EFD / JFL

Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi / Journal of Faculty of Letters

Cilt/Volume 24 Say›/Number 1 (Haziran /June 2007)

The Russian - Orthodox Icon Painting and its Repercussions on the

Russian Art of the 20th Century

Sercan YANDIM*

Abstract
The paper aims to introduce an art historical phenomenon, which appears in Russia in the beginning of
the 20th century. The early years present plurality of art movements in Russian and in Europe. Efforts
have been made to constitute a true art of Russia. To do so, the traditional/religious art and folk art,
mainly of the peasants, were reconsidered. The accumulation and study of works of folk art already began
by the mid-19th century. By this time, an increasing interest had emerged concerning icons and folkloric
elements, found in arts and crafts. Kasimir Malevich, Marc Chagall, Vladimir Tatlin are among the
leading figures who vigorously defended a re-investigation of these art forms. They elaborated genuine
features of icon painting and adapted to their contemporary art conceptions and compositions.
Accordingly these leading figures are to be mentioned in brief. Russian Avant-garde artists,
Constructivists, Suprematists with their non-objective art show re-percussions of traditional particularly
religious art modelled after the Byzantine tradition.
Key words: icon, lubok(ki), folk art, Russian Avant-garde, Suprematism, Constructivism, Malevich,
Chagall

Özet
Bu makalede 20. yüzy›l›n bafl›nda Avrupa’da pek çok sanat hareketinin oluflmaya bafllad›¤› bir dönemde
Rusya’da özgün ve ça¤dafl Rus sanat›n› yaratma iste¤i ve bu süreçte geleneksel sanat formlar›n›n artan
ilgiyle incelenmesi sonucu ça¤dafl sanat ak›mlar›nda gözlenen geliflmeler ele al›nmaktad›r. Bu ba¤lamda
Rus Avant-Garde, Suprematist ve/veya Constructivist ressamlar›n özellikle geleneksel Rus-Ortodoks dini
resminden ald›klar› üslupsal ve ikonografik etki dönemin önemli sanatç›lar›n›n iflleri yard›m›yla
örneklendirilmeye çal›fl›lm›flt›r. Kasimir Malevich, Marc Chagall, Vladimir Tatlin gibi sanatç›lar
geleneksel Rus-Ortodoks ve halk sanat›n›n incelenip yorumlanmas›n› ça¤dafl Rus sanat› yaratma
sürecinde kaç›n›lmaz bir unsur olarak görmektedirler. Rus Avant-Garde sanatç›lar, konsturiktivist- ve
suprematistler “nesnesiz” islerinde bu görüfllerini ortaya koymufllard›r.
Anahtar Kelimeler: ikona, lubok(ki), halk sanat›, Rus Avant-garde sanatç›lar, Suprematism,
Konstruktivism, Malevich, Chagall

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
* Ö¤r. Gör. Dr., Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Sanat Tarihi Bölümü,
[email protected]

271
The Russian-Orthodox Icon Painting and its Repercussions on the Russian Art of the 20th Century

In this paper it is intended to introduce an eventual impact of Russian-orthodox and

