Attributing the Zvenigorodsky Chin
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DISCOVERIES Attributing the Zvenigorodsky Chin Levon Nersesyan talks with Oxana Golovko Translated by Vera Winn Artistic Technique were moving backward and forward. Note: On June 26, In the latter case, the final image 2017, the State Levon, tell us how you discovered rarely corresponds with the prepara- Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow held a that the Zvenigorodsky Chin was tory drawings, and there are quite a press conference on not painted by Andrei Rublev. few corrections even in the prepara- the authorship of the tory drawing itself. It is obvious that Zvenigorodskiy Chin, a A difference in painting technique the first master was accustomed to famous depiction of the Deisis (suppli- between the Zvenigorodsky Chin and working out all the details clearly and cation) featuring the the Holy Trinity is clearly visible with- neatly from the very beginning, while Archangel Michael, out the use of any scientific devices, the second created a rough sketch Christ, and St. Paul. but before we drew any conclusions, and then modified the form of the im- This triptych was long attributed to the it was necessary to analyze the tech- age in the process of painting. 14th–15th century niques used as accurately and ob- iconographer Andrei jectively as possible, and only then Careful microscopic examination and Rublev, but scientists to compare the objects visually. We microphotography of the paintings and restorers now be- lieve the icons were followed a universal, internation- enabled us to clarify the number and painted by a different ally recognized method of extensive sequence of paint layers. These tech- hand, or possibly by analysis. Radiography enabled us to niques can also be used to identify the multiple painters. examine the structure of the wooden pigment composition of the various The announcement caused a major panels, the nature of the cloth and the color mixtures, which can be verified uproar, as Rublev is method by which it was attached, and by chemical or X-ray fluorescent anal- a saint of the Russian the state of the coating. Infrared pho- ysis. Pigment composition is one of Orthodox Church tographs were extremely informative, the least reliable sources of accurate and some consider his icons, such as the exposing underlying layers such as information for attribution, however, renowned Holy Trin- the preparatory outline, which pro- because the kind of materials avail- ity, to be supporting vided an idea of the technique. able to the icon painter may have evidence of his sanc- varied. But the number, and most im- tity. Oxana Golovko’s portantly the sequence, of paint lay- interview with art The contour lines on the icons of the historian Levon Zvenigorodsky Chin are thin, straight, ers and the layering technique are the Nersesyan, who led neat, and quite long, and the final im- most decisive indicators of a master’s the research team at age follows their outline almost per- skills and his individual manner. the Tretyakov Gal- lery, first appeared fectly, especially on the icon of Christ on Pravmir.ru. the Savior. By contrast, the painter of The icons of the Zvenigorod Chin have the famous Holy Trinity searched for more layers than the Holy Trinity, and the final form. His contour lines are they are thinner and more homoge- short, wide, vibrating strokes, with nous—perhaps because the upper splotches on the ends, as if his brush layers were laid on the lower ones The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 17 before they had completely dried. The red is hidden between layers of ocher, and under the glare of white paint, there is another preparatory layer, which is lighter than the rest of the ocher, reducing the contrast of the highlighting. In the Holy Trinity there are only two layers of ocher, transparent red is applied on top of other layers, the white brush strokes are denser and brighter, and the whole painting looks much more dense. These differences cannot not be due to the evolution of the technique of one master, even if we assume that he was trying to simplify his methods by abandoning a detailed drawing, reducing the number of paint layers, and making them more dense. It is hard to imagine how the hand that formerly drew lines in a certain way and at a certain length, that removed the brush at a cer- tain moment, that painted in short or long strokes—along with all the other characteristics of his individ- ual style—would change so dramat- ically. We seem to be dealing with two masters, who achieved spectac- ular and absolutely flawless results, regardless of the simplicity or com- works. We discovered that his indi- Three icons of plexity of their techniques. vidual style is less apparent in his Zvenigorodsky Chin. large icons. This observation led us Icons are often the work of many to the logical conclusion that, in such hands, not of a single artist—one cases, the master was only