Question about Icons

  • Thread starter Thread starter FabiusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FabiusMaximus

Guest
I had a question for the Orthodox here:

Yesterday I went to a Greek festival at the local Orthodox church in my city. As we moved from the basement into the actual church, a man greeted us and explained the ins and outs of the church. During his talk, he mentioned how the icons in that particular church were different from those in most Orthodox churches. And observing them, I noticed that it was true. They looked more Western in style than I have seen at other parishes in the past. Supposedly this had to do with the iconoclast controversy. After the seventh ecumenical council, there were new rules on how to properly prepare an image.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Does this explain why Western icons look much different than Eastern ones?
 
FabiusMaximus said:
I had a question for the Orthodox here:

Yesterday I went to a Greek festival at the local Orthodox church in my city. As we moved from the basement into the actual church, a man greeted us and explained the ins and outs of the church. During his talk, he mentioned how the icons in that particular church were different from those in most Orthodox churches. And observing them, I noticed that it was true. They looked more Western in style than I have seen at other parishes in the past. Supposedly this had to do with the iconoclast controversy. After the seventh ecumenical council, there were new rules on how to properly prepare an image.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Does this explain why Western icons look much different than Eastern ones?
Click to expand...
By “Western,” is it in reference to the use of realism, shadows, etc.?
 
FabiusMaximus said:
I guess it would be use of realism. This is an example of how some of the icons looked within the Church:

http://www.religiousmall.com/pr_images/byzicons/classic_icons/st_60.jpg
Click to expand...
Okay, that’s what I thought.

I’m not very well-versed in the 7th Council, so I’m not sure how the use of realism ties in. I do know the Council affirmed the use of veneration of icons, and to some degree laid out a foundation on the proper use and such. It may have had some words against statues which would help in this, but I’m not sure.

Either way, the Eastern style emphasizes a shadowless abstract image to show that it’s depicting a heavenly reality, whereas shadows and realism depict an earthly reality due to lighting and such. However, there has been a strong Latin influence since the 16th-17th centuries onward, so a Western-style of icon has been present in many churches although not without controversy.

Western style icons can actually be fairly common. A nearby Greek parish has very realistic icons while my Antiochian parish doesn’t. The famous Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow has very realistic icons:

http://www.overheardinthesacristy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/russian-cathedral.jpg

But there are many Orthodox that contest the usage of these icons, largely based on similar arguments to those against the use of statues. Namely, that icons should be properly 2D, flat, shadowless, abstract, and point to a heavenly reality and not an eartly reality. I don’t know how I feel about it, but it is true that realistic Western style icons are recent in the Orthodox custom and aren’t part of our historical Traditions AFAIK. Often it has less to do with “right and wrong,” and more to do with the “better or worse” ways of depicting various transcendent realities.

And it should be emphasized that the “Western” realistic style is really a Medieval-Renaissance development AFAIK. If you look at early Medieval icons, they, while having a definite Western flair, are very much like Eastern icons in the way they depict an abstract reality.
 
The Greek parish in our town is the same way. The style actually comes from Russia. The realism of Western religious art is not “Western Icons” at all, because they’re not treated as Icons, they’re not used as Icons, and they’re not depicting theological realities but historical ones. Michelangelo, for example, did not paint Icons. If you want an example of Western style Icons look to Carolingian art, and the Book of Kells.

That being said you can have Icons inspired by the realism of Western art. They were in great popularity under the reign of Tsar Peter the Great who was trying to “Westernize” Russia. Because he had them put in the Cathedral of Moscow, it became a popular ‘wealthy’ style of Icon, and many copied them. Russia gave them up quicker than Greece, for some reason, but this style looks very ‘dated’ to me (and many I’ve talked to), like it was done in the 1900’s, especially the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. I don’t know if most churches would choose it if they were, for example, building a new temple. I know at my parish that style was the first thing our priest had completely covered over and replaced with Byzantine style Icons.