folk art especially of icon painting, and coloured-woodcuts (lubok) (Figure 1) on the
theoretical base of modern art movements that appeared at the beginning of the last
century in Russia. These art movements cover Russian Avant-Garde, Suprematism and
Russian Constructivism. Study and evaluation of equally important art historical
phenomena like Cubism, Symbolism, Futurism etc. and their effects lie out of the scope
of this paper, therefore, they will not be dealt with. The unique and main ingredient in
the process of achieving a genuine modern art of Russia, traditional religious art plays a
vital role.
The word icon which stems from the Greek eikon meaning image, symbol,
semblance etc. could be termed as a simulacrum; in this context it is to be interpreted as
the likeness of what is represented.1
A formal definition of the icon stresses that image and/or the icon reflects the
subject’s characteristics yet with some differences. It does not reproduce the exact
appearance of the archetype; instead, the icon contains within itself elements of both
resemblance (likeness) and non-resemblance (dissimilarity). The important principle of
non-resemblance signifies a world that is different from the one that surrounds us. Hence
it does not provide the real appearance of the world. The aim is to refer to the celestial
world where the subjects of icons are supposed to belong. When one venerates an icon,
the archetype is revered through the
likeness illustrated on the icon. This
feature of painting, within defined limits
of resemblance and non-resemblance,
prevented icon painting from unlimited
stylization.
Russian-orthodox icon painting left a
permanent mark on Russian culture and
art for centuries. Icon painting borrowed
and adopted its pictorial, stylistical and
iconographical elements after the
Byzantine i.e. Greek-orthodox model and
experienced a particular history and
development in Russia. It survived along
with the artistic traits such as Cubism,
Futurism well into the 18th century and
beyond. (Milner, 1993, p. 12; Bering,
Figure 1. Anonymous Lubok, Pharmacy, id 19th 1986, pp. 143ff.) The first quarter of the
century, State Museum of History,
20th century is an era of remarkable
Moscow

272
 Sercan YANDIM

artistic developments. Different artistic movements are to be observed. It is also an era

of technological advancements and social political changes particularly in Russia.
However, by the early 20th century the imposing artistic tradition of Russia witnesses
conflicts with the contemporary testimonies. Russian artists of the period re-discovered,
studied and adapted orthodox pictorial patterns, its repertory of images and iconography.

Brief History of Russian Icon Painting

For centuries art and religion were intermingled inextricably and provided a firm
backbone for the Russian art. Icon painting workshops provided the historical origin of
the Russian art schools. (Milner, 1993; Ward, 1992) In its very beginning icon painting
is connected with the Byzantine art. At the end of the 10th century, after accepting
Christianity, Byzantine examples were introduced into Russia2. These were not just
venerated, but also imitated rigorously. (Lazarev, 1997, p. 21f.)
In the 12th century Russian artists were able to produce their own works and
liberated themselves from the Byzantine tradition, both iconographically and
stylistically. It soon acquired its national characteristics and advanced firmly especially
in the northern parts of the country like Pskov, and Novgorod which became important
centers with respective painting styles. In these Northern provinces the emancipation
had been fully completed in the 13th century by practically giving up all its Byzantine

Figure 2. Virgin Mary of Belozersk.

First Quarter of the 13th Figure 3. Apostles Peter and Paul. First
Century, Russian Museum, Quarter of the 13th Century,
St. Petesburg Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

273
The Russian-Orthodox Icon Painting and its Repercussions on the Russian Art of the 20th Century

association and the icon painting became sovereign (Figures 2 and 3). It took a slower
course in Moscow; however, they also developed their own way of artistic expression in
icon painting.3 Major schools of icon painting appeared in the Northern provinces in the
principalities of Novgorod, Pskov, and Moscow and so it is relatively easy to speak of a
Nordic style of icon painting.
It was also possible to attribute certain stylistic features to other centers in the
principalities of Ni_nij Novgorod, Tver, Rostov and Suzdal. There is, however, little
information to trace back the initiation of icon painting and related schools in the
southern provinces of the country like in _ernigov or in Kiev. In the meantime numerous
provincial workshops or ateliers with strong popular, humble characteristics exist. These
minor ateliers of provincial nature played a decisive role in shaping up the Russian icon
painting.
In brief, the fundamental iconographies and forms were taken from the Byzantine
conventional repertory. The alteration appears in their style. Later, however, a respective
gradual revision of the iconographical types and forms also took place and provided an
utterly Russian character while departing from the Byzantine. For many centuries it was
then the Byzantine Empire and its art that provided the model, iconography and means
for the Russian art which was essentially a religious art. The close connection between
Russia and the Byzantine Empire provided basic elements to the Russian culture. This
cultural influence left imprints for centuries and even in the early 20th century it was still
a common practice to work in icon painting studios or to start their career as icon painter.
Effects of this exclusively religious art continued to be observed until the 17th and the
18th centuries.4 With Tsar Peter I (1862-1725) Russian art and architecture underwent a
transformation, resulted from the close relations with the West. In 1703, the city of St.
Petersburg (Petrograd) was founded which exhibits in its architecture the arrival of
Baroque to Russia. In the course of the 18th century many foreign western artists were
invited to Russia and vice versa. Queen Catherine II (1762-1796) acquired major works
of Western art for the newly founded Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg. It was the
second half of the 19th century that the Russian art academy was founded in the same
city. This intensive encounter with the western art and the artists, the arising interest in
contemporary socio-political themes in Russia provided stimulus for studying historical,
traditional origins of Russian art. An impressive example is the efforts and achievements
of the Tretjakov Brothers who possess a significant icon collection. By exhibiting these
icons, a renewed perception and interest is called towards the works of Orthodox
Russian art. They were then considered not just as mere objects of veneration, but also
referred to artistic values.

