innumerable written and visual forms. And it is
Antechamber of the Great Kremlin Palace involves important to note that in the course of this journey
not only ideas and images of Moscow as the Third the title’s authenticity in visual terms evolved in


part two: playing with space

direct dependence not only on the history of portraits belonged. As in official literary genres,
Russian autocracy itself but also on the Western ornament and design of the frame of an imperial
Latin rhetorical tradition already discussed in con- portrait could discreetly contain a religious motif
nection with Russian Baroque icons. A prime exam- conveying divine protection of tsarist or imperial
ple comes from the end of the seventeenth century power, giving the image of the emperor iconic
and beginning of the eighteenth, when the depiction treatment. For example, the poet Vasiliy Petrov’s
of the two-headed eagle (that is, the visual title ode ‘On the Ceremonial Arrival of His Imperial
taken over from the Holy Roman Empire) was Majesty Paul i in Moscow’ (1797) contains a conceit
increasingly accompanied by tsarist and imperial of angels holding a portrait of the emperor as an
regalia and also by the monarch’s name in the form image of God Himself:
of a monogram. That is to say, the single universal
title of Russian monarchs acquired a changed visual Here delicate Alexander, and there
formula: the monarch’s monogram became a Constantine holds your sacred frame.
rhetorical addition and as it were a symbolic framing Here are Your Angels, nearest to the throne;
for the two-headed eagle, the universal part of the You are Divine, and they bear Your image below.12
emperor’s title. Consequently, from the second
half of the seventeenth century the Russian palatial At the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth
painting frame began to communicate with the centuries angels were likewise depicted bearing
viewer in European post-Renaissance cultural terms.
The rhetoric of the imperial title determined the
ornament on the frame, which evolved within the
mainstream of the eulogistic tradition. Furthermore,
the form taken by the naming of the depicted figure
on the frame created the ‘reason for the existence’
of the painting, which flowed from the structure of
the name itself.11
In this connection, the ornamentation on the
palatial frame, taking in monograms, imperial
regalia, coats of arms, all kinds of symbols of the
tsar’s virtue and power, was inseparably linked
with oral and literary forms of address towards the
sovereign. These are conspicuous in sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century detailed descriptions of coro-
nation ritual, and become more and more grand
and high-flown in style as expressed in the numer-
ous homilies, odes and speeches that were essential
elements of the ‘theatre of power’ to which official

14 Louis-Michel van Loo(?), Empress Elizabeth, c. 150.


 chapter three: the lustre of power

Empress Elizabeth attributed to

Louis-Michel van Loo, angels hold
a cartouche with her monogram
(illus. 147). Their feet cross the edge
of the frame, which this author
takes to serve as a symbolic link
between name and image: holding
up the empress’s monogram, the
angels also hold up her portrait.
To the same period belongs a
cartouche with the monogram of
Elizabeth i (reg 1741–62) held up by
the Archangels Gabriel and Michael
on the wall of the cathedral of
the Dormition in the Goritsky
Monastery, Pereslavl-Zalessky (1759,
illus. 148), a typical example of
converging aesthetic and symbolic
decorative approaches in palaces
and churches, a similar composition
being found in a number of stucco
and painted ceilings of the second
half of the eighteenth century. ‘The
most beautiful part of the ceiling
of the first antechamber,’ writes
Alexander Benua of the decorative
work at the palace at Tsarskoye
Selo surviving from the period of
Elizabeth, ‘is the painted frame and
the small, mosaic-like motifs inside
it.’13 This frame also contains a
heavenwards monarchs’ coats of arms and mono- cartouche with the monogram of Catherine i and
grams in cartouches, and not only on picture the Russian imperial coat of arms surrounded by
frames, in palace ceiling paintings and in all kinds angels and allegorical figures expressing glorifica-
of apotheosis scenes, but also even in the decora- tion of the whole composition.14 The foregoing
tive schemes of church walls. Thus on the upper might offer grounds for suggesting that a literary
part of the elaborate frame of the portrait of analogue for a palatial painting frame might be

14 Cartouche with the monogram of Elizabeth I in the

Dormition Cathedral of the Goritsky Monastery, 15.


part two: playing with space

monarchs and service aristocracy

(parsuny) were painted under the
direction of foreign masters. Quite
probably it was at this time that the
first family galleries were founded
in Russia, long after those in Western
European countries. In dynastic
portrait galleries ‘spaces of honour’
were accommodated, usually in
throne and reception halls and
rooms devoted to the nobility, but
sometimes in special rooms of their
own. The conception of a collection
of family portraits was realized
in the Titulyarnik, a genealogical
series of portraits ordered from
masters of the Armoury Palace by
Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich (reg
1645–76) and painted in 1673.
The carved and painted wooden
frames of the Russian parsuny that
decorated halls and chambers of
the second half of the seventeenth
century and beginning of the eigh-
teenth could have been made in the
Armoury workshop where icon
frames were produced. With some
caution, these portraits may be
considered as modified and diverg-
found in the panegyric, a graphic one in the ing forms of the iconic depictions discussed in the
Baroque colophon of the second half of the first chapter of this book. It is hardly surprising
seventeenth century and first half of the eight - that the parsuny at the tombs in the cathedral of
eenth, and an architectural one in the triumphal the Archangel in the Moscow Kremlin are painted
arch. on icon boards, their flat form maintaining Russian
In 1683 a studio was set up in the Moscow iconic tradition. In some cases the composition
Kremlin quite separate from the icon-painting of parsuny of the second half of the seventeenth
workshop, in which official portraits of Russian century depicting Aleksey show points of derivation

14 Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, 160s–0s. State Historical Museum, Moscow.

30
 chapter three: the lustre of power

forms, including paintings, icons, miniatures and

engravings. Not the least part in this convergence is
played by the frame. A typical example is an eques-
trian portrait of Tsar Aleksey Mickaylovich painted
by the masters of the Armoury Palace in the late
1670s or early 1680s under the influence of Western
European portraiture. At the same time, the
inscription on the painting itself (‘The Devout
Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Prince Aleksey
Autocrat of all Great and Little and White Russia’)
displays a closeness to the icon, and the gold back-
ground and gold-painted frame with depictions
of precious stones derives from both the icon and
the miniature (illus. 149). The same is true of the
frame of the portrait of Patriarch Nikon attributed
to a German painter Hans Deterson from the
Monastery of the Resurrection at New Jerusalem
(illus. 150). The decorative forms of ingots or
precious stones on the flat wooden frame make
it look like the frame of an icon. There is every
reason to suppose that this is one of the early
portrait frames made in the workshops of the
Armoury Palace.
Now the Western European palatial portrait
frame enters Russian court culture. Evidence of
this is seen in seventeenth-century inventories of
the estate of Prince V. V. Golitsyn mentioning
portraits of British, Polish, Swedish and Danish
monarchs.15 A little later, royal portraits appeared
from the icon of Christ Pantocrator, not only on Alexander Menshikov’s estate of Novo-
because the depictions of Christ and the Russian Alekseyevskoye, where ‘the first room’ contained
tsar maintain the regalia of Byzantine emperors ‘three paintings, including two portraits of foreign
(sakkos and mitre-crown) but also because of kings in gilt frames’.16 Finally, ‘portraits in flat gilded
compositional detail on frames taken from frames with the same stamp at the top and with
Western European engravings. In accordance with painted monograms’ are mentioned in inventories
the new Western rhetoric and aesthetic, the early of the Sheremetev portrait gallery in Kuskovo,
Russian parsuna converges with other Western art which, judging from its reconstruction, must have

150 Hans Deterson(?), Patriarch Nikon, c. 1655.

31
part two: playing with space

is the two-headed eagle, the universal part of the

monarch’s title, indicating that the frame belonged
to a portrait of the tsar. The two-headed eagle gives
it a special panegyric significance; as a traditional
symbol of Russian absolutism, it constantly occurs
in Russian panegyric literature from Simeon
Polotsky to Mikhail Lomonosov.19
With the establishment of Western European
court ritual by Peter the Great, the rhetoric of title
on the palatial portrait frame was to evolve more
rapidly. There was an increasing tendency to place
a crown on the upper part of the frame, relating
to the figure portrayed. Along with coat of arms,
monogram, regalia and trophies, the crown became
one of the chief points of visual attraction in a
portrait. Although it had been Tsar Aleksey who
established the organized practice of heraldry
in Russia, it was Peter the Great who set up the

been one of the most important Russian country

estate galleries of the eighteenth century.17 It follows,
therefore, that the frame shown in an old photo-
graph of a portrait of the Patriarch Filaret (illus. 151)
may have been made by Russian craftsmen after
Western European models, which appears more
likely if this frame is compared with that of
Velázquez’s well-known portrait of the Duke of
Olivarez in the Hermitage: the same type of orna-
mental mascaron appears on each. Compared with
Western European palatial portrait frames of the
time, Russian ones appear modest. Grape orna-
mentation on a frame dating from the turn of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the
Kolomenskoye Museum is reminiscent of decora-
tive painting on icon cases and iconostases (illus.
152).18 In addition, on the upper part of this frame

151 Patriarch Filaret, second half of 1th century, in the 15 Late 1th-century or early 1th-century frame.
House of the Romanov Boyars, Moscow. State Open-air Museum of Architectural History and
Art ‘Kolomenskoye’, Moscow.

3
153 Peter I, c. 15–100. Museum-Estate ‘Arkhangel’skoye’, Moscow province.
154 Paul Delaroche, Peter I, 13. Kunsthalle, Hamburg.
 chapter three: the lustre of power

so-called Herald-Master’s Office,

known as the Gerol’diya, with the
function of representing the Russian
nobility and creating coats of arms.
And from this time right up to 1917,
the visual titles of the emperor and
the nobility found an unusual vari-
ety of decorative forms executed by
Russian and foreign craftsmen alike.
It is especially interesting to
compare these treatments on the
frames of portraits of Peter. The
frame for the portrait from the
collection of the museum-estate of
Arkhangels’koye, made by Russian
craftsmen during the last quarter of
the eighteenth century, has striking-
ly sober decoration despite being
crowned with a cartouche bearing
Peter’s monogram surrounded by
oak sprigs and regalia (illus. 153).20
The frame for the portrait by
the French artist Paul Delaroche
(1797–1856), portraying the emperor
in a wintry setting, has a wholly
different kind of design (illus. 154).
Imbued with panegyric sentiment,
this frame not only ‘names’ the sub-
ject through the two-headed eagle and monogram, wheat, flowers and acanthus leaves – contribute to
but gives the image a cryptic meaning concerned the image of the emperor as ‘father of the father-
with the ideology of statehood. If the cannon and land’, a wise and solicitous ruler.
map in the painting symbolize the emperor’s readi- The frame of the portrait of Peter the Great and
ness to campaign for the good of his country, the Catherine i in the honorifically named Peter’s
ornament on the frame seems to assert the nobility Throne Room in the Winter Palace in St Petersburg,
of his actions. Symbols of abundance without any designed by Auguste-Ricard de Montferrand in 1833,
triumphal significance – grapes and vine leaves, is a special case, chiming not only with the architec-
pomegranates and pears, interwoven with ears of tural ornamentation of the hall, but also with the

155 Peter’s Throne Room of 133 (designed by Auguste-Ricard de

Montferrand) in the Winter Palace, St Petersburg.

35
part two: playing with space

living figure of the emperor himself

(illus. 155). The portrait is symboli-
cally linked with first the throne and
secondly the space around it, being
placed in the alcove above the
throne, in the manner of an altar
painting in a Western church. It is
doubly framed: the outer frame is
provided by a marble tabernacle
with elements of the classical orders,
and the inner frame, the carved pic-
ture frame, harmonizes the painting
with its entire surroundings. Thus
the attributes of imperial power
displayed in the double framing and
the throne visually united the image
and the living person of the emperor,
that is, Nicholas i and his successors.
The tabernacle was crowned with
the imperial crown, below which the
monogram of Peter the Great was
displayed, and the portrait frame
with the two-headed eagle. The
throne itself, as the framing for the
living figure of the emperor, repeated
all these symbols. The throne and
the frame of the imperial portrait
were thus symbolically brought
together as the principal framing
elements of the imperial palace.21
In comparison with the imperial
palace, the frames of portraits of
the monarch in the palaces of the
Russian aristocracy would be char-
acterized by features corresponding
to the relationship of the court
magnate or other serving figure with

156 Nikolay Argunov’s Emperor Paul I, 1 on display in the Sheremetev

Palace. Ostankino Museum, Moscow. Detail of the frame below.

36
 chapter three: the lustre of power

the sovereign. Thus the frame of the coronation

portrait of Paul i by the artist Nikolay Argunov
(1771–1829)in the Sheremetev Palace at Ostankino,
a celebrated focal point for the arts, was the con-
ceptual centre of the furnishing and decoration of
the entire palace (illus. 156). It was crowned with an
eagle symbolizing the ruling monarch, the out-
stretched wings covering attributes of the sciences
and arts. In the same way the frame characterized
the figure of Paul i as a patron of the arts and
sciences, as Sheremetev was himself – and the image
of the emperor stands against a real-life background
showing the furnishings of the drawing room in
which the painting was to hang, creating the illusion
of a framed ‘live presence’ of the emperor in Count
Nikolay Sheremetev’s palace.
Another interesting frame is that of a portrait
of Catherine II by Fyodor Rokotov (1735–1808) in
the house of one Nikolay Yeremeyevich Struysky in
Penza province (illus. 157).22 In this case the frame
of the portrait, rather than characterizing the por-
trayed figure, expresses the reverence felt towards
that figure by the owner of the portrait. At the top
of the frame is the monogram of Catherine with
the imperial crown, and on the lower part attributes
of the arts and an opened book with Struysky’s
epistle addressed to the empress (for which he is
reported to have been rewarded with a diamond
ring). The frame is placed on a marble console sup-
ported by a sculptured two-headed eagle. Its origi-
nality is wholly within the bounds of the classical
aesthetic, in which the association between paint-
ing, sculpture and poetry denoted inspiration. In
the present case, the inspiration is attributed to the
author of the epistle in reward for devoted service.
The frame can play a no less elucidatory role in
the case of aristocratic portraits, not only bearing

15 fyodor Rokotov’s Empress Catherine ii in a late

1th-century frame.

3
part two: playing with space

coats of arms, titles and marks of distinction, but and eighteenth-century Western European tradi-
also employed to exalt the subject by all possible tion for displaying paintings (evident from
means – the use of ornament and pedestal, posi- Jan Steen’s Harpsichord Lesson; c. 1660, Wallace
tioning and harmonization with the surrounding Collection, London, which shows a picture
interior. Nikolay Ge’s portrait of Countess half-concealed by a curtain). A curtain always
Aleksandra Aleksandrovna Olsuf ’yeva and her gave special significance to court portraits, losing
two sons is set in a grand armorial frame (illus. the sacred function derived from the icon and
158).23 A photograph of the reception room of her partaking rather of the nature of theatre, in which
house in Chernigov province shows the dominat- the opening and closing of a curtain plays an
ing position of the painting, standing on a plinth important role in the dramatic action.
and with a covering curtain,24 to be looked at only A title was often displayed on a palatial portrait
on special occasions, following the seventeenth- frame surrounded by trophies – antique or medieval

15 Nikolay Ge, Countess Aleksandra Aleksandrovna

Olsuf’yeva with her Sons, photograph c. 115.

3
 chapter three: the lustre of power

An early example of the Russian ‘triumphal’

frame surrounds the portrait of Tsar Aleksey
Mikhaylovich from the Titulyarnik of 1672 (illus.
160). After the manner of Western European
engravings, it contains examples of Slavic weaponry,
making the portrait distinctly triumphal. On
the celebrated bas-relief of Peter the Great (1744;
Tretyakov Gallery) by the sculptor Carlo Bartolomeo
Rastrelli the triumphal theme had already been
embodied in the symbolic linking of frame and
image. At the top of this bas-relief of the emperor
in armour at the battle of Poltava is a crown among
laurel sprigs – symbolic since antiquity of an

weapons or objects of military significance contem-

poraneous with the frame, such as Roman axes and
quivers of arrows, military standards, cannon and
shot, swords and rifles. Regalia depicted on a frame
embodied the idea of continuity of power, while
trophies always conveyed glorification and the idea
of triumph. On objects of palace life of all kinds,
the title of tsar or emperor with surrounding orna-
mental trophies stood as substantiated by military
victory and heroic deeds for the benefit of the
fatherland (illus. 159). But objects of court life
are one thing, a portrait of a tsar another, and
the frame for the latter related more closely to the
portrait than to the environment of the subject;
it was addressed to the viewer, whom its object
was to impress with an idea of the scale of the
tsar’s power.

15 Monogram of Emperor Peter I, framed with trophies 160 Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich from Titulyarnik, 16.
on the box safe of Peter I, c. 100–5. State Hermitage Russian State Archive of Early Documents, Moscow.
Museum, St Petersburg.

3
part two: playing with space

emperor, victor and hero – and also a decoratively The trophies depicted on the frame of a portrait
depicted chain of the highest state honour, the of a Russian monarch were calculated to convince
Order of Andrew the First-called, which had the viewer that he was the leading figure in military
become a component of the imperial regalia. campaigns; victory was associated with him and
Thus the portrait of the emperor in armour and with him only, and consequently, other portraits
the frame ornament are both subordinated to the displayed alongside his enjoyed no such rich symbol-
main idea, glorification of the emperor’s military ism. This is especially evident in the gallery of 1812 in
victories, of which Poltava was considered the the Winter Palace, St Petersburg, designed by Carlo
most important. The same motifs occur on the Rossi (1826). The portrait of Alexander i hung on the
frame of the miniature portrait of Catherine the cross wall of the narrow gallery has a frame richly
Great by A. I. Cherny (1765; Hermitage). Relief decorated with trophy symbols and a curtain of
depictions of an eagle bearing a laurel twig in its sacred tradition to enhance its importance. The
beak, two cupids, cannon, standards, trumpets, portraits of the Russian generals of the war of 1812
palm leaves and bunches of grapes establish the are of considerably smaller size and hung on the side
empress as a wise and victorious ruler. walls. In the architect’s plan they serve as a framing

161 Jan Theniusz., Battle of the Zuider Zee, in a frame by Johannes Kinnema, 166.

40
 chapter three: the lustre of power

possession and superiority. Consequently, they

frequently leave the context of depicted images and
reach the frame, and vice versa. A striking example
is a carved trophy frame made in 1668 by the
master Johannes Kinnema for the painting Battle
of the Zuider Zee by Jan Theunisz. (illus. 161). In
Russian eighteenth-century art this kind of frame
is more characteristic of engravings than of paint-
ings, and generally used for maps and military
campaign plans, an example being a cartouche
displaying a plan for the taking of the town of
Korela on 7 June 1710, by an unknown engraver
of the school of Pieter Picart (illus. 162).25
Trophy ornament began to appear on palatial
picture frames during the Petrine era, which saw
the first triumphal arches in Russia. At the end
of September 1696, on the return of the Russian
forces led by Peter after the taking of Azov, the first
triumphal gates were built in Moscow. They were
for the portrait of the emperor. Their narrow, lath- constructed on the emperor’s initiative by Russian
style frames, devoid of triumphal symbolism, are craftsmen directed by the painter Ivan Saltanov (see
reminiscent of the style of the Picture Hall of the chapter Two).26 The project of ceremonial entry into
Great Palace of Peterhof, where the placing of the the capital through a newly built triumphal gateway
pictures serves the purpose of decorating the walls came to Russia from classical tradition via Western
in the eighteenth-century tradition of subordinating Europe, where the sixteenth and seventeenth
paintings to architecture. centuries saw a revival of the ancient Roman cus-
If the picture frame with ornamental regalia tom of laying captured weaponry at the feet of a
draws close to the throne of a monarch, the frame victorious general and the corresponding ceremonial
with trophy ornamentation is reminiscent of the of triumphal arches, commemorative pictures and
triumphal arch and the contents of military rooms sculpture, heroic verse and speeches.27
in palaces and museums. This is not accidental, for Triumphal gateways continued to be built into
trophies actively extend the scope of the imagination. the early eighteenth century along the procession
The psychology of the interpretation of ornament, route of the returning Russian troops. These were
according to Ernst Gombrich, involves constant free-standing wooden structures decorated with
play between expectation and surprise. To this allegorical painting and carved wooden sculpture,
process the category of desirability might be added. and at the same time commemorative pictures
Trophies arouse feelings of joy and optimism, of and engravings were produced – portraits of the

16 Studio of Pieter Picart, Cartouche for a plan for the

capture of Korela fortress, 111.

41
part two: playing with space

emperor, battle scenes, and depictions of the gates belongings of Charles xii, including his sedan;
themselves with troops marching through them. beneath the portrait of Catherine the Great, stan-
The celebrations of the victory of Poltava involved dards taken from Polish troops under Napoleon’s
the building of seven gateways, five of which are command in 1812, French Republican standards
shown on surviving broadsheets engraved by from the Revolution of 1830 and, from the wars
Aleksey Zubov and Picart. It is documented that with Turkey, keys to the fortresses of Bendery,
during the celebrations in 1709 all Moscow was Akkerman, Kiliya Yenikopol’, Perekop and Iasi;
decorated with triumphal pictures in azure-painted beneath the portrait of Alexander i, trophies from
frames with juniper decoration (replacing laurel the Polish Uprising of 1831 and keys to the Turkish
boughs). These framed pictures were made available fortress of Braylov, taken in 1809; and finally,
at the city gates and distributed ‘to the homes of beneath the portrait of Nicholas i, Hungarian
the ministers’. About a thousand ‘large’ and ‘small’ standards seized during the Russian suppression
pictures (or ‘sheets’) in all were produced by artists of the rising of 1849.30 In such a context, the main
and icon painters.28 The building of the triumphal purpose of the exhibition frame of a portrait
gates, the descriptions of their allegorical depictions of a monarch was to help convince the viewer of
in the state press, and the production of framed the valour and political power of the portrayed.
engravings thus constituted a unified panegyric in History to the nineteenth-century mind was above
celebration of a famous Russian victory.29 all the consistent collection of facts.
The triumphal gates were even portrayed and Trophy ornament on a frame played the same
celebrated at the time on the stage, transformed role. On the periphery of the field of view, the
from the genre of occasional architecture into trophies were linked to the subject of the picture.
theatre scenery, just as they had been in their The eye finding its way into the portrait dwelt on
original form. The display of military trophies was the frame, which helped the roaming gaze focus
a popular practice in the Russian theatre, in accord- on the picture. Thus the frame ornament actively
ance with the old tradition of translation of a word influenced perception, evoking supplementary
into a concrete object or its representation. Later, feelings and reactions. A good example of the
at the beginning of the nineteenth century, palace hidden symbolism of trophy ornament may be
and museum programming gave triumphal subject seen on the frame made by the firm of Fabergé for
matter a materialized treatment that chimed with nine miniature portraits of members of the imperial
the age of Romanticism and Positivism. Real military family from Alexander i to Alexander iii and
trophies complemented trophy ornamentation on Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna, wife of Nicholas ii
picture frames and brought museum exhibitions (illus. 163). The frame takes the form of a triangular
to life. Thus in an exhibition in 1854 in the Trophy stand, at the top of which is a two-headed eagle
Room of the Armoury Palace, real military trophies with the imperial crown on a laurel wreath,
were displayed beneath portraits of tsars. Trophies containing the miniatures and a decorative framing
from the battle of Poltava were shown under the pattern of laurel garlands and crossed arrows. The
portrait of Peter i, among them some personal triangular form of the frame-stand may allude to

4
 chapter three: the lustre of power

the symbol, widespread in sacred art, of the Eye of image and serves the overall idea of the painting.
God, protecting the Russian imperial house in all If we remember that palatial portrait frames of
its triumphs and victories. Together with the title all kinds played with overstatement, we shall under-
of the depicted figures in visual form, the trophy stand how important it was for court architects
ornament serves, as ever, the purpose of their and artists to link their symbolism with surround-
glorification. One final example of this type of ing interiors. Clocks, furniture, table decorations,
frame must be mentioned: the remarkable frame china and dress – all these could carry symbols
of the portrait of Crown Princess Elizabeth by indicating a relationship to the life and style of the
Louis Caravaque (1684–1754) from the Alexander monarch. Together with palace ritual, they made
Palace, Tsarskoye Selo (illus. 164). The frame con- up a single symbolic field, each in its own way
tains no official symbolism, for the subject of the speaking essentially of one and the same thing.
painting is allegorically represented as the figure of In his book of emblems Nestor Maksimovich-
Flora. But with its floral, plant and shell ornamen- Ambodik devotes special attention to the connec-
tation, it is included within the content of the tions between title and ritual, the coordination

163 frame containing nine portrait miniatures of members of the imperial family by
fabergé (craftsman viktor Aarne), 16–10. Cleveland Museum of Art.

43
part two: playing with space

between colours of the coat of arms and of the power was time from which history and myth were
dress of a monarch or a magnate. It was prescribed inseparable. Like picture frames and espalier-work,
that a ‘livery caftan’ should be worn of the same palace clocks and watches never existed independ-
colour as the background of a depicted coat of ently. Table clocks, mantelpiece clocks, grandfather
arms, whereas a kamzol, a man’s sleeveless jacket, clocks, carriage clocks, pocket watches, watches
and other articles of dress had to be of the same worn on the breast – all these were component
colour, not of the background, but of the coat of parts of the splendour of dress or interiors. And
arms itself.31 These prescriptions throw some light from earliest times, the form of a clock or watch
on the use of the colours of order symbols in the and its casing carried symbolic weight. Examples
decor of the halls of the Great Kremlin Palace, from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
and indicate that a great many further aspects include small watches in the form of stars, crosses,
of the palace had a precise symbolic meaning. little books and boxes, and even skulls – rich sym-
Among these, clocks had a special place, and bolic forms of post-Renaissance culture, some of
the rhetoric of their surrounds was no less impor- which also occurred on frames of icons, paintings
tant than the rhetoric of portrait frames. Clocks and engravings in the Mannerist and Baroque
meant time – but time allotted to a person of periods. In Russia all these kinds of watch were

164 L. Caravaque, Crown Princess Elizabeth, first half of

the 1th century. Alexander Palace, Tsarskoye Selo.

44
 chapter three: the lustre of power

called zepnyye, from the Old Russian word zep’

(pocket). They were made of semi-precious stones
and precious metals and supplied with a chain,
to be worn on the neck or breast. When table clocks
entered the inventories of interiors in the late
seventeenth century and the early eighteenth, their
cases began to take a variety of forms. The Baroque
period saw clock-cases in the shape of a vase, a
tower or a reliquary with typical floral or other
sculptural ornament such as a pig-tailed Kronos as
a symbol of swiftly passing time. At the end of the
seventeenth century and through the eighteenth,
a period that saw rapid building of palaces, clocks
began to appear as part of a set also comprising
chest of drawers, console table and dressing table.
As in the case of pictures, architects and ornamental
sculptors designed their surrounds and cases. Huge
monumental clocks in the manner of Louis xiv’s
celebrated ébéniste André Boulle appeared in Russian
palace interiors under the new names of their
owners. This was a time when a monarch’s reign or
a leading figure’s period of power was growing shorter,
and so the value of not only every hour but also
every minute and second increased. The span of such
a person’s life was reckoned as part of a country’s
history, and clock-cases gave unambiguous indica-
tion of this. As a result of the eighteenth century’s
heightened consciousness of the passing of time,
a clock mechanism was introduced that chimed the ii bordered with laurel branches (illus. 165). A more
hour, half-hour, quarter-hour and minutes, with a complex marking of time under Catherine the Great
different chime and tone for each interval. Clocks is displayed in a unique creation by Moscow clock-
were supplied with state and family coats of arms, makers executing a design by the Welshman M.
portraits of monarchs and magnates, ornamental Maddocks (second half of the eighteenth century;
trophies, wreaths and garlands, all of which became Armoury Palace, Kremlin, Moscow). A massive clock
fixed elements in the framing of ‘palace time’. with the name ‘Temple of Glory’ is equipped with a
Among chiming clocks were some with lyre- complex mechanism that at intervals used to set
shaped surrounds and with a silhouette of Catherine sculptured bronze and cut-glass figures in move-

165 Clock with profile portrait of Catherine II,

c. 15–100. Museums of the Moscow Kremlin.

45
part two: playing with space

ment. A small white clock face with Arabic figures is

the centre of a huge framing allegorical composition
likening the reign of Catherine the Great to the sun
shining on a global scale. The clock face is set in a
radiant disc supported by the figure of Mercury,
and above it a pair of angels blow trumpets. Two
columns flank the sun, symbolizing the strength and
power of empire. On the base of one of these is a
depiction of Falconet’s celebrated equestrian statue
of Peter the Great, commissioned by Catherine,
with the Muses on the other. Upon further columns
above, an emblematic eagle feeds its young, with
sculptured figures of Apollo and Venus to left and
right. All this structure surrounding the clock rests
on the large base bearing the clock mechanism,
which is supported in turn by symbolic sculptural
representations of the points of the compass:
Europe, Asia, Africa and America. On the doors of
the pedestal-case are symmetrical bas-reliefs of
Neptune flanked by scenes from classical mythology.
Every three hours the doors of the pedestal automat-
ically opened to reveal a waterfall in the background
and figures moving against it, and every five seconds,
from the beak of an eagle sitting on her nest, a pearl
dropped into the beak of an eaglet. All the details of
this composition extolled the name of Catherine the the glorification of the Romanovs is inseparably
Great and were applicable to her reign, in which linked with the idea of union between the Russian
every second was an important historical unit. and Danish ruling dynasties. The Romanov griffon
Especially interesting for their surrounds are therefore appears on the base of the clock-case,
gift clocks associated with jubilee celebrations, holding a short sword and two shields bearing
with symbolism to suit the wishes of the cele- the arms of the two ruling houses, while the clock
brants. Among these is a monumental silver clock face (the ‘time’ of the imperial couple together) is
‘for the xxvth anniversary of the marriage of framed by flying angels playing musical instru-
Alexander iii and Mariya Fyodorovna’ (daughter ments. Above the clock, a typical late nineteenth-
of King Christian ix of Denmark), commissioned century palace interior piece, are the two-headed
from the firm of Fabergé about 1891 by 32 members eagle and crown. Alongside paintings and their
of the imperial family (illus. 166). This project for frames, clocks such as this repeatedly emphasized

166 Clock commemorating the ‘xxvth Anniversary of

the marriage of Alexander III and Mariya fyodorovna’,
by fabergé (craftsman Mikhail Perkhin), c. 16.
Private collection.
46
 chapter three: the lustre of power

the preciousness of the time allotted to

all-powerful monarchs.
Everything we have just considered
belonged to palace interiors. Paintings
in elaborate frames were seen by only a
limited number of individuals. Powerful
images of tsarist grandeur, however, were
not only required by palace rhetoric and
ritual; they also served the ideological
purposes of mass propaganda. From the
time of the Roman Empire this role has
been played by medals and coinage.
A ruler’s profile is always solemn and
majestic. And in addition, the further it
is from reality, the more readily will it be
memorized and remain in the memories
of whole generations. With the coming
of the printing press to Russia in the six-
teenth century, original images for coins
and medals were engraved, and later
reproduced by lithographic and photo-
graphic processes, that is, those most
suited to mass reproduction. It was these processes image on the viewer’s consciousness. In Ivan
that clearly established the image of a ruler in the Argunov’s painting The Kalmyk Girl, the girl
mass consciousness, turning it into a visual stereo- holds up an engraved portrait of Countess Varvara
type. Such images were usually far, and sometimes Sheremeteva, and convinces the viewer that it is a
very far, from reality, but all the same never wholly genuine likeness of the subject (illus. 167). Here we
false. A printing stereoype reproduces a simplified have a typical rhetorical device in which a painted
image of an original that may lose, in whole or in portrait of a girl acquires the function of framing
part, the actual features of that original. Therefore an engraving. Shown in a secondary artistic
in an engraved portrait of a monarch we find, dimension, the depiction of Varvara Sheremeteva
besides differences, only remote resemblances: immediately acquired a supplementary meaning –
sometimes the ‘likeness’ is changed beyond recog- the establishment in the viewer’s mind of what
nition, and sometimes, as in a clouded mirror, appeared to be the countess’s favourite image
we see fleeting reflections of reality. The frame of of herself.
such depictions is always a guide to perception; This development of a depiction into a visual
it helps the image to tell its story, it imprints the stereotype shows the special purpose of mass

16 Ivan Argunov, The Kalmyk Girl, 16. Kuskovo Museum, Moscow.

4
part two: playing with space

propaganda that could be served by a picture frame. with, separately below it, a scroll bearing the full
Many engravings had this kind of framing in the name of the empress. The rhetoric of this framing
Baroque era. In 1746 Empress Elizabeth commis- makes the image, title and name of the empress an
sioned an engraved portrait, which was executed indissoluble symbolic unity.
by Ivan Sokolov by order of the Senate after an The frame of an engraved portrait of the young
original painting by Louis Caravaque of the Peter i carries more complex meanings. In the 1700s
Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg (illus. 168). this image was the source of numerous copies,
It is recorded that this engraving was to be the so that it may be regarded as the most reliable
model henceforth for all images of the empress; benchmark for portraits of him.33 It was the work
about one thousand copies were printed and of Pieter van Gunst (1659–1724) after an original
distributed to various government offices.32 The by Sir Godfrey Kneller (1646–1723), principal court
portrait is contained in a grandly ornamental painter of the reign of William iii and Mary (illus.
cartouche framed with laurel and palm branches. 169). Kneller’s portrait was painted in 1697 for
The base of the cartouche (that is, of the frame) the English king during Peter’s early sojourn in
is made up of the Russian imperial coat of arms Western Europe. Van Gunst’s engraving catered for

16 Empress Elizabeth, 146, engraving after an original 16 Pieter van Gunst, Peter i, c. 16, engraving, after an
by Louis Caravaque. original by Sir Godfrey Kneller.

4
 chapter three: the lustre of power

the Western public’s interest in the Russian tsar displaying devotional texts in Latin, scenes from
and helped to establish Peter’s image in the popular the Holy Scriptures, and depictions of the Church
mind. He gave his framing a whole range of mean- fathers, prophets and tsars. At the bottom of the
ings that were readily appreciated by the public of illustrated area of the huge sheet (187 x 109 cm),
the time. First, the tsar is named, and second, Peter the Great flanked by St John the Evangelist
interpreted on the framing. The inscription in and Peter’s son Aleksey are shown holding up the
a cartouche, ‘petrus alexewitz Zaar et Magnus church with its five cupolas. Within a separate
Dux Moscovie’, is confirmed by the crown above frame at the bottom of the whole is an extensive
the subject’s head with the royal symbols of orb text dedicated to Peter and his family, with explan -
and sceptre and triumphal elements of sword and ations of the images above.35 The rhetoric of the
trumpets. A heavy curtain, assuming the function Baroque frame here displays a striking interest in
of an inner frame, emphasizes the magnitude of aesthetic language as an independent cultural value,
the figure portrayed. The extremely wide distribu- aiming to accommodate different kinds of conven-
tion achieved by this kind of engraving can be tion within the confines of a single composition. In
judged from the announcements of the availability the Baroque period an image often served as a fram-
of ‘recently printed portraits of the Imperial Family’ ing for a text and was inseparable from its meanings.
in the bookshop of the Academy of Sciences in The rhetoric of title on frames of portraits of
St Petersburg, which appeared in the columns of a Russian monarch was always associated with the
the St Petersburg Gazette throughout the eighteenth ritual of coronation. Hence a continuous sequence
century.34 of engravings, miniatures, medals, portraits, sculp-
Nowhere, perhaps, however, was the rhetoric tural monuments, tombs and photographs displayed
of the picture frame so overt as in the genre of the a monarch’s image in the context of ceaseless
colophon at the end of the seventeenth century ceremonial speeches, eulogies, ritual gestures,
and during the first half of the eighteenth. We have ceremonial entries and exits that were called upon
already encountered a reinterpretation of the to place the autocrat’s person at the very centre of
colophon in the icon. Now in the field of printed an imagined transition or point of contact between
graphics the genre becomes an allegoric composi- heaven and earth. The ritual purpose of framing
tion, frame or framing, glorifying the monarch was to emphasize that the monarch was supreme
and a graphic commentary on a panegyric text. above all things, and all the forms that it took –
The constant components of a colophon are a text plastic, literary, theatrical and religious – were
(a literary analogue of the image), but also a portrait, outwardly linked together, their common theme
view, cartouche and coat of arms. All these are being the supremacy, half-earthly, half-divine,
present in the celebrated colophon by Grigoriy of the monarch.
Tepchegorsky depicting Afanasiy Zarutsky, arch- The coronation of the tsar was the most impor-
priest of Novgorod-Seversk, extolling Peter i in tant part of the state ceremonial, in which its highly
1717 (illus. 170). The upper part of the composition complex material and conceptual framing system
contains a number of medallions and cartouches was reflected as in a mirror. This was because the

4
10 Grigoriy Tepchegorsky’s colophon in praise of Peter i, after 11.
State Hermitage, St Petersburg.
 chapter three: the lustre of power

coronation ceremony created an ideal image of of the Volosts and the architectural-decorative designs
the world and, embodying the ‘theatre of power’, of the ceremonial halls of the Great Kremlin Palace,
played its part in the construction of a well-defined which had been especially conceived, as we have
world order. Being a religious ceremony, the coro- seen, for coronation ceremonies.
nation represented the Christian cosmos, imbued The coronation ceremony of Emperor
with the mythology of the state. But how was this Alexander iii is documented in numerous images
cosmos created? By what means? How did it relate and texts: official paintings, photographs, popular
to the world of the popular imagination and the lithographic prints and drawings, official edicts,
store of traditional values? The fact was that in the ceremonial speeches and eulogies. Taken as a
course of centuries, those who organized corona- whole, these explain much, for it was they that
tions had chosen and refined specific means of formed the image of the ideal monarch called
inculcating the mythology of power into the upon to rule the country on the basis of ortho-
Russian mind, embracing architecture, words, doxy, autocracy and nationality. A special contri-
material objects, gesture, dress and every last detail bution to this process was made by the notion of
of presentation, as, for example, ceremonial move- Holy Rus’. Early national history, Old Russian icons
ment and the selection of personnel taking part in and texts, all kinds of parallels in literary works
coronation processions. And from one century to and stage productions occasioned by the coron-
the next, from one coronation to the next, they ation celebrations, even the consecration of the
created a wholly concrete model in space and time, cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow – all
which, in unique contrast to the conditional world this was calculated to drive home the idea of the
of the icon or the painting, mobilized real objects mystical union between tsar and people and the
and living people playing roles strictly allotted providential role of the Russian Empire. Thus on
to them. The person of the monarch and his or 1 (13) May 1883, on the eve of the coronation of
her subjects, the imperial regalia, the throne, the Alexander iii, the newspaper Novoye vremya
church and palace buildings – everything embodied published a supplement containing an illustrated
a Christian picture of the world. The coronation history of Russian coronations.36 This showed
was the most important of the ceremonies for a picture of the crowning of the first of the
which the palace furnishings were intended, and Romanovs, Mikhail Fyodorovich, in the Cathedral
more than that, it even had a transformative effect of the Dormition in the Kremlin, and portraits
on church furnishings, creating supplementary of tsars Mikhail, Peter i and Alexander ii, those
symbolic functions, above all in regard to the place monarchs who, in the eyes of the planners of the
of the monarch’s enthronement. The rite of the present coronation, were most to be associated
coronation joined palace and church together with with landmarks in the history of the coronation
an invisible but extremely intimate thread, provid- of Russian tsars. The supplement also contained
ing the cultural-historical context for a huge variety pictures of thrones: the ‘Tsar’s Place’ of Ivan the
of palatial framings, including the frame of Repin’s Terrible, the thrones of Mikhail and Aleksey and
painting Emperor Alexander III Receiving the Leaders the special throne of the tsar and co-tsar Peter i

51
part two: playing with space

and his sickly elder half-brother Ivan Alekseyevich, the analogies that applied to the new emperor; and
whose joint rule officially lasted from 1682 to 1696. the variety of historical regalia and thrones shown
Also illustrated were historic and new regalia: the in the supplement made it abundantly clear that
cap of Monomakh, imperial crowns, orb and no novelty in ceremonial would in any way change
sceptre, the national flag and the national sword – the essential meaning of the momentous event.
the originals of the ornamental images seen on so On the contrary, the repetition of traditional
many frames of portraits of tsars. And here was the procedures and memories of past coronations
anointment vessel, a portrait sketch of the herald were calculated to demonstrate the durability of
appointed to announce the coming coronation, the idea that the monarch was God’s living deputy
and a depiction of the previous coronation proces- on earth, a living icon, a source of protection and
sion, led by Emperor Alexander ii. Together with redemption.
this pictorial history was an article on the coronation This was how Alexander iii was presented in
of Tsar Mikhail and a description of the ‘sanctified two official paintings by the French artist Georges
and holy ceremonial’ of the forthcoming corona- Becker, which like Repin’s monumental canvas
tion of Alexander iii.37 It all set this coronation in were commissioned by the emperor to commemo-
historical context, enabling the reader to perceive rate his coronation: The Sacred Coronation of their

11 Georges Becker, The Sacred Coronation of their Imperial Majesties Emperor Alexander
iii and Empress Mariya Fyodorovna, 15 May 1883, phototype.

5
 chapter three: the lustre of power

Imperial Majesties Emperor Alexander iii and Anyone looking at these pictures and drawings
Empress Mariya Fyodorovna, 15 May 1883 and The became involved in a theatrical production con-
Holy Anointing of Their Imperial Majesties Emperor taining a number of interacting symbolic systems
Alexander iii and Empress Mariya Fyodorovna, 15 May all designed to draw attention to a structure of
1883 (illus. 171, 172).38 Outline drawings were printed the Christian cosmos in which the placing of the
and distributed with numbers and names identifying tsar within the spatial composition of the paintings
the figures portrayed, a rhetorical device showing was clearly close to heaven. Therefore dress,
that in the age of realism, the painter sought close gesture, ceremonial words, singing, incense,
likenesses of the persons portrayed. It was not the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century wall
by chance that, as the artist Aleksey Bogolyubov and icon paintings, and finally, the liturgy in the
(1824–1896), who was close to the emperor, later Cathedral of the Dormition, at which the living
recalled: ‘The events of the coronation in Moscow presence of Christ himself was felt – all this
set many artists to work . . . The French artist Becker brought the figure of the emperor close to the
immortalized this event in two paintings full of icon of Christ Pantocrator. It seemed as if an icon
portraits that are very close to life and will be were being dramatized before the viewer’s eyes.
extremely valuable for the interest of their content.’39 The impact of iconic images and the coronation

1 Georges Becker, The Holy Anointing of their Imperial Majesties Emperor Alexander iii
and Empress Mariya Fyodorovna, 15 May 1883, phototype.

53
part two: playing with space

ritual did not demand aesthetic feelings from the figures – clergy, military personnel and government
viewer of the pictorial record. In accordance with officials, representatives of the nobility and people –
its religious character, the ceremony took on the surround the thrones in deep reverence. They are
most exalted possible meaning: the living person witnessing an exterior transfiguration of a man
of the emperor underwent transfiguration, and associated with change of dress. In purple and
he became an image, that is, endowed with a crown a man is seen transfigured to an emperor –
symbolic aura that raised him to the level of or more precisely, the image of an emperor.
the superhuman. However, he will become an emperor only after
It was consistent with this image that after the the ritual of anointment and administration of
anointment, making the monarch ‘anointed by God’, the sacraments.
ritual prescribed that Alexander iii should stand This moment is depicted in Becker’s second
beside the icon of Christ Pantocrator, in the first row painting, with Alexander iii in front of the opened
of icons on the iconostasis in the Cathedral of the ‘tsar’s doors’ of the iconostasis of the cathedral of
Dormition. In the lofty terms of the anointment rite: the Dormition being anointed by the Metropolitan
of Novgorod. After this the emperor will go to the
The Metropolitan of Novgorod, taking the pre- altar, where the descent of the Holy Spirit upon
cious vessel containing the Holy Ointment, shall the throne has already taken place, with bread
approach His Imperial Majesty and, moistening and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
the precious sachets [anointing cloth] already As soon as the monarch has received the Holy
prepared, shall perform the Holy Anointment of Sacraments he undergoes his inner transfiguration;
the brow of His Majesty, the eyes, the nostrils, as is the case with icons, in religious ritual no
the mouth, the ears, the breast and the hands, formal element is separable from its meaning, no
saying the words: ‘Seal of the Holy Spirit’, and symbol from its content. Moreover, as has recently
the Metropolitan of Kiev shall wipe the places been shown, the anointment in Russia at coron-
to be anointed. Having received the Anointment, ations was identified with the sacrament of anoint-
after the completion of which a carillon shall be ment that takes place in the Orthodox Church
sounded and 101 cannon-shots fired, His Majesty after baptism.41 The powerful and profound effect
the Emperor shall stand on the right-hand side that such a ritual, in this respect reminiscent of
facing the Icon of the Saviour.40 baptism, would have had can only be imagined.
Amid the glitter of gold and the colours of ancient
Becker’s portrayal of the whole coronation icons and clouds of incense, against the voices of
ritual follows the tradition of dividing it into two the clergy, was a human being in the visible process
parts, the coronation and the anointment. The first of transfiguration. And this human being, in the
painting shows the emperor and empress crowned minds of all those present, became merged with
and in ceremonial dress standing on daises in front the icons themselves, whose very function was to
of the thrones and listening to the solemn address bring the corporeal and the metaphysical together.
by the Metropolitan of Moscow. All the other It is not accidental that Becker paints the saints of

54
 chapter three: the lustre of power

the frescoes and the participants in the ceremony In 1551 Ivan the Terrible built ‘the Tsar’s Place’ in
in identical poses: both are absorbed by the mysti- the cathedral of the Dormition, at a time when he
cal significance of the moment that is making an was seeking to consolidate the new title of tsar for
emperor into a living likeness of God on earth. himself. The ‘Tsar’s Place’ was ornamented with
From the time of Tsar Fyodor (reg 1584–98) the bas-reliefs depicting ‘The Tale of the Princes of
coronation of tsars involved the rites of anointment Vladimir’ and, above all, scenes from Vladimir
and Communion, that is, the special characteristics Monomakh’s campaign against the Byzantine
that were fundamental to the coronations of the Empire, during which he is said to have received
Byzantine emperors, conferring on them, as the certain regalia for the high office of tsar as a gift
official Book of Coronations (1899) put it, ‘in large from his maternal grandfather, the Byzantine
part the power and significance of God’s elect, emperor Constantine Monomachos. The cap of
called upon to develop the principles of Orthodox Monomakh (used in the coronations of tsars up to
autocracy in their state’.42 Communion and anoint- 1728, when it was replaced by a crown) is associated
ment always formed the sacred core of the ritual with this heroic early figure of Russian history,
of the tsar’s coronation. In the execution of these along with the other leading elements of the
liturgical elements, every effort was made to follow Russian regalia: orb, sceptre and dalmatic. The first
tradition as closely as possible. In the coronation Romanov tsars, Mikhail (reg 1613–45) and Aleksey
ritual the monarch’s external transfiguration, in (reg 1645–76), proceeded to build a throne complex
matters of dress and regalia, was regarded as ‘exter- at the centre of the cathedral of the Dormition, set
nal’ in relation to his ‘internal’ transfiguration, and, upon a pedestal with twelve steps covered with red
like all kinds of framing, it readily reflected historical cloth. At the coronation of Catherine i as empress
change. This was the case even with the furnishings in 1724, the design of the throne complex in the
and dress that played a part in coronation ritual; cathedral (planned by Peter i himself) incorporat-
for these elements were subject to fashion and the ed the Western elements that it preserved up to the
wishes of individuals. And so in the illustrations of reign of Alexander iii, to be seen in Becker’s Sacred
the supplement referred to above, historical changes Coronation: above the throne was a canopy carry-
in the outward forms of the monarch’s transfigur- ing a visual equivalent of the monarch’s title, the
ation are to be seen – old and new styles of regalia, two-headed eagle and the coats of arms of the
sometimes thrones, but the locale, the cathedral of six principalities of Early Rus’: Kiev, Vladimir,
the Dormition in the Moscow Kremlin, is always the Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia. The tsar’s
same, as is the anointment vessel centrally placed subjects stood in order of rank on the two broad
in the pictures, indicating the religious character of top steps of the pedestal, symbolizing the hierarchy
the whole ceremony. of power.
Historical changes in the furnishings for co- In a comparison of the seventeenth-century
ronations are especially noticeable in the form of icon Christ Pantocrator with the parsuna of Tsar
the ‘throne seat’, the medieval ‘chamber of the tsar’ Aleksey, it has already been noted that the figures
long having carried the highest symbolic weight. of Christ and the tsar are robed in the style of the

55
part two: playing with space

early Byzantine emperors, symbolizing the tsar’s No less important in Alexander iii’s plans was
involvement with the Church hierarchy. In the eyes the interpretation of the beginning and ending of
of his time, Alexander iii, however, was seeking to the coronation ceremonies and celebrations, that is,
revive not only the image of a Byzantine emperor the spatial-temporal framing of the whole panegyric
but also that of Tsar Aleksey. This was evident in event. A central place was allotted to the religious
the planning both of the coronation ceremony in parts of the ceremonial. The chosen date fitted the
the great cathedral of the Dormition and of various festival calendar of the Church. Before the begin-
events marking the occasion, among them the ning of regular church services the names of the
consecration of the cathedral of Christ the Saviour emperor and his family would be mentioned, and
in Moscow. It was also evident in the restoration of portraits of the emperor with icons and crosses
the iconostasis of the cathedral of the Dormition, carried at the head of church processions. At the
the construction of a new icon case, modelled on end of the coronation ceremonies the huge newly
the seventeenth-century one, for the icon of the completed cathedral of Christ the Saviour was
Vladimir Mother of God, and the decoration of the consecrated, which was interestingly reflected in the
walls of the cathedral with early icons, creating commemorative illustrated booklets. For example,
the atmosphere of a Russian church of the time of the Album of the Coronation of Their Imperial
Tsar Aleksey. The walls of the Palace of Facets were Majesties on 15 May 1883, with lithographs by
painted ‘in the manner of the early masters’, and I. I. Klang and published in Moscow, had a solemn
interior decoration schemes, the latest books and verse opening with an illustration of the ceremonial
celebratory texts catered for the ‘Russian style’ of arrival of the future emperor in Moscow, and
the time. In the words of the Book of Coronations: concluded with an illustration of the consecration
of the cathedral of Christ the Saviour on 29 May.44
For Coronation day, by God’s will, restorations Thus the ‘arrival in Moscow’ and ‘consecration of
were carried out in the Cathedral of the the Cathedral’ formed the symbolic frame for the
Dormition and the Palace of Facets in ways that events illustrated between them: ‘The Sovereign at
revealed the historical spirit of the new sovereign, prayer before the Icon of the Iberian Mother of
who endeavoured to resurrect historical tradi- God’, ‘Heralds announce the day of the Coronation
tions. The iconostasis and the parts of the coron - to the people on Red Square’, ‘The Coronation
ation church that were of metal were restored of His Majesty the Emperor’, ‘His Majesty the
to their state of appearance in the seventeenth Emperor crowns the Empress’, ‘The Tsar and his
century, in the reign of Aleksey. Some early icons people’. Besides these illustrated booklets, numer-
were found and placed in appropriate positions ous newspaper articles and individually published
in the iconostasis; the icon case of the Vladimir texts appeared in which Russia was referred to
Mother of God was restored to its original form, as ‘Holy Rus’ protected by God’ and ‘the new
and measures were taken for the preservation of Jerusalem’ and the Russian people described in
newly uncovered early wall paintings.43 slavophile style as ‘a young and vigorous nation in
an ageing world’, ‘brimful of devotion to the Holy

56
 chapter three: the lustre of power

Orthodox Church’, while the emperor was declared style, which it was influential in establishing in
to be ‘the highest leader of the nation’, ‘the living Russia. In accordance with its symbolic role as
image of God on earth’, ‘enlivened . . . by the sun’. the new principal church of the Russian Empire,
Gospel texts were quoted in these publications: the leaders of the volosts, whom we saw in Repin’s
painting in the Antechamber of the Great Kremlin
Let us all say: O Lord, gratify His name beyond Palace, took a direct and significant part in the
the immortal name of His father and all His ceremony of its consecration, thus in depiction
glorious predecessors! Raise up His throne above and in ritual itself helping to embody the unity
their thrones! Let us say with the highest rever- of nation and state founded on the theory of
ence: ‘Blessed be the Lord God of the new Israel, orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.
now glorified in the land of His deputy, the Alexander iii’s ‘Russian idea’ lived on after his
most diligent Protector of His Holy Church!’45 death in 1894, as is shown not only by the symbolic
system of the frame of Repin’s painting but also by
Novoye Vremya emphasized that further to the bases and pedestals of statues of the emperor,
the coronation of the new tsar, ‘an additional national with their interpretative rhetoric. This is especially
ceremony had taken place – the consecration
of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour’.46
On 29 May 1883 the paper printed ‘the
Address to His Imperial Majesty delivered
by His Holiness the Most Venerable
Metropolitan of Moscow on the occasion of
the consecration of the Cathedral of Christ
the Saviour on 29 May’, which dwelt on the
special connection between this event and
the coronation of Alexander iii. The metro-
politan told His Imperial Majesty that the
cathedral was ‘a memorial to God’s great
blessings to the Russian nation now
entrusted to you at a moment of severe
trials and at the same time a memorial
to your devout crowned predecessors’
profound feelings of gratitude to God our
Saviour’.47 The cathedral had just been
finished, 55 years after the acceptance of its
first design (in Neoclassical style), a change
of national ideology having brought about
its completion in the so-called Russian

13 Etienne-Maurice falconet, Peter i (‘The Bronze Horseman’),

16–, St Petersburg.

