exhibiting byzantium: ree case studies in the display and reception of byzantine art

8/9/2019 Exhibiting Byzantium: ree case studies in the display and reception of Byzantine art

1/12

© 2014 Isabel KimmelfieldIngela Nilsson & Paul Stephenson (ed.), Wanted: Byzantium. The Desire for a Lost Empire.

Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 15. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet 2014, 275–286

Exhibiting Byzantium: ree case

studies in the display and reception ofByzantine art, –

F , what we now call the Byzantine Empire ruled over a fluc-tuating region from the capital city of Constantinople, today the Turkish city

of Istanbul. e Byzantines called themselves Romans ( Rhomaoi in Greek), andconsidered their empire to be a continuation of the Roman Empire. Yet, in the cen-turies that followed, as a concept of ‘Europe’ and ‘European heritage’ developed,Rome became a key part of this heritage, while Byzantium did not. It remainedother, exotic, not quite Europe. Although the hostility exhibited by Edward Gib-bon and others in the eighteenth century gave way to an increased interest in thenineteenth century in medieval art and culture, Byzantium continued to remainsomething of an outsider, never quite fitting into European historical or art histor-ical canons. Averil Cameron has discussed how this problematic fit of Byzantium

into traditional narratives has led to the ‘absence of Byzantium’ from contemporaryEuropean political and cultural discourse, making it difficult to see how to fit Byz-antium into a modern concept of Europe and its heritage, even when it is desired. Yet, despite these challenges, recent decades have nonetheless seen efforts to ad-dress and to rectify this state of affairs and it is this changing modern perceptionand presentation of Byzantium that I wish to explore. What is the meaning of ‘Byz-antium’ today? What is asked and expected of it? In particular, what role or rolesdoes it have in modern Western Europe and the USA – cultures and regions far beyond either the chronological or geographic limits of the Byzantine Empire? eseare very broad questions, and so I will explore them by considering in particular

the reception and meanings of the tangible remains of this empire – its art andartefacts – as they are displayed in museums in modern Western Europe and theUSA. By presenting case studies of three recent exhibitions of Byzantine art held inNew York and London between and , I hope to demonstrate some of the

For a discussion of Edward Gibbon and Byzantium, see Runciman . Art historian Robert S. Nelsonexplores the ongoing challenges to placing Byzantium within the traditional canon of European art historyin his article, Nelson . Cameron .

I K


2/12

issues that are raised in modern exhibitions of Byzantine art in cultures and nationsbeyond the reach of former Byzantine lands, and the variety of meanings and usesthis ancient empire holds today.

Some broad trends can be observed regarding the place of Byzantium in Europeanculture and history as presented to the public in recent years. e most signifi-cant shi is an emphasis away from older narratives of Byzantium, which presentedit variously as Christian in contrast to Islam, as an Eastern ‘Other’ in contrast tothe Latin West, or as an influence on the culture of Southern Europe, particular-ly Greece and Southern Slavic nations. Instead, Byzantium has increasingly been presented as part of a broader ‘Mediterranean’ culture, notably in association withIslam. is change has in part been precipitated by developments in the academicstudy of Byzantium, which have seen the increasing use of the term ‘late antique’ todefine periods previously separated both chronologically (early Christianity as op- posed to medieval Byzantium) and geographically (separating the Latin West fromthe Byzantine East, and both of these in turn from the Islamic world). Althoughthis historiographical trend began slightly earlier, it was Peter Brown’s influentialbook, e World of Late Antiquity, published in , that served to populariseboth the term and concept of ‘late antiquity’. Since then, the concept has been em-braced by numerous scholars (albeit with different definitions), such that we cannow see this extended time and space of late antiquity encompassing periods aslate as CE or even , and regions as far-flung as Western Europe, North

Africa, Arabia, Persia, and even Afghanistan. is new presentation of Byzantium within the world of late antiquity was evident, for instance, in a exhibition atthe Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which was titled Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition, and treated the period –. Among the many con-sequences of this new approach to periodization, geography, and terminology hasbeen an increasing emphasis on the cultural history of the period over the political,economic treatments oen seen in earlier historiography. is has led in turn to astrong interest in the material culture of the period, a development that lends itselfto exhibitions of art and artefacts.

