Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Eleven - Three Questions Concerning Armenian and Byzantine Art

  • from II - Images, Objects, Archaeology
  • Edited by Elizabeth S. Bolman, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio, Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, University of Oklahoma, Jack Tannous, Princeton University, New Jersey
  • Book:
    Worlds of Byzantium
    Published online:
    18 October 2024
    Print publication:
    17 October 2024, pp 324-351

  • Summary

    If the Armenological scholarship of the past five decades is any indication, close and deep examination has tended to reveal shared concerns, broader cultural horizons, and a strong sense of Armenia’s connectedness to other traditions and places. This could be shown for virtually all periods of Armenian history, but this essay focuses on the seventh to tenth centuries. Exploring some points of convergence between Armenian and Byzantine artistic traditions, I ask three very specific questions: 1) Is there such a thing as an Armenian imperial image? 2) What if an Armenian church were constructed in the imperial palace at Constantinople? and 3) What if an early medieval Armenian icon panel was shown to have survived? These are all hypothetical scenarios, but they are not entirely fantastical; each finds at least some support in historical evidence. Moreover, all of them urge a broader, more complex, and more dynamic conceptualization of visual culture than most studies of Byzantine and Armenian art have allowed.