![]() It allows the beholder the illusion of entering that world. Where an icon presents the image as though it is set against a blank wall, thus implicitly designating the icon as the world itself, the Renaissance picture functions only as part of the world (36). The Renaissance frame differs from its Byzantine counterpart in operating as a window, or a mirror. It is no surprise then that the frame of an icon, or the “threshold of the perception of the divine countenance,” often contains prayers or donor inscriptions, thus becoming a meeting ground “between a distant God and the sinful human being” (36). Mentioning briefly the theories of representation written (and rewritten) by the Iconophiles during and after Byzantine Iconoclasm, Tarasov posits the above quality of the frame-its ability to link the sacred and the temporal-as related to the terms in which the icon itself came to be defined, that is, as a link between the divine and the human. “The ark as frame points in two directions: it is directed both to the centre. The latter seems to reveal itself from the depths of the “ark,” which protects it. The “ark” of the icon-the raised frame with the representation embedded in its hollow-enforces a spatial and spiritual distance between the viewer and the representation. The medieval (specifically Byzantine) frame is designated as a “safe stronghold” (27), an impenetrable barrier demarcating sacred space. Part 1 draws distinctions between medieval and post-medieval frames. Some of the material-the dizzyingly extravagant Baroque iconostases, for instance-will be sure to lure historians of art, religion, and mass culture into ruminations over illusionism, ornamentation, spatial division, and, yes, framing. The value of such an endeavor lies in the ways in which it applies the established literature on frames to a broad swathe of Russian art and culture, bringing it to an English-speaking audience. Consequently, this study examines the changes in the perception of images, and of the world, occasioned by changes in the material and philosophical attributes acquired by the picture frame over time. As the introduction states, the book is not concerned with delineating a history of the frame instead, it attempts to trace “the history of the interaction of the person and image, in which the frame is problematized as a distinct means for perceiving the world” (12). Oleg Tarasov’s Framing Russian Art: From Early Icons to Malevich engages all these aspects of the frame through an exploration of its importance to icons, iconostases, ceremonial halls, coronation rooms, architectural ensembles, and more, from the medieval period up to the twentieth century in Russia. Thumbnailer framing windows#Art historians, in particular, have explored the multiple (sometimes competing and conflicting) roles of the frame: its ability to draw attention to and away from the center its capacity to open up or close in space its efficacy as a visual or verbal sign its status as a permanent or ornamental “supplement” its formal and thematic relations to thresholds, such as windows and portals, to name but a few. The frame, as object and concept, has attracted a fair amount of attention in recent years. Performance Art/Performance Studies/Public Practice. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |