P
Patchunky
Guest
You mean like this one…
It’s St. Charalambos and he’s on the link that you provided…
Hope this helps…
- Status
It’s St. Charalambos and he’s on the link that you provided…
Hope this helps…
M
Matariel
Guest
That’s it. That’s a really cool icon.
I wish I knew more of his story though.
And what is everyone’s opinion on this kind of Western-style iconography, anyway?
P
patrick457
Guest
Do you mean by “western-style iconography” those types that are more commonly found in Russian churches?
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/38/abcck9aw3.jpg
Personally, I prefer icons executed in a more traditional style, though this has got to do more with my bias toward early Christian, Medieval and Byzantine art and dislike of late Renaissance-Baroque art. But different strokes…
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I would frequently visit the Kress Collection in the art museum of my home town of Birmingham, AL.
What I found interesting in it was the earlier the work, the more closely it resembled Byzantine iconography.
What I found interesting in it was the earlier the work, the more closely it resembled Byzantine iconography.
M
Matariel
Guest
I dislike Renaissance (although not all Baroque) art, but I do like this Western-style iconography.Do you mean by “western-style iconography” those types that are more commonly found in Russian churches?
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/38/abcck9aw3.jpg
Personally, I prefer icons executed in a more traditional style, though this has got to do more with my bias toward early Christian, Medieval and Byzantine art and dislike of late Renaissance-Baroque art. But different strokes…
That picture of Christ is awesome.
Did y’see the picture of St. Charalambos?
P
patrick457
Guest
Yep.
M
Matariel
Guest
I mean, the *Christ in Magesty *that you posted is awesome; while its style is still traditional, it’s not flat and “mechanical-looking” like some of the eastern icons, it’s very soft and has good, dark colors. The flat, stiff eastern icons just don’t seem as magestic…
P
patrick457
Guest
Now that is where we part ways it seems. Personally, I think traditional icons are fine as they are, even if they lack any (artistic) perspective or depth.I mean, the *Christ in Magesty *that you posted is awesome; while its style is still traditional, it’s not flat and “mechanical-looking” like some of the eastern icons, it’s very soft and has good, dark colors. The flat, stiff eastern icons just don’t seem as magestic…
Here’s an early icon (from the 7th century!) of St. Peter which has a bit more artistic realism than modern-day ones, in a sense.
M
Matariel
Guest
Maybe if I knew the animus behind the Eastern icons… like, what is the reason for them being so flat or the fact that objects, like books or thrones, are irregularly formed to how they would be in real life?Now that is where we part ways it seems. Personally, I think traditional icons are fine as they are, even if they lack any (artistic) perspective or depth.
That’s beautiful.
P
patrick457
Guest
That was because the Greeks, having a long, pagan tradition of statuary, found the sensual quality of three dimensional representations did more to glorify the human aspect of the flesh rather than the divine nature of the spirit. Because the Greeks rejected statuary, the Byzantine style of iconography was developed in which figures were stylized in such a manner that the “unrealism” of the images emphasized their holiness, their ‘otherness’, rather than their humanity.
Naturalism and historical accuracy is not the iconographer’s goal (hence the exaggerated and stylized features and the ‘flatness’). The emphasis is more on the spiritual and mystical aspects. An icon is communicating the transcendence of another world perfect, yet different from this world. An Icon is striving to express the faith, eternal life, and what the church understands as truth.
Plus, the icon is more a work of worship. Icons are not merely considered as works of art, nor are they merely treated as “sacred art” like in the West. They are more like windows to heaven, conveying the worshipper into the world of the Divine. Icons are mediators between Heaven and Earth and provide the faithful with direct communication with God.
Another difference is the different emphases between the West and the East: the Western Church stresses more the fact that God became man, while the East stresses more the belief in salvation from unholiness by participation in the life of God (theosis). Just as God shared our humanity in all ways except for sin, He will also make humans share in His divinity in all ways except His divine essence.
M
Matariel
Guest
Oh, that makes sense.
That’s true, but the West also has the concept of deification or theosis, although less emphasised.
Here’s another one I like in more western style. There are others in this E-bay store too:
cgi.ebay.com/Guardian-Angel-on-Christian-Holy-Icon-from-Russia_W0QQitemZ300242304389QQihZ020QQcategoryZ13768QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem
P
patrick457
Guest
Now that’s a good one. The Angel has long hair yet still doesn’t come off as too feminine (which is one problem I’ve noticed with a number of artworks depicting angels from the late-Renaissance onwards. The angels are too effeminate or even blatantly female).
