DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43337#0455
452 | THE WALL PAINTINGS OF AKHTALA MONASTERY
24 Winfield D. Middle and Later Byzan-
tine Wall Painting Methods // Dumbar-
ton Oaks Papers, 22 (1968), pp. 127-128.
25 The exisiting data do not run count-
er to this hypothesis. Yet we can finally
answer the question only after special
studies have been made of the major-
ity of extant Byzantine murals dated
about 1200.
several smaller paintings, the state of preservation of the Georgian and
Greek lettering varies dramatically as, for instance, in the medallion of
St. John the Baptist, the Greek text of which looks as good as new while
the Georgian letters have peeled off rendering them illegible, which
means that it was added later, on dry plaster.
The Second Master evidently made only Greek inscriptions, with
the Georgian added by others on blank spots (presumably, by the men
who painted the west wall) before the scaffolding was removed. Most
probably the Second Master was not a Georgian but a Greek or Arme-
nian Chalcedonian. He may have been summoned from Byzantium
with the Chief Master. The south and north wall paintings support this
suggestion since they are reminiscent of the altar apse, and use a purely
Byzantine palette: greens for the ground, with the figures clashing in
color with the background.
Tike the Chief Master, the Second Master was seeking for expressive
force. In the Mariological and Christological cycles of the north wall,
he arranged the figures in two groups to raise the dramatic tension.
Set in dynamic attitudes, with somewhat flattened proportions and vo-
luminous conventionalized shapes, they look full of energy. The im-
pression is heightened by the «figure-background» imbalance, with the
space crammed. The figures have no room to move freely, hence the
feeling of hidden tension. The artist deliberately simplified his compo-
sition for the sake of expression. In the Passion scenes, for instance, he
made the figure of Christ strikingly larger than all the rest.
Apart from the typically Byzantine and expressive urge, the two
artists have certain individual features in common: the high-relief
treatment of volumes, the thick, powerful contouring, the striking
lights and shades, and the heavy draperies. This stylistic comparison
allows us to assume that the Second Master, like the Chief Master, rep-
resented the expressive style in the Byzantine art of the late 12th and
early 13th centuries.
Yet, no matter much they had in common,
the artists hardly belonged to one trend. The
south and north wall murals reveal a unique
manner, and a quest inspired by goals differ-
ent from the painter of the altar apse.
The technical differences are the most no-
table. Unlike the Chief Master, the Second
24 Winfield D. Middle and Later Byzan-
tine Wall Painting Methods // Dumbar-
ton Oaks Papers, 22 (1968), pp. 127-128.
25 The exisiting data do not run count-
er to this hypothesis. Yet we can finally
answer the question only after special
studies have been made of the major-
ity of extant Byzantine murals dated
about 1200.
several smaller paintings, the state of preservation of the Georgian and
Greek lettering varies dramatically as, for instance, in the medallion of
St. John the Baptist, the Greek text of which looks as good as new while
the Georgian letters have peeled off rendering them illegible, which
means that it was added later, on dry plaster.
The Second Master evidently made only Greek inscriptions, with
the Georgian added by others on blank spots (presumably, by the men
who painted the west wall) before the scaffolding was removed. Most
probably the Second Master was not a Georgian but a Greek or Arme-
nian Chalcedonian. He may have been summoned from Byzantium
with the Chief Master. The south and north wall paintings support this
suggestion since they are reminiscent of the altar apse, and use a purely
Byzantine palette: greens for the ground, with the figures clashing in
color with the background.
Tike the Chief Master, the Second Master was seeking for expressive
force. In the Mariological and Christological cycles of the north wall,
he arranged the figures in two groups to raise the dramatic tension.
Set in dynamic attitudes, with somewhat flattened proportions and vo-
luminous conventionalized shapes, they look full of energy. The im-
pression is heightened by the «figure-background» imbalance, with the
space crammed. The figures have no room to move freely, hence the
feeling of hidden tension. The artist deliberately simplified his compo-
sition for the sake of expression. In the Passion scenes, for instance, he
made the figure of Christ strikingly larger than all the rest.
Apart from the typically Byzantine and expressive urge, the two
artists have certain individual features in common: the high-relief
treatment of volumes, the thick, powerful contouring, the striking
lights and shades, and the heavy draperies. This stylistic comparison
allows us to assume that the Second Master, like the Chief Master, rep-
resented the expressive style in the Byzantine art of the late 12th and
early 13th centuries.
Yet, no matter much they had in common,
the artists hardly belonged to one trend. The
south and north wall murals reveal a unique
manner, and a quest inspired by goals differ-
ent from the painter of the altar apse.
The technical differences are the most no-
table. Unlike the Chief Master, the Second