DOI article:
Smorąg Różycka, Małgorzata: Profesor Anna Różycka Bryzek (1928-2005)
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19072#0032
of the stability of iconographic conceptions had thus been replaced by the understanding of
their dynamics conditioned not only by the historical changeability of artistic processes but also
by a wealth of possibilities of shaping the compositional-formal features of a given subject as
well as its content. It naturally follows from this that in studies of art the detennination of the
subject and fonu as well as time and place of origin of a work of art is no longer sufficient. The
art historiarfs attention should rather centrę on the meaning of a work of art and on its public
function. It is a ąuestion not only of a widespread visualization of the fundamental content of
the Christian doctrine but also of the interactive reception of this content expressed in fuli by
various devotional attitudes to different forms of this visualization. This standpoint is characte-
ristic of Prof. Różycka' s further studies, mainly on the Ruthenian paintings commissioned by
the Jagiellons. However, just as close to her was the conviction, formulated in Polish science by
Lech Kalinowski, that also the fonnal disposition of a work of art contained a spiritual message,
a "symbolic value" whose variable sense depended on the histonco-cultural context of a partic-
ular artistic creation. This found expression in her extraordinary perspicacity and precision of
description of the object, pennitting her even at this initial stage to reveal nuances of poses and
gestures, barely perceptible shades of expression in the countenance or the folding of draperies.
An instructive model of the utmost precision of such a description appeared already in her study
of the Castelseprio frescoes, to become a permanent element of her research method.
The second issue, that is, the role of antiąue traditions in medieval art was linked directly
with the ąuestion of the origins of Byzantine art and its relation to classical antiąuity. Following
the findings initiated in 1900 by Dmitrij V. Ajnalov's significant study, she expressed a firm
conviction that Byzantine art had uninterruptedly continued antiąue art, storing the repertory
of its characteristic formulas and motifs of composition, especially its anthropomorphism with
a sense of the organie structure of the body. even in periods of intensified abstract fiat and linear
stylization. She proved it in her study of the Castelseprio frescoes, using chiefly the method of
comparative stylistic analysis to track down all fonnal manifestations of this relationship, as
distinct from other, Lombardic-Carolingian features. She later took up this theme in almost all her
studies, sometimes announcing it directly in the title, such as, for instance, Echa tradycji antycz-
nych w bizantyńsko-ruskich malowidłach ściennych Sandomierza i Lublina (Echoes of Antiąue
Traditions in Byzantine-Russian Wall Paintings of Sandomierz and Lublin). She also devoted to
it a special cycle of lectures at the Institute of the History of Art of the Jagiellonian University
in the academic year 1992-1993, which was entitled Byzantine Art and Antiąue Traditions.
In her detailed considerations she precisely separated all manifestations of the "persistence"
of the fomiulas - once adopted directly from the Hellenistic heritage and henceforth permanently
appertaining to the language of Byzantine art - from retums to antiąue sources in a chain of
successive renaissances, when not infreąuently the style and content of the imitated classical
patterns were subject to interpretation. From this perspective she discemed the dynamics of
stylistic transformations of Byzantine art and at the same time its basie dichotomy manifested in
the parallel employment of classical and abstract artistic idioms. in eąual measure characteristic
of this art. Furthermore. on several occasions she criticized the anachronistic, for relying on the
outdated state of knowledge, stereotyped thinking about Byzantine art in terms of fossilized fonnal
traditionalism and conservative iconographic rigorism. She made it elear in the very title of a short
introductory article to Photius' Hornily X. published in a Polish translation- Przeciw stereotypom
myślenia o sztuce bizantyńskiej (Against Stereotyped Thinking about Byzantine Art).
It was from the same antiąue perspective that she viewed the history of Byzantine icon paint-
ing, insisting on a proper, that is, historical context of research in this field. She also published
a short, synthetic outline of this history, accentuating the main points: spinnial-fonnal origin,
devotional-liturgical function, and stylistic changes in chronological order. She was cautious
26
their dynamics conditioned not only by the historical changeability of artistic processes but also
by a wealth of possibilities of shaping the compositional-formal features of a given subject as
well as its content. It naturally follows from this that in studies of art the detennination of the
subject and fonu as well as time and place of origin of a work of art is no longer sufficient. The
art historiarfs attention should rather centrę on the meaning of a work of art and on its public
function. It is a ąuestion not only of a widespread visualization of the fundamental content of
the Christian doctrine but also of the interactive reception of this content expressed in fuli by
various devotional attitudes to different forms of this visualization. This standpoint is characte-
ristic of Prof. Różycka' s further studies, mainly on the Ruthenian paintings commissioned by
the Jagiellons. However, just as close to her was the conviction, formulated in Polish science by
Lech Kalinowski, that also the fonnal disposition of a work of art contained a spiritual message,
a "symbolic value" whose variable sense depended on the histonco-cultural context of a partic-
ular artistic creation. This found expression in her extraordinary perspicacity and precision of
description of the object, pennitting her even at this initial stage to reveal nuances of poses and
gestures, barely perceptible shades of expression in the countenance or the folding of draperies.
An instructive model of the utmost precision of such a description appeared already in her study
of the Castelseprio frescoes, to become a permanent element of her research method.
The second issue, that is, the role of antiąue traditions in medieval art was linked directly
with the ąuestion of the origins of Byzantine art and its relation to classical antiąuity. Following
the findings initiated in 1900 by Dmitrij V. Ajnalov's significant study, she expressed a firm
conviction that Byzantine art had uninterruptedly continued antiąue art, storing the repertory
of its characteristic formulas and motifs of composition, especially its anthropomorphism with
a sense of the organie structure of the body. even in periods of intensified abstract fiat and linear
stylization. She proved it in her study of the Castelseprio frescoes, using chiefly the method of
comparative stylistic analysis to track down all fonnal manifestations of this relationship, as
distinct from other, Lombardic-Carolingian features. She later took up this theme in almost all her
studies, sometimes announcing it directly in the title, such as, for instance, Echa tradycji antycz-
nych w bizantyńsko-ruskich malowidłach ściennych Sandomierza i Lublina (Echoes of Antiąue
Traditions in Byzantine-Russian Wall Paintings of Sandomierz and Lublin). She also devoted to
it a special cycle of lectures at the Institute of the History of Art of the Jagiellonian University
in the academic year 1992-1993, which was entitled Byzantine Art and Antiąue Traditions.
In her detailed considerations she precisely separated all manifestations of the "persistence"
of the fomiulas - once adopted directly from the Hellenistic heritage and henceforth permanently
appertaining to the language of Byzantine art - from retums to antiąue sources in a chain of
successive renaissances, when not infreąuently the style and content of the imitated classical
patterns were subject to interpretation. From this perspective she discemed the dynamics of
stylistic transformations of Byzantine art and at the same time its basie dichotomy manifested in
the parallel employment of classical and abstract artistic idioms. in eąual measure characteristic
of this art. Furthermore. on several occasions she criticized the anachronistic, for relying on the
outdated state of knowledge, stereotyped thinking about Byzantine art in terms of fossilized fonnal
traditionalism and conservative iconographic rigorism. She made it elear in the very title of a short
introductory article to Photius' Hornily X. published in a Polish translation- Przeciw stereotypom
myślenia o sztuce bizantyńskiej (Against Stereotyped Thinking about Byzantine Art).
It was from the same antiąue perspective that she viewed the history of Byzantine icon paint-
ing, insisting on a proper, that is, historical context of research in this field. She also published
a short, synthetic outline of this history, accentuating the main points: spinnial-fonnal origin,
devotional-liturgical function, and stylistic changes in chronological order. She was cautious
26