5
part two: playing with space

evident in a comparison of two statues

of Alexander iii: Pavel Trubetskoy’s on
the square of the Moscow Station in
St Petersburg (1909) and Alexander
Opekushin’s unveiled on the square in front
of the cathedral of Christ the Saviour in 1912.
In the opinion of most contemporaries,
Trubetskoy gave a symbolic portrayal of
imperial Russia on the verge of catastrophe,
with the emperor riding a horse that
appeared to be stopping on the edge of
a precipice (illus. 174). The pedestal had
two levels of significance, on the one hand
reminding the viewer of the rock-form
pedestal of Falconet’s celebrated statue
of Peter the Great on Senate (now Decem -
brists’) Square, St Petersburg, and on the
other producing an effect quite the opposite
of Falconet’s, emphasizing not forward but
backward movement (illus. 173)!48 Such a
pedestal was an integral part of the sculptor’s
conception, and in this was reminiscent of
Symbolist painters’ games with the frame,
which was frequently included within the
artistic idea of the painting (about which
more will be said later).
The pedestal and plinth of Opekushin’s statue consecration of the cathedral of Christ the Saviour.
were of quite a different character, being reminis- Pedestal and plinth were of red granite and the
cent of the frame of Repin’s painting in the Ante - statue itself of bronze. The pedestal bore the
chamber of the Great Kremlin Palace with its visual inscription: ‘To the most Devout most Autocratic
rhetoric denoting the emperor’s title. Wanting Great Sovereign our Emperor Aleksandr
to bring out the ‘Russian idea’ of autocracy, Aleksandrovich of All Russia. 1882–1894’. It stood
the sculptor placed a complex weight of official on a massive plinth ornamented at the corners in
symbolism on the pedestal and plinth, and repre- bronze with the main heraldic symbols of Russia –
sented the emperor seated robed and crowned two-headed eagles surrounded by the coats of
on his throne holding sceptre and orb, just as he arms of the various lands and provinces of the
had been at his coronation and at the time of the Russian Empire, which served as the heraldic

14 Pavel Trubetskoy, Emperor Alexander III, 10. St Petersburg.

5
 chapter three: the lustre of power

framing for the figure of the emperor on his throne. symbolic image of the nation-state unity of the
As in the case of the frame of Repin’s picture, this Russian Empire.
plinth so ornamented constituted both a visual An analogy may be seen between this plinth
equivalent of Alexander iii’s imperial title and a and the frame of Konstantin Makovsky’s Emperor

15 Konstantin Makovsky, Emperor Alexander II on his Deathbed, c. 11,

in a frame from the Til’ workshop. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

16 Detail of frame.

5
part two: playing with space

Alexander ii on his Deathbed, painted in the tradi- symbolism firmly linked the depiction of a ruler
tion of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century icon with ideas of the value of his individual life. The
portraits of eminent Church figures and monks boundary between the sacred and the earthly once
(illus. 175, 176). On a black funerary frame with again shifted further towards the earthly. In other
the imperial crown at the top (possibly after the words, the framing of a portrait of a Russian
artist’s drawing) the reforms carried out by the monarch evolved from the modest icon frame-ark
assassinated emperor are enumerated – ‘public to formal glorification and played an increasing
trial’, ‘emancipation of the serfs’, ‘freedom of role in the theme of the theatricalization of the
the press’, ‘zemstvo’, ‘universal military service’, power of the state, be it in the context of church,
lending the depiction of the dead monarch city or palace.
concrete historical meaning in the usual manner
of memorial sculpture. This frame interprets the
reign of Alexander ii (1855–81) and in the final
analysis raises an image of death to the level of
symbolic historical commemoration.
By way of conclusion to this chapter, it remains
to say that the idea of the value of an individual
life enters Makovsky’s frame and the design of
the pedestal and plinth of Opekushin’s statue via
the long evolution of the Christian tombstone.
Inasmuch as medieval man lived in a purely
mythological perspective, the tombs of Russian
princes bore a sacred symbolism honouring them
as saints. The wall ‘portraits’ of Russian sovereigns
in the Cathedral of the Archangel in the Moscow
Kremlin, shrines with relics and gravestone icon
portraits all had more to say about heavenly than
about earthly life. Nevertheless, in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries people began to live in a
historical perspective, in which they bore responsi-
bility for their every action. Hence the tombs of
rulers acquired a symbolism expressing the signifi-
cance of their earthly services before God, which
basically derived from ancient Roman practice
in which the gravestone portrait was associated
with the cult of emperors and heroes. Making its
appearance on the Christian gravestone, this

60
 chapter 4

Between Industry and Art

Aesthetic culture is a culture of boundaries . . .
Mikhail Bakhtin1

Display
Exhibitions of pictures command no less interest- between them, evidenced in the Kantian aesthetic
ing aesthetic space than that occupied by churches that saw a work of art as a Ding an sich and its
or palaces. Characteristics of picture frames, walls, frame as an external ‘embellishment’ that ‘dimin-
lighting, even the viewer – all these can be included ished its real beauty’.2 This function took on a
within the concept of an exhibition of paintings distinctive interpretation in European art of the
considered as the embodiment of a particular late eighteenth century, especially in France, and the
system of values and collective feelings. In the period produced a flowering of the art of the picture
Middle Ages it was the patron who chose the frame; frame, which was seen as an embellishment not only
in the Baroque and Neoclassical periods it was the of the picture but also of the surrounding interior,
architect. And in the nineteenth century the artist and at the same time was made to draw attention to
himself began to be concerned with the picture itself as a fixed line of demarcation between the
frame. The Romantic era produced the idea of the world of the imagination and the world of reality.
genius who was not subject to general rules and Footlights were introduced in the theatre during the
rhetorical schemes, for he would remake them. eighteenth century, a form of ‘frame’ separating the
The Romantic artist had a new way of correlating stage from the audience. The leading architects
art and reality, placing his own self in the fore- of the Baroque and Neoclassical periods included
ground, for it was that self that needed to convince articles of everyday palace life in the planning
the viewer of the truth of his personal observation, of interiors, and furnishings, furniture, means of
imagination and feeling. Furthermore, he discovered lighting and picture frames were all part of their
within himself the gift of prophecy – an indispen- responsibility. Throughout the eighteenth century,
sable attribute of the artist of the Romantic period. and in some cases during the first half of the nine-
The portrayal of the artist as a prophetic genius teenth, the architect was a universal specialist in
first appears in Schiller’s philosophical poem ‘Die ‘spatial arts’. One piece of documentary evidence
Künstler’ (‘The Artists’, 1789). for this is provided by an order for a picture frame
In the Neoclassical period the picture frame did and wall mouldings for the study in the Petrovsky
not correlate art and reality but drew a sharp line Palace, Moscow.3 Pictures, furthermore, came to

261
part two: playing with space

be definitively classified as ‘art’ in Russia in the Paulus Potter graze on our walls beneath stucco
eighteenth century, their instructive function mouldings.’4
being overtaken by their provision of aesthetic In other words, a picture in a gilt frame of the
enjoyment in palace interiors, picture galleries late Baroque or Neoclassical period is Kant’s ideal
or cabinets of art collectors, such as Count Ivan of beauty, static and harmonious, its inner world
Shuvalov (1727–1797), a patron of artists and presi- lacking contact with the real world. However, the
dent of the Academy of Arts. A depiction of his Romantic conception of beauty exhibits dynamism.
cabinet of paintings has survived in the form of Beauty can reside in a process of becoming. The
a copy of a lost oil painting by Fedor Rokotov Romantic artist finds subject matter not in antiquity
(1750–1808), in which Jean-Louis Develly’s portrait but in the real world around him, and in so doing
of the count and a trompe l’oeil portrayal of his imparts dynamism to the very picture frame.
Kalmyk servant by Pietro Rotari indicate just this Romantic art being in perpetual dispute about
aesthetic enjoyment and play between art and science, literature, philosophy and religion, the
reality (illus. 177). ‘Pictures of lost happiness’, frame of a Romantic painting takes on a load of
Diderot wrote of this kind of taste, ‘adorn the corresponding meanings, objects and attributes
walls of our grand houses. Behind the fences of that help the viewer correlate what he sees in the
sumptuous frames, herds painted by Berchem or picture with reality. Picture and frame gradually

177 A. Zyablov, Count Ivan Shuvalov’s Cabinet of Arts, 1779.

State Historical Museum, Moscow.

262
 chapter four: between industry and art

became subordinated to tasks assigned by natura-

listic aesthetics and psychological understanding of
art. In these theoretical conditions, fantasy and
imagination were excluded from perception, to be
replaced by the power of passion and the psychology
of sensations in the encounter with the artist’s
depiction, the sublimity and beauty of which were
based on naturalistic representation and moral
teaching. In this process, the beautiful could be
juxtaposed with the ugly and the sombre, with
horror and distortion. Irony, one of the main cate-
gories of the poetics of Romanticism, entered the
concept of beauty. Hence, in Romantic tradition,
in contrast to Baroque and Neoclassical, pictures
and their frames led the viewer’s mind not into the
imagination or Kantian ‘disinterested pleasure’, but
towards a sense of authenticity, which often bordered
on excitement, fear, astonishment or arousal.
In Gogol’s tale ‘The Portrait’, the main character,
the artist Chertkov, is astounded when the image
of an old man leaves the picture frame:

The old man moved and suddenly leant on the

bottom of the frame with both hands. At length, point. From the Renaissance onwards, the aesthet-
raising himself on his hands, he thrust out both ics of reception saw the picture frame as a matter
legs and jumped out of the frame . . . Through of the viewer’s perception. But in the Romantic
the chink in the screen only the empty frame period the artist became concerned not so much
could be seen. (illus. 178) with the viewer as with the possibility of applying
the norms and principles of art to life, of making
Even the fateful package with the gold coins remains art influence life, and so making the boundaries
concealed in the frame.5 This participation of the between them less rigid. In the field of painting,
frame in the artist’s game with space and time this process took the form of the gradual abolition
signifies, in the present author’s view, a new inter- of the frame-as-window. The frame now followed
pretation of the world of the imagination and the the new approaches to painting, becoming part of
world of reality. And here we arrive at the heart of the artist’s overall intention and, planned by the
the matter. In medieval culture the symbolism of artist himself, came to carry a load of supplemen-
the frame was determined from the divine view- tary meanings. In the second half of the nineteenth

178 Yevgeniy Kibrik’s illustration to Gogol’s story ‘The

Portrait’.

263
part two: playing with space

century, under the influence of the photographic demonstrate it convincingly. Declaring himself a
frame, the picture frame moved into the composi- ‘Realist’, this artist turned out to be essentially a
tion itself, and eventually, with the advent of crypto-Romantic, and reflected the leading trends
Cubism, it was abolished, with the loss of linear in European visual culture. A pupil of Jean-Léon
perspective and the view-through-a-window from Gérôme in Paris (1864–7), a prominent representa-
a single vantage-point that had been assumed tive of academic orientalism, he adopted the photo-
since the Renaissance, the artist’s aim now being to graphic precision of his master’s technique and
show an object from different viewpoints simulta- absorbed his passion for daring journeys in search
neously. An abstract painting has no need of a of exotic eastern subjects.7 In the process he brought
frame, having transformed itself into an ‘ideal a distinctive new conception of exhibitions to
object’ making its impact on the world, going European Romanticism and forged new links
beyond the confines of the frame, seeking to over- between painting and literature.
come the boundaries between art and life. An On the one hand Vereshchagin pursued a
abstract painting does not copy reality, but aims naturalistic interest in ‘prosaic realism’ that often
to represent an ‘idea’ and the essence of phenom- looked like a natural-historical approach, nour-
ena, as Ortega y Gasset observed: ished by scientific-positivist ideas and naturalistic
aesthetics, with priority given to empirical research
The law predetermining great turning-points in of the surrounding world through the collection of
painting is surprisingly simple. First came repre- facts and personal observation. On the other hand,
sentations of objects, then of sensations, and at however, Vereshchagin was attracted by the new
last, of ideas . . . The artist devoted his attention rhetorical systems, even anticipating the cinema,
first to external reality, next to the subjective, with the latest technological inventions such as
and then passed to the intrasubjective.6 photography, panoramic effects and various forms
of reproduction playing a part both in his method
In other words, a revolution in aesthetic viewpoint of composition and his way of displaying his
took place among the European avant-garde pictures.8 The attempt to reproduce life in art led to
between 1910 and 1920. Receptive theory in which original designs of picture frames and the discovery
the viewer’s interpretation of a work was central of new subjects. Furthermore, giving life theatrical
was replaced by an aesthetic in which the view- grandeur, Vereshchagin not only followed the
point of the artist, with his ideas aimed at recon- norms of literary texts but, a participant in and
structing the world, was primary. witness of military action, also frequently sought out
In Russian painting, the seeds for this new theatricalized ways of exhibiting his battle canvases.
direction were launched by Vasiliy Vasil’yevich A consciously anti-rhetorical purpose, subjectively
Vereshchagin (1842–1904), whose experiments with interpreted by Vereshchagin as closeness to reality,
the framing of perception arose not from doubts would in fact be a mirror image of ‘hidden’ rhetoric.
as to the nature of reality – such as would be felt So much is clear from documents, photographs
by the Russian avant-garde – but from a desire to and picture frames designed by the artist held in

264
 chapter four: between industry and art

the main museums of Russia. Vereshchagin was system, however, was that it aimed not to contrast
one of the first Russian artists to plan his exhibi- with reality but to imitate it. This artist’s exhibi-
tions as original integrated ensembles occupying tions created the illusion of reality. All aspects of
the aesthetic spaces characteristic of the Romantic the aesthetic space they occupied were closely
era. He mounted no fewer than 66 exhibitions in coordinated with the illusionistic conception of the
his lifetime: 21 of them in Russia and 45 in Western frame-as-window. A special role was played in this
Europe and the United States.9 His first one-man connection by Vereshchagin’s introduction of real
show opened in London in April 1873 and came to objects into his exhibition space – standards,
St Petersburg and Moscow in 1874; it comprised weapons, uniforms, tropical plants and all kinds of
paintings, drawings and studies in the so-called striking-looking ethnographic articles belonging
Turkestan series, the product of two journeys to the times and peoples depicted in his paintings.
in Central Asia in 1867–8 and 1869–70. This was With the help of these objects picture frames were
followed by the celebrated Indian, Balkan and harmonized with the overall ensemble of each
Napoleonic series of paintings, the first two of exhibition and complemented the paintings them-
which resulted from the artist’s journeys in India selves. We may remember how in Pop art an object
and personal participation in the Russo-Turkish is placed in an unexpected context in which it is
War of 1877–8. All these series travelled to almost out of place and seen in isolation, losing its original
every European capital as well as the principal function and acquiring an idea-bearing role. In
cities of Russia and America. They made an Vereshchagin’s exhibitions real objects were
extraordinarily powerful impact of an ultra-realistic employed with quite a different purpose – to
kind. ‘Before us is naked reality,’ wrote the critic widen the psychological context of the paintings. A
of the St Petersburg newspaper Molva in 1880,10 painting and a real object placed beside it afforded
and the year before the Paris newspaper Le Gaulois obvious opportunity for comparison of the real-
called Vereshchagin the first Russian painter to life with the imaginary. Outside the context of art,
give a real impression of war. His work was said to the concrete object belonged to ‘reality’, but in
‘hold the highest interest’ not only for its realism the artistic context of the exhibition it was trans-
but also for its philosophic meaning.11 ‘Veresh- formed into a creation of the imagination, an art
chagin has invented a completely new language object, making the boundary between the real and
and thus inscribed a unique name in the annals the imaginary flexible. Thanks to the objects that
of the art of our day’, was the opinion of an exhibi- the viewer’s eye met with both in the picture and
tion of 1900 expressed in the journal Iskusstvo i in actuality, the heavy gilt picture frame seemed to
khudozhestvennaya promyshlennost’ (Art and the become thinner and to slide away from the viewer’s
Art Industry).12 field of vision, tending towards invisibility, leaving
What the viewer saw at Vereshchagin’s exhibi- concrete objects and images side by side occupying
tions was a symbolic system no less complex than the same space. At the same time the frame began
those created in the settings of churches and to perform the function of linking the picture
palaces. The distinguishing feature of Vereshchagin’s with reality on the level of sensations. According

overleaf: 179 Exhibition of works by Vasiliy Vereshchagin

held after his death, St Petersburg, 1904.

265
part two: playing with space

to naturalistic aesthetic theory, a ‘sensation’ is an during his lifetime, and above all to harmonize the
impulse received from outside, that is, in this instance real-life objects with the styles of wall decoration
from the picture, while the viewer’s creation of an and lighting so as to strengthen the ‘primary impact’
image on the basis of a sensation is a mental reaction made by the paintings. Eastern rugs also featured in
to encountering an object of contemplation. Hence the Vereshchagin exhibition at the Tretyakov Gallery
the combination of a frame and a concrete object in 1898 (illus. 180). Placed in front of a painting and
placed next to it produced ‘a strong original sensation’. surrounded by a partition, they not only evoked a
In the photographs of the exhibition of Veresh - sensation of the ‘exotic East’ and helped to create the
chagin’s work held after his death in 1904 we see rugs, atmosphere of ‘primitive lands’, but also displayed a
weapons, furniture, plants and the like (illus. 179). fundamentally different approach to picture display
The organizers of the exhibition were clearly aiming in comparison with eighteenth-century practice. In
to reproduce the effect of the artist’s exhibitions held the earliest art gallery in Russia, it may be recalled –

180 Works by Vasiliy Vereshchagin in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, 1898.

268
 chapter four: between industry and art

the Picture Room in the Catherine Palace, Tsarskoye drapes made it possible to display canvases with
Selo, built to F. B. Rastrelli’s design in 1755 – paintings dramatic contrasts, which were brought out still
served purely as wall decoration, as in Shuvalov’s further by the gleam of the gilt frames ordered by
picture cabinet of 1779. In the eighteenth-century the artist for each separate series of paintings and
‘trellis’ style of hanging, pictures were placed con- frequently for his studies and sketches, which not
tiguously according to the principles of symmetry, only outlined the pictures but also won extra light
size and general palette, their thin frames not only for them.
separating them individually but also knitting them At the Turkestan Exhibition of 1869 in St
into a single ensemble. Petersburg Vereshchagin showed paintings, studies
During the second half of the nineteenth century and drawings alongside the zoological and geologi-
art exhibitions aimed at imitation of the real world, cal collections of his companions with whom he
as did painting itself, and it was a recognized means had undertaken ethnographic expeditions in the
of acquiring knowledge of the surrounding world. Syrdar’ya and Semirechye provinces in 1867–8.
Hence at Vereshchagin’s exhibitions the wall space This was one of the so-called colonial exhibitions
was ‘dematerialized’ by black or maroon velvet drap- that toured Europe, acquainting the public with
ing so that the effect of the paintings as windows the exotic cultures of ‘barbarous lands’, showing
into the ‘real world’ would be enhanced. ‘The whole the ‘wildness’ of Central Asian peoples, their
of the exhibition space would be decorated in the fundamentally un-Western way of life and stage
most effective way,’ the artist’s son recalls. ‘Against of development.15 The principles of these ‘colonial’
the dark maroon wall drapings the pictures stood exhibitions were repeated in international and all-
out strikingly in their gilt frames.’13 Russian exhibitions of arts and manufactures whose
A further means of making pictures ‘stand out’ pavilions included all kinds of manufactured art
was achieved by special lighting, which Vereshchagin objects, original paintings, popular craft work and
employed on the advice of Vladimir Stasov for his striking species of flora and fauna (illus. 181). From
first one-man exhibition held in St Petersburg in the outset of his career Vereshchagin would continue
1874. ‘Artistic use of lighting’, in fact, was an impor- to research new ways of making an impact on his
tant creative task that Vereshchagin developed viewers, and the simultaneous display of pictures
alongside such a major figure as Arkhip Kuindzhi and objects of material culture at ‘colonial’ and arts
(1842–1910), who in the course of his experiments and manufactures exhibitions seems to have par-
with lighting displayed a single picture on its own, ticularly caught his attention and been refined by
Moonlit Night (Lunnaya noch’). This painting was him. After recording his first ‘Romantic’ experience
exhibited with a black frame in a dark room with of the East in the photographic album Turkestan:
directed light enhancing the effect of moonlight.14 Studies from Life (1874),16 he began to develop his
Electric lamps illuminating memorial objects and original concept of a theatricalized exhibition with
Vereshchagin’s paintings also created effects typical combined display of paintings, his personal ethno-
of the panorama, the theatre and the photographic graphic and military collections and literary work,
studio in the age of realism. Varied lighting of with exhibition personnel in costume, music and

269
part two: playing with space

special lighting effects, all constituting an undoubted ‘of an unusual kind’. In the stairway and the rooms
novelty in European cultural history of the second of the exhibition Tibetan, Indian and Uzbek carpets
half of the nineteenth century. were hung, and in the showcases were displays of
There were major exhibitions of Vereshchagin’s national costume of various epochs, cult objects of
work between 1880 and 1883 in St Petersburg, Eastern religions, and articles from ethnographic
Vienna, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, collections. This exhibition also contained tiger- and
Düsseldorf, Budapest and Brussels. The Vienna bearskins and stuffed birds. The rooms were electri-
exhibition of October and November 1881, showing cally lit, and music created a special atmosphere.
paintings in the Indian and Balkan series and some Sonic accompaniment to the display of pictures
work from Turkestan, stood out for its originality of had been familiar since the early nineteenth century,
design, which, in the words of Vladimir Stasov, was the Gonzaga Theatre (1817–18) in Archangel’skoye

181 Display of works by Konstantin Korovin in the Pavilion of the Far North at the
All-Russian Arts and Manufactures Exhibition at Nizhniy Novgorod, 1896.

270
 chapter four: between industry and art

outside Moscow providing an early example. On this celebrated example of the metaphorical category in
occasion Vereshchagin himself, sometimes together Vereshchagin’s work is Apotheosis of War (Apofeoz
with the critic Stasov, chose the music, which was voyny, 1871, illus. 188). All these paintings, today in
an important element in the exhibition.17 the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, would seem sure
No less striking were Vereshchagin’s exhibitions indication that for Vereshchagin the rhetoric of the
in Berlin in 1882 and St Petersburg in 1883, also frame was put to the service of his main task as an
showing paintings from the Turkestan, Indian and artist: demolition of the Romantic cult of military
Balkan series, with similar music and electric light- glory that had formed in the Napoleonic era. He
ing, and this time with tropical plants and exotic conceived his exhibitions as grim tales of the busi-
objects to the fore. Whereas in the earlier exhibition ness of war, which he set about de-aestheticizing.
catalogues only the paintings had been described It will be worth examining more closely his means
and inscriptions on frames explained, now special of expressing his attitude to war and realizing his
attention was paid to mise en scène: the catalogue ultimate aim.
did not separate ‘exotic objects’ from the paintings Departure from the rules always raises the
themselves. The introduction to the 1883 catalogue, viewer’s level of attention. Vereshchagin took
by N. Sobko, enumerated twelve forms of Indian and advantage of this in using, in his exhibitions,
Tibetan rosaries, ‘precious stones with sacred images what was in fact an age-old principle, that of a
of the Buddha seated on a lotus flower’, silver series of works – the principle of a narrative told
feminine ornaments, vessels and utensils, eagles in paintings. He thought of this aspect of his
and hawks from the Himalayas, tiger, panther and work as innovatory, writing to Vladimir Stasov
Kashmiri bear hides, deer antlers and much else.18 that he had ‘overstepped’ the ‘routine’ convention
At all these exhibitions the traditional frame- of being content to depict a single moment in
as-window matched the precise perspectival painting and leaving ‘the consequences of that
construction of Vereshchagin’s paintings, or, as moment to literature’. This bringing together of
a contemporary put it, the artist’s ‘ultra-realistic painting and literature was significant: Veresh-
tendency’.19 It was the frame that had come to chagin called his series poemy, or ‘narrative poems’,
make a picture not just an object among other individual pictures ‘chapters’, and studies for them
objects, but also an object of contemplation. The ‘facts’.20 The appearance of a card or plaque on a
development of illusionism and the psychological picture frame bearing the artist’s name and the title
impact of pictures, however, enhanced the role of of the picture is of course an established historical
inscriptions on frames, giving them sometimes fact in the evolution of the conception of the artist
metonymic, sometimes metaphorical significance. and his social status. Renaissance painters painted
To the former category belong such works as such plaques directly on the canvas, with their
Mortally Wounded (Smertel’no ranennyy, 1873, illus. name and date of completion of the painting, or
167), They Attack Unawares! . . . (Napadayut vras- sometimes words addressed to the viewer as from
plokh! . . ., 1871, illus. 168) and Encirclement and the subject of the picture, as was Antonello’s prac-
Pursuit (Okruzhili – presleduyut, 1872). The most tice in his portraits and other works: ‘Antonello

271
part two: playing with space

da Messina painted me’ (illus. 182).21

Italian and Netherlandish painters
of the fifteenth century often
painted texts of various kinds
on frames, including direct state-
ments from persons depicted,
and in the nineteenth century
these caught the attention of the
Nazarenes and Pre-Raphaelites
such as Dante Gabriel Rossetti and
William Holman Hunt, who began
to put on their frames not only
their names but also verse, literary
quotations and words attributed
to the leading figure depicted in
a painting. All such uses of the
frame in Vereshchagin’s work with
the aim of enhancing the impact
of a painting followed the poetics
of Russian Romanticism, and he
attached particular importance
not only to the title of a painting
and the inscription on its frame
but also to the commentary on the
work in the exhibition catalogue.
The ‘heroic epic’ Barbarians
(Varvary) occupied the central place
in the exhibition of the Turkestan
series of 1874. This was a cycle of seven paintings Mortally Wounded (illus. 183), painted in Munich
(now in the Tretyakov Gallery) narrating the oblit- five years after the artist witnessed the scene depicted
eration of a Russian unit in a clash with Central during the defence of the fortress of Samarkand by
Asian troops, among them They Attack Unawares! the Russians: a running soldier dying. Artist and
…, Triumph (Torzhestvuyut, 1872), Offering Trophies soldier-hero each in the face of death – this was what
(Predstavlyayut trofei, 1872) and At the Tomb of a the viewer was offered, not merely to see but to feel.
Saint – Giving Thanks to the Almighty (U grobnitsy The feeling of tragedy was heightened by the monu-
svyatogo – blagodaryat Vsevyshnego, 1873). However, mental frame with glazing over the picture. The
the work that opened the whole exhibition was black mount with stark gold ornament gave the

182 Antonello da Messina, Christ Blessing, c. 1465.

National Gallery, London.

272
 chapter four: between industry and art

painting a memorial character, making it look like on graves and memorial obelisks. The desire to
a picture on a tomb and at the same time like a give the illusion of life led Vereshchagin to use
framed photograph. an old epigraphic formula, an inscription on the
The metonymic character of this ‘photographic frame performing the role of a speaking grave-
frame’ was heightened when the viewer read the stone, and also reminiscent of the traditional
soldier’s dying words inscribed on the frame im - dedicatory epigram. Giving speech to the image,
mediately above the image: ‘Oh, they’ve killed me, such an epigram, like an epitaph, also embodied
comrades! . . . Killed me. Oh, I’m going to die!’ – a relationship with a painting or statue as if it
in its way a spoken epitaph such as is often seen were a living, speaking person.22 Vereshchagin

183 Vasiliy Vereshchagin, Mortally Wounded, 1873. State Tretyakov Gallery,

Moscow.

273
part two: playing with space

provided this kind of epigram, in his own verse, epic level. The case, however, is not so straightfor-
to his painting Forgotten (Zabytyy, 1871), depicting ward. If one looks at the painting with earlier
a dead soldier left behind by his comrades: Russian history in mind, the inscription clearly
recalls an episode related by the early twelfth-
Tell my young widow century Kievan chronicler Nestor, in which Prince
I’ve married another; Svyatoslav and his men were surrounded by Greek
Our matchmaker was a keen sabre, forces. Pronouncing the words: ‘Let our bones lie
We were put to sleep here; for the dead have no shame’, Svyatoslav
By the damp earth, our mother.23 unsheathed his sword and led his men into battle.
It is known that the historian Nikolay Karamzin,
The inscription on the frame of They Attack considering suitable subjects for pictorial represen-
Unawares! . . . has a more complex meaning (illus. tation for the Academy of Arts, recommended this
184, 185, 186). A Russian detachment, forced into a episode as worthy of the brush of a painter who
huddle, is firing back at the advancing enemy. would depict the warriors of Rus’ ‘in the swift
Someone runs for help, someone else retreats, action of heroic inspiration’. ‘This is the moment
someone lies dead. On the frame is the epitaph: for a painting!’ the celebrated writer exclaimed.24
‘Let our bones lie here. We shall not shame the Painting a scene from real life juxtaposed with the
land of Russia. The dead have no shame.’ This wording of the academic subject, Vereshchagin
might look similar to Vereshchagin’s verse epitaph brought picture and frame together in the manner
just quoted, lifting the whole scene to a general of the comic strip and the lubok, the popular

184 Vasiliy Vereshchagin, They Attack Unawares! . . . , 1871.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

274
 chapter four: between industry and art

woodcut. The satirical effect of the aphoristic despair, the proximity of death, hope for rescue,
inscription lay in the manifest discrepancy between and so on.25
text and picture, being based on the absurd propo- Inscriptions performed special functions in a
sition that the connection provided by the quota- number of Vereshchagin’s paintings. Exploiting the
tion from a Russian chronicle and the well-known favourite European Romantic theme of ‘barbarism’
historical episode was as necessary for the artist as in his own way, he painted some scenes of genuine
the connection with real life. Hence the increase of horror – Offering Trophies, Triumph, At the Tomb of
detail to be seen in the painting: while the frame a Saint – Giving Thanks to the Almighty and finally
recalls the simple scene from ancient history, the Apotheosis of War among works already mentioned.
picture demonstrates quite new truths of war – The upper part of the frame of Triumph (illus. 187)

185 Inscription at the top of the frame.

186 Inscription on the frame.

275
bears the quotation: ‘There is no God but Allah. further interpreted in the spirit both of a memorial
There is no God but Allah’, and the lower: ‘Thus obelisk and a dramatic scene. The frame inscription
Allah commands’. This painting depicts the victors’ for Apotheosis of War (illus. 188) performs a quite
gruesome triumph: Muslim warriors are gathered different role; it was intended by the artist as an
in a square in front of a mosque, at the centre of epilogue to the whole series, the ‘heroic epic’
which decapitated heads of Russian soldiers are Barbarians. A pyramid of skulls is depicted, with
displayed on poles. The quotation from the Koran crows alighting on it. The title of the painting,
on the picture frame serves both as an epitaph inscribed on the upper part of the frame, makes it
and as a ‘chapter heading’ (as already noted, a metaphor of war, while the inscription below,
Vereshchagin termed individual paintings of a ‘To all conquerors, present, past and future’, serves
series ‘chapters’). In so far as these words may be as a dedication of the series as a whole.
understood to be uttered by the mullah depicted All these inscriptions were supplemented in
at the centre of the square, the painting can be exhibition catalogues by articles on the everyday life

187 Vasiliy Vereshchagin, Triumph, 1872. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

276
 chapter four: between industry and art

of peoples depicted, ethical and moral discussions The same style was seen in a commentary on two
and social-historical sketches that were typical of paintings with the same title, At the Fortress Wall
real-life stories, newspaper reportage and accounts (U krepostnoy steny), depicting consecutive scenes,
of scientific expeditions in the second half of the the first being introduced with the caption ‘Ssh! Let
nineteenth century (illus. 189). Also found in cata- them come!’, and the second with ‘They’ve come!’26
logues were imaginative presentations of events Vereshchagin’s method of hanging his paintings
depicted, which included dialogues, poems, chas- was reminiscent, therefore, of a stage production of
tushki (rhymed ditties on topical themes) and acts and scenes separated by the curtain and inter-
quotations from national epics and the Koran. vals. These portions of time and space contained
For example, the catalogue entry for the painting the action. In a series of Vereshchagin’s paintings
Envoys (Parlamentery; 1873, Munich) included a each portion of time and space was a static scene.
snatch of dialogue representing the negotiations of It was to activate the interpretative process that
the two sides: ‘“Surrender!” – “Go to the Devil!”’ Vereshchagin gave his frames such a high degree of

188 Vasiliy Vereshchagin, Apotheosis of War, 1871. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

277
part two: playing with space

on the one hand as reliably laid down by life itself,

or on the other as the result of the artist’s own aes-
thetic choice, which guaranteed the authenticity of
the story of his journey, of the subject of his epic.
Thus the catalogue of the 1874 Turkestan
Exhibition indicates that the most important
group of paintings in the series, the Barbarians
sequence, was shown with studies and drawings
preceding and following it, that is, provided with
that spatial-temporal framing we have already seen
in regard to the coronation of Alexander iii in 1883.
This montage led the viewer to understand that the
scenes depicted in the series were not the product
of the artist’s imagination but ‘seen’ in real life; the
studies from life shown at the beginning and end
of the exhibition were just the kind of ‘documen-
tary material’ that was considered to afford the
closest approach to authenticity in the Romantic
age of painting. So the catalogue entry on the
picture shown first in the exhibition, Mortally
significance – both in their belonging to each indi- Wounded – in its way a ‘study from life’ – described
vidual painting and in their function of joining the the event depicted as having actually occurred, in
paintings together in a montage with its own con- accordance with the inscription on the frame. That
crete meanings. The sequence in which paintings is to say, this painting-cum-study was presented as
in a series were to be viewed was laid down by the the beginning of a narrative about an experience
catalogue, and its articles enhanced the ‘theatrical- not to be met with in ordinary everyday life – the
ization’ of the exhibition space, making the paintings proximity of death, experienced by the artist himself,
‘speak’ and the viewer reflect on their meanings. witness of real-life events.
On this level the textual framing in the catalogue This ‘heroic epic’ was followed in the exhibi-
was not distinct from the material frame. The latter tion by an extensive selection of Vereshchagin’s
focused the attention on the picture and could add drawings of architecture, ornamental objects,
a dimension to the scene depicted by means of the articles of everyday life, studies of racial types –
inscription, which was clearly designed to be read everything that drew the viewer into the atmos-
aloud; while the ‘frame’ of the catalogue placed the phere of ‘barbaric lands’ and made it possible to
images in a connected storyline, a technique essen- understand and feel their wholly different, ‘lower’
tially borrowed from the comic strip and the lubok. level of historical evolution in comparison with
The sequence of pictures in a series could be taken European civilization. For example, the painting

189 Cover of the catalogue of an exhibition of

Vereshchagin’s works, St Petersburg, 1874.

278
 chapter four: between industry and art

Offering Trophies in the Barbarians cycle, wholly lifetime by builders brought from China and
in the manner of Gérôme’s scenes – but reduced Persia . . .
to brutal frankness – was thus described by the
artist: ‘Scene in the palace of Samarkand. The The authenticity of these paintings of scenes
victors, in accordance with the barbarian custom from Turkestan is emphasized in phrases like ‘painted
of those countries, cut off the heads of those they on the spot’ or footnotes such as ‘Here I should
have killed and carry them in bags hanging from mention the daily concerts that my companions
their saddles to present them to the Emir . . .’ The and I were obliged to listen to in this region – the roar
following text set out to convince the viewer of the of tigers in the mornings, and around sunset the
historical authenticity of the well-known painting melancholy howling of the gaunt, fierce wolves of the
Apotheosis of War: ‘This picture is historically true: steppe.’ This ‘artist’s note’ belonged to the commen-
Timur, or Tamerlane, who bathed the whole of tary on painting no. 89, The Ruins of Great Kumirna
Asia and parts of Europe in blood and is now (Razvaliny Bol’shoy Kumirny), painted ‘in the
considered a great saint by all Central Asian province of Ili, on the Kul’dzha road; now ruined’.27
Mohammedans, everywhere left similar monu- Vereshchagin’s ethnographic drawings of
ments to his greatness.’ physical types and articles of everyday life were
The catalogue also contained historical and placed at the end of the catalogue, without com-
ethnographic background. The artist gave this mentary, simply as ‘documentary data’. However,
commentary, for example, on Tamerlane’s Doors in accordance as they were with the epistemics of
(Dveri Tamerlana, 1872): ‘Here the doors of the natural history, they played no less a part in deter-
Central Asian sovereign’s palace at the time of mining the interpretation of the paintings than
Bukharan supremacy are depicted. The dress of the articles and commentaries. An old photograph
the sentries is typical of the period.’ Vereshchagin of an exhibition of Vereshchagin’s Turkestan
placed the painting At the Tomb of a Saint – drawings in the Tretyakov Gallery, showing the
Giving Thanks to the Almighty next to The Tomb artist’s method of display, vividly opens up for us
of Tamerlane (The Green Stone) (Grobnitsa the nineteenth-century world of ‘objective facts’
Tamerlana [Zelyonyy kamen’]), in his description (illus. 190). Architectural structures, articles of
of which he wrote in the manner of an archaeo- dress, working implements, crockery, objects from
logical scholar: archaeological excavations, skulls and portraits –
all are presented to the eye in precise rows of
This painting shows the tomb in its present-day uniform frames with each item numbered, in the
condition. Tamerlane is buried beneath the style of a natural history collection. Before us is
dark-green stone. On either side of his tomb the strict and knowledgeable positivist frame,
are the graves of two of his relatives, and at the scientific-aesthetic instrument of an era of
its head, the grave of the mentor of his youth. belief in science and progress.
In the crypt below, stone slabs cover his grave. Vereshchagin wrote to Vladimir Stasov that he
The mosque was built during Tamerlane’s intended the inscriptions to be seen on frames and

279
part two: playing with space

explicated in catalogues ‘to supplement, with their in the appreciation of his paintings’, wrote one
tragicomic effect’, the impact made by his ‘natural’ critic in the newspaper Russkoye slovo in 1895 on
and ‘true paintings’.28 The fact of the matter is that Vereshchagin’s exhibition of his 1812 series,
his frames marking a rejection of the old painterly
rhetoric ushered in a new rhetoric orientated the artist provides a commentary. So for example,
towards ‘tragicomic effect’ and taking in not only in order to understand what Napoleon was
the Romantic and Realist traditions but also the thinking when he sat alone in church with
popular primitive. This complex synthesis helped paper in hand, the viewer standing in front of
Vereshchagin to hold the attention, placing his the picture must read eight pages of explanatory
viewer in an unexpected situation that was text in the artist’s guide, whilst ten pages are
eventually to prove characteristic of avant-garde devoted to Napoleon’s thoughts on his great
culture. Revealing, in his exhibitions, elements of march. This is odd. None of the well-known
brutality and ‘astonishing’ situations and explicating paintings of Napoleon past or present has needed
them in his guides and catalogues, he aimed to set any commentary . . . [author’s emphasis].29
up a new kind of relationship with the viewer.
But his exhibitions caused dissatisfaction Another critic made ironic play with Vereshchagin’s
among both art critics and officialdom. ‘To assist exhibition ‘system’:

190 Display of drawings by Vereshchagin in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, 1898.

280
 chapter four: between industry and art

The exhibition catalogue is wonderfully planned Vereshchagin, undoubtedly a talented artist, has
and designed. In the pedagogic field it reminds a strange habit of choosing the most unattrac-
one of a gradual advance from primers to short tive subjects for his paintings, of depicting only
guides and then full textbooks. For 3 kopecks you the gloomy, ugly side of life, and furthermore,
get a list of exhibits; for 20 kopecks, a guide with giving his pictures inscriptions taking the form
explanatory text. Both the list and the guide of malicious epigrams laying claims to misan-
have references to supplements, of which there thropic wit . . . He gives the picture showing
are only three, numbered with Roman numer- the emperor at Pleven, in view of the blood-
als, i, ii, iii. Enquiries addressed to unusually shed, the title: ‘The tsar’s name-day’. Anyway,
polite sales-girls establish that these supplements this title, which must have made a great show
so assiduously cited in the list of exhibits and in Paris, was removed here.31
the guide are in fact books by Vereshchagin, on
some unremarkable Russians, the Northern In other words, the authenticity that Veresh-
Dvina, and Napoleon. This is an extraordinarily chagin stood for always had a problematic
useful system, which cannot be used by any ideological dimension. Obstacles always lurked in
Russian artist except Vereshchagin on account the way of the artist’s reflection of reality as he saw
of all the others’ complete lack of any kind of it; a factual and documentary orientation could
literary oeuvre [author’s emphasis].30 still not be free from rhetoric and preconception;
since there was no such thing as ‘bare facts’, they
Politics, as is well known, allows no comedy or would invariably be set within a political, philo-
games. The authorities, therefore, took Veresh- sophical or moral-psychological context. And this
chagin’s inscriptions on frames as mockery of the was what was provided by the framework of
Russian army – and even of the emperor himself. Vereshchagin’s catalogues aiming to direct the
This was the case, for example, with the inscription viewer’s visual perception.
‘The tsar’s name-day’ on the frame of the painting
Alexander II at Pleven, 30 August 1877 (1878–9),
which depicted the emperor sitting on a chair
looking at the battlefield. This inscription turned
the depicted scene unambiguously into an ironic
narrative about the defeat suffered by the Russian
army at Pleven (as a result of the timing of the
Russian order to attack to coincide with the
emperor’s name-day), and it was removed before
the exhibition was shown at the Winter Palace.
Clearly expressing the view of official circles,
the war minister D. A. Milyutin recalled:

281
part two: playing with space

The Painting as Photographic Exposure

Disseminating the reproduction, it replaces the
The invention of photography by Joseph Nicéphore unique manifestation of that object with a mass
Niepce (1765–1833) and Louis Daguerre (1787–1851) one. And enabling the reproduction to reach
brought about a revolution in popular perception the perceiver, wherever he or she might be, it
of visual images. The much-quoted pronouncement actualizes the object reproduced.33
‘From today, painting is dead’ was delivered by the
French painter Paul Delaroche, founder of the genre It was not by chance that the Wanderers
of historical painting, in 1838 when Daguerre made (Peredvizhniki), with their ideas of ‘going to the
a personal appeal to him to support his new inven- people’, made frequent use of photographic repro-
tion. He also said that Daguerre’s photographs were ductions of their paintings; photography and the
‘so perfect in relation to some of the most impor- technique of reproduction made works of art
tant aspects of art that they should be’, and in fact available to a vast audience, and in doing so, gave
were already becoming, ‘the subject of observation rise to a new culture of visual images, notably
and study by even the most gifted artists’. In the his- illustrations in catalogues, the cheapness of which
tory of visual culture, this meant that photography at Vereshchagin’s exhibitions belonged to a well-
had acquired the status of ‘authentic reality’; here thought-out promotional campaign and played an
was a definitive confirmation of the view that important part in the popularization of the artist’s
‘photographic copies alone can reproduce nature’.32
Hence photography became a new means of
visual communication on a comparable scale
of significance, perhaps, to computer technology
today. Replacing engraving and lithography,
photography became the illustrative companion
to everyday life, exercising a huge emotional
influence through the second half of the nine-
teenth century and the whole of the twentieth.
It also produced changes in the ways in which the
easel painting was perceived. As Walter Benjamin
showed, high art lost the aura that had surrounded
it since the Renaissance, having been founded in
a tradition in which the original image was seen
as central. Now a painting, or icon, reached a
mass public in reproduction, causing a profound
upheaval in traditional values. In Benjamin’s words:

The technology of reproduction . . . takes the

object reproduced out of the realm of tradition.

191 Photograph of Vereshchagin’s painting They’ve Gone

In!, 1874.

282
 chapter four: between industry and art

work. Photographs even took the place of missing hand-coloured. First, this is not a bad thing, and
originals at exhibitions, and were on sale there secondly, they do have composition and creation
and in specialized shops. ‘At the exit from the exhi- – only you don’t notice it, that doesn’t mean it’s
bition,’ the preface to the catalogue for one of bad.36
Vereshchagin’s exhibitions noted, ‘photographs of
both new and previous work by the artist are on This desire of Vereshchagin’s to conceal photo-
sale, also the newly published books Notes, Sketches graphic methods in his paintings meant that his
and Reminiscences by Vasiliy Vereshchagin, with the aim of getting close to reality led him both to make
artist’s drawings, and Journey to the Himalayas.’34 studies of real-life scenes and to take photographs
Large-format photographs of paintings from the himself, at a time when photographs were enhan-
Turkestan series, produced by the Munich photo- cing the status of original documentary material.
graphic studio Hanfstängel & Obernetter, were also Thus Mortally Wounded discussed above may be
on sale at A. Beggrov’s shop on Nevsky Prospekt; regarded as in its way a ‘photoplate-picture’, that is,
these appeared in 1874 simultaneously with the as a photograph and a study from real life simultan-
photo-album Turkestan: Studies from Nature.35 eously (actually being neither. illus. 192). Of course,
During this period debate was raging between neither tripod camera nor study could capture the
the proponents of photography and painting as
to the aesthetic value of the former and its role in
contemporary art. At first, the evolution of photog-
raphy, as a new form of art, was closely connected
with painting. A photographic composition was
regarded as a process of work on a painting, and
photographers called themselves artists and had
the formal title of painters, being graduates of the
Academy of Arts. Using methods of posed photog-
raphy, they reproduced ‘reality’, building up scenes
that were component parts of a photographic ‘pic-
ture’, exactly as painters did. However, before long
it was painting that began to imitate photography.
Many of Vereshchagin’s paintings show the use of
photographic methods and are framed in photo-
graphic style, which did not escape the notice of art
critics. ‘Do you know why my latest paintings have
been criticized?’ he wrote to Stasov in 1888:

It’s said that they lack composition, that they

could be taken for photographs from real life,

192 Vereshchagin’s Mortally Wounded unframed.

283
part two: playing with space

which might be thought of as a

frame produced by the edge of the
camera lens.
The effect of a photograph is
even more convincingly achieved
in the triptych of paintings All
Quiet on the Shipka (Na Shipke
vsyo spokoyno, 1878–9, illus. 194),
set out as three photographic
‘frames’ resembling a sequence of
shots taken with different exposure-
times – the chronographic principle
introduced to photography by the
American Eadweard Muybridge
and the Frenchman Etienne-Jules
moment between life and death, as would, at a later Marey, reproducing the effect of movement in a
date, Robert Capa’s famous photograph The Falling sequence of frames (illus. 195).37 Vereshchagin’s
Soldier (1936, illus. 193). But the depicted figure, the three framed images resembling photographic
light, shade and movement in Vereshchagin’s picture shots are designed to convey the same effect:
indicate his striving for the effect of photography, change in time and space. For its first viewers the
an impression strengthened by the black mount, painting had the same impact of authenticity as

193 Robert Capa, The Falling Soldier, 1936, photograph. 194 Vasiliy Vereshchagin, All Quiet on the Shipka, lithograph
from an exhibition catalogue, 1883.

