Oleg Tarasov
Independent scholar, Rome, Italy. The author of numerous publications on cultural history and art. Tarasov obtained a Ph.D. in History at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a Ph.D. in Art History at Department of History and Theory of Arts of the State Moscow University. He held posts at the State Moscow University, Department of History, and at the Department of Cultural History of the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Senior Research Fellow). Tarasov has been awarded fellowships at the Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, Italy, at the Getty Research Institute, USA and at Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (10)
Uploads
Books by Oleg Tarasov
Icons in Russian art nouveau style from the imperial family's collection; religious works by Vasnetsov, Vashkov and Princess Tenisheva; the new aesthetic theories of Wolfflin, Dilthey and Berenson that influenced the reevaluation of medieval art and the building of new collections of early Italian, Byzantine and Old Russian painting in Western Europe and Russia - these are just some of the topics dealt with in this volume. Materials sourced in the museums, libraries and archives of Russia, Italy and England may bring to readers' attention not only little-known facts, but allow them to witness interesting interconnections within European culture of the early 20th century.
The artistic system of the Byzantine and Old Russian icon was the language of a religious art, that up to the early 20th century was understandable largely within a religious community who apprehended the icon as a holy object, while its artistic merit was evaluated from that point of view. Such, for example, was the community of the Russian Old Ritualists. In the system of secularized culture of the early 20th century, the reception of the ancient icon was already moving into a different system of concepts, whereby it began to be regarded in terms of ‘masterpiece’: a unique work of art. The dependence of this concept on religious ritual was first indicated in the writings of W. Benjamin. The masterpiece clearly inherits its aura of ‘distance’ and ‘inaccessibility’ from the sacred object. In this book the question is posed: how, and by what route, did this re-evaluation of the Byzantine and Old Russian icon take place precisely at the beginning of the age of ‘modernity’? Our investigation demonstrates once again that it was just in the ‘fin de siècle’ period that aestheticism and the Nietzschean ‘death of God’ involved the affirmation of a multitude of different ways of looking at the world. Hence in the artistic practice of the period there can be seen not only the all-embracing flowering of symbolism and the appearance of avant-garde tendencies, but linked with these the re-evaluation of ‘primitive’ art, that earlier had not been considered as ‘art’ at all. The discovery of reverse perspective as a self-sufficient system of ordering artistic space ensured the aesthetic re-evaluation of the ancient (‘primitive’) icon on a par with Renaissance painting. The dominion of linear perspective over the totality of the point of view of the external spectator was cast into doubt.
The first section of the book is devoted to the study and analysis of the artistic language of the iconic image in the art nouveau period – something that has not previously attracted the attention of specialists. It can be found in copies and reproductions of religious works by V.M.Vasnetsov, cult objects from the art-manufacturing workshops at Abramtsevo and Talashkino, and also icon frames from the firm ‘Sons of P.I.Olovyanishnikov’ in 1900-1910. These works inform us how the language of the Russian religious picture was transformed; we learn about the poetics of art nouveau iconic images, the influence of Symbolist aesthetics, medieval and folk art and theatre, and the ideas of the Western ‘Arts and Crafts’ movement on the formation of their artistic system. The particular ways saints and landscape, inscriptions and ornament were portrayed – these were essentially under the sway of a new philosophy of church interior design, which in Russia was embodied in the chapels at Abramtsevo and Talashkino, and in England in the famous London Church of the Holy Trinity in South Kensington. In their religious paintings the Pre-Raphaelites reconceptualised the medieval legends of King Arthur. In just the same way Vasnetsov, Polenova and Malyutin reconceptualised historical myths and Russian folk epics in their religious images. Responding to universal concepts of the artistic apprehension of the world, their art was invoked to assist the transformation of life. This emphasizes a basic difference between their art and that of the early icons. It abandoned the limitations of observable reality and discovered a hallucinogenic order of nature and the unmistakable influence of magical practice.
