DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43337#0453
450 | THE WALL PAINTINGS OF AKHTALA MONASTERY
nian tradition, the Cypriot and Athenian frescoes are closer to classical
roots, while those in Akhtala, despite all similarities, bring to mind the
abstracted forms of the ancient East. They do not closely follow nature,
and their individual traces are scanty, while the symbolic and decora-
tive element stands out.
The Akhtala altar murals belong more to the realm of semiotics than
of beauty. Compared to stylistically relate Greek murals, their images
strike one with the unnatural masks that take the place of faces. The artist
wanted not so much to recreate the ideal beauty of the human body as to
portray an abstract idea. Not that he deliberately used an original tech-
nique: in my view, the result arose subconsciously from his Armenian
background. This is borne out by the likeness of his murals to Arme-
nian illuminated manuscripts of the late 12th and early 13th centuries, and
above all the Byzantinized manuscripts of the «Edessa circle»21. The pro-
vision striking reflection of what distinguishes him from Greek artists.
Analyses of his style confirm the conclusions we drew from the in-
scriptions on the preliminary drawings. The Chief Master, an Arme-
nian of Chalcedonian confession, worked in a Byzantine centre where
both Armenian and Greek were spoken. We can venture more specific
assumptions. He could not have been trained in Constantinople: his
not irreproachable techniques prove this. Stylistic analogies suggest
that he worked in the Eastern Mediterranean. His bilingualism hints at
an Armenian environment. Ample historical sources mention Arme-
nian Chalcedonian monks in Georgian and Greek monasteries in the
Byzantine Empire, in Syria, Bulgaria, and on Mount Athos.
Armenian Chalcedonians had their own monasteries as well. One of
them, in Philippople (now Plovdiv), was surrounded by the largest Ar-
21 See Izmailova TA. Armenian minia-
ture of the XI century// Proceedings of
the Second International Symposium
on Armenian art. Yerevan, 1981; Der
Nersessian S. L’art armenien des origins
au XVIIе siecle. Paris, 1977, pp. 90-91.
22 See Bartikyan R. The role of the
abbot of the PhilippopoLis Armenian
monastery of St. John Atman in the
Armenian-Byzantine church negoti-
ates with Catholicos Nerses IV Blessed
(1166-1173) // Bulletin of the Arme-
nian Academy of Social Sciences. SSR,
1984, № 6, pp. 78-88.
menian colony in Byzantium. The higumenos
of this monastery, John Atmanos, represent-
ed the Emperor Manuel Comnenus at the
1170-1172 negotiations on church union with
the Catholicos of Armenia22. The Chief Mas-
ter might have received his artistic education
in Philippople. He may also have come from
Trebizond, which was closer to Akhtala and
under Georgian influence from 1204 onwards.
It had an Armenian community of Chalce-
donian confession and one of its members.
nian tradition, the Cypriot and Athenian frescoes are closer to classical
roots, while those in Akhtala, despite all similarities, bring to mind the
abstracted forms of the ancient East. They do not closely follow nature,
and their individual traces are scanty, while the symbolic and decora-
tive element stands out.
The Akhtala altar murals belong more to the realm of semiotics than
of beauty. Compared to stylistically relate Greek murals, their images
strike one with the unnatural masks that take the place of faces. The artist
wanted not so much to recreate the ideal beauty of the human body as to
portray an abstract idea. Not that he deliberately used an original tech-
nique: in my view, the result arose subconsciously from his Armenian
background. This is borne out by the likeness of his murals to Arme-
nian illuminated manuscripts of the late 12th and early 13th centuries, and
above all the Byzantinized manuscripts of the «Edessa circle»21. The pro-
vision striking reflection of what distinguishes him from Greek artists.
Analyses of his style confirm the conclusions we drew from the in-
scriptions on the preliminary drawings. The Chief Master, an Arme-
nian of Chalcedonian confession, worked in a Byzantine centre where
both Armenian and Greek were spoken. We can venture more specific
assumptions. He could not have been trained in Constantinople: his
not irreproachable techniques prove this. Stylistic analogies suggest
that he worked in the Eastern Mediterranean. His bilingualism hints at
an Armenian environment. Ample historical sources mention Arme-
nian Chalcedonian monks in Georgian and Greek monasteries in the
Byzantine Empire, in Syria, Bulgaria, and on Mount Athos.
Armenian Chalcedonians had their own monasteries as well. One of
them, in Philippople (now Plovdiv), was surrounded by the largest Ar-
21 See Izmailova TA. Armenian minia-
ture of the XI century// Proceedings of
the Second International Symposium
on Armenian art. Yerevan, 1981; Der
Nersessian S. L’art armenien des origins
au XVIIе siecle. Paris, 1977, pp. 90-91.
22 See Bartikyan R. The role of the
abbot of the PhilippopoLis Armenian
monastery of St. John Atman in the
Armenian-Byzantine church negoti-
ates with Catholicos Nerses IV Blessed
(1166-1173) // Bulletin of the Arme-
nian Academy of Social Sciences. SSR,
1984, № 6, pp. 78-88.
menian colony in Byzantium. The higumenos
of this monastery, John Atmanos, represent-
ed the Emperor Manuel Comnenus at the
1170-1172 negotiations on church union with
the Catholicos of Armenia22. The Chief Mas-
ter might have received his artistic education
in Philippople. He may also have come from
Trebizond, which was closer to Akhtala and
under Georgian influence from 1204 onwards.
It had an Armenian community of Chalce-
donian confession and one of its members.