www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Icon by any other name is still the same?

I did a search for the word Icon on www.webster.com [webster.com] and this is what is says:


If the definition is true, �a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians� then that seems to suggest we need to consult the �Eastern Christians� for their definition of an Icon.

According to http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/icon_faq.htm, �While Protestants, however, object to the veneration of Icons, they typically do not object to the making or possession of images. � Since Protestants do not recognize Icons then the �Eastern Christians� would be limited to Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics. Both the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics have developed over the century�s guidelines for creation of Icons.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/icon_discourse.htm again has this to say about Icons,

Therefore, bearing in mind the correction the Administrator gave me regarding my post,


I am going to try and state my position without coming across as an accusation.

It would seem to me that calling the images from http://www.bridgebuilding.com as Icons would be incorrect. They seem to not fit the definition of an Icon. Would it not be more appropriate to call them Paintings? If I am correct them aren�t we doing the Church as disfavor by calling them Icons? Kind of like calling the recognized Deuterocanonical books Apocryphal.

Further, if two saints were known homosexuals and the Church condemns homosexuality the church canonized those individuals saints because they rejected their sinful homosexuality. So, if an individual depicts a saint or even hints of depicting a saint as a homosexual (i.e. http://www.bridgebuilding.com) then wouldn�t this further invalid the depiction from being an Icon?

Icons by any other name are not the same they are paintings.

[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: aChristian@Work ]

Slava Jesu Kristu

So what if he calls them icons. He can call them whatever he wants. If we don't like or approve of them, we just don't buy them. What else are we expected to do?

Dmitri

PS: Are you so sure the Church cannonized them for "rejecting" their homosexuality? Yes,yes, I know we have gone this route before but I don't think we should make assumptions about two saints who we really don't know that much about. At least, I haven't been able to locate anymore than somewhat sketchy biographies concerning. It does, however, make one wonder why their cult was suppressed after Vatican II for the Romans.

[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: Dmitri Rostovski ]

In addition to some of the points of the original post, I would point out that one does not paint an icon of lets say, Christ and the World Trade Center because icons are not anecdotal. They are used to express the teaching and mind of the Church.

The iconographer does not see him or herself as a creative artist making something new, but simply carries forward tradition as it was given.

I will say that some of those images I saw at the above mentioned site are absolutley ridiculous. I look at them and recall the spine tingling discussions on this board about how to reform the Orthodox Divine Services; There is little difference between the two. The people that would forward these innovations are not only not Orthodox (admittedly), they must not even like Orthodoxy. Does someone who loves Shakespeare add their own ideas to his plays and treat it as if it was the same or better?

"Without the sacrament of confession, which purifies through repentance, the whole creative work of a painter becomes, as it were, a public confession. Without repentance, this public confession does not purify or liberate the artist, but infects the spectator with all he has in him." (Ouspensky, The Meaning of Icons)

[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

OrthodoxyorDeath,

Thank you for your comments. I think you have valid points.

God Bless!

Gentlemen, I'd like to add some thoughts to this discussion. I've been studying Orthodox iconography for some time now and am striving/praying to complete my first icon through the grace of God.

Coming from a secular artist background I can attest to the difinite distinctions between creating blessed icons and "religious" paintings. OrthodoxyOrDeath is correct. An artist (rightly) uses his creative talents to express himself. An iconographer surrenders himself and his talents to the Almighty and through His Inspiration he adheres to the tradition of the work. "One must strive to paint Icons well in principle, method and execution" is a true statement.

There are quite a few sites out there besides bridgebuilding that sells these types of "pictures". As you know, the world is full of bad art of one kind or another - icons or paintings. It doesn't surprise me that there are people out there trying to take advantage of the market. Though I do wonder sometimes if some of these artists are aware on some level of the distinction between icons and paintings.

Peace,
Loretta

Loretta,

I agree with you completely that is why I think it is very important that we do not demean the term "Icon" by calling these paintings icons. Just like Xerox did not want the term for copies to be called Xerox so should we call things what they are. A copy of an original document is not a Xerox copy. Those paintings from http://www.bridgebuilding.com/ are NOT icons so we should call them what they are paintings. They may be wonderful paintings but they certainly are NOT icons. Further, http://www.monasteryicons.com are not icons either. They are also paintings.

Once we allow this kind of word slippage to accure it has greater effects through the ages. For example, if we keep calling these paintings icons and tell everyone we meet they are icons then as time passes people will associate these paintings as icons. Case in point Xerox. I know this is not the best example but I think you get my point.

In IC XC!

I have my own theory on just what constitutes an icon and it is grounded in the theology of the Church Fathers. The key to iconography, like all of life, is in its relation. The icon does not exist of itself or for itself (modern art can do this as an expression of the artist) but rather as a means of relating one to another (or Another). This relational aspect of icons occurs on many levels:

a) there is a relation between the image and its prototype. The image is founded in a unique life, a particular person.

b) there is a relation between the prototype and the Divine. After all, this is of paramount importance.

c) therefore, there is a relation between the prototype with his/her relationship to the Divine and the Church. The relationship originates and is fulfilled via the life of the church. The protoype is recognized as a member of the Church, and the Church in kind honors the prototype by protecting him/her via Holy Tradition. In icon cannot exist outside of the Church for to do so would be to remove the prototype from the Church.

d) then, there are the personal relations with the prototype
i) there is the relation between the prototype and the iconographer.

ii)In order for this to be valid, both must be within the Church, linked to each other with the Divine. Therefore, there must be a relation between the Church, the prototype and the iconographer.

iii) there is the relation between the iconographer and the viewer. The iconographer reveals not what is essential to the iconographer (i.e. the will of the iconographer), not what is essential to the prototype (i.e. the substance of the prototype), but rather what is revealed of the Divine (i.e. the will of God).

iv) Finally, there is also the relation between the image and the viewer. The viewer is not a passive participant in the image. The image itself draws the viewer into the life of the prototype which is the life of the iconographer, which is the life of the Church, which is the life with the Divine.

In order for an image to be an icon, it must fulfill all of the above requirements. The key to recognizing an icon as being an icon is thus in its submission.

The viewer submits to the will of the iconographer, the iconographer, submits to the will of the prototype, the prototype submits to the will of the Church, and the Church submits to the will of God.

I hope that's clear.

Fr. Dcn John

d)

Fr. Dcn. John writes

>>>In order for an image to be an icon, it must fulfill all of the above requirements. The key to recognizing an icon as being an icon is thus in its submission.

The viewer submits to the will of the iconographer, the iconographer, submits to the will of the prototype, the prototype submits to the will of the Church, and the Church submits to the will of God.<<<

Well said! An icon is not a photograph of its subject matter, nor is it a family portrait. It is not creatively painted, but is reverently ***written*** using color and shape in paint. And the preparation of the surface is utterly essential to the images painted atop it, such that the most important part of the icon is the part which is unseen, yet which upholds that which is indeed seen...

I went to: http://www.monasteryicons.com/product159.html
and was confronted with a photographic portrait purporting to be an Ikon of our Lord and Savior, and was dismayed to see what was there... The more 'humanized' the face, the farther from legitimacy would seem to be the iconic effort...

Ikons are studies in relationship, Fr. John, as you so elegantly showed forth, and the stuff which has 'realism' rather than ikonic writtenness as its motif is simply wrong... Which is why there are only two dimensions to writing an Ikon, and not three, the more 'natural' way of portraiture.

geo