OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Faith Issues => Topic started by: mike on February 28, 2009, 10:49:12 AM

Title: Strange icons
Post by: mike on February 28, 2009, 10:49:12 AM

You know, I caught myself doing this on the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee... I was struggling to hang on to my squirmy one year old and bent to kiss the icon before I realized I had just venerated the Pharisee.  Oops.  At least Caitlin got it right.  ;)

On American sites I've found two uncommon (at least for me) icons: icon (http://lent.goarch.org/prodigalson/learn/images/prodigalson.jpg) for Sunday of the Prodigal Son and icon (http://antiochian.org/assets/writer/SundayofthePublicanandthePharisee_12E48/Publican_Pharisee.jpg) for Sunday of Publican and Pharisee.

Is it Greek or American Orthodox tradition? Are there any more icons which don't present Saints, events/persons from the Bible, events/persons from the Tradition but some unreal things?

Are they treated (venerated) as normal icons or are they just to illustrate pararels? Why the Publican has a halo despite being not canonised and even not real?

Sorry EofK for imposing your post but it made me think.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on February 28, 2009, 02:03:19 PM
I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Orthodox11 on February 28, 2009, 02:19:42 PM
I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.

(http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/cst02.jpg)

You can buy it here (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/cst02.htm)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on February 28, 2009, 05:47:54 PM
Why do the men have halos?  Are they disciples?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on February 28, 2009, 06:04:21 PM
Why do the men have halos?  Are they disciples?
Yes, they're.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on March 01, 2009, 06:01:45 PM
But this icon presents event from the Gospel, the REAL event. Not the story Jesus told His Disciples.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: CRCulver on March 01, 2009, 06:22:58 PM
The church at which I worship in Romania has its walls completely covered with iconography and two levels of icons are depictions of Christ's parables. So, even "fictional" personages are depicted in iconography. The icon depicting the Parable of the Good Samaritan, however, features Christ in the role of the Good Samaritan.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on March 01, 2009, 06:25:42 PM
Do you have any pictures?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Fr. George on March 03, 2009, 03:26:26 PM
On American sites I've found two uncommon (at least for me) icons: icon (http://lent.goarch.org/prodigalson/learn/images/prodigalson.jpg) for Sunday of the Prodigal Son and icon (http://antiochian.org/assets/writer/SundayofthePublicanandthePharisee_12E48/Publican_Pharisee.jpg) for Sunday of Publican and Pharisee.

Is it Greek or American Orthodox tradition? Are there any more icons which don't present Saints, events/persons from the Bible, events/persons from the Tradition but some unreal things?

Are they treated (venerated) as normal icons or are they just to illustrate pararels? Why the Publican has a halo despite being not canonised and even not real?

Sorry EofK for imposing your post but it made me think.

There are a number of different icons that depict parables, and references.  An example is the icon of the ladder into heaven - an image of Jacob's (the Patriarch) dream, but the icon depicts Christ at the top with the Theotokos.  Or the icon of the Burning Bush, which sometimes depicts the Theotokos in the midst of the bush with the fire in her womb.

The icon of the Publican & Pharisee has a halo on the Publican after his prayer (not before) because in Christ's words "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God." (NIV)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on March 03, 2009, 03:48:13 PM
Should they (that icons) be venerated?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Fr. George on March 03, 2009, 04:02:53 PM
Should they (that icons) be venerated?

I suppose so; the icon is still a reflection of a heavenly reality in earthly form, pointing to an example of Christian life.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on October 12, 2009, 12:01:40 PM
(http://www.diocese.ko.if.ua/images/news/2941.jpg)

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC (http://kolomyya.org/se/sites/ep/?nid=19851)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Papist on October 12, 2009, 12:04:43 PM
(http://www.diocese.ko.if.ua/images/news/2941.jpg)

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC (http://kolomyya.org/se/sites/ep/?nid=19851)
Oh my....  :(
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Rosehip on October 12, 2009, 12:44:28 PM
That's awful, Mike!  :(

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this? Also the one of Christ knocking at the door-this too I've never seen as an icon. I think both pictures are very familiar and dear to most Protestants.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Schultz on October 12, 2009, 12:50:54 PM
That's awful, Mike!  :(

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this? Also the one of Christ knocking at the door-this too I've never seen as an icon. I think both pictures are very familiar and dear to most Protestants.


Do you mean an image like this as Christ as Good Shepherd?  I've seen this icon many times in Orthodox churches/suppliers and even bought one just like it for an ex-girlfriend once. 

(http://www.trinstore.com/ecom_2/inventoryimages/1209_O_1.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Papist on October 12, 2009, 12:52:51 PM
That's awful, Mike!  :(

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this? Also the one of Christ knocking at the door-this too I've never seen as an icon. I think both pictures are very familiar and dear to most Protestants.


Do you mean an image like this as Christ as Good Shepherd?  I've seen this icon many times in Orthodox churches/suppliers and even bought one just like it for an ex-girlfriend once. 

(http://www.trinstore.com/ecom_2/inventoryimages/1209_O_1.jpg)


I have this icon.  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Rosehip on October 12, 2009, 01:01:53 PM
Thanks, Shultz! No, I've never, ever seen it before! Never in a church and never anywhere else! It's very nice.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on October 12, 2009, 01:11:21 PM

One year we have given this icon of the Good Shepherd to the children who were going to their First Confession.



The soccer "icon" is very sad to see.  The Theotokos and Christ Child are beautiful....however, the soccer field...pppllllease.

I cannot imagine their clergy approve of it.

This is just another example where people lose the spiritual aspect of their Faith, and use their faith as just another custom, or tradition....no spiritual thinking behind it.
Quite sad.



Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: pensateomnia on October 12, 2009, 01:16:44 PM
A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this?

I have seen several modern Orthodox icons of the Good Shepherd. In the Roman Catacombs, there are something like 114 documented representations of the Good Shepherd, dating from the 2nd through 3rd century. There's also a very famous late antique/early Byzantine version of the Good Shepherd in Ravenna. Reproduced below:

(http://www.geocities.com/anotski_25/history_images/classical_architecture/painting-32.jpg)

Images of a shepherd with a lamb over his back were very popular -- and very symbolic -- in the Greco-Roman world for a number of centuries, especially in the second century. Most of the philosophical schools (among which Christianity was sometimes numbered) taught that right-living consisted of (1) piety toward God and (2) philanthropy/benevolence toward neighbors.

Piety was depicted by a man in an orans position (lifting up hands in prayer). Philanthropy by a man with a sheep over his shoulders. These twin images appear on many pagan (and Christian) sarcophagi, and were even made part of the State's iconography by particularly philosophically inclined emperors like Marcus Aurelius.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Rosehip on October 12, 2009, 01:23:03 PM
That's so interesting, pensateomnia! Thanks for that information! I'm a bit surprised I've never seen this icon in any Russian church. For some reason, I don't really like the cross in the back of the icon. I still think I prefer the "protestant" pictures of Christ, holding a lamb in His arms, and a staff in one of His hands, surrounded by sheep...don't know what it is, but that image strikes me as more "natural", although I do like the one Shultz posted-just not sure about the cross in the background.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: pensateomnia on October 12, 2009, 02:41:17 PM
Oh, and lest we think this was just a Roman thing, there's also the Dura-Europos house church in Syria (the only extant house church we have), which has an image of the Good Shepherd from about 245.

(http://www.sacred-destinations.com/syria/dura-europos-pictures/slides/dura-europus-good-shepherd.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rwprof on October 12, 2009, 02:42:47 PM
The soccer icon (seriously):

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/10/soccer-icon.html

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: scamandrius on October 12, 2009, 02:50:26 PM
That's so interesting, pensateomnia! Thanks for that information! I'm a bit surprised I've never seen this icon in any Russian church. For some reason, I don't really like the cross in the back of the icon. I still think I prefer the "protestant" pictures of Christ, holding a lamb in His arms, and a staff in one of His hands, surrounded by sheep...don't know what it is, but that image strikes me as more "natural", although I do like the one Shultz posted-just not sure about the cross in the background.

What's wrong with the cross in the background of the good shepherd icon of Christ?  He was as a lamb lead to slaugther, was he not?  What is it that makes you apprehensive about the cross?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Rosehip on October 12, 2009, 03:41:48 PM
That's so interesting, pensateomnia! Thanks for that information! I'm a bit surprised I've never seen this icon in any Russian church. For some reason, I don't really like the cross in the back of the icon. I still think I prefer the "protestant" pictures of Christ, holding a lamb in His arms, and a staff in one of His hands, surrounded by sheep...don't know what it is, but that image strikes me as more "natural", although I do like the one Shultz posted-just not sure about the cross in the background.

What's wrong with the cross in the background of the good shepherd icon of Christ?  He was as a lamb lead to slaugther, was he not?  What is it that makes you apprehensive about the cross?

I'm not used to such a highly stylized rendition of Christ the Good Shepherd, I guess. I just need to get accustomed to it. I always think of the picture of Christ walking naturally amongst a flock of sheep, with his staff in one hand, and holding a lamb in the other...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Father H on October 12, 2009, 06:08:03 PM
Here is a link to an article and several icons of the good shepherd:

http://www.pravmir.com/printer_604.html
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Rosehip on October 12, 2009, 07:01:14 PM
Thanks so much, Father, for the fascinating article! I had wondered if Orthodox icons are more apt to portray actual events than they are to portray allegories, and if for this reason, we don't have icons of say, Christ knocking at the door, etc.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 12, 2009, 08:02:27 PM
The image of Christ the Good Shepherd as reproduced in Schultz's post poses a couple of problems regarding its compatibility with Orthodox theology, iconographic tradition, and doctrine. The notion of Christ as the Good Shepherd is not, in itself, a, iconographic problem, any more than that of Christ the Sower of the good seed, or Christ the Creator of the universe.

Where the image Schultz posted falls short is in showing Christ with the wounds of His crucifixion, and with a cross in the background. Unlike much non-Orthodox painting and sculpture, Orthodox iconography limits the display of Christ's wounds to icons of the Crucifiction, the Deposition from the Cross, the Lamentation, and the events in time between His Resurrection and Ascension, such as the Incredulity of Apostle Thomas; i.e. those events which confirm and proclaim the Resurrection of Christ, as fully corporeal, and not as merely some sort of "spirit". There is no iconographic tradition of painting the wounds in pre-Crucifixion icons, nor in post-Ascension icons, such as Christ in Majesty, where He is shown enthroned, surrounded by seraphim, cherubim, and other heavenly hosts. There is no need to show the wounds in such icons, as the human body of Christ, through His sacrifice and resurrection, has been perfected and sanctified.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Rosehip on October 12, 2009, 08:06:47 PM
The wounds were something which bothered me too. While it is a beautiful icon, chronologically it seems confusing somehow.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Schultz on October 12, 2009, 08:44:26 PM
The image of Christ the Good Shepherd as reproduced in Schultz's post poses a couple of problems regarding its compatibility with Orthodox theology, iconographic tradition, and doctrine. The notion of Christ as the Good Shepherd is not, in itself, a, iconographic problem, any more than that of Christ the Sower of the good seed, or Christ the Creator of the universe.