The basic themes of the second part of the book are the new formalist theory of art; connoisseurship; and their influence on the study and collection of early icons as painterly masterworks. The study of art as an independent scholarly discipline dates from the middle of the 19th century. But it was not until the turn of the 19th-20th centuries that the form of an art-work is singled out from other aesthetic problems to become a separate subject for scholars, critics and artists to contemplate. It was then that schemes of formal analysis of works of visual art were hammered out in Western European scholarship. In this book we witness the various influences of Diehl, Millet, Wolfflin and Berenson on the ways early Italian, Byzantine and Old Russian painting were studied at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. The new aesthetic theory permitted a positive response to the deviations from visible forms in the medieval work of art. On this level the Western European ‘Primitives’ revealed many features in common with Byzantine and Old Russian icons. In this book the question of the discovery of Old Russian icons in 1900-1910 is for the first time posed in the context of the new interest in Italian early Renaissance painting and the formation of major private and museum collections in Russia, Western Europe and the USA. German art scholarship and formal psychological aesthetics, unprecedented revelations of the aesthetic value of Italian and Flemish ‘Primitives’, British essayists and Moscow collections of French Impressionism and the avant-garde – all these in their various ways assisted the revaluation of the Old Russian icon and the discovery of its aesthetic significance. It is also noteworthy that the study of the artistic form of early icons was intimately linked with the new realities of the antiques market, the development of advertising, of activity in the field of exhibitions and the design of art journals. A new type of journal and book illustration of early icons came into being, which educated the eye and allowed nuances of form to be perceived. Nowadays the concept of a ‘masterwork’, from one angle, is an article of faith. One of the basic themes of postmodern theory, essentially that of the unspecialized and typical, is to deny any difference between a masterwork and any other work of art, even if created for mass consumption. Nevertheless from the other point of view the concept of artistic ‘masterwork’ will continue to exist as long as do museums with their permanent exhibitions. The early icon occupies a most distinguished place among them. Like abstract art, the icon points permanently towards the unreliability of surrounding reality. In this sense it remains entirely ‘contemporary’ within the most serious aesthetic investigations of the limits of the visible world in the age of modernity.
Papers by Oleg Tarasov
Icons in Russian art nouveau style from the imperial family's collection; religious works by Vasnetsov, Vashkov and Princess Tenisheva; the new aesthetic theories of Wolfflin, Dilthey and Berenson that influenced the reevaluation of medieval art and the building of new collections of early Italian, Byzantine and Old Russian painting in Western Europe and Russia - these are just some of the topics dealt with in this volume. Materials sourced in the museums, libraries and archives of Russia, Italy and England may bring to readers' attention not only little-known facts, but allow them to witness interesting interconnections within European culture of the early 20th century.
The artistic system of the Byzantine and Old Russian icon was the language of a religious art, that up to the early 20th century was understandable largely within a religious community who apprehended the icon as a holy object, while its artistic merit was evaluated from that point of view. Such, for example, was the community of the Russian Old Ritualists. In the system of secularized culture of the early 20th century, the reception of the ancient icon was already moving into a different system of concepts, whereby it began to be regarded in terms of ‘masterpiece’: a unique work of art. The dependence of this concept on religious ritual was first indicated in the writings of W. Benjamin. The masterpiece clearly inherits its aura of ‘distance’ and ‘inaccessibility’ from the sacred object. In this book the question is posed: how, and by what route, did this re-evaluation of the Byzantine and Old Russian icon take place precisely at the beginning of the age of ‘modernity’? Our investigation demonstrates once again that it was just in the ‘fin de siècle’ period that aestheticism and the Nietzschean ‘death of God’ involved the affirmation of a multitude of different ways of looking at the world. Hence in the artistic practice of the period there can be seen not only the all-embracing flowering of symbolism and the appearance of avant-garde tendencies, but linked with these the re-evaluation of ‘primitive’ art, that earlier had not been considered as ‘art’ at all. The discovery of reverse perspective as a self-sufficient system of ordering artistic space ensured the aesthetic re-evaluation of the ancient (‘primitive’) icon on a par with Renaissance painting. The dominion of linear perspective over the totality of the point of view of the external spectator was cast into doubt.