Cameron , . Cameron presents the ‘long’ late antiquity and its various elements as character-istic products of the late twentieth century, illustrative of the manner in which the needs, concerns, andideologies of the present influence the ways historians approach and interpret the past. Cameron, , p.. Cameron , . e impact of this new historiography on museums is evident in the staging inNew York of a large exhibition of Byzantine art , e Age of Spirituality, only six years aer the publ ication ofBrown’s book. is exhibition reflected Brown’s emphasis on the period as one of increased religiosity andspirituality, and sought to demonstrate this development through the art of the period. Kurt Weitzmann,‘Introduction’, in Weitzmann , xxi.


3/12

Exhibiting Byzantium

But despite these developments, Byzantium and its contribution to Europe’scultural history still have yet to be fully explored, and it remains a somewhat mys-terious, unknown, and ‘exotic’ entity to many in Western Europe and the USA. Yet

vast numbers of Byzantine antiquities reside in collections across these regions, oth-ers are in private hands, and still more are displayed frequently in larger and small-er exhibitions. is indicates that both the potential for and interest in a greaterunderstanding and appreciation of Byzantium’s role in Europe already exist, but in what ways does this interest manifest itself? What approaches are museums takingto address this interest; what are the challenges to such efforts; what expectationsdo visitors to these exhibitions have; and is there a difference in how Byzantium is perceived and portrayed in Europe as compared to the USA? As an approach to answering these questions, I will now offer a brief consider-ation of two recent blockbuster exhibitions of Byzantine art and artefacts held atthe Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and offer as a comparison a exhibition held in London at the Royal Academy.

– ,

e Glory of Byzantium, was staged in New York in . It was conceived in onesense as a sequel to an exhibition held twenty years earlier at the Met, titled Age ofSpirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, ird to Seventh Century, whichembraced the early period of Byzantium. e exhibition took – the offi-cial end of Byzantine Iconoclasm – as its starting point, and – the end of Latin

occupation of Constantinople – as its end date, thus covering the middle periodof Byzantium. In the Director’s Foreword to the exhibition catalogue, Philippe deMontebello stated that this exhibition, like its predecessor, was intended to be a‘didactic exhibition of the highest quality; a combination of the beauty of the rela-tively unfamiliar with the intellectual revelation of an extraordinary era’. e exhibition was a great success, with , visitors (the third-highestnumber of visitors at any exhibition world-wide in , exceeded only by an ex-hibition on Picasso in Washington D.C. and one on Renoir in Chicago). It alsodrew numerous favourable reviews both in general publications like e New YorkTimes, in specialist periodicals such as the Burlington Magazine, and academic pub-

lications including Gesta, and Speculum. us, it succeeded in appealing to both popular and academic audiences, and the large and lavishly-illustrated catalogue with its essays written by leading scholars in the field has come to be seen as a keysurvey of the contemporary state of knowledge of middle Byzantine art. e scale

Phil ippe de Montebello, ‘Director ’s Foreword’, in Glory of Byzantium , xiii. Dobrzynski . Buckton ; Pace and von Falkenhausen ; Buckton . Eastmond , .


4/12

and popularity of this exhibition is striking, particularly given the relative unfamil-iarity of its subject matter to many Western visitors – notably in comparison to theexhibitions of works by Picasso and Renoir.

Some of this interest is accounted for by the particular marketing method usedby the Met for this exhibition. is approach, known as ‘ethnic marketing’, alsoindicates the way in which the museum conceived of the meaning of this exhibitionboth in the New York area, and to visitors from around the country and abroad.In part, the choice to employ this approach can be seen as a commercial decision,given the fact that the Met had employed this method a year earlier for their Splen-dors of Imperial China exhibition, which had the highest number of visitors at anyexhibition worldwide in . But the fact that the Met once again chose to dothis with the Byzantium exhibition, targeting ethnic groups usually not aimed at byeven the most sophisticated commercial ethnic marketers, also reflects a consciouschoice to present the subject matter of the exhibition as the cultural heritage of par-ticular ethnic groups living today in the USA, rather than exclusively as the subjectof academic study or aesthetic admiration. In the course of the marketing campaign, the museum’s advertising agency can- vassed members of the Armenian, Greek, Russian, and Ukrainian communities inthe city. From this study, the museum selected several specialized publications in which to advertise, such as the Greek-American paper, e National Herald ande Armenian Mirror-Spectator , and purchased air-time on Greek and Russianradio stations in the New York metropolitan area. is advertising campaign wasfurther tailored to each targeted ethnic group through the images selected for each publication. For Greeks, these advertisements showed a mosaic of St Andrew from