Where the image Schultz posted falls short is in showing Christ with the wounds of His crucifixion, and with a cross in the background. Unlike much non-Orthodox painting and sculpture, Orthodox iconography limits the display of Christ's wounds to icons of the Crucifiction, the Deposition from the Cross, the Lamentation, and the events in time between His Resurrection and Ascension, such as the Incredulity of Apostle Thomas; i.e. those events which confirm and proclaim the Resurrection of Christ, as fully corporeal, and not as merely some sort of "spirit". There is no iconographic tradition of painting the wounds in pre-Crucifixion icons, nor in post-Ascension icons, such as Christ in Majesty, where He is shown enthroned, surrounded by seraphim, cherubim, and other heavenly hosts. There is no need to show the wounds in such icons, as the human body of Christ, through His sacrifice and resurrection, has been perfected and sanctified.

Was not this same 'perfected and sanctified' human body the same one shown to St Thomas, complete with wounds, though?  Is not the Resurrected Christ also the Good Shepherd?  Why do you constantly look for problems when none exist?  I understand your conservatism regarding iconography, but you make it sound as if a huge rulebook dropped out of heaven in AD33 with all the rules and canons about icons in them. 

The link FatherHLL posted earlier discusses this very icon and the symbolism behind it.

I normally respect your erudition on this topic, but this time I think you are just looking for something to complain about.

Is
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Irish Hermit on October 12, 2009, 11:30:59 PM
from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC (http://kolomyya.org/se/sites/ep/?nid=19851)
Frankly, strange things are seen in the Ukraine

See the headdress of Miss Ukraine 2008:

http://photo.for-ua.com/albums/23_06_2006_Cimbaluk/big/IMG_6019.jpg



and Miss Ukraine's holy corset:

http://www.rusidea.org/picts/forum/Foto_pro_MP/miss.jpg

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on October 13, 2009, 12:32:35 AM
The soccer icon (seriously):

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/10/soccer-icon.html



Ugh, why does it not surprise me there were Ukrainians behind this? *shakes head in amazement*

Sometimes us Ukies are pretty goofy... Lord have mercy on us all!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on October 13, 2009, 01:33:44 AM
Quote
and Miss Ukraine's holy corset:

http://www.rusidea.org/picts/forum/Foto_pro_MP/miss.jpg

Do you, by chance, have an image of her wearing it? ;D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on October 13, 2009, 01:40:36 AM
Was not this same 'perfected and sanctified' human body the same one shown to St Thomas, complete with wounds, though?

Exactly!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 13, 2009, 03:31:52 AM
My dear Schultz, you may well accuse me of conservatism in iconography, yet, I ask you to come up with any pre-18thC icon of Christ which shows the wounds of His crucifixion, other than in the examples I mentioned. Regarding the icon of Apostle Thomas, one only needs to look at the text of the Vigil to this feast to find it full of references to Christ's wounds, both literally, and in their spiritual significance in relation to Thomas' examination of them, as proof positive of his Lord's resurrection. Liturgy and iconography go hand in hand, my friend.

On the other hand, the image you posted is directly derived from non-Orthodox images of quite recent (two centuries or less) provenance.

As for the "patroness of soccer and sport" image (yet another sad addition to my schlock file) is a blasphemy and travesty. Yet, from the blog this image was drawn, we see supposed ecclesiastical approval for this image. According to the film footage on the blog: As best as I can make out the Ukrainian, it says that the icon was blessed by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishop Mykolaj (Simkaylo) and a priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev patriarchate). Some may regard what I have to say as arrogant, but it only goes to show that even clergy can make grave iconographic mistakes. What's the solution to this sort of problem? EDUCATION! of clergy and laity alike.

I once wrote this on another thread last year:

Iconography is the most visible and identifiable characteristic which sets apart the Orthodox Church from all others, yet, lapses continue to occur, often, it must be said, out of honest ignorance. However, be that as it may, it is imperative that distortions and assaults on the doctrinal, theological and liturgical integrity of this holy and priceless treasure are exposed and remedied. It is in this spirit that I post in the way that I do, not to lord it over people, nor to draw attention to myself (after all, I post anonymously), but to allow a greater understanding of the pitfalls of error.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 13, 2009, 03:36:35 AM
from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC (http://kolomyya.org/se/sites/ep/?nid=19851)
Frankly, strange things are seen in the Ukraine

See the headdress of Miss Ukraine 2008:

http://photo.for-ua.com/albums/23_06_2006_Cimbaluk/big/IMG_6019.jpg

and Miss Ukraine's holy corset:

http://www.rusidea.org/picts/forum/Foto_pro_MP/miss.jpg


Oyyyy!!!!!!  :P :P :D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on October 13, 2009, 03:43:15 AM
Iconography is the most visible and identifiable characteristic which sets apart the Orthodox Church from all others.

Then what a relief that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church isn't a part of the Orthodox Church!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on October 13, 2009, 09:55:53 AM

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC (http://kolomyya.org/se/sites/ep/?nid=19851)
Frankly, strange things are seen in the Ukraine


With all due respect, Father, I have to tell you I am slightly offended by your statement.

Frankly, strange things are seen in ALL countries....I can easily surf the Web and find some rather offensive things occurring in other nations such as Russia, etc....however, I wouldn't post that and make a general statement that strange things are seen in those countries.  I wouldn't want someone to mistakenly think I might be degrading their homeland.

Let's not forget how many deeply faithful, God fearing, reverent and modest people live in Ukraine who are not strange at all....or the hundreds of Saints that come from Ukrainian lands.

Additionally.....why must everyone still call Ukraine, "the" Ukraine?  Is it accidental or intentional?  I'd like to know.

I honestly, mean no disrespect and forgive me for not "turning the other cheek"...but, that cheek's already red.

Peace and respect to all, and to all nations - for all nations are equal and none is better or worse than any other.


Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: BoredMeeting on October 14, 2009, 04:10:05 PM
Weren't icons used to communicate Scripture to a largely illiterate public prior to the invention of the movable-type printing press?

Given that, icons of the parables would have a long history behind them (even if they are contemporary versions).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: ialmisry on October 14, 2009, 04:43:05 PM
Do you have any pictures?


Of the Romanian Church, or something like this?
(http://www.stinnocent.net/images/GoodSamaritan.JPG)
http://www.stinnocent.net/images/GoodSamaritan.JPG
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on October 14, 2009, 05:44:33 PM
Do you have any pictures?


Of the Romanian Church, or something like this?
(http://www.stinnocent.net/images/GoodSamaritan.JPG)
http://www.stinnocent.net/images/GoodSamaritan.JPG

Of parables frescos. It depicts the one about poor Samaritan, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 04, 2011, 04:18:28 PM
I like them: http://danielmitsui.tripod.com/artwork/religious.html
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shiny on August 04, 2011, 04:21:28 PM
The soccer icon (seriously):

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/10/soccer-icon.html



Wow can I buy one?  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: JamesRottnek on August 04, 2011, 07:02:11 PM
That thing with the soccer ball is truly worse than anything the Romans have ever created - even clown masses.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on August 04, 2011, 07:29:49 PM
That thing with the soccer ball is truly worse than anything the Romans have ever created - even clown masses.

Good for you!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Cognomen on August 05, 2011, 12:38:59 AM
Well, it's an icon and it's strange:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Saint_christopher_cynocephalus.gif)
Cynocephalus St. Christopher.  One of several found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on August 05, 2011, 06:45:50 AM
Over at monachos.net, there's an entire thread on non-canonical icons. I'll post some of the pictures later. Just goes to show that Orthodox artists make mistakes, too.  ::)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 05, 2011, 07:57:03 AM
Over at monachos.net, there's an entire thread on non-canonical icons. I'll post some of the pictures later. Just goes to show that Orthodox artists make mistakes, too.  ::)

There are several threads at monachos.net on non-canonical icons. They are very useful, detailed and instructive.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on August 05, 2011, 05:28:22 PM
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/1EC1819.jpg)


This is 'Holy Silence.' Not exactly sure why it copies some elements of the Virgin of the Sign.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/holysilence.jpg)


This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/God19thC.jpg)


'Angel Countenance.' Angels are normally depicted as male.  :-\

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/angelcountenance.jpg)


'Angel of the Sign.' With all respect, an angel did not give birth to Jesus.  ???

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/angelofthesign.jpg)


There were weirder ones. I would like to see a book on unusual icons, if only to show us what is not allowed and what is.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: CBGardner on August 05, 2011, 06:05:45 PM
The first one must have been done by MC Escher.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: That person on August 05, 2011, 06:17:59 PM

This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/God19thC.jpg)

It looks like God sneezed.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: HabteSelassie on August 05, 2011, 10:32:08 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious name  of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Well, it's an icon and it's strange:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Saint_christopher_cynocephalus.gif)
Cynocephalus St. Christopher.  One of several found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly)

I like that in the way it elaborates on the truly symobolic nature of religious imagery.  I was discussing of all things the merits of Egyptian icongraphy of strange and mismatched animal-men which some folks have said are representations of the Reptilian shape-shifting aliens as part of the said conspiracy.  I had to explain that religious imagery is not meant to be taken literal, the images are symbols.  Each abnormal or different representation takes on a symbolic significance, and I especially like to see the Dog-headed Saint Christopher icons to drive the point home.

Here are some eccentric Icons from the Ethiopian tradition:

(http://ethnetwork.com/web_images/abune_tekle_haymanot.jpg)
That is Saint Tekle Haimanot, and yes, that is his leg there next to him on the ground, he stood in prayer for seven consecutive years until its said his leg simply fell off in order to make it easier to continue standing in prayer!

(http://www.kidusmarkos.com/gallery/albums/Orthodox/Abbab%20Gebre%20Menfes%20Qidus.png)
This is Saint Gebre Menfes Kidus, who rolled around perpetually with a crew of wild animals including these pairs of big cats.  Obviously he was an intimidating presence to the local governors in that in the Grace of God he could speak with and even command the wildest and most dangerous of animals!  Of course he was in fact a very kind natured monk-saint who only used his monastic agency (in Ethiopian tradition, recluse monks have the social authority to openly and even rudely criticize secular leaders without punishment whereas commoners would be whipped or even worse for much less an offense) when extremely pressed by notoriously corrupt leaders.

