Throughout the Byzantine period existed, but not dominated, a rigoristic attitude to art, that was inherited from Early Christianity. Pagan (religious) works of art were condemned as material, immoral, and dangerous (inhabited by demons) while the possibility of a Christian art was questioned on the basis of the Old Testament’s prohibition against graven images and the fear of idolatry. The hostility toward art, in general, was also justified by the illusionary and seductive character of the sensible art-objects and by the total rejection of sensual pleasures in favor of spirituality that demands the formation of the inner image (in the soul) and not the worship of material representations that are incapable of circumscribing God.
The emergence of Christian art (third century) helped to overcome the earlier aniconism and gradually (from the fourth century onward) the Byzantines made a distinction between the ancient works of art that can be appreciated as such and their deplorable religious meaning that must be rejected and condemned. The transfer to Constantinople of ancient masterpieces to adorn the new Christian capital is indicative. But in general, the Byzantine beholder (if there can be a single category that comprises the emperor, the clergy, high officials and scholars, philosophers and theologians, illiterates, etc.) was embarrassed by what can be labeled as ‘‘aesthetic pleasure.’’
It was later, probably from the eleventh century onward, that things changed. For instance, Psellos has written descriptions where he analyses the ancient work of art aesthetically, commenting on many of its aesthetic qualities and using Platonic and Aristotelian terminology. Detailed descriptions, evaluation of certain material features, the choice of the form, the connection between the sensible form and the theoretical content of the work testify to the aesthetic interests of the Byzantines. After all, the primacy of the visual was a commonplace in Byzantium.
World History