the Archaeological Museum in Serres, Greece. For Ukrainians, they depicted a mo-saic of ‘e Deacon Stephen’ from the Kiev Architectural Conservation Area. ForRussians, they showed an image of St Luke in an illuminated manuscript from theRussian National Library in St Petersburg. And for Armenians, they featured anilluminated page from the Zēyt‘un Gospels produced in Armenia in the thirteenthcentury. In this way, the links between medieval Eastern Christian art and mod-ern national and cultural identities were clearly demonstrated, acknowledged, andeven encouraged within this exhibition. Besides reflecting modern ethnic identities and their heritage, the show was alsoseen by some observers as responding to broader contemporary political and cul-

tural issues and debates, in large part due to the unfamiliarity of its subject matterto those in Western Europe and the USA. In March , while the Glory of Byz- antium was still on display at the Met, Karl E. Meyer wrote an editorial in e New

Halter , –. Coll ins April , ; Collins July , . Collins also notes that this campaign, costing an estimated,, was ‘the Met’s most ambitious foray into ethnic marketing, a rarity coming from a cultural insti-tution’.


5/12


York Times in which he noted the ‘fascinating political subtext’ of this exhibition.Meyer framed this subtext within ongoing questions regarding the concepts of a‘clash of civilizations’ and the ‘West’ and the ‘Rest’. He suggested that this art of a

‘defunct empire’ was not ‘politically inert’, but rather provided (mostly Western) visitors with an encounter with a civilization that belongs to the ‘Rest’, allowingthem to appreciate that Western models have not been universal in past and arenot now. is interpretation of the show emphasizes the ‘otherness’ of Byzantium,reflecting its ‘absence’ from Europe and concepts of Europeanness, in the mannerdescribed by Averil Cameron. is places Byzantium much more firmly within theconceptual framework that links it with Islam (as highlighted in the Met ex-hibition), rather than one that would seek to associate it with a modern Europenow expanding to include southern, Orthodox nations with Byzantine heritage.Paired with the ethnic marketing campaign, Meyer’s interpretation indicates thatthe show had multiple aims and was received in multiple ways, depending in partupon the expectations, interests, and attitudes of its viewers. Other political implications of – and potential challenges to – the show werehighlighted only two years later when another exhibition, this one planned to beheld at the Walters Art Gallery (now Museum) in Baltimore, on medieval Geor-gian art, was cancelled due to protests in Georgia. e Met’s loans from Geor-gia had been secured only with great difficulty, and in , dissenters declaredthat the objects to be sent on loan were part of the national patrimony and shouldnot leave the country. is time they achieved their goal when the Patriarch ofthe Georgian Orthodox Church agreed with their claims, stating that the objects would lose their holiness if they le Georgia. Gary Vikan, director of the Walters,

expressed his regret at this turn of events, saying, ‘Georgia is a wonderful place andthis was an opportunity for them to become part of the Western world’. Besidesintroducing Americans to Georgian art, this exhibition was also intended by theGeorgian government to raise the nation’s profile in the West, encouraging foreigninvestment. is incident reflects both efforts to integrate previously divided con-cepts of ‘Western’ and ‘other’ cultures, and also the anxiety such efforts can evokeregarding the potential for ‘dilution’ or loss of cultural heritage and identity. us,the overlapping nature of cultural, religious, and national identities and political,economic concerns is evident within the conception and delivery of exhibitionslike those held at the Met and elsewhere.

– : ,

In the wake of the great success of e Glory of Byzantium, the Met proceeded tomount two more large-scale exhibitions focusing on Byzantium: Byzantium: Faith

Meyer . Dobrzynski .


