Jezz
March 23rd 2005, 10:08 AM
In this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44392&page=3&pp=16#post890112), Keir made asked some interesting questions that I thought I would try to answer. Here goes.
"So do Catholics use Eastern icons anymore? And also, do Orthodox use Western icons?"
We sure do use Eastern icons... in my opinion, they are some of the best. Oh, boy... to be an iconographer!
Not only Roman Catholic churches, either. I've seen Eastern-style icons in both Anglican and Lutheran churches - some of them even of Mary and other saints! The Anglican Cathedral in Adelaide (my home city) has a Russian icon with a place for a person to light a candle and kneel before it in prayer.
I don't know if the converse is true, but I imagine it's not impossible...?
This is the main point I wished to answer in this thread.
I've seen Western art in Eastern churches, but it usually looks wrong. Not only is it often visually out-of-place, it is also often theologically questionable from an Orthodox standpoint. The theology of Eastern icons is quite deep, and in many ways some examples of Western iconography/imagery goes against this tradition.
Eastern iconography has a number of distinctive features which have theological underpinnings:
1. Icons are always two-dimensional.
2. The people in the icons are not drawn life-like, but semi-abstract.
3. The icons are generally light in colour - not dark.
4. The icons do not depict suffering, but always depict rejoicing.
Icons are always two-dimensional and non-life-like, because the people depicted in them no longer look like us. They have been glorified, and we are not quite sure how they look now.
Icons are always light and joyful because in Christ there is victory. There is no reason to dwell on the dark and gloomy because we get plenty of that in this present evil age. A Chrstian temple (which is what Easterners call a church building - "church" refers to the gathering of people, not the building) - like the Jewish temple before it - is supposed to be the place where heaven meets earth; the place where His kingdom comes. Hence, the iconography inside a temple is light and joyful because that's how the world will at the final judgement - when heaven meets earth and God is all in all.
Think of it this way: many people have photos of their loved ones up around their home or workplace. How many of us like to have photos of our loved ones in pain or in agony? Invariably, we have photos of the joyful times. I guess that Eastern iconography has the same philosophy.
In Orthodox churches, this is even true of icons depicting the crucifixion - contrary to the West, Christ is not shown with His head hanging and His face in anguish. Rather, the crucifixion is depicted as a victory - not as suffering. Christ is shown with His head held upright and looking straight forward, not in the least bit perturbed by His predicament. There is no expression of pain on His face. Beneath the cross, there is a picture of a skull and crossbones - because Christ through His crucifixion trampled down death.
Contrast the above with Western art. You can see that the Western church art has often departed from all of these norms. Western art (notably medieval) tended to focus on life-like depictions. It also tended to focus on on the darkness, gloominess and suffering (just think of the movie "the Passion"). It is my understanding that this type of imagery developed later in the West (medieval times) - it was not always like that. I believe that some post-Enlightenment thinkers have attributed this to the intellectual progress of humanity - arguing that ancient humans did not know how to render life-like images. However, that's selling the ancients a bit short (as moderns tend to do) - I'm pretty sure that the Byzantines could have drawn life-like images if they had wanted. However, they did not - because the reality they were trying to depict was not merely the reality of this life, but of the life to come.
One particular tradition which developed in the West was an type of painting which depicts the Holy Trinity - with the Father represented as an old man, the Son as a young man, and the Holy Spirit as a dove. This icon cannot be considered Orthodox, because it portrays a number of heresies:
1. The Father did not become incarnate as a human being - therefore, it is wrong to depict Him as a human being. This borders on patripassionism/modalism - the belief that the Father suffered the crucifixion.
2. More generally, noone has ever seen the Father. Indeed, this is the reason for the commandment about graven images. This commandment is still in force.
3. It depicts the Father as being older than the Son. This tends towards the Arian heresy ("there was a time when the Son was not").
4. Similar to the Father, the Holy Spirit is generally not visible, and so shouldn't be given a visual form (like a dove) in an icon. The exception to this is if the icon depicts a historical situation where Holy Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit did manifest visually. For example, it would be appropriate to depict the Holy Spirit as a dove in an icon of the baptism of Christ, or as tongues of fire in an icon of Pentacost. But to speculate as to what the Holy Spirit looks like outside of these historically recorded events is not considered appropriate iconographic style.
So in general (and particularly with some, such as typical depictions of the Trinity) Western theological imagery goes against the tradition of the Eastern churches.
I should add that I am speaking in generalities, and that not all Western art would fall in this category. Particularly, I think that the tradition of stained-glass windows would be well at home in the Orthodox tradition. Generally speaking, stained-glass windows do not have the same sorts of defects that other Western imagery has (eg, it's 2d, not lifelike, not dark and gloomy). Additionally, the light shining through them depicts the heavenly reality of the light of God shining in the saints quite well. I think that an iconostasis made of stained-glass windows with backlighting would be quite something to behold!
I think it's sad that Western popular art has moved so far from the religious traditions that held it together in the past, but I thank God that there are movements back in that direction now - good art is important to good prayer, I think!
Agreed!
It is interesting to go to an Orthodox divine liturgy. At the end of the liturgy, the people greet one another with a holy kiss (1 Corinthians 16:20). But they do not only kiss one another - in exactly the same way, they also kiss the Saints depicted in the icons. This (along with prayers for/requests to the saints) drives home the reality of the "communion of Saints" - both those physically present and those who have departed are all part of the one Church. I had always believed intellectually in the "communion of Saints", but simply seeing that in action explains it in a way that a million sermons cannot. Even more so when one does not merely watch, but participates.
