Awesome Icon of The Visitation

[Greg the byzantine]

Greg, I suggest you read St. John a little more closely.

I've read St. John quite closely, as well as other works that deal with Iconoclasm and the restoration of Icons.

 

[Michael G]

Thank you again Julia. Your post truly shows a great deal of study in this area.

Contrary to what Michael may think I am not as ignorant of Iconography as he thinks. I studied the Iconoclast controversy for a paper I wrote for one of my Byzantine History courses. I'm no expert, but I am not entirely ignorant either.

It's amazing how what you mention was right at the center of the Iconoclast controversy. One of the Iconoclast arguments was that either an Icon could only portray Christ's Human Nature, dividing the two (Which they considered Nestorian), or else in confused and depicted one Nature in an Image of Christ (which they considered Monophysitism). We however believe that God became Incarnate and it is his incarnate physical person which we depict, because it contained fully both his Divine and Human natures without separation or confusion. To say that an Icon only depicts a spiritual reality and does not depict a physical reality goes completely against the Theology laid forth by St. John of Damascus and codified in the Seventh Ecumenical council. It completely divides the Spiritual (Ie. Divine) nature of Christ from his Human Nature.

Greg, go back and re-read what I said earlier. You are saying that I stated an icon only depicts the spiritual state of the person. You have mis-understood what I have said about iconography. I have posted a few times on TAW the basis of iconography is the Incarnation of Christ. You are right in saying that it is only because Christ took human form that we are even able to have iconography. As I have stated a number of times on TAW, to make an image of an unseen god is idolatry. However, the state that the icon is depicted in is not a purely physical state at all. Rather it is a spiritual state, one in which the physical person has been enlightened through theosis. This is the basis of my statement that has everyone up in arms.

Theologically icons depict a spiritual reality, not a physical one. Thus changing the icon to depict the physical reality of the event is outside the practice of iconography. To change a major element of an icon is akin to changing the teaching of the Church on a matter. Finally, the editor of WORD magazine is a priest, not a bishop. Just because one priest says something is ok, that does not mean it is a correct teaching of the Church.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in what I was saying. I didn't feel the need to spell out everything which I have said time and again on TAW. However, to say the icon is purely physical state is inaccurate. Why then is it that almost all saints have brown hair in icons, none have blonde or red hair? And all icons have brown eyes, none have blue or green eyes. Why then are indoor events shown outdoors with only the building in the background to show the event took place indoors? Why are mountains grotesquely shaped? These are all linquistic elements of iconography and they all point to the spiritual state where the physical has been enlightened by Christ through theosis.

In no way am I saying what the iconoclasts said, that the spiritual is superior to the physical and thus they end up with not even needing iconography.

 

[choirfiend]

This one has blonde hair.

This one looks red to me--and there are other red-haired British Isle saints.

 

[Greg the byzantine]

Greg, go back and re-read what I said earlier. You are saying that I stated an icon only depicts the spiritual state of the person. You have mis-understood what I have said about iconography. I have posted a few times on TAW the basis of iconography is the Incarnation of Christ. You are right in saying that it is only because Christ took human form that we are even able to have iconography. As I have stated a number of times on TAW, to make an image of an unseen god is idolatry. However, the state that the icon is depicted in is not a purely physical state at all. Rather it is a spiritual state, one in which the physical person has been enlightened through theosis. This is the basis of my statement that has everyone up in arms.



Perhaps I should have been more clear in what I was saying. I didn't feel the need to spell out everything which I have said time and again on TAW. However, to say the icon is purely physical state is inaccurate. Why then is it that almost all saints have brown hair in icons, none have blonde or red hair? And all icons have brown eyes, none have blue or green eyes. Why then are indoor events shown outdoors with only the building in the background to show the event took place indoors? Why are mountains grotesquely shaped? These are all linquistic elements of iconography and they all point to the spiritual state where the physical has been enlightened by Christ through theosis.

In no way am I saying what the iconoclasts said, that the spiritual is superior to the physical and thus they end up with not even needing iconography.

