Well, icons and statues are just one of many ways of bringing the Gospel to the people. For centuries and centuries a vast majority of the population could not read, and if it could, it would not be able to fully grasp the message of Scripture. Sacred art - especially icons, but later on also statues - fill that gap. Obviously icons were somewhat simpler to produce and carry around that statues, though statues also have a peculiar way of increasing devotion.
The East developed a deeper theology of iconography after the heresy of iconoclasm which lead to the phasing out of the use of statues in the East. Although there were religious statues used in the Byzantine Empire in the First Millennium, that vanished by the Second Millennium. And even those that are preserved and dug up, it does seem that “2D” images were preferred over 3D statues even before the complete phasing out of statues in the East. Many Churches were already adorned with iconography well before the iconoclastic heretics.
It looks like a triptych (three panels). Quite common in the Western nations in earlier centuries.
It is a triptic and the central panel depicts Our Lady being crowned Queen of heaven by the Father and the Son.
If these are raised figures on a flat surface, that would be a “relief” as opposed to a fully solid shape.
Thanks
Jon, I have been in Detroit several times but unfortunately have not worshiped at or viewed old Holy Trinity Church. What is the difference between religious paintings and icons? Sorry to ask such an unintelligent question
There are very specific rubrics regarding the creation of an icon and how the figure is represented; so specific that it is often referred to as “writing” rather than painting an icon.Jon, I have been in Detroit several times but unfortunately have not worshiped at or viewed old Holy Trinity Church. What is the difference between religious paintings and icons? Sorry to ask such an unintelligent question
Thanks GEddie.