6/12

and Power – (covering the late period of Byzantium) in , and Byzan-tium and Islam: Age of Transition in . ey also undertook a renovation projectthat culminated in the inauguration in of the new Mary and Michael Jaharis

Galleries for Byzantine Art. ese galleries occupy a central location in the muse-um, running on either side of and just behind the Grand Staircase that greets visi-tors as the enter the Met, a placement whose potentially meaningful implicationsregarding the role of Byzantium in the story of art history was noted by reviewersat the time. Comparing the and exhibitions, further examples may be seen ofthe challenges of staging and presenting an exhibition of Byzantine art, due notonly to the complexity of the Byzantine Empire itself, but also how it is perceivedand received today. ese challenges include the political, national issues discussedabove, but also academic questions, like ‘what is Byzantine art?’, and the ever-pres-ent difficulty of pitching a blockbuster exhibition to a large and diverse audience(both in background and familiarity with the subject matter). Antony Eastmondconsidered the first of these issues when he observed the change in the layouts ofthe maps provided in the catalogues between the and exhibitions. efirst one was more specific in its labelling of different regions, indicating in largetype the areas defined as ‘Byzantium’, ‘Islam’, and the ‘Latin West’, while slightlysmaller type identified ‘Georgia’, ‘Armenia’, ‘Syria’, and ‘Egypt’, among others. e map forewent any such regional labels in favour of city names alone. East-mond notes that this reflects the inherent problems in attempting to map out thegeographic contours of the Byzantine Empire, whose borders fluctuated greatlyover its thousand-year life-span, much less the extent of its sphere of influence. He

also notes modern political problems with such identifying labels – for example,the label ‘Armenia’ sits over the site of the modern nation-state, but historicallyArmenia covered a much larger area. Such modern political considerations also influenced the objects on display atboth the and exhibitions, as the various countries with Byzantine herit-age choose to view this history in different ways. Eastmond offers Armenia as an ex-ample: this country did not lend art to either the or the Met exhibitions, preferring not to contribute to an exhibition that defined this art as part of a larger

e Jaharises have contributed to a number of similar projects. Besides contributing funds to the Met

galleries, they lent some items from their own collection and have endowed a Center for Byzantine Art andCulture at the Hellenic College and Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of eology in Brookline, Massa-chusetts (inaugurated in ). ‘Inauguration of e Mary Jaharis Center for Byzantine Art and Culture’,article cited from: website Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, October , ( July ). Most recently, they funded the Mary and Michael Ja-haris Galleries of Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Art at the Art Institute in Chicago (opened ). ‘OfGods and Glamour’, article cited from: website Art Institute Chicago ( July ). Smith ; Kramer . Eastmond , –.


7/12


stylistic group of ‘Byzantine’ art, rather than as exclusively ‘Armenian’. Bulgaria,on the other hand, loaned to both, a choice that can be seen as reflecting the desireon the part of the nation to be seen as part of Europe and a European artistic tradi-

tion (Bulgaria was at that time a candidate nation for membership in the EuropeanUnion). Curators must also consider how best to pitch such blockbuster exhibitions.Helen C. Evans, who co-curated both e Glory of Byzantium and Byzantium: Faith and Power , later recalled overhearing a visitor to e Glory of Byzantium wandering through the exhibition asking ‘Who are these Byzantines – did theylive before or aer Christ?’ In an effort, then, to offer something to all visitors, sheexplained that she sought to present, at the ‘lowest level’, an exhibition that wouldappeal visually to non-specialist visitors, perhaps inspiring them to pause to readlabels and learn more. At the same time, she also sought to offer, at the ‘highestlevel’, the opportunity to see both important and lesser-known works side by side,to draw new conclusions. In light of such considerations, as well as the ethnic marketing campaigns intro-duced by the Met, two questions arise: for whom were these exhibitions staged?And who actually visited them? e catalogues of both e Glory of Byzantium and Byzantium Faith and Power include letters from the Patriarch of Constantinople,giving his blessing to the undertaking. ese exhibitions thus firmly placed them-selves in the context of the Orthodox Church and its heritage – but how many visitors to these exhibitions were Orthodox? How many came from or had relativesin the countries whose art was defined by these exhibitions as ‘Byzantine’? Howdid those with no personal connection to Orthodoxy or these nations perceive the

exhibition? Did they see it as a representation of an unknown culture; as an ex- ploration of a reintegrated part of European cultural heritage; a glimpse into thehistory of an unfamiliar religious tradition; a contribution to a multicultural effortto engage with traditional ‘others’; or simply as an exhibition of beautiful pieces ofart and decorative objects?

