Personal Blogs

Comparison of Noli Me Tangere late 16^th C. versions: Ex 2.3.2 A844

(a)BM1994,0501.3                                (b)Michael Damaskinos, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Herakleion

 ·        What are the similarities between these two panel paintings?

·        What are the differences between these two panel paintings?

·        Why do you think the Cretan artefact was not deemed worthy of display in the National Gallery’s Sainsbury Wing?

It is a pity that the course has returned to giving exercises requiring just summary of your reading here but the exercise vseems worthwhile with an art form less known to most of us. However, I’d rather attempt a more amateur comparison than re-read and precis the long and highly specialist piece in Angeliki Lymberopoulou, Lynne Harrison and Janet Ambers,‘The Noli Me Tangere icon at the British Museum: vision, message and reality’ (2011, pp. 185–202, 213–14). Otherwise I might not learn how to see this.

Obviously the surface media are different between (a)’s restored state and that piece still in service. This could mean that (b) was heavily restored since most of the gilding has been taken from (a) in restoration.

The striking similarity is the pose used by the seated angel at the tomb stage of the narrative which the authors attribute to the Sibyl in Michelangelo’s Sistine chapel paintings. However, from top to bottom.

·        The ‘skyline’ is similar with from left to right Golgotha, rocks, bush, cityscape, more rocks with a visible cave in first rock-stack. However the middle cross on Golgotha has a ladder leaning on it refreshing its immediate meaning in relation to the Deposition – the start of this funereal narrative.

·        Lower the bushes in the landscape are more defined in (b) and differentiated. However gestures are very much the same in the actors across the painting. There is a reflection of the Magdalene’s ‘red’ clothing and angel wings. Iconography & red?

·        Lowe the Christ figure is larger in (a) and the folds of the clothes more ‘classical’ in look than (b). More use of size to emphasis the grandeur of Christ in (a) perhaps – left to the gilding in (b). The urn of ointment much more visible in (b).

Now look at the professional. I miss (just examples, I miss much more):

·        P. 6 The tears represented in a way that is transitional between fixed earlier Byzantine figures and more naturalist style (both).

·        More detail of setting in (b) than (a) – fence behind Christ (p. 7).

·        More obvious use of under drawing & incised lines in (a).

·        Additional inscriptions in (b) including signature.(7)

·        Donors in (b) (9)

 

Worthiness of Sainsbury Wing?

v  It is a copy of the original in expert analysis.

v  Its hybrid nature between western and eastern forms are not appreciated.

v  Byzantine art is not popular outside the East (Balkans, Greece & Russia).

v  It is small and difficult to hang with prominence.

v  It doesn’t tell a straightforward story about Medieval Art and transition to Renaissance.

v  Considered ‘primitive’ in the Vasari sense.

Now what is said in ‘Revealed Discussion’?

Clearly I misunderstood the purpose of the exercise, which was not to refer back to versions of same icon but: ‘The Stoclet Man of Sorrows is the earliest of the two, with a possible date in the thirteenth century, while the Noli me Tangere has a terminus post quem in the last decade of the sixteenth century.’ I don’t find the instruction all that clear and I would have learned more if I had understood properly, but that may be my fault.

This is essential:

They both present an iconographic dialogue, albeit in opposite directions: the Stoclet diptych presents us with Byzantine influences on a work produced in Italy, probably for a Catholic patron; the Noli me Tangere is essentially a Byzantine icon at its core, elaborated with Western influences to meet the specific requirements and tastes of the bi-cultural Veneto-Cretan society.

And the rest is very interesting.

All the best

Steve