Saints and Dragons Icons from Byzantium to Russia

[applejack23]

If you live near Virginia.

The Chrysler presents more than 120 works of religious, historical, and artistic importance—rare icons and extraordinary artifacts from The British Museum in London and the Museum of Russian Icons in Clinton, Mass. The exhibition marks the first time that The British Museum has loaned two of its most spectacular icons to any American museum - Saint John the Baptist (Constantinople, ca. 1300) and the famous Saint George and the Dragon (also known as The Black George,Pskov, Russia, late-14th century).

http://www.chrysler.org/exhibitions/saints-and-dragons/

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Is it just me, or does it seem like something is terribly wrong with the idea of icons being treated as "works of art" consigned to museums and protected from being approached behind velvet ropes?

 

[gzt]

What do you think about religious music being performed as a concert?

 

[~Anastasia~]

What do you think about religious music being performed as a concert?

Hmmmmmmm. Good question.

Since you said "concert" then if the entire environment and expectation were the same as any other performance for the purpose of enjoyment, then I do find something not-right about it. Though ... if someone were to ask me, I'm not sure I would be willing to prohibit such things, as I believe there might still be a the chance for the music to have some sort of effect even when it is not intended to be received.

The same question might be brought to the reading of the Scriptures from a purely historical/analytical/literary standpoint. I have known plenty of scholars who knew the Bible quite well, and used it to set themselves above God in their pride and condemn those "ignorant enough to believe it" as idiots.

When we are talking about Scripture being used that way, the quote "pearls before swine" comes to mind. However, I would not have thought of that with the concert or museum exhibit.

I'm not quite sure - but you may be right - but I'm not quite sure if the music and icons are equivalent. They might be. But somehow, having spent time with icons since coming recently into the Church, and in thinking about these things ... icons seems a bit different from anything else we encounter in the Church. It's just a "feeling" though ... I can't put theology behind it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What do you think about religious music being performed as a concert?

I think that's a great idea. our music is a great evangelical tool. there was a guy at PaTRAM last year, and he was New Age, but something about the sacredness of Orthodox music hooked his interest.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If you live near Virginia.

The Chrysler presents more than 120 works of religious, historical, and artistic importance—rare icons and extraordinary artifacts from The British Museum in London and the Museum of Russian Icons in Clinton, Mass. The exhibition marks the first time that The British Museum has loaned two of its most spectacular icons to any American museum - Saint John the Baptist (Constantinople, ca. 1300) and the famous Saint George and the Dragon (also known as The Black George,Pskov, Russia, late-14th century).

http://www.chrysler.org/exhibitions/saints-and-dragons/

pretty sweet

 

[buzuxi02]

The Athonite monks hate it when they have to lend out their icons, manuscripts and other artifacts for public exhibits.

They just dont see what appreciation can be wrought when they are removed from their greater surroundings apart from the entire tradition.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Athonite monks hate it when they have to lend out their icons, manuscripts and other artifacts for public exhibits.

They just dont see what appreciation can be wrought when they are removed from their greater surroundings apart from the entire tradition.

So these icons are normally in a Church or monastery?

I can see that better than icons living permanently as museum pieces. But on the other hand, they would be missed if icons from our Church, say, had to travel to be viewed.

I don't know. Wonder working icons that travel so that more of the faithful can visit are one thing. But icons living permanently in a museum at the other end of the spectrum - seems wrong.

 

[buzuxi02]

It is common for wonderworking icons to travel but they travel to parishes for the faithful to venerate and are accompanied by its caretakers (monks).

I know that in a few byzantine museum exhibits monks were always present. I will see if I can google some of the articles, but in one instance alot of government lobbying had to take place to coerce the Athonite monks to put their artifacts on display in a highly publicized exhibit. I think it was the "Glory of Byzantium" exhibit???

 

[gzt]

Well, it's certainly awkward if an icon is just on some blank white wall next to say other paintings from the same time and place, maybe not religious. Just as it would be awkward if we went from some part of Rachmaninov's Vigil to a Gilbert and Sullivan aria. Hopefully the exhibit would be curated more intelligently. I think these examples - sacred music and sacred imagery - are really parallel. Sacred music shouldn't be used lightly and neither should sacred imagery. An icon isn't some nice decoration and a sacred music isn't just nice background noise. But with that said, I think they both can be appreciated as art. I mean, art is in part an expression of what we esteem most in our culture, and it says something to display religious expression as an example of that, and to communicate to outsiders some aspect of the mystery of all eternity.