–

In contrast to this highlighting of the issues regarding the connection between theheritage of this ancient empire and modern national and religious concerns, the

Royal Academy took a very different approach to its own blockbuster exhibition

Eastmond , . Eastmond also points out the theological complications concerning the identifi-cation of Armenian (religious) art as Byzantine. Since the Fourth Ecumenical Council in , whose canonsthe Armenian Church never accepted, the Armenian Church has not been in communion with the Greekand other Orthodox churches (although it still is viewed in Armenia as ‘Orthodox’). Since Byzantine art isstrongly defined by its religiosity, this is potentially a justifiable claim to differentiation. Gettinger, Saint-Laurent, and Steptoe . Glory of Byzantium , vii; Byzantium. Faith and Power , vi.


8/12

of Byzantine art, staged in . Byzantium: – set itself the monumentaltask of presenting the entirety of Byzantine history and cultural production to itsaudience. is emphasis on the entirety – if not the continuity – of the ‘Byzantine

Empire’ was intended to showcase the achievements and contribution of the Byz-antines at all stages of their history, contrary to eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuryhistorians’ dismissive or condescending treatment of the empire. is exhibition was portrayed as a landmark both within the catalogue (in its forewords) and innewspaper reviews, as it was the first comprehensive exhibition of Byzantine artheld in Britain in fiy years (that is, since Masterpieces of Byzantine Art , shown atthe Victoria and Albert Museum, and at the Edinburgh International Festival in). Given the great developments in the academic study of Byzantine art thathave taken place since the s, it was felt that this exhibition had much groundto cover, and many previous omissions and inaccuracies to address and correct. In-deed, co-curator Robin Cormack stated explicitly in an article published in eTelegraph a week before the exhibition opened that the show was intended to recti-fy the damage done to European (and in particular British) perceptions of Byzan-tium by the work of Edward Gibbon and his successors, offering ‘a chance to thinkagain about Byzantium, and to look at what Gibbon ignored’. is theme of restoring Byzantium’s reputation, of presenting it as a sparklinggem rather than as a dusty fossil, was repeated in numerous reviews in major Britishnewspapers. Several of these reviews also quoted or simply referenced W.B. Yeats’ poem, “Sailing to Byzantium”. None discussed this poem and its meanings atany length, but rather referred to selected lines in a shorthand manner suggestingthat readers were expected to be familiar with at least its lyrical words, if not its

deeper meanings. Robin Blake, for instance, closed his review with this sentence(having made no previous mention of Yeats’ poem): “But I would defy anyonenot to relish the brilliant things, those made by the icon-painters and “the goldensmithies of the Emperor”. ese words were thus used to evoke in the minds ofreaders (and potential visitors to the exhibition) the glittering beauty of the empireand its treasures, to bring it alive and present it as a vivid, concrete world readerscould ‘visit’ (or ‘sail to’) by attending the exhibition. Contributing this ‘touristic’element of the exhibition, several of these newspapers, including e Telegraph, e Independent , and e Financial Times used the exhibition as an inspiration for ar-ticles in their travel sections, promoting holidays to centres of Byzantine culture

and art, such as Istanbul and Ravenna. e Times of London even joined with theRoyal Academy to offer its readers a chance to ‘win a trip to Athens’, indicating that

Cormack . Blake . Besides Blake, other reviewers to refer to Yeats include: Richard Dorment (Dorment ) and Jona-than Sumption (Sumption ). Edwards ; Packe ; Norwich .


