Indigenous Icons: Has Anyone Ever Come Across Any and Why are more not done?

[Gxg (G²)]

inasmuch as icons are depicting cosmic realities (a Pantocrator, the Divine Love of Theotokos and Son, a Transfiguration) there's a certain logic to depicting him in some other abstract cultural form (again, the icon from Cameroon), whereas that logic doesn't hold up quite as well for concrete historical events like the nativity (although that sometimes represents the Eternal Nativity of the Son from the Father), the crucifixion, the Last Supper, etc.

On the issue of abstract thought, I do think it should be noted how odd it can seem whenever others within the Eastern world may say they have issue with abstract realities being portrayed by others within differing cultures. From what I can examine, it was already the case that the Eastern world used PLENTY of abstract presentations when it came to the beginnings of iconagraphy itself - with those symbols meaning something in the culture that Orthodox took it from and making it mean something else - with others in the culture/religion a symbol came from understanding it to mean one thing while others coming from that religion choosing to see the meaning of the symbol as having another impact.

Some of this was discussed elsewhere in relation to visual imagery, as seen here:

Manga is easily the most popular graphic novel form in the world right now so it sounds like you could reach a large audience and easily engage with groups of people who don't really fit in the Christian mindset, especially in our teens.

the defeat of the spiritual powers happened at the Cross, none of which involved Jesus looking like Bruce Lee.

and I am not against Christ being used in comics as a medium, but just like with any kind of art, it better be the right one.

"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he [Jesus] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2:15)

​

The imagery was relevant to the times, as it concerns how Greeks consider visualization with epic aspects and showing Christ to others in like-wise manner. They could show imagery of Christ with his foot on the backs of his enemies because they saw that demonstrated with the enemies of their day when it came to defeat/shame - but of course, as they weren't exposed to imagery of things like enemies being side-kicked as you'd see in Far Eastern Culture (as with martial arts), of course you'd not see depictions of Him as such. But with his foot on the backs of demonic powers, that was already heavy enough/very aggressive in imagery - especially considering how many people in the culture revered demonic powers who did the same. The imagery of the icons was already contemporary in the time it was developed - just as other imagery is today.

The halo is from Greek: it is a ring of light that surrounds a person in art, also known as a nimbus, aureole, glory, or gloriole. They have been used in the iconography of many religions to indicate holy or sacred figures, and used in images of rulers or heroes. Not only Christian sacred art represents the halo, but other religions such as Hellenistic Greek, Roman, and Buddhist cultures.

Sacred persons may be depicted with a halo in the form of a golden, yellow or white circular glow around the head, or around the whole body, which is often called a mandorla. The halo is traditionally associated with Christianity and its beginning can be found long before Christ was born - Horus was the god of the sky... Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris and Hathor was a protective goddess. She was also the goddess of love and joy - and above the head is a sun discs that later were halo symbols.

Use of halos seems to have existed hand-in-hand with Egyptian sun and animal worship..as Egyptians halos, usually were depicted as a large Round "solar discs”, which are different from our modern day conception of the halo.

But the Greek god of the Sun, Helios, is depicted with a halo around his head.

Again, Greek culture has halos as well, but is nowhere near as abundant as they were with the Egyptians.
Emotion does not always remain seperate from imagery.

We already have this with halos - the equivalent of showing power in others. And Christian artists believed that the halo was symbolic of the light of grace bestowed by God....evoking feelings of awe and majesty. It is because of this that Christians had NO problem using an image from their surrounding culture.

For more review, one can investigate Halos in Western Art: Horus to Jesus Christ to the X-Men - Lope

The halo itself as well as other images invoke emotion by nature - one can never get past that when it comes to the very imagery it presents. Of course, Icons are not created to force an emotional response. When portraying historical scenes the faces didn't show emotions but instead portray virtues such as purity, patience in suffering or victory. - it was never emotion for its own sake.

