Styles Of Icons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Seamus_L

Guest
I was wondering if anyone has a decided preference for a particular style when it comes to icons. Some years ago I had an online discussion with a fellow, who was an Orthodox convert, and oddly enough, he disliked most of the icons I thought were beautiful, while I had similar feelings about the ones he thought were good examples. The ones I preferred were all too lifelike to him, though I’m not sure if that was the term he used.
As an example of my taste in icons, this is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen [farm3.staticflickr.com/2690/4390892413_fe26e76d37_z.jpg?zz=1](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2690/4390892413_fe26e76d37_z.jpg?zz=1) but unfortunately I couldn't find a photo of it in color. I have seen seen it in person however and it was most moving.
 
We have to be careful when dealing with iconography. As much as we all have artistic preferences (these are not bad in and of themselves), Icons have rules guiding them. In fact, they have a large tradition behind them. Every bit of the Icon means something, and this way of writing Icons has been guarded carefully.

That being said, I do not necessarily have a preference.
 
Icons should be something more than religious art. If the only connection to them is how they move, in the same sense as regular art, then they have failed.

This evening at Church I noticed our icon of St. Mary of Egypt was done in an artistic style. I thought it was the worst rendition of that icon I’ve seen.

I personally find it annoying when iconographers focusing on making the image aesthetically pleasing, rather than spiritually purposeful.
 
Seamus_L said:
Code: 
                                   As an example of my taste in icons, this is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen [farm3.staticflickr.com/2690/4390892413_fe26e76d37_z.jpg?zz=1](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2690/4390892413_fe26e76d37_z.jpg?zz=1) but unfortunately I couldn't find a photo of it in color. I have seen seen it in person however and it was most moving.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the holy icons in the Old Cathedral of the Holy Virgin, 864 Fulton Street, San Francisco.
 
I quite like the first icon, but the other three are a little difficult to see.
 
Dear Seamus,

The Kyvian Baroque era produced many Western-style religious images which are quite beautiful and inspiring, while not necessarily meeting all the requirements of Eastern iconography.

On the other hand, I know people who are turned off by certain forms of Eastern iconography since they don’t “speak” to them.

We should always, I believe, go for what is relevant to us in our own spiritual lives and ignore what others say!

Alex
 
As others have pointed out, iconography is not just religious art meant to induce certain emotions and subjective spiritual reaction within the viewer. Iconography is a liturgical art. As so many have said, it is “theology in color.” As such iconography must take into account not only the rules of iconography itself, but the texts of Scripture, the Liturgy, and the Fathers as well.

This being said, however, iconography is not a slavish copying of ancient icons and master iconographers, as some wrongly believe. As “theology in color” iconography is a constant reinterpretation of the Church’s Tradition, just as theology is a constant reflection and reinterpretation of the Church’s Tradition along lines that are consistent with that Tradition. They do not seek to copy, but rather to make present the “Mystery that was planned from all eternity,” as we recently sang on the feast of the Incarnation/Annunciation.

So just as there is good and bad theology, there is also good and bad iconography. This doesn’t necessarily rest on the artist following the rules of iconography itself, but rather on his interpretation of the event he is portraying. I personally see nothing theologically wrong with the icon portrayed in the first post. It’s just not my particular cup of tea (or egg tempura for that matter :p)

I honestly was hoping this was going to be a discussion about the actual different styles of iconography - i.e. Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, Coptic, Maronite.
 
By all means feel free to discuss those differences Philip.
 
One of the things I really love about the Orthodoxy is some of their triptych icons. Someday, I’d really love to have an antique triptych icon for my home station. Right now I have a small wood triptych icon with the Holy Family in the center, and an angel in each folding wing. And I like the way they fold into little closed spaces.

I regret not buying a triptych icon I once saw of the Crucifix in the center (3-D), and Mary and John in the folding wings. It was about ten inches tall, and folded up into a really ornate closed form. It was solid brass and very old.

Thing is, for some of us western Catholics not real familiar with the Orthodox imagery, it can be difficult for us to tell what is truly adhering to tradition and what may include the artists own flares of creative expression. I guess it’s best for us that aren’t fully familiar, to stick with what we know as traditional.
 
A good way for you to be able to recognize Greek style icons is to learn what and why that style is used. The bodily distortions of hands and head, the open spaces even when event was indoors, the inverse perspective of distance (big close/smaller far), etc all have a meaning and convey a theology in themselves.
 
Here are a two more of those icons from Old Cathedral of the Holy Virgin

I find these quite beautiful but they are not the style of Holy Icons I’m fond of. I prefer the style of this iconostasis. When I was a student in classes about Holy icons the grammar etc that we learned pertains to the style of the iconostasis, not the realistic style of the icons from the Old Cathedral. Our temple’s iconostasis is also the realistic Russian style. I love the holy icons on it for other reasons, but am not fond of their style. 🙂
 
5Loaves said:
Here are a two more of those icons from Old Cathedral of the Holy Virgin

I find these quite beautiful but they are not the style of Holy Icons I’m fond of. I prefer the style of this iconostasis. When I was a student in classes about Holy icons the grammar etc that we learned pertains to the style of the iconostasis, not the realistic style of the icons from the Old Cathedral. Our temple’s iconostasis is also the realistic Russian style. I love the holy icons on it for other reasons, but am not fond of their style. 🙂
Click to expand...
How long has that “realistic” style been used?
 
Azurestone said:
It’s Russian specific…
Click to expand...
I thought so, but the iconostasis at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox San Jose is realistic, and so are the icons at Annunciation Greek Cathedral SF. My only other local Greek Orthodox Church experience is Oakland Ascension Cathedral which has very unusual icons. I love their iconostasis but not the other icons in their temple.
 
5Loaves said:
I thought so, but the iconostasis at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox San Jose is realistic, and so are the icons at Annunciation Greek Cathedral SF. My only other local Greek Orthodox Church experience is Oakland Ascension Cathedral which has very unusual icons. I love their iconostasis but not the other icons in their temple.
Click to expand...
That’s true. A few Greek EO churches in the US have got more ‘realistic’ icons in them, I don’t know about outside the US, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top