Tarasov's second book -- kovcheg

Thu May 10 00:19:58 UTC 2012

Thanks Alexandra. Both of Tarasov’s books are certainly very insightful, and I’ve found them quite helpful. However, early in the second book he is writing about early icons and he does make distinctions between frames as concrete things that we know of as picture frames, and the rhetorical device of framing, which can encompass almost any means of focussing attention. 

When Tarasov writes: “In the Russian language this icon frame was given a special name: ‘ark’ (kovcheg)”, he is referring specifically to the external margins of the painting rather than to the central painted image, or to rhetorical devices. And so it does seem to be an incorrect statement to say that the polya is called the kovcheg (the picture frame is called the painted image). Furthermore, because the recessed kovcheg is meant to symbolize the Ark of the Covenant, when that loaded term is applied to a completely different structural and meaning-producing component of the traditional icon, that creates additional problems because rather than serving as a frame, as is suggested in the book, the ark is the thing that is framed, although it is also a container of sorts. Framing is done to it, both in the source reference and in its later role in the icon. So these are a few reasons why I find the second book a bit problematic in this particular aspect, while otherwise being!
  an informative read.

Best,
Kenneth

________________________________________
From: Alexandra Smith [Alexandra.Smith at ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:58 PM
To: SEELANGS: Slavic & East European Languages and Literatures list; Allan, Kenneth
Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Tarasov's second book -- kovcheg

Dear Allan,

Thank you for all the quotes. To my mind, they shouldn't be taken out
of the context of the whole book. Tarasov wants to make a point about
the fact that during various periods the canonical definition of the
centre, the margins and the framing of Russian icons were re-defined
in accordance with various functions. Don't forget that he is more
concerned with rhetorical devices and the way how certain
elements/devices/structural aspects contribute to our perception of
this or that message.
In sum, he just says in his 2007 book that the notions of kovcheg and
framing can be interpreted loosely because the perception of the
"canon" has changed. It seems to me that his emphasis on function of
certain devices doesn't  contradict the original notion of the kovcheg
(ark), it just points out to different interpretations of it and its
effects upon the viewer during different periods. The notion of
curtain/veil is explained in the chapter available through the
internet (see my previous e-mail).
In an overarching manner, my understanding is that Tarasov makes a
point about the emergence of a different tradition of perception in
the Baroque period that continued to co-exist with the
canonical/authentic tradition in modern times. Tarasov claims that the
function of the second tradition was to trigger the viewers'
imagination and co-opt the viewer as an empathising figure, while the
first tradition was presented to the viewer in the Baroque period as a
closed one, i.e. the one that required its own hermeneutics available
to priests, specialist in theology, etc..

All best,
Alexandra

All best,
Alexandra

Quoting "Allan, Kenneth" <kenneth.allan at ULETH.CA> on Wed, 9 May 2012
18:45:50 +0000:

> Thanks for the various suggestions and definitions. Perhaps things
> did change somewhat in the English version. I’ve provided some
> quotations from the book that use kovcheg or ark to indicate the
> margins rather than the central recessed area.
>
> Best,
> Kenneth Allan
>
> University of Lethbridge
>
>
> “The margins of an icon – its ‘material frame’ – come into being as
> a result of a hollow being cut into the middle of the icon, on which
> the images of Christ, the Mother of God or a saint is painted. In
> the Russian language this icon frame was given a special name: ‘ark’
> (kovcheg).” [28]
>
> “This function of concealing the holy object was performed also by
> the metal overlay of the icon, its casing and curtain cloths. All
> these served as an ‘ark’ and ‘adornment’ for the sacred countenance,
> separating it out and protecting it within the surrounding space.”
> [32-33]
>
> “The ark as frame points in two directions: it is directed both to
> the centre – the image of Christ – and outwards, to the world itself
> and to humanity. The frame of an icon not only delimits the image of
> Christ within the surrounding space, but also links the two
> together.” [35]
>
> “This is clearly seen if we take the example of the curtain or veil
> (a symbolic ‘frame’) of the sacred image. The medieval icon was
> veiled (in an ark or under cladding) in the same way that authentic
> existence or beauty were concealed and inaccessible to human
> imagination.” [51]
>
> “Its iconography, decorations and construction are typical of the
> time and once again confirm the conception of the frame in the
> Baroque age as an independent work of art. Representing the ark of
> an ancient shrine, the frame does not so much conceal it from the
> eyes of the multitude as attempt to tell the people about it, to
> bring it close to the world and to the individual.” [68]
>
> “Ultimately, Baroque aesthetics and rhetoric led to the appearance
> of icons with complex frames of multiple components, or rather with
> separate marginal frames, which replaced the medieval ‘ark’ with
> margins that were integral with the board or boards.” [69]
>
> Re-iconostasis: “This supporting structure, carrying the icons,
> served as no more than a symbolic ‘framing’, not differentiated from
> the representation itself, like the margins (or ‘ark’) of an icon.”
> [126]
>
> “It was at this time that the gradual destruction of the ark of the
> medieval icon, and its replacement on the prayer image by a ‘picture
> frame’, took place; the latter could be detached from it in order to
> adorn a secular image on paper, canvas or metal.” [153]
>
> “The first is an ornamented frame, resembling a cut-out section from
> the horizontal structure of a later sixteenth-century or early
> seventeenth-century iconostasis, or an ‘ark’ separated from its icon
> – more precisely the ornamental margins of an icon.” [154]
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: SEELANGS: Slavic & East European Languages and Literatures
> list [SEELANGS at bama.ua.edu] on behalf of Alexandra Smith
> [Alexandra.Smith at ED.AC.UK]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:42 AM
> To: SEELANGS at bama.ua.edu
> Subject: [SEELANGS] Tarasov's second book -- kovcheg
>
> Dear Allan,
>
> I've read Tarasov's book "Ritorika obramleniia v russkom iskusstve"
> (2007) about a year ago or so. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of
> it right now. I do remember that in one of the chapters Tarasov talks
> about the disappearance of frame per se in Russian 20th-c. art
> (including icons produced by modernist artists). It seems that the use
> of the word "kovcheg" in a loose way to which you refer occurs in
> Tarasov's discussion of some 20th-c. icons, since the notion of
> framing was abandoned altogether.
> I note that in one of the chapters from Tarasov's 2007 book (available
> on the internet) Tarasov  refers to the notion of "kovcheg" (ark) in a
> traditional sense, too. He writes about one 18th-c. icon thus:
> "В следующем столетии линейная перспектива и картинная рама
> окончательно утверждают свои позиции в русском церковном искусстве. В
> житийной иконе святой Варвары (вторая половина XVIII века, ГИМ)
> средневековый ковчег исчез, а иконные поля превратились в тонкую
> живописную рамку — линейная перспектива и новая риторика образа
> заставили мастера пересмотреть концепцию рамы изображения."
> See this page:
>
> http://www.icon-art.info/book_contents.php?lng=ru&book_id=93&chap=6
>
>
> Perhaps, you could tell us more about the passage of the book you have
> in mind? It would be useful to see it in order to understand why the
> word kovcheg is used in a different way.
>
>
>
> All best,
> Alexandra
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Alexandra Smith (PhD, University of London)
> Reader in Russian Studies
> Department of European Languages and Cultures
> School of  Languages, Literatures and Cultures
> The University of Edinburgh
> David Hume Tower
> George Square
> Edinburgh EH8 9JX
> UK
>
> tel. +44-(0)131-6511381
> fax: +44- (0)0131 651 1311
> e-mail: Alexandra.Smith at ed.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>   options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                     http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>   options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                     http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------