(http://www.ethiopianorthodoxchurch.info/church_debre-birhan-selassie-ceiling-cc-marches-lointaines_1_.jpg)
These classic Cherub (Kirubel in Ge'ez) can be a bit bewildering in their abundance and repetition, signifying the continuity of the Kingdom and Will of God which the angels fulfill.

(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/27536_108040012568979_9597_n.jpg)

Saint Abba Aregawi conquering the Serpent before founding the Debre Damo mountain top monastery, I couldn't find an online image of the traditional mural painting like we have in my parish where Abba Aregawi is not wrestling with the serpent, but rather is actually riding it up the mountain like a rope-swing elevator!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on September 08, 2011, 04:20:58 AM
This one:

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/40603_137807409587808_100000756494006_166137_754393_n.jpg

Kinda drastic so don't click when you are sensitive.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: ag_vn on September 08, 2011, 05:51:41 AM



(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1053/1000235227_7d10a2cf3d_z.jpg)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/419175249_2e3e9c46ab_z.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/4644741839_1aff33a984_z.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1001/3169809379_05692dfd2a_z.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/883314881_4d11202d6e_z.jpg?zz=1)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1016/1000236385_7c94e3cf25_z.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on September 08, 2011, 06:45:19 AM
^ Would be a beautiful chapel with better icons...  :angel:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 08, 2011, 06:52:32 AM
^ They're horrible! The holy ones on the iconostasis look ghastly, emaciated, ravaged, with a deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes, bordering on naked terror. Might be OK in a medieval Gothic church, but there is no place for such travesties in an Orthodox church! Whoever painted these images has NO idea of what iconography is. Where is the gravitas, stillness, dignity, reverence and spiritual power that good and proper icons possess and proclaim? What a crying shame that a beautiful iconostasis, made by skilled hands, has been spoiled by these artistic flights of fancy. Shameful.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Michał on September 08, 2011, 07:05:01 AM
Here is a couple of unusual icons: http://goo.gl/T05OW
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on September 08, 2011, 07:09:26 AM
Here is a couple of unusual icons: http://goo.gl/T05OW

Which ones? Every once in a while I see one that is unfamiliar (such as this one (http://books.google.pl/books?id=uODOkMgUZKYC&lpg=PA38&vq=%22they%20range%20from%20the%20primitive%22&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false)), but the rest ... *shrugs*
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Michał on September 08, 2011, 07:14:59 AM
Which ones?

Those from the section titled 'Theological Icons' (pp. 38-41).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: jah777 on September 08, 2011, 08:31:54 AM
^ They're horrible! The holy ones on the iconostasis look ghastly, emaciated, ravaged, with a deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes, bordering on naked terror. Might be OK in a medieval Gothic church, but there is no place for such travesties in an Orthodox church! Whoever painted these images has NO idea of what iconography is. Where is the gravitas, stillness, dignity, reverence and spiritual power that good and proper icons possess and proclaim? What a crying shame that a beautiful iconostasis, made by skilled hands, has been spoiled by these artistic flights of fancy. Shameful.

My first thought when I saw the icons on the iconostasis was "Night of the Living Dead".  They all look like zombies, absolutely hideous to behold.  If icons reflect the spiritual state of the iconographer, this work does not reflect well on the one who panted them.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on September 08, 2011, 03:40:57 PM
@ag_vn : Where is that?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Iconodule on September 08, 2011, 03:44:34 PM
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/1EC1819.jpg)


Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Michał on September 08, 2011, 05:08:47 PM
Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.

Actually, it's masonic: http://goo.gl/vZWb9
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 08, 2011, 07:50:31 PM
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/1EC1819.jpg)


Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.

It's a Freemason painting.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on September 08, 2011, 07:52:23 PM
Oops. Well, it's odd enough.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: AZCatholic on September 08, 2011, 09:15:42 PM
I have never seen an icon like this!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Nikitskaya_%28Ushakov%2C_Milutin%2C_1677-8._Kremlin%29.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: FrChris on September 08, 2011, 09:28:50 PM
@ag_vn : Where is that?

Yes....I'm curious too!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on September 08, 2011, 09:31:50 PM
They all look like zombies, absolutely hideous to behold.

I was thinking about how creepy they looked too. I don't think I could make it through a service there.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hiwot on September 08, 2011, 09:33:40 PM



(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1053/1000235227_7d10a2cf3d_z.jpg)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/419175249_2e3e9c46ab_z.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/4644741839_1aff33a984_z.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1001/3169809379_05692dfd2a_z.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/883314881_4d11202d6e_z.jpg?zz=1)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1016/1000236385_7c94e3cf25_z.jpg)



ok I am very curious , where is this Church ? and how come the icons look like they are taken from somewherelse and posted there ? they did not look like byzantine to me, but are they? I see on the top the byzantine Trinitarian icon though even that is unusualy gray, but the bottom ones i mean the grey ones they do not look like they are.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hiwot on September 08, 2011, 09:39:20 PM
LOL I am glad its not me alone who got spooked by them
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Joseph Hazen on September 09, 2011, 01:27:19 AM
ok I am very curious , where is this Church ? and how come the icons look like they are taken from somewherelse and posted there ? they did not look like byzantine to me, but are they? I see on the top the byzantine Trinitarian icon though even that is unusualy gray, but the bottom ones i mean the grey ones they do not look like they are.

It is "St. Petka" in Bulgaria, built according to the wishes of and to honor a fortune teller and psychic "Baba Vanga". As far as I can tell it's not an Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: ag_vn on September 09, 2011, 01:48:36 AM
@ag_vn : Where is that?

Yes....I'm curious too!

ok I am very curious , where is this Church ?


This is the Saint Petka (Petka is Paraskevi in Bulgarian) church in Rupite, Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupite). It was built with donations from Vanga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_vanga). The site was chosen by her.


As far as I can tell it's not an Orthodox Church.

Well, it is an Orthodox church. It was consecrated by the local Metropolitan, but at the time of consecration these icons weren't there. As far as I know they were put later.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: ag_vn on September 09, 2011, 02:02:12 AM
^ They're horrible! The holy ones on the iconostasis look ghastly, emaciated, ravaged, with a deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes, bordering on naked terror. Might be OK in a medieval Gothic church, but there is no place for such travesties in an Orthodox church! Whoever painted these images has NO idea of what iconography is. Where is the gravitas, stillness, dignity, reverence and spiritual power that good and proper icons possess and proclaim? What a crying shame that a beautiful iconostasis, made by skilled hands, has been spoiled by these artistic flights of fancy. Shameful.

My first thought when I saw the icons on the iconostasis was "Night of the Living Dead".  They all look like zombies, absolutely hideous to behold.  If icons reflect the spiritual state of the iconographer, this work does not reflect well on the one who panted them.

These "icons" were painted by Svetlin Russev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlin_Rusev) (Светлин Русев), a Bulgarian artist, so he is not an iconographer. He was a close friend of Vanga and is considered by many an Occultist.

Although a consecrated Orthodox church, for many it is mainly a place for veneration of Vanga. Her followers and fans regard her as a prophetess, while regular Orthodox faithful consider her an Occultist phenomenon or even witch. From what I know the existing of these "icons" is a scandalous among the faithful.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Joseph Hazen on September 09, 2011, 02:18:06 AM

Well, it is an Orthodox church. It was consecrated by the local Metropolitan, but at the time of consecration these icons weren't there. As far as I know they were put later.



Ah, all I could find was one website that I had to run through a translator, so the quality was very bad. Thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on September 09, 2011, 02:44:42 AM
It seems like there are two bishops' thrones there on either side, which is also strange.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: ag_vn on September 09, 2011, 04:34:42 AM
^The one on the left is not exactly a bishop's throne, although it's a smaller throne with a pseudo-icon of Vanga "blessing" the people.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4125/4967659770_4f35ea42cd_z.jpg)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/3143696719_504b2d6939_z.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1343/1001087282_14d50ec5e3_z.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1368/884153864_c4141c046d_z.jpg?zz=1)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: ag_vn on September 09, 2011, 04:39:03 AM
I have never seen an icon like this!


I like it. The mantle with so many stars is beautiful.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Iconodule on September 09, 2011, 07:13:25 AM
I have never seen an icon like this!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Nikitskaya_%28Ushakov%2C_Milutin%2C_1677-8._Kremlin%29.jpg)

I think this would be a variant of "The Passion":
(http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/cart12.jpg)

The difference being that Christ is carrying a big cross and spears instead of the angels carrying little ones.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Michał on September 09, 2011, 07:34:50 AM
I think this would be a variant of "The Passion":
[. . .]
The difference being that Christ is carrying a big cross and spears instead of the angels carrying little ones.

There are more differences. I don't think it is a variant of the Strastnaya icon. It is simply a different icon called Novonikitskaya. There is another one similar to it, known as Svyato-Krestovskaya:
(http://sklep.cerkiew.pl/images/ikony/Papierowe/mb_swietokrzyska.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: AZCatholic on September 09, 2011, 11:52:40 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Depiction_of_Hell.jpg)
Icon at  the Monastery of Gelati.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Cognomen on September 09, 2011, 12:10:42 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Depiction_of_Hell.jpg)
Icon at  the Monastery of Gelati.

Doesn't Frederica Mathewes-Green use this for the cover to most of her books?  If not all, at least for the cover of her famous one: Gnashing Teeth!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on September 09, 2011, 03:42:21 PM
I bet there is no horsing around at mealtime at that monastery.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: jah777 on September 09, 2011, 04:19:05 PM
My first thought when I saw the icons on the iconostasis was "Night of the Living Dead".  They all look like zombies, absolutely hideous to behold.  If icons reflect the spiritual state of the iconographer, this work does not reflect well on the one who panted them.

These "icons" were painted by Svetlin Russev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlin_Rusev) (Светлин Русев), a Bulgarian artist, so he is not an iconographer. He was a close friend of Vanga and is considered by many an Occultist.

Although a consecrated Orthodox church, for many it is mainly a place for veneration of Vanga. Her followers and fans regard her as a prophetess, while regular Orthodox faithful consider her an Occultist phenomenon or even witch. From what I know the existing of these "icons" is a scandalous among the faithful.

Thank you for the information, the “occultism” certainly does come through in the images. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hiwot on September 09, 2011, 10:37:59 PM
@ag_vn : Where is that?

Yes....I'm curious too!

ok I am very curious , where is this Church ?


This is the Saint Petka (Petka is Paraskevi in Bulgarian) church in Rupite, Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupite). It was built with donations from Vanga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_vanga). The site was chosen by her.


As far as I can tell it's not an Orthodox Church.