274
 Sercan YANDIM

Confrontation with the Western Art

As stated above, from the 17th century onwards art and artists were faced with the
challenging issues of western art and painting. This encounter brought up an art
historical debate among the young Russian artists of the period. The proponents of the
view claim that in order to have a genuine Russian art one has to explore and study the
traditional orthodox art which mainly refers to the icon painting inherited from the
Byzantium. The opposite view embraces the West and its art completely.
The reassessment of traditional art works provided in the meantime, deeper insight
into exclusive and refined examples and their aesthetic meaning. The members of the
Russian contemporary art scene pointed out certain degradation these works underwent
and so they studied them painterly, iconographically as well as art historically. Thus, by
the beginning of the 20th century two main clashing artistic interests are observed with
opposing views. Western and Russian features in conceptualizing art were compared,
contrasted and blended. An active representation and participation and/or integration of
Russian artists to the wider art scene, including movements as Impressionism, Futurism,
Cubism or Fauvism are to a large extent accomplished. Latest trends and art works were

Figure 4. N. Gontscharowa, St. George, Figure 5. Poster of the “Last Futurist Exhibition
Lithography, 1914, Kupferstichkabinett, 0.10”, Photograph Courtesy Mr.
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Herman Berninger, Zurich, in Bowlt:
Preubischer Kulturbesitz 1988.

