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

[MKJ]

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.

I would agree with that, but I think I would point out that when Scripture is translated into a new language, one without a Christian history, the language often has to be adapted, and it will involve using words that have a whole history of use in that culture, and very often a use associated with religion, in a new way. It is only over time that those words will acquire a new layer of intrinsic meaning because of their Christian use.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

Precisely - thank you for stating it the way you did as that's the heart of what the thread is centered upon.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

It is because of the fact that differing cultures have their own forms that we must be sensitive whenever it comes to others seeking to promote the Gospel and yet doing so in ways that actually match their culture and reflect it wonderfully whenever it comes to seeing the example of how the Church did things.

For example, if seeing life within the Malankara Orthodox Church, There are Asharams, in the Christian Monastic tradition that have done stellar with regards to their use of icons to glorify the Lord while also keeping their culture in tact - with people who valued that and coming to mind being others like E.Stanley Jones - and it is so timely what they do. Here are some, for example, from others who are are Yeshu Bhakta (more on them here and here, here and here):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiu9Z8pL7Ds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuJYm5dzD60

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think I would point out that when Scripture is translated into a new language, one without a Christian history, the language often has to be adapted, and it will involve using words that have a whole history of use in that culture, and very often a use associated with religion, in a new way. It is only over time that those words will acquire a new layer of intrinsic meaning because of their Christian use.

True enough...

 

[Thekla]

A "sorry" for any repetitions of points made by other posters, or failure to adequately engage with other posts/posters. There was a lot to go through, and I'm 'late to the game'. But also, I'd been thinking about this, so thought to just launch if it's okay ...

This a difficult issue to respond to, in part because I'm not conversant enough in the particulars of the Art of each culture presented (including the Orthodox cultures), the degree of shift in the adoption of a specialized visual language and the potential rupture away from the previous Art of the culture, the particular visual language of non-Orthodox cultures presented here, etc.

There is also the matter of what is meant by "icon" - the particular, specialized Liturgical Art-ish (as it falls somewhat outside of what Art is sometimes considered to be) of Iconography, versus the use of line, color, form, etc. -image - as an expressive or evocative medium. There is also the (argued) delineation of Art vs. Illustration, and degrees of abstraction in both ...

One thing that is notable is the deeper similarity within the variety of cultural styles of Orthodox Iconography. All (including Armenian, Ethiopian, Coptic) are deeply stylized thematically and (if you will) to a particular visual/symbolic language that is mutually comprehensible between the different cultures ... just as Liturgy is mutually comprehensible even if one is not conversant in the particular tongue of the celebrant.

A Georgian priest served the Liturgy at my parish in Georgian ... no problem for me, as I already know the Liturgy. And could rely on gestures and visual context/clues to know exactly what was being prayed. From what I've seen thus far, Iconography is also - importantly - mutually comprehensible.

As the Orthodox Icons are the products of often very different cultures, it would seem safe to say that some if not all of these cultures adopted a visual language that represented something of a break with the previous (secular) Art of the people.

So, for example, some of the Art depicted in the thread shows persons - persons accepted as Saints among the Orthodox - in profile. It should be noted that Saints are never shown in profile in iconography. In fact, the Icon of the Mystical Supper (Ravenna, iirc) demonstrates the compromised spirituality of Judas by depicting him in frank profile. Persons can be depicted in 3/4 face, depending on the needs of the scene depicted.

How does this language of profile vs. full, or 3/4 face compare with Art before Christian Iconography ? Though I can recall profile-depictions in the friezes of ancient Crete and on the the Parthenon, and assume they are not negative, I cannot confidently state this, nor for any other Orthodox cultures (Armenian, Coptic, Russian, Ukranian, etc.)

