Do Icons of Christ have to look a certain way?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Link0126
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Link0126

Guest
Since He was a real person who existed and thus had a certain appearance which supposedly has been passed down, at least to some extent, in the Church Tradition, do all icons of Christ have to meet certain requirements of that Tradition?

I was talking to someone who is a Greek Orthodox convert and he was saying that this is how it is within the the Orthodox Church, they only use icons which fit with a certain appeareance of Christ.
 
Link0126 said:
Since He was a real person who existed and thus had a certain appearance which supposedly has been passed down, at least to some extent, in the Church Tradition, do all icons of Christ have to meet certain requirements of that Tradition?

I was talking to someone who is a Greek Orthodox convert and he was saying that this is how it is within the the Orthodox Church, they only use icons which fit with a certain appeareance of Christ.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about Church Iconography, then yes. They are not subject to “personal interpretation” like many classical and modern art. They are meant to be “visual scripture”, meaning everything in an icon should point to a truth that we profess. We can’t have a “lauging Jesus icon” for one thing.

I’ve seen Western takes on iconography that violated the strict rules of iconography. They will never be regarded as an icon by the East. Not to say that there aren’t any good Western icons. But there is just a difference in making an icon and making a painting, and many artists do not know that.
 
As I understand it, the Orthodox & Russian churches use icons that conform to certain standards, not just in the quality of the workmanship, but in the poses of the characters. The idea being that icons are a window into another - maybe, the other? - world so realism, as in much of western religious art, is an unworthy means of expression.
 
philial said:
As I understand it, the Orthodox & Russian churches use icons that conform to certain standards, not just in the quality of the workmanship, but in the poses of the characters. The idea being that icons are a window into another - maybe, the other? - world so realism, as in much of western religious art, is an unworthy means of expression.
Click to expand...
They are to be depicted in their glory in the Kingdom.
 
But my question is does this hold true as well for the Catholic church not just the Orthodox?
 
Link0126 said:
But my question is does this hold true as well for the Catholic church not just the Orthodox?
Click to expand...
Sorr, Link - missed that bit!

As far as I know, western religious art has followed the various trends that have influenced all western art. Mostly, a form of realism, some highly idealised, but not necessarily following a set form. I have viewed the art in the Vatican museum, and it is very diverse, with the Vatican continuing to be a patron of religious art, it has commissioned a number of modern pieces. Sculptures as well as paintings - the back piece to the Papal audiences is one such example. Sorry, not good at posting links, but a google will get you going, I’m sure).
 
Link0126 said:
But my question is does this hold true as well for the Catholic church not just the Orthodox?
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholics would use the same icons the Orthodox have. Normally we’d source through the same iconographer or monastery to either decorate our parishes or just buy some icons for home. Though admittedly I’ve seen icons of Eastern Catholic saints that haven’t really conformed to the strict rule that the Orthodox still follow. For example some of our beatified Bishop-martyrs have icons (gold background, Byzantine-style art) that depict them as if it was taken from a photograph where they are posing. The purpose of icons is not merely to depict someone but also to convey a teaching. Remember in most of the Church’s history, most people were illiterate. But we can look at something and recall Scripture thought it. My 2.5 year old is pretty much a testament to this. He “reads” his books and he has almost all the words committed to memory when me or my wife reads to him. But he just uses the visual cues of the photos to actually recall the words. He hasn’t even gotten the alphabet down yet, but he can recall phrases and entire stories just by looking at photos.

Unfortunately I do not have a straight answer. There exists attempts to create icons without following the rule of creating icons. But it doesn’t mean that it legitimizes those as icons.
 
Link0126 said:
Since He was a real person who existed and thus had a certain appearance which supposedly has been passed down, at least to some extent, in the Church Tradition, do all icons of Christ have to meet certain requirements of that Tradition?

I was talking to someone who is a Greek Orthodox convert and he was saying that this is how it is within the the Orthodox Church, they only use icons which fit with a certain appeareance of Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes, because eastern Christian iconography has settled on a stereotypical artistic vocabulary. Eyebrows run into the nose bridge, eyes are big while noses and mouths are small, bodies are depicted as being in motion, highlighting on foreheads and shoulders but never on the devil, halos spill out over the image frame, backgrounds are gold leaf, Jesus touches Mary not the other way around, portraits are full-on, 3-D objects such as books or coffins never in true mathematical perspective, and so on.

The point of all this is to emphasize that what is being depicted is both earthly and heavenly at the same time, flat but solid, alive but motionless, engaged but contemplating.

Entire books have been written about these things, usually in coffee-table format. They make excellent gift, btw.
 
Rainaldo said:
Yes, because eastern Christian iconography has settled on a stereotypical artistic vocabulary. Eyebrows run into the nose bridge, eyes are big while noses and mouths are small, bodies are depicted as being in motion, highlighting on foreheads and shoulders but never on the devil, halos spill out over the image frame, backgrounds are gold leaf, Jesus touches Mary not the other way around, portraits are full-on, 3-D objects such as books or coffins never in true mathematical perspective, and so on.

The point of all this is to emphasize that what is being depicted is both earthly and heavenly at the same time, flat but solid, alive but motionless, engaged but contemplating.

Entire books have been written about these things, usually in coffee-table format. They make excellent gift, btw.
Click to expand...
That is the thing, the way icons are written aren’t a matter of artistic style, everything is symbolic. If the eyes aren’t aligned, it isn’t because of the style but rather it means something. Even the subtle things are to mean something. Nothing is put in an icon that is accidental or purely aesthetic. Every element must point to the truth.

By the way, the gold background symbolizes heaven.
 
Depends on which tradition the icon came from.
An Ethiopian Icon may not be a true Icon according to Byzantine Tradition, for instance.

Within the Catholic Church, where each tradition has its own iconographic tradition (Byzantine icon? Coptic icon? Etiopian? Western within some area in an era?). It is possible for cross influence. It can become an icon in the frame of religious tradition it came from, but perhaps not universal.
 
“The eyes of people portrayed in icons are never depicted as reflecting light. Rather, an icon and the person depicted radiate light from within, the divine Light who is the second Person of the Trinity. It is this Light which illumines the saints who are, in turn, the lights of the world in their generations.”
 
Regarding Ethiopian icons, there is an interesting article here: Orthodox Art Journal: The Mystery of Ethiopian Iconogaphy

Ethiopian iconography is “strange” and fascinating, even by Byzantine standard.
While the term “icon” and “iconography” commonly interpreted within the Byzantine tradition, it is not the only tradition within Christianity.
 
fames said:
" strange " icons 🙂
Click to expand...
FWIW, I can attest to the word “strange” applied to Ethiopian icons. I spent a short amount of time in Ethiopia and had a chance to check out some of their icons in a shop. While they are no doubt beautiful in their own way, they are definitely different – it’s hard to describe. Do a Google Image search for “Ethiopian Icons” to see what I’m talking about.

On a side note, I regret not picking up an icon or two while I was there. It was my first trip to Africa, and I wasn’t yet skilled and/or comfortable with haggling (unlike the U.S. and many Western economies, most of the markets there require haggling). I kind of got scared off when the lady told me a small icon ran for $80+ USD; in retrospect, I could have gotten it for $20 max. 🙂

God bless,
Dean
 
Icons of Christ always freak me out. Even in mass becuase I know he wasn’t from Europe, maybe its the math guy coming out in me, but I think if a parish or artist is going to make an icon of Christ they should make him ethnically accurate. I don’t even know what Ethnic group he belongs to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top