284
 chapter four: between industry and art

only photography had hitherto achieved. The situ- convey the significance of individual moments in
ation between life and death falls into separate a human life.
moments, and the black borders round each of the The border of a photograph, like the edge of a
three ‘shots’ underline the fortuitousness and photographic exposure, gradually merges into the
injustice of the scene of the soldier forgotten by his picture. Its approximation to the material frame
commander and freezing to death at his post. At of a painting on canvas is an effect to be seen in
first the eye appears to move from one frame to the the painting Shipka-Sheynovo (1878–9; Tretyakov
next as it might follow the successive scenes of an Gallery), one of the most important pictures in
icon of the life of a saint. In an icon, however, the so-called Balkan Series devoted to the Russo–
each frame-image is a ‘given’ in the life-story of a Turkish War of 1877–8 (illus. 196). General M. D.
saint contained in a mythological spatial-temporal Skobelev’s review of his troops after the victory at
representation. The ‘frames’ of Vereshchagin’s Shipka is depicted on a large canvas. The general,
picture, on the other hand, show facts in the life mounted on a grey, gallops along a rank of soldiers
of a real human being. They are contained in a followed by his staff officers, among whom
historical model of time and space; each of them Vereshchagin portrays himself. Spatial depth is
is unique and, what is crucial, achieved through achieved by the placing of this scene in the middle
empirical knowledge, that is, from observation distance, with the foreground, occupied by the dead
of actuality, in the same way as images captured bodies of the soldiers, providing a compositional
on a photographic plate. They are designed to ‘frame’ for the celebration of the victory won at

195 A photographic sequence by Eadweard Muybridge, 1879.

285
part two: playing with space

such cost. At the heart of the artist’s quest for laden stalks and foliage of plants), and these form
‘truthfulness to life’, this frame builds up a rhetorical their own frame and make a material window
juxtaposition of ‘true’ and ‘false’ representations frame superfluous. First comes the frame of ‘reality’,
of war. clearly associated with the edge of a frame of
In the painting Don’t Disturb Them – Let Them photographic film. Here the photographic mode
Come Nearer! (Ne zamay – day podoyti!, illus. 197), is concealed by the artist’s compositional mode,
a central work in the series The Old Partisan (Staryy acting as a signal for the viewer’s perception of
partisan, 1887–95; Historical Museum, Moscow), what is going on at the heart of the picture.
the compositional frame cuts off objects in the fore- In other words, Vereshchagin once more
ground, serving symbolically to create the image; encloses his historical ‘fact’ within the framing of
it cuts off our field of vision, forcing the viewer’s the visual image that the viewer will take for reality
eye to focus both on it and on what is inside it, the itself – the photographic frame. Historians of
objects that it excludes appearing to come out of painting have called this ‘the placing of the frame
the frame and approach the viewer. It is not by within the picture plane’. The American scholar
chance that this painting is reminiscent of a broken Meyer Schapiro examined the paintings of Degas
window: we see the figure in the middle of the (illus. 198) and Toulouse-Lautrec in this regard,
picture as if through splinters of glass (the snow- concluding that this deep-structured composition

196 Vasiliy Vereshchagin, Shipka-Sheynovo: General Skobelev below Shipka,

1878–9. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

286
 chapter four: between industry and art

was a late achievement of synthesis, the culmination It follows from this that the deep-structured
of the evolution of the picture frame in European composition of certain paintings by Vereshchagin
representative art.38 According to Arnheim: classifies them alongside the work of some French
artists. Furthermore, there are grounds for con-
The frame of a picture emerges from current cluding that not only Degas but Vereshchagin too
debate as playing an interactive role with the anticipated the conception of the deep-structured
unlimited space of the picture. This direction in photographic shot (combining close-up and long-
art reached its furthest point in the nineteenth range perspectives) to be developed later by Sergey
century, in the paintings of Degas, for example, Eisenstein.40
who used the picture frame to cut off objects Aside from all this, there is no doubt that
and human figures to a greater degree than had Vereshchagin’s ideas on frames and exhibitions
been seen before. This drew attention to the were directly influenced by photoreportage and
arbitrary nature of the line of delimitation the world of spectacle. To this he brought the
drawn by the picture frame, and consequently aesthetic of ‘the terrible truth’, sensationalism,
to its sporadic decorative function.39 and play with the spatial boundary between picture

197 Vasiliy Vereshchagin, Don’t Disturb Them – Let Them 198 Edgar Degas, Dancers, 1883. Dallas Museum of Art.
Come Nearer!, 1887–95. State Historical Museum,
Moscow.

287
part two: playing with space

and object – everything, that is, calculated to seize now shown to be a part of ‘the history of national
the imagination and arouse different emotions. life’, commanding attention not through its outcome
In the mid-nineteenth century photoreportage but through the problematics of life and death on
brought material drawn from life to the fore. The which photographers and artists focused a fresh
conception of the battle painting underwent a and objective eye.
change. Battle pictures had hitherto featured one Hence photoreportage from the front, with
or a group of figures in the foreground associated the presence of photographers and artists on the
with the triumphal theme, which was frequently battlefield, gained special significance at this time,
enhanced by trophy ornament on frames – stan- though the presence of artists in the theatre of war
dards, weaponry and the like. Now the battle picture was not new. Jacques Callot (1592–1635) had depicted
without a hero sprang up, its rhetoric founded on battles on the basis of materials collected on the
the non-depiction of battle itself; it was scenes battlefield. In the engravings of the Siege of Breda
before or after a battle that began to be depicted, he portrayed himself sketching from life, treating
the routine of military life, the burdens of wartime war as an everyday occurrence.45 Louis-François Le
existence and the injustice of death. Photoreportage Jeune witnessed the battle of Marengo in northern
and paintings showed corpse-strewn battlefields, Italy in 1800 and sketched on the battlefield.46
bivouacking soldiers, scenes of destruction and Vereshchagin did the same. The young Vasiliy
disaster. All this was contemporaneous with the Nemirovich-Danchenko, a war correspondent
Crimean War (1854–5), the first armed conflict to in the Russo–Turkish war of 1877–8, records his
be covered by photography. Fenton and Robertson, behaviour under fire:
Langlois, Méhédin, Durand-Brager and Lassimond,
and the Rumanian Satmari – all these photographed The famous artist Vasiliy Vereshchagin also
fearful battlefields and showed real scenes of followed our unit. He often had to look death
carnage to a wide public for the first time.41 They in the face, and you didn’t know which was the
were followed by artists: British and French painters greater, his talent or his courage . . . Under the
in particular depicted killed and wounded soldiers, fiercest fire he would calmly and methodically
removing the heroic aura from the battle picture.42 sit down on his folding stool and do his sketches
In his famous series of war paintings, Horace as if he were in his studio.47
Vernet (1789–1863), with whom Vereshchagin has
often been compared, made use of soldiers’ and However, in the context of European pacifism,
eyewitnesses’ accounts of the Crimean War and the artist’s personal presence on the battlefield was
Jean-Charles Langlois’ photographs of Malakhov acquiring a new significance at this time: as an eye-
Kurgan.43 ‘I was somehow offended,’ wrote witness of battle, of actual events, he had the full
Vereshchagin, referring to his Balkan series, ‘when moral right to tell people ‘the truth’. It was for this
they called these paintings battle pictures – what reason that Vereshchagin portrayed himself in
an academic term! – these are paintings of Russian Shipka-Sheynovo among General Skobelev’s staff-
life, Russian history.’44 In other words, war was officers, and always wore the St George Cross,

288
 chapter four: between industry and art

In other words, once the frame of a person’s

picture of the world is changed, the frames of his
visual images change too. The age of Positivism
and the philosophy of Auguste Comte decisively
cancelled out the multi-layered Christian cosmos.
Heaven and hell were found to be on earth. And
the artist’s eye was caught by the changed and
the dead, by the human body without any higher
significance – the corpse, embodiment of ‘the
objective fact’ and ‘the truth’ of war. The theme of
human death had long since entered the rhetoric
of art within an established system of Christian
values. The death of a saint and the death of a
sinner were opposite poles of this system. But
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century pathological
anatomy took the human corpse out of the forbid-
den area in which it was considered sinful to muti-
late or even depict it, and in European Romantic
painting we encounter that obsession with death
that led Théodore Géricault to become a frequenter
of morgues and places of public executions. Like
awarded for his participation in the defence of the Vereshchagin, he strove for realism in his depiction
Samarkand Fortress in 1868 (after this he refused of dead bodies in his painting The Raft of the
all awards and decorations). What was important Medusa (1818–19; Louvre, Paris), but whereas he
to him was the symbol indicating that he was a could find death beautiful and appealing, to
witness of war, on which he focused his full atten- Vereshchagin it was terrible and repulsive.
tion. It was not coincidental that in a letter to Pavel Much influenced by European Romanticism,
Tretyakov (1832–1898), Vereshchagin suggested then, in his depiction of extreme scenes, Veresh -
having the standard that Skobelev had given him, chagin developed his own pantheistic ideas and
depicted in the painting, placed behind his canvas positivist methods. This led him to make systematic
(illus. 199). Like the St George Cross he wore on collections of military and ethnographic material
his uniform, this standard was no triumphal and also to experiment with framing in the obser-
symbol but a memorial token appealing to the vation and classification of data. His frames were
viewer to trust the authenticity of the artist’s designed to convince the viewer that the nightmare
pictorial reportage, the thrust of which was that world of his ‘battle pictures without heroes’ came
the compositional frame of corpses in his picture in fact from the empirical world, and that it was
was itself the terrible, nightmare price of victory. this that shaped his depictions. Here, however, the

199 A letter written by Vereshchagin to Pavel Tretyakov.

289
part two: playing with space

problem of the raw emotional level of mass audi- splinters. Heads, sticks, umbrellas thrust through
ences arose for the first time; a hundred years later windows broken open; shouts, entreaties, curses
and more it remains exactly the same when it were heard – uproar. Something unheard-of was
comes to television transmissions from theatres of happening; I saw that the crowd consisted of the
war: the ‘realities’ of war and killing are still one of so-called decent classes – ladies in fine dress,
the key topics for activating viewers’ responses. men in top-hats . . . As soon as the doors were
Vereshchagin’s exhibitions of his battle paintings, opened, a crowd poured in such as I have never
therefore, with their intense ideological focus, are seen since.49
clear precursors of the anti-heroic war films of the
twentieth century. Here we find a precisely planned Alexander Benua (1870–1960) too gives an
approach to capturing the mass mind and expos- emotionally charged account of Vereshchagin’s
ing it to powerful and terrible images, making use exhibitions in his memoirs:
of not only the empirical aesthetic but often shock,
primal emotion and scandal as well. The power of Those exhibitions, mounted in rooms without
uncontrollable emotions sometimes made sensa- natural light, hung with exotic objects from
tional emergence at Vereshchagin’s exhibitions. foreign lands and decorated with tropical plants,
Attendance figures at Vereshchagin’s exhibitions made a terrible, inexorable impact. Those gigan-
begin to tell the story. The 1880 exhibition in St tic, bright or dark canvases, across which Hindus
Petersburg drew 200,000 visitors in 40 days, buying strode in fairytale dress, or unfortunate soldiers
tens of thousands of catalogues. There were about struggled through mountains in deep snow,
100,000 visitors in 26 days to the 1881 exhibition in or a priest in a black chasuble read prayers for
Vienna, with 31,670 catalogues sold. Attendance the dead under a leaden sky over a field full of
figures in Hamburg were 42,000 in 37 days; 35,000 naked and decapitated corpses – those canvases
in 36 days in Dresden, 28,000 in 21 days in Brussels, had the effect of the ghastly nightmares of
and 57,000 in 40 days in Budapest.48 These figures, fever.50
impressive for their time, are amplified by the testi-
mony of a number of eyewitnesses who were not Pavel Tretyakov’s elder daughter, Vera Ziloti, also
visitors. Alexander Vereshchagin, the artist’s younger has her memories:
brother who helped in the organization of the
exhibitions, thus describes the attendance at the On a black background, in electric light, these
Vienna exhibition of 1881: paintings, alive as life itself, hit us, touched us,
terrified us, overwhelmed us; I remember how a
There were still 10 minutes to go before opening mutilated sentry looked at us in dumb torment,
time, but the public was desperate to get into while from somewhere behind the pictures came
the Künstlerhaus. Those in front, pressed on the strains of a harmonium, quiet, melodious,
by those behind, pushed on the doors. Glass, plaintive . . . I wept and hid in a dark corner of
not withstanding the pressure, flew about in the room.51

290
 chapter four: between industry and art

The emergence of all this powerfully emotive The originality of Vereshchagin’s framing and
subject matter was a consequence of the ‘war of the exhibitions sprang not only from photography,
painters’ at this time on the art market, in which photoreportage and promotional techniques, but
the magnetic draw of ‘horror’ was a major element also from the impact of the panorama, which had
of publicity. Ilya Repin explained how he had been recently come into fashion, producing a spectacular
caught up in this: effect by means of an illusionistic frame drawing
the very boundary between the imaginary world
At that time every exhibition in Europe showed of art and the real world that included the viewer.
bloody pictures in great quantity, and so I, no It was from the panorama, as well as the theatre
doubt infected by this taste for blood, went and photostudio, that Vereshchagin’s use of objects,
home and immediately started painting a scene lighting and music in his exhibitions came. The
of blood – Ivan the Terrible with his Son. And palette, composition and format of his paintings
this bloody picture had great success.52 would also seem to have been influenced by the
panorama, which sought to overcome the fragmen-
Works like these were certainly calculated to tation of the world – the picture-window as cut out
cause mass excitement and shock the viewer; an from the surrounding world of reality, with its optics
atmosphere of social scandal gathered around governed by linear perspective and the camera
them, due as much to illicit behaviour on the part obscura. The picture created in the first all-round
of the public as to official prohibitions. The former panorama, constructed in Edinburgh in 1787, already
could be manifested in material damage done to appeared to surround the viewer just as the visible
canvases. Ivan the Terrible with his Son Ivan, 16 world did, and its effects were developed still further
November 1581 (Ivan Groznyy i syn yego Ivan 16 in the next century through techniques brought
noyabrya 1581 goda, 1885; Tretyakov Gallery) was at about by the Industrial Revolution.
first banned from public exhibition, and when it For example, the illusionistic effect of the
was in due course exhibited at the Tretyakov it juxtaposition of real with depicted objects in the
was slashed by a mentally ill former icon painter, panorama was heightened by experiments with
Balashov, which in its turn caused the suicide of the light. A leading part in this was played by the
curator of the gallery, the artist Khrustalev, when in inventor of photography, Louis Daguerre. The dio-
a state of severe emotional shock. According to the rama constructed in Paris in 1822 by Daguerre and
memoirs of another of the gallery’s curators, both Bouton gave more complex effects of light through
before the October Revolution and in Soviet times the use of mirrors. The pavilion containing the
the public was drawn to this painting more than diorama was built in such a way that the viewer,
to any other.53 A similar incident occurred at walking round from place to place, did not see the
Vereshchagin’s exhibition in Vienna in 1886: a edges of the picture because the frame was made
visitor poured acid over his painting The Holy up of the real-life objects surrounding him or her.
Family (Svyatoye semeystvo, 1884–5) and broke The diorama had a straight horizon and showed a
several frames.54 landscape painted in fluid colours on both sides of

291
part two: playing with space

a thin canvas. Changes in the intensity of light monastery. With a change in the light setting,
from daylight to darkness were mechanically evening fell and the monastery bell summoned
caused by means of mirrors and coloured glass in visitors to evening prayer. At a later date, battle
the roof of the pavilion. The picture was backlit, panoramas came into fashion in Europe including
which dematerialized its surface and produced Russia, to which famous battle painters of the
colour changes giving the illusion of progression time, such as Michael Diemer, Louis Braun, Luděk
from day to night in the landscape spread out Marold, Václav Jansa and Wojciech Kossak,
before the viewer’s eyes as if it were a scene from contributed their work.56
real life. Vereshchagin’s exhibitions may be considered
The diorama had an overwhelming public as a synthesis of all the achievements of European
success when first seen in Russia in 1851. The visual culture, including public spectacles, as they
Palermo Panorama made by Karl Friedrich Schinkel evolved in Russia, especially the popular genre of
(1781–1841) was brought to St Petersburg by the ‘living picture’, which not only aspired to merge
G. Gropius from Berlin.55 Visitors mounted to the theatre and painting, but also gave the picture frame
upper floor of the round pavilion, from which supplementary functions. Thus in 1822 Empress
vantage-point they surveyed an ‘Italian view’. Mariya Fyodorovna put on a show of living pictures
The same pavilion also appeared to be inside a in the White Room of the Hermitage in honour of

200 Eugenie Pluchart, White Room of the Hermitage, with an Exhibition of ‘Living Pictures’, 1822.

292
 chapter four: between industry and art

her daughter, the Duchess of Saxe-Weimar; these beside a ‘living nymph’ and a ‘live Macbeth’ riding
were representations of famous paintings in the a depicted horse. In Bazhenov’s opinion, living
Hermitage, and were enjoyed as ‘artistic entertain- pictures could not satisfy the demanding viewer:
ments’, of which we have a record in Eugenie
Pluchart’s drawings of the same year (illus. 200). There are many reasons for this. First of all,
Windows cut into the walls of the room connected these pictures cannot be called ‘living’, only
two areas, one for the actors and one for the spec- partly living, because only the figures are alive;
tators. From the spectators’ viewpoint the spaces everything else is more than dead. This dead-
inside picture frames appeared to be canvases with ness of setting, sharply clashing with the living
living actors taking the place of depicted figures; relief of the figures, gives the liveness itself an
and it was the frames that facilitated identification unnatural, false effect and takes it beyond the
of the poses of motionless actors as those of the bounds of good taste.59
postures and forms of the subjects of familiar
paintings rather than sculptured images. Further - In the second half of the nineteenth century
more, the shining gilt of the frames reflected light, living pictures were shown in urban and country
which fell on made-up faces and folds of clothing, houses, and were a popular item in the repertoire
enhancing the illusion of painted surfaces. ‘The of the private theatre at Abramtsevo.60 Audiences
concept of these entertainments is interesting’, for such private showings, however, were limited.
observed the journal Staryye gody: What made the genre accessible to mass audiences
was photography, used in the creation of drama-
it has been used before in illusory representations tized scenes and perceived as a medium ‘closer to
of museum rooms with rows of pictures appear- reality’ than the paintings on canvas that it imitated.
ing to hang on the walls but in reality with groups A typical example of this development was
of living persons posing inside the frames.57 Mikhail Panov’s photograph Boyar Wedding Feast
(illus. 201), an imitation of Konstantin Makovsky’s
Living pictures were also shown at this time painting of the same title (1883, illus. 202). Using
on the stage. In December 1821, not long before the the techniques of posed photography, Panov ‘pro-
empress’s show in the Hermitage, a one-act play duced’ Makovsky’s painting, dressing and placing
Living Pictures, or Ours Bad, Other People’s Good, the actors as they appeared in the painting. His
was put on in St Petersburg.58 The theatre critic photograph shows an artistic staging of a living
A. N. Bazhenov, writing of a performance of living picture, which was first shown, it is to be noted,
pictures at the Maly Theatre in the 1860s (Dreams by Makovsky, and proved so popular that it went
of Love by the Niagara Falls and A Dream), noted on to be presented to Emperor Alexander iii in the
that stage sets were placed ‘at varying removes’ to house of Princess A. N. Naryshkina.61
give the illusion of receding through space, and At length, photography and the cinematograph
that actors combined with depicted figures and introduced movement to the living picture, making
objects, a ‘cardboard cupid’, for example, appearing its framing more complex and bringing the genre

293
201 Mikhail Panov, Boyar Wedding Feast (‘living picture’), 202 Konstantin Makovsky, Boyar Wedding Feast, 1883.
1883–4. photograph. Hillwood Museum, Washington, DC.
 chapter four: between industry and art

near to the stage of film. Two photographs pub- not only came out of the picture, but also passed
lished in the journal Stolitsa i usad’ba (Capital and beyond the edge of the film shot, merging the
Country) in 1916 exemplify this. They show a framed montage of real-life ‘images’ with the moving
portrait entitled Vision of the Past coming to life panorama of cinematography. Lev Kuleshov
(illus. 203, 204). This living picture, bringing a (1899–1970), who was to make many discoveries in
ballerina of the past to life to join hands with a cinematic montage, advised the viewer to train his
celebrated male dancer of the day, was shown or her eyes to look round and over an imaginary
at a charity evening at the house of one O. K. window cut into the paper in the same proportion
Karabchevskaya.62 The model stepping out of the as the photo shot that replaced the picture frame:
picture frame demonstrated the continuity of the
imaginary and the real worlds. The picture frame Imagine the picture frame, with its proportions
tended simultaneously towards presence and of 3:4. If we take the picture out of its frame and
absence, inasmuch as it was superimposed on the look over the frame at the real world around it,
edge of the film shot. The latter froze the moment, what we shall see inside the frame is the photo-
making it stand still before the eye, but the dynamic graphic picture shot.63
pose of the figure coming out of the picture frame
disturbed the immobility of the film shot, shifting With the advent of the moving panorama at
it and setting it in motion. Consequently, the figure the end of the nineteenth century, creation of the

295
part two: playing with space

illusion of the real world seemed to be approach- by, with the illusion that the train was moving.
ing the limits of possibility. The image alone At the same exhibition a moving ‘mareorama’ was
passed before the viewer’s eyes, with concealed also shown. In the middle of the hall of grand
compositional framing. In Vereshchagin’s series of attractions was a platform 70 metres in length
paintings the frame separated images as it did in simulating the deck of a transatlantic liner and
series of photographs. But with moving images, admitting 700 viewers who were able to see some
it tended towards invisibility; the succession of of the spectacular landscapes to be found between
separate pictures began to be perceived as a single Marseille and Yokohama by way of Naples, the
visible world. Thus viewers of the moving Trans- Suez Canal, Sri Lanka, Singapore and China. These
Siberian Railway Panorama installed during the were painted on huge canvases wound round
Paris Exposition of 1900 were accommodated in cylinders placed along both sides of the platform,
three luxurious carriages, through the windows of which were set in motion by special machinery.
which they could gaze as the countryside passed Each canvas was 750 metres in length and 15 metres

203–204 Vision of the Past (‘living picture’), 1916.

296
 chapter four: between industry and art

in height. Some 20,000 square metres of painting the symbolic world of the imagination disappeared
in all rolled before the viewers’ eyes, creating the into the black edges of the screen. The visible,
illusion of a ship in motion with exotic coastal moving world of cinematography acquired, as it
views being passed.64 were, its own natural boundaries, in the same way,
In this context it was natural for cinematography for example, as our eye looking through a window
to be defined, on its invention in 1894, as ‘the telling perceives the real world, undivided and in motion,
of stories by moving pictures’.65 The spectator did within the limits imposed by the window aperture.
not see the division of moving film into individual Like Western European artists such as Delacroix,
frames that was at the heart of the technological Courbet, Bonnard, Eakins, Mucha, Knopf, Munch
revolution ushered in by the cinematograph in the and Degas66 (who based a number of landscapes on
field of visual images, which has been further devel- his own photographs),67 many Russian painters
oped in our own time by computer technology. The made use of photography, among them – besides
frame separating the world of external reality from Vereshchagin – Kramskoy, Levitan, Vrubel and

297
part two: playing with space

Kandinsky. Isaac Levitan (1860–1900), for example, The painting as photographic exposure could
is known to have drawn on photography in achiev- also be manifested in portraits and hand-coloured
ing chiaroscuro effects in his painting March (Mart, photoprints. Ivan Kramskoy, Repin and many
1895; Tretyakov Gallery).68 Vrubel experimented other artists painted portraits from photographs.
with the palette for his painting The Demon The earliest such works are Kramskoy’s mono-
Overthown (Demon poverzhennyy, 1901; Tretyakov chrome portraits of the early 1870s,70 some of
Gallery) by colouring a faint photoprint, changing which even vie with photography in the character-
not only the composition in the process but also istics of their palette and in their pale borders
the relationship between the colour of the frame reminiscent of mounts of photographs: the white
and the overall palette of his painting (illus. 205). border around the portrait of the artist Fyodor
Furthermore, photography also helped in the Vasil’yev (illus. 206), for example, makes the picture
painting of the mountains in this picture. Vrubel’s resemble a photograph, while the frame convinces
close friend V. V. von Meck recalls: the viewer that this is not a photograph but a
painted picture.
‘Help me and get hold of some photos of Finally, in the hand-coloured photoprint the
mountains as soon as you can,’ Vrubel’ wrote photographic border in turn ‘disappears’ from the
to me in a note he sent me one evening. It was viewer’s sight: a ‘fold of reality’ (Deleuze) alters the
almost night when I found some photographs photograph beyond recognition – as in the ‘photo-
of Elbrus and Kazbek at a friend’s and sent pictures’ in the album Nizhniy-Novgorod presented
them to him. That very night, behind the figure to Alexander ii by the artist-photographer Andrey
of the Demon, pearl-like peaks sprang up, Karelin, who was close to the emperor; his photo-
touched by the eternal coldness of death.69 graphs were hand-coloured by Ivan Shishkin
(1832–1998), and the work of the celebrated land-

205 Mikhail Vrubel, The Demon Overthrown, 1901, coloured

photograph. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

298
 chapter four: between industry and art

scape painter made them look like

original paintings. Karelin himself
commented: ‘I couldn’t believe that
the watercolours were done on
photographs: not a trace of the
faint print on Whatman paper
was visible on any of them.’71
The same effect could be pro-
duced in the process of reproduc-
tion of original paintings. This, for
example, was the technique that
lay behind the reproduction of a
painting taken as an ‘exact copy’ in
the second half of the nineteenth
century. First, the artist would give
permission for his painting to be
photographed and a monochrome
photoprint would be made, on
which he might or might not carry
out corrections. Repin recalled
how the Russian artist Nikolay Ge,
with ‘a few strokes of his brush’,
rescued a ‘hopeless’ photoprint of
his painting The Last Supper made
for phototype reproduction. It was
this photoprint that was repro-
duced directly and then retouched. As a result photographic-exposure built up an alternative
of all these amendments of ‘reality’, a painting ‘reality’ that was taken as the original work. What
might become unrecognizable. It was this kind we see today in old photographs and other repro-
of reproduction of his painting The Reply of the ductions of paintings, therefore, does not show
Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Sultan of Turkey the reality but rather a certain set of conceptions
(1880–91; Russian Museum, St Petersburg) that of that reality. In this sense, old photographs and
Repin saw in the studio of a Ukrainian artist visit- other kinds of reproduction are very important
ing Munich.72 If an artist’s use of photography in sources in the study of cultural value systems.
work on a painting, then, brought it nearer to
reality, it was never by very much. At each stage
of its preparation the framing of a painting-as-

206 Ivan Kramskoy, The Artist Fyodor Vasil’yev, early 1870s. State Tretyakov
Gallery, Moscow.

299
part two: playing with space

Artist, Frame-maker and Client

the frame-carver declined correspondingly. The
With the Industrial Revolution and the coming of names of the most famous European frame-makers
mass production and consumption, fundamental from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries
changes to visual images and their frames occurred. have been preserved: the Dutchmen Adam van
In the 1830s and ’40s the elaborate picture frames Vianen (1569–1627) and Johannes Lutma the Elder
of previous centuries gave way to industrially pro- (1584–1669), the French masters Jean-Baptiste Pineau
duced mouldings of various types and forms, from (1652–94), Edmé Chollot, Jean Chéren and Etienne-
massive and complex oil painting frames to simpli- Louis Infroit.76 Further foreign masters were active
fied ones for cheap popular lithographs and photo- in Russia too in the eighteenth century and taught
types. At a time of commercialization of art and applied arts to Academy students in St Petersburg –
new market conditions, the picture frame became Nicolas-François Gillet, Louis Rolland, Simon
a symbol of the work of art as a saleable article. It is Sorensen, Bernhardt Friedrich Backoven, among a
true that the frame had played this role in earlier number of others.77 Rolland, chief wood-carver at
times too: an expensive gilt frame had always been the State Office for Building, worked for twenty
a luxury object, an indication of the prosperous years under the direction of Francesco Bartolomeo
collector. Paintings in gilt frames were advertised Rastrelli carving large-scale ornamental ensembles
for sale in newspapers in the eighteenth century. for the interiors of the Winter Palace, and from
In 1779 the ‘public safekeeping office’ (pawnshop) 1766 to 1769 also gave a class on ornamental sculp-
in the Imperial Hospital for Foundlings, for example, ture at the Academy of Arts. During the next century,
was selling off ‘various paintings by masters in gilded in contrast, the frame-maker was transformed
frames’.73 The difference, however, was that now the from a specialist in ornamental sculpture into an
art market was increasingly counting on mass con- anonymous and unremarkable craftsman, although
sumption. In Gogol’s story ‘The Portrait’, therefore, an artist turning to this trade could still become
middle-of-the-road St Petersburg antique dealers rich and famous. The explanation for this lay
display a quantity of cheap pictures ‘in tawdry in the particular cultural-historical position
yellow frames’. ‘Here’s “Winter”! Take “Winter”. between industry and art in which the picture
The frame alone costs something!’ says the dealer frame had been placed in the era of the Industrial
as he tries to tempt the hero of the tale, the artist Revolution, involving a changed relationship
Chertkov, making his pitch wholly in the spirit of between the artist, the frame-maker and the
the time, when a tawdry gilded frame was becoming client. On the one hand, the picture frame had
a symbol of luxury in the eyes of a mass public.74 a distinct role to play in the open art market
The fact is that demand for expensive carved and artists’ exhibitions, and on the other, it now
frames declined sharply in conditions of the mass actively encroached upon individual artistic
production of visual images. It has been calculated creation.
that by 1813 the number of wood-carvers in Europe Paintings and photographs of artists’ studios
had already declined by 90 per cent since the last of the second half of the nineteenth century show
years of the previous century,75 so that the status of many empty picture frames, some better than

300
 chapter four: between industry and art

others, but all of them needed to show and present It is evident, then, that the frame plays an important
a picture to a customer. ‘Not being entirely sure’, role in the mutual relationship between artist and
the artist Pavel Kovalevsky wrote to Pavel Tretyakov client in the presentation of an artist’s work. And
on 28 February 1886, the same may be gathered from the numerous nine-
teenth-century images showing an artist ‘painting’
that you received my letter in which I gave my his work already framed or posing beside it.
agreement to placing my painting ‘The Metro - A photograph of Vereshchagin working on
politan’ in your gallery, I am writing to you on his painting Napoleon I on the Heights of Borodino
another point. I agree to change the frame, if (Napoleon I na Borodinskikh vysotakh, 1897;
you agree to let me have 2,000 roubles for this Historical Museum, Moscow) is a case in point (illus.
[painting].78 207). Here, in a tradition going back at least to the

207 Vasiliy Vereshchagin at work on Napoleon I on the Heights of Borodino in his studio
beyond the Serpukhovskaya Zastava, Moscow, c. 1900.

301
208 Ivan Ayvazovsky portrayed in his studio in a framed photograph, 1880s.
 chapter four: between industry and art

seventeenth century in European painting, the frame there was a room where Lemokh worked with
is indicative of the value of the painting. At a time friends; they would cover a sheet of Whatman
when the art market was being actively developed, paper with diluted India ink or sepia with a
the commercial function of the picture frame sponge. Patches of indistinct outlines would
became yet more marked, and sometimes para- show on the paper. Then Ayvazovsky would
mount – as in the photographic portraits of the cut the sheet into smaller pieces, touch up the
famous Russian artist Ivan Ayvazovsky (1817–1900) patches, and there would be seascapes with
that effectively framed small souvenir landscapes, clouds and waves. He would present one of
as popular and attractive as this celebrated painter’s these, framed, to every important person who
exhibitions of his original work (illus. 208). visited his studio [my emphasis].79
In a photograph of 1887 Ayvazovsky sits on
a chair, looking as if he has just put the finishing Thus, besides its usual function of presenting a
touches to the seascape contained in its massive picture, the frame could be associated with the
frame. The oil painting on cardboard and its frame problem of faking and attribution.
are set within a further framing provided by the Pavel Tretyakov, who devoted careful attention
studio photograph, which convinces the viewer to the frames of the pictures in his collection, is a
that the painting is by the hand of the famous typical collector as regards the mutual relationship
artist. Facing the viewer in three-quarter pose, between artist, frame-maker and client. He would
he seems to invite us to appraise the merits of ask an artist to replace or overpaint a frame. Ilya
his work, which, according to the rhetoric of the Repin, for example, repainted the frame of his por-
framing, is inseparable from his personal image. trait of Lev Tolstoy black at this collector’s request
The portrait of Ayvazovsky is supposed to be as (illus. 209). The resulting austere-looking frame
instantly recognizable as the painting itself. The containing Renaissance ornamental elements clearly
outer wooden frame round the whole and the placed the great Russian writer on a level with the
artist’s dedicatory inscription convince the viewer geniuses of the Renaissance. Testimony survives
that the famous painter sits before our eye having from contemporaries that Repin gave little thought
just set his dedicatory inscription to the original to the frames for his paintings. Minchenkov recalls:
of an important work of art. It is perfectly possible
that this was in fact what happened. However, Repin’s frames were very often in contradiction
documents and reminiscences of contemporaries to his paintings. Serious subject matter and
testify to Ayvazovsky’s method of making his austere forms – and a light-hearted frame that
souvenir landscapes, in which he was helped by didn’t go with the picture at all. Friends would
others, among them the painter Kirill Lemokh point this out to him. Ilya Yefimovich would
(1841–1910), one of the Wanderers. ‘Next door seem to agree: ‘You’re right. I don’t seem to have
to Ayvazovsky’s studio,’ the landscape painter any luck with my frames.’ But he didn’t change
Jakov Minchenkov, one of the organizers of the them and next time they would be even worse.
Wanderers’ exhibitions, recalls,

303
209 Ilya Repin, Lev Tolstoy, 1887. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
 chapter four: between industry and art

Minchenkov also comments that Isaac Levitan for London, and you promised me . . . if I may
preferred ‘narrow frames’ that corresponded to the now ask you for a second picture as well, i.e.
moods and ‘melodies’ of his pictures.80 With an Plevna, would you be so kind as to send it, if
eye on how his work was perceived, an artist might possible, in a frame, which can be altered or
not only change the colour of a frame but also entirely remade if it is damaged.85
make changes to the picture itself or even to the
surrounding exhibition space. After Vasiliy Surikov’s The documentary evidence indicates that
painting Stepan Razin (1906; Russian Museum, Tretyakov would send Vereshchagin’s paintings
St Petersburg) had been hung in the Historical to exhibitions abroad sometimes framed and
Museum in Moscow, for example, the artist not sometimes unframed. When the artist insisted,
only repainted the frame several times but even however, that a painting should be sent ‘in its
sought permission to repaint the walls of the room; own’ (i.e. the original) frame, the collector agreed,
furthermore, he made changes to the painting itself although the freight cost was much increased.
in order to achieve harmony between it and the ‘I sent Plevna framed, as you wished’, Tretyakov
surrounding wall space.81 wrote to Vereshchagin on 14 July 1887,
In contrast to Repin’s reputation in the matter
of frames, Tretyakov used the services of experi- but you’ll see what a difference it makes – a large
enced specialists, as is evident in the expertly painting [unframed] weighs 4 poods 24 pounds
chosen frames of the pictures in his collection. [c. 75 kg or one and a half hundredweight], and
In the courtyard of his house in Lavrushinsky Street a small one framed, 14 poods 12 pounds [c. 234
in Moscow he even built a workshop for making kg or approaching five hundredweight]. I sent
mouldings.82 Vereshchagin’s correspondence with Before the Attack without a stretcher, to reduce
Tretyakov contains interesting discussion of frames the size of the box as much as possible, so you
in the planning of various kinds of exhibitions. will need to have a new stretcher made, as I’ll
Tretyakov, as we have seen, was the artist’s principal return the painting without one; I’ve found that
client and collector. He acquired the greater part this is more practical, only you should have the
of the Turkestan series and some separate paintings canvas stretched more carefully – it has been
from the Balkan. In one of his earliest letters to overstretched several times. In stretching, as little
Tretyakov, dated 10 April 1875, Vereshchagin asks of the canvas as possible should be held, because
for the paintings acquired by the collector ‘not to in its frame, which I am keeping, the whole of
be shown in any exhibition unframed or out of the picture surface is exposed just as it is, neither
series’.83 In the same year he asked for a whole the frame nor the fillet covers it. Once more, I
series to be sent to America ‘framed, without fail’,84 most humbly ask you not to do any changes to
and in 1887 he wrote: the picture.86

Dear Pavel Mikhaylovich, Frames would often get broken in transit, and so
I asked you for Before the Attack [Pered atakoyu] canvases being sent for exhibition would often be

305
part two: playing with space

rolled up. Paintings with massive frames would be mouldings, were carefully packed into stout
transported in special boxes, as was the case with boxes in the same way as the rest of the exhibi-
Shipka-Sheynovo.87 tion inventory. To give an idea of the quantity
The boxes in which the paintings of the and weight of the total load – in the transporta-
Wanderers were transported about Russia, designed tion of the exhibition from Paris to St Petersburg
by Ivan Shishkin, when opened served as easels in January 1880, the boxes of paintings alone
for picture display at exhibitions.88 Sometimes occupied four entire railway platforms.89
Shishkin would also jot down a general display
plan of his paintings (illus. 210). Vereshchagin’s This testimony indicates the thoroughness
son has described the transportation of his father’s with which Vereshchagin planned the logistics of
paintings on travelling exhibitions: his travelling exhibitions, which was on a scale
almost comparable to that of a large theatre.
The paintings, numbering up to 150 or even 180, The preparation of exhibitions in the second
in massive wooden frames with gilded plaster half of the nineteenth century involved the artist
not only with collectors but also, in a major way,
with frame-makers. Vereshchagin is a prime example
of this. He carefully considered the form and
design of his picture frames, and ordered them
specially for each of his series of paintings; they
turned out to be an important element in his
exhibitions. Most of his frames were acquired
from abroad, especially from Munich or Paris,
where he had lived in the 1870s and ’80s while
working on the Turkestan, Indian and Balkan
series; at this time he was a regular customer of
L. Louty’s on rue Vanneau. Surviving letters and
records of accounts show that he spent huge sums
on frames (illus. 211, 212); for one exhibition in 1883
he ordered frames to the value of 2,500 roubles in
gold.90 Documents also show that in 1886 he com-
missioned the frame-maker Stal to repair the frame
of the painting All Quiet on the Shipka,91 and on
another occasion a representative of this workshop
travelled to Frankfurt am Main to repair the frame
of Shipka-Sheynovo.92 After his return to Russia in
1891, Vereshchagin worked in Moscow on a series
of paintings on the year 1812, using mostly Russian

210 Ivan Shishkin, detail of the hanging scheme for an

exhibition of pictures at the Academy of Arts, 1891. State
Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

306
 chapter four: between industry and art

framers, of whom there were considerable numbers Russian suppliers, ‘all with a wide variety of choice’.94
during the last quarter of the nineteenth century Vasiliy Polenov bought frames from Grab’ye, and
and the first years of the twentieth. The leading one letter of his asks a friend ‘to get Grab’ye to
framers in Moscow included V. Chekato, A. Beggrov, hurry with the frames’ for his paintings Winter
A. Grab’ye, I. Datsiaro and B. Avantso; and in (Zima) and Felling (Rubka lesa) and to send them
St Petersburg, N. Vasil’yev, E. Dezler, A. Zhesel’, to St Petersburg to Repin’s address.95 In 1902 Viktor
N. Freydberg, K. Frankovsky, S. Abrosimov and a Vasnetsov ordered a frame of his own design from
number of others (illus. 213). All these were com- Grab’ye specially for display at the Emperor
paratively large enterprises employing a number Alexander iii Museum in St Petersburg.96
of specialists and making a variety of frames, for A number of Russian artists of the second half
graphic work and photographs as well as paintings. of the nineteenth century, including Vereshchagin,
They also restored and sold antique frames, for ordered frames from Beggrov & Fel’ten, many of
example Grab’ye, ‘frame specialists in fine art and which may still be seen in the Tretyakov Collection.
iconostases’.93 Avantso, in turn, advertised a ‘huge The Tretyakov Gallery has archival evidence that
range of ready-made leather, bronze and wooden Vereshchagin also ordered carved frames from
frames’ and also mouldings from foreign and Rostov Velikiy.97 Evidently, he needed frames made

211 Invoice to Vasiliy Vereshchagin for making frames, 212 Invoice to Vereshchagin from the A. P. Petrov work-
from the Louty workshop in France, c. 1870–80. shop, 1898.

307
part two: playing with space

by Russian craftsmen for the paintings and studies style’, which was seen as appropriate for paintings
resulting from his visits to Yaroslavl, Rostov Velikiy, depicting scenes from Russian history, portraits in
Kostroma and Makar’yev in 1887–8; the carved national dress or scenes from national life. Typical
ornamentation of these frames imitated that of in this regard is Vyacheslav Shvarts’s Spring Ride on
Russian iconostases and icon cases, arousing the the Empress’s Pilgrimage during the Reign of Tsar
viewer’s empathy with his depictions. A typical Aleksey Mikhaylovich (Veshnyy poyezd tsaritsy na
example is the frame for his painting Iconostasis of bogomol’ye pri tsare Alekseye Mikhayloviche, 1868;
the Church of St John the Divine on the Ishna near Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, illus. 215), the wooden
Rostov the Great (Ikonostas tserkvi Ioanna Bogoslova frame of which not only bears appropriate orna-
na Ishne bliz Rostova Yaroslavskogo, late 1880s–90s; mentation but also reveals more complex aspects of
Russian Museum, St Petersburg, illus. 214). We have a painterly approach that was based on architectural
already seen how this seventeenth-century icono- and historical theories of its time. According to
stasis inspired Polenov in his creation of the interior these, architectural ornament on the exterior of a
of the church at Abramtsevo (illus. 59). To be noted building should correlate with its interior. Hence
here is that Vereshchagin’s frame testified not only the ornamentation of a picture frame was often
to the popularity of this iconostasis with Russian conceived as a background to the content of the
artists but, further, also to a new attitude among the picture. The unified patriarchal structure of the
latter to the framing of their work, their desire to Russian state, the distinctiveness of Russian vernac-
link picture and frame in accordance with current ular wooden architecture, the closeness of the life of
ideas about the subject matter depicted. This is the tsar to the life of the people – the subjects about
apparent in a number of frames in the ‘Russian which the historian Ivan Zabelin wrote – all this

213 Advertisement from the frame-making company A. Zhesel’, St Petersburg, early 20th
century.

308
214 Vasiliy Vereshchagin, Iconostasis of the Church of St John the Divine on the Ishna near Rostov the
Great, late 1880s–90s. State Russian Museum, St Petersburg.
part two: playing with space

in wooden architecture and its ornamentation.98

Innumerable wooden picture frames in the ‘Russian’
style made in the second half of the nineteenth
century and early in the twentieth therefore gave
emphasis to the Slavophile ideas that continued
to inform Russian art.
Vereshchagin was not alone among Russian
painters of his time in sometimes conceiving of
a frame even at a preparatory stage of work on a
painting. Fyodor Vasil’yev’s drawing Landscape with
Old Mill, Yalta (Peyzazh so staroy mel’nitsey v Yalte,
1872; Tretyakov Gallery) presents the future paint-
ing within a wholly defined frame. This sketch may
was to be brought out in the carved ornament of have had a testimonial purpose, and may portray
the wooden frame. And if Lev Dal’ supposed that a painting in the Tretyakov Collection (illus. 216,
‘nationality’ was to be found ‘only in the daily life 217). The same thing occurs with the drawings of
and activity of the people or in pre-Petrine Russian Vasiliy Perov (1833–1882) and a number of other
art’, Vladimir Stasov in turn stressed that ‘the chief Russian artists who planned a particular type of
creative strength in connection with our art’ lay frame while still working on a portrait, landscape

215 Vyacheslav Shvarts, Spring Ride on the Empress’s 216 Fyodor Vasil’yev, Landscape with Old Mill, Yalta,
Pilgrimage during the Reign of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, 1872, drawing. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
1868. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

310
 chapter four: between industry and art

or genre scene (illus. 218). An interesting example authenticity of the depiction on canvas through a
is the wooden frame for Ivan Kramskoy’s painting process of association – a leading principle of the
Christ in the Wilderness (Khristos v pustyne, 1872; naturalistic aesthetic. ‘Association’ was understood at
Tretyakov Gallery, illus. 219). It is secured at each this time as the coming together of different psychic
corner by a grim piece of knotted rope, suggestive elements to form a complex combination of emo-
of the tortures of Christ (illus. 220). However, tions.99 The source of association was taken to be
in the fulfilment of its ornamental function, this memory, while the source of aesthetic pleasure was
element of the frame excluded a mystical reading seen as the direct experience of contemplating art.
of the picture; it simply gave rise to a feeling of the Hence the ornament on Kramskoy’s frame in the

217 Fyodor Vasil’yev, Abandoned Mill, 1872. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

311
part two: playing with space

form of one of the instruments in the torments of An especially powerful emotional atmosphere
Christ strengthened the psychological power of the was created by the frame for Vasiliy Pukirev’s An
image, making essentially the same kind of primal Unequal Marriage (Neravnyy brak, c. 1862; Tretyakov
impact as the real-life objects used in Vereshchagin’s Gallery, illus. 221, 222). This painting is a compara-
exhibitions. The ornament left an awareness of the tively rare example of an artist’s relationship with
boundaries of the psychological world; it embodied his frame-maker in that the latter is depicted in the
the cogency of a ‘historical fact’ from the life of the picture itself, in the background of the scene of the
Saviour. The frame gave promise that the painting marriage of the young bride to the old general. In his
was a genuine re-creation of events. memoirs N. A. Mudrogel’, one of the first curators of

218 Vasiliy Perov, Modern Idyll: Drawing of the Picture and its Frame,
1880. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

312
219 Ivan Kramskoy, Christ in the Wilderness, 1872. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

220 Detail of frame.

221 Vasiliy Pukirev, An Unequal Marriage, in a frame by the Grebensky
workshop, c. 1862. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
 chapter four: between industry and art

the Tretyakov and an assiduous retailer of gossip of the scene, the frame is covered with bare stalks only
all kinds, describes how, after Pukirev had completed occasionally relieved by leaves, flowers and fruit,
the painting, the frame-maker Grebensky decided to emphasizing the tragic position of the bride. If we
make a frame for it ‘such as has never been made are to believe Mudrogel’ (and Repin), the impact
before’.100 In keeping with the emotional tension of made by the framed picture when it was first shown

222 Detail of frame.

315
part two: playing with space

in Moscow caused withdrawals from ‘unequal’ this painter’s lack of judgement over his frames,
marriages, one famous case involving the historian and even points to the question of an inner con-
Nikolay Kostomarov (1817–1885).101 Grebensky’s nection between dress and architecture to which
frame made a strong impression on Pavel Tretyakov, growing attention is being paid today. This archi-
who proceeded to order from him a large number tecturally conceived frame echoes elements of the
of frames that may be seen in his collection today, subject’s dress, especially the stylized aiguillettes;
for example that for Alexander Ivanov’s study At the the grand prince – brother of Alexander i and
Foot of Vikovara: Stones on a River Bank (Podnozhiye Nicholas i – was not only a playwright, translator
Vikovary. Kamni na beregu reki). and poet but also an adjutant-general, an infantry
The frame for Repin’s portrait of Grand general and commander of the Preobrazhensky
Prince Konstantin Konstantinovich Romanov Life-Guard Regiment. The ornament of the frame
(1891; Tretyakov Gallery, illus. 223) is strong testi- lends the image a special elevation and charge, and
mony against the above-quoted opinion regarding as it were clothes and embellishes both picture

223 Ilya Repin, Grand Prince Konstantin Konstantinovich Romanov, 1891.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

316
 chapter four: between industry and art

and subject. The painting and its frame were both icantly foreshortened. All this made the painting
executed for a celebratory occasion, as was indicated more like a decorative panel or tapestry, which also
to the master framer by his client. changed the conception of the frame. The decora-
tive and self-enclosed mode of representation
placed the picture, as it were, in conflict with its
The Quest for Concord
frame, making the outer border not the frame but
The revolution in the academic norms of painting its own contours, while the frame more and more
that took place in Russia during the period of stil’ often needed to find ‘concord’ with the mode of
modern – the Russian version of the Art Nouveau the image. Once the painting lost the illusion of
movement in Western Europe – brought the real space and became more isolated from the
emergence of the so-called Symbolist frame. The space around it, its frame could no longer act as
aesthetic principles of the Wanderers had demanded a ‘window’ guiding the eye into the depths of the
frames that would enhance the naturalistic illusion picture; all the frame could do was to separate the
of objects in space for paintings that were exercises painting from the surrounding wall – or even link
in verisimilitude. At the turn of the nineteenth and it with the wall. Hence the Symbolist frame took
twentieth centuries, the Symbolist painters of the the form sometimes of a thin gilt strip, sometimes
World of Art (Mir iskusstvo) movement (1898–1904: of a flat, lightly decorated ‘ribbon’ setting the paint-
Alexander Benua, Konstantin Somov, Léon Bakst, ing off from the surrounding space. It was a short
Nikolay Rerikh and others) and the Blue Rose step from such a frame to the minimalist display
(Golubaya roza) group (1907–1910: Pavel Kuznestsov, style of the avant-garde, as seen, for example, at
Nikolay Sapunov, Sergey Sudeykin, Martiros the ‘Blue Rose’ exhibition of 1907 in Moscow where
Saryan) changed the meaning and purpose of the the narrow frames were calculated to emphasize
easel painting, making it into a vehicle for the the painterly qualities of the pictures and enhance
communication of a complex set of emotions and their emotional meaning (illus. 224).
experiences, the embodiment of abstract concepts These frames set off, in particular, the under-
such as fear, longing, tenderness, love, and also stated dimension of the Symbolist painters, the
painterly interpretation of literary subjects and vacillating images from the subconscious world of
scenes from theatre, with heroes from folk tales the imagination, forever being transformed and
and from Christian and pagan mythology. reduplicated in myriad colours. Here the effect of
This subordination of a painting to the artist’s the Symbolist frames is that of a poetic mist envelop-
imagination, the communication of his feelings ing the paintings and at the same time introducing
and moods, led to an enhancement of its decora- a special sharpness to the symbolic world. As already
tive aspect. The artist aimed to make a painting mentioned, Vasil’yev and Perov chose the type of
a special creation, enclosed in its own world. frame that seemed to them to suit the content of their
He worked close to the surface of the canvas; his paintings best. By contrast, the Symbolist painters
palette became more conventionalized and less incorporated the ornament and design of a frame in
naturalistic; the depth of depicted space was signif- the overall conception of a painting, in accordance

317
part two: playing with space

with the new philosophical and aesthetic ideas of ornamentation of a frame was a creative task on its
the time. And if the picture frame of the Baroque and own for the artist (illus. 225).
Neoclassical periods could link up with the percep-
tion of both fantasy and reason, the Symbolist frame Your picture is ready, it’s turned out well, come
(within the mainstream of Romantic tradition) led and have a look, I’ve called it ‘The Pearl’. I’ve
to the activation of the unconscious and the frame done mermaids, as if they’re swimming in a shell,
of mind that the Symbolists called ‘ecstasy’. In other I’m worried about the frame, at the moment it’s
words, the Symbolist frame brought painting a new broad and grey, but I want to decorate all of it –
connection with culture at large as well as with the let’s discuss it. [my emphasis]102
individuality of the artist.
A letter from Vrubel to his client Prince Sergey The Symbolist picture frame always demanded the
Shcherbatov is clear testimony that the choice and viewer’s creative interpretation of the painting, for

224 The ‘Blue Rose’ exhibition, 1907.

318
 chapter four: between industry and art

the Symbolists believed that only through the both of which always afforded him means of
creative process could the essence of phenomena be escaping into a world of mystically tinged fantasies.
grasped. For them the frame, indeed, corresponded He would look at flames and then draw them from
to the Romantic concept of beauty, which had been memory in an ornamental composition; examine
called upon, we may remember, to transform the growing flowers and see symbolic forms in them,
world. Hence the Symbolist frame was a thing of leading to a secret realm of myth and reverie.103
exquisite refinement, in harmony with the spiritual According to his own testimony, ornament lay
order of the depiction. Vrubel is known to have at the heart of his creative imagination and view
taken a course at the Stroganov Institute in drawing of the world – for him it contained the structure
from growing plants and the creation of ornament, of phenomena.104 Here Vrubel was to some extent

