OrthoCliches #2: Statues are not icons

Paidiske said:

View attachment 247719
MOD HAT ON
This thread has been moved to St. Justin Martyr's.
Please note and abide by the Statement of Purpose of this forum.
MOD HAT OFF​

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Statues of a kind have been found in the monasteries in Egypt, though all the ones I have personally seen were smaller and might better be termed figurines or something like that. They were apparently used by the blind so that they could have some idea of what was depicted in the more standard 2d icon. (Related: in the monasteries the monks also invented a method to allow blind people to read, many centuries before Braille.) I read about all this years ago in a book I once had on Egyptian Christian art that had a few photographic plates featuring examples of the 3d figurines from, if I recall correctly, c. 9th century,, so at least a bit before the EO-RC schism, and plenty 'Eastern', geographically speaking.

That they definitely existed but were of rather limited and specialized use is interesting to me, because while I've never heard anything from priests or bishops in my own communion about statues as you apparently have from EO, OP, I have heard plenty that cautions against the types of spiritual practices and the approach to spirituality that may accompany the RC use of statues (e.g., phenomena of crying or bleeding statues, weird messages from them, and so on). Maybe there is reason for caution.

I've posted this before, it is a collection of frescoes and religious art in the West after the schism. Pre-schism art in the West tends to be very similar to that in the East.

Compare the above to the description of Moses when he came down from Mt Sinai in Exodus 34:29-30

I would like to add, that the best source will always be your own priests, and the church fathers. There are many keyboard theologians who would like to speak for the religion, in this case Orthodoxy who truely believe they are speaking truth but in reality just their own opinions. That isnt to say others cant speak truth, as is shown here many are educated in Orthodoxy here.

Take me for example, I am a catechuman, many times I speak up because it helps me ensure I am learning the true faith, but I do always make the disclaimer for Fr. Matt on these forums to correct any unintentional misspeakings I may do.

I asked my own priest about this and I was told statues are used, they just didnt become widespread as the west. Your first post is not what the church actually holds.

prodromos said:

I've posted this before, it is a collection of frescoes and religious art in the West after the schism. Pre-schism art in the West tends to be very similar to that in the East.

Click to expand...

Representational art technique improved drastically in the West during the Renaissance. Just sayin'.

Chris V++ said:

Representational art technique improved drastically in the West during the Renaissance. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

In Orthodoxy, the parts that aren’t quite “realistic” are intentional. It is part of the theology behind it. Icons or religious art (for veneration) becoming more realistic is somewhat concerning to us.

Chris V++ said:

Representational art technique improved drastically in the West during the Renaissance. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

It has become more naturalistic.

ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM

All4Christ said:

In Orthodoxy, the parts that aren’t quite “realistic” are intentional. It is part of the theology behind it. Icons or religious art (for veneration) becoming more realistic is somewhat concerning to us

Click to expand...

I do understand. But before the renaissance everyone was painting less realistically because that was all they knew how to do. Back in 800 was it a deliberate choice to paint Icons less realistically or was that the only choice they had based on the knowledge in the trade? I can understand not wanting to innovate because of tradition, but is the innovation in western religious art perceived as a negative consequence of the Schism?

prodromos said:

Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its worship. The statues are life-like and three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were in a state of nature. This "naturalism" stems from the medieval idea that "grace perfects nature."

The person or persons are represented on the icon as deified. He or she is not a perfect human being, but much more: They are transfigured and glorified. They have a new and grace-filled humanity.

Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God for man. Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall, that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect its idea of grace.

Click to expand...

Ok I get it. Thanks I guess this matters more if you're trying to use an Icon as a means to mystically connect with a Saint or to engage with more of a spiritual likeness of the Saint.

Chris V++ said:

I do understand. But before the renaissance everyone was painting less realistically because that was all they knew how to do.

Click to expand...

Fayum mummy portraits - Wikipedia

prodromos said:

Fayum mummy portraits - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Ok You win. Those Roman Egyptian mummy portraits are really interesting.

Chris V++ said:

Ok You win. Those Roman Egyptian mummy portraits are really interesting.

Click to expand...

I know. I was blown away by the realism. Like you, I was under the mistaken impression that the Renaissance was the pinnacle of realistic art, but then I thought about all the engineering marvels of the ancient world and thought better of my original thought. A simple Google search quickly showed how wrong I had been.