Loading...
The appraisal of an antique icon often resembles the work of an archaeologist. One of the main challenges is the multi-layered nature of the painting. Over the centuries, icons could be repeatedly renewed or completely repainted over the original image. These layers are called 'overpaintings' ('zapis'), and beneath them may lie a genuine masterpiece from a completely different era.
The appraisal of an antique icon often resembles the work of an archaeologist. One of the main challenges is the multi-layered nature of the painting. Over the centuries, icons could be repeatedly renewed or completely repainted over the original image. These layers are called 'overpaintings' ('zapis'), and beneath them may lie a genuine masterpiece from a completely different era.
An expert needs to determine the presence and number of these overpaintings. Sometimes, beneath a darkened and crude 19th-century image, a bright and expressive 16th-century painting is discovered. An additional challenge is posed by oklads—metal covers (rizas) that conceal most of the image. An oklad might have been added long after the icon was painted, and the painting beneath it can be preserved in its original state, while the exposed areas (faces and hands) were repeatedly renewed.
| Shponka Type | Characteristic Period / Region |
| Through-end shponki | Old Russian period (before the 15th century), Pskov, Novgorod |
| Inset, blind, 'dovetail' shponki | 15th-17th centuries, central Russia (Moscow school) |
| Two opposing inset shponki | 17th-19th centuries, Volga region, central regions |
| Surface-mounted shponki (nailed or screwed) | Late period (late 19th - early 20th century) |
Before examining the painting, the expert carefully inspects the icon's foundation—the wooden panel. The type of wood can already reveal a great deal. For example, linden is characteristic of central Russia, pine for the North, and cypress for southern regions and Greece.
A key element for dating are the shponki—wooden splines inset into the back of the panel to prevent it from warping. Their shape, placement, and method of attachment changed over time, which allows for a fairly accurate determination of the icon's creation period.
The analysis of these seemingly technical details provides the expert with the first, most objective information about the age and origin of the object.
Beneath the paint layer lies the ground, which in icon painting is called levkas. Its composition and method of application are also important diagnostic features. Classical levkas consists of chalk or alabaster mixed with an animal (fish or hide) glue. The color, thickness, and texture of the levkas can indicate a specific school or era.
Before applying the levkas, a fabric—pavoloka—was often glued to the panel. It served to improve the adhesion of the ground to the wood and prevent the paint layer from cracking due to the panel's deformations. The presence or absence of pavoloka, as well as the type of fabric (canvas, serpyanka), is another detail an expert notes.
| Characteristic | Novgorod School (14th-15th c.) | Moscow School (15th-16th c.) | Palekh (19th c.) |
| Color Palette | Bright, local, contrasting (cinnabar, lazurite) | Soft, harmonious, complex shades, 'golubets' (dove-blue) | Rich, with an abundance of gold on a dark background |
| Proportions | Elongated, expressive, sometimes harsh | Harmonious, calmer, and more realistic | Refined, delicate, miniature |
| Painting of Flesh Tones | Sharp white highlights, graphic quality | Smooth 'plavi' (glazes), soft chiaroscuro | Exquisite detail, 'hair-thin' lines |
The most complex stage of the appraisal is the stylistic analysis. Here, the expert relies on their knowledge, experience, and 'visual experience' (nasmotrennost). They assess the combination of artistic techniques characteristic of a specific icon-painting school and period. Attention is paid to everything: from the general proportions of the figures to the smallest details.
Comparing different schools helps to understand how greatly their approaches to creating a sacred image differed.
Only a comprehensive analysis of all these elements—technology, materials, and style—allows an expert to draw a well-founded conclusion about the time, place of creation, and cultural value of the icon.