The first section of the book is devoted to the study and analysis of the artistic language of the iconic image in the art nouveau period – something that has not previously attracted the attention of specialists. It can be found in copies and reproductions of religious works by V.M.Vasnetsov, cult objects from the art-manufacturing workshops at Abramtsevo and Talashkino, and also icon frames from the firm ‘Sons of P.I.Olovyanishnikov’ in 1900-1910. These works inform us how the language of the Russian religious picture was transformed; we learn about the poetics of art nouveau iconic images, the influence of Symbolist aesthetics, medieval and folk art and theatre, and the ideas of the Western ‘Arts and Crafts’ movement on the formation of their artistic system. The particular ways saints and landscape, inscriptions and ornament were portrayed – these were essentially under the sway of a new philosophy of church interior design, which in Russia was embodied in the chapels at Abramtsevo and Talashkino, and in England in the famous London Church of the Holy Trinity in South Kensington. In their religious paintings the Pre-Raphaelites reconceptualised the medieval legends of King Arthur. In just the same way Vasnetsov, Polenova and Malyutin reconceptualised historical myths and Russian folk epics in their religious images. Responding to universal concepts of the artistic apprehension of the world, their art was invoked to assist the transformation of life. This emphasizes a basic difference between their art and that of the early icons. It abandoned the limitations of observable reality and discovered a hallucinogenic order of nature and the unmistakable influence of magical practice.
The basic themes of the second part of the book are the new formalist theory of art; connoisseurship; and their influence on the study and collection of early icons as painterly masterworks. The study of art as an independent scholarly discipline dates from the middle of the 19th century. But it was not until the turn of the 19th-20th centuries that the form of an art-work is singled out from other aesthetic problems to become a separate subject for scholars, critics and artists to contemplate. It was then that schemes of formal analysis of works of visual art were hammered out in Western European scholarship. In this book we witness the various influences of Diehl, Millet, Wolfflin and Berenson on the ways early Italian, Byzantine and Old Russian painting were studied at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. The new aesthetic theory permitted a positive response to the deviations from visible forms in the medieval work of art. On this level the Western European ‘Primitives’ revealed many features in common with Byzantine and Old Russian icons. In this book the question of the discovery of Old Russian icons in 1900-1910 is for the first time posed in the context of the new interest in Italian early Renaissance painting and the formation of major private and museum collections in Russia, Western Europe and the USA. German art scholarship and formal psychological aesthetics, unprecedented revelations of the aesthetic value of Italian and Flemish ‘Primitives’, British essayists and Moscow collections of French Impressionism and the avant-garde – all these in their various ways assisted the revaluation of the Old Russian icon and the discovery of its aesthetic significance. It is also noteworthy that the study of the artistic form of early icons was intimately linked with the new realities of the antiques market, the development of advertising, of activity in the field of exhibitions and the design of art journals. A new type of journal and book illustration of early icons came into being, which educated the eye and allowed nuances of form to be perceived. Nowadays the concept of a ‘masterwork’, from one angle, is an article of faith. One of the basic themes of postmodern theory, essentially that of the unspecialized and typical, is to deny any difference between a masterwork and any other work of art, even if created for mass consumption. Nevertheless from the other point of view the concept of artistic ‘masterwork’ will continue to exist as long as do museums with their permanent exhibitions. The early icon occupies a most distinguished place among them. Like abstract art, the icon points permanently towards the unreliability of surrounding reality. In this sense it remains entirely ‘contemporary’ within the most serious aesthetic investigations of the limits of the visible world in the age of modernity.