I don’t mean to diminish Western religious art, which is beautiful, but it is ontologically different - it was created with a different intention than Icons, with different rules than Icons (even realistic Icons follow certain rules, such as having the name of the saint painted next to them, or the stars of virginity on Mary’s robes) and is treated differently than Icons. The history of the Iconography you’re asking about is related to Western religious art, but it’s not Western art itself.
 
According to one of the main arguments for the veneration of icons, the icon must bear resemblance to the type (the West however, was somewhat reticent in accepting this argument; the West had a tendency to argue that images needed to be blessed first in order to be worthy of veneration). That is why there are certain guidelines, I suppose, which help establish what an icon of a certain saint should look like, and that also is why one who is used to icons will find that many commonly depicted saints are almost instantly recognizable in icons they have never seen before, despite differences in style between iconographers. When exactly an icon ceases to be an icon worthy of veneration, and becomes instead a piece of religious artwork in general is not really set in stone, but if a depiction strays too far from convention, those educated in iconography would probably be uncomfortable with venerating it, and even those not educated in iconography will probably have at least some remark about how “strange” the image looks (I’ve personally witnessed this many times).

Still, there is nothing inherently wrong with a naturalistic style of painting in iconography. I myself am not totally opposed to it, provided that it is done tastefully and provided that it does not depart from normal conventions of iconography.
 
Cavaradossi said:
According to one of the main arguments for the veneration of icons, the icon must bear resemblance to the type (the West however, was somewhat reticent in accepting this argument; the West had a tendency to argue that images needed to be blessed first in order to be worthy of veneration). That is why there are certain guidelines, I suppose, which help establish what an icon of a certain saint should look like, and that also is why one who is used to icons will find that many commonly depicted saints are almost instantly recognizable in icons they have never seen before, despite differences in style between iconographers. When exactly an icon ceases to be an icon worthy of veneration, and becomes instead a piece of religious artwork in general is not really set in stone, but if a depiction strays too far from convention, those educated in iconography would probably be uncomfortable with venerating it, and even those not educated in iconography will probably have at least some remark about how “strange” the image looks (I’ve personally witnessed this many times).

Still, there is nothing inherently wrong with a naturalistic style of painting in iconography. I myself am not totally opposed to it, provided that it is done tastefully and provided that it does not depart from normal conventions of iconography.
Click to expand...
I believe the contention there is that some of the symbolic elements disappear in the more naturalistic style. Like exaggerated body parts (larger forehead, longer face, longer fingers, etc.). At least from some of those who argue against the more realistic depictions would cite those reasons. But as you said, if one is not learned in iconography, they may entirely miss that anyway.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I believe the contention there is that some of the symbolic elements disappear in the more naturalistic style. Like exaggerated body parts (larger forehead, longer face, longer fingers, etc.). At least from some of those who argue against the more realistic depictions would cite those reasons. But as you said, if one is not learned in iconography, they may entirely miss that anyway.
Click to expand...
I am not convinced that those things are entirely necessary, as I am positive that a survey of some of the most stunning iconography ever produced by the Eastern Romans would show. I have never seen anything written before the late 19th century which has indicated that that particular style of painting is an integral part of iconography.
 
Cavaradossi said:
I am not convinced that those things are entirely necessary, as I am positive that a survey of some of the most stunning iconography ever produced by the Eastern Romans would show. I have never seen anything written before the late 19th century which has indicated that that particular style of painting is an integral part of iconography.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn’t know any better 😛 but at least that is what I heard from some of those who rant against “Western” style icons.
 
I think if something that is always included in Icons is absent from a bit of naturalistic work than that would disqualify it as an Icon, such as the Theotokos alone (sometimes done in the Byzantine style, but in combination with the naturalistic style that would be a significant hitch) or the absence of her stars, or someone not having a halo, or, the biggest ommission IMO, not having the saint’s name written next to their image.

The biggest thing, however, is how the image was conceived and created. If it was created to be an Icon is has that going in it’s favor. When does God not take our intentions into consideration? If was painted to be a pretty picture than that’s what it must be.