225 Mikhail Vrubel, The Pearl, 1904. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

319
part two: playing with space

a precursor of Cubism, in that for him form was – assuming that the artist is directly involved in the
structural and ornamental, splitting up into a planning and making of the frame, as in the case
multiplicity of coloured surfaces, with different of the frame for The Demon Overthrown (Demon
sides to view, illuminated from within. Conse - poverzhennyy, 1902; Tretyakov Gallery), which is
quently, his paintings, as was the case with Cézanne, ornamented with a cloth border and a narrow strip
sometimes seemed a tight fit in their frames, which of silverwork depicting laurel branches bound by a
needed to adapt to a new system of painting. That ribbon, clearly symbolizing tragedy and death and
this was not easy is shown by the problem of the carrying a funerary aura. The frame emphasizes
frame for The Pearl (Zhemchuzhina, 1904; Tretyakov the tragic meaning of the painting, merged with the
Gallery); Prince Shcherbatov disliked the idea of
painting it, and Vrubel left it undecorated. As it
was left, the picture clearly does not link up with
its frame: its decorative, enclosed world patently
needs a frame of a subordinate kind with special
ornamentation that will reinforce these qualities.
Recognizing and pointing out the ornamental
structure of the mythical-poetic ‘reality’ of his
painting, the artist wanted to make the frame
contribute to the artistic task, which unfortunately
his client failed to understand.105
In general, however, Vrubel’s frames are in
harmony with his paintings. The symbolism of a
painting is enhanced by the symbolism of its frame

226 Mikhail Vrubel, The Demon Overthrown, 1902. State 227 Detail of frame.
Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

320
 chapter four: between industry and art

artist’s personal drama (illus. 226, 227). Inspired chaniye tsarya morskogo s tsarevnoy Volkhovoy, 1898;
by Lermontov’s narrative poem The Demon, the Tretyakov Gallery) on themes from this opera and
picture displays the majestic and fantastic image following the style of his set designs (illus. 228). The
of the fallen angel, presenting not only a scene of frame of the painting enhances the associative and
theomachy but also the tragic fate of the artist metaphorical interpretation of it as a scene from the
himself, who became insane soon after finishing the opera. Stylized ornamental water-lilies ‘appear’ on
work. It is a powerful depiction of a typical theme the frame as if from the pictorial scheme, so that
of the period of the stil’ modern in Russian art, the the boundary between art and real life begins to
breakdown of consciousness, a picture of a world of vacillate and pulsate, and the mytho-poetic world
restlessness and instability. The frame weaves subtle depicted seems to recede into the space beyond the
ideas around this image, interpretable both as being picture. The frame no longer calls upon the painting
in accord with the graphic-musical theme of the to be a mirror to the real world; on the contrary,
struggle and death of the Romantic hero and also it becomes, as it were, an echo and shadow of its
as resolution of the spiritual drama and tension as picture, playing with it, drawing it into a realm of
the half-mad artist-genius’s battle with himself (à la ambiguity and mystification. Something is happen-
Schopenhauer) is brought to an end. ing in this frame that transcends aesthetic bound-
The Symbolist frame opened the way for a syn- aries, uniting and merging different art forms.
thesis of the arts. Vrubel contributed to the stage This intermediate position of the picture frame
design of productions of Savva Mamontov’s private between the aesthetic sphere and the real world is
opera company in the 1890s, including the sets and reminiscent of the ideas of the religious philoso-
costume for Rimsky-Korsakov’s Sadko. He painted pher Vladimir Solov’yov (1853–1900), Richard
the Sea King’s Farewell to Princess Volkhova (Prosh - Wagner and the Russian Symbolist poets. The idea

228 Mikhail Vrubel, The Sea King’s Farewell to Princess Volkhova,

1898. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

321
part two: playing with space

that art should have ultimate aims beyond the lim- the above-mentioned production of Sadko, he
its of aesthetics undoubtedly came from Solov’yov, reviewed the canons of the easel painting and its
Wagner and Nietzsche. At the turn of the century, frame, which were beginning, in ways characteristic
Solov’yov’s conception of the transformative func- of the theatre, to take up communication of a
tion of beauty was taken to indicate the need for a complex range of experiences, in particular a sense
new role in society for the artist and for paintings, of play and musicality. The concept ‘picture – frame’
a role understood as a religious-Romantic mission had already, in its own way, achieved the ideal of
of social renewal based on the laws of beauty. synthetic art, influenced, if not directly then at least
At the same time Wagner’s conception of the indirectly, by Wagnerian ideas. Hence the Symbolist
Gesamtkunstwerk pointed the way to the ‘art of frame at times conducted itself invasively and entered
the future’, the principal form of which was seen the picture plane – in, for example, Konstantin
as ‘music drama’.106 In The Birth of Tragedy out of Somov’s Magic (Volshebstvo, 1904; Russian Museum,
the Spirit of Music: A Foreword to Richard Wagner, St Petersburg) – at times assumed features of the
Nietzsche reflected that art could bring a renewal image itself, at times minimalized itself so as to
of the tragic and be a way of overcoming the limits become scarcely noticeable, leaving a painting to
of the phenomenal world. He thought of the act of appear self-sufficient and capable of saying every-
creation as both visionary and orgiastic, and of the thing it wanted to say by painterly means. Moreover,
created image as a way to the infinite by virtue of all this was taking place not just on the picture
its heterogeneity. ‘Art is not exclusively imitation frame but also in industrial, exhibition and stage
of the reality of nature,’ he emphasized, ‘but rather design and book illustration.
a metaphysical complement of this reality, placed In the intellectual and artistic world of this
beside it in order to overcome it.’107 On the fringes period, contact between art, poetry and music took
of this conception of the tasks of art, not only Vrubel both theoretical and practical form. Poets devoted
but most of the Symbolist painters, especially those their work to the creations of painters, and
of the World of Art and the Blue Rose, took an Symbolist painters took an active part in the
extremely active part in the theatre. ‘Music drama’ illustration of literary works.109 Book jackets and
opened the way to ‘universal mystery drama’ and frontispieces of editions of Symbolist verse, visually
the merging of different art forms, spatial and framing the text, sometimes (like the picture frame)
temporal. ‘That was when I was really pleased turned into complex commentaries while being
to see an authentic Gesamtkunstwerk,’ Alexander original works of art. Such, for example, was
Benua recalled of Marius Petipa’s production of Konstantin Somov’s frontispiece to Vyacheslav
Tchaikovsky’s Sleeping Beauty in January 1890.108 Ivanov’s Cor Ardens (1910), with its flower symbolism
Now, however, far from the picture frame all these opening into a new, mystical world, characteristic
ideas and events may seem, they are nevertheless of the poet, unfolding in the images of the text,
all linked with it. at its heart the ‘Anthology of the Rose’.110
At the same time that Vrubel took part in the The frame in the ‘Russian style’ served general
realization of a new conception of music theatre in interest in the world of folklore, and the frame of

322
229 Nikolay Rerikh, The Messenger, 1897. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
230 Detail of frame.
part two: playing with space

the Symbolist picture on a historical subject served passion for the ancient history of the Slavs, and at
authentic myth-making in the spirit of Ivanov or the heart of the ornament of the frame his interest
Andrey Bely. An example of this is the frame of in the archaeology of ancient Rus’. Placing pagan
Rerikh’s The Messenger (Gonets, 1897; Tretyakov images on the frame and, in the Symbolist manner,
Gallery), made of coarse-coloured bast bearing making their meanings imprecise by blurring them
pagan mythological symbols (illus. 229, 230). In away almost to illegibility, the artist clearly wished
formulating the philosophical bases of Symbolism, the viewer actually to feel the ‘spirit’ of ancient
Ivanov considered the aesthetics of myth in close history and imagine the historical scene as existing
connection with the aesthetics of the symbol and invisibly in the present. With the mysterious beauty
identified the mytho-poetic as one of the funda- of its material surface (coarse bast, wooden slats,
mental tasks for contemporary art. His ideas of gilt symbolic images) this frame suggested the
founding a community held together by adherence unstable world of the senses – impossible to
to the same aesthetic-religious ideals had obvious express in words – of that ‘primitive’ popular
significance for the Symbolist treatment of frames, culture, with the traces of its organic and collective
the aesthetic of which was beginning to show clear spirit lost but imaginable, and here, it would seem,
theurgic tendencies towards the merging of the lay its principal significance for the perception of
spiritual sphere with everyday reality. In Ivanov’s the painting.
words: A dependence on the world of ideas is also
shown by the Symbolist frames for four of Mikhail
It is not a question . . . of prophetic or any Nesterov’s paintings (all in the Tretyakov Gallery):
other kind of significance of individual new The Vision of the Boy Bartholomew (Videniye
works of art or individual statements of new otroku Varfolomeyu, 1889–90), The Boyhood of St
thought – but of the general orientation of Sergius of Radonezh (Yunost’ prepodobnogo Sergiya
the spiritual landscape, of the character of Radonezhskogo, 1892–7), The Labours of St Sergius
inner and half-unconscious inclinations of (Trudy prepodobnogo Sergiya, 1896–7) and St Olga,
creative energies.111 Equal of the Apostles (Svyataya ravnoapostol’naya
knyaginya Ol’ga, illus. 231, 232). The frames for
Hence the powerfully effective way in which the paintings connected with the life of St Sergius
the frame of Rerikh’s picture drew the viewer’s of Radonezh were ordered from A. Grab’ye by
eye into the heart of the mytho-poetic world of agreement with the artist, who wrote to Ilya
ancient Russian history, thus emphasizing the idea Ostroukhov from Paris on 27 June 1900:
of beauty and the dominion of art over life. In this
sense the frame actively formed an artistic image, I will end my letter with a request to you man-
not only presenting the picture as belonging to a agers of the gallery. Might you find it possible,
wholly defined epoch but also making the symbolic in the interests of our cause, to change (at my
image interpretable as a live aesthetic category. charge of course) the frames for ‘Sergey and the
At the heart of the subject lay Rerikh’s well-known Bear’ and ‘The Youth of Sergey’. Here is an old

324
 chapter four: between industry and art

wish of mine – I have long wanted to make the ‘appeared’ to the Romantic artist in the same way
frames for these two pictures ‘in style’ and I’ve as icons appeared to the early saints. ‘A work of
spoken to Grab’ye about this.112 art that has appeared to the artist (which does not
happen often)’, wrote Nesterov,
The frames of all these paintings shared the
same features: they combined forms of Western is inviolable . . . and always has a vital superiority
European altar settings with the Russian icon case, to the work that is premeditated . . . This is how
which prepared the viewer to interpret them as it was with The Miracle (Chudo) – the painting
religious images. Not for the first time, Romantic appeared to me ready finished, and it only
art disputed with the icon and assumed religious remained for me to transfer it to canvas.113
functions. But these frames were not calculated to
arouse emotions or enhance the impressions made Hence, for Nesterov, the merging of the terms ‘icon’
by the images. Their function was quite different: and ‘painting’:
they demanded that the viewer should contem-
plate each painting as a kind of aesthetic revela- I really don’t know myself what’s an ‘image’ and
tion suffused with religious and mystical feeling, what’s a ‘painting’ . . . The images in the Vladimir
authoritatively indicating that each painting had Cathedral [the cathedral of St Vladimir in Kiev,

231 Mikhail Nesterov, The Labours of St Sergius, 1896–7, triptych, with a frame
by A. Grab’ye’s workshop. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

325
part two: playing with space

1885–96] are paintings and images at the same

time.114

In the first part of this book, in connection

with Aleksey Shchusev’s exhibition ‘The Novgorod
Icon Hall’, an attempt was made to comprehend
how the display of early icons was inspired by a
theurgic aesthetic, inasmuch as the beauty of the
icon was called upon to renew the world. The same
could be said of Nesterov’s paintings, in which
mytho-poetical imagery and religious-didactic
symbolism partake of the atmosphere of the icon,
Russian religious philosophy and the literature of
Holy Rus’. Nesterov depicts the movement of the
world towards Transfiguration. In his figures and
landscapes he develops the idea of the wisdom of
Russian Orthodoxy, the impact of Sophia, Holy
Wisdom, on the natural and the human world.
And so the ideal world he depicts is emphasized
by frames that make his paintings not only look
like icons but also seem capable of drawing the
world towards an apprehension of divine mystery
and the Slavophile ideals of sobornost’, the idea Rossetti, James Whistler, Arthur Hughes, Albert
of cooperation between individuals, as opposed Moore, Charles Collins, William Holman Hunt
to individualism, in an organic community.115 In and Edward Burne-Jones all made bold use of
this sense his frames bring to pictorial philosophy stylized medieval altar forms and Renaissance
an element of inspiring synthesis, of accord with niches and included all kinds of historical and
the aesthetic-religious ideals of the period. They literary texts and images in the ornamentation
proclaim that ‘theurgic dimension’ which was of frames.117 Typical of the latter is that of the
understood as ‘a joining of the peaks of Symbolism so-called secular altar painting The Eve of St Agnes
and Mysticism’.116 by Arthur Hughes, a triptych depicting three
At the same time, the work of the Russian episodes from Keats’s poem in a frame looking
Symbolist painters is inseparable from the like an altarpiece (illus. 233) A similar type of frame
European context, from Pre-Raphaelite picture was used by Puvis de Chavannes and Bastien-
frames, the ramifications of the idea of the Gesamt - Lepage for their Romantic-religious paintings
kunstwerk, the experiments of the Impressionists imbued with the spirit of Catholicism, which
and new concepts of exhibitions. Dante Gabriel inspired Nesterov.

232 Mikhail Nesterov, St Olga, Equal of the Apostles, n.d.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

326
 chapter four: between industry and art

In the 1880s the picture frame acquired a special surrounding it. Lenbach conceived his studio as an
importance in the work of the Munich painter Franz artistic entity in which stylized frames of earlier
von Lenbach, who collected Italian Renaissance periods mystified the visitor, to whom they and the
frames for the purposes of his work, and with paintings they contained looked as if they might be
which he framed the Raphael, Rubens and Titian originals. Not only did copies and originals join in
originals that he possessed.118 In his conception of this game, but even the artist’s dress played its part
the Studio-Gesamtkunstwerk (developed partly in aestheticizing the environment in which ‘great
under the influence of the Austrian painter Hans art’ had once been created.
Markart and very much in the mainstream of Recalling the German art world at this time,
the Wagnerian ‘unity of the arts’ movement), the Repin observed:
picture frame was an inseparable element of the
overall artistic and decorative environment of his Artists of the first rank conducted themselves
famous Munich studio. On the one hand it linked here with all the refinements of aristocratic
its painting to the interior architectural setting, and society. Even in their studios, which were
on the other it lent it an aura of general harmony elegantly decorated, they were fashionably
that included it in the aesthetic order of the life dressed, as for a drawing room.

233 Arthur Hughes, The Eve of St Agnes, 1856. Tate Britain,

London.

327
part two: playing with space

He commented that Lenbach’s copies of Titian white frames had the effect of emphasizing the
were regarded ‘as originals’.119 Lenbach not only merits of paintings, following the French chemist
developed and realized the synthesis of the arts Eugène Chevreul’s theory of the harmony and
in the studio, but also disseminated it in his contrasts of colours, according to which white
Gesamtkunstwerk exhibition, which had a signifi- increased the intensity of the colours of the
cant influence on the exhibitions of Vereshchagin. spectrum.123 The Impressionists’ use of overpainted
‘We shall lose all our reputation,’ Lenbach reflected frames from the Louis XIV period is explained partly
as he was preparing his exhibition in Vienna in by aesthetic theory and partly by commercial
1873, ‘if we cannot attract the public’s attention considerations (illus. 234). These frames served
to the decoration of the walls’.120 Here he laid the as a bridge between their artistic experiments and
foundations for the future Jugendstil exhibitions, the tastes of the bourgeois public; to European and
in which the picture frame, designed to bring art American collectors they even became a nominal
and life together, still retained that aura of high term – ‘Impressionist frame’ – and may be seen
art of which Walter Benjamin wrote. today in almost every major American and
Special attention was devoted to the picture European museum. It is possible that they
frame in the 1870s by the French Impressionists, might have been seen in the collections of Sergey
who made the famous ‘white frame’ a symbol of Shchukin and Ivan Morozov, who bought
fashionable trends in European painting. Georges Impressionist paintings in Paris in the 1890s.
Seurat even allotted the white frame of Models Western European experiments with the picture
(1888) its place in the composition of the painting,121 frame were, of course, known to Russian artists of
and he went on to experiment with
his frames more often than other
painters, posing new questions of
visual interpretation. He would
paint a frame while working on the
painting itself, paying particular
attention to the meeting-point of
picture and frame, that is, the tran-
sition point from the frame to the
canvas and vice versa.122 Camille
Pissarro, too, began to experiment
with the frame by setting paintings
within arrangements of white sel-
vages, which reminded unfriendly
critics of cut-off edges of card-
board boxes. All this sprang from
the Impressionists’ conviction that

234 Camille Pissarro, Sunset in Eragny, 1902. Ashmolean Museum of Art

and Archaeology, Oxford.

328
 chapter four: between industry and art

the time, many of whom studied

and worked in Paris, Rome,
London, Munich or Vienna.
Regarding the frame, then, as an
integral part of the whole creative
project, Vrubel, Rerikh, Nesterov
and others clothed it with original
ornament and forms to serve
specific creative ends. All kinds of
frames for paintings, icons, photo-
graphs, whimsical aedicules, theatre
curtains and much else have been
preserved to remind us of this last,
wonderfully beautiful phase in the
heyday of the picture frame as an
art, already fading and soon to be
overtaken by the functionalism and
minimalism of the avant-garde.124
In as far as paintings of the stil’ modern period World of Art exhibitions – for which Vereshchagin
consciously posed the problem of visual perception, had pioneered the way (illus. 235).125
their frames were designed not only with aesthetic As is well known, stil’ modern exhibitions made
perception of the image in mind but also the emo- use of multi-coloured cloths and furniture, vases of
tional and spiritual contact of the viewer with the flowers and music creating an environment for the
picture, as if in response to the Bergsonian ethic reading of poetry and prose and for instrumental
of the time, with its premise of unconscious sensa- and ballet performances.126 One real work of art
tions. From this point of view the picture frame was the portrait exhibition in the Tauride Palace
became a focus of special interest for designers of in 1905 organized by Diaghilev with Benua and
exhibitions and interiors. The frames for individual Bakst, not only embodying Benua’s conception of
paintings by Viktor Borisov-Musatov (1870–1905) the evolution of portrait-painting but also present-
may have been made under the influence of the ing an architecturally unified spatial ensemble in
new theories and the white frame of the French which new methods of displaying paintings were
Impressionists. Moreover, they were collected by the employed.127 The arrangement of pictures followed
entrepreneurial Sergey Diaghilev, who organized the principle of glorification of the Russian
this artist’s posthumous retrospective exhibition monarchs. The portraits were shown in alcoves of
in 1906, at which his paintings were shown ‘in different colours according to cultural-historical
narrow white frames on white muslin’, wholly in periods. In the middle of each alcove was a ceremo-
accordance with Diaghilev’s conception of the nial portrait of an emperor in a special installation

235 Viktor Borisov-Musatov, Wordless Scene, 1900.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

329
part two: playing with space

imitative of a throne, designed by a famous architect forms of all kinds. Such interiors are shown in
– the portrait of Alexander i, for example, by contemporary photographs of the houses of the
Thomas Lawrence was displayed on a ‘throne’ Morozov family on Spiridonovka (1893, architect
after drawings by Alexandre Tamanyan and Leontiy Fedor Shekhtel’) and A. I. Konshinaya on
Benua. The motif of the garden ran through the Prechistenka in Moscow (1910, Anatoly Gunst)
exhibition, a number of portraits and works of and G. G. Yeliseyev in St Petersburg (1892, V. G.
sculpture featuring decorative plants based on Baranovsky).
Bakst’s sketches. The ornamental lavishness of Art Nouveau
Exhibitions of the stil’ modern period focused movements found its celebrated critic in the
on the combined effects of different art forms. Austrian architect Adolf Loos, who countered the
The exhibition Modern Art put on in St Petersburg cult of originality with ‘the taste for simplicity’
in 1903 showed living interiors designed by well- and the expedient:
known artists – a drawing room by Alexander
Benua and Yevgeniy Lanseray, a boudoir by Bakst, As there is no longer any organic connection
a ‘tea room’ by Konstantin Korovin, and so on – in between ornament and our culture, ornament
which articles of fine crafts and paintings were is no longer an expression of our culture. The
displayed, picture frames harmonizing with the ornament being created now bears no relation-
aesthetic atmosphere of each interior and the ship to us, nor to any human being, or to the
symbolic aura of the paintings of the World of system governing the world today. It has no
Art group. In this exhibition the applied arts, as potential for development.129
Prince Sergey Shcherbatov, one of its organizers,
recalls, The American architect Louis Henry Sullivan
had essentially the same message in his article
were to display the combined ideas of a number ‘Ornament in Architecture’ published in The
of artists becoming involved in the creation of Engineering Magazine in 1892:
interiors of homes as an organic, harmonious
whole, beginning with walls and furniture and I take it as self-evident that a building, quite
ending with the minutest details, which would devoid of ornament, may convey a noble and
carry out the principle of unity I have put for- dignified sentiment by virtue of mass and pro-
ward as a universal law.128 portion. It is not evident to me that ornament
can intrinsically heighten these elemental quali-
In other words, form and ornament of the ties. Why, then, should we use ornament?130
picture frame were to be considered a matter not
only for the artist but also for his client, owner In this search for the purity of rational forms the
of the surrounding property, the design of which picture frame too lost its ornament. In so far as it
at this time was a result of an aesthetic environ- had not succeeded in finding concord with its pic-
ment saturated with artistic means and decorative ture, its plain surfaces were proof that a painting’s

330
 chapter four: between industry and art

artistic qualities could be revealed without the help was a window into a defined space . . . A painting
of ornamental hints and symbols. And now for the today is not contained by a frame; on the
first time in the history of European painting this contrary, where there is a frame, the picture
meant that the painting was to stand on its own contains it from inside itself . . . The artist
as an independent representation of essence and has destroyed the frame. The flat structure
reality. The time had come for a radical review of which forms the picture has outstripped its
the theory of the frame. bounds and points to wider horizons.132

In other words, in place of the mimetic easel

The Avant-garde: Overcoming the Frame
painting the avant-garde offered a fundamentally
Visual culture of the period of Art Nouveau, or different visual image that had the faculty of
in Russian terms the stil’ modern, harboured a building its own reality according to its own laws,
presentiment of the approaching demise of the removed from the real world. The new work of art
image that relied on the Renaissance frame-as- was open to the transcendental and its endeavour
window. We may recall that for Kant the frame was to reveal as much as possible of the inner
indicated that a painting was an autonomous and significance of things. Freed from mimetic illusion,
impenetrable world. In his opinion a gilt frame painting opened a way to the beauty of inner
was only a parergon, an addition, not an integral structures, reducing the figurative character of
part of a total representation of an object;131 it visible natural forms and turning to their invisible
emphasized the non-real nature of a work of art inner essence. In so far as reality can be formulated
and outlined the picture plane as a world of in terms of meaning, the new art found a stimu-
absolute harmony. But even in the Romantic lus for a long-standing dissatisfaction with the
period art began to lay claim to ultimate truth external order of the surrounding world. The
about the world, and the frame, in its subordina- Renaissance frame-as-window served the intelligi-
tion to the painting, was reduced to a thin lath. bility of the world in its unity and in its diversity.
The Russian avant-garde between 1910 and 1920 The avant-garde’s abolition of the picture frame
announced the end of the era of the easel painting. began to address the problem of the conditional
‘A painting today,’ the modern German philosopher nature of human knowledge of the world, its
Hans-Georg Gadamer has written, ephemerality and uncertainty. The real project of
the avant-garde was not formal innovation, as for
is not only deprived of an integrated subject, the Symbolist painters, but the attempt to place
so that all ideas of the unity of the depicted the individual in touch with the transcendental
myth, the subject or recognizable subject and to transform the world on the basis of ‘ideas’
matter, which once formed the basis for revealed to the artist, amounting to ‘cosmic’ laws
mimetic depiction, have disappeared. Also lost governing the development of being. Hence avant-
is a unified point of view, as it existed in the garde art became a programme, its paintings
period of linear perspective when a painting symbols revealing their own content.

331
part two: playing with space

The work of the avant-garde, reducing a paint- but was also intended to give new form to external
ing to the level of a symbol, was a crucial attempt reality. Narrow frames emphasized the ‘musicality’
at the transgression of human boundaries in art of the paintings shown at the exhibitions of the
history. This transgression, as ‘a gesture directed Symbolist painters of the Blue Rose. Avant-garde
at a limit’ (Foucault), led to the disappearance painters used a minimalist strip either to hold a
of the subject in painting and the emergence of composition together or to be held by it, or to be a
abstraction, rejecting exclusive contemplation of part of it, thus establishing the presence of art in
the external world. The result was a breakthrough life. The new kind of picture was no longer inter-
transcending the limits of human possibilities. The preted as a separate world of symbolic forms hid-
conviction arose that the new kind of image must den behind the frame. In overcoming the frame,
– as was the case with the icon – capture the visual it laid claim to a reality of its own and became
reality of the numinous. Such a painting therefore involved in human life at large. Eventually, avant-
demanded not aesthetic experience but apprecia- garde painting was able to accommodate the tradi-
tion that its endeavour was to penetrate to the tional frame-as-window; but at that stage images
essence both of being and of the visible material would acquire supplementary meanings connected
world. And in so far as it rejected the imitation of with newly discovered means of perceiving art.
external appearances, of mimetic likeness, it had Seeking to substantiate these meanings in their
no need of the Renaissance frame-as-window, manifestos, avant-garde artists took as their theo-
which indicated the artifice of art. The new art retical foundations the latest findings of science
found some degree of correspondence with exter- and technology such as the theory of Relativity, the
nal reality and some degree of inner meaning. It splitting of the atom, cinematography and discover-
transformed the painting into an object of ‘genuine ies in optics, and were influenced by new concepts
reality’, an independent ‘organic entity’ containing in philosophy, psychology and theosophy. As a
its own raison d’être: ‘A painting must not be result, the aesthetic idea of a painting came to
simply imitation,’ wrote Gleizes and Metzinger, presuppose a new process of perception, for which
‘it should openly declare its own existence.’133 the Renaissance frame-as-window could serve as
Hence the frame of an avant-garde painting a symbol of art of the past, professing cognition
was wholly subordinate to its inner structure. But of the world but superseded in the new direction
the very absence of a frame could bring out the taken by art, or as a frame that had lost its symbolic
meaning of a picture, its own ‘reality’ and ‘essence’. role as a window and now served exclusively to
Consequently, a non-figurative painting could ‘go proclaim the new ‘painterly meaning’ of painting. A
with’ an early icon next to it on a wall, both images painting and its frame were no longer linked by the
being open to the transcendental, and both being laws of optics but by a common search for essences.
unconnected with external reality. An avant-garde All this became evident in Cubist art, which, in
painting might have a thin minimalist lath by way the words of one of its advocates, the avant-garde
of a frame, dictated by the concept of a work of art artist A. Grishchenko, posed ‘the problem of a new
as an aesthetic object that not only ‘spoke for itself ’ realistic depiction of objects by means of decon-

332
 chapter four: between industry and art

struction’.134 Viewing an object

not from a single but from
several viewpoints simultane-
ously could turn a gilt frame
either into a less than obliga-
tory element of the old con-
struction ‘picture–frame’ or
into simply a formal edging to
the canvas. This may be seen
in a photograph taken in the
1910s of an exhibition in
Moscow of Sergey Shchukin’s
Picasso collection, and also
in a photograph of 1911 of
Picasso himself in his Paris
studio, in which a Cubist
work in a gilt frame of an ear-
lier period is visible.135 Some
specialists have concluded
that the French Cubists pre-
ferred to use sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century Spanish
frames because they thought
this particular form facilitated
the new ways in which they
were aiming for their pictures
to be perceived.136 Another
reason why the Cubists chose to use traditional illus. 236). This Cubo-Futurist picture seemed to
frames was that, in contrast to their effect with burst its bounds and encroach upon and dispel the
abstract compositions, they helped to preserve the vagueness of the Symbolist frame. At one time this
depiction of a solid object even in the process of frame had held a Symbolist image, but now it was
deformation. A frame of an older sort could not transformed into a structural element indistin-
merely surround a picture but also be part of the guishable from the painting, pointing up just those
depiction.137 ‘bourgeois’ ideals attacked not only by Adolf Loos
An older frame was used to good effect in one but also by the Italian Futurists, in particular
of Nadezhda Udal’tsova’s paintings, The Fortune- Giacomo Balla, whose abstract compositions
teller (Gadalka, c. 1914; private collection, Moscow, aggressively did away with the frame as such, trans-

236 Nadezhda Udal’tsova, The Fortune-teller, c. 1914.

Private collection.

333
part two: playing with space

forming it into an object of ‘Futurist extremism’ ‘and painting our faces is the beginning of it.’
instead (illus. 237). In the face of the Nietzschean Larionov continued in the same manifesto that he
reappraisal of all values, the Futurists turned ‘painted the sitter against the background of the
‘bourgeois’ morality and aesthetics inside out and carpet and extended the pattern on to her face.’138
put forward a rapprochement between art and life The Futurists aimed to arouse the viewer’s complici-
in their stead. This development is strikingly seen ty with the motif of make-up and the encroachment
in a photograph of Natalya Goncharova overpainted of the image upon the frame in playful provoca-
by Mikhail Larionov dating from autumn 1913: tion. The repetition of the frame decoration on
the frame decoration linking the image with the Goncharova’s face in the photograph offered a radi-
surrounding space continues on the subject’s face as cally new way of perceiving an image, appealing to
Futuristic make-up (illus. 238). ‘It is time for art to ‘pure’ consciousness, unattached to cultural norms.
enter life,’ proclaimed Ilya Zdanevich and Larionov Here was the destruction of the mimetic image
in their manifesto ‘Why We Paint Ourselves’ (1913), and the Renaissance ideal of painting. The frames

237 Giacomo Balla, Abstract Speed + Sound, 1913. Museo d’Arte

Moderna (Peggy Guggenheim Collection), Venice.

334
 chapter four: between industry and art

of Udal’tsova’s painting and of Larionov’s painted scientific and technological advances of the early
photograph showed that the framed picture had twentieth century, Cubo-Futurist painting diag-
outlived itself as a cultural phenomenon. It no nosed the collapse of the values adhered to by an
longer answered the spirit of the times. The princi- inflexibly statistical, hierarchically ordered and
ples of figurative art were replaced by those of anthropocentric world system. The traditional face
abstraction, a turning away from depiction of the of life had come to lose fundamental features and
visible world towards what the artist saw with his attributes. ‘Everything, analytically speaking, is
inner vision. Painting went through an internal revo - disintegrating and splitting up,’ wrote Nikolay
lution to achieve liberation from representation and Berdyayev of the context of Cubism.
reveal the significance of things, the thing-in-itself.
This significance replaced the concept of harmony By this analytical process of dismemberment,
and the beauty of nature and brought a new view the artist seeks to reach the skeleton of things,
of external reality. In reaction against the global the hard forms hidden under the softened
changes in man’s picture of the world caused by the surfaces. The material covering surfaces of the
world have begun to disintegrate and to seek
hard substances hidden beneath this softening.139

Udal’tsova’s frame embodied the avant-garde

theory of the ‘displacement’ of forms, whereby visi-
ble objects were removed from their usual contexts
and thus ‘made strange’. In this context the removal
of a picture frame could point to the necessity of
defamiliarization in the perception of a painting.
The frame made ‘visible’ the inner structures of
objects, ‘displaced’ the material outer cover of the
visible world, laid bare the subconscious construc-
tions of artistic thinking. But such a frame also
alluded to the search for a fourth dimension. In a
leaflet disseminated by the Union of Youth dated
23 March 1913, the Cubo-Futurists declared war on
the World of Art artists, who looked at ‘the world
through a window’ (author’s emphasis). The Cubists
wanted to see this world ‘opened to all’; what inter-
ested them was ‘extending the appreciation of beauty
beyond the boundaries of consciousness’.140
Behind this rejection of the view ‘through a
window’ and the demand for a ‘widening of

238 Natalya Goncharova, photograph with futuristic

make-up decorated by Mikhail Larionov, 1913.

335
part two: playing with space

consciousness’, Cubo-Futurist theory had drawn fourth dimension. We have to discover why this
close to philosophical and theosophical enquiry into is so, to which of our psycho-physical defects
the fourth dimension, with which events inexplica- our lack of receptivity is to be traced, and find
ble by the known laws of physics were associated at conditions in which the fourth dimension can
the time. The neo-Kantian critique of the concept become comprehensible and accessible to us.141
of three-dimensional space based on the subjective
limitations of human perception was well known to Hence the perception of Cubo-Futurist paint-
the artists of the European avant-garde. Neo-Kantian ing presupposed the discovery of a ‘fourth way’ –
philosophy replaced this concept with a new theory in which the subject would be able to tune his or
of a multi-dimensional universe, in which a fourth her psyche to examine the paranormal and thereby
dimension was time. Special attention was paid by attain so-called objective consciousness. It was
the adherents of this theory to mysticism, theo- important for avant-garde artists, therefore,
sophy and occult doctrines perceived as means to change both their own and their viewers’
of opening the way to the ‘widening’ of human consciousness. Hence Udal’tsova’s emphasis on
consciousness and access to the ‘infinite’ world of the frame, pointing up the ‘boring’ illusion of
numina and the Kantian thing-in-itself, inaccessi- three-dimensionality and presenting the viewer’s
ble to ordinary consciousness. Highly interactive consciousness with the possibility of change.
with the aesthetic ideas of the Russian avant-garde And putting the word gadalka, ‘fortune-teller’,
of the 1910s in this sphere were the theoretical fragments of playing cards and the number 30 into
investigations of the philosopher P. D. Uspensky the picture, the artist sought to reveal the meaning
(1878–1947), writing and lecturing at this time of a game of cards as a phenomenon in possession
on the fourth dimension and the necessity of of the fourth dimension, time. ‘It is very close to
penetrating to the essence of phenomena through the goals of all Futurists’, noted Uspensky,
psychic transformations in the mind of the observer.
‘We must find the fourth dimension, if it exists’, to break through to a four-dimensional world.
wrote Uspensky, The Futurists wish to depict things not in cross-
sections of single moments nor from a single
by purely empirical means, find it in ourselves, viewpoint, but in the course of time and from
and find a way of showing it perspectivally in all viewpoints, ‘cubically’.142
three-dimensional space. Only then shall we
be in a position to create ‘the geometry of four Thus, if all the resources of linear perspective were
dimensions’ . . . called upon to reconstruct the external appearance
The fourth dimension exists, but cannot be of an object, the new Cubo-Futurist perspective
apprehended in normal conditions. This means aimed to present that object’s inner essence. In this
that in our minds, in our apparatus of percep- process, not only the distortion of the appearance
tion, something is missing; our sense organs of natural forms but also the surface texture of
do not register phenomena that belong to the canvas acquired special significance. Research has

336
 chapter four: between industry and art

shown the texture of canvas to determine a ‘tangi- the aspiration of passing beyond the boundaries
ble’ component in the perception of a painting and of the visible world. The frame of Ivan Klyun’s
to be an important condition for the overcoming painterly relief Landscape Speeding Past (Probegay -
of the laws of natural perception and the activation ushchiy peyzazh) was conceived as an integral part
of inner perception.143 of the composition (illus. 239). And moreover, it
Still more clearly, this means of widening recalled the earliest type of frame construction,
consciousness, the avant-garde’s focus on its freeing the viewer’s mind from the usual stereo-
underlying, unself-aware layers, is found in the types of perception and taking it beyond the
painted relief. ‘If in the past’, wrote Nikolay material level of existence. This relief ‘laid bare’
Tarabukin in 1923, the visible material surface of the object and led
the viewer’s consciousness into a spiritual realm
the three typical forms of visual art, painting, comparable to that of mystics’ and occultists’
sculpture and architecture, were kept firmly immersion in the self. Here, therefore, the frame
separate, then . . . in the counter-relief, three- neither reinforced the philosophical meaning of
dimensional constructions and ‘spatial painting’, the painting nor expressed avant-garde radicalism.
we have an attempt at something like a synthesis Instead, it served as initiation into the mystery of
of these forms. Here the artist combines the worked-over quality of form so characteristic
architectonic construction with material masses of Cubo-Futurist aesthetics of the time. The point
(architecture), volumetric shaping of these at issue was the inner reality of the fundamental
masses (sculpture) and decorative, textural and materials of art. Therefore, in accordance with the
compositional expressiveness (painting).144 founding aesthetics of Formalism, the task of the
relief was to reveal a new image – the inner struc-
It was this synthesis, determining a particular ture of the material laid bare. It was considered
texture of a painting’s surface, that also proved to essential for the artist to reveal his innermost soul
be a condition for painting’s ‘breaking out’ into if he was to reach the soul of the thoughtful viewer.
surrounding space. The counter-relief, taking Wassily Kandinsky’s frames for his work of the
the painting beyond the boundaries of the two- 1910s and into the 1930s have no less interesting a
dimensional plane, overcame the picture frame, significance. Those of the earlier period catch this
abolishing its primary function, to focus the artist’s transition to abstraction, especially in paint-
viewer’s eye on what was inside the frame. ings in which he used the technique of Bavarian
Vladimir Tatlin’s typical counter-relief was of icons on glass (Hinterglasmalerei). A collection
this kind, the body of which was often reminiscent of these folk icons adorned a wall of Kandinsky’s
of an icon board in reverse, and the metal frag- Munich apartment (illus. 241). These all had rough
ments of parts of the cladding. The relationship wooden frames, worked on by Kandinsky
of the individual to the absolute was here built by in the process of his search for new artistic forms.
means of the creation of a fundamentally new Thus All Saints. I (Vse svyatyye. I, 1911; Lenbachhaus,
‘metaphysical’ object made of material forged with Munich) and Day of Judgment (Strashnyy sud, 1912;

337
part two: playing with space

Musée National d’Art Moderne, Paris) have frames second painting, in which figurative forms have
of the same type, covered in blotches and indis- become abstract, no longer directs the eye into the
tinct geometrical figures and lines that form a kind picture, but rather lends the composition with its
of abstract decoration (illus. 240, 242). The frame frame a reassuring overall harmony. This frame
of the first painting sets the tone for a perception gives a special effect to the picture plane, seeming
of the saints’ weightlessness and tendency to to expand it before the viewer’s eye, structuring its
abstract forms. The decoration of the frame for the space according to the significance of the abstract

239 Ivan Klyun, Landscape Speeding Past, 1915.

State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

338
 chapter four: between industry and art

configurations. As a result, the picture plane is no This link between the frame and the new reading
longer defined from a single viewpoint; the frame of painting had its origin in Kandinsky’s encounter
demands that the picture be looked at from an with the world of Russian folk decoration. In his
inner, multiple viewpoint. And this development memoir Steps, Kandinsky describes his visit to an
has most important consequences. Preparing the izba (a traditional log-built peasant house) in the
viewer’s perception in this way, the frame demon- province of Vologda, and the ‘magical’ effect of its
strates the dematerialization of painting, the decor on him. The izba was furnished with every-
inexorable erosion of its representational basis. day articles: the icon corner with its icons and icon

240 Wassily Kandinsky, All Saints, I, 1911.

Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich.

339
part two: playing with space

lamp, stove, table, crockery cupboards, chests and live in it. I vividly remember standing on the
so on. But all these objects, brightly decorated in threshold looking in at this unexpected sight.
different colours, seemed to lose their material The table, the benches, the huge and vital stove,
character; it was their decoration that led Kandinsky the dressers and crockery cupboards – all painted
to penetrate ‘physically’ to the heart of what paint- in bright, sweeping colours. Lubki [popular
ing was, and experience in himself the enormous woodcuts] on the walls: a symbolically depicted
spiritual capacities of the language of painting. bogatyr’, fighting, a song in colour. The icon cor-
While he took in this decorative interior he experi- ner hung with painted and printed images, with
enced a ‘translocation’ in which he attained visual a red-glowing lamp in front of them . . . When I
access to an abstract and transcendental universe. finally went into the room I was surrounded by
This experience of the world of the Russian izba painting, and I entered it. Since then this feeling
and ecclesiastical and iconic decoration is described has remained with me unconsciously; I have
by Kandinsky as one of the principal steps on his experienced it in Moscow churches as well,
way to abstract painting: especially the Cathedral of the Dormition and
Basil the Blessed. After I returned from that trip
In these unusual izby I first met with that miracle I deliberately began to re-evoke it by visiting
which was to become one of the basic elements Russian churches with painted interiors, and later
of my work. Here I learnt not to look at a paint- Bavarian and Tyrolean chapels. Of course, these
ing from outside, but to turn round inside it, to inner experiences were all quite different, since

241 The collection of folk items at Kandinsky’s apartment in Munich, c. 1913.

340
 chapter four: between industry and art

the painting in each church differed from one to

another. A church! A Russian church! A chapel!
A Catholic chapel! I often sketched decorative
detail, which never strayed into trivialities and
was painted so forcefully that the subject was
dissolved. As with other impressions, I became
conscious of this one much later. It is probable
that it was from these experiences that my
further desires and aims in art were realized.
For several years I searched for means of bringing
the viewer into a painting so that he could turn
round in it, lose himself and forget himself in it.
Sometimes I succeeded: I saw this from some
viewers’ faces. From the unconsciously intentional
influence of the painting on the object depicted,
which in this way received the capacity to
dissolve into itself, my capacity for not noticing

242 Wassily Kandinsky, Day of Judgment, 1912. 243 Icon of the Mother of God of the Protecting
Musée National d’Art Moderne, Paris. Veil (‘Pokrov’). Private collection.

341
part two: playing with space

objects in a painting, for so to say missing them, transgression of the uncrossable boundary between
gradually developed. [my emphases]145 the visible and the invisible, the possible and the
impossible, and is what guarantees the openness of
In other words, for Kandinsky the decoration of the numinous to the metaphysics of the image.146
the frame of an icon or popular woodcut not only Hence the frame might be regarded as a step on
served as rhetorical adornment or separation of the way to knowledge of ultimate truth, or even
the image from surrounding space, but also gave as the threshold of it, the painting itself being con-
his eye the trajectory by which the beauty of the structed on the principle of transfiguration. If All
depiction entered his consciousness (illus. 243). Saints. I bears the imprint of a sacred composition,
Thus Kandinsky would cover the frames of his its frame directs the eye further – to contemplation
paintings with coloured ‘abstract’ decorations in of abstract and ‘intellectual’ essences. It is a call
order to make the viewer enter the picture and for a new interpretation of the iconic tradition.
grasp, in a mystic way, the ‘supernatural’ power of Kandinsky is known to have had a lifelong
its beauties and forms. It is the effect of the frame interest in the synthesis of the arts and especially
that makes the reality of All Saints. I seem mobile: the interaction of music with colours and forms.
figures and landscape take flowing, almost amor- It is therefore wholly legitimate to consider his
phous forms, and hence acquire a dynamic of frames from the point of view of their relationship
movement apt to abstract composition. The simi- to music. His awareness of a close connection
larly decorated frame of The Last Judgment invites between painting and music arose under the
the eye, finding no object on which to focus in the influence of the Wagnerian concept of the Gesamt-
surrounding space of actuality, to plunge into the kunstwerk and in parallel with the development of
space of the picture plane. The composition there- his theories of ‘non-objective’ art. In Concerning
by soon poses the question of openness to the the Spiritual in Art (1912), in which he reviews the
transcendental. The icon corner and decor of the fundamental elements of painting, he often uses
peasant izba opened Kandinsky’s eyes to the meta- musical examples to substantiate his new theory
physical dimension of art and the possibilities of of the role of colour and form in the perception
reflecting a world of ultimate truth in painting. process. He writes of ‘musical images’ and compares
The decorative frame of an icon merged with the ‘sound’ of different colours with the sounds
the image and at the same time preserved it as a of various musical instruments: ‘light blue is like
mystery containing the highest level of being and the sound of the flute, dark blue – the ’cello’, ‘the
a transcendental source before which the icon sound of dark blue is equivalent to the sound of
painter was merely an executor of God’s will. The deep notes on the organ’, and so on.147 In accor-
frame of an abstract painting also merges with the dance with this, Kandinsky’s frames respond to the
image, but the highest level of being is revealed by distinctive musical and painterly harmony of his
the artist himself, ‘removing’ the coverings of pictures, lending them a special tone, while picture
external reality. This metaphysical quest is a defin- planes are structured on the basis of a particular
ing condition for grasping the phenomenon of the colour ‘sound’. Frames tune the viewer’s perception

342
 chapter four: between industry and art

of a painting to a particular musical key. In a

concrete sense Kandinsky’s frames intensify the
sensation of rhythm in his paintings, and call to
mind the concept of the active pause put forward
by Schoenberg in his book Harmonielehre.148 And
while the eye views Kandinsky’s paintings through
a constant of rhythm, listening to Schoenberg’s
music involves the grasping of a structural ‘series’
of notes.
Thus the frame of Evénement doux (1928) boldly
catches the eye and at the same time attunes it to
a tranquil ‘mode’, offering a significant hint at the
picture’s meaning (illus. 244, 245). The green of
the inner frame particularly holds the eye. It was
Kandinsky’s theory that ‘saturated green is the most
peaceful of all colours: it doesn’t move anywhere
and has no hint of joy, of sadness, or of passion.’149

244 Wassily Kandinsky, Evénement doux, 1928. 245 Detail of frame.

Musée National d’Art Moderne, Paris.

343
part two: playing with space

And only after this pause does the eye proceed to Aleksey Shchusev, Alexander Benua and Yevgeniy
a gradual comprehension of the meaning of the Trubetskoy, to lead mankind towards mysticism
painting, deliberately intended to be ‘complex’ and the ideals of sobornost’, or ‘communality’.
and ‘hermetic’. Kandinsky’s frame, then, plays an Malevich also aimed at transfiguration, but wanted
important role in the perception of his picture and to achieve it by totally excluding the forms of
is also an element connected with time, another visible reality. At the heart of his strategy lay an
subject he wrote about.150 The researches into the apophatic reductiveness that brought medieval
fourth dimension and the whole aesthetic atmos- icons and Renaissance images into an axiomatic
phere of the period brought Kandinsky to a new system, linked with one another by the possibilities
conception of the role of time in the perception of creative experiment. Suprematist forms, there-
of a painting, the time needed to enter its world fore, as they took shape to form a progression,
and grasp its deeper meanings. The structuring displayed solidity and self-sufficiency and did not
of an abstract painting involving time therefore need a frame to gloss them; they were ‘pure forms’,
changed the function of the frame. A frame could axioms, performing the role of a creative principle.
help the viewer to take in a painting at one glance At the same time it should be taken into account
and could lead the eye gradually and concentratedly that Malevich’s interest in icons arose on the wave
to read separate details of the composition, and it of interest in iconic art and its ‘Romantic beauty’
could also raise associations and reflections about that was part of the Russian theurgic aesthetic of
its content. And ultimately, the absence of a frame the period; during his Primitivist stage he shared
could be interpreted as a conscious act of the the Russian avant-garde’s general fascination with
artist: the limits of the viewer’s field of vision the icon as ‘primitive painting’, an original aesthetic
would set the edges of the picture plane as of system. The particular features of the avant-garde’s
‘the real world’. preoccupation with the icon are outlined in the
Some of these ideas are typical of Kazimir artist Aleksey Grishchenko’s book Russkaya ikona
Malevich’s Suprematist works. ‘I have done one kak iskusstvo zhivopisi (The Russian Icon as the Art
icon of my time, bare (as a pocket), without a frame of Painting, 1917).
. . . [my emphasis]’, this painter wrote to Alexander For the Russian ‘Neo-Primitives’, including
Benua in May 1916 of his celebrated Black Square Malevich, the Old Russian icon was ‘art of the
(Chornyy kvadrat, 1915, illus. 250).151 This renuncia- highest order’.152 Together with other examples of
tion of a frame of any kind and the claim of a ‘primitive’ art it offered the opportunity of escape
new transcendental icon as a construct of the from the academic imitative image to ‘pure art’.
human mind meant a complete break with all Henri Matisse, visiting the Ilya Ostroukhov
previous cultural tradition and a declaration Museum in Moscow in 1911, was in raptures over
of a radically new view of the world. Malevich’s the beauty of the Old Russian icon, finding it
starting-point was the icon, but he gave it contem- ‘genuinely primitive’ popular art and a priceless
porary guise. As we have seen, the beauty of Old source of new ideas for new Russian painting.
Russian icons had the capacity, in the opinions of Grishchenko maintained that the achievements of

344
 chapter four: between industry and art

French painters helped the Russian ‘Neo-Primitives’ forms, the universal symbol of pure form. He sees
acquire a ‘new range of artistic concepts’ in general his God ‘in the absolute, at the ultimate boundary,
and in the field of Old Russian icon painting in as it were in non-objectivity. Attainment of the
particular.153 For Grishchenko, the greatness of finite is attainment of non-objectivity.’157
Andrey Rublyov and Simon Ushakov consisted The composition of a Suprematist painting,
entirely in their painterly technique – in their therefore, is a view into the meaning of things,
composition, use of colour, dynamic form, and so achieved through the transformation of ‘pure
on. ‘Matisse,’ he writes: forms’ as the primary elements of art. The eye
of the viewer of a Suprematist painting falls on
acknowledged that our icon painting is not a network of the artist’s metaphysical experience
inferior to the work of Giotto and other painters and visions of boundless, infinite space. Beyond
of the pre-Renaissance such as Duccio and the visible and chance phenomena of our external
Cimabue. What proof that our masters were world there are no laws of harmony, as in Classicism,
pure painters. Twentieth-century Paris finds itself nor chance clashes, as in Romanticism; there is
in strange harmony with barbaric Muscovy.154 only infinite emptiness, nothingness. Hence comes
the revolutionary transformation of the aesthetic
During the period of his interest in primitive at the centre of which is the viewer’s perception
art Malevich studied the formal structure of the of a work of art. Now the personality of the artist
icon.155 It was at this stage it became apparent that himself comes into the foreground.
he was seeking to pass beyond the boundaries of The Old Russian icon was a canonic image; that
the received aesthetic into the field of metaphysical is, an authentic revelation, which the icon painter
essences and realities. He wrote later: could only depict, not interpret. Renaissance mimetic
painting was based on the interpretation of the idea
Acquaintance with the art of icon painting taught of divine beauty and its reception was dependent
me that it wasn’t a question of studying anatomy on visual perception. But the Suprematist image had
or perspective, it wasn’t a question of whether arrived at a new threshold, opening onto a different
nature had been truthfully reproduced – the reality. It liberated painting from the figurative yoke,
important thing was a feeling for art and artistic but in contrast to the medieval icon, was a focus
realism. In other words, I saw that reality, or a for the exercise of personal interpretation. Supre-
subject, is what must be re-embodied in an ideal matist painting asserted that in the last analysis the
form coming out of the heart of an aesthetic.156 individual is in a unique and profound relationship
with the absolute. Hence Black Square (Chornyy
Consequently, the artist transgresses the beauty kvadrat), as a new ‘frameless’ icon, testified to the
of the Old Russian icon in order to enter another presence of a direct link with the transcendental – a
dimension of reality (illus. 246, 247). He uncovers link the painter himself had experienced. The phe-
a transcendental subject to contemplate – absolute nomenon of revelation, as in principle a crossing of
nothingness, the potential existence of certain the uncrossable boundary between the earthly and

345
246 The Prophet Elijah, 15th century, Novgorod. Collection of Ilya Ostroukhov.
State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow
 chapter four: between industry and art

the divine, traditionally studied by mystical theology, that have ever been established’.158 The new experi-
appears here as a palpable example of transgression ence of seeing the transcendental presupposed the
taken by the artist from cultural tradition. The same mastering of the most diverse practices in art and
could be said of theosophy, which opened up a meditation. Transgression of the boundary into the
sensation of other levels of being for Malevich. It invisible world not only ensured the openness of the
was not by chance that this artist noted that his time numinous to the metaphysics of the image but also
was ‘the age of analysis, the result of all the systems reduced the role of the frame as the recognizable

247 Kazimir Malevich, Red Square, 1915.

State Russian Museum, St Petersburg.