The moment one said that Christ could only be portrayed in one manner (i.e. claiming Christ could not be seen conquering demonic enemies via kicking or using a fist, etc.), there was already speculation promoted.....and that was discussed in light of where far more intensive descriptions of how Christ treated the demons in scripture were present - that cannot be escaped anymore than escaping where speculation is present when it comes to icons of Christ on the backs of demons with the imagery present in them - one knows already the real Christ doesn't literally look like what the icon presents nor do demons literally look like that. It's the same with the comic presentations - one man's presentation of Christ beating up a demon isn't a matter of saying it LITERALLY happened that way according to scripture/the Apostles. The same goes for the halos - I can't speak on Dragon Ball Z with saying energy glowing around a person like Christ would be bad and yet keep silent on halos and light outlines around Christ when how he was portrayed in the icons was with imagery used in the Greek/Roman and pagan cultures to portray their gods and goddesses.

....As noted before, in the era of the early church, the artistic portrayal of biblical characters, or iconography, served to teach biblical lessons and church history to the illiterate masses. But a council held in 753 formally condemned the veneration of icons by Christians and called for the removal of all images from the churches, public buildings’ and homes of the people. The basis of the position of the council was taken primarily from the biblical teaching that God is invisible, therefore visible, graven images are not to be made and adored by true believers - and Emperor Leo III (717–741), the Isaurian, believed the only hope of converting Muslims and Jews was to abandon the use of icons. Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, presided over the first seven sessions, and the empress Irene led the final meeting of the council at Constantinople.

As another noted best:

The veneration of icons has a long and complicated history. It too is the fruit of men’s gradual assimilation of the Church’s faith. The early Church did not know the icon in its modern, dogmatic significance. The beginning of Christian art – the painting of the catacombs – is of a symbolic, or as Professor V. V. Weidle has defined it, a "signitive" nature. It is not the portrayal of Christ, of the saints, or of the various events of sacred history, as on an icon, but the expression of certain ideas about Christ and the Church, first and foremost the expression of the sacramental experience of Baptism and the Eucharist, that is to say of the twofold "mystery" through which salvation is granted to him who has believed. "In art of a signitive kind not the interpretation of its subjects – for how they are interpreted makes no difference to its aims – but their selection and combination are important. It is not so much inclined to depict divinity as it is to portray the function of divinity. The Good Shepherd of the sarcophagi and the catacombs is not only not an image, he is not even a symbol of Christ; he is the visual signification of the idea that the Saviour saves, that He has come to save us, that we are saved by Him. Daniel in the lion’s den is likewise not a portrait of even the most conventional sort, but a symbol of the fact that Daniel was saved and that we have been saved like Daniel. This art cannot be called art in the real sense of the word. It does not represent and it does not express: it signifies, and it signifies that fiery core, that living sun of faith in the "mysteries" to which the martyrs and pastors of those centuries, the newly baptized pagans, the rite of their baptism, and the enemies of the Christian Church themselves all bear witness."

But, although it renounced art for the sake of something else, this painting of the catacombs actually proved to be a cause of the "rise of that new, medieval art, religious and Christian throughout, which gradually consolidated itself both in the east and in the west of the Empire. In order that it might arise, corporeal and mental forms and images had to become spiritual, a naturalistic art had to become transcendental. So as to come to life and be reborn, art was obliged to renounce itself and plunge, as though into a baptismal font, into the pure element of faith. It accepted "penitence for its life" and was washed "in the waters of everlasting life" that it might become "a new creature". (V. V. Weidle).

The icon is also a fruit of this "making new" of art, and its appearance in the Church is connected, of course, with the unveiling in the Church’s consciousness of the meaning of God-Manhood: the fullness of the Godhead which dwells is Christ corporeally. No one has ever seen God, but the Man Christ reveals Him in full. In Him, God becomes visible. But this means that He also becomes portrayable. An image of the Man Jesus is an image of God, because Christ is the God-Man. But, if the world itself and its matter can be sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit and, feeding our bodies, also feed our souls, or, more certainly, the "whole" man, in God’s full conception of him as an incarnate spirit; if the water of Baptism grants us forgiveness of sins; if the bread and wine of the Eucharist give us in Holy Communion the Body and Blood of Christ, then a portrayal of Christ – the product of human art – may also be filled with the grace of His presence and His power; may become not an "image" but also a spiritual reality​

​

Of course, in time things changed...and what was once seen as bad, it was eventually adapted to. Iconoclast persecution and the history behind how images were seen is rather complicated and has much to teach today...for there were Iconoclastic monks in Byzantine history - something that still surprises many when it comes to noting how bishops/monks actually supported the ban against any and all images of God ....a lot of it based on politics while other parts of it were based on the level of understanding others had when it came to graven images.....