Well, it is an Orthodox church. It was consecrated by the local Metropolitan, but at the time of consecration these icons weren't there. As far as I know they were put later.



thank you for the information ag_vn, and Joseph Hazen, I appreciate it, it certainly explains why they look so deathly pale, grotesque, and with eyes closed too not orthodox icons at all.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Apostolos on September 10, 2011, 08:18:43 PM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/14x2er8.jpg)
The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Aindriú on September 10, 2011, 09:19:32 PM



(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1053/1000235227_7d10a2cf3d_z.jpg)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/419175249_2e3e9c46ab_z.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/4644741839_1aff33a984_z.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1001/3169809379_05692dfd2a_z.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/883314881_4d11202d6e_z.jpg?zz=1)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1016/1000236385_7c94e3cf25_z.jpg)



ok I am very curious , where is this Church ? and how come the icons look like they are taken from somewherelse and posted there ? they did not look like byzantine to me, but are they? I see on the top the byzantine Trinitarian icon though even that is unusualy gray, but the bottom ones i mean the grey ones they do not look like they are.

Those are the ugliest icons I've ever seen... or hope to see. It's like something out of the Catholic 1970s.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: AZCatholic on September 11, 2011, 12:15:01 AM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/14x2er8.jpg)
The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

I saw this icon in a video once and I could never find the name of it ! Thank you! :D :) ;D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: AZCatholic on September 11, 2011, 12:16:33 AM

Those are the ugliest icons I've ever seen... or hope to see. It's like something out of the Catholic 1970s.

As a Catholic I agree!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Timon on September 11, 2011, 12:20:41 AM
Those icons in that church's iconostasis are the most terrifying things ive ever seen.  ever.



Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 11, 2011, 01:24:42 AM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/14x2er8.jpg)
The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

This work is typical of the western religious art, and devotional practices, which came into various regions of Greece during Venetian rule.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on September 11, 2011, 01:44:33 AM
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/419175249_2e3e9c46ab_z.jpg)

I wish I could see the outside of the building better. This looks super occult from a distance. What is it depicting?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on September 11, 2011, 02:15:40 AM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/14x2er8.jpg)
The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

This work is typical of the western religious art, and devotional practices, which came into various regions of Greece during Venetian rule.
I think the one in Lipsi is wonderworking.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Apostolos on September 11, 2011, 05:08:06 AM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/14x2er8.jpg)
The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

This work is typical of the western religious art, and devotional practices, which came into various regions of Greece during Venetian rule.
Indeed. The iconographer though keeps the Orthodox tradition and depicts her face in dispassion. The icon was written in the 1600's by monks from the Monastery of Patmos.
Quote from: Volnutt
I think the one in Lipsi is wonderworking.
Yes it is. Since 1943, small branches of lillies with no roots are put on the icon in Spring, which bloom every 23rd August
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeH4Y1nAHvM
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 11, 2011, 05:41:12 PM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/14x2er8.jpg)
The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

This work is typical of the western religious art, and devotional practices, which came into various regions of Greece during Venetian rule.

OOOOPS!! Mods, could this post be shifted to the Theotokos of Charon thread?  :-[ :-[ :-[
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: J.M.C on September 12, 2011, 04:38:09 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Depiction_of_Hell.jpg)
Icon at  the Monastery of Gelati.

I'm not sure what's so "strange" about that icon... it's a detail from the Icon of the Last Judgment. Any icon of the Last Judgment will have details like this at the bottom (and it can be clearly seen in the pic that this is just the bottom of a much larger fresco/icon), and most often appear on the Western wall of a chapel or church. i.e. you see it as you leave a service.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on September 12, 2011, 07:33:03 PM
and most often appear on the Western wall of a chapel or church. i.e. you see it as you leave a service.
Joel Osteen would not approve! :laugh:

I think it's fine as long as the figurative parts are explained.


Also, boob snakes :laugh:. Yes, I'm a 5 year-old.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: myrrhbear on September 13, 2011, 04:21:48 PM
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/1EC1819.jpg)


This is 'Holy Silence.' Not exactly sure why it copies some elements of the Virgin of the Sign.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/holysilence.jpg)


This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/God19thC.jpg)


'Angel Countenance.' Angels are normally depicted as male.  :-\

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/angelcountenance.jpg)


'Angel of the Sign.' With all respect, an angel did not give birth to Jesus.  ???

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/angelofthesign.jpg)


There were weirder ones. I would like to see a book on unusual icons, if only to show us what is not allowed and what is.

I'm not defending the Icon of Holy Silence as I don't know enough yet about icons so I do not intend to offend anyone or argue. However I watched the DVD "Theoria" which explains its meaning. It is based on the verses from Exodus 23:20 and refers to the Angel of God's Countenance, holding the sphere containing the Logos, the Name, the Word of God. It has to do with the Divine Revelation as it was to Moses, Abraham, and Jacob. Perhaps if anyone is really interested in delving deeper into the meaning of that one he should watch the dvd or contact the school which produced that particular one rather than criticize it right off the bat.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 13, 2011, 08:07:15 PM
Quote
I'm not defending the Icon of Holy Silence as I don't know enough yet about icons so I do not intend to offend anyone or argue. However I watched the DVD "Theoria" which explains its meaning. It is based on the verses from Exodus 23:20 and refers to the Angel of God's Countenance, holding the sphere containing the Logos, the Name, the Word of God. It has to do with the Divine Revelation as it was to Moses, Abraham, and Jacob. Perhaps if anyone is really interested in delving deeper into the meaning of that one he should watch the dvd or contact the school which produced that particular one rather than criticize it right off the bat.


Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected. (St John of Damascus)

There is nothing St John of Damascus can't answer.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on November 07, 2012, 07:45:28 PM
A refreshemnt of the old thread because of popularity of "Schlock icons". I prefer something more spirtual-benefit ;)


I don't know if it's very strange, but I've seen first time in my life such type of icon of the Theotokos:

(http://hramserafima.ru/wp-content/uploads/35288.jpg)

(http://iconexpo.ru/pics/1_382.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on November 07, 2012, 09:57:33 PM
The above is known as The Multiplier of Wheat. Here's part of a post from an older thread:

Quote
The primary meaning of the iconographic mandorla is that it represents the Uncreated Light and Glory of God. Its presence around Christ makes perfect sense in icons of the Resurrection and Transfiguration (for obvious reasons), of the Ascension (proclaiming the full glorification of Christ's human nature and reiteration of His divinity, something mentioned many times in the hymnography of the feast), of Christ in Majesty (Christ enthroned in heaven, surrounded by seraphim and cherubim), and in icons of the Mother of God of the Sign (Platytera, Znamennaya), where Christ Emmanuel is shown over His mother's body, signifying most clearly the Incarnation of God as a Divine Child.

The presence of Christ in a mandorla in icons of the Dormition signify the mystical appearance of Christ, accepting the soul of His mother, to escort it to heaven. Normally, the souls of saints, represented as a babe in swaddling-clothes, in their dormition icons are taken to heaven by angels. Given the exalted status of the Mother of God, it is only fitting and proper that Christ Himself takes her soul. A "mere" angel simply won't do. And His holding her soul is also a lovely counterpoint to the iconography and hymnography of the Mother of God holding her Son.

There are images of the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla. Here is part of a post of mine from the "Canonical Icons" thread:

The Multiplier of Wheat shows the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla, an oval motif of rays and stars which represents the uncreated light and glory of God. This is a major error in iconography, as the Virgin, while, of course, partaking of the glory and life of God, is not divine herself. She does not generate this light. Christ alone may be depicted in this light, such as in icons of Christ in Majesty (Christ enthroned, surrounded by the bodiless hosts), the Transfiguration, the Dormition of His mother (where He is seen holding her soul in the form of a babe in swaddling clothes, surely one of the loveliest of iconographic motifs, and truly loaded with theological meaning), and in icons of the Mother of God of the Sign, where He, as Christ Emmanuel, is surrounded by a circular mandorla over His mother's body as she holds her arms raised in supplication. By contrast, a mandorla is often seen in western images (paintings and statues) of the Virgin, notably in Our Lady of Guadelupe.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44905.msg754288.html#msg754288
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on November 07, 2012, 10:16:38 PM
The above is known as The Multiplier of Wheat. Here's part of a post from an older thread:

Do all of the Multiplier of Wheat icons include the mandorla? I've seen this icon so many times that I never paid any attention, and can't remember now.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on November 07, 2012, 10:19:10 PM
The above is known as The Multiplier of Wheat. Here's part of a post from an older thread:

Do all of the Multiplier of Wheat icons include the mandorla? I've seen this icon so many times that I never paid any attention, and can't remember now.

All the many versions I've seen have the mandorla.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on November 07, 2012, 10:19:53 PM
I have one that is similar to the Multiplier. It's Russian. I find it comforting, even though it looks unusual.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on November 17, 2012, 12:51:28 PM
Here's one without a mandorla, but this site calls it "Grower of Crops" instead of Multiplier of Wheat:

(http://orthodoxwebstore.com/shopping/104-532-thickbox/grower-of-crops-bread-holy-virgin-mary.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on November 17, 2012, 01:03:04 PM
Here's one without a mandorla, but this site calls it "Grower of Crops" instead of Multiplier of Wheat[/img]

That's the same name, isn't it?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on November 17, 2012, 01:10:46 PM
That's the same name, isn't it?

You're probably right...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on January 15, 2013, 06:01:59 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/547332_485971198080845_1001428011_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 15, 2013, 06:43:51 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/547332_485971198080845_1001428011_n.jpg)

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: That person on January 15, 2013, 06:49:47 PM
Was it? I'm no expert, but a GIS indicates a lot of icons of the Visitation depict Christ and the Forerunner. I'd be curious to read up on that icon's origins, if you have a source. Because independent of whatever agenda it might be pushing, I kind of like it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on January 15, 2013, 07:06:03 PM
I've posted it becasue I'm interested in its origin like That person and I've never seen such icon before.

As for anti-abortion icons, I've seen 3 types of it (I think). Of course the task of icon is different, but on the other hand, we know that Church should protect life, and some peopel find icons as an instrument for it, so, maybe in this case, it would be better if it was a kind of picutre, similar to icon?... I'm just thinking out loud
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 15, 2013, 07:08:25 PM
Was it? I'm no expert, but a GIS indicates a lot of icons of the Visitation depict Christ and the Forerunner. I'd be curious to read up on that icon's origins, if you have a source. Because independent of whatever agenda it might be pushing, I kind of like it.

There is only one historic instance I've come across of the fetuses being visible in a Visitation icon, in a fresco in Cyprus, IIRC 17thC. In this fresco, the unborns are not surrounded by a womb-like enclosure; they are painted in a similar style to the Christ of the 12th C Ustiug Annunciation. Be that as it may, the fact that the Cypriot Visitation and the Ustiug Annunciation are the only known examples of the portrayal of the unborn, this should give us pause before regarding such a representation as proper or canonical.

