Russian Art

In the case of Russian art we are constrained to follow the broader point of view. Especially is this so with the art of the icon, which may be regarded as the premier expression of Russian religious thought and popular piety. In the later centuries it becomes the chief symbol of Russian faith, the link between the soul of the peasant and the expression of his belief in God.

We have seen earlier that throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries the inspiration of Russian Art at Kiev , Vladimir and Novgorod was Byzantine-Greek. This, the earliest epoch, is the period when the art of the icon was purely Byzantine, governed in fact by the strict canons laid down by the Mount Athos masters. Few indeed are the Russian icons known to exist dating from these early times and none is to be found outside Russia . Those which are known have for centuries been buried under thick layers of later repainting. Restored to their original condition they show characteristics which clearly differentiate them from the icons of subsequent periods. Classic examples of this older type are Our Lady of Vladimir, frontispiece, brought from Constantinople to Kiev in the early twelfth century and the Vernicle Image of the Saviour, both of which were in pre-Revolution times the treasured possessions of the Uspenski Sobor, Moscow.

That this tribute to his power and orthodoxy was justified we can, at this distance of time, fully endorse. But we can perhaps go further and explain the unique position of this artist; as a native Russian and the talented pupil of the great Theofanes, he must naturally support the honour of being the one great figure in which the national spirit expresses itself most clearly and forcibly. This alone would not, perhaps, have ensured his universal fame, which was in some measure due to his position as the most important link between the schools of Novgorod and Moscow , via. Theofanes. Belonging to neither he was yet the greatest influence in Russian art throughout the fifteenth century.

The reign of Ivan III was one of great importance to Russian art of all kinds. During this time the centre of artistic life shifted from Novgorod to the then rapidly rising rival, Moscow . To an extent therefore we may say that the two schools fused, although for the first three-quarters of the sixteenth century the Novgorod painters, of whom Dionysios may be considered the chief ornament, still represented all that was best in the pure ideals of the National Style.

Up to this time the Russian had expended all the richness of his inventive faculties upon the development of harmonies in form and colour. He never presumed to infuse into his subject any sentiment of his own. Such an act would have run counter to all the traditions of his faith and art. Similarly he had been little given to narrative. But numerous icons dating from the first half of the sixteenth century discover a tendency to greater freedom in this matter, pages 106-107. They become illustrative rather than merely iconographic. They reflect something of the growing interest in literature which writers on social matters point out as existing at the period.

So with the assistance of the Metropolitan Makarie he set about repairing the damage in a thorough-going way. Between them they collected icons. from Novgorod , Smolensk , Dmitrov and Zvenigorod, while painters from Novgorod and Pskov were ordered to come to Moscow to help in the rehabilitation of the churches. This, one may say, was the last contribution of the celebrated Old Novgorod school to the story of Russian art, for Veliki Novgorod was despoiled by Ivan in 1570. It is said that before the century drew to a close its artists were already painting in the Moscow style.