Today, Others understand the concept of artwork - how it's never just art - and the different styles thereof. A Manga portrayal of Christ can be just as inspiring as seeing him on a Fresco in light of others coming to know the Lord...be it showing him in glorious array or showing him when he was tempted - or, for that matter, showing how it may have looked when He physically drove out ALL others selling in the Temple (John 2) in noting His Father's house was to be a house of prayer (as we don't know how he looked using the whip but what is known is that he was powerful enough to drive others OUT)..

The nature of comics..

​

​

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

G2, thanks again for that second post. Those are beautiful. I really hope to get to Ethiopia in the next five years or so and if that's possible, come back with a slew of Ethiopian icons. Alas, Armenia will probably have to wait a bit longer. And Syriac icons, well, yeesh, who knows.

If you go, would love to see some of the icons you are able to get from the area. Syriac Icons are unique among others and I need to get more of those - but Ethiopian Icons are right there as well...

I have been wanting to get this icon of late - as it's of the Syriac Church Fathers...

​

Here's another of the Nativity..and the last supper

And this one, as it concerns the illumination of Constantine and Helen:

​

The work from the the Rabbula Gospels - an illuminated Syriac book created in the 6th century and thought of as one of the earliest Christian Manuscripts - is priceless

​

I would also love to get a hold of the icons found in the Assyrian Church of the East as they are also challenging:

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

G2, thanks again for that second post. Those are beautiful.

There's an Indonesian one I came across from OrthodoxMysteries that I greatly appreciated:

​

And within the Indian world, especially Indian Orthodox, the icons are also very beautiful. Some, in example, are icons from St. Gregorios Indian Orthodox Church, Punnamoodu, Charumoodu, Alappuzha District, Kerala, INDIA

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That means, inasmuch as icons are depicting cosmic realities (a Pantocrator, the Divine Love of Theotokos and Son, a Transfiguration) there's a certain logic to depicting him in some other abstract cultural form (again, the icon from Cameroon), whereas that logic doesn't hold up quite as well for concrete historical events like the nativity (although that sometimes represents the Eternal Nativity of the Son from the Father), the crucifixion, the Last Supper, etc. Thoughts?

I think this would be an icon with an abstract form similar to the icon from Cameroon:

​

 

[MKJ]

I think this is where we need to be careful to keep the multicultural depictions of Christ somewhat abstract, and thus more in the Eastern and Oriental iconographic traditions. Take note of the icon from Cameroon up above; that's one I wouldn't have a problem with. What I'd have more of a problem with is a photorealistic, western art style depiction of Jesus as an actual west African (and, similarly, as a fifteenth century Italian).

Leontius of Jerusalem, defending the Chalcedonian Definition in the context of continued debates with Monophysites and Miaphysites, came up with what I think is a helpful distinction in this case. His understanding of the hypostatic union was that the pre-incarnate Son, both essentially divine and concretely a person, did not assume a similarly totalized human person which resulted in a union of those two total beings it one. That would be a sort of soft Nestorianianism (which is how some Miaphysites saw Chalcedon). Rather, the total pre-incarnate person assumed abstract human nature into the total complex of the divine person, so that there is no new person but rather the same person whose nature was now human as well as divine. Thus, Christ was a particular person, but his humanity was not merely, say, a clone of the Virgin Mary. He assumed the totality of human nature. That means, inasmuch as icons are depicting cosmic realities (a Pantocrator, the Divine Love of Theotokos and Son, a Transfiguration) there's a certain logic to depicting him in some other abstract cultural form (again, the icon from Cameroon), whereas that logic doesn't hold up quite as well for concrete historical events like the nativity (although that sometimes represents the Eternal Nativity of the Son from the Father), the crucifixion, the Last Supper, etc. Thoughts?

I don't know - it seems to me that you are still separating the physical and the spirit here. I think icons are already trying to do what you are describing. Changing the ethnicity doesn't really make it more universal, it says that we have the universal without the particular instantiation.

If we wanted to show the logos artistically somehow, totally apart from any question about whether we should (I have no idea and hadn't really thought of it before) my intuition would be to go in a different direction entirely.