directly master creates the design with cer- responsible for a preparatory draw- tain personal elements, other art- ing and some final corrections. Some- ists paint clothes, apprentices paint times he just signed a collective work. the background, and so on. How In his day, the signature did not in- does this affect attribution? dicate the artist’s intention to glorify himself, but it was rather a certifica- Of course, we must also take this tion of quality. issue into account, especially for later icons. So, before the opening of It is difficult to imagine that the Greek the exhibition of about fifty signed artist who painted most of the iconos- icons by Simon Ushakov, we con- tasis at the Annunciation Cathedral at ducted technological analyses and the Moscow Kremlin did it all alone. even restored some of Ushakov’s Even if apprentices painted the lux- 18 urious clothes, the background, and I don’t think this has anything to other details, I still think that there do with national pride. We are not might have been two or even three talking about something specifically masters. They employed a very simi- Greek or specifically Russian. We lar style, but each still used individual are talking about a more or less uni- techniques. Some day we will find out fied spiritual and artistic culture of what these techniques are, just as we the medieval Orthodox world, which discovered the individual differences is sometimes called the “Byzantine between the icon of Christ the Savior Commonwealth.” After all, Chris- and the two other icons of the Zvenig- tianity came to Russia from Byzan- orodsky Chin. tium in 988, bringing the Byzantine tradition of icon painting. This tradi- The Question of Nationality tion included not only a collection of models, iconographic schemes, and The author of the Zvenigorodsky extremely sophisticated artistic tech- Chin may have been Greek or Rus- niques, but also the whole complex sian—or both. Is that important? system of symbolic language, aimed The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 19 Zvenigorod angel (left) and Trinity angel (right). at translating supernatural spiritual the Byzantine Empire was conquered content into comprehensible images. by the Crusaders. It is interesting that It is clear that this system could not the Russian iconography of that era have been “mechanically” implanted is marked by some influence from [in Russia]. It could only have been as- medieval [Western] European art— similated through long-term dialogue especially in the western outskirts of and close cooperation. And if we are Rus’, including Novgorod and Pskov. talking about the pre-Mongolian era This period was the beginning of the [before 1223], the question of the na- independent development of Russian tionality of the masters does not make art and the formation of its regional sense at all. We simply do not have any schools. criteria to determine it—and of course skill level cannot be such a criterion, Sometimes art historians refer to the can it? It is quite possible that provin- middle and especially the last quar- cial Greek painters, whose art lacked ter of the fourteenth century as “the the brilliance of the Constantinople second meeting with Byzantium.” school, came to Rus’ [Ruthenia]. It is By then the Russian artistic tradition also possible that talented Russian icon had become more distinctive than in painters could have surpassed their pre-Mongolian period, so Byzantine Greek teachers. Both the monumental influences—or their absence—can be paintings and the few preserved panel identified more easily. Some icons icons of the pre-Mongolian period are cannot be attributed to Greek author- completely Byzantine, both in con- ship even hypothetically. Others have tent and in their purely formal artistic mixed features, and in such cases we technique. For this period, it is impos- can assume that the author was ei- sible to determine whether they were ther a Greek who had partly adapted painted by Greek or Russian masters. to the local culture or a Russian who went through Greek training. In the thirteenth century, commu- nication between the Rus’ and the Judging by the few surviving works Byzantines declined. Rus’ was cut off of art executed in the Byzantine tra- from the rest of the [Orthodox] world dition, this period was the peak of by the Tartar-Mongol invasions, and late Byzantine iconography [in Rus’]. 20 It was the context for the emergence and the distribution of work on the of such an exceptional phenomenon iconostasis. The only thing that is as Andrei Rublev. Our knowledge of certain is that the central icons were Rublev’s work is based only on frag- painted with the participation of ments of frescoes and one icon—but some outstanding Byzantine mas- they fully demonstrate the extent ter—but even those researchers who of his gift and his skill, which corre- still believe this master was The- sponded to his outstanding teachers ophanes the Greek can no longer date and predecessors.