"So do Catholics use Eastern icons anymore? And also, do Orthodox use Western icons?"
We sure do use Eastern icons... in my opinion, they are some of the best. Oh, boy... to be an iconographer!
Not only Roman Catholic churches, either. I've seen Eastern-style icons in both Anglican and Lutheran churches - some of them even of Mary and other saints! The Anglican Cathedral in Adelaide (my home city) has a Russian icon with a place for a person to light a candle and kneel before it in prayer.
I don't know if the converse is true, but I imagine it's not impossible...?
This is the main point I wished to answer in this thread.
I've seen Western art in Eastern churches, but it usually looks wrong. Not only is it often visually out-of-place, it is also often theologically questionable from an Orthodox standpoint. The theology of Eastern icons is quite deep, and in many ways some examples of Western iconography/imagery goes against this tradition.
Eastern iconography has a number of distinctive features which have theological underpinnings:
1. Icons are always two-dimensional.
2. The people in the icons are not drawn life-like, but semi-abstract.
3. The icons are generally light in colour - not dark.
4. The icons do not depict suffering, but always depict rejoicing.
Icons are always two-dimensional and non-life-like, because the people depicted in them no longer look like us. They have been glorified, and we are not quite sure how they look now.
Icons are always light and joyful because in Christ there is victory. There is no reason to dwell on the dark and gloomy because we get plenty of that in this present evil age. A Chrstian temple (which is what Easterners call a church building - "church" refers to the gathering of people, not the building) - like the Jewish temple before it - is supposed to be the place where heaven meets earth; the place where His kingdom comes. Hence, the iconography inside a temple is light and joyful because that's how the world will at the final judgement - when heaven meets earth and God is all in all.
Think of it this way: many people have photos of their loved ones up around their home or workplace. How many of us like to have photos of our loved ones in pain or in agony? Invariably, we have photos of the joyful times. I guess that Eastern iconography has the same philosophy.
In Orthodox churches, this is even true of icons depicting the crucifixion - contrary to the West, Christ is not shown with His head hanging and His face in anguish. Rather, the crucifixion is depicted as a victory - not as suffering. Christ is shown with His head held upright and looking straight forward, not in the least bit perturbed by His predicament. There is no expression of pain on His face. Beneath the cross, there is a picture of a skull and crossbones - because Christ through His crucifixion trampled down death.
Contrast the above with Western art. You can see that the Western church art has often departed from all of these norms. Western art (notably medieval) tended to focus on life-like depictions. It also tended to focus on on the darkness, gloominess and suffering (just think of the movie "the Passion"). It is my understanding that this type of imagery developed later in the West (medieval times) - it was not always like that. I believe that some post-Enlightenment thinkers have attributed this to the intellectual progress of humanity - arguing that ancient humans did not know how to render life-like images. However, that's selling the ancients a bit short (as moderns tend to do) - I'm pretty sure that the Byzantines could have drawn life-like images if they had wanted. However, they did not - because the reality they were trying to depict was not merely the reality of this life, but of the life to come.
One particular tradition which developed in the West was an type of painting which depicts the Holy Trinity - with the Father represented as an old man, the Son as a young man, and the Holy Spirit as a dove. This icon cannot be considered Orthodox, because it portrays a number of heresies:
1. The Father did not become incarnate as a human being - therefore, it is wrong to depict Him as a human being. This borders on patripassionism/modalism - the belief that the Father suffered the crucifixion.
2. More generally, noone has ever seen the Father. Indeed, this is the reason for the commandment about graven images. This commandment is still in force.
3. It depicts the Father as being older than the Son. This tends towards the Arian heresy ("there was a time when the Son was not").
4. Similar to the Father, the Holy Spirit is generally not visible, and so shouldn't be given a visual form (like a dove) in an icon. The exception to this is if the icon depicts a historical situation where Holy Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit did manifest visually. For example, it would be appropriate to depict the Holy Spirit as a dove in an icon of the baptism of Christ, or as tongues of fire in an icon of Pentacost. But to speculate as to what the Holy Spirit looks like outside of these historically recorded events is not considered appropriate iconographic style.
So in general (and particularly with some, such as typical depictions of the Trinity) Western theological imagery goes against the tradition of the Eastern churches.
I should add that I am speaking in generalities, and that not all Western art would fall in this category. Particularly, I think that the tradition of stained-glass windows would be well at home in the Orthodox tradition. Generally speaking, stained-glass windows do not have the same sorts of defects that other Western imagery has (eg, it's 2d, not lifelike, not dark and gloomy). Additionally, the light shining through them depicts the heavenly reality of the light of God shining in the saints quite well. I think that an iconostasis made of stained-glass windows with backlighting would be quite something to behold!
I think it's sad that Western popular art has moved so far from the religious traditions that held it together in the past, but I thank God that there are movements back in that direction now - good art is important to good prayer, I think!
Agreed!
It is interesting to go to an Orthodox divine liturgy. At the end of the liturgy, the people greet one another with a holy kiss (1 Corinthians 16:20). But they do not only kiss one another - in exactly the same way, they also kiss the Saints depicted in the icons. This (along with prayers for/requests to the saints) drives home the reality of the "communion of Saints" - both those physically present and those who have departed are all part of the one Church. I had always believed intellectually in the "communion of Saints", but simply seeing that in action explains it in a way that a million sermons cannot. Even more so when one does not merely watch, but participates.