Posted by Al Might I also add that I have never seen reference to St Luke writing an icon other than that of the Theotokos. In fact, any study of early Christian religious art would find that Christ was normally depicted only in a crude "Good Shepherd" image, a rough drawing of a person carrying a sheep on his shoulders. The art of the first two or three centuries was quite rudimentary throughout the Church. I would also point out that there was hardly any difference between "Eastern" and "Western" iconography until the 12th or 13th Century. I would guess that many contemporary comments about the "rules" of iconography are made in terms of the last few hundred years, leading to an "Orthodox vs Heterodox" mentality being erroneously extrapolated back to the icon's origins and early years. I could go on further, but my notes for the above mentioned presentation spend 4 typed pages to address just the first 7 centuries of iconographic history, and that was an introductory coverage! Just not enough room here.
on 11/2/2009, 2:29 am, in reply to "Re: Orthodox Christians View Icons as “Windows to Heaven”"
Message modified by user Al 11/3/2009, 9:01 am
George-
Might I offer that iconography actually rises above the so called "rules and regulations" that are alleged to exist. I recently gave an extensive presentation on the subject to the local international arts community, and thus dug even deeper than my humble Orthodox education had taken me on the subject.
In fact, the most amazing thing about Orthodox iconography is that without any "rules and regulations", the general "form" or "Style" has continued for nearly 2,000 years. Why? Probably because of the fact that it so properly accomplishes the function the Faith has established for icons and their role within the life of the Church. Even the icons of non-Byzantine artistic tradition incorporate the unique aspects of iconography.
As a very simple example, I would invite your attention to the iconographic depiction of the new born and youthful Christ. Unlike the "realism" that began to enter religious art in the West in the 12th or 13th century, icons do not picture a chubby, cute "Little Baby Jesus". Rather, they depict a small human, often quite adult in appearance, signifying His being not just a new born man, but The Eternal, always adult God. This practice is also found in the iconography of Egypt and Ethiopia, for example, not just with those of Byzantine style. Similar theological expressions can be found throughout the icons of the Church. The icon, as we know it, remains constant in the way it depicts the events and people of God's history, both in the dimensions of the physical world as well as the spiritual, because it does it so fully. No other art form achieves this theological function as well.
Thus, I would offer, since I have never found a set of "rules and regulations" binding on the Church universal (e.g. a product of an Eucumenical Council), that we realize that the enduring nature of iconography is simply a result of the icon being the only form of religious art that stays true to the function of expressing it's content in a fully spiritual and theological dimension, as well as the physical. Since the spiritual and theological dimension is the more important, the icon's faithfulness to representing this is the reason it has endured. In short, a "rules and regulations" book or writings do not need to exist, as iconography's exquisite ability to achieve the function it is intended to serve has been so wonderfully carried out. Or, as artists would say, "Form follows function", and the enduring form of the icon is a result of an enduring, in fact eternal function.
Actually, from my humble point of view, the above elevates the icon to a much higher plane than attributing their style to some set of "rules and regulations".
Al
Paros Island, Greece
Responses:
