WI: Classical Greek/Roman style statues survives longer among the Byzantines?

Most of the art I’ve seen from the Byzantine era are those unrealistic geometric mosaics. A far cry form the realistic art of the Greeks and Romans. Does anybody know what caused this change? If so, is there anyway it could be avoided? What would the cultural significance be of a more classical Byzantium?
 
The development is pretty early, certainly before any time you can reasonably call 'Byzantine'. I suspect it's not really changeable unless you'll shift some big social developments. I can't really see any way that Roman art is going to remain static, and naturalistic pseudo-realism (Greek classical art isn't realistic, it just looks that way) was already a 400-year-old academic tradition by the time of Augustus.

What might help is somehow heading off Neoplatonic thinking (though it probably won't be enough to off Plotinus). An important element in Late Antique art is a tendency to essentialise and emphasise spiritual aspects at the expense of the physical. You'd still see some kind of change away from the Hellenistic way of doing things, but it might be a different, more naturalistic direction.
 
The development is pretty early, certainly before any time you can reasonably call 'Byzantine'. I suspect it's not really changeable unless you'll shift some big social developments. I can't really see any way that Roman art is going to remain static, and naturalistic pseudo-realism (Greek classical art isn't realistic, it just looks that way) was already a 400-year-old academic tradition by the time of Augustus.

What might help is somehow heading off Neoplatonic thinking (though it probably won't be enough to off Plotinus). An important element in Late Antique art is a tendency to essentialise and emphasise spiritual aspects at the expense of the physical. You'd still see some kind of change away from the Hellenistic way of doing things, but it might be a different, more naturalistic direction.
That went over my head. From what I understood of it, you're saying that the shift was a result of a philosophical change? How so? :confused:
 
Byzantine iconography is not meant to be realistic or scale. Icons are windows onto the heavenly plane and not necessarily related to human conceptions of time and space. Early Western and Roman iconography displayed similar aspects (think Ravenna) but later incorporated statuary into devotion and church furnishing. The crucifixes and wooden madonnas of the Franks or Germanic peoples of the medieval periods are certainly non-proportional, however.

Western Christianity might have easily incorporated Hellenistic or Roman style statuary. Yet even the Roman catacombs and the early Italian basilicas demonstrate a preference for mosaic and relief rather than statuary. Perhaps the "Latins" and the "Greeks" chose relief and mosaic over statuary to distinguish themselves from other Roman and Hellenistic cults.

The ready availability of relief artwork in antique cultic depictions challenges the notion that such expressions were reserved to Christians. Studies into early Christian liturgy might reveal the importance of relief and mosaic in the beginning centuries of institutional Christianity. The orthopraxis of iconography in Byzantine Christianity might betray early interactions with hellenistic cults.
 
Last edited:
That went over my head. From what I understood of it, you're saying that the shift was a result of a philosophical change? How so? :confused:

Not a philosophical change, a change in thinking. Philosophy just follows the ideas that float around anyway, though it can give them impetus and direction to a degree.

Thing is, the Late Romans didn't stop making 'realistic' art because they didn't know how, they stopped because they weren't interested in it. Of course we're all just speculating why this could be, but there is a good probability that it is indeed related to that sea change in Late Antique thought. You see a similar chasnge in literature - the interest shifts to 'eternal' things, away from the trivialities of the world. In 300BC, an artist who could depict a tree so naturalistically that it would confuse onlookers had a brilliant future. In 0 AD he had a lucrative trade. By 300 AD, it seems people had simply lost interest. You didn't need to depict a real tree because you could depict a symbolic idea of 'tree' much better. That way, your art could transmit the ideas that matter to people.
 
This is certainly an artistic change that predates the Byzantines. Its part of a much greater cultural shift that takes place in the Imperial period.

Greek classical art even by the beginning of that period was something like classical music for us. It was by no means fresh and vivid.
 
Okay, so it predates the Byzantine period. I get that, but is it possible for there to be a Byzantine Renaissance?
 

Skokie

Banned
Most of the art I’ve seen from the Byzantine era are those unrealistic geometric mosaics. A far cry form the realistic art of the Greeks and Romans. Does anybody know what caused this change?

General civilizational decline and regression. 90% of the literature of the ancient world was lost. Many of the skilled artisans died in the Crisis of the Third Century or later on in the Plagues or were pressed into military service or became peasants. A heck of a lot of cultural capital went with them.
 

Skokie

Banned
I'd actually argue that a lot of Byzantine art was actually realistic, though by no means naturalistic (then again, most Classical Greek art wasn't naturalistic either.) Frex, check out out some of the work from St. Catherine's of Sinai: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Petersinai.jpg

Lovely. It's from the 500s, which is really early for an Icon. However, you can already see a move towards a more stylized approach. Contrast it with the funerary portraits found in Fayum, Egypt that date from the Roman period.

http://visipix.dynalias.com/imageroot/Art3/LOOK fayum/Scan fayum 2/Pic0001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faiyum_mummy_portraits
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
Except it was Italian:confused:

There was a return to what you would call the Classical style in the final couple of centuries of the Empire under the Palaeologi Dynasty. Also, if you look at other nearby cultures that had been influenced by the Byzantines (such as the Serbs) you will find a return to Classical depictions in art there. When I was at the Byzantine Exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts last year, they had many examples dating from the latter years of the Byzantine period on display, and it was striking how many went back to depicting warriors and monarchs in old Roman style armour for example. The style, or renaissance of that type was well underway before it reached Italy. Tastes change as they often do in art and fashion, and perhaps people had some feeling of nostalgia as their Empire faded to recall the glories of the distant past and better times (much as some people do today).


Sargon
 
Last edited:
Lovely. It's from the 500s, which is really early for an Icon. However, you can already see a move towards a more stylized approach. Contrast it with the funerary portraits found in Fayum, Egypt that date from the Roman period.

http://visipix.dynalias.com/imageroot/Art3/LOOK fayum/Scan fayum 2/Pic0001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faiyum_mummy_portraits

Actually, I see far more stylistic continuation then breakdown, especially when you consider that they're both from the same geographic area. It wouldn't surprise me if the creators of icon were part of the same artisan tradition.
 

Skokie

Banned
Actually, I see far more stylistic continuation then breakdown, especially when you consider that they're both from the same geographic area. It wouldn't surprise me if the creators of icon were part of the same artisan tradition.

Well, don't forget that that is an exceptionally early icon, so it would make sense that there is more Classical residue than in later icons. However, it's already doing different, Icon-y things. He's looking away and doesn't have that "spark" in his eyes like the portrait of the Roman-Egyptian lady. He's not really an individual so much as a...well...Icon. The point is not to communicate his humanity so much as his spiritual significance symbolized by the keys to the kingdom of heaven that he holds in his right hand.
 
Top