As Icons are "incarnational", I do think some degree of accuracy about the depiction of actual persons and historic events is essential to the function and value of Icons - and here I agree (iirc) with MKJ. Iconographers have freely depicted the variety of ethnicities of the Saints, and in fact demonstrating this variety as the Gospel spreads is part of announcing the victory of Christ and the effect of this victory for "all" nations/ethnoi. That Christ was not incarnate as this or that ethnicity but a particular ethnicity is fine with me (maybe because the House of David includes red-heads more than any other of the tribes, and I'm a red-head )

 

[Thekla]

To continue:

one thing I have noticed about Icons -- they tend to avoid the purely aesthetic line. (For reference see Matisse, Picasso, Ingres, etc. drawings -- even focusing on a portion of a line in one drawing reveals a deeply aesthetic quality to the trace of medium on ground.)

Again, I do not know specifically the relation of aesthetic quality of line pre-Christian to Iconography in these cultures, but do note that many of the images shown in the thread do focus on a more aesthetic quality.

Of course, there is the debate about the "westernized icons" in Russia, Greece, etc. These do have sometimes beautiful lines, but then I have a tendency to avoid them (I know, I'm a snob ) because they have lost their "abstract quality". Here I refer to the observation of Wilhelm Worringer (more developed by others) that abstraction occurs in Art more so when cultures are interested in the spiritual, and realism more so as a satisfaction with the earthly.

So the question becomes for me not whether there should be indigenous Iconography with in Orthodoxy (I'm answering specifically from within a Tradition). There already is - a Georgian, Romanian, Egyptian, etc. But what elements other cultures might have to lose in their traditional Art to create a specifically Orthodox (or Christian in general) Iconography, and what can they keep.

The latter is perhaps more easily answered by looking more closely at the Art traditions of each of the cultures that have undergone this transformation - of course also looking at the non-Iconographic Art of these cultures after the adoption of Christianity.

 

[Thekla]

here is the Icon referenced in my first post - wasn't able to copy/paste before (some program bug or something)

Note that Judas is depicted in frank profile, whereas St. John and other disciples are depicted in 3/4 view, Christ in full face.

 

[Thekla]

fwiw, an article on hand gestures in iconography:

https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/what-does-this-hand-gesture-mean-in-icons/

the article posits that some of the gestures come from earlier (non-Christian) times; the question becomes how does the addition of new hand gestures affect the living tradition of existing Icons and our ability to "read" them ?

Also: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/what-makes-an-icon-holy/

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

fwiw, an article on hand gestures in iconography:

https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/what-does-this-hand-gesture-mean-in-icons/

the article posits that some of the gestures come from earlier (non-Christian) times; the question becomes how does the addition of new hand gestures affect the living tradition of existing Icons and our ability to "read" them ?

Also: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/what-makes-an-icon-holy/

That's very probably true. Late medieval Christians mistook a bronze sculpture of Marcus Aurelius on horseback (now at the Capitoline Museum in Rome) for Constantine because he was given sign of clemency (probably to captured prisoners):

Perhaps we can split the difference? Not all Christian icons in, say, a Tibetan context need to have historic Greek hand gestures, let alone be imaged according to the canons of Byzantine iconographic abstraction, but neither do they all need to have Chrsitianized Tibetan Buddhist hand gestures or Christianized Tibetan Buddhist art forms. Having a combination of both- some fully Greco-Byzantine, some fully Christianized Tibetan, some a combination even within an individual artwork- can likely convey more than any single style in any single icon alone.

That's why, of course, iconography is most properly part of church architecture, and individual icons work as part of a group of icons (not least the apsidal Pantocrator and the iconostases) used within an orthodox worshiping community.

 

[Thekla]

Sorry for using wikipedia, but this article was a cleaner summary of Jewish hand-sign than compiling other links (owing to recent events, google search was preferring the Vulcan hand-sign to sites on Judaism). The one benefit of this article is the link given with Christian practice, something those with experience in ancient Liturgical Churches might recognize. The Christian modification from the fingers forming shin/Shaddai to Jesus Christ seems expected (to me).

Priestly Blessing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is because of the fact that differing cultures have their own forms that we must be sensitive whenever it comes to others seeking to promote the Gospel and yet doing so in ways that actually match their culture and reflect it wonderfully whenever it comes to seeing the example of how the Church did things.