It is also a fact that the type of image posted by Dominika has been used in recent years, in violation of the spirit and purpose of iconography, as the mascot for various anti-abortion campaigns.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: That person on January 15, 2013, 09:31:59 PM
A lot of More Spacious than the Heavens icons use the womb-type thing. Dunno how historic this practice is though.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 15, 2013, 10:10:02 PM
A lot of More Spacious than the Heavens icons use the womb-type thing. Dunno how historic this practice is though.

The Mother of God of the Sign (Platytera, Znammeniye) icons show Christ Emmanuel surrounded by a radiant circle of Uncreated Light.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: BoredMeeting on January 18, 2013, 04:25:36 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/547332_485971198080845_1001428011_n.jpg)

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  >:( >:( >:(

Really? Can you document when and where it was first written?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 18, 2013, 05:43:45 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/547332_485971198080845_1001428011_n.jpg)

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  >:( >:( >:(

Really? Can you document when and where it was first written?

Read post #109. And the image posted here was painted by Christine Uveges, a Byzantine Catholic, and used in Right to Life marches and campaigns. I have also seen the same composition painted by other artists, and used for the same purpose. The artist herself is on public record with this statement:

Quote
Every year we are in Washington D.C. at the ProLife Rally


And the artist has authorised that copies of this image are handed out during these rallies.

I repeat: the use of iconography to promote sociopolitical causes, even "good" ones, is a shameful debasement of what icons are and stand for.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: NicholasMyra on January 18, 2013, 06:44:50 PM
It also has that "photo snap-shot" effect that pseudo-iconography often does.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 18, 2013, 07:07:38 PM
I see nothing wrong with it, it's illustrating something 100% Orthodox and 100% Biblical. Who cares if its used in the campaign against infanticide. Should we also stop those who paint icons of Rachel's Lament?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 18, 2013, 07:10:10 PM
It also has that "photo snap-shot" effect that pseudo-iconography often does.

What do you mean by this? You realize most icons in history aren't "portraits" of Saints like we have so mch of today, they are images from the Bible. The very first Christian images were precisely this sort of thing, a "snapshot" of a Biblical event.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on January 18, 2013, 07:10:49 PM
I see nothing wrong with it, it's illustrating something 100% Orthodox and 100% Biblical. Who cares if its used in the campaign against infanticide. Should we also stop those who paint icons of Rachel's Lament?

Icons are supposed to be used for veneration.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 18, 2013, 07:19:25 PM
I see nothing wrong with it, it's illustrating something 100% Orthodox and 100% Biblical. Who cares if its used in the campaign against infanticide. Should we also stop those who paint icons of Rachel's Lament?

Icons are supposed to be used for veneration.

You don't and can't "venerate" every icon, we offer them honor and veneration, but unless you are extremely tall, I doubt you can venerate the Pantocrator up in the dome. ;)

I'm simply saying that just because you use an icon in an anti-abortion campaign doesn't make it wrong, should we stop putting photos of icons in books, calendars and cards? Why not take it further and stop people from printing icons on paper? Or stop them from painting on canvas and gluing them to the walls of churches? How far do we take this somewhat extreme legalism regarding icons? Do we take it as far as the Old Believers sometimes do?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on January 18, 2013, 07:36:51 PM
You don't and can't "venerate" every icon, we offer them honor and veneration, but unless you are extremely tall, I doubt you can venerate the Pantocrator up in the dome. ;)

I've read somewhere there is a difference between icons and icon-like paintings on other objcects like wall or vestments.

Quote
I'm simply saying that just because you use an icon in an anti-abortion campaign doesn't make it wrong,

It was created for that purpose.

Quote
should we stop putting photos of icons in books, calendars and cards?

I'd love that happen.

Quote
Why not take it further and stop people from printing icons on paper? Or stop them from painting on canvas and gluing them to the walls of churches? How far do we take this somewhat extreme legalism regarding icons?

We are not discussing here materials used for icons but icons being used for non-veneration actions, are we?
Quote

Do we take it as far as the Old Believers sometimes do?

What they do?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 18, 2013, 08:01:58 PM
You don't and can't "venerate" every icon, we offer them honor and veneration, but unless you are extremely tall, I doubt you can venerate the Pantocrator up in the dome. ;)

I've read somewhere there is a difference between icons and icon-like paintings on other objcects like wall or vestments.

Quote
I'm simply saying that just because you use an icon in an anti-abortion campaign doesn't make it wrong,

It was created for that purpose.

Quote
should we stop putting photos of icons in books, calendars and cards?

I'd love that happen.

Quote
Why not take it further and stop people from printing icons on paper? Or stop them from painting on canvas and gluing them to the walls of churches? How far do we take this somewhat extreme legalism regarding icons?

We are not discussing here materials used for icons but icons being used for non-veneration actions, are we?
Quote

Do we take it as far as the Old Believers sometimes do?

What they do?

Is there evidence that this icon was created for the anti-infanticide campaign? Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion. The abortion issue IS a theological issue because those who say a fetus isn't a person are therefore blaspheming Christ.

It's all the same debate, what are icons and what purpose are they for.

The Old Believers take icon "veneration" to near worship and fall into pharisaism an legalism with regard to icons and other aspects of the faith.

I've never read that there is a difference between icons on boards and icons on walls.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 18, 2013, 08:03:50 PM
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/1EC1819.jpg)


This is 'Holy Silence.' Not exactly sure why it copies some elements of the Virgin of the Sign.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/holysilence.jpg)


This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/God19thC.jpg)


'Angel Countenance.' Angels are normally depicted as male.  :-\

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/angelcountenance.jpg)


'Angel of the Sign.' With all respect, an angel did not give birth to Jesus.  ???

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/angelofthesign.jpg)


There were weirder ones. I would like to see a book on unusual icons, if only to show us what is not allowed and what is.

I'm not defending the Icon of Holy Silence as I don't know enough yet about icons so I do not intend to offend anyone or argue. However I watched the DVD "Theoria" which explains its meaning. It is based on the verses from Exodus 23:20 and refers to the Angel of God's Countenance, holding the sphere containing the Logos, the Name, the Word of God. It has to do with the Divine Revelation as it was to Moses, Abraham, and Jacob. Perhaps if anyone is really interested in delving deeper into the meaning of that one he should watch the dvd or contact the school which produced that particular one rather than criticize it right off the bat.

Just because an image, a feast, or anything else has some sort of deeper meaning derived from Scripture or anywhere else does not make it acceptable or traditional.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 18, 2013, 08:06:48 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/547332_485971198080845_1001428011_n.jpg)

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  >:( >:( >:(

Are there Orthodox icons of the Visitation? That is, before the feast was added to the Western calendar? IIRC, it was a late addition and never made it on the Eastern calendar, except for the Eastern Catholics.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on January 18, 2013, 08:07:24 PM
Is there evidence that this icon was created for the anti-infanticide campaign?

Read post #109. And the image posted here was painted by Christine Uveges, a Byzantine Catholic, and used in Right to Life marches and campaigns.

Quote
Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion. The abortion issue IS a theological issue because those who say a fetus isn't a person are therefore blaspheming Christ.

Political demonstrations are not "a holy purpose".

Quote
I've never read that there is a difference between icons on boards and icons on walls.

Uspyenski wrote about that.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 18, 2013, 08:10:37 PM
1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 18, 2013, 11:03:08 PM
1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg

And not a fetus in sight. As is the case with every single icon of this event I've seen, other than the single example I mentioned in post #109. Coincidence? I think not. There is nothing random or accidental in Orthodox tradition. :police:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 18, 2013, 11:06:03 PM
Quote
Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion.

This is precisely the reasoning used by Robert Lentz, William Hart McNichols, and their protegees, to justify their "icons".
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 18, 2013, 11:16:01 PM
1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg

And not a fetus in sight. As is the case with every single icon of this event I've seen, other than the single example I mentioned in post #109. Coincidence? I think not. There is nothing random or accidental in Orthodox tradition. :police:

I don't see how some of you think we should absolutely strictly adhere to iconographic depictions. By this, I mean that people seem to think that new types of icons or events that previously weren't depicted, or elements previously foreign to a a particular icon should be anathema.

If this were our attitude, we wouldn't have Rublev's Trinity or many other elements in our iconography. It's a living tradition whose canon is adhered to but can be expanded and evolved and added to.

I could imagine if we were discussing iconography 1800 years ago (with the mindset about icons of some living today) we'd be arguing whether or not the addition of a halo above Christs head was okay, or whether the depiction of Christ with long hair and a beard is okay, or whether the Emperor should be in an image with Christ. It didn't exist in Christian depictions of them before, so it shouldn't be done "now".

That kind of attitude is just silly, our iconographers aren't Amish-like, they are allowed to paint new things (within reason obviously).

Who cares if the fetus was t depicted before? Today we have to battle the heretical belief that you aren't a full human person until your birth. Is that not enough to show Christ was a full human person before his birth? We aren't just combating some regulation that is in favor of infanticide, we are combating heresy and blasphemy.

The prime function of icons isn't just for veneration or as windows to heaven, it is also to teach and show forth the Orthodox faith. Their FIRST function ever was as a teaching tool. We can point to this icon and say that no one can deny the full personhood of a fetus and be free of blasphemy.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 18, 2013, 11:19:29 PM
Quote
Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion.

This is precisely the reasoning used by Robert Lentz, William Hart McNichols, and their protegees, to justify their "icons".

And you dismiss the argument because a few bad eggs use it? That isn't logical thought or reasoning and shows your argument as being weak.

Some of the most evil human beings to live had some really good points about some things, even points that they used to justify their evil. Should we therefore completely dismiss those points altogether or simply recognize the abuse of the points by ill-intentioned men?

You don't just dismiss something because a few bad guys use it. Even heretics like Nestorius and Arius got a lot of points right even if one or two was terribly wrong.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 18, 2013, 11:34:25 PM
I suppose you haven't argued with LBK about iconography before.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: NicholasMyra on January 18, 2013, 11:38:48 PM
It also has that "photo snap-shot" effect that pseudo-iconography often does.

What do you mean by this?
I mean that it looks like it caught figures in a moment of time, carrying some sort of nervous motion into the picture.

An icon, by contrast, is meant to re-capitulate the whole of the event or person depicted, not merely a snapshot of a particular second in time.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 19, 2013, 03:39:05 AM

I don't see how some of you think we should absolutely strictly adhere to iconographic depictions. By this, I mean that people seem to think that new types of icons or events that previously weren't depicted, or elements previously foreign to a a particular icon should be anathema.

On the contrary:

(http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/icons/St%20John%20Max6.JPG)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HKZZPhnVUwY/TFNKAjXhjnI/AAAAAAAAABQ/5C_Lbw3neyU/s1600/sfintii_martiri_chinezi.jpg)


Note the Chinese architecture in the icon of the Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion and in the life icon of St John of Shanghai and San Francisco. Note also in St John's icon the Capitol building in Washington DC, and a street with cars, representing the Paris street where St John once served a panikhida in memory of an Serbian archhduke who had been assassinated there, an act representative of his foolishness for Christ. The Capitol represents St John's traveling to Washington to petition the American government to allow his flock, stranded on Tubabao in the Philippines after escaping Shanghai in 1949, to emigrate to the US. All are perfectly proper elements in their respective icons.

