I recently posted an article about Russian statuettes of saints at the Museum of Russian Icons. I discussed how surprised I was to see statues in Russia. Generally the iconographic tradition doesn’t allow for anything more than relief sculpture. In response to this a reader sent me information about a collection of much larger and more three-dimensional statues that is in the city of Perm in the Urals. I was fascinated by these and posted. They seem to date from 16th, 17th and 18th centuries and have the look of Western gothic imagery. The link through to the museum is here. Once again I can’t really explain these and suspect that Russian iconographers of the strict observance would feel that these are not genuinely worthy of veneration.
Christ imprisoned
St Nicolas Mozhaisky
Assembly of Archangels
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Indeed most Eastern Orthodox express a surprise when I show them those, and Perm was on the periphery of medieval Russia, where such folk innovation as round sculpture could flourish.
Historically, the avoidance of sculpture (and of any images of God the Father) can probably be traced to the Old Testament prohibition of “graven images”. Fr. Pavel Florensky, of early 20 c. (martyred by the Communists), wrote a book on perspective, where he discovered a theological significance of reverse perspective used in iconography, and condemned linear perspective for its being centered in the eye of the viewer. It would be interesting to see if he ever mentioned sculpture, as it does not seem to fall easily into his mental constructs. On one hand, he would not like the illusory nature of sculpture, which is in that sense akin to realistic painting; but on the other hand, the sculpture, like an icon, carries its own center: you can literally walk around it, as your mind walks around the central object of an icon.
Dear Alexey – Thank you for these very perceptive comments. I have done a follow up posting on this because a couple of very helpful Orthodox priests contacted me and had interesting things to say about the permissibility of statues in the Eastern Church. It will appear in a couple of weeks. However, what no one, until you just now has come up with is a thought about how the three-dimensionality of statues and very deliberate two-dimensinality of icons can be reconciled. Thank you! I think I will do a follow up to the follow up to the follow up, if you’ll forgive the clumsy language ie I think this is a point worth featuring, so I’ll give you the credit, with your permission.
Dear David,
Looking forward to the double follow up. In the meanwhile I will set aside time to re-read Florensky’s “Reverse Perspective” (in Russian). Of a few books that, I think, sorely need an English translation this is one.
Here are two rather conflicting quotes from Fr. Florensky:
“Русская иконопись XIV—XV веков есть достигнутое совершенство изобразительности, равного которому или даже подобного не знает история всемирного искусства и с которым в известном смысле можно сопоставлять только греческую скульптуру — тоже воплощение духовных образов и тоже, после светлого подъема, разложенную рационализмом и чувственностью.”
Translated: Russian iconography of 14-15 centuries is perfection of imagery achieved, an equal of which or even a similar to which the history of world’s art does not know and to which, in a certain sense, only Greek sculpture can be juxtaposed, — likewise an incarnation of spiritual images and likewise, after a luminous elevation, corrupted by rationalism and sensuality”. (Iconostasis, http://www.vehi.net/florensky/ikonost.html)
And
“Мазку хочется выйти из пределов изобразительной плоскости, перейти в прямо данные чувственности куски краски, в цветной рельеф, в раскрашенную статую, — короче — имитировать образ, подменить его собою, вступить в жизнь фактором не символическим, а эмпирическим. Одеваемые в модное платье раскрашенные статуи католических мадонн есть предел, к которому тяготеет природа масляной живописи” (Ibid.)
Translated: “A brushstroke wants to exit the confines of the image surface, transition to the directly available to the sensuality blocks of paint, to a colored relief, to a painted statue — in short, — imitate the image, replace it with itself, enter life as a factor not symbolic but rather empirical. The dressed in fashionable garments painted statues of Catholic madonnas is the limit to which the nature of oil paining tends.”
I don’t think he gave much thought to sculpture related to perspective, but observe the recognition of the Hellenic peak.
Eastern Orthodox church never looked very favorably on the sculptures, however through its history it tolerated it. Full 3 dimensional sculptures as give here are rather later development, more of the 18 century, although it is hard to say affirmatively whether something like that existed in Medieval Russia or not. Most of these pictures is a folk take on the Western influences, that started to penetrate Russia in a century preceding Peter the Great. With him door were fully opened and we see sculptures – mainly carved – but also in stone and alabaster become almost as if a certain norm in the village churches just as much as in the imperial capitals. Although in Imperial capitals it was full baroque, and country carvers reserved mainly to the last supper composition for/above the Royal doors of the Iconostas and the crucifixion scene. Full three dimensional sculptures are usually represent ‘Christ in prison” or St. Nil of Stolobensk. Both of these sculptures, perhaps, could be given a separate sub-category.
Still, there were carved sculptures before that period as well, as we know of several prohibition by the church councils to make those. Likely, they were not 3 dimensional, but more of a bas-relief type (somewhat similar to the Romanesque Cricifixes). Also, the subject matter presented is usually limited to St. Nicholas, St. Paraskeva and the Crucifixion scene. There are examples of it from as early as 14 century. Same style carving was use on the top of the reliquaries, although not many of them have survived. In Russia in particular wood was plentiful and tradition od carving was side spread. It is hard to say if the tradition of Christian carving came to Russia from Byzantium and it was a local adaptation of a newly adopted Christian tradition, independent (in that regard) from Byzantium. The earliest carved semi-sculpture or rather wooden bas relief is that of St. George, and currently is on the permanent exhibit in Moscow kremlin http://www.kreml.ru/ru/museums/church_riza/exhibition/ We also have some stone bas reliefs on a few churches in Russia. One may claim that it is also very early Romanesque influence (and examples of it similar to those in Serbia, where Romanesque architecture and exterior decoration are more than clear). Still, we know of at least one bas-relief cross carved in Russia, prior to 14 century.
That type of carving was known in Byzantium as well.
As I mentioned carving was known in Russia and the Byzantium. There are no Byzantine sculptures that are surviving till the present day (that I know of). However, carved bas relief of the Mother of God could be seen in St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice. The purpose of it was not known, but know the researches agree that it comes from the Church of Blachernae in Constantinople (or may be some other church built over one of the Holy Springs), and the sanctified water was pouring through sculpture. Much earlier bas-reliefs are famous ivories – direct continuation of the Roman Art. There are not too many of them that survive, but still enough to come to conclusion that such art was present in the church before and after the iconoclastic period that was significant not only due to the controversy in the church over the Holy Images, but also for the Councils that set forward rules that would shape the art that we know as specifically “Byzantine”.
Fr. Florensky was a great author, but some of his philosophical hypothesis about the icons and church are a bit controversial. Thus, I’d be careful as to take his conclusions as an absolute and traditional interpretation.