Распятая на Кресте Времён: парергональность интервизуальности рефлексии рубежа XX–XXI веков на национально-религиозную тематику. Иконографический этюд

L.  Lashkhia; М. А. Rogov

L. Lashkhia https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5280-0365
М. А. Rogov Dubna State University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7573-3370

Keywords: iconography, intervisuality, parergonality, intertextuality, parergon, frame friction, Manner-ist inversion, visual exegetics, historical symbolism, crucified Russia

Abstract

This article studies intervisuality (Michael Camille, 1991) in the context of iconographic studies by the example of a Russian religious painting created at the turn of the 21^st century. Our analysis of intervisuality is based on Derrida’s approach which makes use of the concept ‘parergon’. This is something that does not belong to the work (ergon) but is connected to it. The ergon without parergon lacks self-sufficiency. In the case of intervisuality, the interaction of the work (ergon) with its visual and verbal frames and sources (parerga), accompanied with the gaps and incongruities of perception, or “frame friction” in the words of Simone Heller-Andrist (2012), bring us to solutions of research problems of iconological interpretation and attribution. Thus, the impression of “fake” produced by parergon, such as the design of the reverse side of a painting, mimicking an icon board (if there is a confidence in intentionality), indicates author’s manifestation in which parergon and ergon interchange similarly to the “manneristic inversion” noted by Max Dvořák (1922), while unintentional imperfection due to failures, lack of skill or limited resources would rather indicate the inept stylization or a plain imitation. Thus, the parergonality of intervisuality enriches the problem field of iconographic and visual research with meaning. The work is based on an art historical study of a painting by an unknown author, a visualization of thoughts on national and religious themes and visual exegesis of historical symbolism appreciated by the audience of the period of the work’s creation. It is rich in allusions to texts on the religious philosophy of freedom by Nikolai Berdyaev (1911) about the crucified truth of Christianity and to the historiosophical lectures and poems by Maximilian Voloshin (1920) thematizing the crucified Russia – a metaphorical image which was popular during periods of social upheavals in national history.

Author Biography

L. Lashkhia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2024-6-1-191-210

Liana Lashkhia
independent researcher, Tbilisi, Georgia
iledeart@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5280-0365

Mikhail A. Rogov
Dubna State University, Dubna, Russian Federation
Foundation for the Promotion of Education, Science and Art
“New Art Studies”, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
rogovm@hotmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7573-3370

Abstract
This article studies intervisuality (Michael Camille, 1991) in
the context of iconographic studies by the example of a Russian religious painting created at the turn of the 21^st century. Our analysis of intervisuality is based on Derrida’s approach which makes use of the concept ‘parergon’. This is something that does not belong to
the work (ergon) but is connected to it. The ergon without parergon lacks self-sufficiency. In the case of intervisuality, the interaction of the work (ergon) with its visual and verbal frames and sources (parerga), accompanied with the gaps and incongruities of perception, or “frame friction” in the words of Simone Heller-Andrist (2012), bring us to solutions of research problems of iconological interpretation and attribution. Thus, the impression of “fake” produced by parergon, such as the design of the reverse side
of a painting, mimicking an icon board (if there is a confidence in intentionality), indicates author’s manifestation in which parergon and ergon interchange similarly to the “manneristic inversion” noted by Max Dvořák (1922), while unintentional imperfection due to failures, lack of skill or limited resources would rather indicate the inept stylization or a plain imitation. Thus, the parergonality of intervisuality enriches the problem field of iconographic and visual research with meaning. The work is based on an art historical study of a painting by an unknown author, a visualization of thoughts on national and religious themes and visual exegesis of historical symbolism appreciated by the audience of the period of the work’s creation. It is rich in allusions to texts on the religious philosophy of freedom by Nikolai Berdyaev (1911) about the crucified truth of Christianity and to the historiosophical lectures and poems
by Maximilian Voloshin (1920) thematizing the crucified Russia –
a metaphorical image which was popular during periods of social upheavals in national history.

Keywords: iconography, intervisuality, parergonality, intertextuality, parergon, frame friction, Mannerist inversion, visual exegetics, historical symbolism, crucified Russia

References

Bennett 2000 – Bennett J. Epact Unpacked: A Self-Orienting Crucifix Dial. Sphaera. 2000. 11. P. 5.

Berdyaev 1988 – Berdyaev N. A. Dostoevsky: An Interpretation. Volga. 1988. 10. Pp. 146–165. In Russian.

Berdyaev 1989 – Berdyaev N. A. The Philosophy of Freedom.
The Meaning of the Creative Act. Moscow, 1989. In Russian.

Berdyaev 2002 – Berdyaev N. A. Dostoevsky: An Interpretation. Berdyaev N. A. The Meaning of the Creative Act. Kharkov, Moscow, 2002. Pp. 381–528. In Russian.

Brown 2017 – Brown K. T. Mary of Mercy in Medieval and Renaissance Italian Art: Devotional Image and Civic Emblem. London, New York, 2016.

Camille 1991 – Camille M. Gothic Signs and the Surplus: The Kiss on the Cathedral. Yale French Studies. 1991. Special Issue: Contexts: Style and Values in Medieval Art and Literature. Pp. 151–170.

Capra, Floridi 2023 – Intervisuality: New Approaches to Greek Literature. Ed. by A. Capra, L. Floridi. Berlin, 2023.

Cardon 1996 – Cardon B. Manuscripts of the Speculum Humanae Salvationis in the southern Netherlands (c. 1410 – c. 1470).
A Contribution to the Study of the 15^th Century Book Illumination and of the Function and Meaning of Historical Symbolism. Leuven, 1996.

Caroll 2016 – Caroll A. On Highlights. Aristides J. Lessons in Classical Painting: Essential Techniques from Inside the Atelier. New York, 2016. Pp. 76–77.

Derrida 2008 – Derrida J. La Vérité en peinture. Transl. into Russian by N. B. Man’kovskaya. Aesthetics and Theory of Art of
the 20^th Century. Moscow, 2007. Pp. 306–319.

Donbrovskaya 1938 – Donbrovskaya R. I. Crucified Russia. Roman. Harbin, 1938. In Russian.

Duro 2019 – Duro P. What is a Parergon? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 2019. Vol. 77. 1. Pp. 23–33.

Eisler 1922 – Eisler M. Das gekreuzigte Russland. Wien, 1922.
In Russian.

Gaynutdinov 2022 – Gaynutdinov T. R. Deconstruction in
the Neighborhood of Art. The Problem of Painting in the Philosophy of Jacques Derrida. Philosophy and Culture. 2022. 10. Pp. 54–65.
In Russian

Gorshkova, Chernyavskaya 2021 – Gorshkova N. E., Chernyavskaya V. E. Visual Intertextuality as a Method for Meaning Generation. Communication Studies (Russia). 2021. Vol. 8 (4). Pp. 689–700. In Russian.

Heller-Andrist 2012 – Heller-Andrist S. The Friction of the Frame: Derrida’s Parergon in Literature. Tübingen, 2012.

Ibata 2015 – Ibata H. Beyond the ‘narrow limits of painting’: strategies for visual unlimitedness and the Burkean challenge.
Word & Image. 2015. 31 (1). Pp. 28–42.

Ilgova 2022 – Ilgova D. A. Visual poetry in the context of intermediality. Moscow, 2022. In Russian.

Kachalova et al. 1990 – Kachalova I. Ya., Mayasova N. A., Schennikova L. A. The Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin: Toward the 500^th Anniversary of a Unique Monument of Russian Culture. Moscow, 1990. In Russian.

Quermann 1998 – Quermann A. Ghirlandaio. Serie dei Maestri dell’arte italiana. Köln, 1998.

Robbe 2010 – Robbe J. R. Der mittelniederländische Spieghel onser behoudenisse und seine lateinische Quelle. Text, Kontext und Funktion. Münster, 2010.

Robbins 2008 – Robbins V. K. Rhetography: A New Way of Seeing
the Familiar Text. Words Well Spoken: George Kennedys Rhetoric of the New Testament. Ed. by C. Clifton Black and Duane F. Watson. Waco (TX), 2008. Pp. 81–106.