I find it hard to look at purposeful multicultural attempts to show Christ without thinking that many of them are done in a spirit that is either problematic in itself, or which could be for the viewer.

I don't think that is absolute as I said, I think within folk traditions it has a different significance, and there can be other contextual factors. I have a children's illustrated book of The Huron Carol, which like the song shows the nativity story in a pre-European contact Huron setting. The carol was written of course in their own language for people who had little reference to European or middle eastern settings, and the illustrations follow that way of telling the story. I think approach tells us something about the history of the spread of Christianity as much as it tells us about the nativity story, and that was the point of doing it that way.

I kind of don't care about what clothes people in icons and depictions wear, even if they are anachronistic, but i really couldn't say why.

 

[MKJ]

I agree with MKJ, but I would go farther even and say that it is bad theology to put Christ in certain positions (such as the Buddhist/lotus flower above). These postures mean something in the religion they come from, and what they are saying about the person in that position is not what we say about Christ. Someone from outside the tradition may see it as putting Christ in a position of spiritual power that a Buddhist will recognize. A Buddhist, however, is far more likely to read the icon as saying Christ acheived Nirvana. Symbols are words - they mean things. We can't just co-opt them arbitrarily.

I also vehemently disagree that we can say anything about a 'pre-incarnational Christ' but that might be for a different thread.

As far as postures - that is something to think about. I do tend though to want to avoid saying that cultural symbols can't be transformed or modified to have renewed or deeper meanings within a new context. That has happened in other Christian settings in the past, and we tend to take them for granted at times - though Christian fundamentalists often complain about them. If we really think that natural religion has in many cases pre-figured or anticipated its fulfillment, I think we need to be careful about rejecting its symbols and religious language out of hand. How much CHristian theological language is platonic?

Buddhismin particular is a really philosophically rich religion, and perhaps could offer a similar kind of scaffolding for Christianity in the far east that platonism did in the middle east and europe.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I can agree with you to an extent, MKJ, but I think even things which are adopted need to have a...I'm not sure of the word I want, parallel? Corollary? The image of the good shepherd was co-opted because there is a link between what that image says and what we say about Christ. The image of Christ as King likewise conveys a similar meaning. I'm sure there are things in Buddhism that we could co-opt, but simply inserting Christ into the place of the Buddha isn't one of them; there's no parallel (at least in that image).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I can agree with you to an extent, MKJ, but I think even things which are adopted need to have a...I'm not sure of the word I want, parallel? Corollary? The image of the good shepherd was co-opted because there is a link between what that image says and what we say about Christ. The image of Christ as King likewise conveys a similar meaning. I'm sure there are things in Buddhism that we could co-opt, but simply inserting Christ into the place of the Buddha isn't one of them; there's no parallel (at least in that image).

How about the idea that Buddha is Enlightened and the idea that Christ is the incarnation of Divine Wisdom?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I don't know - it seems to me that you are still separating the physical and the spirit here. I think icons are already trying to do what you are describing. Changing the ethnicity doesn't really make it more universal, it says that we have the universal without the particular instantiation.

If we wanted to show the logos artistically somehow, totally apart from any question about whether we should (I have no idea and hadn't really thought of it before) my intuition would be to go in a different direction entirely.

I find it hard to look at purposeful multicultural attempts to show Christ without thinking that many of them are done in a spirit that is either problematic in itself, or which could be for the viewer.

I don't think that is absolute as I said, I think within folk traditions it has a different significance, and there can be other contextual factors. I have a children's illustrated book of The Huron Carol, which like the song shows the nativity story in a pre-European contact Huron setting. The carol was written of course in their own language for people who had little reference to European or middle eastern settings, and the illustrations follow that way of telling the story. I think approach tells us something about the history of the spread of Christianity as much as it tells us about the nativity story, and that was the point of doing it that way.

I kind of don't care about what clothes people in icons and depictions wear, even if they are anachronistic, but i really couldn't say why.

For the record, I've read this post about eight times, and I really still can't put my finger on where I agree or disagree.

I really don't think I'm separating spirit and flesh too much, since I'm always very guarded against that, but maybe my presentation of Leontius was off. And I certainly wouldn't ever want to depict the pre-incarnate Logos or the Logos apart from his humanity.