Want a wrench to the discussion? The ‘Icons’ of Monastery Icons; they intend them to be Icons, yet many, perhaps most, Orthodox regard them as not being true Icons. Perhaps the acceptance of the viewer is necessary as well?
 
If an icon is used to remember the saints’ lives and guide prayer (which is not veneration, per se I guess…), does that mean it still has to be blessed and/or fit certain criteria to be acceptable by whatever standard is set by the Church?
 
EIF5A said:
If an icon is used to remember the saints’ lives and guide prayer (which is not veneration, per se I guess…), does that mean it still has to be blessed and/or fit certain criteria to be acceptable by whatever standard is set by the Church?
Click to expand...
In Orthodoxy we believe the mere setting apart of things for sacred use will bless them. So if you buy an icon and you start using them for prayer, they are blessed by your use. But also, it is still a good idea to bring them to church and have the priest place them on the altar for the duration of the Liturgy to be blessed. Also when you bring them for the Sunday of Orthodoxy and are blessed during the procession.
 
Rawb said:
I think if something that is always included in Icons is absent from a bit of naturalistic work than that would disqualify it as an Icon, such as the Theotokos alone (sometimes done in the Byzantine style, but in combination with the naturalistic style that would be a significant hitch) or the absence of her stars, or someone not having a halo, or, the biggest ommission IMO, not having the saint’s name written next to their image.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don’t think Christ being absent in an icon of the Theotokos is that big of a deal.
 
It also can be considered blessed and sanctified by the mere fact that it bears the image of a holy person. God became Incarnate - what is more holy than His image? His saints also show His face, albeit in a different physical configuration, we honor them for their representing Christ, so their images as well are sanctifying.

Which might be another interesting facet of what I was saying before.
 
EIF5A said:
If an icon is used to remember the saints’ lives and guide prayer (which is not veneration, per se I guess…), does that mean it still has to be blessed and/or fit certain criteria to be acceptable by whatever standard is set by the Church?
Click to expand...
I believe that “guide prayer” would generally fall under what it means to venerate an icon. After all, veneration isn’t solely limited to kissing. To hardliners, the standards would be necessary for any icon that’s used in relation to prayer. If it’s just being used as artwork like a portrait or something meant to be didactic, then no it wouldn’t need to follow standards but it shouldn’t use an icon-style. Less hardline folks will be varyingly lenient on the standards, with some going so far as to treat any painting/portrait as an icon, or at least venerate-able.
 
Rawb said:
Most Orthodox, historically, contemporary, and Iconographers, would heartily disagree.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the debate, I just know that such icons are fairly commonplace and I like some of them. A good deal of Protection of the Mother of God icons feature her alone for example.
 
neokarny said:
I don’t know the debate, I just know that such icons are fairly commonplace and I like some of them. A good deal of Protection of the Mother of God icons feature her alone for example.
Click to expand...
Not really. The full “Protection” icon has Christ, among others. Only later versions had the Theotokos alone and with no background depicting the church where the events took place.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Not really. The full “Protection” icon has Christ, among others. Only later versions had the Theotokos alone and with no background depicting the church where the events took place.
Click to expand...
I’m just saying the icon is commonly depicted without Christ, whether the Theotokos is completely alone or depicting the full scene. I wasn’t attempting to use such icons as evidence for an argument or anything like that. And interestingly a quick Google search shows some Christ-less Pokrov icons from at least as early as the 15th century.
 
Rawb said:
Most Orthodox, historically, contemporary, and Iconographers, would heartily disagree.
Click to expand...
I am very skeptical about the history part. I wonder when in history people think this idea was launched - and, in that earliest history, why? Any primary references?

It has not applied to events in the life of the Theotokos prior to the birth of Christ, it has not applied uniformly to the Pokrov - even in ancient times, and it does not apply to the Umilenie of St Seraphim of Sarov. She, unlike, for example, the Apostles, is typically seen with Christ because of her unique relationship to Christ. But, like the Apostles, she is also depicted alone,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top