9/12


this approach to presenting Byzantium was not developed solely by newspapers,but was also promoted by the Royal Academy itself. However, the Royal Academy did not choose to employ any form of ‘ethnic mar-

keting’. Cormack briefly mentions in his article in the Telegraph certain parallels be-tween Byzantium and elements of modern Europe, including ‘its regional concepts(Georgia and Ukraine were within the Byzantine world)’. But he does not go onto elaborate on this theme, instead choosing to turn back to the empire itself anddemonstrate its richness and inventiveness in its own time, pace Gibbon’s narrativeof decline. us the general tone of the catalogue forewords, Cormack’s article, andthe various reviews of the exhibition suggest that it was advertised to and aimed atthe general British public – a didactic exhibition, relatively free of any concertedefforts to tap into contemporary issues regarding modern Orthodox culture andethnic identities. Few of the newspaper reviews made any mention of political, re-ligious, or ethnic issues like those raised by the US exhibitions. Only one quotedCormack comparing Byzantium’s linking of church and state to Putin’s Russia – aninteresting point that emphasized the influence of the Byzantine Empire and statestructures over its cultural, ethnic impact. Also, despite the presence in the ex-hibition of icons from the ancient Orthodox Monastery of St Catherine at Sinai– notable due to the difficulty of securing loans and the rarity of such objects leav-ing the monastery – instead of a statement from the Patriarch of Constantinople,the RA catalogue included forewords from political, rather than religious figures.ese included its patron, Charles, Prince of Wales, and the then-prime ministersof Britain and Greece. All emphasized previous omissions or misrepresentationsof Byzantine history in European history. Only the foreword of the Greek prime

minister, Kostas Karamanlis, made reference to some of the issues made so evidentin the US exhibitions, when he expressed his hope for a common future betweenEastern and Western Europe within the European Union, with Byzantium servingto “foster the common values that bring us together” and allowing understandingof “the causes and the nature of our differences”. e very different issues raised by the US and British exhibitions are intriguingand require more extensive research before potential explanations can be posited.ey seem to suggest differences arising due to the respective histories and cul-tural make-ups of the countries in question, with Britain home to relatively fewOrthodox Christians, while significant numbers have emigrated to America, with

strong communities existing in the New York area which actively retain their re-

‘Win a trip to Athens’, e Times of London, February, , Section T, Features, p. . It should benoted that this special offer did not appear until nearly five months aer the exhibition opened (and only alittle over a month before it closed). is could indicate that this advertisement was thus a response on thepart of the museum to newspapers’ emphasis on travel and tourism, rather than a planned approach fromthe outset. Higgins . Kostas Karamanlis, ‘Prime Ministers’ Forewords’, in Byzantium. – , .


10/12

spective cultural, ethnic, and even national identities (as seen by the existence ofethnic community media in which the Met was able to advertise). is is not tosay that Orthodox Christians did not visit the London exhibition, nor that the

exhibition itself was not aimed at an audience beyond Britain as well (Karaman-lis’ foreword suggests a wider, European scope also underlay the exhibition), butthe degree to which this side of the exhibition was emphasized (or not) suggests a very different set of aims behind the Royal Academy’s exhibition, even as it coveredsimilar ground artistically and chronologically to the exhibitions at the Met. isdemonstrates the diverse and powerful meanings Byzantium can be accorded andevoke, and these meanings are very oen influenced as much by the culture andheritage of those observing and engaging with Byzantium in the present as with itsown historical existence and impact on its contemporary world.

Recent and upcoming exhibitions on early Christian and Byzantine art indicatethe enduring appeal of this art to both scholars and the broader public, and thisinterest demands further examination to understand its origins and implications.Recent political developments also make this study timely, as modern concepts of‘Europe’ have expanded to include lands with a Byzantine, Orthodox heritage. isis seen in the recent entry into the political body of the European Union of Cyprusin , Romania and Bulgaria in , Croatia in , and the ongoing (andcontroversial) candidacy of Turkey. Byzantium has thus come to the fore as a fieldon which to construct a common ‘European’ history, and museums are looking

for ways to contribute to this effort, to overcome old narratives that depicted Byz-antium primarily as a contrast to other cultures, and instead to integrate it into ashared history of an increasingly culturally diverse modern Europe. e manner in which they do this indicates not only the current place of Byzantium in popularand academic perception, but also the manner in which contemporary cultural, political, and religious lines of identity and heritage are drawn, maintained, anddeployed.