I am going to quote this word for word as you did:

Theologically icons depict a spiritual reality, not a physical one. Thus changing the icon to depict the physical reality of the event is outside the practice of iconography. To change a major element of an icon is akin to changing the teaching of the Church on a matter. Finally, the editor of WORD magazine is a priest, not a bishop. Just because one priest says something is ok, that does not mean it is a correct teaching of the Church.

This statement leaves no room for interpretation.

Let me just add one more comment before I bow out for now because I have to go do some work. When Christ pressed his face to the Holy Mandylion he left us a miraculous imprint of his Physical Face.

 

[Michael G]

This one has blonde hair.

This one looks red to me--and there are other red-haired British Isle saints.

Sorry, that is brown hair on the angel. The highlights in the hair might look blonde, but the hair is brown.

As for the bottom icon, if it is by the person who I think it is, he does not always follow the guidelines of iconography.

I am bowing out now. You guys will pull up every obscure example there is to try to make your points.

 

[ikonographics]

Hmm............ there were plenty of wise young saints but none of them are shown with age line on their face.

I've never seen a wrinkle on St Catherine who is renowned for her wisdom!

 

[ikonographics]

Wrong. The use of lines and deep wrinkles in the face are not a symbol of age at all. They are a symbol of wisdom.

Where do the Church Fathers teach that?

 

[ikonographics]

Julia, I would suggest to you there is alot more uniformity to iconography than you are suggesting. Yes elements change between schools and between cultures, but those elements that are adjustable due to school and culture and artist are minimal. The over all unifying element in iconography is far greater than you are suggesting it is.

Michael, you have completely missed the point of my post.

 

[choirfiend]

Oh how odd! The title of that angel icon is "The Angel with the Golden Hair." And now it's brown.

 

[ikonographics]

Greg, go back and re-read what I said earlier. You are saying that I stated an icon only depicts the spiritual state of the person. You have mis-understood what I have said about iconography. I have posted a few times on TAW the basis of iconography is the Incarnation of Christ. You are right in saying that it is only because Christ took human form that we are even able to have iconography. As I have stated a number of times on TAW, to make an image of an unseen god is idolatry. However, the state that the icon is depicted in is not a purely physical state at all. Rather it is a spiritual state, one in which the physical person has been enlightened through theosis. This is the basis of my statement that has everyone up in arms.



Perhaps I should have been more clear in what I was saying. I didn't feel the need to spell out everything which I have said time and again on TAW. However, to say the icon is purely physical state is inaccurate. Why then is it that almost all saints have brown hair in icons, none have blonde or red hair? And all icons have brown eyes, none have blue or green eyes. Why then are indoor events shown outdoors with only the building in the background to show the event took place indoors? Why are mountains grotesquely shaped? These are all linquistic elements of iconography and they all point to the spiritual state where the physical has been enlightened by Christ through theosis.

I

Michael, where do the Fathers teach this? Where do they teach that the "visual language" of the icon, the technique with which it is painted depicts some spiritual state of theosis. Nowhere. This is precisely the misinterpretation that appeared in the 20th century and that we have all been brainwashed with. This has nothing to do with how that Church Fathers and Byzantines understood the icon.

When the Byzantine icon was "rediscovered" at the beginning of the 20th century after having been banished from the life of the Church for centuries, people had been cut off from the tradition of the Church and refused to accept the return of traditional icons to churches in place of naturalistic ones. So the theologians/philosophers of the day had to find serious arguments to justify the removal of beautiful naturalistic paintings and replacing them with "primitive" Byzantine ones. So they found "theological" arguments to try to justify to the faithful that the reason for the strange ( to those only familiar with naturalistic paintings) technique was the expression of theological truths. The result was the icons were reestablished in the Church, but not for what they really are. They were viewed in opposition to naturalistic painting and given an anti-Western interpretation, on the one hand, and on the other they were interpereted with in the framework of what Modernist Western art considers to be art and the purpose of art and the role of the artist. The icon however was never created in opposition to anything and these "theological" interpretations of icons depicting spiritual reality/ theosis etc have nothing to do whith what the Fathers teach about the icon.

If what you say above is true, Michael, then why is Judas (and all the other sinners in icons) painted in exactly the same manner as Christ and the Saints? Have they too reached theosis? This is the problem which you try and load a painting technique with dogmatic meaning that it doesn't have in the first place.