Quote
If this were our attitude, we wouldn't have Rublev's Trinity or many other elements in our iconography. It's a living tradition whose canon is adhered to but can be expanded and evolved and added to.

See above.

The Holy Trinity icon that St Andrei of Radonezh (Andrei Rublyev) painted was based on the already ancient icon composition of the Hospitality of Abraham. St Andrei's icon is a distillation of the theology of the events at the Oak of Mamre. It is as profound an expression of Trinitarian theology as any theological treatise, and it is all there, in a single painted panel.

Quote
Who cares if the fetus was t depicted before? Today we have to battle the heretical belief that you aren't a full human person until your birth. Is that not enough to show Christ was a full human person before his birth? We aren't just combating some regulation that is in favor of infanticide, we are combating heresy and blasphemy.

The meaning behind proper icons of the Visitation is the recognition of both St Elizabeth and the unborn Forerunner of the unborn Child of the Virgin as their Lord and their God, something proclaimed, and frequently so, in scripture and in hymnography, the latter which truly expresses the Orthodox consensus patrum.

Moreover, there is only a single historical (12thC) icon of the Annunciation which shoes the unborn Christ, and, even then, the Child is shown over his Mother's body not enclosed in the womb, but in a manner similar to Of the Sign icons, minus the mandorla of Uncreated Light. Again, hymnographers in every Orthodox culture, some of them saints, have consistently omitted any depiction of an unborn Christ.

Attempting to associate this imagery with anti-abortion campaigns has no scriptural or liturgical basis. Icons are not political playthings.

Quote
Their FIRST function ever was as a teaching tool.

Not quite. The first icon was the Mandylion (Not Made By Hands), and its purpose was to mediate the miraculous healing of King Abgar. Christ could not travel to Edessa to personally heal the king, so He sent the image of His face imprinted on cloth in His stead. The holiness of an icon is derived from its association with the prototype.This is the first and foremost iconographic principle which not only permits their painting and veneration, but also insists on their veneration. All else flows from this.

This action also proclaims the Incarnation, that fallen matter has been redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection.

Quote
We can point to this icon and say that no one can deny the full personhood of a fetus and be free of blasphemy.

No, we cannot. This image, painted by Christine Uveges (who is not even Orthodox) and others like her, was created as a vehicle for the promotion of pro-life causes. This cannot be denied. And, in doing so, this image ceases to be an icon, and becomes a sociopolitical tool, a mascot for the cause.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 19, 2013, 03:49:08 AM
And you dismiss the argument because a few bad eggs use it? That isn't logical thought or reasoning and shows your argument as being weak.

You may wish to reacquaint yourself with this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44810.0/all.html

Quote
Some of the most evil human beings to live had some really good points about some things, even points that they used to justify their evil. Should we therefore completely dismiss those points altogether or simply recognize the abuse of the points by ill-intentioned men?

For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14)

Quote
You don't just dismiss something because a few bad guys use it. Even heretics like Nestorius and Arius got a lot of points right even if one or two was terribly wrong.

While God Himself will ultimately judge their souls, the Church, through her sainted bishops, including St Nicholas of Myra, has decreed that both were heretics deserving of anathema. Good enough for me.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 19, 2013, 05:05:08 AM
LBK, you don't really offer any real rational arguments here. Instead of trying to base your argument on rejection of these icons based on YOUR expectations of what an icon is, maybe you ought to step back and look at it historically.

Firstly, the story about the image of Christ being sent to King Abgar is indeed as you say, but you are forgetting about the history of this story. The story itself, of the king sending an emissary to Christ dates back to the Fourth Century. However, in all the accounts that record his interaction with Christ, no image is mentioned until the 5th Century when it wasn't a miraculous image but a painting by a court artist. The story that Christ himself made the image didn't come about until about the 7th Century. So there may have been an image, but it probably wasn't made by Christ himself.

Also, then you may point to St Luke (my patron), but again, while a nice tradition that can teach us something, it is somewhat unlikely. He probably could not have painted an image of Mary and Christ when he was a child. This just doesn't add up, especially since he lived pretty far away when Christ was young. Also, the icon(s) that were reported to be this image are all far too recent, and they could be argued to be as copies, but not stylistically since the style we see today really didn't arise until the era between 1100 and 1400.

I also am a bit wrong about the first images being to teach, this became a function of icons, however the first function of Christian iconography was communication and simple depiction of Biblical events. It's a known historical fact that our idea of the "Icon" and its veneration didn't arise until the mid hundreds. The first images weren't venerated as those of today or treated in the same manner, though they are still considered iconography. They form the very basis of what icons have become. Yet to absolutely ignore the facts and refuse to see how much it has changed and evolved over time and insist on static uniformity and absolute legalistic conformity is to completely ignore the real history of it.

And why is the Byzantine style so prominent? The same reasons the liturgy of St John is. Because of the Byzantine synthesis and the power and influence the Greeks had over the whole Eastern Orthodox Church from Chalcedonian Alexandria to Russia. It's a wonderful tradition but it is not the only one and is not the only way.

Also, our iconography has evolved and changed profoundly over the centuries, just like our Liturgy, and to ignore this is to willingly be in ignorance about ones own Church and to do a great disservice to those who paint icons and work within that tradition.

As I told you LBK, the abortion debate is not a political debate, it's theological. You MUST recognize this, because Christ MUST have been a human person from his conception. Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well, because he was the incarnate Word of God made flesh.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on January 19, 2013, 08:24:56 AM
I also am a bit wrong about the first images being to teach, this became a function of icons, however the first function of Christian iconography was communication and simple depiction of Biblical events.

I see some Protestant theories here.
y
Quote
As I told you LBK, the abortion debate is not a political debate, it's theological. You MUST recognize this, because Christ MUST have been a human person from his conception. Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well, because he was the incarnate Word of God made flesh.

OK, He must. Does that mean is it necessary to put Him on political banners? Don't think so.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Jules_Grant on January 19, 2013, 09:40:38 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/SerBac.jpg)

Check this one out, made by an apparently homosexual Catholic priest. I have some liberal views on the issues outside of marriage before God (as in the Church marrying the couple, they can do what they want as long as the Church is not being forced to do it), but using an icon as a poster for supporting marriage, also being it's erotic, is inappropriate and not glorifying God.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 19, 2013, 12:26:04 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/SerBac.jpg)

Check this one out, made by an apparently homosexual Catholic priest. I have some liberal views on the issues outside of marriage before God (as in the Church marrying the couple, they can do what they want as long as the Church is not being forced to do it), but using an icon as a poster for supporting marriage, also being it's erotic, is inappropriate and not glorifying God.

This isn't a strange icon, it's schlock...
www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.0.html

This discussion is more about canonical icons that are just a bit strange. Most icons by Mr. Lentz are uncanonical and schlock...

The only one of his schlock icons that I kind of like is his "Christ of Maryknoll". I think we should have a more canonical image painted of Christ in a camp, maybe with gulag prisoners/martyrs under the Soviet Union.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: sheenj on January 19, 2013, 12:28:22 PM
I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.

(http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/cst02.jpg)

You can buy it here (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/cst02.htm)

I'm wondering, doesn't tradition hold that the child in Christ's lap was actually St. Ignatius of Antioch? So shouldn't the child in this icon have a halo around his head?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 19, 2013, 12:36:08 PM
I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.

(http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/cst02.jpg)

You can buy it here (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/cst02.htm)

I'm wondering, doesn't tradition hold that the child in Christ's lap was actually St. Ignatius of Antioch? So shouldn't the child in this icon have a halo around his head?

I think that is a later tradition as St Ignatius probably wasn't born until after Christ's resurrection. It's a pious belief and tradition that one can hold to, but I don't think it's by any means official, like the story about St Dismas and Christs family.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Jules_Grant on January 19, 2013, 01:26:26 PM
This isn't a strange icon, it's schlock...
www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.0.html

This discussion is more about canonical icons that are just a bit strange. Most icons by Mr. Lentz are uncanonical and schlock...

The only one of his schlock icons that I kind of like is his "Christ of Maryknoll". I think we should have a more canonical image painted of Christ in a camp, maybe with gulag prisoners/martyrs under the Soviet Union.

Haha, I just realised. I missed the difference.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 19, 2013, 06:45:33 PM
LBK, you don't really offer any real rational arguments here. Instead of trying to base your argument on rejection of these icons based on YOUR expectations of what an icon is, maybe you ought to step back and look at it historically.

Demanding rational arguments as the standard for the veracity of Christianity is not how Orthodoxy works.

Quote
Firstly, the story about the image of Christ being sent to King Abgar is indeed as you say, but you are forgetting about the history of this story. The story itself, of the king sending an emissary to Christ dates back to the Fourth Century. However, in all the accounts that record his interaction with Christ, no image is mentioned until the 5th Century when it wasn't a miraculous image but a painting by a court artist. The story that Christ himself made the image didn't come about until about the 7th Century. So there may have been an image, but it probably wasn't made by Christ himself.

The Orthodox Church celebrates the miracle of the Mandylion liturgically. If the Church has seen it fit to do so, who am I to argue? The feast day is August 16. Here is the text for Vespers and Matins:

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/16august.htm

Quote
It's a known historical fact that our idea of the "Icon" and its veneration didn't arise until the mid hundreds. The first images weren't venerated as those of today or treated in the same manner, though they are still considered iconography.

Evidence, please.

Quote
And why is the Byzantine style so prominent? The same reasons the liturgy of St John is. Because of the Byzantine synthesis and the power and influence the Greeks had over the whole Eastern Orthodox Church from Chalcedonian Alexandria to Russia. It's a wonderful tradition but it is not the only one and is not the only way.

This simply refers to artistic style, for want of a better word. The Georgian church is very ancient, and developed its own distinctive "look", independent of Constantinople. But the matter you're disputing has nothing to do with painting styles, but with content.

Quote
Also, our iconography has evolved and changed profoundly over the centuries, just like our Liturgy, and to ignore this is to willingly be in ignorance about ones own Church and to do a great disservice to those who paint icons and work within that tradition.

Any evolution in iconography must be in harmony with the liturgical and patristic traditions of the Church. Individual self-expression, or the proclamation of a sociopolitical view has no part in such evolution. If a hymnographer were to pen hymns and prayers reflecting his own views or promoting a "cause", is this acceptable?
Quote
As I told you LBK, the abortion debate is not a political debate, it's theological. You MUST recognize this, because Christ MUST have been a human person from his conception. Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well, because he was the incarnate Word of God made flesh.