347
part two: playing with space

boundary of preceding cultures. What was decisive Sun’, Matyushin explained, ‘is all about victory
in this transgressive act was that it broke the linearity over the Romanticism of the past, over the
of cultural evolution by opening up the possibility conventional idea of the sun as “beauty”. The sun
of so-called negative assertion. The new horizon of the old aesthetic was conquered.’159 The culture
that appeared as a result of this breakthrough was of all preceding periods was thereby seen in
truly new in the sense that it possessed the status eschatological perspective. With the ‘killing of
and the energy to disclaim all earlier culture. Such the sun’ it was plunged into chaos, to be mystically
was the meaning of the Cubo-Futurist opera Victory regenerated for a new world.160
over the Sun (Pobeda nad solntsem, 1913) in which Suprematism was formed and conceived as a
Malevich collaborated with Aleksey Kruchonykh spiritual system with a universal cosmic dimension,
and Mikhail Matyushin and in which the ‘black which was endowed with the capacity to transfigure
square’ symbol first appeared. ‘Victory over the the world in accordance with the laws of ‘pure form’

248 Last Futurist Exhibition 0.10, Petrograd, 1915: display of pictures by Malevich.

348
 chapter four: between industry and art

and uncovered the possibility of a reconstruction Having dispensed with the picture-frame-as-
of being. Such a quest brought the artist into window, Suprematism moved the conceptual
demand as a prophet. He began to feel relieved frame into the foreground in the form of a theo-
by his messianic role inasmuch as his creative retical manifesto in which the artist explained the
activity was based on the clear desire to change significance of his work. As demonstrated earlier
the organization of the world. Hence Black in this book, Vereshchagin’s exhibition catalogues
Square, accumulating the artist’s creative energy served as the immediate context of the works
and opening a new world, was intended as a shown. At the exhibitions of the avant-garde,
‘new icon’, a ‘cult object’, having an influence however, artists’ explanations began to take as
on social reality. significant a place as the pictures shown, for with-
Malevich first showed his Suprematist works out them, the process of perception of their work
at the last Futurist exhibition 0.10 in 1915, placing would have lacked any basis of meaning. Thus
Black Square in the corner of the exhibition hall Suprematist theory had special importance for an
where the icon corner was traditionally set up understanding of Malevich’s work. Beginning with
(illus. 248). This placing of the painting and (as in the first Suprematist exhibition and continuing
the case of other works by this artist) the absence up to his death, he developed and expounded the
of a frame had a conceptual significance. In the theoretical basis of the system of painting he had
artist’s words, Black Square was ‘the zero of forms’, invented. After the October Revolution he divided
‘the face of the new art’, ‘a royal infant’.161 And Suprematism into three stages, corresponding to
being a self-sufficient form, it did not, of course, three squares – black, red and white – which came
need a frame, the long-standing symbolic bound- to stand for the fundamentals of specific views of
ary separating a picture from surrounding space. the world and world orders. Within the framework
This work was itself ‘reality’, cosmic emptiness, of mystical experience, these squares were made
frameless, and as such was intended to float in to give ideal forms to the world, and each was
the infinite cosmos and give new form to the real given a concrete meaning: a black square was a
world. It did not even need the narrow canvas symbol of economy, a red one signified revolution,
surround that emphasized the uniqueness and self- and a white one pure action.163 Thus from a
sufficiency of the abstract painting as an aesthetic modest hypothetical level, the artistic idea was
object, its composition being an enclosed system. to progress to the level of social existence.
The ‘framing’ effect of the white surround formed At the same time, even during Malevich’s life-
a black square, and the square formed the framing, time this ‘idea’ gathered distinct connotations for
which transformed the whole construction into museum display, as may be seen from a photograph
a ‘point’, a fons et origo, which the artist saw as of an exhibition of his work held in the Tretyakov
‘the first step of pure creativity in art’.162 Here the Gallery between February and May 1933. Three of
Suprematist project began to be regarded as a kind Malevich’s paintings, including Black Square, are
of new religion, and a Suprematist painting took shown with gilt frames, while works by Kandinsky
on the function of a new form of icon. and Vladimir Burlyuk have plain narrow frames

349
part two: playing with space

such as were often used for pictures of this kind. must also have done in the case of the 1933 exhibi-
The gilt frames, as it were, set Malevich’s works off tion at the Tretyakov Gallery.
from those of other artists shown around them, We have here an interesting example of avant-
and emphasized their status as ‘museum pieces’ garde work being given hints of meaning by an
(illus. 249). The older type of frame can also be older type of frame. From one point of view, in the
seen in photographs of pictures by Malevich context of Malevich’s Suprematist theory, claiming
shown in the exhibition 15 Years of Artists of to ‘purge itself from the accumulation of forms
the RSFSR (Khudozhniki rsfsr za 15 let) held in belonging to the past’,164 and also in the context of
Leningrad in 1932–3. During these years Malevich the artist’s criticism of the museum as an institu-
headed an experimental laboratory at the State tion, Black Square in a gilt frame was paradoxical.
Russian Museum in Leningrad, and so played a Rejecting museums and the frame of the mimetic
direct part in organizing exhibitions – and choos- picture, Malevich demanded the rapprochement
ing frames for his pictures shown in them, as he of art and life and thus continued the line of such

249 Pictures by Malevich, Kandinsky, Vladimir Burlyuk and

others in the State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, 1933.

350
 chapter four: between industry and art

critics of the museum as Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger object as a kind of icon. The white cube setting
and Merleau-Ponty, who maintained that museums displays an ‘idea’ to the world, and creates a sacral
aestheticized the perception of cultural monuments atmosphere of asceticism in a social setting in the
and imposed an attitude of passivity towards service of art.
them. From another point of view, in the context Exhibited in a gilt frame in 1933, Black Square
of Malevich’s own artistic development (embracing naturally ceased to be perceived as a ‘novel and real
his theory of ‘the additional element’), Black Square body which makes a direct impact on us’.166 That,
in a gilt frame could be interpreted as a perfectly however, is how the work is perceived today in the
legitimate phenomenon. Rejecting the traditional Tretyakov Gallery, where it is displayed in a glazed
museum, Malevich wrote of a new one he had frame (reminiscent of an icon case) hung against
in mind: a grey panel on a black wall (illus. 250). Thus the
viewer is invited directly to feel the impact of the
The founding of the Contemporary Museum painting, as if it were a twentieth-century icon,
means collecting contemporary projects, and on the real world. Overcoming the white frame
only those projects which can be used as a and the grey display panel, the work spreads its
framework for life or in which a framework colour and energy over the real wall space around
for new forms of it can arise – which can be it, on which only impersonal numbers and museum
preserved for time.165 labels are visible. In modern museums works dis-
played have always been wholly capable of living
And inasmuch as Suprematism was regarded by with the newest strategies of art, which focus on its
Malevich as just such a project, it was to acquire relationship with bourgeois society and for which
honorary ‘museum status’ in world art history. a museum is the ideal place for debunking dreary
Hence its creator’s pictures needed frames of a cognitive stereotypes. In this context we may
‘museum’ kind. Furthermore, having sketched the remember the empty frame of the Dadaist Francis
modernistic project of a museum of contemporary Picabia (St Vitus’ Dance, 1920), which diagnosed
art that would be regarded as an institution the ‘sickness’ of the Renaissance mimetic image
authoritatively distinguishing between art and and at the same time announced the fact that art
non-art, Malevich allotted it the function of a new was open to any innovation (illus. 251). The artist
shrine, with its own apostolic succession beginning rejected ideology and welcomed the opportunity
with the founder of the new ‘teaching’ – himself. of introducing disorder and provocation into the
In other words, his museum was supposed to fabric of art. Rejection of the frame too, so defini-
undertake a revision of history. Although it was tive of the concept of ‘a work of art’, was typical of
never actually built, one of its leading concepts Dada. Since collective evaluation was understood
lives on in the white walls of the present-day to be a result of social conventions, shutting up
Moscow Museum of Modern Art – the so-called a ‘work of art’ in a museum was declared to be
white cube architecture – emphasizing the imme- the absurd outcome of ephemeral standards.
diacy of the viewer’s personal contact with the art Le Corbusier observed that a museum possessed

351
part two: playing with space

‘something sacred, allowing no debate or discus- and post-avant-garde texts, involving rejection of
sion’, while Georges Bataille called the museum preceding cultural experience, and here old frames
‘a grand spectacle for mankind’.167 and museum showcases and labels can be used to
Artists of the present time, therefore, in instal- parody the principles of creating museum holdings
lations and performances in museums that often and archives.168
develop Dadaist ideas, place the viewer in a cultural In other words, art of the present day shows
metatext producing an awareness of the conven- an inversion of meanings from traditional forms of
tional and rhetorical foundations of the traditional picture frame to the mobility of perception reflected
culture. Modern works of art (‘ideal objects’) are in modern frames, connected with postmodernist
constructed on Absurdist principles and embody irony and the parodying of the very language of
an endless journey in quest of meaning. They culture. In this conceptual field, games with others’
display a lack of concern for the evaluation of a texts (that is, quotations) presuppose an inevitable
work of art and focus on the question of what lies transformation of the frame. A quotation is often
hidden under the visible surface of phenomena. contained in a mental and spatial-temporal framing
A demythologizing process has emerged from the that orientates perception. This might take the form
interaction of the framing space of the museum of the traditional frame-as-window, a photographic

250 Kazimir Malevich, Black Square, 1915, displayed in the State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, 2006.

352
 chapter four: between industry and art

latter into a spectral environment, these cultural

constructs even transfer the ‘frame’, which should
separate the realm of art from surrounding reality,
to that consciousness.169 The appearance of artistic
projects on the Internet and on newspaper pages
is tending to overcome the notion of art – that is,
to overcome any form of frame that establishes
traditional understanding and perception of it. The
boundaries of a work of art have been obliterated.
Traditional art has been replaced by a fundamen-
tally different culture of visual images.

The Antiquary and Dismantlement

During his lifetime, Vasiliy Vereshchagin’s exhibi-
tions ended with an auction; so did the exhibition
held in the Russian Museum in October 1904, six
months after his death. Its design reflected the
interior of his studio, gilt frames and velvet back-
ground curtains being employed in the display
frame, conceptual framing provided by text, a of the late artist’s work (illus. 179). Vereshchagin’s
section of framed material from the Internet, or widow wished to sell the whole contents of the
similar. The purpose of all these framing devices is exhibition to the recently founded Alexander iii
to disrupt old-established paths of communication Imperial Museum of Russian Art (now known as
and redirect the process of perception into a zone the Russian Museum), and to have a permanent
of special meditation-like practices aiming to memorial exhibition there to include not only his
desacralize ideological clichés and myths of mass paintings but also objects in his personal posses-
culture. That is why performances and installations sion. In other words, the museum’s exhibition of
of the present day so often point up the conditions Vereshchagin’s work was initially intended to be in
of everyday life in which they are rooted and have the spirit of the famous exhibitions of his lifetime.
their being. Extending the frames of perception, However, since auctions always contain an
contemporary art stands before us as an untiring element of risk and give rise to spur-of-the-moment
unmasker of stereotypes. It also demonstrates the decisions, the contents of the exhibition were sold
ephemerality of modern cultural constructs, the by lot at the auction, the Russian Museum acquir-
innumerable theatricalized gestures and installa- ing only a small number of works. The removal of
tions that are designed for a short life and survive the artist’s paintings, antiquarian and ethnographic
only in the public consciousness. Plunging the objects, furniture and tools of trade from his studio

251 Francis Picabia, St Vitus’ Dance, 1920. Museum

Musée National d’Art Moderne, Paris.

353
part two: playing with space

to the state museum and to private collections as dead units, hundreds of anonymous objects
brought about the separation of paintings and testifying to a reality that was constantly vanishing,
frames as entities – that is, a new existence for the the collisions, ruptures and correspondences of
paintings in new frames. Series of paintings were cultural history. The same was true of other
broken up, frames arbitrarily changed, everyday museum depositories. Icons and old paintings
objects acquired a new status when transformed were relics deprived of their cultural context,
into symbols of themselves, while antiquarian arti- surviving after a difficult journey through the
cles in turn changed their functions. In exhibitions centuries, and now appearing on display in deep
during Vereshchagin’s lifetime, objects leaving silence (illus. 253). They had been hidden, with
the artist’s studio and entering the exhibition hall their aura of mystery, from the eyes of the general
played their part in the unity of the exhibition public in museums’ inner sanctuaries. With this
space, providing contextual framing for what was absence of context, such works made a powerful
depicted on the canvases. Now their meaning lay emotional impact on connoisseurs, in that they
in a different order of framing – the subjective could be perceived without the direction of an
partialities of the collector. exhibition frame, in all their fragmentariness and
The picture frames in the Tretyakov Gallery’s randomness. Displayed beauty ceased to be a matter
store had once belonged to the works of a variety of of formal organization. The beautiful became form-
painters, and in many cases the links were unknown less and chaotic. Historical orderliness gave way
(illus. 252). Now these frames were merely preserved to chance, taking the mind away from explicable

252 Frame store in the State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, 2007.

354
 chapter four: between industry and art

rationality and into the realm of emotional arousal. them in his shop or office; he is also a passionate
Museum holdings could now be interpreted as a propagandist for art and therefore a rhetorical
reflection of the eternal search for solid meanings. figure in both the literal and metaphorical senses
The episode of the change of frames for two of the word; he is someone who must constantly
of the paintings in Mikhail Nesterov’s St Sergius persuade others of the ‘use of beauty’, always the
series (1892–9) described earlier is fairly rare in the scholar and collector combined; he is a psychologist,
history of the coexistence of paintings and frames. a specialist in human behaviour, able to pick a
Changes of taste and fashion have played a much frame to go with anything; he is constantly changing
bigger part in the dismantling of pictures and their and correcting his scales of evaluation. The variabil-
frames, as well as the processes of formation of ity, contradictoriness and intangibility of the latter
private and museum collections, to say nothing of are the result of slight changes in the patterns of his
revolutions and other major political events with behaviour. The antiquary is a mediator in constantly
ideological, economic and social consequences. moving currents, with appearing and disappearing
Hence in the complex history of the relationship images, on the shifting frontier between the genuine
between frame and picture, a special intermediary and the false, illusion and reality; and he performs
role must be accorded to the antiquary. This figure his function sometimes consciously, sometimes
is not simply the smart, unprincipled dealer who unconsciously. All this makes him a magnetic figure
buys cheap and sells dear. He is an admirer of in postmodernist and contemporary culturological
beautiful things, who loves to be surrounded with studies. He is associated with such aspects of the

253 Old Russian icons storeroom, State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, 2007.

355
part two: playing with space

art market as authentication and forgery, auctions applied arts alongside the fashion for collecting old
and contraband, and finally, he brings a heightened picture frames. Numerous publications on decora-
interest to the rhetoric of the picture frame, not tive and applied arts appeared around the time
infrequently forsaking the realm of scientific when Guggenheim’s book appeared.
research for shady dealings and criminal activities. The emergence of professional antiquaries in
We encounter not only a genuine old frame with Europe was an indication of a new understanding of
a painting that is a forgery, but also a forged signa- history, the antiquarian trade in one form or another
ture and provenance (of unknown origin) and having always occupied an important place in the
forged museum documents; mistakes by careless history of knowledge. In the Renaissance and
‘experts’ seeking to gain social footholds as well Neoclassical periods, for example, it was the anti-
as slips by serious scholars; and much else. And quary who mediated the enthusiasm for the art of
all this in an antiquary’s picture frame! The well- Antiquity. The excavations of Herculaneum (1738)
known rhetorical power of the frame to convince and Pompeii (1748) revitalized the antiquarian trade
those eager to possess a worthwhile work of art and provided an impetus to fashions based on
only confirms how fruitful it is to study the anti- Graeco-Roman art and a source of inspiration for
quary’s world. painters, sculptors and architects. The antiquary
The significance of the antiquary for the under- also fed the Romantics’ passion for the East through
standing of the mutual relationship of picture and the first half of the nineteenth century, when hun-
frame will be clear from the fact that the first serious dreds and thousands of works of art from distant
interest in the history of the picture frame was countries reached Europe and found their way into
shown by one. This was the Venetian businessman private and state collections and the studios of
Michelangelo Guggenheim mentioned in the artists both famous and not so famous, where they
Introduction, a collector of frames of the Italian served not only as display pieces but also as models
Renaissance period, who traded in antiquities and for symbolic forms on canvases. The studios of
also produced furniture in period styles. Of the Franz von Lenbach in Munich, Hans Makart in
hundred or more Renaissance picture frames that Vienna and Vasiliy Vereshchagin near Paris and in
he published in his book on the subject (1897), Moscow are only three examples of the numerous
eleven were in his private collection; the rest West European and Russian artists who were at the
were from the collections of other antiquaries, the same time amateur collectors. The active develop-
Berlin Nationalgalerie and the Victoria and Albert ment of the antiquarian trade in Russia through
Museum, London.170 It would appear that it was the eighteenth century took place in conjunction
Guggenheim’s commercial interests that determined with the country’s cultural development at that
his interest in old fabrics and frames, a collection time and its cultural contacts with the West.
of which he presented to his native city of Venice. The extent to which the Russian antiquarian
It was not coincidental that the second half of the market not only adopted Western forms but also
nineteenth century saw widespread use of historical acquired its own original characteristics at this
styles in Italian architecture and decorative and time is striking.

356
 chapter four: between industry and art

The antiquarian market the world over has on the Russian art market of the early twenty-first
of course always devised a terminology that can century an icon of The Three Saints often contin-
reduce everything to the simplest terms – artists’ ues to bear the title The Three Pillars. And we find
names, names of icons, titles of paintings, cultural- the same devaluation of the meaning and worth
historical periods, and so on. These terms lie, as it of an image in registers and inventories. A nine-
were, at the very lowest level of an invisible mental teenth-century ‘Register of Unallocated Portraits
framing of a work of art. On the very level of per- from the Sequestrated Estate of Prince E. Sapega
ception official registers and inventories use this placed in the Storeroom of the Hermitage’ included
terminology, as also, though in a different way, do ‘76 portraits of famous men in black wooden
reviews of exhibitions. In other words, a special frames’, and a ‘list of pictures’ that Nicholas i in
system of naive stereotypes and valuations is being 1853 ‘allocated to various places and various
set up here. For example, in the seventeenth-century persons’ had an entry ‘three silhouettes, glazed
Dutch Republic the art market could call a painting and framed’. Of special interest are the nominal
by Jan Vermeer ‘Subject with one or two figures’;171 names given to different styles of picture frame172 –
Sansovino, Canaletto, Salvator Rosa,
Maratta, Lutma – all an established
system of terms on the open art
market still current today, some
of them even in scholarly use.
The ‘Sansovino’ frame, for example,
taking its name from the Florentine
sculptor Jacopo Sansovino (1486–
1570), featured decorative motifs
typical of his work in the second half
of the sixteenth century (illus. 254).
In actual fact there were a number
of sources for these particular motifs,
among them being examples of
architectural ornament associated
with Michelangelo and Giulio
Romano.173 It is to be noted that
some historians of the picture frame
accept this terminology without
critical comment, others with a
reservation about the total absence
of documentary evidence that any of
these famous artists worked on the

254 ‘Sansovino’ frame, c. 1590. National Gallery, London.

357
part two: playing with space

frames that antiquaries and collectors used with the processes by which stereotypes are formed on
pictures in their possession.174 the antiquarian market. Since the value of a picture
The same applies in part to the Russian art will be at its maximum if it is in its original frame,
market. Thus the fairly firmly established term
‘Korovin frame’ has no documentary source but is
based on the oral tradition that this type of frame
was favoured by the artist himself or designed by
him. In any case, it is far more frequently found
with this artist’s paintings than any other form of
frame (illus. 255, 256). The use of these nominal
terms is fundamentally confused. On the one hand,
we are to accept that a particular artist played a
part in the creation of a particular type of frame –
for example, with a sketch, advice or an expressed
preference for specific decorative motifs – and on
the other, to take into account the characteristics of

255 Konstantin Korovin, Paris – Boulevard des Capucins, 256 Detail of frame.
1911. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

358
 chapter four: between industry and art

a frame designated with a well-known artist’s name frames to suit the decorative schemes of their
will be an important factor in the antiquary’s rhet- galleries and palaces. Nicholas i would not only
oric in his relations with collectors, in his system put paintings into new frames, but on occasion
of persuasion regarding the uniqueness of the he went so far as to ‘correct’ them.175 When they
‘masterpiece’ he is offering. bought pictures in Western Europe, the Yusupovs
Furthermore, the nominal name of its frame and Sheremetyevs freely changed the works’ frames
suggests some connection with the interpretation when they were placed in their galleries. Conversely,
of the painting itself. A frame bearing an artist’s individual paintings could even bring about alter-
name always gives rise to more complex levels of ations to interiors. The ‘Hubert Robert Rooms’ in
interpretation: picture and frame combine more Prince Nikolay Yusupov’s palace at Arkhangel’skoye
closely in the viewer’s mind, with each element of are celebrated examples of the careful attention
the whole appearing to be of convincing authen- that could be devoted to the work of fashionable
ticity, each inseparable from the other. As a result painters. The Robert Rooms are a most original,
of this combination, the original frame may be freely designed architectural framing for the paint-
removed from the picture and replaced by a new ings that the prince most admired: rooms that
one designed on a pattern of stereotypes. Here the were originally rectangular were rebuilt octagonally,
subjective will of the antiquary meets the subjective with walls appropriately redesigned and redecorated.
will of the collector, and more broadly, the history Even the surrounding landscape was redesigned:
of fashion and taste, which has always permeated through the windows a view was to be seen that
picture collections from those of tsars to modest was reminiscent of the landscapes of the famous
devotees’. painter’s canvases. In this way specially designed
In keeping with the creation of picture galleries architectural framing for chosen paintings could
in wealthy households from the sixteenth century embrace various shades of meaning.
to the eighteenth, the owners of art treasures did Whenever a change took place in the relation-
not stint on frames. They took pains to give the ship between pictures and their frames, a signifi-
jewels of their collections frames worthy of their cant part would invariably be played in the process
artistic importance and material value. When, by the antiquarian auction – a murky area in which
therefore, a Dutch collector of the late seventeenth changes in frames, in both a material and a con-
century or the early eighteenth wished to choose ceptual sense, often led to new meanings. Auctions
frames for the masterpieces he had bought, he became regular events in eighteenth-century
automatically looked to the sumptuous products St Petersburg, the most widespread means of sale
of France, turning away from the modest frames for works of art (illus. 257). Throughout the year
of the Dutch workshops. Consequently, to this day 1737 the Sankt-Peterburgskiye vedomosti printed an
Rembrandt’s paintings are displayed in Baroque ‘inventory of articles in the possession of Prince
gilt frames seldom suited to the characteristics of Kantemir, to be sold at auction’, among them
this painter. Russian tsars, great patrons and collec- ‘sacred icons in silver and gilt claddings, pictures
tors did exactly the same, changing the original printed on paper and paintings in frames’.176

359
part two: playing with space

The first striking thing that emerges from such unceremoniously, eager to know the worth of the
announcements is that when paintings changed articles, and they boldly outbid the aristocratic
hands, frames were usually changed. This is made connoisseurs. Here were many compulsive
very clear in Gogol’s vivid description of the atmos- auction-goers who each day decided to forego
phere of an auction in his tale ‘The Portrait’: breakfast to attend the occasion; well-to-do
connoisseurs who felt obliged not to miss an
A multitude of vehicles large and small stood opportunity to add to their collection and had
before the porch of the house where an auction nothing else to do between twelve and one; and
was taking place of articles from the house finally, those noble persons of very meagre dress
of one of those wealthy amateurs of the arts and pocket who appeared daily without any
who gently slumber through their entire lives, mercenary aim but simply in order to observe
immersed in zephyrs and cupids, who have how things would end, who would offer more,
in all innocence acquired reputations as great who less, who would outbid whom, and who
patrons after simple-heartedly spending mil- would make the successful bid. Masses of
lions accumulated by their judicious forefathers pictures were thrown about without rhyme or
and sometimes even by their own labours. Such reason together with articles of furniture and
patrons, as everyone knows, do not exist any books bearing the monogram of their previous
more, and our nineteenth century has acquired owner, who perhaps even lacked the commend-
the boring physiognomy of the banker, enjoying able curiosity ever to have glanced at them.
his millions merely in the form of figures Chinese vases, marble table-tops; new and
displayed on paper. The long hall was packed antique furniture, curvilinear, with griffon,
with a variegated assembly of visitors who had sphinx and lion’s paw ornament, with and with-
swooped down like raptors on a body left to the out gilding; chandeliers, old oil lamps – all piled
elements. There was a whole flotilla of Russian up in a way they would not be in shops. It all
merchants from Gostinyy dvor [Merchants’ amounted to a chaos of the arts. In general, we
Yard] and even the flea market in dark-blue experience terrible feelings at auctions; every-
German frock-coats. Their appearance and thing about them is reminiscent of a funeral
facial expression was rather harder, freer and ceremony. The hall in which an auction takes
without that pretended obsequiousness so place is always gloomy; the windows, blocked
evident in the Russian face when in its own up by furniture and pictures, let in limited light,
shop in front of customers. Here they did not and there are the silent faces and the funereal
stand on ceremony, despite the presence of a voice of the auctioneer banging his hammer
number of aristocrats, before whom, in another and chanting a requiem for the poor arts so
place, they would have been ready to sweep away strangely brought together here.177
the dust deposited by their own shoes with their
deep bows. Here they were completely unbut- This literary text (though not very far from
toned, handling books and paintings quite reality) contains some interesting points for

360
 chapter four: between industry and art

analysis. What is the attraction of the auction in opinion passes as authoritative in some circles but
the context of a picture frame? In the first place, is subject to doubt in others depending on what
the auction clearly serves as a marginal cultural conventions are followed. That is to say, everything
phenomenon – Gogol’s ‘chaos of the arts’, where constantly moves away from the view that seeks to
the framing and perception of the idea of beauty be objective.
are subject to sudden change. Thus, an article Secondly, the persons involved in the conduct
put up for auction has to please a new owner. of an auction are worth analysis, and above all the
Consequently, at this first stage of a picture’s auctioneer, whom Gogol does not omit to mention.
changing hands, a serious reason arises to change It might seem that his status should be lower than
a ‘wrong’ frame for a ‘right’ one. In this process a that of the antiquary in the historical and cultural
work of art for sale can acquire not only a new context of early trading in antiquities. However, in
material frame but also a new frame of meaning: the deconstruction of the system picture–frame he
the picture will be accompanied by its provenance has a definite role to play. The timbre and intona-
either in the form of a document or oral testimony. tion of his voice, his gestures, even his physical
The latter can be based on the conclusion of a appearance, can be decisive in an auction’s success
well-known or a less well-known expert whose or failure. He performs like the conductor of an

257 ‘Auction’, from the engraved series Spectacles of

Nature and the Arts (St Petersburg, 1788).

361
part two: playing with space

orchestra, communicating the experience of a work market brings up a whole range of new problems
of art to the audience in that fleeting moment concerning the effect of the framing of visual
when it moves from one point in space to another. images, and the problem of expert authentication
But he is ‘cool-headed’, ‘objective’ and ‘neutral’. of a work of art, which plays such a key role today,
He is a human mask, an actor on the antiquarian is one of them. Such authentication is a conceptual
world’s stage of illusion and reality and an invisible or cognitive framing of a work of art, containing
man in the world of art, inasmuch as his task is supplementary meanings of a social, political or
confined to the marking of the change of location economic kind.
of a work of art. The audience and buyers at an Love of the old, of antiquarian objects, of his-
auction behave differently from how they would tory, can turn into a passion for simulation and
at an exhibition, in a museum or in a theatre. And falsification, which can confront the researcher
here Gogol’s observations help to elucidate further with the problems of authentication and forgery.
aspects of social psychology and perception theory. To this day Russian culture is cemented by a system
Alongside the auction, another important field based on knowledge as power, consisting of age-
potentially fruitful for current studies of marginal old methods used by the state to identify and
cultural phenomena is contraband. The definition control its citizens. This system includes a register
of contraband in works of art was clarified in of individuals and their names, documents with
Russia in 1918 with the emergence of the first law specific notes and stamps testifying authenticity,
setting out regulations on the antiquarian trade photographs – all impossible to falsify. A simplified
and the transportation of national treasures across form of this system is used in the world of museums
frontiers. and the art market, inasmuch as the falsification
When any new law comes into force, however, of a work of art, in a declaration of its legitimacy,
circumventive measures will immediately be statement of its aesthetic quality or its display in
found. Such was the case with contraband in art, a state museum, involves a serious threat to the
which has always and everywhere involved alter- proprietary institution and its authorities.
ation of the external appearance of an art object, The problem of imitation of Old Russian icons
and above all the removal of the existing frame in the context of Old Believer culture has been
from a painting, in the course of which the stretcher touched on by the present writer elsewhere.178 The
too might be lost, cut down or even slit. Icons are present topic is their reception. Here it is not indi-
in the same case. The famous icon St Nicholas vidual cases of authentication that are of interest –
of Mozhaysk with Scenes from his Life (1560s; in this field specific procedures are used to distin-
Novgorod), now in the collection of the National guish fakes from originals. The problem consists in
Museum of Stockholm, was sawn into a number the lack of theoretical clarity about the phenome-
of separate pieces when transported abroad, which non of authentication itself and the impossibility
substantially changed viewers’ perception of it. of considering it in isolation from the culture of its
A large number of such cases is known. In other own time and the historical processes of dissemi-
words, the topic of auctions and the antiquarian nation of the meanings and cultural significance of

362
 chapter four: between industry and art

any particular work of art. If the latter is to be duly and curator of its museum, N. I. Petrov, relied on
taken into account, it is clear that authentication information given on the reverses of the icons.180
is to be seen not merely as an ‘objective specialist The situation changed in some respects at the
view’ but also as a cultural phenomenon linked by beginning of the twentieth century when methods
innumerable invisible threads with a given system of of restoring early icons were discovered as a result
knowledge and specific forms of social psychology, of the activities of a new generation of collectors,
political and economic interests and even ideo- including Ilya Ostroukhov (1858–1929), Stepan
logical doctrines and concepts. Ryabushinsky (1874–1943) and Aleksey Morozov
Nelson Goodman, in The Languages of Art, (1857–1934). Cleansing methods using new technol-
some time ago observed that ‘fakes of works of art ogy first posed fundamental questions as to the
are an unpleasant problem for the collector, the authenticity of the forms of early monuments and
museum curator and the art historian’, inasmuch as foregrounded the aesthetic criterion for the estab-
the question of the authenticity of the language of a lishment of their historical origins. From this point
work of art has hitherto remained unclarified on a on, scholars and collectors looking at early icons
theoretical level. Thus ‘the philosopher who is taken began to be guided by stylistic characteristics and
unawares by the question of the aesthetic difference also by the criterion of ‘authenticity’ of form, even
between a fake and an original finds himself in the if colour and composition had been altered to suit
same ridiculous position as the art historian who the tastes of ‘antiquarian restoration’. It has been
takes a van Meegeren for a Vermeer.’179 All this established that a ‘restoration’ specialist, without
indicates that at present levels of technological consciously aiming at forgery, could remove the
development, the old aesthetic criteria for detecting background colour in early icons, make new
the authenticity of a work of art can at times turn inscriptions and complete lost parts of images.
out to be ineffective. An ever-increasing part of He could entirely repaint an icon to suit the tastes
the process of authentication is played by an art of a client or represent an imagined ‘authentic’ form.
object’s provenance and its reliability. In other words, ‘restoring’ icon painters working
An example of the theoretical complexity of for Ostroukhov or Ryabushinsky essentially sought
the aesthetic criteria for establishing authenticity to eliminate all correlation between a ‘forgery’ and
is shown on museum labels on the backs of icons, an original early icon: to them, absolute unreality,
which might be considered to be the most intimate making the real concur with the simulation, was
context of works of art since they serve as a kind of of the same value as the real thing. The most
documentary framing. Thus in the nineteenth cen- important consideration for us today, the difference
tury, labels attached to the reverses of Old Russian between a forgery and an original, was not so in
icons by their owners could perfectly well serve as early twentieth-century eyes.
the chief criterion for confirming their authenticity. In the 1910s this situation became more
It is known that in preparing the catalogue of complex. For the first time in the history of the
Porphiry Uspensky’s famous collection of icons Russian antiquarian icon trade, the problem of
from Sinai at the Kiev Church Academy, the founder conscious forgery arose, which turned out to be

363
258 The Mother of God Enthroned, with saints on the margins, 15th century, with early 20th-century
restorations. Collection of Stepan Ryabushinsky. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
259 Reverse of The Mother of God Enthroned.
part two: playing with space

closely connected with the invention of new tech- state of preservation is thus described in the
nology, the swing away from iconographic to museum’s catalogue:
formal methods of analysis of works of art, and a
widening of the market in and demand for early Losses from the original painting; significant
icons, especially of the Novgorod style. The new amount of restoration over the whole paint
technology at the disposal of the creator of fakes surface. The outlines of the horse, the cave, and
made the original ‘better’ than all that history wings and head of the dragon are emphasized
could do, in accordance with the aesthetic criteria in thick black paint. Whitening on the garments
of authenticity put forward by Russian specialists has been lost. The outlines of the hillocks are
at the beginning of the twentieth century. And the disfigured; on the right, traces of small ledges
fact that authentication of similar-looking icons are visible. The inscriptions and vermilion
was often made on the basis of an imitated form colour of the border are added. The original
rather than an original one is often confirmed by colour of the background and borders appears
labels on the reverses of icons. to have been light yellow. The halo has been
The icon of The Mother of God Enthroned, coloured. The representation of Golgotha and
with saints on the margins (Bogomater’ na prestole, the inscription on the upper border are later
so svyatymi na polyakh) is a case in point (illus. 258, additions.181
259). Judging by the labels on its reverse, this
icon belonged first to Stepan Ryabushinsky and Today’s researches more and more frequently
was subsequently acquired by the Rumyantsev reveal that in early twentieth-century ‘antiquarian
Museum. After the October Revolution it fell into restoration’, an imitation does not simply repro-
the possession of the Department of Museums duce an original but tries to improve on it, while
and Preservation of Works of Art and Cultural the historical original vanishes from the specialist
Monuments under the People’s Commissariat for purview. And it vanishes not simply because ‘no
Enlightenment, and lastly it was acquired by the one saw it’, but because this ‘original’ is nothing
Tretyakov Gallery. The provenance of the icon is other than a historically established system of
reflected in the varying datings given on the labels: conventions between the restorer, the scholar
fourteenth century, first half of the fifteenth century, and the collector. Hence the question might
simply fifteenth century. rather be not the reproduction, in an old icon
The level of distortion of the original resulting after ‘restoration’, of ‘genuine’ original features,
from ‘antiquarian restoration’ can be clearly appre- but a conceptual representation achieving only
ciated in the case of the icon of St George Slaying approximation to the original.
the Dragon (Chudo Georgiya o zmiye) from the Here lies the reason, in the present writer’s view,
Aleksey Morozov Collection (mid-fourteenth why the problem of forgery increasingly disturbs art
century, illus. 260). It was acquired by the Tretyakov historians. The identification of the artist and estab-
Gallery at the beginning of the twentieth century lishment of place and date of execution frequently
and is now in the permanent collection. The icon’s turn into heated specialist discussion. What is perhaps

366
260 St George Slaying the Dragon, mid-14th century, with early 20th-century restorations.
Collection of Aleksey Morozov. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
part two: playing with space

most striking in this situation, however, is that have for some time been merged in his consciousness
despite constantly improved methods of authenti- with their stereotypical representations, so that it
cation (involving the results of physical and chemical is impossible for him to make authentications with
analyses, new technology, new research on style and one hundred per cent certainty. Hence we find our-
iconography), the number of decisions based on selves time and again confronted with the problem
disputed interpretations rather than concrete fact of the conditional nature of our vision, in the light
surprises specialists themselves. In most cases there of which the frame of perception, in all its historical
is no final conclusion; the outcome always depends forms and modifications, is the ontological basis
on the nature of the interpretation, which is simul- of our definition of authenticity. The concept of a
taneously a process and a result. The presence of a frame always reminds us of our own lives in a
philosophical problem here is not often evident. world surprisingly difficult to comprehend and
The attempt to determine the difference between increasingly improbable. In this, evidently, lies its
an original and a forgery or copy, particularly on an never-ending historical role and its meaning.
aesthetic level, sharply contradicts today’s general
practice and theories of identity. Aesthetic feelings
often count for nothing in comparison with the
system of intellectual aims and social conventions
from which the expert takes his benchmarks for
the object of his analysis. And it is not so easy for
the expert to break out of this system, because it is
precisely this that provides us with a cognitive frame
through which we perceive and understand reality.
By means of stylistic examination of a work of art
the expert can perceive a given original only because
he or she is pre-equipped with a particular supply
of expectations through which he gains access to
the world of a period of art history that is familiar
to him. Our reading of ‘the cryptograms of art’,
as E. H. Gombrich has noted, is always conditioned
by our expectations. When we approach a picture,
we are already in the same mode as the artist, our
apparatus of perception is synchronized. We are
tuned, as it were, to a particular way of seeing an
image.182 The specialist, therefore, tends to see
physical art objects through a network of general
meanings and stylistic characteristics. He is following
a particular system of conventions, and such objects

368
 Conclusion

The foregoing consideration of framing in the ineffable otherworldliness of the icon was empha-
context of Russian art will have led us to conclude sized by a frame that was an impassable barrier
that it plays a very important part in the structure between the realm of heavenly forms and the
of our dialogue with the world. The frame is not world of man. The leaves of Russian and Western
only a cognitive stereotype but also a fascinatingly medieval manuscripts speak of just such inaccessi-
multifaceted cultural phenomenon that has had a bility, bearing in the margin (that is, on the ‘frame’
number of changing functions. Throughout this of the sacred text) various drawings, notes and
book, therefore, we have returned time and again inscriptions relating to everyday life that in the
to the way in which changes in spiritual life have copier’s mind bear no relation to the Gospel text.
been reflected in formal changes in picture frames; The architecture of Byzantine and Old Russian
and so the frame has been paid special attention churches, with the severity of their exteriors and
as a cultural-historical phenomenon. In earlier the striking beauty of their interiors, bears witness
centuries it assumed a modest aspect linked to to the same principle.
religious symbolism. The medieval icon did not Simplifying and schematizing an enormous
presuppose transition from this world to the next. amount of material, the author of this book
Consequently, its frame constituted an almost regarded it as important to show that, with the
impenetrable barrier between the sacred and the appearance in Muscovite Rus’ of Western European
secular, outlining an ideal space affording a view Latin rhetoric and Renaissance aesthetics, a hitherto
of man’s relationship with God in which the idea strict and impassable barrier suddenly became less
of protection and concealment of the sacred image so, which brought a number of cultural-historical
was to the fore. This was the meaning of the frame- consequences in its train. The main aim was to
as-ark of early icons, the construction of which show how the typical frame of the Russian icon of
became widespread following the end of the Icono - the twelfth to fifteenth centuries gradually changed
clast period of the eighth and ninth centuries, when from a means of preserving a sacred image into an
the demand arose in Christian art for a conclusive instrument of cognition. And to anyone looking at
eradication of the illusionism of late antiquity. The icons, books and albums of engravings, or to the

369
visitor of a Russian seventeenth- or eighteenth- disappearance of the medieval ark form of icon and
century church, the extraordinary diversity of its replacement by a picture frame could not fail to
framing forms is not only striking to the imagina- signify profound changes in the system of popular
tion but also brings out the individual ways in values. These developments coincided with a
which Russian icon carvers discovered the forms of change in the design of the iconostasis in Russia
Western European picture frames. It is noteworthy and the opening up of the altar space produced by
that this was even possible, but it is of the greatest modifications to the design of ‘holy gates’, which
interest in widening the horizon of historical in turn coincided with the opening up of the walls
investigation. Hence the attempt was made to see of Baroque churches as a result of the widening
the frame of a religious image as a special cultural of window apertures and also with the filling of
stratum containing a space in which man was margins of books of the Baroque period with refer-
constantly conducting a dialogue with God. ences to and learned commentaries on biblical texts
Indication of this was found in sixth- and seventh- rather than notes on everyday events. What was
century Byzantine icons with frames bearing emphasized in all these Baroque forms of framing
inscriptions, clients’ names and prayers, and also was the unity of all living things in God, and their
depictions of the patron saints of those who ‘permeability’ began to reflect the idea of the imma-
commissioned the icons. An icon frame of this nence of divine grace. It is not coincidental that in
kind could be interpreted as an ‘envelope’ contain- late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century
ing a message from man to God. It bore, indeed, Russian icons saints are so often depicted ‘walking
the client’s name – a shadow of the name of his out of the frame’. Moreover, this movement of
saint living in heaven. Putting his own name on saints towards the world was further brought out
the frame, therefore, the client who bought the by the increased size of the stamps on the frames of
icon would place himself under God’s observation, domestic icons and also by the increasing frequency
while in putting a depiction of his patron saint on of separate painted frames round old images, and
the frame he transformed the latter into a special especially those accounted ‘miracle-working’, which
meeting place where his saint could be seen to now, rather than protecting a sacred object from
commune with God. His gaze would constantly the eyes of the uninitiated, sought to disseminate
alternate between the face of his saintly intercessor it to a wider public, to make it known throughout
on the frame and the central image, so becoming the world of man. Icons and frames of this kind are
involved in that special dialogue with the image found in great numbers, and no purpose would
that is dictated by the very construction of the have been served by detailed enumeration of them.
icon board. What was important was to note their ubiquity,
These and similar fairly straightforward obser- analysing only typical examples.
vations led to the conclusion that the framing of In the Renaissance and Baroque periods the
icons could bear particular cultural-historical formerly monolithic and static structure of the
meanings and reflect the most diverse changes in cosmos acquires the impulse towards movement:
the spiritual life of societies. Hence the gradual the frame becomes distinct from the image because

370
 conclusion

the world itself became separated on the way to self- embodied especially in the aesthetic treatises
knowledge. Hence the picture frame of seventeenth- of Simon Ushakov, Iosif Vladimirov and other
century Muscovite Rus’ opens up an astonishing artists. This new aesthetic theory comes to us from
panorama of the imagination in which religious Western European rhetoric, which dictated new
experience goes side by side with scientific know- rules for constructing and perceiving a literary text.
ledge. A culminating example of this approach is Western influence on Russian culture had been
to be seen in one of the most extraordinary pieces observed for a long time. Thus the wall of the
of icon framing that ever existed – the iconostasis Moscow Kremlin, built in the fifteenth century by
of the Moscow merchant Grigoriy Shumayev. Italian architects, is perhaps the grandest Western-
Analytical study of its allegorical symbolism showed style framing of a sacred monument in Russian
that its formal design and its treatment of space medieval culture. The key point is that only with
derive from leading features and formulae of the the impact of Western-Latin rhetoric is it possible
Baroque. A variety of figures ‘ornamenting’ the to speak seriously of the appearance of a funda-
frame are visual expressions of particular meanings mentally different culture of visual images in
current in artistic, theological and even folkloric Russia, and consequently of the picture frame as a
and political tradition. In the context of the conti- sign of a new, secular form of art. It was essentially
nuity of these traditions, the frame gives a multi- Baroque aesthetic theory, therefore, that first con-
layered understanding of the image as autonomous fronted the Russian icon painter with the problem
mimetic art. The function of the frame of a visual of visual perception. In order to show this, it was
image in the Baroque period – colophon, painting necessary to touch on the idea of artistic invention
or icon – was to widen the scope of its meaning. in the context of the fundamentals of rhetorical
Thus it became laden with supplementary symbols, doctrine. Only after establishing the distinction
which could be understood only by those familiar between medieval copying of models and the new
with manuals of symbols, emblems and allegories. European method of creating pictures was it possi-
In contrast to the modest medieval icon frame, ble to clarify all those compositional and stylistic
the Baroque frame made levels of perception more forms that flooded into Russian icon painting in
complex and added shades of meaning to the the second half of the seventeenth century and
image. In as far as Baroque metaphor took away the first half of the eighteenth. From this period,
the isolation of the depiction, the image became Russian religious and secular art came into active
closely linked with surrounding realities. mutual contact, with free exchange of methods
At the same time, it was essential to note that and discoveries. The high point of this process was
in the Baroque period efforts were made to make perhaps reached in the religious paintings of the
icon frames look like not only theological but also artists of the stil’ modern period, in Vasnetsov’s and
aesthetic commentaries. This trend emerged with Nesterov’s conception of the new Russian icon,
the distancing of the material frame from the image when the idea of the ‘beautiful’ acquired a moral
in Muscovite Rus’, and was caused by the appear- quality deriving from Russian theurgical aesthetics
ance of ‘applied aesthetics’ of the Renaissance type, – springing in turn from the ideas of Friedrich

371
Schelling and Vladimir Solov’yov – which brought frame. It explained a whole complex of questions
church and museum together in Russia at the turn relating to the central significance of the palace
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ‘The picture frame as an intimate part of the process of
museum as a church’ may have shortcomings as the creation of state mythology. This in turn led to
a working metaphor, but it helps to bring out a comparison between Repin’s picture and Lenin
significant changes in Russian spiritual life. It was Speaking at the Third Komsomol Congress from the
important, therefore, in discussion of changed studio of Boris Ioganson, which clearly showed how
ways of displaying icons in museums, to take into changes in state ideology can bring about changes
account how such displays were influenced by in the rhetoric of paintings, especially portraits, and
philosophy, political situations, ideology, religious their frames, including their place of display. It
experience, and, of course, current scientific ideas would, of course, have been possible to give further
and knowledge. It was possible to explore only one examples and analysis. However, individual prob-
of a number of aspects of the exhibition as a spatial lems could best be identified by reference to a
frame guiding the process of perception, neverthe- general context, which, if it did not produce
less a very important one, in that its study revealed complete explanations, could at least bring out
the hidden sanctity of museum interiors, where the the cultural-historical significance of the framing,
viewer not only felt drawn closer to ‘high’ art but in the widest sense, of a figure of power. It was there-
was also included in the very process of cultural fore important to simplify the vast and heteroge-
history, becoming an involuntary contemplator neous material and reduce it to fundamentals that
of works of art as objects of cultural-historical could be read to make historical sense.
specialist knowledge. It has often been pointed out that the emergence
It was necessary, of course, to be clear about of the portrait in art history reflects the evolution
how the rhetorical principle was realized, not only of individualism. It is no less interesting that the
in icons but also in imperial portraits and secular portrait frame reflects the same thing. Thus seven-
paintings. All three areas were found to display the teenth-century icon frames merely sacralized an
same movement towards graphic and convincing existing model on tomb portraits in the Cathedral
clarity and a more and more active impact of visu- of the Archangel in the Moscow Kremlin, signalling
al images on the perceiving mind. The example of that these should be perceived as religious images.
Repin’s painting Emperor Alexander III Receiving the Gradually, the frames of Russian palace portraits
Leaders of the Volosts in the Courtyard of the acquired the function of glorification of their
Petrovsky Palace, Moscow afforded the opportunity subjects. The rhetoric of their ornament was linked
of observing the indissoluble link between the to the characteristics of state mythology. Under
frame of the palace painting and not only the Western European influence, the frames of Russian
artist’s depiction but also palace architecture and palace portraits from the seventeenth century to
ornament and even palace ritual. It is not, there- the nineteenth acquired coats of arms, regalia,
fore, incidental that so much attention was paid monograms, accessories of all kinds, allegorical
to the contemporary viewer’s perception of this representations of heavenly powers and much else.

