| |
Among those who opposed it, besides a group
of bishops, was Ivan's capable and diplomatic secretary of State Ivan
Mikhailovich Viskovatii. Openly and in strong words he questioned the moral
value of some new icons and frescoes that decorated the Tsar's private
residence, the Golden palace, (Zolotaya Palata). The Golden Palace was rebuilt
in 1635-1636 by tsar Mikhail Romanov, and has since become better known as the
Terem Palace. The original frescoes have disappeared since, but they were
described by the painter Simeon Ushkov who restored them in the sixteen
eighties. What roused Viskovatii's indignation was the fact that the
presentation of some religious events was drawn from the tsar's own experience,
as was the case with the icon "Militant Church," which depicts a
victory of Jesus (Navin). This large icon, some fifteen feet long, which was
painted in 1552, after Ivan IV defeated the Tatars at Kazan, actually shows the
young tsar at the head of the victorious army. This icon is presently in the
Tretiakov Gallery. Obviously Viscovatii did not like the tsar's ever-increasing
desire to use iconography for idealization of his personality and for
strengthening his already almost unlimited authority. It appears that it was
Silvester"s conception. Viskovatii also resented the undue influence that
Silvester exercised over the tsar in all matters including decoration of his
private residence. In 1547 the Metropolitan Makarii brought Silvester from
Novgorod to Moscow, where he soon became dean of he Cathedral of the
Annunciation, mentor of the tsar Ivan IV, one of this intimate councilors and a
dominant figure in many state affairs. His opposition to the Livonian war cost
him the tsar's favor and in 1553 he was exiled to the Solovetskii Monastery,
where he died in 1566. Viskovatii labeled as profane the icons and frescoes
where Jesus appeared together with naked women or those with allegorical
themes. Actually pictures like this were not icons in the purely religious
sense of the word but simply new paintings in which artists regained freedom to
express themselves. It was not surprising that Maxim the Greek commented that
such icons "have not been painted anywhere but in Russia."
Viscovatii's protest was in vain; he was excommunicated, accused of treason and
he ended his life in exile. Ivan IV, fully supported by Makarii, the leader of
the new trend in Moscow iconography, easily defeated the opposition, and new
paintings on historical and allegorical themes continued to multiply. The first
such icons-tableaux (French for art picture), were often multi figured
compositions showing Ivan's army units, particularly his cavalry with Russian
churches or landscapes in the background. The Russification of the icon
continued to outrun ecclesiastical limitations. After first decorating the
palace of Ivan the Terrible, these "Semi" icons entered the homes of
boyars, rich merchants etc. It was the national Russian element that penetrated
the icon, more than the style or colors, that typified what was to become known
as Moscow School of Art. The artistic value of the new paintings decreased. The
colors darkened and the composition became rather crowded and clumsy. New
subjects, complex compositions, gold ornaments, and richly decorated garments
of the subjects would not match the poetic style of Rublev or Dionissi or the
monumental style of the Novgorod School. Makarii's imprint was felt in Moscow's
entire cultural life. After bringing the painting in line with literature, he
brought both under control of the government, often using them to promote
political interests.
|
|