The Fathers teach that the icon is the form of the person depicted, and that can never change. The icon simply shows that the person exists, as if saying. "Look, this is St Paul". nothing more. It is difficult for us Western mids to grasp the realistic simplicity of the icon. The icon shows that something IS, that it exists. It doesn't show WHAT it is. It doesn't describe it (holiness, wisdom etc.)

The byzantine technique and the abstraction in the icon have nothing to do with depicting some kind of "spiritual reality". This is a completely Western understanding of art. It is not Orthodox. The way the icon is painted is functional. It has to do with how the Byzantines understood the relationship between the icon and the viewer. The perspective in the icon is "relative perspective" (not "reverse") because everything is painted in such a manner as to make the person/scene depicted relative to the viewer, to make it present. That is the purpose/meaning of the technique, the abstraction, the rhythm in the icon.

 

[ikonographics]

Greg, I am in no way insecure in what I know. I know Orthodox iconography very, very well. If those of you on TAW do not care what people who know what they are talking about say on the subject of iconography, then that is your own problem. Go ahead, listen to those who base their knowledge of the subject on their own subjective whims.

Michael, where have you studied the theology of the icon?

Just for the record I'm currently doing my doctorate on the "Icon as Liturgical Art: Liturgical Time in the Icon" at the Theology School of the University of Athens.

 

[Silentchapel]

I love the icon in the original post. The colors are amazing. Btw, where is that original fresco found?
Michael, you're not the sole iconographer here, and every other iconographer here on the site disagreed with you. And sometimes, reference is needed. Not just "read St. John". Apparently, people do "read St. John" and don't reach the same conclusions as you do.

 

[Michael G]

I love the icon in the original post. The colors are amazing. Btw, where is that original fresco found?
Michael, you're not the sole iconographer here, and every other iconographer here on the site disagreed with you. And sometimes, reference is needed. Not just "read St. John". Apparently, people do "read St. John" and don't reach the same conclusions as you do.

Silent, no not everyone disagreed with me. There are 3 iconographers on this site. Me, Nutroll and Julia. Nutroll has not spoken about this on line, but he and I had a conversation about this icon about 2 months ago and he agrees that he does not like it.

 

[Michael G]

Michael, where have you studied the theology of the icon?

Just for the record I'm currently doing my doctorate on the "Icon as Liturgical Art: Liturgical Time in the Icon" at the Theology School of the University of Athens.

Julia,
I have studied iconography for the past 13 years. My teacher made sure that when I began learning iconography in 1996 that I also began to study the theology and meaning of iconography. That I know of, there are no Ph.D. programs in iconography in the United States.

 

[Michael G]

Michael, where do the Fathers teach this? Where do they teach that the "visual language" of the icon, the technique with which it is painted depicts some spiritual state of theosis. Nowhere. This is precisely the misinterpretation that appeared in the 20th century and that we have all been brainwashed with. This has nothing to do with how that Church Fathers and Byzantines understood the icon.

When the Byzantine icon was "rediscovered" at the beginning of the 20th century after having been banished from the life of the Church for centuries, people had been cut off from the tradition of the Church and refused to accept the return of traditional icons to churches in place of naturalistic ones. So the theologians/philosophers of the day had to find serious arguments to justify the removal of beautiful naturalistic paintings and replacing them with "primitive" Byzantine ones. So they found "theological" arguments to try to justify to the faithful that the reason for the strange ( to those only familiar with naturalistic paintings) technique was the expression of theological truths. The result was the icons were reestablished in the Church, but not for what they really are. They were viewed in opposition to naturalistic painting and given an anti-Western interpretation, on the one hand, and on the other they were interpereted with in the framework of what Modernist Western art considers to be art and the purpose of art and the role of the artist. The icon however was never created in opposition to anything and these "theological" interpretations of icons depicting spiritual reality/ theosis etc have nothing to do whith what the Fathers teach about the icon.

If what you say above is true, Michael, then why is Judas (and all the other sinners in icons) painted in exactly the same manner as Christ and the Saints? Have they too reached theosis? This is the problem which you try and load a painting technique with dogmatic meaning that it doesn't have in the first place.