372
 conclusion

It would be wrong, however, to conclude that view- coronation ritual. The coordination of the picture
ers necessarily paid much attention to ornamental frame with coronation ritual gave the opportunity
details of the frames of the paintings they looked to show maximum correspondence between
at – rather, these would have been discreetly cam- various forms of framing of the image of an
ouflaged by surrounding palace decor. An adequate autocrat – plastic, literary, ceremonial, religious,
account of all this required some explanation of the coronation rite linking church and palace
the details of title and ritual. with fine symbolic threads and providing a most
From the era of Peter the Great up to 1917, the important cultural-historical context for many
titles of emperors and aristocracy were presented kinds of palace framings.
visually in an extraordinary variety of decorative In addition to all this, it was often found to be
and ornamental treatments that evolved within the the case that not only did the function of an image
panegyric tradition. Hence the symbolic ornament determine the frame, but that the function of a
of Repin’s ceremonial painting of Alexander iii is frame also loaded and enriched a picture with a
to be interpreted not only in terms of ideas and whole range of supplementary meanings connected
images of Moscow as the Third Rome. It is also a with state symbolism, ritual, and palace architecture
visual representation of the extended title of the and decor. This involved both the design of a frame
Emperor of Russia. Furthermore, this title, expressed and its ornamentation with symbols and figures
in a frame laden with regalia and trophy ornament, that contributed to the sacralization of the imperial
turned out to be linked not only with the triumphal personage and were initially seen in coronation
idea but also with that of continuity of power. The ritual. It is to be noted that the Soviet period saw
author considered it important to bring out this link a similar sacralizing process, with hidden links
fully because it is just such features of the picture between a political leader and religious mythology,
frame that have led to important new insights in which the frames of paintings, engravings,
into the problem of visual perception and made miniatures and photographs and the framings
it a widened field for research in recent years. provided by architectural niches and pedestals of
Consideration of trophy ornament on a frame, statues regularly beckoned to a world of enchanted
for example, revealed the interaction between the illusion – that leader’s only reliable means of
central image of a painting or engraving and its support. There was nothing new here; in both
frame ornament, particularly striking in the case palace and church in Russia, aesthetic space was
of a widely disseminated image used – especially in always permeated by a complex symbolic system.
engravings – as an instrument of mass propaganda, Throughout this book it has been emphasized
in order to instil a stereotypical image of a figure that the picture frame is a rhetorical instrument
of power into the mass mind. The frame for this and a concentrated form of beauty. It is on account
kind of image, in many respects far from reality, is of this that the display not only of Russian icons
always a clear interpretative marker, and the frame but of secular pictures too always involved a back-
of Repin’s painting of Alexander iii was found to be ground of complex rhetorical and aesthetic systems.
especially significant seen in the context of imperial The most striking example was provided by the

373
exhibitions of Vasiliy Vereshchagin, with their It corresponded to an understanding of the integrity
unusual degree of ideological commitment, in not of the world, of its unity and worth; it framed a
only a Russian but also a general European context. picture of the world of man from a defined view-
As in preceding cases considered in this book, their point, with permanent values and ideals. The
aesthetic space was not separated from the spiritual disappearance of such a frame, as of the image it
life of the nation. Using general comparative held, in twentieth-century art has placed art in
typological yardsticks, an important conclusion was general under question, and is an indicator of the
reached: a gradual dismantling of the Renaissance problematic nature of the external world, which
picture frame-as-window took place in parallel has come to seem increasingly meaningless and
with an increased tendency of visual images to unstable. Hence the minimalist strip surrounding
substitute for reality. an abstract painting comes to reflect the change-
Abstraction reduced the frame to a narrow able nature of a picture of the world of man as an
strip, with the aim of overcoming the boundary ‘ideological wanderer’ and the illusoriness of any
between art and life, influencing the world and given value system, and brings the whole question
giving it a new form. It is hard to disagree with of the picture frame to the forefront of contem-
Gadamer’s observation that the frame of the easel porary culturology.
painting began to be dismantled by contemporary Between these two poles, historical changes
artists at the beginning of the twentieth century, or occurred in the understanding of the role of the
with Heidegger’s suggestion that art such as it has picture frame in the creation of the illusory image.
been since the Renaissance, with emotional experi- They proceeded in close relationship with rhetorical
ence at its heart, is gradually dying and that this doctrine, the development of aesthetic theory, and
process, although it is taking place very slowly, the system of conventions in art. Thus in the eight-
will lead inexorably to a transition from experience eenth century the picture frame was subject to
of the past to Dasein, to the appearance of ‘a com- the will of the architect and served to harmonize
pletely new element, in which art may emerge’.1 a painting with the wall surrounding it. With the
In other words, the abolition of the conception onset of Romanticism, however, the frame became
of the frame-as-window in the twentieth century more and more subject to the will of the artist,
was driven by a desire to replace pictures with the who sought to reflect personal experience in his
problem of human existence, with the result that work. It was important, therefore, in the example
contemporary art ‘torpedoes’ life rather than imitat- of Vereshchagin’s exhibitions, to bring out not only
ing or adorning it, and has no need of the traditional the close links of the new methods of displaying
frame, being based on the unstable spatial frontier paintings with the Romantic period (and also with
between a world of symbolic forms and the world positivist ideas) but also to show how this artist’s
of real relations. It was noted at the beginning of exhibitions fitted into the broad context of the
this book that the Renaissance frame-as-window evolution of visual culture in the second half of
displayed a symbolic unity with the illusionist image the nineteenth century. Hence Vereshchagin’s
constructed on the principles of linear perspective. methods were seen to have been closely related

374
 conclusion

to the emergence of new techniques of influencing art, where it is not simply a question of manipu-
visual perception – the panorama, photography, the lation of the truth and historical facts, but rather
idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk. All these influential of the constant vulnerability of these facts to the
developments gradually led to the abolition of the historical processes of dissemination. It is as if a
picture frame and the increasing capacity of the never-ending game were being played here. It is
visual image to attain the illusion of reality, which well known that human eyes can be over-fond of
as a result brought about the dissolution of being deceived, taking true for false and vice versa.
the easel painting and its frame into the artist’s It will therefore be worth the reader’s while to
overall conception and the foregrounding of the give due consideration to any picture frames that
conceptual frame. Thus, if in Vereshchagin’s exhi- may be at hand at a given moment, and then this
bitions catalogues with descriptions and historical book will be seen in a new light: it will at once be
background to his paintings played an important supplemented by new observations and conclusions,
but still subordinate role, in the exhibitions of for the innumerable frames that surround us
the Russian avant-garde of the twentieth century, constantly bring new aspects and angles to our
catalogues and manifestos, with content that attention. Hence the frame is unlikely ever to
determined the process of perception, sometimes lose its cultural significance.
proved of greater importance than the work
exhibited. All this demonstrates the complex
mobility of the picture frame throughout the
history of Russian art, sometimes tending towards
invisibility, sometimes proclaiming its importance,
sometimes undergoing substitution or supplemen-
tation. And all these developments took place
simultaneously, cross-cutting and enriching each
other, in a multilayered culture.
Finally, the complexity of all these processes
was underlined by a glimpse at problems associated
with authentication, auctions, the antiquarian art
market and contraband in works of art; from time
immemorial these have been nebulous corners
where widely dispersed meanings, permutations
and substitutions of conceptual framings have
abounded and continue to abound. In order to
find a way through the numerous arguments and
counter-arguments on these topics, it was necessary
to sketch theoretical definitions in the areas that are
of such vital concern in the world of contemporary

375
abbreviations

Abramtsevo Museum: State Open-Air Museum of Fine Arts and Literary History
‘Abramstevo’, Moscow oblast
Archangel Museum of Art: Museum of Pictorial Arts, Archangel oblast
Archive of the Academy of Sciences: St Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian
Academy of Sciences
Arkhangel’skoye Museum: Museum-Estate ‘Arkhangel’skoye’, Moscow oblast
Art Museum of Velikiy Ustyug: Velikiy Ustyug Open-Air Museum of Architectural
History and Art
ban (Biblioteka Akadamiya nauk): Library of the Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg
bmst (Biblioteka Moskovskoy sinodal’noy tipografii): Library of the Moscow Sinodal
Press
ge (Gosudarstvennyy Ermitazh): State Hermitage, St Petersburg
gim (Gosudarstvennyy Istoricheskiy muzey): State Historical Museum, Moscow
gnima (Gosudarstvennyy nauchno-issledovatel’skiy muzey arkhitektury im.
A. V. Shchuseva): A. V. Shchusev State Research Museum of Architecture,
Moscow
grm (Gosudarstvennyy Russkiy muzey): State Russian Museum, St Petersburg
gtg (Gosudarstvennaya Tret’yakovskaya galereya): State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow
State Hermitage: State Hermitage, St Petersburg
iri (Istoriya russkogo iskusstva): A History of Russian Art, ed. I. E. Grabar’ (Moscow,
1913–14)
Kolomenskoye Museum: State Open-Air Museum of Architectural History and Art
‘Kolomenskoye’, Moscow
Kuskovo Museum: State Museum of Ceramics and ‘Eighteenth-Century Estate of
Kuskovo’, Moscow
Museums of the Moscow Kremlin: State Open-Air Museum of Cultural History ‘Moscow
Kremlin’
npg National Portrait Gallery, London
oarkh (Yezhegodnik Obshchestva arkhitektorov-khudozhnikov): Yearbook of the Society of
Architects and Artists, St Petersburg
orgrm (Otdeleniye rukopisey Gosudarstvennogo Russkogo muzeya): Department of
Manuscripts, State Russian Museum, St Petersburg

377
orgtg (Otdeleniye rukopisey Gosudarstvennogo Tret’yakovskogo galerei): Department
of Manuscripts, State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow
Ostankino Museum: Estate-Museum ‘Ostankino’, Moscow
Pereslavl-Zalessky Museum of Art: Museum-Preserve of Art History, Pereslavl-Zalessky
pldr (Pamyatniki literatury Drevney Rusi): Monuments of Old Russian Literature
(Moscow, 1994)
rgada (Rossiyskiy gosudarstvennyy arkhiv drevnikh aktov): Russian State Archive of
Early Documents, Moscow
Tsarskoye Selo Museum: State Open-Air Museum of Art and Architecture (with Palace
and Park) ‘Tsarskoye Selo’
tsmiar (Tsentral’nyy muzey drevnerusskoy kul’tury i iskusstva im. A. Rubleva):
A. Rublyov Central Museum of Early Russian Culture and Art, Moscow
Yaroslavl Museum-Preserve (Yaroslavskiy muzey-zapovednik): Yaroslavl Open-Air
Museum of Architectural History

378
 references

introduction
Picture Frame (1996); The Gilded Edge (2000); Bailey
1 The conventionalized nature of the transmission (2002).
of likeness is particularly well described by Ernst 9 Mosco (1991); The Art of the Picture Frame (1996);
Gombrich in Art and Illusion (Gombrich 1989). Italian Renaissance Frames (1990); Historische
In The Sense of Order, devoted to decorative art, Bilderrahmen (1996).
Gombrich touches on the problem of the interaction 10 Framing in the Golden Age (1995).
between representation and decor, which relates 11 It appears that at this exhibition original frames by
directly to the interpretation of the symbolic role of Western European artists from the second half of
ornament in the process of perception of the work the nineteenth century to the first quarter of the
of art (Gombrich 1994). Gombrich’s views are set out twentieth (Böcklin, Rossetti, Handt, von Stuck,
in compressed and laconic form in his discussion Klinger, Degas, Pissarro, Seurat, van Gogh, Magritte,
with Didier Eribon (Gombrich and Eribon, 1993). Dalí and many others) were brought together for the
2 For a general overview of this tendency, see Minor first time.
(1994). 12 Ortega y Gasset (1986), p. 21.
3 Schapiro (1996), p. 11. ‘Culture consists of signs, and 13 Turchin (1971); Turchin (1973); Kalugina (1988);
human cultural activity consists in giving them Karpova (2002); Sevastanova (2003); Frolova (2004).
meaning’ (Bel and Braysen 1996), p. 521. 14 Podoroga (1999); Sokolov (1999).
4 Guggenheim (1897). 15 At this exhibition, held in the Marble Palace in St
5 Falke (1892); Bode (1898–9); Bock (1902); Roche Petersburg, around 100 frames of artistic interest,
(1931); Ayrshire (1926); Morazzoni (1940); made in Russian framing workshops by various
Heydenryk (1964). craftsmen, were displayed. Those attributable to
6 Bock (1902), p. 21; Grimm (1981), p. 27. specific artists are allocated a separate section of
7 Heydenryk (1964); Grimm (1981); Mitchell (1984); the catalogue (Odet’ kartinu, 2005).
Mitchell and Roberts (1996). The last is one of the 16 Chubinskaya (1997).
fullest studies of picture frames from the point of 17 Tarasov (2000), pp. 82–6; Tarasov (2004), pp. 214–51;
view of the development of artistic styles, containing Tarasov, trans. Milner-Gulland (2002), pp. 249–80.
materials from all the world’s leading galleries. 18 Sofronova (ms, n.d.).
Following Heydenryk and Grimm, the authors give 19 Troitsky (1897).
their primary attention to the form and construc- 20 Lidov (2000).
tion of picture frames from Italy, France, Germany, 21 As Yuriy Lotman noted, ‘The frame of a picture,
Spain and the usa. the framing of a stage, the edges of a screen make
8 Fuchs (1985); Baldi and others (1992); The Art of the up the limits of the artistic world, locked into its

379
 own universality. Certain theoretical aspects of art as tessera. Even if it conveys nothing, discourse demon-
a modelling system are bound up with this. The strates the existence of communication’ (Lacan 1995,
work of art is a model of the limitless world, though p. 22); see also Lacan (1978), pp. 77–119.
itself spatially limited. The frame of a picture, the 32 See discussions of this subject in Khudozhestvennyy
footlights in a theatre, the beginning and end of a zhurnal (23, 1999), Pinakoteka (12, 2000). Outside
literary or musical work, the surface that delimits Russia the culturology of the museum is one of the
a sculpture or an architectural structure from the leading scholarly topics in art history. There is a
space that is excluded from it – all these are various wide literature on the subject, of which the most
aspects of the general rule of art: the work of art is interesting for our purposes are: Bennett (1995);
the ultimate model of the infinite world’ (Lotman Making History in Museums (1996); The Cultures
1998, p. 204). In Boris Uspensky’s works it was the of Collecting (1994); The New Museology (1989);
problem of the point of view of the author and New Museum (2006); Museum Studies (2006).
spectator in connection with the concept of the 33 Haskell (1995).
framing of the literary text that received primary 34 Mikhaylov (1997), pp. 112–75.
attention (Uspensky 1995, pp. 174–88, 259–60). 35 Berdyayev (1994), pp. 219, 233. An analogous view is
22 The purpose of both the material and the composi- expressed in Hans Belting’s works: Belting (2002).
tional frame of the work of art, in Zhegin’s opinion, 36 In this connection, recent studies have been paying
is ‘to isolate the forms of painting from the ever greater attention to questions not of the artistic
surrounding milieu’ (Zhegin 1970, p. 62). form of the icon as a finished work, but of the ways
23 Schapiro (1969); Schapiro (1996). in which the sacred image functions in society: see
24 Panofsky discusses drawings attributed to Cimabue, Robin Cormack, Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society
and how to establish their authorship through and its Icons (London, 1985), R. Ousterhout and
analysing their framing, executed by Giorgio Vasari. L. Brubaker, eds, The Sacred Image, East and West
As we know, Vasari produced such frames for the (Chicago, 1995), and Oleg Tarasov, Icon and Devotion:
woodcut portraits in his Lives of the Artists, Sculptors Sacred Spaces in Imperial Russia (London, 2002).
and Architects. The Gothic style of those made for In addition, the artistic form of the icon cannot be
Cimabue’s drawings poses questions that are no less regarded as ‘art’ from our modern point of view.
interesting for the researcher, in Panofsky’s opinion, Also, the degree of accomplishment attained by this
than the drawings themselves (Panofsky 1999, p. art is measured by its ability to conduct the viewer’s
205). gaze beyond the bounds of reality. In this sense the
25 Derrida (1987). icon is a most important experiment in overstepping
26 Derrida (1992), p. 55. the limits of humanity.
27 Zedl’mayr [Sedlmayer] (1999), p. 114–15. 37 Lotman (1992), p. 414.
28 Ibid., p. 114. 38 Losev (1990), p. 19.
29 The Rhetoric of the Frame (1996). 39 Bakhtin (1979), p. 331.
30 Arnkheym [Arnheim] (1974); Gombrich (1989);
Gombrich (1994); Zusne (1970); Kennedy (1974);
chapter 1: Symbolic Unity
Mitchell (1986); Mitchell (1994).
31 As the philosopher Lacan put it, ‘However vacuous 1 Dimitriy Rostovsky, ‘Komediya na Rozhdestvo
discourse might appear, it is so only on the surface. Khristovo’, in pldr, iii: xvii vek, p. 410.
We should remember the words of Mallarmé, who 2 Dionisiy Aeropagit, O bozhestvennykh imenakh,
compared the everyday use of language to the pass- iv, 7.
ing from hand to hand of a coin, long worn smooth 3 ‘Zhivopisnyye izobrazheniya v altare’,
on each side, circulating “in silence”. Such metaphors http://www.liturgi.ru.
are enough to remind us that the word, even if 4 Anisimov (1995), p. 53.
rubbed down to the limit, retains the value of a 5 Schapiro (1969), p. 225.

380
 references

6 Scholars have noted that the tokonoma niche, where Cf Stolpyansky (1913), p. 45.
vertical scrolls are placed in Japanese houses, is 21 Florensky (1990), p. 51.
derived from the altar in a Buddist temple, where it 22 Florensky (1922), pp. 90–91.
indicated the chief interior sacred place: Nikolayeva 23 Florensky (1990), p. 53.
(1989), p. 216. 24 Ibid., pp. 80–81.
7 Khaydegger [Heidegger] (1993), p. 216. 25 Ibid. (1990), p. 76. For a general overview of
8 Various types of frame in ancient art are examined Florensky’s scholarly ideas, see Misler (2002), pp.
in the monograph by Ehlich (1954). 85–92. Kemp (1990) is devoted to the creation and
9 Cormack (1997), pp. 69–70. exploitation of all kinds of optical and framing
10 Mathews (2001), pp. 170–72. This article sets out the devices for making perspective projections.
basic framing structures of early Byzantine icons. 26 For the influence of neo-Kantianism on Panofsky’s
On eight-sided frames of Sinai icons, see also outlook, see Holly (1984), pp. 114–57.
Weitzmann (1976), p. 33. 27 Panofsky (1997), p. 43.
11 rgada, 248/160/691/3615. 28 Ibid., pp. 51, 53–6.
12 Sterligova (2000), pp. 37–8. The metal covering 29 Vitruviy [Vitruvius] (1936); Alberti (1935–7); Vin’yola
(oklad) of an icon and its precious ornamentation [Vignola] (1939).
can also be seen as a frame that is not distinct from 30 The basic types of Renaissance frames are shown in
the medieval cult image, and constitutes a single particular in the following publications:
entity with it. In Sterligova’s monograph this Guggenheim (1897); Mosco (1991); Italian
conceptual unity of the icon and its ornament is Renaissance Frames (1990); Mitchell (1984).
demonstrated from abundant material revealing 31 C. Rowell, ‘Display of art, §ii, 1’, in The Dictionary
the liturgical and social significance of the way the of Art (London, 1996), ix, p. 14.
prayer image was framed. 32 For a more detailed treatment of the category of
13 Platon [Plato] (1994), p. 282. varietà in Renaissance poetics, see Batkin (1990),
14 Plotin [Plotinus], Enneads vi.7.32. pp. 27–104.
15 Sobolevsky (1914), pp. 111–13. 33 For example, the classical order system might be
16 Florensky (1990); Panofsky (1997), and also Russian regarded as a ‘civilizing social and psychological
edition (2004), pp. 29–211. factor’: Tataushvili (1998), p. 15.
17 The idea of the conquest of space found its embodi- 34 Panofsky (1999), p. 8; cf ‘For St Thomas the idea of
ment, of course, in one of the fundamental an object to be created exists in the artist’s mind as
Renaissance myths – that relating how ‘Deus artifex’ an ideal image, in imitation of which something is
(God the Creator) conquers space ‘by sequentially made’ [author’s italics], Eco (2004), p. 225.
ordering forms and images, thus taking possession 35 It has been observed that the parapet inscribed
of space for the “Great Artist” – be he God or human in the lower part of fifteenth-century Florentine
being’ (Toporov, 1994, p. 458). portraits in profile is reminiscent of the plinth of
18 Khaydegger [Heidegger] (1993), p. 147; see also a bust, making the picture resemble a grave stele.
Arnkheym [Arnheim] (1974), pp. 230–31. When augmented by a real frame or the representa-
19 Al’berti (1937), p. xxiv. tion of one, it had the function of a magical barrier
20 The fact that pictures and mirrors could take the separating two worlds at the moment when it was
same frames is interestingly attested in a notice of ruptured by the gaze of the person depicted, fixed
1737 in the St Petersburg News: ‘Out of many other on the viewer.
announcements the following from the Academy 36 Alberti (1937), p. 40; Leonardo da Vinci (1934),
of Sciences merits attention. In the vicinity of pp. 156–239.
the Academy some large gilded frames have 37 Leonardo da Vinci (1935), p. 88.
been found, but it is unclear to the Academy 38 Dyurer [Dürer] (1957), p. 262.
for what they are purposed: for mirrors or pictures.’ 39 Lotman and Uspensky (1970), pp. 144–66.

381
40 Lakhmann (1989), pp. 149–69; Zhivov (2002), p. 338. 56 Florensky (1993), pp. 275–81.
41 Annushkin (1999), pp. 225–38. 57 Peyts (1997), p. 19.
42 Ioannikiy Galyatovsky, Klyuch razumeniya (Kiev, 58 On how the two planes are framed, see Uspensky
1659). (1995), p. 293. The landscape behind the central
43 Grasian (1997). It has rightly been remarked that the figure is examined in its ‘framing’ role in Belting’s
innovatory meaning of the tract consisted in its work too: cf. Belting (2003), pp. 529–30.
reorientation of aesthetics from Aristotle’s Logic and 59 Bock (1902), p. 23; Grimm (1981), p. 27; Bailey
Poetics to his On Rhetoric (Daniel’, 1984), p. 55. (2002), p. 23.
44 Ushakov (1993), p. 58. 60 Pozdeyeva (1976), pp. 184–5.
45 Bychkov (1992), p. 608. 61 Kochetkov (1996), pp. 407–8.
46 Iosif Vladimirov, ‘Poslaniye nekoyego izugrafa Iosifa 62 Grasian (1997), p. 220.
k tsarevu izugrafu i mudreyshemu zhivopistsu 63 Despite the fact that the ‘Moscow Heretics’ had
Simonu Fedorovichu’, in Drevnerusskoye iskusstvo. already been condemned in 1714, their case contin-
xvii vek, p. 29. ued to be pursued in Synod documents right up to
47 As quoted in Sofronova (2002), pp. 190, 198. 1924. Tveritinov and his supporters spread icono-
48 Chekalevsky (1792), p. 33. clastic ideas both among students of the Slav-Greek-
49 Urvanov (1793), p. 9. Latin Academy and among icon painters: for more
50 It is a well-known fact that in the second half of the detail, see Tikhonravov (1898).
seventeenth century Piscator’s and Borcht’s Bibles 64 In the West a similar type of book was the
were widely employed as a source of new images: Marienatlas, compiled in 1657 by the Jesuit Wilhelm
cf. Buseva-Davydova (1993), pp. 190–206. Humpenberg and containing 1,200 icons of the
51 Alekseyeva (2003), pp. 64–6. Mother of God: Humpenberg (1957).
52 Rovinsky (1881), iii, no. 1354. 65 Vocotopoulos (2000), pp. 5–10.
53 Simeon Polotsky, too, wrote epigrams about icons. 66 Istoriya estetiki (1964), p. 628.
Among his works there are to be found ‘Verses on 67 This and related documents were first examined
Certain Images’ and ‘Subscript to Italian Icons’: cf. in N. N. Sobolev’s article: cf. Sobolev (1914). The
Sazanova (1991), p. 243. On icon inscriptions, see publication of Sobolev’s archival photographs was
also Tarasov (2002), pp. 262–77. Of course, the undertaken by G. A. Romanov (1992). For further
epigram genre reaches back to antiquity, when references to the actual archival documents, and also
poems dedicated to famous statues were particularly to their individual publication by Sobolev, see below.
widespread: see Braginsky (1979), p. 21. Meanwhile, we examine the framed Crucifixion by
54 Including inscriptions in the system of representa- Grigoriy Shumayev as a unified and finished work,
tion was a characteristic feature of Western and do not touch upon either the history of its
European Renaissance art in the fourteenth and creation, or the problems of its authorship. Probably
fifteenth centuries: cf. Butor (1969), Sparrow (1969). Grigoriy Shumayev was among those who executed
Around 1500 discursive inscriptions more or less this grandiose and unusual concept. As far as our
disappear from Northern European pictures, only topic is concerned, it is one of the Baroque period
to reappear abundantly in the last quarter of the frames in which the peculiarities of Baroque poetics
sixteenth century, as it would evidently seem, under and rhetoric were particularly clearly embodied.
the influence of Protestant ideas: Michalski (1996), 68 rgada, 248/100/7962/367, 395.
pp. 34–47. However, discursive texts acquire a 69 rgada, 248/100/7962/358, 365, 382, 382 reverse.
broad distribution only in Protestant and Catholic 70 Sofronova (1996), p. 61.
engravings, whose compositions are copied by 71 Dimitriy Rostovsky, pldr (1994), p. 410.
Russian artists. 72 Quoted from Sobolev (1914), pp. 108–9.
55 Rovinsky (1881), no. 1449, pp. 596–600. See also 73 As his model the master of our iconostasis most
Tarasov (1995), illus. 6. probably took Piscator’s Bible, in which the image of

382
 references

the Heavenly City is executed in the system of linear 84 Benua [Benois] (1910), p. 46.
perspective. 85 Fuko [Foucault] (1994), pp. 44–6; see also the
74 Cf. Sobolev (1914), p. 118. chapter ‘The Mirror in Art’ in Dillenberger (1990),
75 The first statements forbidding writing on the mar- pp. 51–66.
gins of sacred texts appear in the fifteenth century: 86 Florensky considered the absence of shadow in the
‘Whosoever writes on the margins of holy books medieval icon from the point of view of his meta-
shall have them all written out on the face in the physics of light, according to which the icon repre-
other world’; ‘Woe to him who makes marks on the sents transfigured reality, devoid of shade: ‘Light, in
margins of holy books: in the other world demons the painterly understanding, is merely the occasion
shall inscribe those words with an iron tool on his for the self-revelation of the object. By contrast, for
face’. As A. M. Panchenko has noted, these prohibi- the icon painter no reality exists beyond the reality
tions signified a change in the ‘philosophy of the of light itself and that to which it will give birth’:
written page’; they reveal a ‘civilized expansion of Florensky (1994), p. 136. The special treatment of
the medium’: Panchenko (2000), pp. 139–40. On the shadow in the icon also points to the motion of the
peculiarities of marginal images in Western spectator’s gaze, which is conditioned by the absence
medieval art, see Camille (1992). of any particular focus of light in the icon; the
76 Maguire (1981), p. 9. impulse to ‘eradicate’ masses that should be in dark-
77 Just as Christ and the Mother of God in icons with ness; the ‘contrariness of illumination’ in the sacred
Lives could be framed by representations of Gospel space of the icon: Florensky (1990), pp. 45, 47.
parables or extensive texts, so in book production The cultural-historical significances of shadow in
from the second half of the seventeenth century into Western European painting are examined, in partic-
the eighteenth a written account of a saint’s Life ular, in Stoichita (1997), pp. 42–87, and Gombrich
could be framed by solemn oratorical ‘discourses’ (1995).
and morally instructive examples. The same was 87 Istomin (1994), p. 256.
true of early printings of the Prolog, issued several 88 Yavorsky (1991), p. 263.
times from 1641 on: it included lives of saints, ampli- 89 ‘Anonimnaya poeziya’, pldr, xvii vek, Book 3 (1994),
fied by rhetorical sermons reflecting new currents p. 321.
in the theory of oratorical prose. There is a musical 90 This rare photograph of a mirror in framing of the
analogy for all these intricate representational and second half of the seventeenth century was taken by
literary framings – ecclesiastical part singing, or I. F. Barshchevsky in the chancel of the Cathedral of
‘multiple voices’, introduced into liturgical practice the Resurrection in Romanov-Borisoglebsk (1652),
in the seventeenth century. as testified by its inscription.
78 Khippisley [Hippisley] (1993), p. 24. 91 Sokolova (2003), pp. 153–9.
79 It is quite possible that the iconography of the 92 Sobolev (1914), p. 104.
architectural background of the Crucifixion 93 Boehn (1966), pp. 110–33.
expressed the idea of Moscow as the Second 94 Lotman (1998), p. 647.
Jerusalem: Yavorskaya (2006), p. 711. 95 Sofronova (1996), p. 96.
80 ‘We have long known of places where what needs 96 Gottlieb (1981), p. 73.
to be looked at is to be found within: the cell, the 97 Yavorsky (1991), p. 264.
sacristy, the church, the theatre, the study for reading 98 ‘The ladder to Heaven . . . which is in remembrance
or displaying prints. These are favourite creations of of the four last things, briefly described in verses’,
the Baroque age, its glory and its strength’: Delyoz ibid., pp. 302–20.
[Deleuze] (1998), p. 50. 99 Quoted from Sobolev (1914), p. 109.
81 Baksandoll [Baxandall] (2003), p. 95. 100 It was the strengthening of the didactic tendency in
82 rgada, 248/100/7962/397 reverse. the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century image that
83 Cf. Vdovin (1999), p. 174. led to the development of the iconography of angels

383
 – notably the appearance of new subjects in which historical museum, representing a collection of
angels constantly mediate between the earthly and works of art, will show future generations the level
the heavenly: Benchev (2005), pp. 217–31. of perfection that the contemporary art of painting
101 Sazonova (1991), p.87. has attained in Russia’: Mostovsky (1884), p. 71.
102 We are using the text as republished in 1995: 4 Kirichenko (1997), pp. 255–65.
Maksimovich-Ambodik (1995). 5 Art as a means for transfiguring reality had also
103 Ikonologiya (1803). been scrutinized in Germany. The idea was put
104 Tarasov (2000), pp. 155–65. forward by Richard Wagner in Das Kunstwerk der
105 Maksimovich-Ambodik (1995), p. 70. Zukunft (1850), and was actively developed by the
106 Ibid., p. 28. architect Gottfried Semper, the artist Franz von
107 Ibid., pp. 35, 31. Lehnbach, the art historian J. Brinckmann and many
108 Alciato (1531); Aneau (1552). others. It was given the name Gesamtkunstwerk
109 Istoriya estetiki (1964), p. 628. (‘Union of the Arts’) in German; we shall discuss it
110 Morozov and Sofronova (1974). in more detail below.
111 Praz (1975), p. 170; Blunt (1940), pp. 103–6. 6 Far-Bekker (2000), p. 31. On the resurrection and
112 Tarasov (1995), pp. 347–56. reconfiguration of Byzantine art in the work of the
113 The word ‘cartouche’ may derive from the Greek Pre-Raphaelites, see Bullen (2003), pp. 151–68.
charta (‘papyrus’, ‘paper’). In Gombrich’s opinion, 7 Solov’yov (1966), p. 90.
there is an alternative derivation from the Italian 8 Kant (1966), p. 233.
word cartellino, that is, ‘small card’ (or ‘paper’), 9 Solov’yov (1966), p. 58.
which was inserted into a picture as part of the 10 Ibid. p. 58.
representation. It was on cards of this kind that 11 Dal’ (1878), p. 77.
Renaissance artists often inscribed their name or 12 Butovsky (1870); Stasov (1872); Stasov (1870);
some sort of dedication of their work: Gombrich Gagarin (1887). Fedor Buslayev in articles of the
(1994), p. 241; compare Vyol’flin [Wöllflin] (2004), 1860s and 1870s was the first to show the historical
pp. 100–01. The cartouche apparently began its evolution of Old Russian book illumination: i.e. the
triumphant progress from the decoration of the sequential development in ancient manuscripts of
Raphael Stanze in the Vatican Palace, where it basic decorative styles – Byzantine, Teratological,
appears as what is known in German as Rollwerk, Balkan and Neo-Byzantine; Buslayev (1917), pp. 84–9,
literally something ‘rolled into a tube’ – ornament 153–4.
containing figurative compositions and patterns 13 Butovsky (1870), p. 1. Numerous Western publications
within a motif of the rolled-up leaves of a book or on the history of ornament have pursued similar
a scroll: Sokolov (1999), pp. 158–9. goals: cf. Jones (1856); Spelz (1910); Evans (1975). At
114 Ripa (1971). the same period examples of ornament become the
115 Ornamental’naya gravyura (1986), p. 28; see also subject of private collectors and museums: to quote
Rakova (1999), nos. 29, 31, 113. Stasov, ‘The unusual forms and beauties of Russian
116 Delyoz [Deleuze] (1998), pp. 50–51. ornament have at last attracted to it that universal
attention that was for so long denied it. At the pres-
ent time not only here, but in many public museums
chapter 2: From the Middle Ages to
and private collections special sections have been
Romanticism
formed, dedicated to the assembly of objects among
1 Ivanov (1974), p. 664. which Russian national ornament plays the most
2 Polenova (1922), pp. 30–43. significant role’: Stasov (1872), p. iii. In craft museums,
3 It should be noted that the Church of Christ the examples of ornament are collected and classified
Saviour in Moscow was sometimes seen in this light: on historical principles. Such were the collections
‘The Church of Christ the Saviour in the role of not only of the Stroganov School in Moscow, but

384
 references

also of Baron Stieglitz’s College of Technical century, decorative motifs penetrate Russian
Drawing in St Petersburg, where specialists in architecture basically from Holland, Denmark and
applied art were trained. Examples of ornament Germany. Here we are dealing both with decorative
were used as teaching materials in the study of the devices and with the typical repertoire of early
history of artistic styles. Mannerism, still inspired by echoes of Renaissance
14 Sarab’yanov (1989), p. 181. ornamentation: here there are decorative arabesques,
15 Sakharova (1964), p. 506. and motifs of vegetal ornament, and stylized pat-
16 Ryoskin [Ruskin] (1900), p. 287, and (1904), p. 24. terns of “Mooresque” type. The decoration is prima-
17 Grabar’ (1913), p. 116. rily of two-dimensional character, is distinguished
18 Rozanov (1994), p. 257; see also Svechnikov (1913); by brilliant colourfulness and has chiefly a “filler”
Izgoy (1899), p. 491–2; Dedlov (1901), p. 49. function . . . Among early examples the decorative
19 Solov’yov (1993), p. 174. adornment of entrance ways into living quarters –
20 Vasnetsov (1987), p. 81. whose prototypes are found in Germany (Lübeck
21 The Committee for the Care of Russian Icon and Wismar) from the middle and later sixteenth
Painting (1901–18), under the aegis of Emperor century – are particularly instructive. The transition
Nicholas ii, recommended the religious images of to a second stage is demonstrated by the ceramic
Vasnetsov as models for the icon craftsmen of tile decor of the cathedral of the New Jerusalem
Palekh, Mstyora and Kholuy: for more detail on this, monastery, from the second half of the seventeenth
see Tarasov (2001), pp. 73–101. century. Here we observe the favourite decorative
22 For more detail on the Romantic cult of Raphael, see motifs of high Mannerism – the cartouche (Rollwerk)
Belting (2001), pp. 59–62. and masks; meanwhile the motif of fantastic
23 Vinkel’man [Winckelmann] (1933), pp. 206–13. “scutcheons” is also repeated in the ornamental
24 Bulgakov (1902), pp. 120–23. colonnade, while at the same time the characteristic
25 Panofsky (1999), p. 82. late Mannerist blending and interweaving of the
26 Berdyayev (1994), p. 309. “filling out” and “framing” functions is observed.’
27 Shelling [Schelling] (1996), pp. 48, 70. Vipper also notes that the ceramic decoration of
28 Vasnetsov (1987), p. 81. certain Yaroslavl churches of the second half of
29 According to Ye. Golubinsky, in Old Russian churches the seventeenth century (for example of St John
‘local icons were placed outside the barrier, that Chrysostom in Korovniki) are a variant of those
is to say, behind or in front of it in special casings, sculptural frames that in Northern European lands
and it was only at a later date that they were made decorated a multitude of monuments, altars and
properly part of it’: Golubinsky (1872), pp. 585–6. altar pictures at the turn of the sixteenth century
30 Buseva-Davydova (2000), p. 623. into the seventeenth: Vipper (1978), pp. 20–21.
31 When framing Western European images of Christ 32 Benua [Benois] (1910), p. 50.
and the Virgin, flower and fruit ornamentation 33 Vyol’flin [Wölfflin] (2004), p. 145.
always carried a complex weight of symbolism. 34 Delyoz [Deleuze] (1998), p. 52; Vyol’flin [Wölfflin]
Lilies, for example, could indicate not only the (2004), pp. 187–209.
purity of the Virgin Mary, but also Christ’s victory 35 Tarabukin (1999), p. 107.
over death, roses with thorns foreshadowed the 36 Panofsky (1999), pp. 86–7.
Saviour’s torments, flowering thistles were a 37 Chekalevsky (1792), pp. 30–33.
widespread symbol of the sufferings on the Cross, 38 Eliade (1994), p. 24.
and so on; for more on this, see Zvezdina (2000), 39 Bobrik (2000), pp. 525–58.
pp. 651–69. As Boris Vipper observed, all this new 40 Gosudarstvennaya Tret’yakovskaya gallereya (1995),
ornamentation of Russian places of worship and p. 132.
domestic buildings showed features of European 41 Interwoven ornament has sometimes been associat-
Mannerism: ‘In the first half of the seventeenth ed with such literary images as ‘the snares of the

385
 world’, ‘the snares of evil’, ‘the fetters of untruth’, as 67 Grabar’ (1913), p. 424.
also with such attributes of Christian asceticism as 68 On the same analogy, the west wall of the icono-
chains, straps, ropes and rosaries; Kiselev (1984), stasis, by Rastrelli, at St Andrew’s church in Kiev
pp. 174–5. (1746–8) was painted with subjects from the Old
42 Pluzhnikov (1977), p. 88. Testament and Apocalypse: cf. Bezsonov (1951), p. 17.
43 On the significance of daylight in the formation of 69 Urvanov (1793), pp. 19–21.
the sacred space of the medieval place of worship, 70 If we regard the signature of a craftsman as a ‘fram-
see Dell’Acqua (2006), pp. 299–324. ing device’, which is always at the periphery of the
44 Window frames close in form to the corona of the gaze directed towards the icon, then its content,
Mother of God can be seen in the walls of St location and composition will acquire additional
Nicholas in Khamovniki, Moscow, and the Trinity meanings. In the Middle Ages, as a rule, icons were
Church (1668) in Ostankino, a suburb of Moscow; not signed. Occasionally, the name of the craftsman
see Grabar’ (1913), plates on pp. 173 and 128. was put on the back of the icon. In connection with
45 Gottlieb (1981), pp. 67-82. the development of the concept of the ‘master crafts-
46 Berdyayev (1994), p. 221. man’ in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
47 Vinkel’man [Winckelmann] (1996), pp. 194, 196. icons more and more often carry a signature. On
48 For more detail on the history of the Mandylion, see icons by the craftsmen of the Armoury Palace of the
Yevseyeva and others (2003). second half of the seventeenth century the inscrip-
49 Vasnetsov (1987), p. 21. tion could include the place and time of the icon’s
50 Bulgakov (1993), p. 283. painting, its dedication and the name of the patron.
51 Panofsky (1999), p. 194. We should note that in Here for example is the inscription on an icon of the
ecclesiastical rhetoric the snake has from ancient Dormition of the Mother of God in the Tretyakov
times been one of the most widespread and active Gallery Collection: ‘In the year 7171/1663 this present
symbols. It suffices to recollect the ‘S’ shaped image was painted by the icon painter Pimin, known
representation of a serpent on the Tau cross, which as Simon son of Feodor Ushakov, with his pupils
in one of the emblems of the Rosicrucian order Yegor and Ivan, for the Gorokhovsky district to go
symbolizes wisdom revealed through initiation to the hermitage on the Krasnyye Frolishchevskiye
– a journey towards the spiritual sphere up the hills, for the monastery church of the Dormition
vertical axis of the cross. of the Most Holy Mother of God, founded by the
52 Sokolov (1999), p. 465. abbot Ilarion, that peace should come unto him
53 Dal’ (1905), p. 266; see also Sreznevsky (1989), and to his relations’: Antonova and Mnyova (1963),
pp. 1207, 1209. pp. 410–11. The craftsman’s signature might also be
54 Abramovich (1931), p.119. placed in a separate compartment, no longer located
55 Quoted from Shchennikova (2002), p. 153. on the margin of the icon, but within the central
56 Uspensky (1902), p. 15. element – that is, like the signature on a Western
57 Ibid., p. 8. European painting or engraving.
58 For a more detailed account, see Tarasov (1995), 71 Incidentally, this process has direct analogues in
pp. 311–86. Western European art: images for prayer painted on
59 Uspensky (1910), pp. 27–8, 31. boards with integral framings, as also laths glued to
60 Ibid., pp. 38, 31, 245, 244. the board of an altar polyptych, are regarded as an
61 Riegl (1901). intermediate stage in the separation of the frame
62 Sobolev (2000), p. 167. from the image: see Grimm (1981), pp. 26–30;
63 Białostocki (1976), pp. 84–5. Mitchell and Roberts (1996), pp. 86–7.
64 Moroz (1998), p. 120. 72 Zabelin (1862), pp. 163–4; see also Rovinsky (1900),
65 Eliade (1994), p. 17. pp. 66–71.
66 Quoted from Sofronova (1996), p. 61. 73 The Dutch painter Dettersohn is first mentioned as

386
 references

a member of the Armoury Palace staff in 1642. From hence also a festive quality’: Benua (1912), p. 11.
the 1660s S. Lopucki and D. Wuchters, and also a 80 ‘Dva tainstvennykh dvortsa Razumovskikh’, Stolitsa
Greek called A. Yur’yev, worked there; and in i usad’ba (1914), no. 16–17, p. 6.
1679–80 the ‘foreigner’ I. Val’ter. It is known that a 81 Fergyuson [Fergusson] (1998), pp. 160, 226.
painting workshop, headed by Ivan Bezmin, was set 82 Solov’yov (1966), p. 85.
up in 1683. From 1687 a painting studio under Karp 83 Veselovsky (1939), p. 132.
Zolotaryov worked at the Great Ambassadorial 84 Buslayev (1908), pp. 252–3.
Court. We can suppose that it was from this time 85 Ibid., p. 252.
that picture frames became a widespread feature of 86 The Origins of Museums (1985).
Russian court culture. 87 Rakina (1995), p. 22.
74 The document is published in Yevangulova (1987), 88 Buslayev (1897), pp. 168–70.
pp. 272–3, 275–8. 89 For more about these collections, see Filimonov
75 We should note that in the Renaissance period (1849); Pogodin (1849).
frames sometimes cost more than their pictures. 90 Vzdornov (1986), pp. 194–5.
Thus, as Vasari testifies, for one Florentine altar 91 orgtg, 31/657/1.
the artist Filippo Lippi received 200 gold crowns, 92 Likhachev (1898), pp. 59–60.
while the frame-maker Baccio d’Agnolo was paid 93 Dil’tey [Dilthey] (1909), pp. 30–36.
250, and another 200 for the gilding. The cost of 94 In particular, Renaissance und Barock (1888) by
framing Botticelli’s Virgin and Child with SS Wölfflin came out in a Russian translation in 1913. It
John the Baptist and John the Evangelist (1485; was just at that period that art history was becoming
Gemäldegalerie, Berlin) was also rather high. For a self-sufficient scholarly discipline in Russia, and a
the picture, the artist received 75 florins and 15 solidi formal school of national art history was in the
(out of which 2 florins were earmarked for ultra- process of formation. Under the influence of
marine pigment, and 38 for the gilding of the frame), German scholarship the work of art was beginning
while the sculptor Giuliano da Sangallo took 24 gold to be regarded as a self-contained form. In St
gulden, 8 solidi and 5 dinari for making the frame Petersburg the centre for the study of the German
and preparing the board for painting: Grimm (1981), formal school was the Institute of Art History,
pp. 19, 30. opened by V. Zubov in 1912; while in Moscow it was
76 Ibid. p. 22, illus. 30, 64, 440; Heydenryk (1964), p. 31. Moscow University, where the works of Semper,
77 Eko [Eco] (2004), p. 226. Wölfflin, Worringer, Riegl, Fiedler and other schol-
78 Zapiski imperatritsy (1907), p. 53. ars were enthusiastically studied. In 1914 Adolf von
79 Benua [Benois] (1910), pp. 44, 53. It is worth noting Hildebrand’s Das Problem der Form in der bildenden
that it was evidently the artists of the ‘World of Art’ Kunst was published in Russian translation, and at
group who were the first to notice the significance of the same time the first scholarly history of Russian
Russian eighteenth-century icon painting: ‘The busi- art was in preparation under the editorship of Igor
ness of icon painting had its own kind of flowering Grabar’ (1913–14).
under Elizabeth. It is true to say that all the bases of 95 Russkaya ikona (1, 1914), pp. 5–6.
its earlier splendour had been forgotten; it is true 96 Rerikh (1914), pp. 14, 17, 19.
that it presented a strange and often unpleasant 97 For more detail on the collectors and collections of
mixture of Byzantinism with Western elements, with that period, see Vzdornov (2006), pp. 217–55.
the latter incidentally much more apparent than the 98 Bobrov (1987), p. 38; Nikiforaki (1936), pp. 144–7.
former. But all the same the icon painters continued 99 Shchekotov (1913), pp. 41–2, 39.
to have an excellent understanding of the decorative 100 See Lipps (1909), pp. 377–81.
significance of icons, and they had not forgotten 101 Muratov (1914), p. 4.
many of the technical devices that had given their 102 As Aleksey Grishchenko has noted, it was just at
works an admirable brightness and freshness – that time ‘that the term Novgorod icon [author’s

387
 emphasis] became a synonym for all that was out-
chapter 3: The Lustre of Power
standing and remarkable in the field of the Russian
icon’; Grishchenko (1917), p. 47. 1 Kamer-fur’yerskiy tseremonial’nyy zhurnal, 21 (1885),
103 Aleppsky (1897), p. 108. p. 45.
104 Ryabushinsky (1908), pp. 1700–05. 2 Ibid., p. 48.
105 This kind of ‘restoration’ sometimes involved freely 3 Koronatsionnyy sbornik, i (1899), p. 147.
exchanging various elements of the iconostasis 4 ‘The Antechamber is square, its walls light blue with
(maybe those in private collections too), replacing white stucco mouldings. Directly before the main
genuine icons with copies painted onto old boards. entrance hangs a painting by the artist Repin,
106 Muratov (1914), p. 6. Emperor Alexander iii Receiving the Heads of the
107 Shchekotov (1914), p. 140. Volosts in the Inner Courtyard of the Petrovsky Palace
108 Grishchenko (1917), p. 249. beyond the Tver’ Barrier’: Bartenev (1916), p. 35.
109 Shcherbatov (2000), p. 210. 5 On the semantics of the words ‘beginning’ and ‘end’
110 Haskell (1995), pp. 461–8. as a symbolic frame giving unity and integrity to an
111 See the illustrated catalogue Vystavka drevnerusskogo object, see Arutyunova, ed. (2002).
iskusstva (1913). 6 Bartenev (1916), p. 45.
112 Muratov (1913), p. 36; see also Punin (1913), pp. 39, 41. 7 Lotman and Uspensky (1993), p. 206.
113 Muratov (1913), p. 34. 8 Sers (2001), p. 141; for detail on the cult of Lenin,
114 Florensky (1985), pp. 49–50. see Groys (2003), pp. 88–97; on the influence of
115 Russkaya ikona, 2 (1914). sacred archetypes in Stalinist culture, see also
116 Ibid., 1 (1914). Papernyy (1996).
117 Sychev (1916), pp. 6–7. 9 Zhivov and Uspensky (1994), pp. 110–218.
118 Shcherbatov (2000), p. 43. 10 Solov’yov (1989), p. 602.
119 ‘Natal’yevka (Khar’kovskoy gub. Bogodukhovskogo 11 Losev (1990), p. 24.
uyezda im[eniye] P. I. Kharitonenko)’, Stolitsa i 12 Quoted in Zhivov and Uspensky (1994), p. 160.
usad’ba, 32 (1915), pp. 8–9. Defining the church on 13 Benua [Benois] (1910), p. 102.
the estate as a ‘museum-church’, the author of this 14 In the middle of the nineteenth century, all this
article wrote: ‘Among famous collections of Old Baroque symbolism became politically unacceptable
Russian icon painting, that which is assembled at to the Church authorities. The frame with celestial
Natal’yevka has an outstanding place, both through figures bearing the image or monogram of the
the quality and rarity of individual specimens and monarch up to heaven makes the composition look
through the general artistic impression which these like a supplicatory image, all the more so since such
[masterpieces] of Russian religious painting pro- portraits were placed in churches next to icons.
duce. Several items from Kharitonenko’s collection It was for this reason that Filaret, Metropolitan of
of icons were displayed at the “Exhibition of Icon Moscow, pronounced that the archangels Michael
Painting and Artistic Antiquities” at the meeting of and Gabriel should not be depicted supporting the
artists in Petersburg in 1911–12, and in Moscow at the imperial coat of arms, and he issued a resolution,
celebrations of the three-hundredth anniversary of ratified in 1832, that portraits of the emperor and
the Romanov dynasty. A “tier” of nine large icons in members of the imperial family should be removed
the fifteenth-century Novgorod manner attracted from churches: ‘His Imperial Majesty, having obser-
particular public attention.’ ved in certain churches portrayals not belonging to
120 Trubetskoy (1993), p. 208. those placed there in order to promote reverence
121 Bulgakov (1993), p. 286. and worship and to arouse a spirit of prayer, in
122 Fyodorov-Davydov (1975), p. 117. accordance with His Imperial Majesty’s habitual
123 Fyodorov-Davydov (1933), pp. 70–71. feeling of reverence towards the Holy Church and of
124 Bazin (1967), pp. 263–4. humility before God, is pleased to decree that there

388
 references

shall be no representations in churches save images as firework displays and masquerades, which
of saints and paintings and portrayals from sacred emphasized the limitless character of autocratic
history and the history of the Church depicting power. See further Vasil’yev (1960); Tyukhmeneva
sacred events; and that in particular, portraits of his (2005).
Most August family shall not be placed in churches’: 30 Arsen’yev and Trutovsky (1914), p. 104.
Filaret (1895), pp. 85–6. 31 Maksimovich-Ambodik (1995), p. 26.
15 Viktorov (1882), p. 393. 32 Russkoye iskusstvo epokhi barokko (1984), pp. 39–40;
16 Quoted in Yevangulova (1987), p. 272. see also ‘Konklyuziya na prestolonaslediye 1742 goda’,
17 Presnova (1995), p. 34. ibid., p. 30.
18 This unusual frame performed a multiplicity of 33 To the iconography of Kneller’s portrait belongs,
tasks. Its red colour not only enhanced the dramatic for example, one of the earliest indoor ceremonial
significance of the portrait but also picked it out on portraits of Peter i by an unknown artist (c. 1703)
the wall. Candlelight sharpened its profile, spreading and also the well-known Apotheosis of Peter that
its shadow. But a gilt frame could achieve no less an reproduces the composition of Daniil
effect; owing to its reflective capacity, gilt literally Galyakhovsky’s engraving of 1709 presented to the
‘burned’, distributing light over the paint surface. tsar by Feofan Prokopovich after victory at Poltava;
19 Further on this topic, see Grebenyuk (1989), pp. 191–2, Russkiy istoricheskiy portret (2004), illus. 75, 79.
194. 34 Stolpyansky (1913), p. 46.
20 Frolova (2004), pp. 15–16. 35 Russkoye iskusstvo epokhi barokko (1984), p. 40.
21 Originally this carved frame by P. Spol’ was intended 36 Novoye vremya, 1 (13) May 1883.
for a portrait of Catherine ii. After the coronation of 37 Ibid., 2 (14) May 1883. A description of the corona-
Paul i in 1796, N. P. Sheremetev commissioned tion ritual was also contained in a separate publica-
Argunov’s portrait using this frame; see Yelizarova tion, Koronovaniye i svyashchenneysheye miropo-
(1966), pp. 30–31. mazaniye ikh imperatorskikh velichestv . . . (1883).
22 Ye. S., ‘Usad’ba Struiyskikh “Ruzayevka”’, Stolitsa i 38 Published as illustrations in Koronatsionnyy sbornik,
usad’ba (1915), no. 38–9, pp. 3–4. i (1899).
23 ‘Volokitin’, Stolitsa i usad’ba (1915), no. 44, pp. 4–5. 39 Bogolyubov (1895), pp. 35–6.
24 The curtain usually moved on a thread fastened to 40 Koronovaniye (1883), p. 33.
the inner edges of the frame. Furthermore, traces 41 Uspensky (1998), pp. 15–16.
of similar fastenings have been found together on 42 Koronatsionnyy sbornik, i (1899), p. 16.
the same frame in examples from the seventeenth 43 Ibid., p. 135.
and eighteenth centuries, indicating that different 44 Al’bom koronatsii ikh imperatorskikh velichestv 15
curtains were attached to it from time to time: maya 1883 goda (1883).
S. Grimm (1981), p. 23. 45 Slovo v den’ svyashchennogo koronovaniya (1883),
25 Depiction of trophies is also an independent theme pp. 6–7, 10–12.
of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century decorative 46 Novoye vremya, 27 May (8 June) 1883.
engravings. The Hermitage Collection, for example, 47 ‘Rech’ Gosudaryu Imperatoru, proiznesyonnaya
contains a series of engravings titled ‘Military vysokopreosvyashchennym mitropolitom
trophies in the Italian style, newly designed and moskovskim Ioannikiyem pri osvyashchenii khrama
engraved by J. Lepotre’: Ornamental’naya gravyura, Khrista Spasitelya 26 maya’, Novoye vremya, 29 May
p. 50. (10 June) 1883.
26 Pis’ma i bumagi Petra Velikogo, i (1887), p. 603. 48 Lotman, Kul’tura i vzryv (1992), p. 111.
27 Poplavsky (2000).
28 Pis’ma i bumagi Petra Velikogo, ix/2 (1952), pp. 1023–4.
29 The construction of these triumphal gates was coor-
dinated with other triumphal artistic spectacles such