M
Matariel
Guest
Well, I despise the late-Renaissance, but modernly, the angels are usually depicted as male, but guardian angels are usually depicted female it seems, since they are more “maternal” and “motherly”… but, since angels are sexless, I guess it really doesn’t matter…?
P
patrick457
Guest
I agree that they don’t really matter (after all, angels are pure genderless spirits and thus pigeonholing them as either male or female would be useless). Personally, I just dislike latter-day artworks of angels since they give people the wrong ideas – that angels are either fleshy, cute winged babies carrying harps or winged girls/young women/children, which would be a bit of a far cry from the apparitions which caused many a prophet or evangelist to become afraid and fall to the ground. A majority of Byzantine and medieval (and yes, even some modern-day!) depictions of them have at least captured their majesty and terribility more than these types.
By the way, here is a Russian icon of St. Nicholas, a product of Russian stylism and Western European realism:
M
Matariel
Guest
Well, really the Putti (little, plump, angelic children) were originally meant to be symbols of God’s omniscience, and were not intended to be anything more than symbols. In English-speaking countries, they are sometimes mistakenly referred to as Cherubs-- which is wrong not only because they’re not Cherubim, but because it’s pluralized wrong. The Cherubim are actually eagl-headed, lion-headed, ox-headed, man-headed creatures with four conjoined wings in aureoles of lightning, as described in the Bible. The byzantine and medieval depictions are very accurate and in accord with the Biblical accounts of them. I think they should be depicted more often in modern church statuary and mosaic, 'cause they sound awesome. They are usually accompanied by the Ophanim.
That’s interesting. It seems the Russian Icons generally have more of a Western influence.
Hey, whered everyone go?
I’m expanding the topic of this thread to include everyones’ favourite icons/religious art and post pictures. I’d like to see 'em.
Everyone disappeared except you, Patrick, LOL.
P
patrick457
Guest
Yep, they’re very, in one sense, “cool.”
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9950/seraphim4dx0.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/537/cherub1zy2.jpg
Hey, whered everyone go?
That was because in the 17th century, Patriarch Nikon instituted reforms in the Russian Church. He consulted the most learned of the Greek prelates abroad; invited them to a consultation at Moscow; and finally the scholars of Constantinople and Kiev convinced the eyes of Nikon that the Muscovite service-books were heterodox, and that the icons actually in use had very widely departed from the ancient Constantinopolitan models, being for the most part imbued with the Polish baroque influences – however, later research was to vindicate the Muscovite service-books as belonging to a different recension from that which was used by the Greeks at the time of Nikon, and the unrevised Muscovite books were actually older and more venerable than the Greek books, which had undergone several revisions over the centuries and ironically, were newer and contained innovations.
Eventually in 1654, the Patriarch convened a synod, which came to the conclusion that “the Greeks should be followed rather than our own ancients.” The reforms then caused a massive controversy (especially because Nikon anathematized and persecuted ruthlessly those who disagreed with his decisions), and the persecuted “Old Believers” (who split with the official church during the raskol) continued the traditional stylization of icons, while the State Church modified its practice to include icons in a more “western” style.
M
Matariel
Guest
Really cool. I’ve also seen that the Seraphim are shown consumed in blue fire and the cherubim are shown in red fire. I found that interesting.
Wow, yeah, I heard of the Old Believers, are they considered heretics by the state church? Who do you think was right?
And thirdly, mind if I add you to the Buddy List?
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m not a Russian Orthodox; I’m just a mere Latin Catholic so it would be better to not delve into something that is not technically within my bounds.
Sure! Why did you need to ask?And thirdly, mind if I add you to the Buddy List?
P
Patchunky
Guest
What you’ve just described are the 4 Evangelists. this is how they are pictured, especially in the Icon of Christ in Majesty.
You can see them is this icon in the red diamond shapes…
Hope this helps…
M
Matariel
Guest
You’re right. The Church, throughout the ages, and her theologians have considered the heads of the cherubim to have been living symbols of the Gospels and their writers. The Cherubim are in a conjoined form in Ezekiel 1 and 10 (in 10 they have eyes open up all over them) and in Revelation the Cherubim appear before the Throne of God in a separated form.
And those flaming blue creatures are the holy Seraphim, and on either side of the platform on which Christ’s feet rest, you can see the holy Ophanim.
Thanks for the info and pic, Patchunky. Do you have a favourite icon/religious artpiece you’d like to share?
- Status