Maybe you're talking more about the Thai and Japanese and Chinese images, which represent Christ and Mary as ethnically Asian, where I'm talking more about the image from Cameroon, which is more abstract and isn't so much about ethnicity than about culture, so I'm more comfortable with it.

I think my willingness to depict Jesus in ways that are more culturally diverse (especially when abstract, but even ethnically diverse on occasion) goes hand in hand with the more general understanding that Christology is much more than historical Jesus studies. There's something to the way Christology interacts with cultures in a two thousand year tradition of reflection that goes beyond (but is not divorced from) the historical Jesus. Which goes by to why, when we're doing more realistic art (just as when we're doing historical criticism) I'm more likely to be against multi-cultural representations of Jesus and to insist that we depict him as a Jew, whereas when we're doing more abstract art and especially Christian iconography (just as when we're doing theology and philosophy) I'm likely to be more lenient and even embrace diverse cultural and perhaps even ethnic representations of Jesus.

 

[MKJ]

For the record, I've read this post about eight times, and I really still can't put my finger on where I agree or disagree.

I really don't think I'm separating spirit and flesh too much, since I'm always very guarded against that, but maybe my presentation of Leontius was off. And I certainly wouldn't ever want to depict the pre-incarnate Logos or the Logos apart from his humanity.

Maybe you're talking more about the Thai and Japanese and Chinese images, which represent Christ and Mary as ethnically Asian, where I'm talking more about the image from Cameroon, which is more abstract and isn't so much about ethnicity than about culture, so I'm more comfortable with it.

I think my willingness to depict Jesus in ways that are more culturally diverse (especially when abstract, but even ethnically diverse on occasion) goes hand in hand with the more general understanding that Christology is much more than historical Jesus studies. There's something to the way Christology interacts with cultures in a two thousand year tradition of reflection that goes beyond (but is not divorced from) the historical Jesus. Which goes by to why, when we're doing more realistic art (just as when we're doing historical criticism) I'm more likely to be against multi-cultural representations of Jesus and to insist that we depict him as a Jew, whereas when we're doing more abstract art and especially Christian iconography (just as when we're doing theology and philosophy) I'm likely to be more lenient and even embrace diverse cultural and perhaps even ethnic representations of Jesus.

I don't know that I can say that any of those two depictions was a problem for me - I have no idea about who made them, or when, so they have no larger context for me.

I understand what you are saying though. I think this is perhaps why I don't care so much about anachronistic or otherwise "wrong" clothing, even if the artist realizes they are not correct. You see similar things in landscapes surrouning pictures of biblical scenes, or buildings, or even ships in depictions of the ark - most of the time they are probably unlikely or inappropriate, but that isn't really important. A more abstract depiction i agree elevates the depiction from simply being a kind of empirical description to point at the spiritual reality, but I think it is important to make sure the particular nature of the incarnation is still clearly expressed.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

How about the idea that Buddha is Enlightened and the idea that Christ is the incarnation of Divine Wisdom?

What Buddhists mean by Enlightenment and what Christians mean by Wisdom (let alone Christ as Wisdom) are very, very different. If anything you've made my point for me.

 

[topcare]

Enlightenment ->

 

[Gxg (G²)]

How about the idea that Buddha is Enlightened and the idea that Christ is the incarnation of Divine Wisdom?

There are actually similar works within the world of Orthodoxy that have discussed the issue in-depth when it comes to the concept of Christ pre-figuring concepts within world religions (Buddhism included). Partial truth, if one wishes to call it such, was given as a foreshadow of what was to come later...or what had already come (as Islam, in example, came after the Church began) and yet had not yet been fully understood by the people that hadn't encountered it yet. If aware of something known as Ancient Faith Radio, they did a series on the issue of how in some cultures, it seems that they were already being prepared for the presentation of the Gospel…with it being established that GOD was at work in all cultures far before any others with revelation of what the Hebrews had came around. The radio brodcast from "Ancient Faith Radio" was on a book entitled “Christ the Eternal Tao”…and for more info, one can go online/look up "Christ the Eternal Tao - Ancient Faith Radio". I thought it was interesting to see from an Eastern Christian perspective how the Tao Te Ching is presented as an imperfect, incomplete foreshadowing of what would later be revealed by Christ. I so appreciated how Hieromonk Damascene explains the Orthodox Christian view of ancient religions evident in Christ the Eternal Tao and in his approach to the Tao Teh Ching:

“Religious syncretism, in its modern forms, regards all paths as possessing equal truth simultaneously, and in so doing is forced to overlook certain basic distinctions, or to offer complicated explanations in order to rationalize these distinctions away. The ancient Christian teachers, on the other hand, took a more honest and discerning approach, which in the end proved to be more simple, natural, and organic. Rather than mixing all the religions together like the moderns do, these ancients understood that there was an unfolding of wisdom throughout the ages. They saw foreshadowings, glimpses and prophecies of Christ not only among the ancient Hebrews, but also among other people who lived before Him, and they saw the writings of pre-Christian sages as a preparation for Christ as the apogee of revelation.” (P.40)

For an excellent review on the issue, one can go to Book Review: Christ the Eternal Tao - Sacred Connections


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yf0Z_9QLpc


I greatly appreciate the ways that the author (who considered himself a Buddhist, specifically, in the Zen tradition) noted in Christ the Eternal Tao how Lao Tzu’s Tao Teh Ching as a foreshadowing of what would be revealed by Christ, and Lao Tzu himself as a Far-Eastern prophet of the Incarnate God.

And likewise, when it comes to Buddhism, there are an extensive amount of ways in which Christ is truly the true definition of what it means to be enlightened.

And in many presentations, if done right, it can truly glorify the Lord.

In one example, as it concerns Jesus being the Light of the world:

​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think my willingness to depict Jesus in ways that are more culturally diverse (especially when abstract, but even ethnically diverse on occasion) goes hand in hand with the more general understanding that Christology is much more than historical Jesus studies. There's something to the way Christology interacts with cultures in a two thousand year tradition of reflection that goes beyond (but is not divorced from) the historical Jesus. Which goes by to why, when we're doing more realistic art (just as when we're doing historical criticism) I'm more likely to be against multi-cultural representations of Jesus and to insist that we depict him as a Jew, whereas when we're doing more abstract art and especially Christian iconography (just as when we're doing theology and philosophy) I'm likely to be more lenient and even embrace diverse cultural and perhaps even ethnic representations of Jesus.

The abstract really offers more in the way of Christian Iconography to show the diverse cultural realities rather than the realistic on many differing levels....

• A prayer for Losar, and a Tibetan Christian thangka | The Jesus Question

• 
  [*]

• Indigenous Jesus: Two Models of Visual Contextualization

1. Indigenous Jesus: Tibetan Thangka Paintings

​

​

​

One that has always stood out to me is the Aboriginal presentation of the Hands of God blessing mankind with the Savior (Jesus) - "the Great Ancestor's omnipresent hands... presenting the divine gift to Aboriginal" :

And for another, here's the Ugandan Martyrs Altar and others (from Kenyan culture) of Christ going through the stations of the cross..

There's this from Diwali

​

There's also the one by the Guatamala painting that was noteworthy - of the Last Supper..

​

And of course, with Good Friday and the Crown of Thorns

​

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What Buddhists mean by Enlightenment and what Christians mean by Wisdom (let alone Christ as Wisdom) are very, very different. If anything you've made my point for me.

Well, yes, but what Christians mean by the cross and what Jews mean by shoah is very different, and yet:

 

[MKJ]

What Buddhists mean by Enlightenment and what Christians mean by Wisdom (let alone Christ as Wisdom) are very, very different. If anything you've made my point for me.

I don't really think it is that simple though. It never has been precisely the same when Christians have taken ideas or language or images from other artistic or philosophic traditions, sometimes they have been outright contradictory in some ways, or the sense of the thing has been changed in a significant way.

It's important that depictions or language says what it means, on the other hand, they don't and I think can't stand alone, there is teaching around such things.

The argument that says we can't use anything that might be taken the wrong way or misunderstood is one that you hear sometimes from modern iconoclasts, for example - they worry that especially in cultures that are pantheistic or polytheistic, using images will lead to errors that mimic those incorrect teachings. And that is probably true, they could if there was no teaching about what the images are meant to tell us. But I don't think we would see it as a generally good idea to do away with images on that basis, we would just have to be extra careful to say what they mean, especially to those who are outside the Church and may have drawn incorrect conclusions.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Just because another piece of art is bad theology doesn't make it ok for the original piece. I would hardly call that an icon anyway. I suppose if one thinks of an icon as just a piece of art than all kinds of religious art can be odd icons, but to me just because it has Jesus in it does not make it an icon.