275
The Russian-Orthodox Icon Painting and its Repercussions on the Russian Art of the 20th Century

accessible to them and they responded to them vigorously and enthusiastically. So in this
artistic environment Russian artists like M. Larionov (1881-1964), N. Goncharova
(1881-1962) (Figure 4), V. Tatlin (1885-1953), K. Malevich (1878-1935) stand as
vanguards while seeking the traditional-historical roots of Russian art in order to
generate a comprehensive and true art. The genuine Russian art needed to be compatible
also in the world’ art scene while embracing the contemporary developments like the
advances of technology.
Russian Suprematist, Constructivist or Avant-Garde painters, designers as for
instance A. Jawlensky (1864-1941), L. Popova (1889-1924), El Lissitzky (1890-1941),
W. Meller (1884-1962), I. Puni (1892-1956), A. Rodschenko (1891-1956), M. Chagall
(1887-1985) appreciated and benefited from their preoccupation with icons, folk art
while searching for their own distinctive artistic languages. For them Russian-Orthodox
Painting and icons, folk art were the sole devices for the artistic aims.5 They were
familiar with the aesthetics, visual properties and principles of icons and made use of
those while working on new modes of paintings and transmitting their vision of art.6
Some of these properties are, the spatial construction of icon painting, presentation of
space, backward perspective, movement, continuity and expansion in painting,
luminosity/source of light (no natural lighting of the objects and persons are presented),
resemblance vs. non-resemblance, non-real conception of composition, no real colours;
the colours are used instead with respect to their corresponding symbolic meanings. In
addition, further emphasis is given on the canvas as such, which was considered as a flat-
surface as it simply is, so that flatness and its impact became part of central issues. New
aesthetic formulation emerged as a result. In this paper two significant figures of this art
scene are presented. Kasimir Malevich as he holds a particular importance by launching
Suprematism and Marc Chagall, with Jewish origin, however, grown in an
overwhelmingly Orthodox setting.
It has been ninety years since Suprematism was first heard of as an art movement
in January 1916, and in the art scene of the period in Russia. At that time Russian
Futurism was enjoying its height; in December 1915 during the last Futurist exhibition
(entitled 0.10) held in St. Petersburg organized by Ivan Puni, Malevich, together with
Tatlin’s constructed corner-reliefs, displayed his 35 abstract paintings, the so-called
Suprematist “non-objective” works (Figure 6). With these a new mode of painting is
introduced with no recognizable subject matter or object or a reference point to the
physical terrestrial world that surrounds us (a shared aspect with icons). Instead, basic
clear-cut, coloured geometric forms like squares, rectangles, circles are given.
Malevich presents the black square on white surface, and in a supplementary
Suprematist manifesto to the exhibition, he speaks of a new-Reality (Figure 5), which
does not show (resemble) an absolute reality. He calls it Quadrilateral and it is known

276
 Sercan YANDIM

as The Black Square.7 Malevich termed his work as presenting a higher Reality, the so-
called Supreme Reality (Suprematism). The term is derived from the Latin adjective in
its superlative, meaning the last and the highest – supere – different from another Latin
word summus which also means highest. The Square represents for him the null which
is an experience of non-objectivity. In his manifesto on “from Cubism to Suprematism”
he concedes that the very perception of supremus
i.e. the highest (reality) and the last at best is
achievable only through the embodiment of pure
simple geometric forms. Malevich concerns that
the disengagement from the real objects as
existed in nature leads to an infinite freedom with
no conventional constraints. He defined
Suprematism as: “it alters the entire architecture
of earthly things in the widest sense and links up
with the space which holds the moving
monolithic masses of the planetary system”
(Suprematism: 34 Drawings, 1990). According to Figure 6. Malevich, Black Suprematist
Square, 1914-15, Tretjakov
Suprematists, it is the expression of pure artistic
Gallery, Moscow.
feeling, it deals with the object as such.8 At this
point it is useful to look at the properties of icon painting that might provide valuable
information on order to understand the phenomenon.
Among the essential properties of icon painting ranks first the two-dimensionality
and the use of flat surfaces (i.e. the impact of certain flatness and frontality), then comes
backward/reverse perspective instead of a linear and figuration instead of representation.
The icon painting considers the physical world inconceivable and takes reality as
incomprehensible, the painting thus does not correspond and/or resemble to its
archetype. On the contrary, west European painting emphasizes basically the power of
human reason and rationality, as the agency through which, the physical world is
conceivable and comprehensible. Icons do not represent a framed section of the real
world, rather, it presents and alludes to a higher level of reality. The symbolism of
colours, the notion of movement and the exclusion of time i.e. belonging to all times are
also features crucial to icons. It epitomizes a timeless, divine truth or reality, but does
not represent a story or a specific moment or sequence of moments (Figures 6 and 7).
Finally, its geometrical schematism refers to the compositional rigidity of the icons and
their consequent reiteration of pre-defined and arranged forms and types that are mainly
based on geometrical schemes.

