Western Style Icons

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicLife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicLife

Guest
Is there any fans out there of icons produced in Russian and Greece, that are more western in appearance?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Not me, sorry. I like Western-style statuary and (baroque) paintings and Eastern-style icons but each should just stay to its own. Iconography is deeply rooted in tradition and is fundamentally anti-realistic. Western style icons forget those two things.
 
There was a time in the life of my own Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church in America where such was the mode and style of iconography. The more pure Greek style is much more common these days. It seems that when our older churches celebrated significant anniversaries over the last few decades, the iconography was redone in Greek style. Some, including the Cathedral of St. Michael in Passaic, still have Western style renderings on the ceilings, but everything else at ground level was changed to Greek style for the Centennial in 1990.
 
That is beautiful O.P.🙂 Thank You for sharing. I love both approaches.
 
A famous example of western style icons are the ones at The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.
 
I am most definitely a fan. I like the western styles colors, they are more appealing to my eyes. traditional Greek and Orthodox just look so plain and not as vibrant to me.
 
Bear in mind that iconography is not art, per se, and the theology reflected in each depiction should be studied in order to fully appreciate any particular icon.

A rather classic Eastern icon of the Resurrection - pretty “vibrant”, no?

 
CatholicLife said:
Is there any fans out there of icons produced in Russian and Greece, that are more western in appearance?

No offense to you , but by Western, do you mean white?

To be honest, I prefer to see more Middle Eastern portrayals of Mary and the baby Jesus, rather than those blond, rosy-cheek ones. 🤷
Click to expand...
 
The miracalous icon of the Softner of Evil Hearts is in the Western style and God has chosen to work through it.
 
CatholicLife said:
The miracalous icon of the Softner of Evil Hearts is in the Western style and God has chosen to work through it.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and there are others. Slava Bohu!

Artistic preference aside, it is not the style per se that matters as much as the adherence to the principles of iconography (icons are “written”, not drawn) which determine whether a spiritual depiction is truly an icon, as opposed to religious art.

FYI - the so-called Western style that has been highligted here was mainly a product of Tsarist influence on the Russian Orthodox Church, with some spillover to neighboring Churches of Slavic origin. The style of iconographic depiction and the introduction of great choral settings of the Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins and religious hymns were developed to rival the Roman Catholic Church, as Moscow claimed the title of “Third Rome”.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Indeed, and there are others. Slava Bohu!

Artistic preference aside, it is not the style per se that matters as much as the adherence to the principles of iconography (icons are “written”, not drawn) which determine whether a spiritual depiction is truly an icon, as opposed to religious art.

FYI - the so-called Western style that has been highligted here was mainly a product of Tsarist influence on the Russian Orthodox Church, with some spillover to neighboring Churches of Slavic origin. The style of iconographic depiction and the introduction of great choral settings of the Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins and religious hymns were developed to rival the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
What is the difference between “written” and “drawn”?
 
TrueLight said:
What is the difference between “written” and “drawn”?
Click to expand...
Common depictions and visual artistic images are drawn. Iconography goes a few steps further, in that it attempts to create a “window to Heaven”. This is accomplished by using customary symbolism, references to Christ, Mary and the saints, and a host of symbolic elements associated with the feasts of the Church (major events from Holy Scripture). Some of these elements may be present in similarly themed religious art, but not all.

Further, there is a specific manner and set of materials used to create iconography, in order to both sustain and augment the symbolism and related elements present in the icon. Classically, for example, gold pigment is first applied to a wood surface, with the detailed images painted over this prepared surface. This creates the sense of depth / projection that is almost subconsciously detected when viewing an icon.

More simply put, we may see a drawing and instantly register the image as that of Christ. In a true icon, there would be much more. It may be Christ the Pantocrator, or Christ the Good Shepherd, or Christ the Eternal High Priest, etc. We would recgnize this by “reading” the symbology present in the icon, which indicates that it is a specific depiction of Christ reflecting a specific aspect of His being and divinity.

Hope and pray that makes sense! :gopray2:
 
CatholicLife said:
I think that in Russian the word used to describe writing and painting is the same.

orthodoxhistory.org/2010/06/08/icons-are-not-written/
Click to expand...
Yes, there is the old popular etymological counterargument and debate, but the phrase “icon writing” is generally accepted and understood conceptually.

Another aspect is that writing an icon is an exercise requiring prayer and meditation. The expression must not only follow norms of tradition, but must reflect the essence of the saintly person or the holy event being presented. All the religious symbolism that must be used per the tradition also must be fused in a coherent manner by the iconographer in order for the icon to properly tell the story or portray the thematic image. This is a bit different than being inspired by a biblical event, and then applying artistic license reflective of the artist’s own, individual perspective.

For example, one could look at a painting of Madonna and Child of several different western artists, and note very different themes and emphasis (e.g. the humanity of the Christ child; the human bond between the Blessed Mother and the Holy Child, etc.). In iconography, two different iconographers can create the same icon, and readers should recognize them as such, even if say the physical attributes of the person(s) in the icon are slightly different.

Both of these should be recognized as Christ the Pantocrator (even though some of the symbolic elements have been portrayed differently):

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/ChristPantocrator(1).jpg

 
ByzCathCantor said:
Indeed, and there are others. Slava Bohu!

Artistic preference aside, it is not the style per se that matters as much as the adherence to the principles of iconography (icons are “written”, not drawn) which determine whether a spiritual depiction is truly an icon, as opposed to religious art.

FYI - the so-called Western style that has been highligted here was mainly a product of Tsarist influence on the Russian Orthodox Church, with some spillover to neighboring Churches of Slavic origin. The style of iconographic depiction and the introduction of great choral settings of the Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins and religious hymns were developed to rival the Roman Catholic Church, as Moscow claimed the title of “Third Rome”.
Click to expand...
Really most of my icons come from Sophrino in Moscow and are in this semi-western style.
 
Some Western Style Icons aren’t too bad… but then again, I’m not a huge fan of Byzantine icons. I prefer the Coptic style of icons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top