The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium by Bissera V. PentchevaThe Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium by Bissera V. Pentcheva

The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium

byBissera V. Pentcheva

Paperback | October 11, 2010

Pricing and Purchase Info

$59.59 online 
$65.95 list price save 9%
Earn 298 plum® points

Prices and offers may vary in store

HURRY, ONLY 1 LEFT!
Quantity:

In stock online

Ships free on orders over $25

Not available in stores

about

Today we take the word “icon” to mean “a sign,” or we equate it with portraits of Christ and the saints. In The Sensual Icon, Bissera Pentcheva demonstrates how icons originally manifested the presence of the Holy Spirit in matter. Christ was the ideal icon, emerging through the Incarnation; so, too, were the bodies of the stylites (column-saints) penetrated by the divine pneuma (breath or spirit), or the Eucharist, or the Justinianic space of Hagia Sophia filled with the reverberations of chants and the smoke of incense. Iconoclasm (726–843) challenged these Spirit-centered definitions of the icon, eventually restricting the word to mean only the lifeless imprint (typos) of Christ’s visual characteristics on matter.

By the tenth century, mixed-media relief icons in gold, repoussé, enamel, and filigree offered a new paradigm. The sun’s rays or flickering candlelight, stirred by drafts of air and human breath, animated the rich surfaces of these objects; changing shadows endowed their eyes with life. The Byzantines called this spectacle of polymorphous appearance poikilia, that is, presence effects sensually experienced. These icons enabled viewers in Constantinople to detect animation in phenomenal changes rather than in pictorial or sculptural naturalism. “Liveliness,” as the goal of the Byzantine mixed-media relief icon, thus challenges the Renaissance ideal of “lifelikeness,” which dominated the Western artistic tradition before the arrival of the modern. Through a close examination of works of art and primary texts and language associated with these objects, and through her new photographs and film capturing their changing appearances, Pentcheva uncovers the icons’ power to transform the viewer from observer to participant, communing with the divine.

Bissera V. Pentcheva is Associate Professor of Art History at Stanford University. She is the author of Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium (Penn State, 2006).Bissera V. Pentcheva is Associate Professor of Art History at Stanford University. She is the author of Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium (Penn State, 2...
Loading
Title:The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in ByzantiumFormat:PaperbackDimensions:320 pages, 10 × 7.5 × 0.89 inPublished:October 11, 2010Publisher:Penn State University PressLanguage:English

The following ISBNs are associated with this title:

ISBN - 10:0271035838

ISBN - 13:9780271035833

Reviews

Table of Contents

Contents

List of Illustrations

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1. Imprinted Images: Eulogiai, Magic, and Incense

2. Icons of Sound: Hagia Sophia and the Byzantine Choros

3. Eikon and Identity: The Rise of the Relief Icon in Iconophile Thought

4. The Imprint of Life: Enamel in Byzantium

5. Transformative Vision: Allegory, Poikilia, and Pathema

6. The Icon’s Circular Poetics: The Charis of Choros

7. Inspirited Icons, Animated Statues, and Komnenian Iconoclasm

Epilogue: The Future of the Past

Appendix 1: The Icons in the Monastic Inventories of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

Appendix 2: Byzantine Enamel Icons and the West, Eleventh–Twelfth Centuries

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Editorial Reviews

“Pentcheva’s preferred direction is away from ‘lifelikeness’ towards the ‘living icon’, an image that ‘was literally ‘in-spirited’ (empsychos, empnous, from pneo and pneuma, ‘to breathe and breath’), receiving human breath and responding with a spectacle of shimmer and glimmer’ (p. 122). Her works trace the philosophical and sensual emergence of the living image, the eikon, no longer understood as the flat painted panel of the sixth to ninth centuries, nor only as the metal bas-relief icon that dominated in eleventh-century Constantinople, but rather as the ideas that shaped both.”—Paul Stephenson, Oxford Art Journal