277
The Russian-Orthodox Icon Painting and its Repercussions on the Russian Art of the 20th Century

Figure 7. Sts. Paraskeva, George the

Theologian, John Chrysostomos,
Basil the Great, Pskov school, 15.
century, Tretjakov Gallery,
Moscow Figure 8. St. John the Baptist, Apostel Paul,
Andrej Rublev and his pupil,
Moscow school, 1408, Tretjakov
Gallery, Moscow, Russian Museum,
St. Petersburg

Growing in the suburbs of the town of Vitebsk, (present day Belarus), Chagall was
impressed by icon painting as well. Already as a child and adolescent he became familiar
with the Orthodox art. His first artistic responses were towards icons.9 Many of his
works reveal repercussions of Orthodox pictorial patterns,10 (Figure 9) and his encounter
with it contribute to Chagall’ individual route as an artist. A significant example is the
painting entitled Motherhood (Figures 10 and 11).
The inspration comes mainly from the well known Byzantine iconography of
Virgin Mary Blachernitissa or Platytera. It shows Virgin Mary in Orans with the pre-
extisted logos refering to Christ in the medaillion situated in her breast. (Figure 12)
From the 13th century onwards until the 17th century and well beyond the Russian
Orthodox painting tradition dominated and also provided the main component to the
Russian culture. By the early 18th century with Westernization movements secular
painting e.g. portrait painting emerged and it is in the 20th century that at last systematic
efforts have been made in order to study Russian art. (Ward, 1992, p. 111; Milner, 1993,

278
 Sercan YANDIM

Figure 9. Chagall, Golgotha, 1912. Museum

of Modern Art, New York

Figure 10. Chagall Maternity, 1912-13 Stedelijk Figure 11. Chagall, Russia or Maternity, 1912-
Museum, Amsterdam 13, Collection of Helen Serger, New
York

279
The Russian-Orthodox Icon Painting and its Repercussions on the Russian Art of the 20th Century

p. 11) Suprematism and Constructivism relying on an art principle that has no reference
point in the physical world alludes to certain aspects of the orthodox icon painting. On
their way to a genuine and contemporary art that enables the transformation and
construction of a better society, Russian artists of the 20th century explored traditional,
religious, and popular art forms systematically. According to this tradition-conscious
view, the only way to achieve a comprehensive art reflective of the land it originated, is
to reassess, study and promote traditional and folkloric art works.

Figure 12 Virgin Mary

(Blachernitissa) Panagia, ca.
1224. Tretjakov Gallery,
Moscow.

Figure 12. Virgin Mary (Blachernitissa) Panagia, ca. 1224.