Rogov 2018 – Rogov M. A. “Theorists”. Study on the Iconography of the Late “Severe Style”. The Art Museum Magazine. 2018. 4 (34). URL: https://www.nsartmuseum.ru/journal/id/220. In Russian.

Rogov 2022 a – Rogov M. A. Iconographic Motifs of “The Miracles of Our Lady”, Professional Beggars, the Court of Miracles and the Hieronymus Bosch’s Painting: Visual Intertextuality. New Art Studies. 2022. 3. Pp. 6–19. In Russian.

Rogov 2022 b – Rogov M. A. Optima Mater, or About Visual Intertextuality of the Statue of Count Osterman-Tolstoy, Wounded at the Battle of Kulm at Geneva’s Musée d’Art et d’Histoire (MAH).
New Art Studies. 2022. 4. Pp. 68–75. In Russian.

Rogov 2023 a – Rogov M. A. Speculum Humanae Salvationis in the Monumental Painting of East Prussia: Visual Intertextuality. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. “Literary Theory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies” Series. 2023. 1 (2). Pp. 210–227. In Russian.

Rogov 2023 b – Rogov M. A. Aria of Isabella and the Last Word of Christ. Intermedial Intertextuality in Johann Kupezky’s Son Portraits. RSUH/ RGGU Bulletin. “Literary Theory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies” Series. 2023. 9 (2). Pp. 258–272. In Russian.

Rogov 2024 – Rogov M. A. An Etude on Intervisuality in Small Sculpture: Porcelain Nude Statuettes by A. T. Matveev. NEDESYATYI: Collective Monograph on the Materials of the international Scientific Conference in Memory of A. E. Makhov. Ed. by O. L. Dovgy. Tula, 2024. Pp. 236–243. In Russian.

Sidorova et al. 1957 – World History. In 10 Volumes. Vol. 3. Ed. by N. A. Sidorova, I. I. Konrad, I. I. Petrushevsky, L. V. Cherepnin. Moscow, 1957. In Russian.

Smith 1925 – Smith D. E. History of Mathematics. Vol. II. Boston, 1925.

Stepanov 2001 – Stepanov Yu. S. In the World of Semiotics. Semiotics: Anthology. Moscow, Ekaterinburg, 2001. Pp. 5–42.
In Russian.

Taubenshlak, Yavorskaya 2002 – Where Russia breaks off... Comp. by A. Taubenshlak, A. Yavorskaya. Odessa, 2002. In Russian.

Voloshin 1990 – Voloshin M. Russia Crucified. Yunost’. 1990. 10 (425). Pp. 24–33. In Russian.

Voloshin 2003 – Voloshin M. Collected Works. Vol. 1: Verses and poems 1899–1926. Moscow, 2003. In Russian.

Yeats 1999 – Yeats W. B. To the Rose upon the Rood of Time. Transl. into Russian by G. M. Kruzhkov. Yeats W. B. The Rose and the Tower. St. Petersburg, 1999. P. 44.

About authors

Liana Lashkhia
Master (Art History), Independent Researcher
7/3, Tsotne Dadiani St., Tbilisi, 0180, Georgia
E-mail: iledeart@gmail.com

Mikhail A. Rogov
Cand. Sci. (Art History), Cand. Sci. (Economics),
Associate Professor
Dubna State University
19, Universitetskaya St., Dubna, 141980, Russian Federation
Scientific Director of the Center for Iconographic
and Visual Studies (CIVIS)
Foundation for the Promotion of Education, Science and Art
“New Art Studies”
43/1, Lermontovsky Avenue, St. Petersburg, 190103,
Russian Federation
E-mail: rogovm@hotmail.com

For citation:
Lashkhia L., Rogov M. A. She who is crucified upon the Rood of Time: Parergonality of intervisuality in the national-religious reflection in Russia at the beginning of the new millennium. The iconographic study. Journal of Visual Theology. 2024. Vol. 6. 1. Pp. 191–210. https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2024-6-1-191-210

She Who is Crucified Upon the Rood of Time: Parergonality of Intervisuality in the National-Religious Reflection in Russia at the Beginning of the New Millennium. The Iconographic Study

Abstract

Author Biography