389
 Antique vessels and statues – for example, ‘Pirr. [son
chapter 4: Between Industry and Art
of] Agasicles made me’ or ‘I am a statue of Phoebus
1 Bakhtin (1979), p. 117. Apollo, the splendid son of Latona’ – which practice
2 Kant (1966), p. 229. passed on to the inscriptions of Renaissance masters.
3 ‘For His Majesty’s study on the first floor of the See further Braginskaya (1979), pp. 17–21.
Petrovsky Palace: wall mouldings and a frame 23 Katalog kartinam, etyudam i risunkam V. V.
for a painting showing the election of Mikhail Vereshchagina (1874). The frame bearing this inscrip-
Feodorovich Romanov as Tsar’ (1859): rgada, tion is preserved in the Tretyakov Gallery. Pavel
1239/3/21/19 166. Tretyakov may have acquired it after Vereshchagin
4 Diderot (1989), pp. 66–7. destroyed the painting and it may have served to
5 Gogol (1949), pp. 77, 82–3; Kibrik’s drawing is from display the photograph taken of the work.
N. V. Gogol’, Portret (Moscow, 1979), p. 87. 24 Karamzin (1964), p. 192.
6 Ortega y Gasset (1991), pp. 200–21. 25 Contrasting depiction and text was one of the
7 On orientalism in painting, see Said (1991); favourite devices of the artists of the avant-garde,
Thornton (1983); The Orientalists (1984). who were fond of complicating the process of
8 ‘Vereshchagin’s artistic experiments,’ writes one perception. ‘I chose titles in such a way,’ explained
modern scholar, ‘not only found a response from Magritte, ‘as not to place my pictures on the level of
contemporary painters but also foreshadowed the the expected, where an automatic train of thought
art that was to come in the shape of the cinemato- would always lead them away from the realm of
graph. In fact, he approached the system of repre- unease’ (quoted by Foucault [Fuko], 1999, p. 44).
sentation that in the language of the cinema was to Foucault set out to explain this procedure in a
be called the panoramic’: Bruk (2004), pp. 21–3. detailed investigation of calligrams (ibid., pp. 15–36).
9 V. V. Vereshchagin v Tretyakovskoy galereye (1992), 26 Katalog kartinam, etyudam i risunkam V. V.
p. 142. Vereshchagina (1874).
10 ‘Vystavka kartin V. V. Vereshchagina’, Molva, 57, 1880. 27 Ibid., pp. 4, 15.
11 Lebedev (1972), p. 197. 28 orgtg, 1/893.
12 ‘Po povodu vereshchanskoy vystavki kartin’, Iskusstvo 29 Russkoye slovo (1895), no. 321.
i khudozhestvennaya promyshlennost’, 16 (1900), p. 213. 30 Ibid.
13 Vereshchagin (1982), p. 144. 31 Quoted by Lebedev (1972), p. 200.
14 Karpova (2002), p. 184. 32 Stasov (1894), p. 10.
15 Rhodes (1997), pp. 74–84. 33 Ben’yamin [Walter Benjamin] (1996), pp. 22, 25–6.
16 Vereshchagin (1874). 34 Katalog vystavki kartin V. V. Vereshchagina (1883). For
17 Perepiska V. V. Vereshchagina i V. V. Stasova, ii (1951), books by Vereshchagin sold at his exhibitions, see
p. 90. the first five titles in Russian and the single title in
18 Katalog vystavki kartin V. V. Vereshchagina (1883), English listed in the Bibliography.
pp. 6–10. 35 Vereshchagin (1874).
19 orgtg, 17/672. 36 Perepiska V. V. Vereshhagina i V. V. Stasova, ii (1951),
20 Perepiska V. V. Vereshchagina i P. M. Tretyakova p. 105.
(1963), p. 14. 37 Bazhak [Quentin Bajac] (2003), p. 87.
21 See further Wazbinski (1963), pp. 278–83. 38 Schapiro (1969), pp. 227, 241–2.
22 Speaking epitaphs and epigrams were a constant 39 Arnkheym [Arnheim] (1974), p. 231.
tradition from antiquity through the Byzantine era 40 As is well known, Degas’ frames interested Sergey
up to medieval Europe, with the commemorated Eisenstein, who in the opinion of Vyacheslav Vs.
dead personally addressing a wide variety of Ivanov anticipated both Schapiro’s conclusions and
persons, such as passers-by, travellers, friends and the general formulation of the problem of the frame
family. The same was true of speaking epitaphs on in modern art history. In January 1948 Eisenstein

390
 references

stated that ‘Degas’ moment-seizing frame engenders 71 Semyonov and Khorev (1990), p. 145.
knowledge’ and ‘anticipates the cinematographic 72 Repin (1986), p. 403.
frame’: Ivanov (1999), i, pp. 214–19. 73 Stolpyansky (1913), p. 51.
41 Bazhak [Bajac] (2003), pp. 75–7. 74 Gogol (1949), p. 70.
42 Burke (2001), p. 150. 75 Mitchell and Roberts (1996), p. 13.
43 Bann (2001), p. 123. 76 The art of the frame reached a peak in the eight-
44 Quoted by Lebedev (1972), p. 187. eenth century, when specialists exclusively devoted
45 Tugendhol’d (1916), pp. 95, 103. to the framing of paintings appeared at the courts
46 Burke (2001), p. 150. of European monarchs – for example, the French
47 Nemirovich-Danchenko (1878), p. 93. masters Etienne-Louis Infroit and A. Levert, making
48 Lebedev (1972), p. 209. frames in Louis xvi style for the palaces and galleries
49 Quoted by Bulgakov (1896), p. 182. of the French aristocracy, which they were exceptional
50 Benua [Benois] (1955), pp. 143–5. in signing (Grimm, 1981, p. 18, illus. 296, pp. 306, 307).
51 Ziloti (1998), p. 115. Typical of the Louis xvi style were the oval frames
52 Repin (1986), p. 25. widespread in France between 1770 and the 1790s,
53 Mudrogel’ (1961), pp. 127–30. See the discussion associated with the fashion for ancient Roman
prompted by Balashov’s attack on this painting cameos (Newbery, 2002, p. 50). This was the heyday
(Voloshin, 1913, p. 2). of the ornamental designs of the French goldsmith
54 orgtg, f. no. 64. J. Aurèle Meissonnier (1695–1750), especially his
55 Comment (1999), p. 52. ‘Book of Ornaments’, and the ornamental prints
56 Ibid., illus 79, 114, 127–30, 131. of Antoine Watteau, François Boucher, Jacques de
57 ‘B. N. W.’, Staryye gody (July–Sept 1913), p. 218. Lajoue and Nicolas Pineau (Rakova, 1997, p. 6).
58 Arapov (1861), p. 310. 77 Newbery (2002), p. 34; Mitchell and Roberts (1996),
59 Bazhenov (1869), p. 103. p. 40; Sevast’yanova (2004), pp. 42–3.
60 Paston (2003), pp. 324–5. 78 orgtg, 1/1687.
61 Makovsky (1955), p. 83. 79 Minchenkov (1959), p. 70.
62 ‘Videniye proshlogo’, Stolitsa i usad’ba (1916), nos. 80 Ibid., pp. 169, 211.
60–61, p. 25. 81 Ibid., p. 288.
63 The director is here emphasizing that the difference 82 Mudrogel’ (1961), pp. 29–30.
between the cinematographic shot and that of the 83 orgtg, 1/884.
ordinary camera is that in the former the visual 84 Ibid., no. 885.
composition is constantly changing (Kuleshov, 1999, 85 Ibid., no. 968.
pp. 34–6). It is interesting therefore to compare the 86 Ibid., no. 67.
edge of the cinematographic lens, seizing a ‘piece’ of 87 Ibid., f. 15, no. 40.
reality, with the frame-device for creating a perspec- 88 Minchenkov (1959), p. 96.
tival picture that plays an important role in shot- 89 Vereshchagin (1982), p. 144.
construction in the well-known film The 90 orgtg, 17/8.
Draughtsman’s Contract (1982), directed by Peter 91 Ibid., no. 90; see also no. 96.
Greenaway (see Pascoe, 1997, pp. 71–4, illus 20–23). 92 Ibid., no. 110.
64 Comment (1999), p. 52. 93 Vsya Moskva. Adresnaya i spravochnaya kniga na
65 Montegyu (1969), p. 29. 1905 god (Moscow, 1905), section ‘Ramki [Frames]’.
66 Chtyreva (1996), pp. 137–53. Grab’ye, Datsiaro and Avantso were also leading
67 Denvir (1994), p. 288. antiquarians (Yakovlev, 1966, p. 175).
68 Minchenkov (1959), p. 211. 94 Vsya Moskva (1903), section ‘Ramki’.
69 Vrubel (1976), p. 288. 95 orgtg, 54/532.
70 Karpova (2000), p. 34. 96 Odet’ kartinu (2005), p. 33.

391
 97 orgtg, 17/1182, 1183. godu (Petrograd, 1914), pl. 120.
98 Dal’ (1878), p. 9; Stasov (1937), p. 135. 116 Bely (1994), p. 253.
99 Obolensky (1902), p. vii. 117 Other artists with a similar approach to their frames
100 Mudrogel’ (1961), p. 150. include Gustave Moreau, Arnold Böcklin, Franz von
101 Repin (1986), p. 171. Hofmann and Gustav Klimt (Roberts, 1985, pp.
102 Shcherbatov (2000), pp. 316–17. 155–72; Newbery, 2002, pp. 57–8, illus 23, 24; Mitchell
103 Vrubel’s special interest in ornament has been noted and Roberts, 1996, p. 12).
by a number of writers (Tarabukin, 1974, p. 48; 118 Mendgen (1995), p. 29.
Allyenov, 1978, pp. 191–209). 119 Repin (1986), pp. 405, 407.
104 Vrubel (1976), p. 58. 120 Quoted by Mendgen (1995), p. 42.
105 ‘This is one of Vrubel’s most magical works, and it 121 Newbery (2002), p. 76.
was indeed the pearl of my collection,’ Shcherbatov 122 Mendgen, ed. (1995), illus. 143–5.
wrote of this painting in his memoirs. ‘But I didn’t 123 Cahn (1995), p. 31; Waschek (1995), pp. 142–4. L. F.
like the frame. I didn’t like its artistic idea, alongside Zhegin, however, maintains that ‘the connection
the saturated beauties of the painting itself . . .’: between form and frame in Impressionist painting,
Shcherbatov (2000), p. 317. while not being wholly absent, was nevertheless con-
106 Wagner (1978), pp. 164–95. siderably weakened’ (Zhegin, 1970, p. 69). In as far as
107 Nitsshe [Nietzsche] (1990), p. 153. the Impressionists stood for the ‘unexpected’ and
108 Quoted by Ritstsi (1993), p. 121. ‘directness of vision’ in painting, their picture frames
109 Vyach. Ivanov devoted an article to the synthesis of sometimes lost their ‘window’ function and found
the arts in painting (Ivanov, 1979, iv, pp. 147–70). themselves in contradiction with the new style of
For more detail on links between Symbolist painting painting.
and poetry, see Rusakova (1995). 124 A vast variety of photograph frames was represented
110 In the notes to his rose poems Ivanov even gives at the exhibition Life in Frames: The Art of the
the sources of the symbolism of the flower that Photograph Frame at the Turn of the 19th/20th
appeared in Somov’s richly ornamental frontispiece Centuries held at the Historical Museum, Moscow, in
with interwoven roses. 2002. It was interesting to note that in many frames
111 Vyach. Ivanov (1974), ii, p. 86. the mytho-poetic world of stil’ modern seemed
112 Nesterov (1988), p. 184. We know about Nesterov’s almost intentionally to have been made to conflict
concern with the frames for his paintings from his with the ‘mechanistic’ medium of photography. All
letter of 24 April 1928 to Peter Neradovsky asking for kinds of folktale figures and fantastic beasts and
the dimensions of the stretcher for Taking the Magic birds depicted on frames proclaimed their own
Potion (Za privorotnym zel’yem) when he was active presence in contradistinction to the ‘reality’
preparing to send the Russian Museum ‘a narrow that photography aimed to communicate, constantly
antique-style frame to replace the unsuccessful one demonstrating to the latter, as it were, a necessary
of oak’: orgtg, 31/1056. relationship with the realm of fantasy and the
113 Nesterov (1988), p. 166. unconscious. Here, in the present writer’s view, lies
114 Ibid., p. 167. the special significance of the history of the photo-
115 Nesterov’s paintings were copied by local craftsmen graph frame in modern cultural anthropology.
and at times regarded as icons. Thus at the Second 125 Borisov-Muratov’s exhibition is recalled by the artist
All-Russian Exhibition of Local Art (1913) a copy of Arkadiy Rylov (1954, p. 118).
the Labours of St Sergius triptych was shown as a 126 Lapshin (2000), p. 83. The artists of the Knave of
hinged ‘icon’, with a carved frame made by crafts- Diamonds group would often liken the exhibition
men from the village of Kudrino in the province of hall to the theatre, with its scenic images: ‘The whole
Moscow: Russkoye narodnoye iskusstvo na Vtoroy image of the “painterly activity” of the square’
vserossiyskoy kustarnoy vystavke v Petrograde v 1913 created by Moscow artists at their exhibitions was

392
 references

for them at the same time . . . an “image of Russia”’: 152 Grishchenko (1917), pp. 7, 37. It is to be noted that
Pospelov (1990), p. 24. P. Florensky shared with the artists of the avant-
127 Gavryuseva (1987), pp. 229–36. garde the precept that ‘forms should be grasped in
128 Shcherbatov (2000), pp. 162–3. the light of their own life, take expression in terms
129 Loos (1998), p. 171. The earliest of Loos’s interiors of themselves, openly to the understanding, not in
without ornament is the Museum Café in Vienna accordance with predetermined perspectives’
(1899). [author’s emphasis] (Florensky, 1990, p. 60).
130 Sullivan (1988), p. 80. Florensky’s preparatory material for his book on
131 Jacques Derrida discusses this topic in La Vérité en iconostases contains excerpts from Grishchenko,
peinture (1978) (Derrida, 1987, pp. 57–9). in particular: ‘A painting has every right to address
132 Gadamer (1991), p. 184. the viewer directly, in its own language, the riches
133 Gleizes and Metzinger (1913), pp. 81–2. of which are immeasurable.’ On the same page
134 Grishchenko (1915), p. 10. Florensky observes that it is possible to speak of
135 Mendgen, ed. (1995), ill. 222. ‘the language of the icon’ only in terms of the art
136 Newbery (2002), p. 78. of composition, of paint and use of materials:
137 Picasso, therefore, conceived his still-life Pipe with Florensky (1994), p. 210.
Page of Manuscript (1914) as a ‘picture within a 153 Utro Rossii (27 October 1911).
picture’. He repeated the real period picture frame 154 Grishchenko (1917), p. 26; see also pp. 17, 250, 259,
within the picture plane, thus pointing up the 262.
problem of the Renaissance frame-as-window 155 Gray (1962), p. 97; Bowlt (1991); Tarasov (1992), pp.
(Mendgen, ed., 1995, illus. 221). 49–53; Tarasov (1998); Tarasov (2002), pp. 45–7.
138 Zdanevich and Larionov (1999), p. 242. 156 Quoted by Khardzhiyev (1976), p. 123.
139 Berdyayev (1918), p. 30. 157 Malevich (1922), p. 19.
140 Terekhina and Zimenkov, eds (1999), pp. 226–7. 158 Malevich, ‘Nashe vremya yavlyayetsya epokhoy
141 Uspensky (1918), p. 9. analiza . . . ’, in id. (1998), ii.
142 Ibid., p. 98. 159 Terekhina and Zimenkov, eds (1999), pp. 323, 325.
143 Bobrinskaya (2002), p. 145. 160 Kruchonykh and Khlebnikov (1913).
144 Tarabukin (1923), p. 9. 161 Malevich, ‘Ot kubizma i futurisma k suprematizmu’,
145 Kandinsky, ‘Stupeni’ (2001), pp. 279–80. in Malevich (1995), i, p. 53.
146 In this connection Uspensky is emphatic: ‘Art is a 162 Ibid.
powerful means of apprehending the realm of the 163 Malevich (1920), pp. 1–3.
numinous; profound mysteries, each more astonish- 164 Malevich, ‘K novomu liku’, in Malevich (1995), i,
ing than the last, open up before the eyes of a person p. 63.
who holds this magical key in his hands’: Uspensky 165 Malevich, ‘O muzeye’, in ibid., p. 134.
(1992), p. 159. 166 Malevich, ‘Analiz novogo i izobrazitel’nogo
147 Kandinsky, ‘O dukhovnom v iskusstve’ (2001), p. 129. iskusstva’, in id. (1998), ii, p. 149.
148 On terms of friendship with Schoenberg, Kandinsky 167 Le Corbusier (2006), p. 403; Bataille (2006), p. 430.
dedicated an article to him (see Kandinsky, ‘Kartiny 168 Further on these processes, see Putnam (2001).
Schonberga’, 2001, pp. 201–5). 169 Present-day philosophy has thrown up the concept
149 Kandinsky, ‘O dukhovnom v iskusstve’ (2001), p. 129. of the ‘installational frame’, that is, an installation
150 Kandinsky, ‘Stupeni’ (2001), p. 276. as an artistic action, some kind of invisible copied
151 orgrm, 137/1186/2, reverse. This letter was written in structure picking up, in copying an object, initial
response to Benua’s criticism of the Futurist exhibi- meanings, as one scholar reflects: ‘And so, in order to
tion 0.10 held in Petrograd in 1915. For Benua, Black seize the essence of the thing, the event or portion of
Square evoked iconic associations, on which space . . . the installation must be a frame: showing
Malevich also commented (see Benua, 1916). external reality, making spatial worlds visible from

393
 the viewpoint of an absolutely impartial observer . . .
or taking a conceptual form, embracing all types of
installations of objects – and unquestionably a
subjective form, the observer with all his baggage
of partialities and contexts; or it must take a visual
form (or one that is in some way apprehensible by the
senses) that captures the spatial nature of the thing
thanks to its transformation into a purely optically
apprehensible object’ [author’s emphasis]: Podoroga
(1999), p. 186. On exhibitions of present-day art, see
further Miziano (2000), pp. 88–95.
170 Guggenheim (1897). On this book, see Penny (1998),
p. 375.
171 Sokolov (1999), p. 167.
172 Vrangel’ (1913), pp. 66, 76.
173 Newbery (2002), p. 5.
174 ‘Lely’ and ‘Canaletto’ frames, notes Grimm, were
so-called only because they were most frequently
found with paintings by these artists (Grimm, 1981),
p. 18.
175 Vrangel’ (1913), p. 62.
176 Stolpyansky (1913), p. 35.
177 Gogol (1949), pp. 103–4.
178 Tarasov (2002), pp. 326–44.
179 Goodman (1968), p. 99.
180 Vzdornov (1986), p. 186.
181 Gosudarstvennaya Tretyakovskaya galereya (1995),
p. 81.
182 Gombrich (1989), pp. 63–90; see also Eco (1990).

conclusion
1 Khaydegger [Heidegger] (1993), p. 109.

394
 bibliography

Russian publications
vospriyatiye (Moscow, 1974) [trans. Art and Visual
Abramovich, D. I., Kievo-Pecherskiy Paterik (Kiev, 1931) Perception, 1960]
Adres-spravochnik goroda Moskvy. 1897 (Moscow, 1896) Arsen’yev, Yu. V., and V. K. Trutovsky, Putevoditel’ po
Al’berti, L. B., Desyat’ knig o zodchestve (Moscow, 1935–7) Oruzheynoy palate (Moscow, 1914)
[trans. from Italian and Latin: De re aedificatoria] Arutyunova. N. D., ed., Logicheskiy analiz yazyka.
Al’bom koronatsii ikh imperatorskikh velichestv 15 maya Semantika nachala i kontsa (Moscow, 2002)
1883 goda (Moscow, 1883) Bakhtin, M. M., Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva (Moscow,
Alekseyeva, M. A., ‘Zhanr konklyuziy v russkom 1979)
iskusstve kontsa xvii–nachala xviii veka’, in Baksandoll [Baxandall], M., Uzory intentsii. Ob
Alekseyeva, ed., Russkoye iskusstvo barokko. istoricheskom tolkovanii kartin (Moscow, 2003)
Materialy i issledovaniya (Moscow, 1977) [trans. of Patterns of Intention: On the Historical
––, Mikhaylo Makhayev – master vidovogo risunka xviii Explanation of Pictures, 1985]
veka (St Petersburg, 2003) Bart, R., Camera lucida. Kommentariy k fotografii
Aleppsky, P. [Paul of Aleppo], Puteshestviye (Moscow, 1997)
antiokhiyskogo patriarkha Makariya v Rossiyu v Bartenev, S. P., Bol’shoy Kremlevskiy Dvorets. Dvortsovyye
polovine xvii veka, part 2 [trans. from Arabic] tserkvi i pridvornyye sobory (Moscow, 1916)
(Moscow, 1897) Batkin, L. M., Leonardo da Vinci i osobennosti renes-
Allyonov, M. M., ‘Etyudy tsvetov Vrubelya (1886–87)’, sansnogo tvorcheskogo myshleniya (Moscow, 1990)
Sov. iskusstvovaniye, lxxvii/2 (Moscow, 1978) Bazhak, K. [Bajac, Qu.], Istoriya fotografii.
Anisimov, A. I., ‘Vladimirskaya ikona Bozhiyey Materi’, Vozniknoveniye izobrazheniya (Moscow, 2003)
in Bogomater’ Vladimirskaya. K 600-letiyu Sreteniya [trans. of L’Image révélée: L’invention de la
ikony Bogomateri Vladimirskoy . . . Sbornik photographie, 2001]
materialov. Katalog vystavki (Moscow, 1995) Bazhenov, A. N., ‘Zhivyye kartiny’, in Bazhenov,
Annushkin, V. I., Pervaya russkaya ‘Ritorika’ xvii veka Sochineniya i perevody, v 2-kh tomakh (Moscow,
(Moscow, 1999) 1869), vol. ii
Anonimnaya poeziya, pldr, xvii vek, knija 3 (Moscow, Bel [Bal], M., and N. Braysen [Bryson], ‘Semiotika i
1994) iskusstvoznaniye’, Voprosy iskusstvoznaniya, ix/2
Antonova, V. I., and N. Ye. Mnyova, Katalog (Moscow, 1996)
drevnerusskoy zhivopisi v Gos. Tret’yakovskoy galereye Bel’ting, Kh. (Belting, H.], Obraz i kul’t. Istoriya obraza
(Moscow, 1963), vol. ii do epokhi iskusstva (Moscow, 2003) [trans. of Bild
Arapov, P., Letopis’ russkogo teatra (St Petersburg, 1861) und Kunst: eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem
Arnkheym [Arnheim], R., Iskusstvo i vizual’noye Zeitalter der Kunst, 1993]

395
Bely, A., Simvolizm kak miroponimaniye (Moscow, 1994) Filosofiya russkogo religioznogo iskusstva xvi–xx vv.
Benchev, I., Ikony angelov. Obrazy nebesnykh poslannikov Antologiya (Moscow, 1993)
(Moscow, 2005) Bulgakov, S. N., ‘Vasnetsov, Dostoyevsky, Vl. Solov’yev,
Benua, A. N., Tsarskoye Selo v tsarstvovaniye imperatritsy Tolstoy (Paralleli)’, Literaturnoye delo (St Petersburg,
Yelizavety Petrovny (St Petersburg, 1910) 1902)
––, ‘Vystavka, posvyashennaya vremeni imperatritsy Buseva-Davydova, I. L., ‘Novyye ikonograficheskiye
Yelizavety Petrovny’, Staryye gody (May 1912) istochniki v russkoy zhivopisi xvii v.’, in A. L.
––, ‘Poslednyaya futuristicheskaya vystavka’, Rech’ Batalov, ed., Russkoye iskusstvo pozdnego
[newspaper record of speech], 9 January 1916 Srednevekov’ya. Obraz i smysl (Moscow, 1993)
–– [Benois, A.], Zhizn’ khudozhnika [memoirs] (New ––, ‘Russkiy iconostas xvii veka: genezis tipa i itogi
York, 1955), vol. ii evolyutsii’, in A. M. Lidov, ed., Ikonostas.
Ben’yamin, V. [Benjamin, W.], Proizvedeniye iskusstva v Proiskhozhdeniye – razvitiye – simvolika (Moscow,
epokhu yego tekhnicheskoy vosproizvodimisti. 2000)
Izbrannyye esse (Moscow, 1996) [trans. of ‘Das Buslayev, F. I., Moi vospominaniya (Moscow, 1897)
Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen ––, ‘Moskovskiye molel’ni’, in Buslayev, Sochineniya
Reproduzierbarkeit’ et al., 1936] (St Petersburg, 1908), vol. i
Berdyayev, N., Krizis iskusstva (Moscow, 1918) ––, Istoricheskiye ocherki po russkomu ornamentu v
––, ‘Smysl’ tvorchestva’, in Berdyayev, Filosofiya rukopisyakh (Petrograd, 1917)
tvorchestva, kul’tury i iskusstva, v 2-kh tomakh Butovsky, V. I., Istoriya russkogo ornamenta c x po xvi
(Moscow, 1994), vol. i stoletiye po drevnim rukopisyam (Moscow, 1870)
––, ‘Russkiy dukhovnyy renessans nachala xx v. i Bychkov, V. V., Russkaya srednevekovaya estetika xi–xvii
zhurnal “Put’”, in ibid., vol. ii vekov (Moscow, 1992)
Bezsonov, S. V., Arkhitektura Andreyevskoy tserkvi v Chekalevsky, P. P., Rassuzhdeniye o svobodnykh
Kieve (Moscow, 1951) khudozhestvakh s opisaniyem nekotorykh
B.N.W., ‘Khudozhestvennyye zabavy imperatritsy Marii proizvedeniy Rossiskikh khudozhnikov (St Petersburg,
Fyodorovny’, Staryye gody (July–September 1913) 1792)
Bobrik, M., ‘Ikona Taynoy vecheri nad tsarskimi Chtyreva, I., ‘P’yer Bonnard: fotografiya i zhivopis’,
vratami’, in A. M. Lidov, ed., Ikonostas. Voprosy iskusstvoznaniya, ix, 2/96 (Moscow, 1996)
Proiskhozhdeniye – razvitiye – simvolika Chubinskaya, V. G., ‘Speculum et saeculum:
(Moscow, 2000) Zhivopisnaya rama rubezha xvii–xviii vekov k
Bobrinskaya, Ye. A., ‘“Yestestvennoye” v estetike ikone “Bogomater’ Donskaya” i yeyo istoriko-
russkogo avangarda’, in Russkiy kubofuturizm, kul’turnyye smysly’, Voprosy iskusstvoznaniya, x,
ed. G. F. Kovalenko (St Petersburg, 2002) /97 (Moscow 1997)
Bobrov, Yu. G., Istoriya restavratsii drevnerusskoy Dal’, L. V., ‘Obzor russkogo ornamenta’, Zodchiy, 7 (1876)
zhivopisi (Leningrad, 1987) ––, ‘Istoricheskoye issledovaniye pamyatnikov russkogo
Bodriyar, Zh. [Baudrillard, J.], ‘Simulyakry i simulyatsii’, zodchstva’, Zodchiy, 2 (1878)
in Filosofiya epokhi postmoderna (Minsk, 1996) Dal’, V., Tolkovyy slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka, v
[trans. from French] 4-kh tomakh (St Petersburg and Moscow, 1903–12)
Bogolyubov, S. P., Vospominaniya o v Boze pochivshem Daniel’, S. M., ‘Zapadnoyevropeyskaya zhivopis’ xvii
imperatore Aleksandre iii (St Petersburg, 1895) veka: problemy izobrazitel’noy ritoriki’, Sovetskoye
Braginskaya, N., ‘“Ya – kubok Nestora”’, Dekorativnoye iskusstvoznaniye ’83, i/18 (Moscow, 1984)
iskusstvo sssr, 12 (1979) Dedlov, V. L., Kievskiy Vladimirskiy sobor i yego
Bruk, Ya., Vasily Vereshchagin (Moscow, 2004) khudozhestvennyye tvortsy (Moscow, 1901)
Bulgakov, F. I., V. V. Vereshchagin i yego proizvedeniya Delyoz, Zh. [Deleuze, J.], Skladka. Leybnits i barokko
(St Petersburg, 1896) (Moscow, 1998) [trans. of Le Pli: Leibnitz et le
Bulgakov, S., ‘Ikona, yeyo soderzhaniye i granitsy’, baroque, 1988]

396
 bibliography

Denisov, Yu., and A. Petrov, Zodchiy Rastrelli ––, Analiz prostranstvennosti i vremeni v khudozhest-
(Leningrad, 1963) venno-izobrazitel’nykh proizvedeniyakh (Moscow, 1993)
Denvir, B., Impressioniszm. Khudozhniki i kartiny ––, Ikonostas (Moscow, 1994)
(Moscow, 1994) [trans. of The Chronicle of Frolova, O., ‘Ramy i stili’, Antikvariat, v/17 (2004)
Impressionism: An Intimate Diary of the Lives and Fuko [Foucault], M., Slova i veshchi. Arkheologiya
World of the Great Artists, 1993] gumanitarnykh nauk (St Petersburg, 1994) [trans. of
Derrida, Zh., [Derrida, J.], ‘Pis’mo yaponskomu drugu’, Les Mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences
Voprosy filosofii, 4 (1992) [trans. from French] humaines, 1966]
Didro [Diderot], D., Salony (Moscow, 1989) [trans. of ––, Eto ne trubka (Moscow, 1999) [trans. of Ceci n’est pas
Salons, 1759–81] une pipe, 1973]
Dil’tey, V. [Dilthey, W.], ‘Sushnost’ filosofii’, in Filosofiya Fyodorov-Davydov, A., Sovetskiy khudozhestvennyy
v sistematicheskom izlozhenii V. Dil’teya, A. Riglya, V. muzey (Moscow, 1933)
Os’val’da, V. Vundta et al. (St Petersburg, 1909) ––, ‘Printsipy stroitel’stva zhudozhestvennykh muzeyev’,
[trans. from German] in Russkoye i sovetskoye iskusstvo. Stat’i i ocherki
Drevnerusskoye iskusstvo (Moscow, 1964) (Moscow, 1975)
Dva tainstvennykh dvortsa Razumovskykh (1914) Gadamer, G.-G., Aktual’nost’ prekrasnogo (Moscow, 1991)
Dyurer [Dürer], A., Dnevniki, pis’ma, traktaty (Moscow Gagarin, G. G., Sbornik vizantiyskikh i drevnerusskikh
and Leningrad, 1935), vol. ii [trans. from German] ornamentov (St Petersburg, 1887)
Eko [Eco], U., Otsutstvuyushchaya struktura. Vvedeniye v Gavryuseva, T. V., ‘Arkhitekturno-khudozhestvennyy
semiologiyu (Moscow, 1998) [trans. of La struttura ansambl’ vystavki portreta v Tavricheskom dvortse’,
assente: Introduzione alla ricerca semiologica, 1968] Muzey, 8 (1987)
––, Evolyutsiya srednevekovoy estetiki (St Petersburg, 2004) Glez, A., and Zh. Mettsenzhe [Gleizes, A., and
[trans. from Sviluppo dell’estetica medievale, 1959] J. Metzinger], O kubizme (Moscow, 1913) [trans.
Eliade, M., Svyashennoye i mirskoye (Moscow, 1994) of Du Cubisme, 1912]
[trans. from Le Sacré et le profane, 1959] Gogol’, N. V., ‘Portret’, in Sobr. soch. (Moscow, 1949),
Far-Bekker [Fahr-Becker], G., Iskusstvo moderna vol. iii
(Moscow, 2000) [trans. from Jugendstil, 1997] Golubinsky, Ye. Ye., ‘Istoriya altarnoy pregrady ili
Fergyuson, Dzh. [Ferguson, G.], Khristianskiy simvolizm ikonostasa v pravoslavnykh tserkvakh’,
(Moscow, 1998) [trans. from Signs and Symbols in Pravoslavnoye obozreniye (November 1872)
Christian Art, 1958] Gosudarstvennaya Tret’yakovskaya galereya. Katalog
Filaret, Perepiska Filareta mitropolita Moskovskogo s S. D. sobraniya, i: Drevnerusskoye iskusstvo x – nachala xv
Nechayevym (St Petersburg, 1895) veka (Moscow, 1995)
Filimonov, G., Opisaniye pamyatnikov drevnosti Grabar’, I., ‘Vystavka kartin V. V. Vereshchagina’, Niva, 14
tserkovnogo i grazhdanskogo byta Russkogo muzeya (1896)
P. F. Korobanova (Moscow, 1849) Grabar’, I. E., Istoriya russkogo iskusstva, 6 vols (Moscow,
––, Vopros o pervonachal’noy forme ikonostasov v 1913–14)
russkikh tserkvakh (Moscow, 1895) Grashchenkov, V. N., Portret v italyanskoy zhivopisi
Filosofiya v sistematicheskom izlozhenii V. Dil’teya, A. Rannego Vozrozhdeniya (Moscow, 1996)
Riglya, V. Os’val’da, V. Vundta et al. (St Petersburg, Grasian, B., ‘Ostroumiye, ili Iskusstvo izoshchrennogo
1909) uma’, in Ispanskaya estetika: Renessans. Barokko.
Florensky, P. A., ‘Khramovoye deystviye kak sintez Prosveshcheniye (Moscow, 1997)
iskusstv’ [1918], in U vodorazdelov mysli, i: Stat’i po Grebenyuk, V. P., ‘Evolyutsiya poeticheskikh simvolov
iskusstvu (Paris, 1985) rossiyskogo absolyutizma (ot Simeona Polotskogo
––, ‘Simvolicheskoye opisaniye’, Feniks, 1 (Moscow, 1922) do M. V. Lomonosova)’, in Razvitiye barokko i
––, ‘Obratnaya perspektiva’, in Sochineniya v 2-kh zarozhdeniye klassitsizma v Rossii xvii–nachala xviii
tomakh (Moscow, 1990), vol. ii v. (Moscow, 1989)

397
Grishchenko, A., ‘Otvet Sergeyu Glagolyu, A. and Leningrad, 1964), vol. ii
Lunacharskomu i Ya. Tugendkhol’du (‘Appolonu’)’, Karpova, T. L., Smysl’ litsa. Russkiy portret vtoroy
Voprosy zhivopisi, i (Moscow, 1915) poloviny xix veka. Opyt samopoznaniya lichnosti
––, ‘Russkaya ikona kak iskusstvo zhivopisi’, Voprosy (St Petersburg, 2000)
zhivopisi, iii (Moscow, 1917) ––, ‘Khudozhestvennyye printsipy iskusstva vtoroy
Groys, B., Iskusstvo utopii (Moscow, 2003) poloviny xix veka v zerkale iskusstva ekspozitsii’, in
Ikonologiya, ob’yasnennaya litsami, ili Polnoye sobraniye Karpova, ed., xix vek: tselostnost’ i protsess. Voprosy
allegoriy, emblem i pr. (Moscow, 1803), 2 vols vzaimodeystviya iskusstv (Moscow, 2002)
Imperatorskiy Rossiyskiy Istoricheskiy muzey (Moscow, Katalog kartinam, etyudam i risunkam V. V.
1893) Vereshchagina. Poyasnitel’nyy tekst sostavlen samim
Iosif Vladimirov, ‘Poslaniye nekoyego izugrafa Iosifa k khudozhnikom (Moscow, 1874)
tsarevu izugrafu i mudresyshemu zhivopistsu Katalog khristianskikh drevnostey, sobrannykh
Simonu Fyodorovichu’, in Drevnerusskoye iskusstvo. moskovskim kuptsom Nokolayem Mikhaylovichem
xvii vek (Moscow, 1964) Postnikovym (Moscow, 1888)
Istomin, K., ‘Sladkaya beseda ko Khristu Bogu’, in pldr, Katalog vystavki kartin V. V. Vereshchagina. Avtor
xvii vek, Book 3 (Moscow, 1994) predisloviya N. Sobko (St Petersburg, 1883)
Istoriya estetiki. Pamyatniki mirovoy esteticheskoy mysli, Khardzhiyev, N., K istorii russkogo avangarda
ii: Esteticheskiye ucheniya xvii–xviii vekov (Stockholm, 1976)
(Moscow, 1964) Khaydegger [Heidegger], M., Raboty i razmyshleniya
Ivanov, Vyach., ‘Predchuvstviya i predvestiya. Novaya raznykh let (Moscow, 1993) [trans. from German]
organicheskaya epokha i teatr budushchego’, in Khippisley [Hippisley], A., ‘Russkaya emblematich-
Sobr. soch., v 4-kh tomakh (Brussels, 1974), vol. ii eskaya kniga “Emblemat dukhovnyy” (1743)’, in
––, ‘Churlyanis i problema sinteza iskusstv’, ibid. (1979), Pamyatniki kul’tury. Novyye otkrytiya, 1992
vol. iv (Moscow, 1993)
––, ‘Simvolizm’, ibid. (1974), vol. ii Kirichenko, Ye. I., Khram Khrista Spasitelya v Moskve
Ivanov, Vyach. Vs., ‘Estetika Eyzensteyna’, in Izbrannyye (Moscow, 1992)
trudy po semiotike i istorii kul’tury, v 2-kh tomakh ––, Russkiy stil’ (Moscow, 1997)
(Moscow, 1999) ––, ‘O dvukh kontseptsiyakh imperatorskoy rezidentsii:
Izgoy, R. [N. K. Rerikh/Roerich], ‘Vystavka kartin V. M. Zimniy dvorets v Peterburge posle pozhara 1837
Vasnetsova’, Iskusstvo i khudozhestvennaya goda i Bol’shoy Kremlyovskiy dvorets v Moskve’, in
promyshlennost’ (March 1899) Tsarskiye i imperatorskiye dvortsy. Staraya Moskva
Kalugina, T. P., ‘Khudozhestvennaya ekspozitsiya kak (Moscow, 1997)
fenomen kul’tury’, Muzey, 9 (Moscow, 1988) Kiselev, N. A., ‘Istoki pletenogo ornamenta v svete
Kamer-fur’yerskiy tseremonial’nyy zhurnal, 21 (St nekotorykh literaturnykh pamyatnikov’, in
Petersburg, 1885) Khudozhestvennoye naslediye, 9/39 (1984)
Kandinsky, V., ‘O dukhovnom v iskusstve (Zhivopis’)’, in Kochetkov, I. A., ‘Svod chudotvornykh ikon Bogomateri
Izbrannyye trudy po teorii iskusstva, v 2-kh tomakh, i: na ikonakh i gravyurakh xviii–xix vekov’, in A. M.
1901–1914 (Moscow, 2001) Lidov, ed., Chudotvornaya ikona v Vizantii i Drevney
––, ‘Kartiny Shonberga’, ibid. Rusi (Moscow, 1996)
––, ‘Stupeni. Tekst zhudozhnika’, ibid. Koronatsionnyy sbornik (St Petersburg, 1899), vol. i
Kant, I., ‘Kritika sposobnosti suzhdeniya’, in Soch., v 6-ti Koronovaniye i svyashchenneysheye miropomazaniye ikh
tomakh (Moscow, 1966), vol. v [trans. of Kritik der imperatorskikh velichestv gosudarya imperatora
Urteilskraft, 1790] Aleksandra Aleksandrovicha i gosudaryni
Karamzin, N. M., ‘O sluchayakh i kharakterakh v imperatritsy Marii Fyodorovny (Moscow, 1883)
rossiyskoy istorii, kotoryye mogut byt’ predmetom Kruchonykh, A., and V. Khlebnikov, Pobeda nad
khudozhestv’, in Izbr. soch., v 2-kh tomakh (Moscow solntsem (St Petersburg, 1913)

398
 bibliography

Krusanov, A. V., Russkiy avangard, 1907–1932 Lotman, Yu. M., and B. A. Uspensky, ‘O semioticheskom
(Istoricheskiy obzor) (St Petersburg, 1996), vol. i mekhanizme kul’tury’, Trudy po znakovym
Kuleshov, L. V., Uroki kinorezhissury (Moscow, 1999) sistemam, 5 (Tartu, 1970)
Lakan, Zh. [Lacan, J.], ‘Funktsiya i pole rechi i yazyka v ––, ‘Otzvuki kontseptsii “Moskva–Tretiy Rim” v
psikhoanalize’ (Moscow, 1995) [trans. of ‘Fonction ideologii Petra Pervogo (K probleme srednevekovoy
et champ de la parole et du langage en psych- traditsii v kul’ture barokko)’, in Lotman, Izbrannyye
analyse’, lecture given at the Istituto di Psicologia, stat’i (1993), vol. iii
University of Rome, 26 and 27 September 1953] Makovsky, S., Portrety sovremennikov (New York, 1955)
Lakhmann, R., ‘Dva etapa ritoriki “prilichiya” (decorum) Maksimovoch-Ambodik, N. M., Emblemy i simvoly
– ritorika Makariya i “Iskusstvo ritoriki” Feofana izbrannyye (St Petersburg, 1788, 1811)
Prokopovicha’, in Razvitiye barokko i zarozhdeniye ––, Emblemy i simvoly, with introduction and commen-
klassitsizma v Rossii xvii–nachala xviii veka tary by A. Ye. Makhov (Moscow, 1995)
(Moscow, 1989) Malevich, K., Suprematizm. 34 risunka (Vitebsk, 1920)
Lakomb de Prezel’ [Lacombe de Prezel, H.], ––, Bog ne skinut. Iskusstvo, tserkov’, fabrika (Vitebsk,
Ikonologicheskiy leksikon, ili Rukovodstvo k 1922)
poznaniyu zhivopisi i reznogo khudozhestva, medaley, ––, ‘O muzeye’, in Sobr. soch., v 5-ti tomakh (Moscow,
istampov i proch (St Petersburg, 1763, 1786) [trans. 1995), vol. i
of Dictionnaire iconologique, ou introduction à la ––, ‘K novomu liku’, ibid.
connoissance des peintures, sculptures, médailles, ––, ‘Ot kubizma i futurizma k suprematizmu. Novyy
estampes, etc, 1756] zhivopisnyy realizm’, ibid.
Lapshin, V., ‘Iz istorii khudozhestvennykh vystavok v ––, ‘Analiz novogo i izobrazitel’nogo iskusstva (Pol’
Rossii. Konets xix–nachalo xx veka’, Pinakoteka, 12 Sezann)’, ibid. (1998), vol. ii
(2000) Markova, G. A., Bol’shoy Kremlyovsky Dvorets
Lebedev, A. K., Vasily Vasil’yevich Vereshchagin. Zhizn’ i arkhitektora K. Tona (Moscow, 1994)
tvorchestvo. 1842–1904 (Moscow, 1972) Masalina, N. V., ‘Tserkov’ v Abramtseve (istoriya
Leonardo da Vinchi [da Vinci], Kniga o zhivopisi postroyki)’, in Iz istorii russkogo iskusstva vtoroy
(Moscow, 1934) [trans. of Trattata dalla pittura, poloviny xix – nachala xx veka (Moscow, 1978)
1651] Mikhaylov, A. I., Bazhenov (Moscow, 1951)
––, Izbrannyye proizvedeniya (Moscow and Leningrad, ––, Arkhitektor D. V. Ukhtomsky i yego shkola (Moscow,
1935), vol. ii 1954)
Lidov, A. M., ed., Ikonostas. Proiskhozhdeniye – razvitiye Mikhaylov, A. V., ‘Poetika barokko: zaversheniye
– simvolika (Moscow, 2000) ritoricheskoy epokhi’, in Yazyki kul’tury (Moscow,
Likhachov, N. P., Obozreniye Otdeleniya khristianskikh 1997)
drevnostey v muzee imperatora Aleksandra iii Miller, A., Inostrannyye zhivopistsy i skul’ptory v Rossii
(Kratkoye opisaniye zal xviii–xix) (St Petersburg, (Moscow, 1925)
1898) Minchenkov, Ya. D., Vospominaniya o Peredvizhnikakh
Lipps, T., ‘Estetika’, in Filosofiya v sistematicheskom (Leningrad, 1959)
izlozhenii V. Dil’teya, A. Riglya, V. Osval’da, V. Miziano, V., ‘Ekspozitsionnyye strategii: ot modernizatsii
Vundta i dr. (St Petersburg, 1909) k demodernizatsii’, Pinakoteka, 12 (2000)
Losev, A. F., ‘Filosofiya imeni’, in Iz rannikh proizvedeniy Moleva, N., and E. Belyutin, Pedagogicheskaya sistema
(Moscow, 1990) Akademii khudozhestv xviii veka (Moscow, 1956)
Lotman, Yu. M., Kul’tura i vzryv (Moscow, 1992) Montegyu, A. [Montagu, I.], Mir fil’ma (Leningrad,
––, ‘Problema khudozhestvennogo prostranstva v proze 1969) [trans. of Film World, London, 1964]
Gogolya’, in Izbrannyye stat’i (Tallinn, 1992), vol. i Moroz, A. B., ‘Bozhnitsa i okno: semanticheskiye paral-
––, Ob iskusstve (St Petersburg, 1998) leli’, in Slovo i kul’tura (Moscow, 1998)
––, ‘Kukly v sisteme kul’tury’, ibid. Morozov, A.A., and L. A. Sofronova, ‘Emblematika i

399
 yeyo mesto v iskusstve barokko’, in A. Lipatov, A. Panofsky, E., Idea. K istorii ponyatiya v teoriyakh
Rogov and L. Sofronova, eds, Slavyanskoye barokko. iskusstva ot Antichnosti do klassitsizma (St
Istoriko-kul’turnyye problemy epokhi (Moscow, 1974) Petersburg, 1999) [trans. of ‘Idea’: ein Beitrag zur
Mostovsky, M., Istoriya khrama Krista Spasitelya v Begriffsgeschichte der älteren Kunsttheorie, 1924]
Moskve (Moscow, 1884) ––, Perspektiva kak ‘simvolicheskaya forma’. Goticheskaya
Mudrogel’, N. A., Pyat’desyat’ vosem’ let v Tret’yakovskoy arkhitektura i skholastika (St Petersburg, 2004) [trans.
galereye. Vospominaniya (Leningrad, 1961) of Die Perspektive als ‘symbolische Form’, 1927]
Muratov, P. P., ‘Vystavka Drevnerusskogo iskusstva v ––, ‘Pervaya stranitsa “Knigi” Dzhordzho Vazari’ [‘The
Moskve. I. Epokhi drevnerusskoy ikonopisi’, Staryye First Page of Giorgio Vasari’s “Libro”’], in Smysl’ i
gody (April 1913) tolkovaniye izobrazitel’nogo iskusstva. Stat’i po istorii
––, Drevnerusskaya ikonopis’ v sobranii I. S. Ostroukhova iskusstva (St Petersburg, 1999) [trans. of Meaning in
(Moscow, 1914) the Visual Arts, 1955]
Nemirovich-Danchenko, V. I., God voyny (Dnevnik Papernyy, V., Kul’tura ‘Dva’ (Moscow, 1996)
russkogo korrespondenta), 1877–1878 (St Petersburg, Paston, E., Abramtsevo. Iskusstvo i zhizn’ (Moscow, 2003)
1878), vol. ii Perepiska V. V. Vereshchagina i V. V. Stasova (Moscow,
Nesterov, M. V., Pism’a. Izbrannoye (Leningrad, 1988) 1951), vol. ii
Neverov, O., Chastnyye kollektsii Rossiskoy imperii Perepiska V. V. Vereshchagina i P. M. Tret’yakova
(Moscow, 2004) (Moscow, 1963)
Nikiforaki, N. A., ‘Ob izmenenii kompozitsii ikony Petrov, A. N., Ye. A. Borisova, A. P. Naumenko and A. V.
“Chudo Georgiya o zmiye”’, Pamyatniki kul’tury. Povelikhina, Pamyatniki arkhitektury Leningrada
Issledovaniye i restavratsiya (Moscow and (Leningrad, 1969)
Leningrad, 1936), vol. i Pis’ma i bumagi Petra Velikogo (1688–1701), vol. i
Nikolayeva, N. S., Dekorativnyye rospisi Yaponii (Moscow, 1887)
xvi–xviii vekov. Ot Kano Eytoku do Ogata Korina Pis’ma i bumagi Petra Velikogo, vol. ix, part 2 (Moscow,
(Moscow, 1989) 1952)
Nitsshe [Nietzsche], F., ‘Rozhdeniye tragedii iz dukha Platon [Plato], ‘Gosudarstvo’ [‘The Statesman’], in
muzyki. Predisloviye k Rikhardu Vagneru’, in Sobr. Platon. Sobr. soch. (Moscow, 1994), vol. iii
soch., v 2-kh tomakh (Moscow, 1990), vol. i [trans. of Pluzhnikov, V. I., ‘Organizatsiya fasada v arkhitekture
Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik, russkogo barokko’, in Russkoye barokko. Materialy i
1872] issledovaniya (Moscow, 1977)
Obolensky, L. S., Nauchnyye osnovy krasoty i iskusstva. Podoroga, V., ‘Epokha Corpus’a? . . . Voprosy i nabroski
S obshchedostupnym etyudom po osnovnym dannym k besede s Zh.-L. Nansi. Moskva – Strasburg.
fiziologii (St Petersburg, 1902) January 1996’, in Nansi [Nancy], J.-L., Corpus
Odet’ kartinu. Khudozhestvennyye ramy v Rossii xviii – (Moscow, 1999) [trans. of Corpus, 1992]
nachala xx veka, intro. and commentaries by A. O. Pogodin, M. P., ‘Moskovskiye chastnyye khranilishcha
Lysenko, exh. cat., State Russian Museum, St drevnostey i redkostey po chasti nauki, iskusstv i
Petersburg (2005) khudozhestv’, Moskvityanin, 2 (1849)
Ornamental’naya gravyura xvii veka v Sobranii Polenova, N. V., Abramtsevo. Vospominaniya (Moscow,
Ermitazha, ed. with an intro. A. L. Rakova, exh. cat., 1922)
State Hermitage, Leningrad (1986), no. 109 Poplavsky, V. S., Kul’tura triumfa i triumfal’nyye arki
Ortega-i-Gasset, Kh. [Ortega y Gasset, J.], ‘O tochki Drevnego Rima (Moscow, 2000)
zreniya v iskusstve’, in Estetika. Filosofiya kul’tury Pospelov, G. G., ‘Bubnovyy valet’. Primitiv i gorodskoy
(Moscow, 1991) [trans. of ‘Sobre el punto de vista en fol’klor v moskovskoy zhivopisi 1910-kh godov
las artes’, 1924] (Moscow, 1990)
Panchenko, A. M., O russkoy istorii i kul’ture (St Pozdeyeva, I. V., ‘Vnov’ naydennyy sbornik Simeona
Petersburg, 2000) Mokhovikova s gravyurami G. P. Tepchegorskogo’,

