1PZ2a7xaD

that the painter was ‘remote from any “-isms”’, referring in
this way to the contemporary avant-garde artistic currents.
Consequently, Rosen’ s art has been usually classified as traditionalist,
if not conservative, which, in ecclesiastical circles,
was rather a praise than a charge.
Władysław Kozicki was one of the few discerning contemporary
art critics to recognise these modern elements
in Rosen’ s paintings. He did not, however, associate them
with any particular artistic current but, quite tellingly,
characterised the paintings in the Armenian cathedral as
‘remarkably linear’, ‘flat’, ‘antinaturalist’, and gave an accurate
explanation of their content. According to Kozicki,
the ‘style’ of the paintings in the Armenian cathedral is
a unique creation of the artist and, though its constituent
elements, being the artistic styles and currents in the old
art which served the painter as inspiration, can be easily
identified and distinguished, this ‘style’ is Rosen’ s individual
and original means of expression. With due respect for
the charges forwarded by modernist, avant-garde critics, it
must be emphasised that such a form of artistic expression
(figurative and traditional) was the conscious and deliberate
choice of an artist who wished to create religious, church
art according to its centuries-old tradition and, above all,
its traditional iconography. The murals were praised not
only by the critics of the interwar period: still today scholars
are of the opinion that: ‘The ensemble of Jan Henryk
Rosen’ s murals in the Armenian cathedral in Lvov is one of
the most eminent examples of church interior decorations
executed in the second Polish Republic’.
The Cathedral’ s Restoration from
a Hundred Years’ Perspective
The murals by Rosen, so celebrated in the 1920s and 1930s,
fell into oblivion after the cathedral together with Lvov became
a part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of
the USSR. The cathedral and its decoration survived the
Second World War in relatively good condition. Only the
stained-glass panels, having been dismantled from the
windows in order to be protected in the cathedral vaults
during the war, were broken into pieces (one of them was
almost completely lost). With the suppression of the Armenian-Catholic
Archdiocese by the Soviet government in
1945, the cathedral was closed and around 1950 was converted
into museum storage. A rich collection of icons and
sculpture of the Lvov National Museum was kept there until
December 2002 [Fig. 311]. Since that date the cathedral
has been owned and cared for by the Armenian Apostolic
Church [Fig. 313].
Over a century has passed since the renovation of
the cathedral was begun. Despite the war and numerous
subsequent political changes, due to which the cathedral
found itself in a different country and is serving a different
(that is – non-Catholic) Armenian community, the church
remains a splendid work of art, a historic monument of
many epochs and at least two nations. The then daring, and
often-controversial decisions as to the redecoration of the
cathedral, taken at the beginning of the twentieth century,
seen now from a hundred years’ perspective, seem to be
fully justified.
The above aimed to show to what extent the cathedral
owes its present shape to the decisions and efforts of Archbishop
Teodorowicz [Fig. 312]. The present appearance of
the cathedral is, without any doubt, his achievement which
must be praised as being a result of the Archbishop’ s courage
and probably also his wisdom, thanks to which he was
able to perceive the original Armenian church below the
subsequent layers of Baroque décor. And finally, it is the
Archbishop’ s unwavering consequence that elicits respect:
despite many difficulties he steadfastly held on to his own
‘conservation programme’.
All subsequent events connected to the refurbishment
and changes in the interior decoration of the cathedral were
the consequences of this first decision about the renovation
of the church, taken by the Archbishop already around
1902. What is more, the renovation of the Armenian cathedral
was a model ‘case study’ in the science of conservation
of historic monuments, as it entailed the three most important
issues involved in the process at that time: 1) the historic
restoration; 2) conservation of the extant state; 3) the
share of contemporary art in the historic building. Additionally
the renovation programme involved the extension
of the building, a factor that occurred only rarely in such
cases. Several elements of the renovation and conservation
must be criticised now (as they had been already in the interwar
period). Due to the outbreak of First World War, the
financial shortages, or still different reasons, many projects
and ideas were never fulfilled. Yet, from the present perspective
all those circumstances may be called ‘a blessing in
disguise’, since they not only prevented the cathedral from
losing its exceptional status but (by means of the works
done) it was still enhanced – according to the wishes of
the Archbishop, Jan Bołoz Antoniewicz and probably also
many other Armenians of Lvov. Finally, it must be emphasised
that while modernizing the building, Archbishop
Teodorowicz returned to the oldest, medieval relics of the
church, and wanted that the modern art created for the cathedral
be inspired by the medieval miniatures of the 12 th -
century Gospels book.
473