An Icon Painter from Russia

An Icon Painter from Russia

Dmitri Merezhkovsky (picture: euro-synergies.hautefort.com)

(Picture: itunes.apple.com)

I have briefly spoken in my Leonardo da Vinci im Orient about Dmitri Merezhkovsky’s Leonardo novel and about a movie project once associated with it and I’d like to develop this a little bit further here. Merezhkovsky’s novel does not belong to pulp fiction like other Leonardo novels do. It had a tremendous impact on Sigmund Freud, who had it on a list of books that taught him – like good friends do – much about life and art and, more than that: that did affect his whole world view. If I had to think about a Leonardo movie, a serious one, not one that does, in a more or less interesting way, visualize the Leonardo myth, I would propose that a filmmaker would take the last chapter and the epilogue of Merezhkovsky’s novel tentatively as a starting point. This would be only about the last three or so years of Leonardo’s life and about a short time of his aftermath, but I would imagine that only setting this »little« of Merezhkovsky’s novel into pictures would be a tremendous challenge and five hours would not be enough of time – since the last chapter with the epilogue represents a really deep reflection upon Leonardo, and even more than that: these pages do represent a profound reflection about Western and Eastern art and civilisation as such (including mutual views and representations) and not least a reflection about how to write about art and visual culture at all. One might say, however, that the last chapter and the epilogue were rather the result of such a reflection, but Merezhkovsky’s novel does not only take a reader in, but it also displays tecniques of writing used by Merezhkovsky: He does as well show you what he does (and there is much to learn from that). He did for example know how to work with various perspectives and how to balance various viewpoints, and this is (or would be) part of the challenge to visualize what Merezhkovsky is telling and showing us and at the same time: what he reflects upon. In the following I only should like to name a few observations I have made now re-reading these pages. It is not about the historical accuracy (although Merezhkovsky obviously knew to work with the tools provided by Fin de Siècle Leonardo-scholarship), but more about the mentioned tecniques of writing and the inspiration that one might draw from these, if thinking about new ways to write history of art and also if thinking, like some scholars like Alexander Nagel do, about new narratives of the scenery we are accustomed to call the Italian Renaissance. (And I am admitting here – but if you have read my Leonardo book, it is no a surprise to you – to belong to those who think that the old narratives are rather hackneyed and that it might be time to think about something new, but not necessarily in terms of almost equally worn out multicultural narratives, but also in terms how to deal with word and image in new ways).

Chamber of Marguerite de Navarre, ancient cabinet de travail of Leonardo da Vinci at the Château Clos Lucé (picture: Léonard de Serre)

A first observation might be that Merezhkovsky has an eye for what one might call the visual culture of the Renaissance in general and not only an eye for its great art. Because he comes to speak about such rather remote (?) aspects as for example prison graffitis of the Renaissance (for a presentation of contemporary prison graffiti see http://de.indymedia.org/2008/07/222592.shtml ) or the problem of having dead bodies to be identified.

We realize that this is not only about great art alone. But it is about great art as well, and for example about a commission that, if one is coming from a more Western background, is not necessarily prepared to think about, like the commission for the Russian Icon painter to provide an Icon for a patriarch house’s kitchen responsible to produce consecrating oil.

Merezhkovsky does stage the encounter of Russian and Italian culture of the Renaissance in France. As I said it is about Leonardo’s last years and the author does prepare the reader for this encounter by developing a rather complex picture of various persons, obviously representing various strains of Russian visual culture (and again it is to mention: this here is not about accuracy or meaningfulness of this particular group portrait). And it is not only about having people to represent something. Merezhkovsky manages to have his characters interact quite lively. And he manages to show how the interaction of various cultural identities has already played a role within the biographies of this Russian group – now being confronted with what one might call a contemporary artistic culture of about 1518: with Leonardo’s circle, now living in France. Merezhkovsky seems to have no problem with a multicultural perspective, he is seeking for it, but at the same time he is also working to undermine it by depicting the fluidity of identity concepts that change if coming in contact with something new and challenging (and I find it remarkable if a writer manages to do that in a subtle way).

And in staging how Leonardo’s cultural identity – the identity of a still curious man in his late sixties – is confronted with something he does not deeply know, Merezhkovsky remains wisely extremely cautious and open-minded, and this although he has decided views. But the last chapter and the epilogue of this novel seem, at least to me, to be experimental art historical writing in a good way. It is writing that is interested in having confronted interesting things in an interesting way, and at the same time shows less interested in pretending to know, what exactly might be the outcome of such experiments undertaken more to refresh one’s own view. And I call this experimental art historical writing in a good way, not least because bounderies of academic disciplines tend to prevent such experiments (although there is this constant chitchat of allegedly desirable inter- or transdisciplinarity everywhere)

The actual outcome of the experiment, one might say would be the further career of the young Russian Icon painter, who has been visited by Leonardo in his workshop and who visits the workshop of Leonardo, but only after the latter had died. And one might name as a final observation: It would be the further career of this character, the young Icon painter, who is not least, and like we all are, and like a filmmaker reflecting upon Leonardo would be, confronted with the allpresent Leonardo myth, which is in a way »visualized« by Merezhkovsky by describing how the deserted workshop of Leonardo da Vinci did look like.

I have never seen a large crystal made model of a human eye in Leonardo exhibitions, but this very description of having various people enter the deserted workshop of a legend, does recall Leonardo exhibitions and also various TV productions on Leonardo. Most Leonardo exhibitions leave it, speaking metaphorically, with recreating this workshop. But Merezhkovsky’s novel, speaking cinematographically, does not leave it with having this in frame. It is more complex, does start from somewhere else and not least: suggests other ways to go from there.

Advertisement:

(Picture: amazon.com)

…note that the Russian State Library of Moscow has it, too: check out Leonardo da Vinci im Orient at

http://rsl.ru/en

or order your copy at

http://www.amazon.de/Leonardo-Vinci-Orient-Geschichte-europäischen/dp/3412205265/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402232898&sr=1-1

and, by the way, check out the Russian wikipedia entry on Giovanni Morelli here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Морелли,_Джованни)

(Picture: telegraph.co.uk)

Dmitri Mereshkovsky, as drawn by Ilya Repin

And a reflection by Repin (presumably a reflection) upon Western and Eastern art:

http://www.wikiart.org/en/ilya-repin/religious-procession-in-an-oak-forest-appearance-of-the-icon-1878#supersized-artistPaintings-215353

Top of the page

Back to the starting page of Dietrich Seybold’s homepage: http://www.seybold.ch/Dietrich/HomePage

© DS