Tretjakov Gallery, Moscow

280
 Sercan YANDIM

Notes

1 Chadzidakis and Grabar (1965) 4f.

2 Milner: 1993. s. 11-16. Prince Oleg who was the ruler in Kiev in 882-912, made a treaty with Byzantium
in 911. Under Vladimir, enthroned in 980, Christianity was adopted as religion and the capital city of the
Byzantine Empire was accepted as a model for subsequent church architecture and their decoration which
includes icons, mosaic or fresco decoration. The church of Hagia Sophia in Kiev is a good example. The
Metropolitan seat was later moved from Kiev to Moscow in 1326. The 14th and 15th centuries witness
the rise of Moscow and also present the formation of a distinctively Russian school of painting. The
famous Russian artists Andrej Rublev, Theophanes the Greek, belong to this era.
3 On the history of development of Russian icon painting please see L. Ouspensky and V. Lossky (1989).
The Meaning of Icon. New York; S. V. Iamshchikov (1978). Pskov: Art Treasures and Architectural
Monuments, 12th-17th Ceanturies. Leningrad; N. P. Kondakov (1927). The Russian Icon. Oxford; S.
Smirnova (1989). Moskow Icons: 14th-17th Centuries Oxford; M. Apotov (1984). Early Russian Icon
Painting. Moskow; T. T. Rice (1963). Russian Icons. London; V. N. Lazarev (1997). The Russian Icon:
From its Origins to the 16th Centur. Collegeville: Minesota; V. V. Gormin (1984). Novgorod: Art
Treasures and Architectural Monuments, 11th-18th Centuries. Leningrad.
4 It is to note that Russia has literally little or no experience with Renaissance or does not share the classical
past of the West, but reflects a superb Byzantine culture.
5 It is worth mentioning that Russian author F. Dostojevski, impresario S. Djagilev were defending the view
in contrast to M. Gorki’s and I. Repin’s concerns that fostered the importance of western art also by
criticising the traditional art as being uncompetitive and primitive. (Weiss, 1993, p. 19f.).
6 Many of them had experiences in icon painting workshops or ateliers in the early years of their artistic life
or in their childhood. Surely it was the art of their land and was to immediately observe and to feel.
7 For reproductions of his other Suprematist works please see (Petrova, 1990; Weiss, 1993). Icon painting
could be concerned as an important organic step which took Malevich’ to non-objective painting. The
portraits of peasants by Malevich show reminiscences of icon painting and play a crucial role for his later
artistic achievements leading to the Suprematist manifest.
8 Suprematism refers to art constructed from elementary geometrical shapes, specifically the rectangle, the
cross and the triangle. The most perfect or “purest” of these is the square. It builds up or constructs from
non-naturalistic geometrical elements and is therefore to be classed with the form of abstraction.
Suprematism could not be considered as a logical development only from abstract art forms such as
Cubism or Futurism. (Railing, 1990; Bowelt, 1988).
9 In an interview on the occasion of an exhibition in the Chicago art institute he personally emphasizes his
organic ties and fascination about icons, especially on the plasticity of figures, on their colouring and
luminosity. (Liebelt, 2004, p. 86.). While these impressions and memories kept alive throughout his life,
Chagall declares that icons were the refined art of Russia and the folk art lubok, represented the popular
one. However, both forms were indigenous to motherland where he belonged. (Kamensky, 1989, p. 16f.).
10 L. Venturi is the first person in 1956 in his work on Chagall, who mentions the inspiration by Russian
icons on certain Chagall’s paintings.

281
The Russian-Orthodox Icon Painting and its Repercussions on the Russian Art of the 20th Century

References
—Suprematism: 34 Drawings, Unovis, Vitebsk. 1920. Reprint 1990 by Artists Bookworks.
Bowlt, J. E. (1988). Russian Art of The Avant-Garde. Theory and Criticism. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Chatzidakis and Grabar (1965). Byzantine and Medieval Painting. London.
Kamensky, A. (1989). Chagall. The Russian Years 1907-1922. London: Thames and Hudson.
Lazarev, V. N. (1997). The Russian Icon: From its Origins to the 16th Century. Collegeville,
Minesota.
Liebelt, U. (2004). „Marc Chagall und die Kunst der Ikonen“, in: ALS CHAGALL DAS FLIEGEN
LERNTE (86-97). Frankfurt am Main.
Milner, J. (1983, 1984). Vladimir Tatlin and The Russian Avant-Garde. New Haven, London: Yale
University Press.
Milner, J. (1993). A Dictionary of Russian and Soviet Artists. 1420-1970. Antique Collectors’
Club.
Milner, J. (1996). Kazimir Malevich and the Art of Geometry. New Haven, London: Yale
University Press.
Petrova, E. et. al. (eds). (1990). Kazimir Malevich. Artist and Theoretician. Paris: Flammarion.
Railing, P. (1990). On Suprematism. 34 Drawings. A little Handbook of Suprematism.
London: Artists Bookworks.
Ward, C. A. (1992). Moscow and Leningrad. A Topographical Guide to Russian Cultural History
vol. 2. München, London, Paris, New York: K.G. Saur Verlag.
Weiss, E. et. al. (eds). (1993). Von Malewitsch bis Kabakov. Russische Avantgarde im 20.
Jahrhundert. Die Sammlung Ludwig. München: Prestel.
Weiss, E. et. al. (eds). (1995). Kasimir Malevich. Werk und Wirkung. Ostfildern, Germany.

282