Is this offensive?

[Plan 9]

Like others have said, first and foremost the problem is one of depicting non-Christians in a specifically Christian art form.

Additionally though, while different 'styles' of iconography exist, a definate argument could be made that many of these are being painted in a Byzantine (and specifically in a pseudo-Cretan school style) which is almost soley the preserve of Orthodox Christianity.

Wowser, Nicodemus! I somehow missed this post, and said very bady what you stated perfectly.
My mother was an artist and she taught me well, her Jansen's on my lap. I find Byzantine art and architecture breathtaking, and I don't imagine any of you would have really minded their ripping it off, had they excercised a modicum of taste in the process?

 

[Oblio]

Hmm, I've heard that before from somewhere... but where?

Yes, it's disgusting, but is anyone really, when they think about it, surprised?

Ya know, I was gonna post that too

 

[nicodemus]

I might add that I even admire some of the non-Christians depicted on a secular level for their accomplishments. I don't want anyone to think there is a lack of "sensitivity" or "abilty to appreciate" what some of these folks accomplished. Take Gandhi for instance, he helped liberate his people from the tyranny of the British imperialism. I can particularly appreciate that because I'm married to an Indian, a woman whose parents immigrated from India and I certainly appreciate what he did for his country and for his people and "human rights" in general. However, Gandhi was a devout Hindu and should therefore not be numbered amongst those venerated by Christians as a model for life. Certainly, we can take things from his life that are worthy of emulation, no doubt about that, but he obviously isn't on par with a St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Nicholas of Japan, the Chinese Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion or any of the saints.

 

[Reader Nilus]

I'll add my 2 cents to this discussion. I found the the picture disturbing for one, not because who was in it but that they were dancing. As far as icons being painted of non-Orthodox, that will happen, and some of the folks are indeed in heaven with the saints. I do not think that equating a non-Christian with the saints is good at all.
But it is an Episcopal church and almost anything goes in the EPUSA and that is why I bailed out in 1988.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Michael G]

Uhm, i'm against these 'icons' too, but there seems to be a bit of anti-anglican feeling here, so i'm just curious; what is it that you really object to about these images (images for arguments sake). I don't mean this to sound like an attacking comment, and it's not ment to sound like one, but i was just wondering why some of you feel so strongly about these pictures.

We feel strongly about these pictures because someone who is not Orthodox hijacked something inherently Orthodox (Iconography) in order to make their own political/religious point of view known. Iconography is not about ones self and their view, it is about humbly submitting to the will of God. That being said there is no room for this kind of foolishness in the art of Iconography.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I am really disturbed by this . .. someone was asking about an icon which would aptly describe how I am feeing right now in my gut . . literally . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Michael G]

not because who was in it but that they were dancing. As far as icons being painted of non-Orthodox, that will happen, and some of the folks are indeed in heaven with the saints.

Precisely, icons are not meant to evoke motion. Rather, they are meant to quietly call us to the peace and Eternal Glory of Heaven. This picture is offensive for two reasons, first those depicted are not Orthodox saints and some not even Christians, but secondly because in the picture those depicted have no focus whatsoever on the Trinity, but rather are focusing on their own joy of dancing. It simply put, is outrage.

 

[Matthias]

Amen.