So you presume to know better than the multitudes of iconographers who have faithfully served the Church and proclaimed her teachings through the works of their hands? Are you now proclaiming yourself as a saint and Father?

Your shrill attempts at defending an image, painted by someone who is not Orthodox, and known to have been painted specifically to promote a particular sociopolitical cause, betrays your ignorance of what iconography is and stands for.


Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 19, 2013, 07:41:57 PM
LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 19, 2013, 10:00:43 PM
LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

On the contrary. I am simply articulating what the Church teaches and proclaims about iconography. You, in your zeal to defend an image which is not part of Orthodox tradition, and used for sociopolitical ends, who is being fanatical. You have even presumptuously declared "Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well". By what authority do you make this claim?

Quote
I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

On creation: A literal seven-day creation is not a dogma of the Church. Even early Fathers did not subscribe to it. To God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.

On the dwelling of the Mother of God in the Holy of Holies: Do not force me to embarrass you further by showing the great error of your line of thought.
Quote
You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

It takes many years to develop any sense of discernment of what is literal and what is not. You're also forgetting that God is quite capable of overturning the laws of nature if He so wishes.

Quote
Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You still haven't answered my request for evidence that the earliest icons were not venerated.

Quote
You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

The treatises of St John of Damascus and St Theodore of the Studion, to name but two iconophile saints, repeatedly quote their forebears, including very early Fathers, in terms which expose your assertion as false.

Devin, please don't embarrass yourself further. The image you are defending is not part of Orthodox tradition. Get used to it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 19, 2013, 10:28:37 PM
LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

On the contrary. I am simply articulating what the Church teaches and proclaims about iconography. You, in your zeal to defend an image which is not part of Orthodox tradition, and used for sociopolitical ends, who is being fanatical. You have even presumptuously declared "Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well". By what authority do you make this claim?

Quote
I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

On creation: A literal seven-day creation is not a dogma of the Church. Even early Fathers did not subscribe to it. To God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.

On the dwelling of the Mother of God in the Holy of Holies: Do not force me to embarrass you further by showing the great error of your line of thought.
Quote
You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

It takes many years to develop any sense of discernment of what is literal and what is not. You're also forgetting that God is quite capable of overturning the laws of nature if He so wishes.

Quote
Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You still haven't answered my request for evidence that the earliest icons were not venerated.

Quote
You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

The treatises of St John of Damascus and St Theodore of the Studion, to name but two iconophile saints, repeatedly quote their forebears, including very early Fathers, in terms which expose your assertion as false.

Devin, please don't embarrass yourself further. The image you are defending is not part of Orthodox tradition. Get used to it.

Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

You are trying to impose an ultra-pious, fanatical ridgidity on the Church that, THANK GOD does not exist except in schismatic groups.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 19, 2013, 10:47:34 PM
Quote
Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

And you know this how? Oh, please forgive me. I've only been Orthodox for 50 years. I must defer to your greater discernment.

Quote
No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

Because Fr Thomas Hopko, Jeannie Constantinou, Dcn Brian Patrick Mitchell, and others influenced by a particular coterie at St Vladimir's say so?

Quote
As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

Yet, for 2000 years, iconographers faithfully serving the Church have consistently done otherwise, while unfailingly and clearly expressing and proclaiming the full humanity of Christ. I'll take the testimony of the works of their hands over your shrill and mistaken insistence any day.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 19, 2013, 11:02:41 PM
Quote
Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

And you know this how? Oh, please forgive me. I've only been Orthodox for 50 years. I must defer to your greater discernment.

Quote
No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

Because Fr Thomas Hopko, Jeannie Constantinou, Dcn Brian Patrick Mitchell, and others influenced by a particular coterie at St Vladimir's say so?

Quote
As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

Yet, for 2000 years, iconographers faithfully serving the Church have consistently done otherwise, clearly expressing and proclaiming the full humanity of Christ. I'll take the testimony of the works of their hands over your shrill and mistaken insistence any day.

It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

Or because the tradition of her dwelling in the temple doesn't date to the first few centuries and only appears prominently in hymnography which often is very allegorical?

I'd wager those people you mentioned are far more knowledgable than you on the subject, along with the support of historical evidence.

You argue that they have purposely not shown Christ as a fetus yet that is a fallacious argument, absence doesn't equal denial or rejection. Besides, I doubt any of them had to deal with a nation with majority Christians trying to justify state-sponsered or legalized infanticide.

Like I said before LBK, offer me a rational, logical arguments. If you can't defend your views without falling into logical fallacies, then you're is no argument at all. I don't try to twist reality to fit my view of Christianity or the Church. I don't try to make up excuses why something that didn't happen in fact did.

The earliest icons (keep in mind, iconography doesn't just mean your narrow definition) were symbols like a simple cross, the chi rho, the fish, Jesus as the Good Shepherd/sheep bearer, Jesus as sol invictus. These were images communicating a Christian message that would be Unrecognizable to non-Christians as being Christian.

The other images were done exactly as the Jews were doing at the time, depicting biblical stories, mainly on the walls of the tombs for their dead, and in the cavities themselves.

These images weren't kissed or venerated like those of later times.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 20, 2013, 01:28:01 AM
Devin, you're sounding just like JamesRottnek in the "Should I destroy this icon?" thread. In your slavish defense of an image of heterodox tradition, you have blinded and deafened yourself to any attempt to show your error.
Quote
It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

I have resisted posting the following, but you give me no choice.

I have studied iconography for much longer than you've been alive. I have written monographs on iconographic subjects, including several on uncanonical and suspect images, and have held lectures and talks on such matters. I have made these available to some twelve Orthodox priests, of a variety of traditions, a bishop of metropolitan rank, and no fewer than six working iconographers, and urged them to offer correction and advice. None of them have seen it fit to correct anything I have written. My materials have been used by them for teaching and pastoral purposes.

Priests have sought my advice on the provision of icons for their churches. Iconographers have also approached me, and still do, for guidance on unusual commissions they have received.

But, I guess I must defer to you, Devin. Your time in Orthodoxy is obviously vastly superior in knowledge and discernment than these experienced clergymen and iconographers, not to mention saints and Fathers, let alone a mere grumpy old fart like me.  ::)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 20, 2013, 01:31:16 AM
Devin, you're sounding just like JamesRottnek in the "Should I destroy this icon?" thread. In your slavish defense of an image of heterodox tradition, you have blinded and deafened yourself to any attempt to show your error.
Quote
It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

I have resisted posting the following, but you give me no choice.

I have studied iconography for much longer than you've been alive. I have written monographs on iconographic subjects, including several on uncanonical and suspect images, and have held lectures and talks on such matters. I have made these available to some twelve Orthodox priests, of a variety of traditions, a bishop of metropolitan rank, and no fewer than six working iconographers, and urged them to offer correction and advice. None of them have seen it fit to correct anything I have written. My materials have been used by them for teaching and pastoral purposes.

Priests have sought my advice on the provision of icons for their churches. Iconographers have also approached me, and still do, for guidance on unusual commissions they have received.

But, I guess I must defer to you, Devin. Your time in Orthodoxy is obviously vastly superior in knowledge and discernment than these experienced clergymen and iconographers, not to mention saints and Fathers, let alone a mere grumpy old fart like me.  ::)


Which jurisdiction are you a part of? And what jurisdiction were those iconographers and priests in?

If you say ROCOR, then there's no way I can take you seriously and I'll probably fall on my butt laughing.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on January 20, 2013, 01:38:15 AM
Things sure are getting heated in here. And over an actual theological topic for once!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 20, 2013, 01:40:36 AM
Things sure are getting heated in here. And over an actual theological topic for once!

I don't feel any heat, except from my cup of tea. Which I'm casually sipping waiting to see if my shot in the dark was on the money.

I'd much rather fall in with the so-called "innovationists" and "intellectuals" of St. Vladimir's Seminary than with ROCOR or ultra-conservative Orthodoxy.

I know at least two of my Priests went to St. Vladimir's. If, like LBK suggests, they and those involved with them or in their tradition are wrong, I don't want to be right.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on January 20, 2013, 01:43:04 AM
Between this and the other thread, just in the last hour or so, I can remember people saying words like dumb, idiocy, and "no way I can take you seriously." If that's not heated then slap my butt and call me Susan!  :angel:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 20, 2013, 01:43:41 AM
Between this and the other thread, just in the last hour or so, I can remember people saying words like dumb, idiocy, and "no way I can take you seriously." If that's not heated then slap my butt and call me Susan!  :angel:

I've tried to avoid using dumb and idiocy, did I use those without thinking? I am quite tired...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: William on January 20, 2013, 02:03:05 AM
yo
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 20, 2013, 02:03:27 AM
Devin, you're sounding just like JamesRottnek in the "Should I destroy this icon?" thread. In your slavish defense of an image of heterodox tradition, you have blinded and deafened yourself to any attempt to show your error.
Quote
It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

I have resisted posting the following, but you give me no choice.

I have studied iconography for much longer than you've been alive. I have written monographs on iconographic subjects, including several on uncanonical and suspect images, and have held lectures and talks on such matters. I have made these available to some twelve Orthodox priests, of a variety of traditions, a bishop of metropolitan rank, and no fewer than six working iconographers, and urged them to offer correction and advice. None of them have seen it fit to correct anything I have written. My materials have been used by them for teaching and pastoral purposes.

Priests have sought my advice on the provision of icons for their churches. Iconographers have also approached me, and still do, for guidance on unusual commissions they have received.

But, I guess I must defer to you, Devin. Your time in Orthodoxy is obviously vastly superior in knowledge and discernment than these experienced clergymen and iconographers, not to mention saints and Fathers, let alone a mere grumpy old fart like me.  ::)


Which jurisdiction are you a part of? And what jurisdiction were those iconographers and priests in?

If you say ROCOR, then there's no way I can take you seriously and I'll probably fall on my butt laughing.

The clergy and iconographers are of several ethnicities, several canonical jurisdictions, and several countries. Insularity is not a strong point of mine, unlike yourself, my volatile young friend.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 20, 2013, 02:28:23 AM
Devin, you're sounding just like JamesRottnek in the "Should I destroy this icon?" thread. In your slavish defense of an image of heterodox tradition, you have blinded and deafened yourself to any attempt to show your error.
Quote
It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

I have resisted posting the following, but you give me no choice.

I have studied iconography for much longer than you've been alive. I have written monographs on iconographic subjects, including several on uncanonical and suspect images, and have held lectures and talks on such matters. I have made these available to some twelve Orthodox priests, of a variety of traditions, a bishop of metropolitan rank, and no fewer than six working iconographers, and urged them to offer correction and advice. None of them have seen it fit to correct anything I have written. My materials have been used by them for teaching and pastoral purposes.

