The Counter-Reformation Art Serving the Orthodoxy: The Changes in the Artistic Concept of Ukrainian Iconostasis during the Second Quarter of the 17th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper analyzes the reasons causing the structural and plastic changes of Ukrainian iconostases during the second quarter of the 17th century and eventually resulting in the Ukrainian iconostasis of the Baroque period. During the period, the iconostasis achieved monumentality and plasticity in the interpretation of the façade side as a result of introduction of the broken entablature, deep niches for icons, and passages to the altar, as well as to exceptionally rich carved decor, which, in general, added spaciousness to its architectural composition. The specified structural and plastic iconostases characteristics appeared when the Metropolitan Petro Mohyla was the archpastor; they are notable in the iconostases built with his direct or indirect assistance. The hypothesis of the paper is that the concept of iconostasis’ new artistic image as a monumental and architectural space frame was formulated by Petro Mohyla in the context of the program he developed for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine renovation, which, in particular, included the domain of church art and artistic decoration of temples. Petro Mohyla’s idea of the iconostasis architectural image renewal was based on the desire to provide more artistic expressiveness to its form and carved decorations. During the era, these features were characteristic of the Catholic Church altars of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth built in the Baroque style. The methods of significant emotional influence on the congregation developed by the post-Tridentine art as an instrument of the Catholic Church struggling against the Reformation ideas proved to be appropriate for the Kyiv Metropolis Orthodox art, that, after the Union of Brest, faced the problems similar to those of the Catholic Church, which arose with the spread of the Reformation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".