+JMJ+
Alright, thanks guys, but is there a significant difference to how the Eastern and Western Churches use their sacred images, especially for mediation and contemplation? I just am curious and wondering if we could learn from each other with respect to this, is all.
Both are meant to evoke and promote prayer and meditation. In their own ways, each tries to convey theology and incorporate lessons and aspects of the subject into the imagery.
The departure arises as Western imagery is often more emotive and naturalistic. Especially in recent times, imagery tends to depict the subject realistically, replete with aesthetic touches such as the manipulation of forms, colours and lights that have characterised the development of Western art. In this way, it helps to grip at the viewer’s emotions, aiming to direct those emotions towards fervent prayer. It can be quite interesting to discover how powerful our senses are and how much more inspired one can feel just looking at a painting. To some, however, this turns iconography into a romantic show of melodrama and vanity rather than of lessons in holiness.
Eastern iconography, however, is more standardised. I rather like thinking of Eastern iconography as something like an illustrated gospel. The focus is not on aesthetic appeal but conforming to a set of rules that makes for a very simple and consistent image. While it may not evoke as much reaction in the viewer, it can be read like a book, and the symbolism is clear and easy to pick up. And boy, is it full of symbolism!
As such, I would say that there definitely is a significant difference. Both attempt to promote prayer in different ways. While both attempt to teach, both also try augment them differently: Western art adds emotion to the mix; Eastern art tries to be clear in teaching.