The iconographic tradition, at this point, of Christ and the holocaust is this, which actually makes theological statements and abides by iconographic tradition:

That's another thing I would say about 'indiginous icons' is they might be able to veer from the tradition a little, but they really ought to at least be rooted in it. Otherwise it is not a continuation of the Christian tradition, but something new, and that should never be done.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I don't really think it is that simple though...
It's important that depictions or language says what it means, on the other hand, they don't and I think can't stand alone, there is teaching around such things.

Perhaps. More and more I'm coming to think however that this thread has some sort of idea that any picture of Jesus can be called an 'icon' and so I think its time I took my leave. Orthodoxy vs. other Christians seem to mean something entirely different by the idea of 'icon' and have a different understanding of it's role, purpose, and use. For Orthodox there are rules about iconography, and so much of what y'all are talking about, from the Orthodox perspective, would not even enter the conversation.

I'll leave you to it, sorry for butting in.

 

[MKJ]

Perhaps. More and more I'm coming to think however that this thread has some sort of idea that any picture of Jesus can be called an 'icon' and so I think its time I took my leave. Orthodoxy vs. other Christians seem to mean something entirely different by the idea of 'icon' and have a different understanding of it's role, purpose, and use. For Orthodox there are rules about iconography, and so much of what y'all are talking about, from the Orthodox perspective, would not even enter the conversation.

I'll leave you to it, sorry for butting in.

I don't think you are butting in. But people from different traditions are talking, so they are not always using the language the same way. But that is not in itself a bad thing, it just requires being clear when you think there is a difference.

I would say that the discussion here includes a few types of depictions, and people quite reasonably might argue that it is important to be more strict or careful for some than for others.

I would take the position that in practice, there are probably three levels. What you would call an icon, which has a very specific purpose and role. Artistic works that are used in the church in other ways - to tell a story visually, for teaching purposes, whatever, and then Christian art outside the church setting which could have all kinds of different purposes including expressing subjective ideas of individuals about what is being depicted.

You could see parallels I think to different kinds of written material that are used or found within the Christian community, from Scripture to the liturgy to documents of the church to writings of saints to personal reflections.

I am not convinced that what we are talking about here, as far as adopting a style or way of depicting from another culture where the church begins to exist, could really be described as as a new thing. I don't want to say that such an instance is simply scrolling back time as if none of the intervening history had never happened, but on the other hand, people have always responded through their own forms, be it language or poetry or art - that isn't new, its just nature. For the people involved it is always new, whether it is in the 21st or 17th or 2nd century. But if it happened in the second century, how is it new if it happens the same way now? To me this is like those who claim you cannot translate the liturgy out of Latin, because one particular cultural response and circumstance has determined for all time what the appropriate expression must be, or al monks must shave their heads a particular way.

Art is a language, and I think should fundamentally e treated like one. Part of that is recognizing that a particular artistic tradition isn't somehow better or more primary than another, any more than we would say that you are a better off as a Christian Christian to speak Gaelic rather than Swahili.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I said butting in because it felt like (and not in a bad way) I had suddenly realized you all were operating with set ideas and presuppositions that I didn't have. My contributions aren't helpful if, for example, you say "image" and by that mean any sort of depiction, whereas for me "image" is a technical term meaning a very specific thing - say, "photograph." But then if you are all discussing images and I'm discussing exclusively photographs, there's not much point in continuing the conversation, and the one with the more narrow definition usually is butting in, trying to make points that do not pertain to the conversation.

Using the term "icon" to cover those three layers of what you're saying, I can appreciate much more the images y'all are posting. As art they mean something entirely different from scripture. I would agree that art is a language, but if one is operating with "icon" as exclusively that highest level, where it's tantamount to scripture, one has to be very, very careful what one is saying in the translation of that language into a new language. Not to get too abstract, but the Greek is the original, and all translations need to say the same thing, even if they use different 'words' to depict it.