11/12


R EVIEWS AND N EWSPAPER A RTICLES

Blake, R. . “e power and the glory”, Fi-nancial Times, October, ( July ).Buckton, D. . “Review. e Glory of Byzan-

tium [Catalogue]”, Speculum , –.— . “Review. e Glory of Byzantium.

New York”, e Burlington Magazine , No., –.

Collins, G. . “Art museums stretch scarce mar-keting dollars with carefully targeted publicitycampaigns”, e New York Times, July ,

( January ).

— . “e Met markets ‘Glory of Byzantium’exhibition to those whose ancestors helpedmake it glorious”, e New York Times, April , ( January ).

Cormack, R. . “Byzantium – at theRoyal Academy. rowing new light on theDark Ages”, e Daily Telegraph, October, ( July ).

Cutler, A. . “Byzantium. New York”, e Burlington Magazine , No. (),–.

Dobrzynski, J.H. . “Protests in Georgia De-rail Art Show Headed for U.S.”, e NewYork Times, August , ( January ).— . “Museums Paint Prosperity By Num-

bers”,e New York Times, February , (ArtsSection) ( January ).

Dorment, R. . “e art and soul of Byzan-tium”, e Daily Telegraph, October, ( July ).Edwards, N. . “Ravenna. Mesmerising rel-

ics of Byzantine brilliance”, e Daily Tel-egraph, November, ( January ).

Higgins, C. . “Treasures of Byzantium fromfar and wide show a rich, complex culture”, eGuardian, July, ( January ).

Kramer, H. . “Beyond the Met Staircase

Lies the Byzantine Glory”, e New York Ob-server , November , , http://observer.com///beyond-the-met-staircase-lies-the-byzantine-glory ( July ).

Meyer, K.E. . “e West’s Debt to Byzantium”,e New York Times, March , ( July ).

Norwich, J.J. . “All Sicily is here”, e Finan-cial Times, October, ( July ).

Pace, V. and V. von Falkenhausen . “Review:e Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture ofthe Middle Byzantine Era A.D. – [Cat-alog]”, Gesta , No. , –.

Packe, C. . “e Complete Guide To: Byz-antium”, e Independent , November, ( July ).

Smith, R. . “Sailing Again to Byzantium”, e New York Times. November , , ( July ).

Sumption, J. . “In heaven or on earth?”, e

Guardian, November, ( July ).

“Win a trip to Athens” . e Times of London, February, , Section T, Features, p.


12/12

I NTERVIEW

Gettinger, E., J.-N. Saint-Laurent & A. Steptoe,“Interview with Angela Constantinides Heroand Helen C. Evans”, Dumbarton Oaks,

July, ( January ).

E XHIBITION C ATALOGUES

Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Chris-tian Art, ird rough Seventh Century. Ed. K. Weitzmann. New York: Metropolitan Museumof Art, .

Byzantium. –. Ed. R. Cormack and M.Vassilaki. London: Royal Academy, .

Byzantium. Faith and Power (–). Ed. H.C.Evans. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, .

e Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Mid-dle Byzantine Era A.D. –. Ed. H.C. Ev-ans & W.D. Wixom. New York: MetropolitanMuseum of Art, .

S ECONDARY LITERATURE

Cameron, A. . “e Absence of Byzantium”, Nea Hestia , No. (), pp. –.— . “e “Long” Late Antiquity. A Late

Twentieth-Century Model”, in Classics in Pro- gress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome, ed.T.P. Wiseman. Oxford, –.

Eastmond, A. . “e Limits of Byzantine Art”,in A Companion to Byzantium, ed. L. James.Chichester, –.

Halter, M. . Shopping for Identity. e Market-ing of Ethnicity. New York.

Nelson, R.S. . “Living on the Byzantine Bor-ders of Western Art”, Gesta , No. , –.

Runciman, S. . “Gibbon and Byzantium”, Daedalus , No. , –.

exhibiting byzantium: ree case studies in the display and reception of byzantine art

Documents