Visual thought in modern orthodoxy: Art history as theology

Ключевые слова: visual thought, Pavel Florensky, reverse perspective, dogma of divine timeless eternity, monumental theology, structural intuitions, hierotopy

Аннотация

In this paper I will discuss the visual category of “reverse perspective”, i.e., the principle of constructing pictorial space in the icon. I will show that in Russia one of the most basic terms in Western art history, i.e., perspective, was thoroughly reworked, even turned on its head as suggested by the terminology, in order to serve a project of modern Orthodoxy. The main proponent of the theory of “reverse perspective” was Florensky, who in his essay of that title, written in 1919, uses several different definitions of the term. In the first section of the paper, I will mention briefly six such definitions, all of which are still current in contemporary scholarship. In the second and third sections, I will suggest a possible theologically-grounded elaboration of one of Florensky’s ideas of what constitutes “reverse perspective”. According to the interpretation proposed here, “reverse perspective” becomes the visual analogue of two basic Christian dogmas – that of a timelessly eternal God and that of “theosis” or “deification”. In the last section, I will give a short background to the relationship between art history and theology, which lies at the heart of my approach.

Биография автора

C. Antonova , Institute for Human Sciences

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2023-5-1-10-21

Clemena Antonova
Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna, Austria
clemenaa@yahoo.com 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1526-7467

Abstract
In this paper I will discuss the visual category of “reverse perspective”, i.e., the principle of constructing pictorial space in the icon. I will show that in Russia one of the most basic terms in Western art history, i.e., perspective, was thoroughly reworked, even turned on its head as suggested by the terminology, in order to serve a project of modern Orthodoxy. The main proponent of the theory of “reverse perspective” was Florensky, who in his essay of that title, written in 1919, uses several different definitions of the term. In the first section of the paper, I will mention briefly six such definitions, all of which are still current in contemporary scholarship. In the second and third sections, I will suggest a possible theologically-grounded elaboration of one of Florensky’s ideas of what constitutes “reverse perspective”. According to the interpretation proposed here, “reverse perspective” becomes the visual analogue of two basic Christian dogmas – that of a timelessly eternal God and that of “theosis” or “deification”. In the last section, I will give a short background to the relationship between art history and theology, which lies at the heart of my approach.

Keywords: visual thought, Pavel Florensky, reverse perspective, dogma of divine timeless eternity, monumental theology,
structural intuitions, hierotopy

References

Antonova 2010 a – Antonova C. On the Problem of ‘Reverse Perspective’: Definitions East and West. Leonardo. 2010. Vol. 43 (5). Pp. 464–470.

Antonova 2010 b – Antonova C. Space, Time, and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World with the Eyes of God. Farnham, 2010.

Antonova 2012 – Antonova C. Visuality among Cubism, Iconography, and Theosophy: Pavel Florensky’s Theory of the Icon. Journal of Icon Studies. 2012. Vol. 1. Pp. 1–10.

Antonova 2018 – Antonova C. ‘Daring to Think’ of a Non-Euclidean World: Science and Religion in Russian Critiques of the Icon. Sobornost. 2018. Vol. 40 (1). Pp. 18–30.

Antonova 2020 a – Antonova C. Visual Thought in Russian Religious Philosophy: Pavel Florensky’s Theory of the Icon. London and
New York, 2020.

Antonova 2020 b – Antonova C. Non-Euclidean Geometry in the Russian History of Art: On a Little-known Application of a Scientific Theory. Leonardo. 2020. Vol. 53 (3). Pp. 293–298.

Antonova, Kemp 2005 – Antonova C., Kemp M. ‘Reverse Perspective’: Historical Fallacies and an Alternative View. The Visual Mind II.
Ed. by M. Emmer. Cambridge (MA), 2005. Pp. 399–433.

Barber 2002 – Barber C. Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm. Princeton and Oxford, 2002.

Barton 2007 – Barton J. Imitation of God in the Old Testament.
The God of Israel. Cambridge, 2007.

Basil the Great 1963 – St. Basil the Great. On the Hexaemeron. Fathers of the Church. Vol. 46: St. Basil. Exegetic Homilies. Washington, 1963.

Buber 1933 – Buber M. Kampf um Israel. Berlin, 1933.

Davies 1999 – Davies E. Walking in God’s Ways: The Concept of Imitatio Dei in the Old Testament. In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements. Sheffield, 1999. Pp. 99–115.

Doehlemann 1968 – Doehlemann K. Zur Frage der sog. ‘umgekehrte Perspektive’. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft. Band 33. Berlin, Boston, 1968. Pp. 85–87.

Eco 1986 – Eco U. Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages. New Haven, London, 1986.

Florensky 2000 – Florensky P. The Meaning of Idealism. Writings in Four Volumes. Vol. 3.2. Moscow, 2000. Pp. 68–144. In Russian.

Florensky 2002 – Florensky P. Beyond Vision: Essays on the Perception of Art. Transl. by W. Salmond. Intr. by N. Misler. London, 2002.

Gregory Nazianzen 1991 – Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning: Five Theological Orations of Gregory Nazianzen. Leiden, New York, 1991.

Henderson 1983 – Henderson L. D. The Fourth Dimension and
Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art. Princeton, 1983.

John of Damascus 1958 – St. John of Damascus. Orthodox Faith. Fathers of the Church. Vol. 37: St. John of Damascus. Writings. Washington, 1958.

Kemp 2000 – Kemp M. Visualizations: The Nature Book of Art and Science. Oxford & New York, 2000.

Lidov 2017 – Lidov A. The Icon as Chora: Spatial Aspects of Iconicity in Byzantium and Russia. L’icône dans le pensée et dans l’art. Turnhout, 2017. Pp. 423–447.

Lossky 1974 – Lossky V. In the Image and Likeness of God. Crestwood, New York, 1974.

Padgett 1993 – Padgett A. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time.
New York, 1993.

Russell 2004 – Russell N. The Doctrine of Deification in Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford, 2004.

Swinburne 1977 – Swinburne R. The Coherence of Theism.
Oxford, 1977.

Wulff 1907 – Wulff O. Die umgekehrte Perspektive und die Niedersicht. Eine Raumanschauungsform der altbyzantinischen Kunst und ihre Fortbildung der Renaissance. Weizsäcker H. Kunstwissenschaftliche Beiträge August Schmarsow gewidmet zum fünfzigsten Semester seiner akademischen Lehrtätigkeit. Leipzig, 1907. Pp. 3–42.

Zhegin 1970 – Zhegin L. The Language of the Work of Art. Moscow, 1970. In Russian.

About author

Clemena Antonova
Dr. Sci. (Art History)
Research Director (Eurasia in Global Dialogue Programme)
Institute for Human Sciences
3, Spittelauer Lände, Vienna, 1090, Austria
E-mail: clemenaa@yahoo.com

For citation:
Antonova C. Visual thought in modern orthodoxy: Art history as theology. Journal of Visual Theology. 2023. Vol. 5. 1. Pp. 10–21. https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2023-5-1-10-21

Опубликован
2023-06-28
Раздел
Статьи
Просмотров
247
Скачиваний
100