权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

'Italo-Byzantine' ivory and issues in the definition of 'Byzantine' art

“意大利-拜占庭”象牙和“拜占庭”艺术定义中的问题

基本信息

批准号：
AH/D500729/1
负责人：
Antony Eastmond
金额：
$ 2.17万
依托单位：
Courtauld Institute of Art
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2007
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2007 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FD500729%2F1
关键词：
Italo Byzantine ivory issues definition

项目摘要

The principal research question that this project addresses is how to define the limits of Byzantine art, in terms of geographic and qualitative range. Museums and Exhibitions tend to display only the highest quality works, and these have reinforced a perception of Byzantine art as being essentially imperial/court commissions of high quality products. This is particularly the case with objects made from luxury, expensive materials such as ivory. Lower quality products, particularly in ivory, have tended to be assigned to locations outside the political and cultural borders of the empire. This has led to a modern intellectual model of empire in which Byzantium creates and disseminates art, and surrounding cultures copy and emulate. The automatic assignation by modern art historians of low quality art to the neighbours of the Byzantine Empire reinforces the idea of the supremacy of Byzantium itself. A recent spate of general books on Byzantine art has reinforced this idea of Byzantine art, reflecting the centralised model of the imperial governmental bureaucracy. Art which does not fit this presumed model is excluded. The articles I have written respond to that model of the empire and its art, and expose the assumptions that underlie it.The project examines the methodology underlying the categorisation of Byzantine ivories, and explores other possible models for the generation of lower quality art within the empire. In particular I have researched a more diverse and speculative form of artistic production not dominated by imperial and court patronage, but possibly more market driven and responsive to the various diverse audiences for art within the borders of the empire. I have explored whether a more diverse and heterogeneous model of Byzantine art, and indeed of the Byzantine Empire, is feasible.The work has focused on two ivories in London Museums: the Clephane horn [an eleventh-century Oliphant in the British Museum] and a plaque of the Last Judgement [twelfth century, Victoria & Albert Museum]. These ivories, which were both central to the 1930 article of Andrew Keck which first defined the existence of ltalo-Byzantine ivories, have received little attention since. They raise distinct, but related questions.The Clephane horn is decorated with images of chariot-racing, and this iconography has often been assumed to imply a Constantinopolitan origin for the piece. Its genre, however, has no precedents within Byzantium -most Oliphant's are either western or Islamic- and its style cannot easily be paralleled within the empire. This demonstrates the problems scholars have faced in assigning this object a home in the medieval world. Equally, by c.1100, the presumed date of the Oliphant, chariot-racing seems to have lost all its earlier imperial resonances to a Byzantine audience, whilst remaining a potent symbol to visitors to the empire (evidence from Venice and Kiev).The study of the Clephane horn, then, allows questions of audience and reception to be examined, and of the alternative histories that can be created for objects without provenance, depending on which elements of the object are emphasised I style, genre, iconography, or audience.The Last judgement ivory, on the other hand, has an iconography and style which have traditionally been linked to Italy. Here, the assignation to Italy is much more subjectively determined. This is an attribution that has never been fully analysed. My examination of this ivory re-evaluates the group of ltalo-Byzantine ivory, and proposes that this group was made within the empire, probably in Constantinople, but for a different, non-imperial audience than that traditionally assumed for ivories. It raises questions about the nature of the market for ivory in the middle ages and alternative views of the production, commissioning and sale of art.

这个项目的主要研究问题是如何界定拜占庭艺术在地理和定性范围上的界限。博物馆和展览倾向于只展示最高质量的作品，这些强化了拜占庭艺术本质上是帝国/宫廷委托的高质量产品的看法。用象牙等奢侈昂贵的材料制成的物品尤其如此。质量较低的产品，尤其是象牙制品，往往被分配到帝国政治和文化边界之外的地方。这导致了现代帝国的智力模式，拜占庭创造和传播艺术，周围的文化复制和模仿。现代艺术史学家自动将低质量的艺术分配给拜占庭帝国的邻国，强化了拜占庭本身至高无上的观念。最近大量关于拜占庭艺术的书籍强化了这种关于拜占庭艺术的观点，反映了帝国政府官僚机构的中央集权模式。不符合这种假定模式的艺术被排除在外。我所写的文章回应了帝国及其艺术的这种模式，并揭示了其背后的假设。该项目考察了拜占庭象牙分类的基本方法，并探索了帝国内低质量艺术产生的其他可能模式。特别是，我研究了一种更加多样化和投机的艺术生产形式，不受帝国和宫廷赞助的支配，但可能更多地由市场驱动，并对帝国境内各种不同的艺术受众做出反应。我已经探索了一个更加多样化和异质的拜占庭艺术模式，以及拜占庭帝国的模式是否可行。这项工作主要集中在伦敦博物馆的两件象牙上：克莱芬号角（大英博物馆11世纪奥列芬的一件作品）和最后审判的一块牌匾（12世纪，维多利亚和阿尔伯特博物馆）。这些象牙都是1930年安德鲁·凯克（Andrew Keck）文章的核心，该文章首次定义了意大利-拜占庭象牙的存在，此后很少受到关注。它们提出了不同但又相关的问题。克勒芬号角上装饰着战车比赛的图像，这种图像通常被认为是君士坦丁堡的起源。然而，它的风格在拜占庭没有先例——大多数奥列芬特的作品要么是西方的，要么是伊斯兰的——而且它的风格在帝国内部也不容易被相提并论。这表明了学者们在中世纪世界为这个物体指定一个家时所面临的问题。同样，到了公元1100年，也就是假定的奥列芬特时期，对拜占庭观众来说，赛车似乎已经失去了所有早期的帝国共鸣，而对帝国的游客来说，它仍然是一个强有力的象征（来自威尼斯和基辅的证据）。因此，对克利芬号的研究允许对观众和接受的问题进行检查，以及可以为没有来源的物体创造的替代历史，这取决于物体的哪些元素被强调，如风格、流派、图像或观众。另一方面，最后的审判象牙，具有传统上与意大利联系在一起的图像和风格。在这里，对意大利的分配是更主观地决定的。这是一个从未被充分分析过的归因。我对这批象牙的研究重新评估了意大利-拜占庭象牙，并提出这批象牙是在帝国内制造的，可能是在君士坦丁堡，但与传统上认为的象牙不同，它们的受众是不同的，非帝国的。这引发了人们对中世纪象牙市场性质的质疑，以及对艺术品生产、委托和销售的不同看法。