Christian Art

[Chris V++]

I 'm becoming almost mesmerized by Christian art in the Byzantine iconography aesthetic but I'm reluctant because of the 'no graven images' commandment. The icons are believed in some cases to facilitate miracles and are believed to be accurate representations of the saints and windows into heaven. They are said to be 'written images' as if the painter is merely recording an image from the divine. When an icon is produced the iconographer prays and fasts and the icons are later left at the alter and prayed over and blessed.

So would it be hypocrisy for me to dabble with icon art when I'm not yet completely comfortable with their application. Take away the iconographer prayers , fasting, and alter blessings, I'm reasoning its just a painting and not an icon, or is that hypocrisy?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Icons offer a lot of value, especially in the ancient world where literacy wasn't exactly universal.

The example I always point to is the Pantocrator:

Our Lord has two faces; one illustrates His humanity and the other His divinity. It's a Christological statement while also being an amazing piece of art in itself.

Side by side comparisons:

I encourage everybody with a gift for creativity to be inspired by their faith and use it to create works of art.

 

[HTacianas]

I 'm becoming almost mesmerized by Christian art in the Byzantine iconography aesthetic but I'm reluctant because of the 'no graven images' commandment. The icons are believed in some cases to facilitate miracles and are believed to be accurate representations of the saints and windows into heaven. They are said to be 'written images' as if the painter is merely recording an image from the divine. When an icon is produced the iconographer prays and fasts and the icons are later left at the alter and prayed over and blessed.

So would it be hypocrisy for me to dabble with icon art when I'm not yet completely comfortable with their application. Take away the iconographer prayers , fasting, and alter blessings, I'm reasoning its just a painting and not an icon, or is that hypocrisy?

I'm not sure at what point a painting becomes an icon. You might want to ask in The Ancient Way forum.

But the controversy over icons was resolved, finally, by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Icons are an integral part of Christianity and are worthy of veneration. You need not concern yourself whether there is anything wrong with them.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would just comment a couple of things.

Icons are not intended to be realistic depictions. They aren't supposed to be photo-realistic "this is how so-and-so looked". In many cases there is a great deal of overlap. I was surprised to find that I can recognize St. Paul, for example, from very early depictions discovered in the catacombs. But more than that, they depict spiritual realities. Larger foreheads to show the wisdom they received from God and shared with Christianity. Small mouths to show their mastery over their passions. The eyes of all persons the same as Christ's to show that we are all created in the image of God. And many various other little things. The Renaissance tendencies in the west of very realistic and sensual art are in direct contrast to Orthodox iconography.

God deals with each person in a different way. I see nothing wrong if you want to learn more, and even practice the techniques. You should never present them as Orthodox icons unless you eventually decide to pursue the whole thing. I am a bit uncomfortable too with some artists who so closely copy the style that it isn't apparent without close study that these are not in fact icons - yet at the same time they make large theological statements with them that are not true according to Orthodoxy. But that wouldn't happen unless you learn to both copy closely and at the same time want to put your own interpretations on things.

But by all means, I think it's fine to keep learning, and to pursue on a personal level, and see where it leads. Ask questions in TAW if you like.

 

[Chris V++]

I'm not sure at what point a painting becomes an icon.

Thanks. I had asked and Fr. Matt felt an icon is an icon even from the early stage due to the prayers of the iconographer. Thanks for the info on the Seventh Ecumenical Council! It appears it was debated on and off for 8 centuries? The fact that the Jews and Muslims spoke against it maybe increased the tension. I know the Muslim mosaic type patterns are supposed to suggest the infinite but in an abstract way.

Here's what the Council concluded about icons:

'Concerning the doctrinal significance of icons [from the Seventh Ecumenical Council wikipedia page]
'... He can be depicted simply because He "became human and took flesh." Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made. In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.'


It's the 'medium for the Spirit' part that intrigues but throws me off. This isn't the same as western baroque style art. No one to my knowledge was trying to make the art itself into something 'spirit-bearing.' It's not the same thing as saying a painting was 'inspired' or has 'soul.' Icons are even said to facilitate miracles.

 

[Chris V++]

Icons offer a lot of value, especially in the ancient world where literacy wasn't exactly universal

Our Lord has two faces; one illustrates His humanity and the other His divinity. It's a Christological statement while also being an amazing piece of art in itself.

Thanks for posting the images Mr. Hasselhoff. They are really beautiful. I agree about the educational value too. They also seem to create atmosphere conducive to worship. You ever see Gustave Dore's Bible Illustrations? Stunning.

 

[Chris V++]

I am a bit uncomfortable too with some artists who so closely copy the style that it isn't apparent without close study that these are not in fact icons - yet at the same time they make large theological statements with them that are not true according to Orthodoxy. But that wouldn't happen unless you learn to both copy closely and at the same time want to put your own interpretations on things.

But by all means, I think it's fine to keep learning, and to pursue on a personal level, and see where it leads. Ask questions in TAW if you like

Thank you I think it would be disrespectful and try to hijack the aesthetic and change the intended meaning and message. Maybe there is nothing wrong with borrowing a few of the elements. I think Klimt was maybe doing just that. Some of his work made statements about mortality.

.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you I think it would be disrespectful and try to hijack the aesthetic and change the intended meaning and message. Maybe there is nothing wrong with borrowing a few of the elements. I think Klimt was maybe doing just that. Some of his work made statements about mortality.

.

I can only see the first one but I see no problems with it. It may copy some tenhnuques and medium but it is clearly not an icon so ... no problems there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Icons are even said to facilitate miracles.

I thought about addressing this earlier but I will now since you mentioned it twice.

IF we were making icons for the purpose of hopefully facilitating miracles - that would be sheer idolatry, I think. But that is not at all what happens.

Just as St. Peter's cloths could be distributed and result in miraculous healing - God sometimes uses the material in various ways in order to be a vehicle of His grace.

Yes, sometimes icons are involved in miracles. Sometimes other things are too. But icons are particularly - suited - perhaps, since they are meant to bear the image of one who bore the Spirit of God. At any rate, we can't force, encourage, or expect such things to happen. It is only by the grace of God and at His choosing. If that helps at all.

 

[tall73]

I can see how using elements might be interesting. Since the purpose of your work would not be either worship or even veneration, it would not be an issue of idolatry.