| . |
Armenian Manuscript
Painting
By Dr.Dickran Kouymjian
Introduction to
Armenian Painting
f
painting in its broadest meaning is the representation of an image on a
flat surface -- on walls (fresco), on wood (icon), in manuscripts (miniature),
on canvas (painting), on floors (mosaic) -- we know the history of Armenian
painting almost exclusively from the study of the decoration of manuscripts.
Monumental wall painting was practiced in Armenia, but was much less generalized
than neighboring Byzantine or Coptic traditions and very little of what
was produced has survived. The extent Armenian mosaics are strongly
influenced by foreign traditions. Icon painting was never practiced in
Armenia. Canvas painting is relatively plentiful, but dates for the most
part to the eighteenth century and later. Thus, whereas the history of
Byzantine painting in the Middle Ages is dependent as much (perhaps even
more) on architectural decoration -- mosaics and frescoes -- and icons
as on illuminations, the Armenian tradition is known almost exclusively
from miniature paintings.
Iconography: The
Composition of a Scene
 n
understanding of Armenian painting requires the explanation of two terms
used universally in art history: "iconography" and "style." Iconography
is the study ("graphy") of the "icon" (in Greek "image"); what we call
an icon today was understood by the Greeks as a holy image usually painted
on wood. Art historians use the term iconography to refer to the study
of the formal composition of a picture and the elements of which it is
made. Iconography also studies the changes and developments of compositional
elements over time. For instance, in the study of the iconography of the
Crucifixion, specialists identify the elements of the representation: the
presence or absence of the thieves or other witnesses, the clothing of
the figures, the background devices, and so forth. These iconographic
details help historians trace the influences of other artists and traditions
on the painter. Armenians often innovated on accepted iconography of the
earliest Christian centuries. T'oros Roslin in the thirteenth century
is among several important Armenian artists, some of them anonymous, who
illustrated the standard cycle in totally new ways or who painted episodes
rarely represented, thus breaking tradition with the earlier, generally
conservative and standardized Christian iconography.
Style: The Artist's
Expression
he
compositional elements of a painting are, on the other hand, unimportant
when discussing style. The artist's way of painting, his drawing, colors,
shading, facial expressions, rendering of landscape, all of these and other
painting techniques make up the style of a picture. "Impressionism," as
an example, is a style that depends heavily on color, rather than outlining,
to render shapes and volumes. The "classical" style refers to the manner
developed by the Greeks and continued by the Romans of accurately portraying
the human form on a flat surface. The Greeks were interested in showing
the body in motion, in revealing the shape and bulk of the body under its
clothing. They tried to paint or sculpt the face and body as idealistically
or realistically as possible. Classical artists developed rules of proportion
and the best artists tried to follow them closely. In later periods
a "classicizing" style was one that tried to imitate or at least pay attention
to the tenets of classical art [89]. Armenians, because of their
strong dependence on Byzantine Greek models, favored a classicizing style
in the illumination of luxurious Gospels.
Much
of Armenian art, however, shows a style far removed from classical tendencies.
Various ways have been used to describe such non-classical styles: naive,
primitive, provincial, monastic, native. We find native or Armenian styles
in the Vaspurakan school of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, or
in such manuscripts as the Gospels of 966 in the Walters Art Gallery in
Baltimore, or the Gospels of Horomos of 1211 or of Khach'en/Arts'akh of
1224 both now in the Matenadaran in Erevan. These works, and many others,
though different from each, still share the common trait of ignoring the
canons of classical representation. They display a greater interest in
the expression of the figures, which are usually shown frontally; they
often use color and design for purely decorative purposes, apparently indifferent
to the criticism that their figures and their garments do not look as they
are in real life. Often there is a naive quality in these miniatures, producing
marvelous artistic effects. At times, however, these illuminations are
simply the work of untrained and unskilled monks assigned the task of illustrating
manuscripts in a monastic scriptorium.
The eleventh century in Armenian
painting is probably the moment when classical and non-classical styles
are most clearly opposed. Manuscripts that were commission by the
aristocracy are not only luxurious, but invariably demonstrate a classicizing
style. They are further characterized by superior parchment, goldleaf
backgrounds and expensive materials. In short, the royalty and higher clergy
demanded works in the best tradition of the Byzantine imperial court.
Manuscripts that originated in rural settings or monasteries used more
modest materials, employing yellow paint for gold. Their style was non-classical,
usually hieratic, and in this early period the figures were painted without
background against the plain white parchments. These provincial manuscripts
were almost without exception painted across the height of the page, requiring
the viewer to turn the manuscript around to see the scene in its normal
position. Luxury manuscripts, however, have their miniatures in the
normal upright position. This difference in orientation of the paintings
between luxury and monastic manuscripts is virtually unknown in the centuries
before and after the eleventh.
Illuminated Armenian
Manuscripts
 he
dependence of the history of Armenian art on a single medium, manuscript
painting, is not as serious a handicap as it may seem. Fortunately, a very
large number of Armenian manuscripts are preserved, nearly 30,000, dating
from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries, and produced in every region
inhabited by Armenians. Most manuscripts are devoid of painting; however,
at least 10,000 are illuminated or decorated in some way and of these some
5,000 to 7,000 contain one or more miniatures. The total number of individual
works of art contained in Armenian manuscripts (excluding marginal decorations)
in the tens of thousands.
The study of this vast quantity of
art and, therefore, the history of Armenian painting, is still at its very
beginning. The manuscripts and the works of art they contain are preserved
in public museums and libraries, the most important of which are the Matenadaran
in Erevan (11,000 whole manuscripts), the Library of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood
at San Lazzaro, Venice (4,000), Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem (4,000),
the Library of the Mekhitarist Brotherhood in Vienna (1,200), the Armenian
Catholic Monastery of Bzummar in Lebanon (1,000), the Armenian Monastery
at New Julfa, Isfahan (1,000) and important collections of fewer than 1,000
manuscripts are kept at the Catholicossate of Etchmiadzin, the Oriental
Institute, Leningrad, the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Bodleian
Library, Oxford, the British Library, London, the Chester Beatty Library,
Dublin, the Catholicossate of Cilicia, Antelias, University of California,
Los Angeles, and the Vatican Library. Hundreds of other libraries
have small, but artistically very important, collections, for instance
the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, the Pierpoint Morgan Museum in
New York, the Walters Gallery in Baltimore, and the John Rylands Library
in Manchester.
To date no detailed history of Armenian
miniature painting has been published. However, the meticulous work
of the late Sirarpie Der Nersessian, spanning six decades, has prepared
the groundwork and provided a methodology for such a history. Her
major study on the painting of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, when published,
will serve as a model for a general history of all of Armenian art.
|
. |