The Fathers teach that the icon is the form of the person depicted, and that can never change. The icon simply shows that the person exists, as if saying. "Look, this is St Paul". nothing more. It is difficult for us Western mids to grasp the realistic simplicity of the icon. The icon shows that something IS, that it exists. It doesn't show WHAT it is. It doesn't describe it (holiness, wisdom etc.)

The byzantine technique and the abstraction in the icon have nothing to do with depicting some kind of "spiritual reality". This is a completely Western understanding of art. It is not Orthodox. The way the icon is painted is functional. It has to do with how the Byzantines understood the relationship between the icon and the viewer. The perspective in the icon is "relative perspective" (not "reverse") because everything is painted in such a manner as to make the person/scene depicted relative to the viewer, to make it present. That is the purpose/meaning of the technique, the abstraction, the rhythm in the icon.

First you call me a heretic, then you say I am brainwashed. And yet I am the one on line who people say is hotheaded? You actually expect me to have a conversation with you about this when these are the words you open the discussion with?

 

[Michael G]

When the Byzantine icon was "rediscovered" at the beginning of the 20th century after having been banished from the life of the Church for centuries, people had been cut off from the tradition of the Church and refused to accept the return of traditional icons to churches in place of naturalistic ones.

Excuse me? The icon went out of use in the liturgical life of the Church until the early 20th century? This is the first time I have ever heard anyone make that statement.

Yes, due to the westernization of Russia which was pushed on Russia by Peter Romanov (I refuse to call him "the Great") there was an encouragement of the western style paintings that had begun to permeate Russian society as early as Simon Ushakov in the 1650s, but I would disagree that iconography ceased to be used in the Church in that time period. Traditional icons might have been in the minority in many churches during that time period, but for you to say that people were completely cut off from it is false. The people who held on to traditional iconography in Russia during the period 1650-1900 were the peasants in Russia. A dualism existed in Russia during that 350 year period between the aristocracy and the peasants. The upper classes wanted the naturalistic western paintings while the peasants held on to traditional iconography. Thus what you are saying makes very little sense to me at all.

 

[ikonographics]

First you call me a heretic, then you say I am brainwashed. And yet I am the one on line who people say is hotheaded? You actually expect me to have a conversation with you about this when these are the words you open the discussion with?

Michael, where have I called YOU brainwashed, and where have I called YOU a heretic. It is quite clear that you have not read my posts and you have completely missed the point of them. you're just freaking out because you can't handle people disagreeing with you.

You also have still not provided any proof from the Church Fathers for the theological view points that you are supporting.

 

[Kristos]

we should move this thread to GT - the tone seems to fit there better

 

[cobweb]

we should move this thread to GT - the tone seems to fit there better

I had no idea when I posted the photo that it would turn into an 8 page debate on iconography.

 

[ikonographics]

Thank you again Julia. Your post truly shows a great deal of study in this area.

Contrary to what Michael may think I am not quite ignorant of Iconography. I studied the Iconoclast controversy for a paper I wrote for one of my Byzantine History courses. I'm no expert, but I am not entirely ignorant either.

It's amazing how what you mention was right at the center of the Iconoclast controversy. One of the Iconoclast arguments was that either an Icon could only portray Christ's Human Nature, dividing the two (Which they considered Nestorian), or else it confused and depicted one Nature in an Image of Christ (which they considered Monophysitism). We however believe that God became Incarnate and it is his incarnate physical person which we depict, because it contained fully both his Divine and Human natures without separation or confusion. To say that an Icon only depicts a spiritual reality and does not depict a physical reality goes completely against the Theology laid forth by St. John of Damascus and codified in the Seventh Ecumenical council. It completely divides the Spiritual (Ie. Divine) nature of Christ from his Human Nature.

Exactly, Greg. That is the whole irony that my iconography/iconology prof points out. It's come full circle. For the iconoclasts, the problem was the the icon can't show both natures. Now for an icon to be a "proper Orthodox icon" it has to show "deified human nature". Nowhere do the Fathers teach this. The icon shows the hypostasis/person, not human or divine nature.