 

[buzuxi02]

Here is what I found on the reluctance of monastics to let go of their sacred objects for secular display:

The Past Is Always Present: The Revival of the Byzantine Musical Tradition ... - Tore Tvarnø Lind - Google Books (Pg 143):
"...Four (Athonite) monasteries actually refused to contribute on the grounds that their treasures were liturgical and devotional objects and that it was inappropriate to take them out of their religious contexts and treat them as secular exhibits in a museum. These monasteries thus actively opposed the idea of Athos as a 'living museum', simultaneously insisting on defining their own way of life as a living spiritual community."

Other papers on the same topic:
Living Religious Heritage and Challenges to Museum Ethics: Reflections from the Monastic Community of Mount Athos

www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_38/Conservation_and_Restoration_at_Sinai.pdf (scroll to page 42)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, it's certainly awkward if an icon is just on some blank white wall next to say other paintings from the same time and place, maybe not religious. Just as it would be awkward if we went from some part of Rachmaninov's Vigil to a Gilbert and Sullivan aria. Hopefully the exhibit would be curated more intelligently. I think these examples - sacred music and sacred imagery - are really parallel. Sacred music shouldn't be used lightly and neither should sacred imagery. An icon isn't some nice decoration and a sacred music isn't just nice background noise. But with that said, I think they both can be appreciated as art. I mean, art is in part an expression of what we esteem most in our culture, and it says something to display religious expression as an example of that, and to communicate to outsiders some aspect of the mystery of all eternity.

I am reminded of a recent art class I oversaw (I can't say "taught") ... and I looked at the displays, including a timeline that did just that - juxtaposed icons with other "art from the period" and also was supposed to explain how various techniques developed on a timeline. They were generally quite scathing in their reviews of iconography, being as it was viewed as technically primitive for whatever period they were discussing (except they praised the depiction of fabric draping).

I never got to go to any of the Byzantium or other exhibits. I imagined them as having icons, perhaps implements such as chalices, with sacred music playing in the background, somewhat dimly lit, with candles. Maybe because that's how I would have done it. I would have liked to go.

But if I think of a beloved icon as you say, hanging on a blank wall with period "art" and subject to technical and aesthetic criticism from ones who have no idea of their purpose or meaning ... Well, all I can say is that it doesn't set comfortably with me as "appropriate".

You bring up another point I've thought about though. Father gives Church tours and explains things and answers questions during the Greek Fest. I had an idea of having liturgical music playing softly in the background. But I haven't suggested it yet. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate, or not ... ?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Here is what I found on the reluctance of monastics to let go of their sacred objects for secular display:

The Past Is Always Present: The Revival of the Byzantine Musical Tradition ... - Tore Tvarnø Lind - Google Books (Pg 143):
"...Four (Athonite) monasteries actually refused to contribute on the grounds that their treasures were liturgical and devotional objects and that it was inappropriate to take them out of their religious contexts and treat them as secular exhibits in a museum. These monasteries thus actively opposed the idea of Athos as a 'living museum', simultaneously insisting on defining their own way of life as a living spiritual community."

Other papers on the same topic:
Living Religious Heritage and Challenges to Museum Ethics: Reflections from the Monastic Community of Mount Athos

www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_38/Conservation_and_Restoration_at_Sinai.pdf (scroll to page 42)

Hmmmmm. This is interesting. (Btw, the last one only brought up a 4-page document for me)


The second was particularly interesting, being from the museum folks' point of view. In a way I find it rather ironic that they would seem to be criticizing the monastics for actually USING things rather than aiming to preserve them ... They want access to everything (which as a female, part of me can appreciate), but Athos under glass, accompanied by all sorts of informative texts, would be informative, true - but it wouldn't be Athos.

There are a lot of interesting points there. But basically the mindset of the museum folks and that of the monks isn't the same - and because I somewhat understand it, I tend to side with the monks in this case. They know of what they are dealing with, and it is not mere historical artifacts.

 

[applejack23]

Any art loses it's power out of it's native setting. Many tribal areas have been disrupted by tourists and museums buying/looting artifacts for display. At the same time some art/history has been saved instead of destroyed due to this also. It is a complex issue.