400
 bibliography

in Narodnaya gravyura i fol’klor v Rossii xvii–xix vv. Russkoye iskusstvo epokhi barokko. Konets xvii – pervaya
Materialy nauchnoy konferentsii (1975) (Moscow, polovina xviii veka. Katalog vystavki [State
1976) [to mark the 150th anniversary of the birth of Hermitage] (Leningrad, 1984)
D. A. Rovinsky] Ryabushinsky, S. P., ‘O restavratsii i sokhranenii
Presnova, N. G., ‘Portretnaya galereya grafov drevnikh ikon’, Tserkov’, 50 (1908)
Sheremetevykh v usad’be Kuskovo (Proyekt rekon- Rylov, A. A., Vospominaniya (Leningrad, 1954)
struktsii i novyye materialy)’, in Chastnoye Ryoskin, Dzh. [Ruskin, J.], Iskusstvo i deystvitel’nost’
kollektsionirovaniye v Rossii. Materialy nauchnoy (Moscow, 1900)
konferentsii ‘Vipperovskiye chteniya –1994’, xxvii ––, Izbrannyye mysli (Moscow, 1904)
(Moscow, 1995) Sakharova, Ye. V., Vasily Dmitriyevich Polyonov. Yelena
Prokof ’yev, N. I., and L. I. Alekhin, eds, Drevnerusskaya Dmitriyevna Polyonova (Moscow, 1964)
pritcha (Moscow, 1991) Sarab’yanov, D. V., Stil’ modern (Moscow, 1989)
Prokof ’yev, V. N., ‘O “pertseptivnoy perspektive” i Sazonova, L. I., Poeziya russkogo barokko. Vtoraya
perspektivakh v zhivopisi’, in B. V. Raushenbakh, polovina xvii–nachalo xviii vv. (Moscow, 1991)
Prostranstvennyye postroyeniya v drevnerusskoy Semyonov, A. A. and Khorev, M. M., eds, Andrey
zhivopisi (Moscow, 1975) Osipovich Karelin. Tvorcheskoye naslediye (Nizhniy
P. S., see Stolpyansky (January 1913) Novgorod, 1990)
Punin, N., ‘Vystavka drevnerusskogo iskusstva’, Apollon, Sers, F. [Sers, Ph.], Totalitarizm i avangard. V preddverii
5 (1913) zapredel’nogo (Moscow, 2004) [trans. of
Rakina, V. A., ‘Sheremetevy – sobirateli Totalitarisme et avant-gardes: au seuil de la transcen-
zapadnoyevropeyskoy zhivopisi’, in Chastnoye dance, 2001]
kollektsionirovaniye v Rossii. Materialy nauchnoy Sevast’yanova, Ye. S., ‘Iz istorii kartinykh ram v Rossii’,
konferentsii ‘Vipperovskiye chteniya –1994’, xxvii Relikviya, 2 (2004)
(Moscow, 1995) Shapiro [Schapiro], M., ‘K probleme semiotiki
Rakova, A. L., xviii vek v zerkale ornamental’noy vizual’nogo iskusstva’ [trans. of ‘On Some Problems
gravyury. Katalog vystavki iz sobraniya Ermitazha in the Semiotics of Visual Arts’, 1969], in Semiotika i
(St Petersburg, 1999) iskusstvometriya (Moscow, 1972)
Repin, I. Ye., Dalyokoye blizkoye (Leningrad, 1986) Shchekotov, N. M., ‘Vystavka drevnerusskogo iskusstva v
Rerikh [Roerich], I., ‘Pis’mo khudozhnika’, Russkaya Moskve’, ii: ‘Nekotoryye cherty stilya russkikh ikon
ikona, 1 (1914) xv veka’, Staryye gody (April 1913)
Ritstsi, D., ‘Rikhard Vagner v russkom simvolizme’, in ––, ‘Ikonopis’ kak iskusstvo. Po povodu sobraniya ikon
Serebryannyy vek v Rossii. Izbrannyye stranitsy I. S. Ostroukhova i S. P. Ryabushinskogo’, Russkaya
(Moscow 1993) ikona, 2 (1914)
Romanov, G. A., Krest reznoy (Moscow, 1992) Shchennikova, L. A., ‘Pochitaniye chudotvornoy
Rostovsky, D., ‘Komediya na Rozhdestvo Khristovo’, Vladimirskoy ikony Bogomateri v epokhu Dionisiya
in pldr, 3: xvii vek (Moscow, 1994) i yego posledovateley’, Ferapontovskiy sbornik, 4
Rovinsky, D. A., Russkiye narodnyye kartinki. Atlas (Moscow, 2002)
(St Petersburg, 1881 and 1893), vols iii and iv Shcherbatov, S., Khudozhnik v ushedshey Rossii
––, Russkiye narodnyye kartinki (St Petersburg, 1900), (Moscow, 2000)
vol. ii Shelling [Schelling], F. V., Filosofiya iskusstva (St
Rozanov, V. V., Sredi khudozhnikov (Moscow, 1994) Petersburg, 1996) [trans. from German]
Rusakova, A. A., Simvolizm v russkoy zhivopisi (Moscow, Sipovskaya, N. V., ‘“Tsitata” v kul’ture xix veka’, in xix
1995) vek: tselostnost’ i protsess. Voprosy vzaimodeystviya
Russkiy istoricheskiy portret. Epokha parsuny, exh. cat., iskusstv (Moscow, 2002)
State Historical Museum, Moscow, 26 December Slovo v den’ svyashchennogo koronovaniya ikh
2003–31 May 2004 (Moscow, 2004) imperatorskikh velichestv gosudarya imperatora

401
 vserossiskogo Aleksandra Aleksandrovicha i (St Petersburg, 1894–1906), vol. i
gosudaryni imperatritsy Marii Fyodorovny ––, Izbr. soch., v 2-kh tomakh (Moscow and Leningrad,
(St Petersburg, 1883) 1937), vol. i
Sobolev, N. N., ‘Reznyye izobrazheniya v moskovskikh Sterligova, I. A., Dragotsennyy ubor drevnerusskikh ikon
tserkvakh’, Staraya Moskva, 2 (Moscow, 1914) xi–xiv vekov. Proiskhozhdeniye, simvolika,
––, Russkaya narodnaya rez’ba po derevu (Moscow, khudozhestvennyy obraz (Moscow, 2000)
2000) Stolpyansky, P., ‘Torgovlya khudozhestvennymi
Sobolevsky, A., ‘Bozhiya Mater’ Smolenskaya iz proizvedeniyami v xviii veke’, Staryye gody
sobraniya S.P. Ryabushinskogo’, Russkaya ikona, 2 (May–June 1913)
(St Petersburg, 1914) –– [as P. S.], ‘V starom Peterburge’,
Sofronova, L. A., Starinnyy ukrainskiy teatr (Moscow, Staryye gody (January 1913)
1996) Stroyev, P., Vykhody gosudarey, tsarey i velikikh knyazey
––, Tri mira Grigoriya Skovorody (Moscow, 2002) (Moscow, 1844)
––, ‘Rossiskiy feotron. Lyubitel’skiy teatr xviii veka’ Svechnikov, V., ‘Tvorchestvo V. M. Vasnetsova i
[manuscript] znacheniye yego dlya russkoy religioznoy zhivopisi’,
Sokolov, M. N., Misteriya sosedstva. K metamorfologii Svetil’nik, 6 (1913)
iskusstva Vozrozhdeniya (Moscow, 1999) Sychev, N., ‘Drevlekhranilishche Russkogo muzeya
Sokolova, I. M., Russkaya derevyannaya skulp’tura imperatora Aleksandra iii’, Staryye gody
xv–xviii vekov. Katalog (Moscow, 2003) (January–February 1916)
Solov’yov, I., ‘Pravoslavno-Khristianskaya filosofiya v Tarabukin. N., Ot mol’berta k mashine (Moscow, 1923)
russkom iskusstve (S vystavki religioznykh kartin Tarabukin, N. M., Vrubel’ (Moscow, 1974)
V. M. Vasnetsova (1910)’, in Filosofiya russkogo ––, Smysl’ ikony (Moscow, 1999)
religioznogo iskusstva xvi–xx vv. Antologiya Tarasov, O. Yu., ‘Ikona v russkom avangarde
(Moscow, 1993) 1910–1920-kh godakh’, Iskusstvo, 1 (1992)
Solov’yov, Vl., ‘Krasota v prirode’, in Sobr. soch., vi ––, Ikona i blagochestiye. Ocherki ikonnogo dela v
(Brussels, 1966) [photographic reproduction] imperatorskoy Rossii (Moscow, 1995)
––, ‘Obshchiy smysl’ iskusstva’, ibid. ––, ‘Ramka i vizual’nyy stereotip’, in Rechevyye i
Solov’yov, V. N., Pridvornaya zhizn’,1613–1913. mental’nye stereoytipy v sinkhronii i diakhronii
Koronatsii, feyerverki, dvortsy. Vystavka gravyur i (Moscow, 2000) [papers read at a confererence
risunkov (St Petersburg, 1913) held at the Institut slavyanovedeniya, Russian
Solov’yov, V. S., ‘Mir vostoka i zapada’, in Soch. v 2-kh Academy of Sciences]
tomakh (Moscow, 1989), vol. ii ––, ‘Sakral’nyye motivy v ekspozitsii ikon’, in L. A.
Sosnina, O. A., ‘Ritoricheskaya figura, ili Sofronova, ed., Oppozitsiya sakral’noye/svetskoye v
“Govoryashchaya” skul’ptura’, in xviii vek: slavyanskoy kul’ture (Moscow, 2004)
assambleya iskusstv. Vzaimodeystviye iskusstv v Taraushvili, L. I., Tektonika vizual’nogo obraza v poezii
russkoy kul’ture xviii veka (Moscow, 2000) Antichnosti i khristianskoy Yevropy. K voprosu o
Sreznevsky, I. I., Slovar’ drevnerusskogo yazyka (Moscow, kul’turno-istoricheskikh predposylkakh ordernogo
1989), vol. i part 2 zodchdestva (Moscow, 1998)
Stasov, V. V., Russkiy narodnyy ornament, i: Shit’yo, tkani, Terekhina, V. N., and A. P. Zimenkov, eds, Russkiy
kruzheva (St Petersburg, 1872) futurism. Teoriya. Praktika. Kritika. Vospominaniya
––, Slavyanskiy i vostochnyy ornament po rukopisyam (Moscow, 1999)
drevnogo i novogo vremeni (St Petersburg, 1884–7) Tikhonravov, N. S., ‘Moskovskiye volnodumtsy nachala
––, ‘“Zhivyye kartiny” i drugiye khudozhestvennyye xviii veka i Stefan Yavorsky’, in Soch., ii: Russkaya
predmety v Peterburge’, in Sobr. soch. v 3-kh tomakh literatura xvii i xviii vv. (Moscow, 1898)
(St Petersburg, 1894), vol. i part 2 Toporov, V. N., Tekst, semantika, struktura (Moscow,
––, ‘Fotografiya i gravyura’, Sobr. soch. v 4-kh tomakh 1983)

402
 bibliography

––, ‘Prostranstvo i tekst’, in Iz rabot moskovskogo tserkovnoy i grazhdanskoy utvari, ispolnennoy

semioticheskogo kruzhka (Moscow, 1994) tovarishchestvom P. I. Olovyanishnikova (Moscow,
Troitsky, N. I., ‘Ikonostas i yego simvolika’, Trudy 1911)
vos’mogo arkheologicheskogo s’yezda v Moskve, 1890 Vasil’yev. V. N., Starinnyye feyerverki v Rossii (xvii–
(Moscow, 1897), vol. iv pervaya chetvert’ xviii v. (Leningrad, 1960)
Trubetskoy, Ye., ‘Umozreniye v kraskakh. Vopros o Vasnetsov, V. M., ‘Pamyati Sergeya Ivanovicha Vashkova’,
smysli zhizni v drevnerusskoy religioznoy zhivopisi’, Svetil’nik, 10 (1914)
in N. K. Gavryushin, ed., Filosofiya russkogo ––, Mir khudozhnika. Pis’ma, dnevniki, vospominaniya,
religioznogo iskusstva xvi–xx vv. Antologiya suzhdeniya sovremennikov (Moscow, 1987)
(Moscow, 1993) Vdovin, G., Stanovleniye ‘Ya’ v russkoy kul’ture xviii veka
Tugendkhol’d, Ya., Problemy voyny v mirovom iskusstve i iskusstvo portreta (Moscow, 1999)
(Moscow, 1916) Vel’tman, A. F., Opisaniye novogo imperatorskogo dvortsa
Turchin, V. S., ‘Rama – prostranstvo – kartina (Iz istorii v Kremle Moskovskom (Moscow, 1851)
kartinnykh ram)’, Dekorativnoye iskusstvo sssr, 8 Vereshchagin, V. V., Turkestan. Etyudy s natury V. V.
(1971) Vereshchagina (St Petersburg, 1874)
––, ‘Okno: forma, prostranstvo, obraz’, ibid., 8 (1973) ––, Ocherki puteshestviya v Gimalai, parts 1–2
Tyukhmeneva, Ye. A., Iskusstvo triumfal’nykh vrat v (St Petersburg, 1883–4)
Rossii pervoy poloviny xviii veka. Problemy ––, Na voyne v Azii i Yevrope (Moscow, 1894)
panegiricheskogo napravleniya (Moscow, 2005) ––, Napoleon I v Rossii, 1812 (Moscow, 1895)
Urvanov, I., Kratkoye rukovodstvo k poznaniyu risovaniya ––, Na voyne. Vospominaniya o russko-turetskoy voyne
i zhivopisi, osnovannoye na umozrenii i opytakh 1877 goda. So mnogimi risunkami avtora i snimkami
(St Petersburg, 1793) yego kartin (Moscow, 1902)
Ushakov, S., ‘Slovo k lyubotshchatel’nomu ikonnogo ––, ‘Realizm’, in V. V. Vereshchagin . . . (1992)
pisaniya’, in Filosofiya russkogo religioznogo iskusstva ––, Vospominaniya syna khudozhnika (Leningrad, 1982)
xvi–xx vv. Antologiya (Moscow, 1993) V. V. Vereshchagin v Tret’yakovskoy galereye. K 150-letiyu
Uspensky, A. I., Vladimirskaya ikona Bogmateri v so dnya rozhdeniya. Katalog vystavki (Moscow, 1992)
Moskovskom Uspenskom sobore (Moscow, 1902) Veselovsky, V. N., ‘Iz poetiki rozy’, in Izbrannyye stat’i
[with drawings by the icon painter V. P. Gur’yanov] (Leningrad, 1939)
––, Tsarstvennyye ikonopistsy i zhivopistsy xvii veka. Viktorov, A. Ye., Opisaniye zapisnykh knig i bumag
Slovar’ (Moscow, 1910) starinnykh dvortsovykh prikazov. 1584–1785, part 2
––, Tsarskoye Selo (Moscow, 1912) (Moscow, 1882)
––, Imperatorskiye dvortsy (Moscow, 1913), 2 vols Vinkel’man, I. I. [Winckelmann, J. J.], Istoriya iskusstva
Uspensky, B. A., Izbrannyye trudy (Moscow, 1994), vol. i drevnosti (Leningrad, 1933) [trans. of Geschichte der
––, Semiotika iskusstva (Moscow, 1995) Kunst des Alterthums, 1764]
––, Tsar’ i patriarch: kharisma vlasti v Rossii ––, Izbrannyye proizvedeniya i pis’ma (Moscow, reissue
(Vizantiyskaya model’ i yeyo russkoye 1996) [trans. from German]
pereosmysleniye) (Moscow, 1998) Vin’yola, D. V. [Vignola, J.], Pravilo pyati orderov
Uspensky, P. D., Chetvyortoye izmereniye. Obzor arkhitektury (Moscow, 1939) [trans. of Regola delli
glavneyshikh teoriy i popytok issledovaniya oblasti cinque ordini d’architettura, 1562]
neizmerimogo (Petrograd, 1918) Vipper, B. R., Arkhitektura russkogo barokko (Moscow,
––, Tertium Organum. Klyuch k zagadkam mira 1978)
(St Petersburg, 1992) Vitruviy [Vitruvius Pollio, M.], Desyat’ knig ob
Vagner [Wagner], R., ‘Proizvedeniya iskusstva arkhitekture (Moscow, 1936), vol. i [trans. of De
budushchego’, in Izbrannyye raboty (Moscow, 1978) architectura, 1st century bc]
[trans. of ‘Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft’, 1850] ‘Volokitin’, Stolitsa i usad’ba, 44 (1915)
Vashkov, S. I., Religioznoye iskusstvo. Sbornik rabot Voloshin, M., ‘O smysle katastrofy, postigshey kartinu

403
 Repina’, Utro Rossii, 16 (19 January–1 February 1913) Imperatorskim Moskovskim arkheologicheskim
Voronikhina, A. N., ‘Triumfal’nyye vorota 1742 goda v obshchestvom v pamyat’ svoyego pervogo
Sankt-Peterburge’, in M. A. Alekseyeva, ed., Russkoye dvadtsatipyatiletiya. Sobraniye tserkovnykh
iskusstvo barokko. Materialy i issledovaniya drevnostey N. M. Pogodina (Moscow, 1890)
(Moscow, 1977) Zapiski imperatritsy Yekateriny Vtoroy (St Petersburg, 1907)
––, Mikhaylo Makhayev – master vidovogo risunka xviii Zedl’mayr, Kh. [Sedlmayr, H.], Iskusstvo i istina
veka (St Petersburg, 2003) (Moscow, 1999) [trans. of Kunst und Wahrheit, 1958]
Vrangel’, N., ‘Iskusstvo i gosudar’ Nikolay Pavlovich’, Zhegin, L. F., Yazyk zhivopisnogo proizvedeniya.
Staryye gody (July 1913) Predisloviye i kommentarii B. A. Uspenskogo
Vrubel, M., Perepiska. Vospominaniya o khudozhnike (Moscow, 1970)
(Leningrad, 1976) Zhivov, V. M., Razyskaniya v oblasti istorii i predystorii
Vyol’flin, G. [Wölfflin, H.], Renessans i barokko. russkoy kul’tury (Moscow, 2002)
Issledovaniye sushchnosti i stanovleniya stilya barokko Zhivov, V. M., and B. A. Uspensky, ‘Tsar’ i Bog:
v Italii (St Petersburg, 2004) [trans. of Renaissance Semioticheskiye aspekty sakralizatsii monarkha v
und Barock, 1888] Rossii’, in B. A. Uspensky, ed., Yazyki kul’tury i
Vystavka drevnerusskogo iskusstva, ustroyennaya v 1913 problemy perevodimosti (Moscow, 1987)
godu v oznamenovaniye chestvovaniya 300-letiya Zvezdina, Yu. N., ‘Rastitel’nyy dekor pozdnykh russkikh
doma Romanovykh (Moscow, 1913) ikonostasov. O zapadnykh istochnikakh simvoliki’,
Vzdornov, G. I., Istoriya otkrytiya i izucheniya russkoy in A. M. Lidov, ed., Ikonostas. Proiskhozhdeniye –
srednevekovoy zhivopisi. xix vek (Moscow, 1986) razvitiye – simvolika (Moscow, 2000)
––, Restavratsiya i nauka. Ocherki po istorii otkrytiya i Zdanevich, I., and M. Larionov, ‘Pochemy my
izucheniya russkogo zhivopisi (Moscow, 2006) raskrashivayemsya. Manifest futuristov’, in V. N.
Yakobson [Jakobson], R., ‘O khudozhestvennom Terekhina and A. P. Zimenkov, eds, Russkiy futurism.
realizme’, in Raboty po poetike (Moscow, 1987) Teoriya. Praktika. Kritika. Vospominaniya (Moscow,
Yakovlev, V. N., Khudozhniki, restavratory, antikvary 1999)
(Leningrad, 1966)
Yavorskaya, S. L., ‘“Shumayevskiy krest” i kal’variya
tsarya Alekseya Mikhaylovicha’, in A. M. Lidov, ed.,
Western publications
Ikonostas. Proiskhozhdeniye – razvitiye – simvolika
(Moscow, 2000) Acheimastou-Potamianou, M., Icons of the Byzantine
Yavorsky, S., ‘Emblemata et symbola’, in pldr, xvii vek, 3 Museum of Athens (Athens, 1998)
(Moscow, 1991) The Art of the Frame: An Exhibition Focusing on
Yelizarova, N. A., Ostankino (Moscow, 1966) American Frames of the Arts and Crafts Movement,
Ye. S., ‘Usad’ba Struyskikh “Ruzayevka”’, Stolitsa i 1870–1920, exh. cat. by S. Smeaton and E. Wilner
usad’ba, 38–39 (1915) (New York, 1990)
Yevangulova, O. S., Izobrazitel’noye iskusstvo v Rossii The Art of the Picture Frame: Artists, Patrons and the
pervoy chetverti xviii veka (Moscow, 1987) Framing of Portraits in Britain, exh. cat., by J.
Yevseyeva, L. M., A. M. Lidov and N. N. Chugreyeva, Simon, London, npg (1996)
Spas nerukotvornyy v russkoy ikone (Moscow, 2003) Ayrshire, W., ‘The Philosophy of the Picture Frame’,
Yeyts, F. [Yates, F. A.], Iskusstvo pamyati (St Petersburg, International Studio (June 1926)
1997) [trans. of The Art of Memory, 1966] Bailey, W. H., Defining Edges: A New Look at Picture
Zabelin, I. Ye., Domashnyy byt russkikh tsarey v xvi i Frames (New York, 2002)
xvii stoletiyakh (Moscow, 1862) Bajac, Qu., see Bazhak, K. under Russian publications
––, Cherty samobytnosti v drevnerusskom zodchestve Baldi, R., G. Gualberto Lisini, C. Martelli and S.
(Moscow, 1900) Martelli, La cornice fiorentina e senese: storia e
Zaly 5-ya i 6-ya arkheologicheskoy vystavki, ustroyennoy tecniche di restauro (Florence, 1992)

404
 bibliography

Bann, Stephen, Paul Delaroche: History Painted Comment, Bernard, The Panorama (London, 1999)
(London, 1997) Cormack, Robin, Painting the Soul: Icons, Death Masks
––, Parallel Lines: Printmakers, Painters and Photographs and Shrouds (London, 1997)
in Nineteenth-century France (New Haven, ct, and ––, Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society and its Icons
London, 2001) (London, 1985)
Bataille, Georges, Museum Studies: An Anthology of Craig, O., ‘From Work to Frame, or, Is there Life after
Contexts (London, 2006) “The Death of the Author”?’, Implosion: A
Baudrillard, J., see Bodriyar, Zh. under Russian Postmodern Perspective, exh. cat. (Stockholm, 1987)
publications The Cultures of Collecting, ed. J. Elsner and R. Cardinal
Baxandall, Michael, Giotto and the Orators: Humanist (London, 1994)
Observers of Painting in Italy and the Discovery of Deleuze, J., see Delyoz, Zh. under Russian publications
Pictorial Composition, 1350–1450 (Oxford, 1971); see Dell’Acqua, F., ‘Glass and Natural Light in the Shaping
also Baksandoll, M., under Russian publications of Sacred Space in the Latin West and in the
Bazin, G., The Museum Age (New York, 1967) Byzantine East’, in Iyerotopiya. Sozdaniye sakral’nykh
Belting, Hans, The Invisible Masterpiece (London, 2001) prostranstv v Vizantii i Drevney Rusi, ed. A. M. Lidov
Bennett, Tony, The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, (Moscow, 2006)
Practice (London and New York, 1995) Derrida, Jacques, The Truth in Painting (Chicago and
Benois, A., see Benua, A. under Russian publications London, 1987)
Białostocki, J., The Art of the Renaissance in Eastern Dillenberger, J., Image and Spirit in Sacred and Secular
Europe: Hungary, Bohemia, Poland (Oxford, 1976) Art (New York, 1990)
Blunt, Anthony, Artistic Theory in Italy, 1450–1600 Dilthey, W., see Dil’tey, V. under Russian publications
(Oxford, 1940) Eberlein, J. K., ‘The Curtain in Raphael’s Sistine
Bock, E., Florentinische und venezianische Bilderrahmen Madonna’, Art Bulletin, lxv/1 (1983)
aus der Zeit der Gotik und Renaissance (Munich, 1902) Eco, Umberto, ‘Fakes and Forgeries’, in id., The Limits of
Bode, W., Bilderrahmen in alter und neuer Zeit, iv Interpretation (Bloomington, in, 1990)
(1898–99) Ehlich, W., Bild und Rahmen im Altertum (Leipzig, 1954)
Boehn, M., Dolls and Puppets (New York, 1966) ––, Bilderrahmen von der Antike bis zur Romantik
Bowlt, J. E., ‘Orthodoxy and the Avant-garde: Sacred (Dresden, 1979)
Images in the Work of Goncharova, Malevich Evans, J., Pattern: A Study of Ornament in Western
and their Contemporaries’, in Christianity and Europe from 1180 to 1900 (New York, 1975)
the Arts in Russia, ed. W. C. Brumfield and Falke, J., Rahmen (Stuttgart, 1892)
M. M. Velimirovic (Cambridge, 1991) Framing in the Golden Age: Picture and Frame in
Bullen, J. B., Byzantium Rediscovered (London, 2003) Seventeenth-century Holland, ed. P.J.J. Thiel and C. J.
Burke, Peter, Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Kops (Amsterdam, 1995)
Historical Evidence (London, 2001) Fuchs, S. E., Der Bilderrahmen (Recklinghausen, 1985)
Butor, Michel, Les Mots dans la peinture (Geneva, 1969) The Gilded Edge: The Art of the Frame, ed. E. Wilner
Cadre des peintre, exh. cat., ed. I. Cahn, Musée d’Orsay, (San Francisco, 2000)
Paris (1989) Gombrich, E. H., Art and Illusion: A Study in the
Cahn, I., ‘Edgar Degas: Gold or Colour’, in In Perfect Psychology of Pictorial Representation (Princeton, nj,
Harmony: Picture + Frame, 1850–1920, exh. cat. ed. 1989)
Eva Mendgen (Amsterdam, 1995) ––, The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of
Camille, Michael, Image on the Edge: The Margins of Decorative Art (London, 1994)
Medieval Art (London, 1992) ––, Shadows: The Depiction of Cast Shadows in Western
Chatzidakis, N., From Candia to Venice: Greek Icons in Art (London, 1995)
Italy, 15th–16th Centuries, exh. cat., Museo Correr, ––, The Uses of Images: Studies in the Social Function of
Venice (1993) Art and Visual Communication (London, 1999)

405
––, and D. Eribon, Looking for Answers: Conversations Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat (New Haven,
on Art and Science (New York, 1993) ct, and London, 1990)
Gombrich on Art and Psychology, ed. R. Woodfield Kennedy, J., A Psychology of Picture Perception: Images
(Manchester and New York, 1996) and Information (San Francisco, 1974)
Goodman, N., The Languages of Art (Indianapolis, in, Lacan, Jacques, ‘The Mirror Stage as Formative of the
1968) Function of the “I” as Revealed in Psychoanalytic
Gottlieb, C., The Window in Art: From the Window of Experience’, in id., Écrits: A Selection (New York,
God to the Vanity of Man, A Survey of Window 1977)
Symbolism in Western Painting (New York, 1981) ––, ‘Of the Gaze as Objet Petit a’, in The Four
Gray, C., The Russian Experiment in Art, 1863–1922 Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, ed. J.-A.
(London, 1962) Miller (New York, 1978)
Grimm, C., The Book of Picture Frames (New York, 1981) Le Corbusier, ‘Other Icons: The Museums’, in Museum
Guggenheim, M., Le cornici italiane meta del secolo xv Studies: An Anthology of Contexts, ed. Bettina
allo scorcio del xvi (Milan, 1897) Messias Carbonell (London, 2006)
Gumpenberg, W., Atlas Marianus sive de imaginibus Leen, A., ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art’, American
Deiparae per orbem Christianum miracolosis Journal of Philosophy, 112 (1992)
(Ingolstadt, 1657) Loos, A., Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf
Haskell, F., History and its Images: Art and Interpretation Opel [trans. from German] (Riverside, ca, 1998)
of the Past (New Haven, ct, and London, 1995) Maguire, H., Art and Eloquence in Byzantium
Heidegger, M., see Khaydegger, M. under Russian (Princeton, nj, 1981)
publications Martin, J. R., Baroque (New York, 1977)
Heydenryk, H., The Art and History of Frames: An Enquiry Making Histories in Museums, ed. G. Kavanagh (London
into the Enhancement of Paintings (London, 1964) and New York, 1996)
Hippisley, A., see Khippisley, A. under Russian Maleuvre, D., Museum Memories: History, Technology,
publications Art (Stanford, ca, 1999)
Historische Bilderrahmen: Sammlung F. G. Conzen, exh. Mathews, T. F., ‘The Emperor and the Icon’, Acta ad
cat. by Norbert Michels and Angelika Brunke, Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia, xv,
Anhaltische Gemäldegalerie Dessau (1996) n.s. 1 (2001)
Holly, M. A., Panofsky and the Foundation of Art History Mendgen, E., ‘Patinated or Burnished: Picture and
(Ithaca, ny, and London, 1984) Frame in the Work of Lenbach and Böcklin’, in In
Hughes, C. E., ‘A Seventeenth-century Frame’, Apollo, 29 Perfect Harmony: Picture + Frame, 1850–1920, exh.
(1939) cat. ed. Eva Mendgen (Amsterdam, 1995)
Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion Michalski, S., ‘Inscriptions in Protestant Paintings and
and Art, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel in Protestant Churches’, in Ars Ecclesiastica: The
(Cambridge, 2002) Church as a Context for Visual Arts, ed. A.-L. Paavola
In Perfect Harmony: Picture + Frame, 1850–1920, exh. cat. (Helsinki, 1996)
ed. Eva Mendgen (Amsterdam, 1995) Minor, Vernon Hyde, Art History’s History (Englewood
Italian Renaissance Frames, exh. cat. by T. J. Newbery, G. Cliffs, nj, 1994)
Busacca and L. B. Kanter, Metropolitan Museum of Misler, N., ‘Pavel Florensky as Art Historian’, in Beyond
Art, New York (1990) Vision: Essays on the Perception of Art, ed. Nicoletta
Jakobson, R., see Yakobson, R. under Russian Misler, trans. Wendy Salmond (London, 2002)
publications Mitchell, P., ‘Italian Picture Frames, 1500–1825: A Brief
Jones, O., The Grammar of Ornament (London, 1856) Survey’, Journal of the Furniture Society, xx (1984)
Jourdain, M., ‘Some Eighteenth Century Picture Mitchell, W.J.T., Iconology: Image, text, Iconology
Frames’, Apollo (January 1938) (Chicago, 1986)
Kemp, Martin, The Science of Art: Optical Themes in ––, Picture Theory (Chicago and London, 1994)

406
 bibliography

Mitchell, P. and L. Roberts, A History of European Artwork, ed. P. Duro (Cambridge, 1996)
Picture Frames (London, 1996) Rhodes, C., Primitivism and Modern Art (London, 1997)
Mosco, M., ed., Antiche cornici italiane dal cinquecento al Riegl, A., Stilfragen (Vienna, 1893)
settecento, exh. cat., Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence ––, Spätrömische Kunstindustrie (Vienna, 1901)
(1991) Ripa, C., Baroque and Rococo Pictorial Imagery, ed. A.
Morazzoni, G., Le cornici veneziane (Milan, 1940) Maser (New York, 1971)
Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts, ed. B. M. Roberts, L., ‘Nineteenth-century English Picture Frames
Carbonell (London, 2006) i: The Pre-Raphaelites’, International Journal of
Muthmann, Fr, Der Granatafel: Symbol des Lebens in der Museum Management and Curatorship, iv (1985)
Alten Welt (Bern, 1982) Roche, S., Cadres français et étrangers du xve siècle au
Newbery, T. J., Frames and Framings in the Ashmolean xviii siècle (Paris, 1931)
Museum (Oxford, 2002) Rowell, C., ‘Display of Art’, in The Dictionary of Art, ed.
New Museum – Theory and Practice: An Introduction, Jane Turner (London, 2003), vol. ix
ed. Janet Marstine (Oxford, 2006) Ruskin, J., see Ryoskin, Dzh. under Russian publications
The New Museology, ed. Peter Vergo (London, 1989) Sabatelli, F., E. Colle and P. Zambrano, La cornice
Nietzsche, F., see Nitsshe, F. under Russian publications italiana dal Rinascimento al Neoclassico (Milan, 1992)
The Orientalists: Delacroix to Matisse, exh. cat., ed. Mary Said, E., Orientalism (Harmondsworth, 1991)
Anne Stevens, Royal Academy of Arts, London Schapiro, M., ‘On Some Problems in the Semiotics of
(1984) Visual Arts: Field and Vehicle in Image Signs’,
The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Semiotica, 1 (1969)
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Europe, ed. O. ––, Words, Script, and Pictures: Semiotics of Visual
Impey and A. MacGregor (Oxford, 1985) Language (New York, 1996)
Ortega y Gasset, José, ‘Meditation on the Frame’, in The Sedlmayer, H., see Zedl’mayer, Kh. under Russian
Art of the Edge: European Frames, 1300–1900, exh. publications
cat. (Chicago, 1986) Simmons, W., Kasimir Malevich’s Black Square (New
Ousterhout, R. and L. Brubaker, eds, The Sacred Image: York, 1989)
East and West (Urbana, il, and Chicago, 1995) Smith, E. B., The Dome: A Study in the History of Ideas
Panofsky, E., Perspective as Symbolic Form (New York, (Princeton, nj, 1950)
1997) Sparrow, J., Visible Words: A Study of Inscriptions in and
Pascoe, D., Peter Greenaway: Museums and Moving as Works of Art (Cambridge, 1969)
Images (London, 1997) Speltz, A., The Styles of Ornament (London, 1910)
Paul of Aleppo, see Aleppsky, P. Stoichita, V. I., A Short History of the Shadow (London,
Penny, N., ‘Reynolds and Picture Frames’, The Burlington 1997)
Magazine, cxxxix (February 1998) Sullivan, L. H., The Public Papers, ed. R. Twombly
––, ‘The Study and Imitation of Old Picture Frames’, (Chicago and London, 1988)
The Burlington Magazine, cxl (June 1998) Tarasov, O., ‘Russian Icons and the Avant-garde:
–– and M. Gregory, ‘Reynolds and Picture Frames’, Tradition and Change’, in The Art of Holy Russia:
The Burlington Magazine, cxxviii (November 1986) Icons from Moscow, 1400–1600, exh. cat., Royal
Pollack, P., The Picture of Photography (New York, 1969) Academy of Arts, London (1998)
Poucey, P., ‘A Painted Frame by Paolo Schiavo’, The ––, ‘The Russian Icon and Culture of the moderne:
Burlington Magazine, lxxxviii (September 1946) The Renaissance of Popular Icon Painting in the
Praz, M., Studies in Seventeenth-century Imagery (Rome, Reign of Nicholas ii’, Experiment, 7 (2001)
1975) ––, Icon and Devotion: Sacred Spaces in Imperial Russia,
Putnam, J., Art and Artifact: The Museum as Medium trans. Robin Milner-Gulland (London, 2002)
(London, 2001) ––, ‘Florenskij, Malevič e la semiotica dell’icona’, La
The Rhetoric of the Frame: Essays on the Boundary of the Nuova Europa, i (2002)

407
Thornton, L., The Orientalists: Painter-Travellers,
1828–1908 (Paris, 1983)
Uspenskij, B., La pala d’altare di Jan van Eyck a Grand:
la composizione dell’opera (Milan, 2001)
Verestchagin, V., Painter – Soldier – Traveller:
Autobiographical Sketches (London, 1887)
Vocotopoulos, P. L., Composite Icons – Griechische
Ikonen (Athens, 2000)
Wagner, R., see Vagner, R. under Russian publications
Waschek, M., ‘Camille Pissarro: From Impressionist
Frame to Decorative Object’, In Perfect Harmony:
Picture + Frame, 1850–1920, exh. cat. ed. Eva
Mendgen (Amsterdam, 1995)
Wazbinski, Z., ‘La “cartellino”: origine et avantare d’une
étiquette’, Panteon, xxi (1963)
Weitzmann, K., The Monastery of St Catherine at Mount
Sinai: The Icons, vol. i: From the Sixth to the Tenth
Century (Princeton, nj, 1976)
White, J., The Birth and Rebirth of Pictorial Space
(London, 1957)
Winckelmann, J. J., see Vinkel’man, I. I. under Russian
publications
Wölfflin, H., see Vyol’flin, G. under Russian publications
Yates, F. A., see Yeyts, F. under Russian publications
Zusne, L., Visual Perception of Form (New York and
London, 1970)

408
acknowledgements

The English-language edition of this work has appeared thanks to the efforts of various
specialists. I should like to express my particular thanks to my British colleagues Professor
Robin Milner-Gulland and Antony Wood, who took upon themselves the burdensome
task of translating a text of considerable length and have coped brilliantly with it. They
were able to enter into the smallest details and nuances of a theme that may at first sight
not appear easily comprehensible – the very ones that make it so alluring and interesting.
I should also like to thank my friends and colleagues who gave me the benefit of
their advice while I was preparing the Russian edition: namely Professor Boris Uspensky,
Lyudmila Sofronova, Mikhail Sokolov and Ivan Benchev. And of course this book would
never have seen the light of day without the loyal support of the publishers, Reaktion
Books, headed by Michael Leaman, to whom I express my particularly deep gratitude.

oleg tarasov

409
 index

Abramtsevo, The Saviour Not Made by Hands see Bogolyubov, Aleksey 253
churches Bondarenko, Il’ya 135, 196
Alberti, Leon Battista 37, 41, 43, 45 Borisov-Musatov, Viktor 329
Alciati, Andrea 94, 96 Borovikovsky, Vladimir 134, 166
Aleksey Mikhaylovich, Tsar 19, 48–9, 154, 161, 171 Botkin, Mikhail 189
Alimpiy 109, 112, 152 Bronnikov, Fyodor 134
Alpatov, Mikhail 17 Brunelleschi, Filippo 37, 41
Anisimov, Alexander 29 Bryson, Norman 13
Antonello da Messina 271–2 Bryullov, Karl 173, 174
Archangel’skoye 270 Burlyuk, Vladimir 349
Argunov, Ivan 247 Burne-Jones, Edward 113, 326
Argunov, Nikolay 237 Buslayev, Fyodor 116, 180–81, 183
Ayvazovsky, Ivan 302, 303 Butovsky, Viktor 116, 118–19
Byzantium 27, 35, 46
Bakhtin, Mikhail 22, 261
Bal, Mieke 13 Callot, Jacques 288
Balla, Giacomo 333, 334 Camerarius, Joachim 94
Baranov, I. A. 191 Capa, Robert 284
Bastiani, Lazzaro 168 Caravaque, Louis 243, 244, 248
Bastien-Lepage, Jules 326 Cassirer, Ernst 40
Bazhenov, A. N. 293 Catherine i 19, 229, 235, 255
Bazhenov, Vasiliy 133, 293 Catherine ii (Catherine the Great) 173, 237, 240, 242,
Becker, Georges 252–5 245–6
Bellini, Giovanni 42, 44 Caussin, Nicolas 94
Benjamin, Walter 282, 328 Cherny, A. I. 240
Benois, Alexander see Benua Chevreul, Eugène 328
Benua, Alexander 132, 173, 229, 290, 317, 322, 329, 344 Chubinskaya, Valentina 15
Benua, Leontiy 330 churches
Berdyayev, Nikolay 19, 123, 335 Abramtsevo, The Saviour Not Made by Hands 21,
Bezmin, Ivan 153 34, 104, 105–14, 116–20, 122, 124, 137, 139, 142,
Blue Rose Group 317, 322, 332 143
Bock, Elfried 14 Dubrovitsy, church of the Sign 90

411
 Fili, Pokrov 98 Florensky, Pavel 36, 39–40, 59, 198
Kostroma, Trinity Cathedral of the Ipat’yevsky Fyodorov-Davydov, Aleksey 201–202
Monastery 127, 129
Kostroma, church of the Resurrection 143–4 Gagarin, Grigoriy 118
Markovo, Moscow province, village church 145 Galyatovsky, Ioannikiy 47, 66, 97
Moscow Ge, Nikolay 238, 299
Christ the Saviour 124, 134–5, 166 Gentile da Fabriano 14, 62, 63
Kremlin, church of the Elevation of the Cross 90 Géricault, Théodore 289
Kremlin, church of the Ascension 90 Gillet, Nicolas-François 300
Natal’yevka, Kharkov province, Church of the Gogol, Nikolay 263, 300, 360–62
Transfiguration 199, 200 Goncharova, Natalya 334, 335
Nizhniy Novgorod, Nativity Church 127, 130 Goodman, Nelson 13, 363
Rostov the Great, St John the Divine (near to) 113, Goritsky Monastery 229
127, 128, 136, 137 Grabar’, Igor 120
Ryazan, monastery church, St John the Baptist 146 Grab’ye, A. 307, 324
Semyonovskoye, village church 132, 133 Grasian, Bal’tazar 47, 66
Tsarskoye Selo, Palace Church of the Resurrection Grekov, Ivan 56, 91
131, 132 Grimmel, Elias 55, 57
Yaroslavl, St Nikola Nadein 138 Grishchenko, Aleksey 197
Yaroslavl, Nikola Mokryy 160 Guggenheim, Michelangelo 14–15, 356
Gunst, Pieter van 248–9
Dadaism 351–2
Daguerre, Louis 282, 291 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 123, 351
Dal’, Lev 116, 135, 310 Heidegger, Martin 30, 37, 351, 374
Dal’, Vladimir 118 Hertel, Johann 100, 102
St John Damascene 35 Hughes, Arthur 326, 327
Degas, Edgar 286–7, 297
Delaroche, Paul 234, 235, 282 Ioganson, Boris 209, 223–4, 225–6, 372
Deleuze, Gilles 103, 132, 298 Istomin, Karion 59, 86
Derrida, Jacques 16 Ivan iii, Tsar 227
Desiderio da Settignano 44 Ivan iv, Tsar (‘The Terrible’) 222, 227, 255
Deterson, Hans 231 Ivanov, Alexander 70, 73, 164, 166, 316
Diaghilev, Sergey 329 Ivanov, Vyacheslav 105, 322–4
Diderot, Denis 262 Ivanov-Shits, Illarion 226
Dorofeyev, Ivan 66–8
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor 115 Kachalov, Grigoriy 55, 57
Dürer, Albrecht 12, 37, 40, 43, 45, 172 Kandinsky, Wassily 298, 337, 339, 340, 341, 342–4, 349
Kant, Immanuel 12, 40, 115, 123, 132, 190, 198, 261–3,
Edessa 33, 100 331, 336
Eliade, Mircea 135, 159 Karelin, Andrey 298–9
Elizabeth i, Empress 220, 229 Kazakov, Matvey 133–4, 139, 141
Kharitonenko, Pavel 191, 198
Fabergé 242, 246 Kholmogorets, Aleksey 67, 68
Falconet, Étienne Maurice 246, 257, 258 Kibrik, Yevgeniy 263
Fili, Pokrov see churches Kiev, St Andrew Cathedral 132
Filimonov, Georgiy 116 Kinnema, Johannes 241

412
 index

Klimov, Miron 160 Moscow

Klodt, P. K. 218 Christ the Saviour see churches
Klyun, Ivan 33, 337–8 Kremlin 66, 81, 90, 126, 152, 207, 215, 224, 227,
Kondakov, Nikodim 186 230, 244, 251, 257–8, 260, 371–2
Korobanov, Pavel 185 Muybridge, Eadweard 284
Korovin, Konstantin 270, 330, 358
Kostroma, Ipat’yevsky Monastery 127 Nekhoroshevsky, Martin 59
Kovalevsky, Pavel 301 Nemirovich-Danchenko, Vasiliy 288
Kramskoy, Ivan 297–8, 299, 311, 313 Neradovsky, Pyotr 186
Kuindzhi, Arkhip 269 Nesterov, Mikhail 120–21, 123, 176, 324–6, 329, 355,
Kuleshov, Lev 295 371
Nevrev, Nikolay 114
Lacan, Jacques 17 Nevsky, Alexander 55, 220–21
La Feuille, Daniel de 94
Lanzi, Luigi 190 Opekushin, Alexander 258, 260
Larionov, Mikhail 334–5 Ortega y Gasset, José 15, 264
Leibniz, Gottfried 103 Ostroukhov, Il’ya 177, 191, 193, 195–8, 200, 324, 325,
Lenbach, Franz von 327–8, 356 326, 344, 363
Leonardo da Vinci 45, 172
Levitan, Isaac 297–8, 305 Panofsky, Erwin 16, 36, 40–41, 123
Likhachov, Nikolay 189–90 Panov, Mikhail 293, 294
Lippi, Fra Filippo 171, 172 Patriarch Filaret 232
Loganovsky, Alexander 220 Patriarch Nicephoros 35
Loo, Louis-Michel van 228, 229 Peredvizhnik see Wanderers, The
Loos, Adolf 330, 333 Peter i (Peter the Great) 10, 19, 77, 91, 94, 171,
Lotman, Yuriy M. 13, 15 207–208, 222, 232, 235–6, 239, 242, 246, 248–9,
Lutma the Elder, Johannes 300 251–2, 255, 258, 373
Lutma the Younger, Jan 102 Perov, Vasiliy 310, 312, 317
Petrov, Vasiliy 228
Makhayev, Mikhail 55, 57 Picabia, Francis 351, 353
Makovsky, Konstantin 259–60, 293, 294 Picart, Pieter 241–2
Maksimovich-Ambodik, Nestor 94–5 Pissarro, Camille 328
Malevich, Kazimir 344–5, 347–8, 349–51, 352 Plato 34, 39, 44–5, 59, 84, 198
Mamontov, Andrey 105, 111, 142–3, 175–6 Platon 85
Mamontov, Savva Ivanovich 105, 112, 321 Plotinus 34, 45
Matyushin, Mikhail 348 Pluchart, Eugenie 293
Melanchthon, Philip 47 Plyushkin, Fyodor 185
Merkurov, Sergey 226 Podklyuchnikov, Nikolay 183
Mikhaylov, Klim 90 Pogodin, Mikhail 185
Minchenkov, Jakov 303, 305 Polenov, Vasiliy 111–14, 123, 126, 137, 139–40, 142,
Mir iskusstro movement 148–9, 150, 151–2, 161, 176, 307–308
see World of Art movement Polenova, Yelena 119–20, 165, 166, 175
Mokhovitov, Simeon 66 Praz, Mario 96
Moller, Fyodor 220 Pre-Raphaelites 113, 272
Montferrand, Auguste-Ricard de 235 Pukirev, Vasiliy 312, 314, 315
Morozov, Aleksey 187, 363, 366 Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre 328

413
Radivilovsky, Antoniy 66, 137 Sheremetev, Pyotr 160
Raphael 112, 114, 115, 121–2, 148, 149 Shishkin, Ivan 298, 306
Rastrelli, Carlo Bartolomeo 239 Shumayev, Grigoriy 70–72, 74, 75, 76–7, 78, 79–81,
Rastrelli, Francesco Bartolomeo 85, 131, 132, 173, 176, 82–3, 84–7, 88, 89–94, 97, 103, 161, 371
239, 269, 300 Shuvalov, Count Ivan 19, 262, 269
Razumovsky palace, Chernigov 173 Shvarts, Vyacheslav 308, 310
Repin, Ilya 114, 123, 148–9, 161, 176, 209, 210–15, Skovoroda, Grigoriy 52
218–19, 221–4, 226–7, 251–2, 257–9, 291, 298–9, Solntsev, Fyodor 116
303, 304, 305, 309, 315–16, 327, 372–3 Solovyov, Vladimir 115–16, 176, 191, 200, 227
Rerikh, Nikolay 191, 317, 323, 324, 329 Somov, Konstantin 317, 323, 322
Riegl, Aloys 155 Sorokin, Yevgraf 134
Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikolay 140, 321 Starov, Ivan 133
Ripa, Cesare 94, 100, 102 Stasov, Vladimir 116, 118, 269–71, 279, 283, 310
Rokotov, Fyodor 237, 262 Stroganov, Count Sergey 183
Rolland, Louis 300 Sullivan, Louis Henry 330
Rostov the Great, St John the Divine (near to) see Surikov, Vasiliy 305
churches
Rostovsky, Dimitriy 27, 76 Tarabukin, Nikolay 133, 337
Rotari, Pietro 262 Tepchegorsky, Grigoriy 65, 66–8, 249, 250
Rovinsky, Dmitriy 55, 190 Tesauro, Emanuele 47, 70, 96
Rozanov, Vasiliy 120 Thales of Miletus 30
Rublyov, Andrey 167, 201, 202, 345 Theniusz, Jan 240
Ruskin, John 112, 120 Ton, Konstantin 116, 134, 207
Ryabushinsky, Stepan 177, 196–7, 363, 366 Tretyakov, Pavel 290, 301, 303, 305, 316
Troitsky, N. I. 15
Saavedra Fajardo, Diego de 94 Trubetskoy, Pavel 258
St John Damascene 35 Trubetskoy, Yevgeniy 200, 344
St Petersburg Trukhmensky, Afanasiy 51, 79
Kazan Cathedral 134 Turchin, Valeriy 15
St Michael Castle 148 Tveritinov, Dmitriy 68
Winter Palace 235, 240, 300 Tyutrin, Ivan 160
Saltanov, Ivan Bogdanov 153–4, 171, 241
Sansovino, Jacopo 357, Udal’tsova, Nadezhda 333, 335–6
Schapiro, Meyer 13, 15, 286 Ulanov, Kirill 167–8
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 112, 123, 175, 200, Ushakov, Simon 49, 50, 51, 122, 218, 345, 371
372 Uspensky, Alexander 154
Schinkel, Karl Friedrich 292 Uspensky, Boris 13, 15
Sebastiano del Piombo 40 Uspensky, Peter 336
Sedlmayr, Hans 17
Seurat, Georges 328 Vasil’yev, Fyodor 298, 299, 310–11, 317
Shchekotov, Nikolay 190, 193, 197 Vasnetsov, Viktor 110, 111–14, 117, 120–24, 140, 142,
Shchusev, Aleksey 21, 135, 177, 196, 198, 200, 227, 326, 148–9, 176, 195, 198, 307, 371
344 Vereshchagin, Alexander 290
Shebuyev, Vasiliy 134, 166 Vereshchagin, Vasiliy Vasil’yevich 8, 21, 134, 264–81,
Sheremetev, Pyotr Borisovich 182 282–92, 301, 305–8, 309, 310, 312, 328–9, 349,
Sheremeteva, Countess Varvara 247 353–4, 356, 374–5, 268–92, 296–7, 301

414
 index

Vernet, Horace 288

Veselovsky, V. N. 176
Vianen, Adam van 300
Virgin Mary 44, 111, 145
Vitali, Ivan 219
Vitruvius Pollio, Marcus 41
Vladimirov, Iosif 49–50
Voronikhin, Andrey 133
Vrubel, Mikhail 118, 120, 297–8, 318–22, 329

Wagner, Richard 321–2, 327, 342

Wanderers, The 9, 21, 282, 303, 317
Winckelmann, J. J. 122, 148
World of Art movement 317, 322, 329–30, 335

Yaroslavl
Nikola Mokryy see churches
St Nikola Nadein see churches
Yegorov 166

Zakharov, Andreyan 133

Zdanevich, Ilya 334
Zhegin, Lev 15
Zhesel, A. 307
Ziloti, Vera 290
Zolotaryov, Karp 90
Zuccaro, Federico 100, 102

415