Przemysław MARCINIAK

Roland Betancourt and Maria Taroutina, eds., Byzantium/Modernism: The Byzantine as Method in Modernity. Leiden: Brill, 2015. xxiv + 369 pages. ISBN: 9789004292208

Roland Betancourt and Maria Taroutina, eds., Byzantium/Modernism: The Byzantine as Method in Modernity. Leiden: Brill, 2015. xxiv + 369 pages. ISBN: 9789004292208, kitabının, Przemysław Marciniak tarafından yazılmış tenkidi.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Bizans, modernizm, sanat

Roland Betancourt and Maria Taroutina, eds., Byzantium/Modernism: The Byzantine as Method in Modernity. Leiden: Brill, 2015. xxiv + 369 pages. ISBN: 9789004292208

Book review of Roland Betancourt and Maria Taroutina, eds., Byzantium/Modernism: The Byzantine as Method in Modernity. Leiden: Brill, 2015. xxiv + 369 pages. ISBN: 9789004292208, written by Przemysław Marciniak.

Keywords:

Byzantium, modernism, art,

PDF

___

1 For instance, Ivan Moody, “[Review] Byzantium/Modernism: The Byzantine as Method in Modernity,” Journal of the International Society for Orthodox Music 2 (2016): 107–109, https:// journal.fi/jisocm/article/view/87814.
2 Pro domo mea, Przemysław Marciniak and Dion C. Smythe, eds., The Reception of Byzantium in European Culture since 1500 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016) and the more recent Alena Alschanskaya, Andreas Gietzen, and Christina Hadjiafxenti, eds., Imagining Byzantium: Perceptions, Patterns, Problems (Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmueums, 2018).
3 Helena Bodin, “Whose Byzantinism—Ours or Theirs? On the Issue of Byzantinism from a Cultural Semiotic Perspective,” in Marciniak and Smythe, The Reception of Byzantium, 11–42.
4 Devin Singh’s question “What Has Paris to Do with Byzantium?” could be answered even more fully (chapter 9, p. 237). It should be noted that such a comparison has been made before, for instance, by Alfred Rambaud, who stated “Constantinople était le Paris du moyen âge oriental”; see D. Vikelas, Les Grecs au moyen âge: Étude historique, trans. E. Legrand (Paris, 1878), 7.
5 His statement regarding the “absence of the Byzantine literary tradition within European modernity” (p. 199) also seems too pessimistic in light of, for example, recent studies on the reception of the Byzantine novel and translations of Theodore Prodromos’s works.