For example, if seeing life within the Malankara Orthodox Church, There are Asharams, in the Christian Monastic tradition that have done stellar with regards to their use of icons to glorify the Lord while also keeping their culture in tact - with people who valued that and coming to mind being others like E.Stanley Jones - and it is so timely what they do. Here are some, for example, from others who are are Yeshu Bhakta (more on them here and here, here and here):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiu9Z8pL7Ds

ARADHNA - Yeshu Muktinath (Official Music Video) - YouTube

A "sorry" for any repetitions of points made by other posters, or failure to adequately engage with other posts/posters. There was a lot to go through, and I'm 'late to the game'. But also, I'd been thinking about this, so thought to just launch if it's okay ...

This a difficult issue to respond to, in part because I'm not conversant enough in the particulars of the Art of each culture presented (including the Orthodox cultures), the degree of shift in the adoption of a specialized visual language and the potential rupture away from the previous Art of the culture, the particular visual language of non-Orthodox cultures presented here, etc.

There is also the matter of what is meant by "icon" - the particular, specialized Liturgical Art-ish (as it falls somewhat outside of what Art is sometimes considered to be) of Iconography, versus the use of line, color, form, etc. -image - as an expressive or evocative medium. There is also the (argued) delineation of Art vs. Illustration, and degrees of abstraction in both ...

One thing that is notable is the deeper similarity within the variety of cultural styles of Orthodox Iconography. All (including Armenian, Ethiopian, Coptic) are deeply stylized thematically and (if you will) to a particular visual/symbolic language that is mutually comprehensible between the different cultures ... just as Liturgy is mutually comprehensible even if one is not conversant in the particular tongue of the celebrant.

A Georgian priest served the Liturgy at my parish in Georgian ... no problem for me, as I already know the Liturgy. And could rely on gestures and visual context/clues to know exactly what was being prayed. From what I've seen thus far, Iconography is also - importantly - mutually comprehensible.

As the Orthodox Icons are the products of often very different cultures, it would seem safe to say that some if not all of these cultures adopted a visual language that represented something of a break with the previous (secular) Art of the people.

So, for example, some of the Art depicted in the thread shows persons - persons accepted as Saints among the Orthodox - in profile. It should be noted that Saints are never shown in profile in iconography. In fact, the Icon of the Mystical Supper (Ravenna, iirc) demonstrates the compromised spirituality of Judas by depicting him in frank profile. Persons can be depicted in 3/4 face, depending on the needs of the scene depicted.

How does this language of profile vs. full, or 3/4 face compare with Art before Christian Iconography ? Though I can recall profile-depictions in the friezes of ancient Crete and on the the Parthenon, and assume they are not negative, I cannot confidently state this, nor for any other Orthodox cultures (Armenian, Coptic, Russian, Ukranian, etc.)

As Icons are "incarnational", I do think some degree of accuracy about the depiction of actual persons and historic events is essential to the function and value of Icons - and here I agree (iirc) with MKJ. Iconographers have freely depicted the variety of ethnicities of the Saints, and in fact demonstrating this variety as the Gospel spreads is part of announcing the victory of Christ and the effect of this victory for "all" nations/ethnoi. That Christ was not incarnate as this or that ethnicity but a particular ethnicity is fine with me (maybe because the House of David includes red-heads more than any other of the tribes, and I'm a red-head )

Thanks for sharing some very engaging thoughts, Thekla! It is much to consider - and in light of all you noted, one question that comes to mind which is central to the topic of iconography is this:

• What would have happened if iconography had its geographical beginnings outside the Byzantine/Greek culture?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

here is the Icon referenced in my first post - wasn't able to copy/paste before (some program bug or something)

Note that Judas is depicted in frank profile, whereas St. John and other disciples are depicted in 3/4 view, Christ in full face.

Fascinating icon and many thanks for bringing it up - it is interesting to see the way Judas is described

 

[Thekla]

Thanks for sharing some very engaging thoughts, Thekla! It is much to consider - and in light of all you noted, one question that comes to mind which is central to the topic of iconography is this:

• What would have happened if iconography had its geographical beginnings outside the Byzantine/Greek culture?

In a sense, it both did/didn't. The excavations of the Synagogue at Dura-Europos (244 AD, pre-Byzantine) show a remarkable similarity with early Christian iconography, and comparison with the Fayum portraits (1st c. BC - 1st c. AD, Egypt, a mixed culture) is also instructive. The paintings found in Pompeii and ancient Roman house paintings also show a sort of overlap (though this may be a matter of shared technique), though I think the first two examples are stronger.


So in short, Iconography developed before Byzantine culture existed and shows visual similarity to Jewish, Egyptian, and to some extent with early Art from Rome and Pompeii.

In this, it is not much Greek, at least varying greatly from the Greek Art of the Classical period (what many consider the high point of Greek Art). The Classical period style continued well into the Common Era, and was also much admired and adopted by Rome. Worringer classifies this Art as "realism" (really, a heightened realism imo) and thus it is an Art which lauds a satisfaction with the earthly state, unlike Iconography. The attention to the details of an idealized body type was especially assigned to heroes and gods. Contrast this with the largely unmodelled/flat depiction of the body (robed) in Iconography. Given the status (if you will) of Christ and the Saints, this represents possibly a massive departure for Greek culture.

The question aside from this is both impossible and easy to answer -- it likely might have been a bit different. As before, the use of the profile seems novel to Iconography (though I in no way am well informed enough to be confidant in this), and the hand signs likely evolved from Liturgical practice. In this, it is likely that if the NT had been penned in other than Greek, the signage would almost surely be different.

 

[Thekla]

Mummy Portraits, Fayum

https://www.pinterest.com/EllenJayeBenson/fayum-mummy-portraits/

 

[Thekla]

Synagogue, Dura Europos

https://www.google.com/search?q=syn...Bui0sASqjYCYAQ&ved=0CCYQsAQ&biw=1438&bih=1018

 

[Thekla]

Pompeii

https://www.google.com/search?q=pom...NZe_sQTG3oLQCg&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1438&bih=1018


https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...an/wall-painting/a/roman-wall-painting-styles

 

[Thekla]

wall (house) paintings, Rome:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rom...Gq2BsQS7vYKoCA&ved=0CEsQsAQ&biw=1438&bih=1018

 

[Thekla]

this pull was a real mix, proceed with caution

1st c., Greece

https://www.google.com/search?q=1st...F5C1sQT-h4HQCA&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1438&bih=1018

 

[Thekla]

Based on my research so far, if the question about indigenous Art is answered for Greek Culture, it is roughly this:

that the pride of your Art history, your culture, is willingly cast aside. That the Art you are known for, an idealized naturalism that has been revolutionary, that has 'made your name' across geographical borders, that has been adopted by and willingly embraced by disparate cultures through trade and colonization, is replaced by an Art that has at its center the reality of Jesus Christ and the desire to depict a spiritual reality in material in part as a theological reality (Incarnation) and in part as a form of right-use/stewardship of offering creation back to God.

To put it in roughly the terms of Worringer's thesis Abstraction and Empathy, 1919 (further developed by other Art historians, critics, and artists): you overthrow your heritage, your pride, to embrace the ascendancy of Christ. The self-sufficient world and self fall back, and the greater reality, of Christ and His kingdom, takes precedence.

This is not unlike the rejection of the Philosophical tradition - another inheritance, a cultural pride - in preference to the true love of wisdom, the love of Christ, the Wisdom of God. Read St. Basil and others schooled in the traditional Greek inheritance on Philosophy and the superiority of Christianity. Note that these educated in Hellenistic thought recognized its inferiority to the Gospel. Of course, their training in Philosophy and Rhetoric prepared them for the use of language, but also for the response to heresies that arose more specifically from the interpretive application of Philosophy to Christianity.

 

[Thekla]

Fascinating icon and many thanks for bringing it up - it is interesting to see the way Judas is described

The crack that appears running through Judas occurred sometime after the Icon was made ... serendipitous, if you will