Journal ArticleDOI
Iconoclast, Iconoclastic, and Iconoclasm: Notes Towards a Genealogy
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The genealogy of the terms "iconoclast(ic)" and "iconoclasm" is discussed in this article. But the focus of this article is on the Reformation period rather than on the much greater damage to medieval art caused by the Catholic Baroque period.Abstract:
This article aims to contribute to a better understanding of the genealogy of the terms 'iconoclast(ic)' and 'iconoclasm.' After some observations on the beginning of early Christian art that stress the necessity of abandoning a monolithic view of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic art regarding their iconic/aniconic aspects, it is noted that 'iconoclast' is mentioned first just before the start of the iconoclastic struggle and always remained rare in Byzantium. It became known in the West by Anastasius's Latin translation of Theophanes' Chronographia Tripartita . From there it was probably picked up by Thomas Netter, whose Doctrinale against Wycliffe and his followers proved to be very influential in the early times of the Reformation when images were a focus of intense debate between Catholics and Protestants. Thus the term gradually gained in popularity and also gave rise to 'iconoclasm' and 'iconoclastic.' The present popularity of the term has promoted the grouping together of events that probably should not be considered together. It has also made scholars focus on Protestant vandalism during the Reformation period rather than on the much greater damage to medieval art caused by the Catholic Baroque period.read more
Citations
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
Writing the Art, Archaeology and Religion of the Roman Mediterranean
Philippa Adrych,Dominic Dalglish +1 more
Book ChapterDOI
The Road from Decadence: Agendas and Personal Histories in the Study of Early Islamic Art
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
The Language of Images: the Rise of Icons and Christian Representation*
TL;DR: The first phase of Byzantine iconoclasm, which ended with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, and after which the argument is somewhat different as discussed by the authors, can be seen as a pre-iconoclastic period.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Emperor and the Icon
TL;DR: The emperor has been credited with many things, why not icons? Modern art historians have enthusiastically subscribed to a theory crediting the emperor with a major role in the development of icons, brushing aside all evidence to the contrary, whether archaeological or literary as discussed by the authors.