Priests have sought my advice on the provision of icons for their churches. Iconographers have also approached me, and still do, for guidance on unusual commissions they have received.

But, I guess I must defer to you, Devin. Your time in Orthodoxy is obviously vastly superior in knowledge and discernment than these experienced clergymen and iconographers, not to mention saints and Fathers, let alone a mere grumpy old fart like me.  ::)


Which jurisdiction are you a part of? And what jurisdiction were those iconographers and priests in?

If you say ROCOR, then there's no way I can take you seriously and I'll probably fall on my butt laughing.

The clergy and iconographers are of several ethnicities, several canonical jurisdictions, and several countries. Insularity is not a strong point of mine, unlike yourself, my volatile young friend.

I find it odd that you accuse me of this, when just earlier you derided St Vladimirs Seminary and people like Dr Jeanni Constantinou and Fr Thomas Hopko. I've only seen such opinions (of SVS) from ultra-conservatives, primarily from ROCOR.

I simply cannot take ultra-conservative Orthodox seriously anymore.

Like I said, if St Vladimirs Seminary and people like Fr Thomas Hopko, Dr Jeannie Constantinou, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Fr. Georges Florovsky, Fr John Romanides, Vladimir Lossky, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware are wrong, then I don't want to be right.
(I'm aware not all are "equal" or say the same things, but I feel all in some ways are scholars and intellectuals)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 20, 2013, 02:47:22 AM
Not everything these people say or write is wrong, but neither is their every utterance right. Unfortunately, some modern Orthodox writers over-emphasize the "rational arguments" (a stance which explains why you have insisted I provide for my positions), and make claims such as "oh, there's no way the young Virgin could have possibly entered the Holy of Holies, let alone spent any length of time there". I'll not dwell further on that particular topic, as it is not the subject of this thread; suffice to say that this view flies in the face of what the Church teaches, and has taught, for many centuries.



Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on January 20, 2013, 03:07:12 AM
88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 20, 2013, 03:15:21 AM
Not everything these people say or write is wrong, but neither is their every utterance right. Unfortunately, some modern Orthodox writers over-emphasize the "rational arguments" (a stance which explains why you have insisted I provide for my positions), and make claims such as "oh, there's no way the young Virgin could have possibly entered the Holy of Holies, let alone spent any length of time there". I'll not dwell further on that particular topic, as it is not the subject of this thread; suffice to say that this view flies in the face of what the Church teaches, and has taught, for many centuries.

That is where you're wrong because it hasn't taught that. That is from hymnography, which is very often allegorical. The Theotokos, during Holy Week, may be portrayed as knowing Christ will raise, but she didn't know this. Hymnography will add many lines of dialogue which never actually occurred, all of this and more is illustrated by an intellectual, rational study of the tradition and hymnology of the Church.

People who don't know better will conflate allegory and poetic language for communicating a literal factual truth.

In fact, many of these things you say the church has taught (like Mary and the Temple) weren't taught until the hymns were written many centuries after the events.

We know the Theotokos served at the Temple, or at least, that's the ancient tradition, but there's absolutely no evidence that she stepped past the court for the women, let alone was carried into the Holy of Holies, which would have been impossible.

Our hymns speak of people recognizing Mary and more especially Christ as the miraculous child, Gods Son. This was not at all the case, everyone assumed Mary was a normal girl and that Christ was a normal child who was the biological son of Joseph.

Again, it's like people who take the conflicting accounts in the Gospels and try to jump through hoops trying to justify that because they differ on what really is the same event, that there must have been two different but similar events. Then they assume the Church teaches this sort of flawed method of interpretation.

Iconography is no different, you're taking a post 5th/6th Century perspective on "icons" and projecting it all the way back to Christ which is wrong. It is true that we've always had iconography (not in the narrow sense many think of it today) and its been venerated (rather, respected), but it isn't the case that the correct, but more pronounced veneration after the 7th Council existed for the several centuries prior. In reality, what had existed before became magnified after iconoclasm and you began to have individual icons become much more popular, as well as bowing to them and kissing them.

Like I've said already before LBK, I'm going to listen to these Orthodox "intellectuals" before I'll listen to ultra-conservatives, no matter their jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 20, 2013, 03:21:34 AM
88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.

You confuse tradition with Tradition, things like Mary being carried into the Holy of Holies isn't Tradition, and I CAN choose to reject it as literal history. I accept its allegorical meaning and theological truth, but certainly not the false idea that its historical fact.

Like St George and the Dragon, which isn't historical fact either and isn't Tradition.

You REALLY don't like books do you Michal? Every post you reply to me somehow includes some denunciation of books or reading them.

Like I said, if SVS and the Orthodox intellectuals mentioned above are wrong, I don't want to be right, period. If it came to a choice between a ultra-conservative, ROCOR-esque faith and intellectual, rational, scholarly Orthodoxy, I'll choose the latter.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on January 20, 2013, 03:37:38 AM
88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.

You confuse tradition with Tradition, things like Mary being carried into the Holy of Holies isn't Tradition, and I CAN choose to reject it as literal history.

12 mayor feasts are not big-T. So what is left, then?

Quote
You REALLY don't like books do you Michal? Every post you reply to me somehow includes some denunciation of books or reading them.

I like books. However I do not believe I can read a few of them and claim I know everything. There is a world outside books, authors can be biased, they can err to, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 20, 2013, 03:39:23 AM
Quote
intellectual, rational, scholarly Orthodoxy

There's your problem right there, Devin. We are neither scholastics nor protestants.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 20, 2013, 03:32:05 PM
LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

On the contrary. I am simply articulating what the Church teaches and proclaims about iconography. You, in your zeal to defend an image which is not part of Orthodox tradition, and used for sociopolitical ends, who is being fanatical. You have even presumptuously declared "Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well". By what authority do you make this claim?

Quote
I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

On creation: A literal seven-day creation is not a dogma of the Church. Even early Fathers did not subscribe to it. To God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.

On the dwelling of the Mother of God in the Holy of Holies: Do not force me to embarrass you further by showing the great error of your line of thought.
Quote
You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

It takes many years to develop any sense of discernment of what is literal and what is not. You're also forgetting that God is quite capable of overturning the laws of nature if He so wishes.

Quote
Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You still haven't answered my request for evidence that the earliest icons were not venerated.

Quote
You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

The treatises of St John of Damascus and St Theodore of the Studion, to name but two iconophile saints, repeatedly quote their forebears, including very early Fathers, in terms which expose your assertion as false.

Devin, please don't embarrass yourself further. The image you are defending is not part of Orthodox tradition. Get used to it.

Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

You are trying to impose an ultra-pious, fanatical ridgidity on the Church that, THANK GOD does not exist except in schismatic groups.

You used to be a shrill extremist on the conservative side. Now you are a shrill extremist on the liberal side. Either way, your problem is shrill extremism.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 20, 2013, 03:34:39 PM
Things sure are getting heated in here. And over an actual theological topic for once!

I don't feel any heat, except from my cup of tea. Which I'm casually sipping waiting to see if my shot in the dark was on the money.

I'd much rather fall in with the so-called "innovationists" and "intellectuals" of St. Vladimir's Seminary than with ROCOR or ultra-conservative Orthodoxy.

I know at least two of my Priests went to St. Vladimir's. If, like LBK suggests, they and those involved with them or in their tradition are wrong, I don't want to be right.

Father Alexander Schmemann and Father Seraphim Rose both agree, you need to be slapped.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 20, 2013, 04:44:13 PM
LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

On the contrary. I am simply articulating what the Church teaches and proclaims about iconography. You, in your zeal to defend an image which is not part of Orthodox tradition, and used for sociopolitical ends, who is being fanatical. You have even presumptuously declared "Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well". By what authority do you make this claim?

Quote
I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

On creation: A literal seven-day creation is not a dogma of the Church. Even early Fathers did not subscribe to it. To God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.

On the dwelling of the Mother of God in the Holy of Holies: Do not force me to embarrass you further by showing the great error of your line of thought.
Quote
You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

It takes many years to develop any sense of discernment of what is literal and what is not. You're also forgetting that God is quite capable of overturning the laws of nature if He so wishes.

Quote
Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You still haven't answered my request for evidence that the earliest icons were not venerated.

Quote
You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

The treatises of St John of Damascus and St Theodore of the Studion, to name but two iconophile saints, repeatedly quote their forebears, including very early Fathers, in terms which expose your assertion as false.

Devin, please don't embarrass yourself further. The image you are defending is not part of Orthodox tradition. Get used to it.

Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

You are trying to impose an ultra-pious, fanatical ridgidity on the Church that, THANK GOD does not exist except in schismatic groups.

You used to be a shrill extremist on the conservative side. Now you are a shrill extremist on the liberal side. Either way, your problem is shrill extremism.

You beat me to it, Shanghaiski.

Not too long ago, he was a strident conservative. IIRC, he expressed a wish that certain people in history could be posthumously excommunicated for their support for non-Orthodox practices, including Tsar Peter the Great. He is also on record for stating pews are not Orthodox, and advocating the replacement of western-style iconography in churches with those of more traditional style (the latter I agree with, though, in most cases, much care needs to be taken to convince people out of their sentimental attachment to them - not easy).

Now we see him attempting to defend an image which is not from Orthodox tradition, painted by a non-Orthodox artist, who painted it for the purpose of people using it as a mascot for a sociopolitical cause.

I can understand a tempering of overdone and misplaced zeal, be that more young converts would do so. But the pendulum seems to have swung too far in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mabsoota on January 20, 2013, 05:55:18 PM
i have only read page 4 (sorry), but in the coptic tradition we certainly do have an unbroken tradition of venerating icons, and were only minimally affected by the iconoclasm controversy and it's overturn. also in the ethiopian / eritrean tradition there have been found many very early icons.
eg. as early as 300's we find saint antony the great venerating the robe (woven from grass palm) of saint paul the first hermit, who had predeceased him. the dead boy on whom the robe was placed came back to life through the intercessions of saint paul and by the grace of God.

we have a less of a european 'renaissance' way of interpreting tradition than do some of the modern EO writers that 88devin12 (nice name by the way) quotes.
we are more asian / african in our approach to tradition, looking at what the Biblical and historical mysteries can teach us about our relationship with God, without stressing too much on the small details (for example; did saint mary really wear blue, or is it just symbolic?)

as someone raised in europe, i have found the less analytical approach to faith to be very helpful.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mabsoota on January 20, 2013, 06:20:58 PM
well, i went back through the thread and found this point on early veneration of icons had already been made on page 1:

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this?

I have seen several modern Orthodox icons of the Good Shepherd. In the Roman Catacombs, there are something like 114 documented representations of the Good Shepherd, dating from the 2nd through 3rd century. There's also a very famous late antique/early Byzantine version of the Good Shepherd in Ravenna. Reproduced below:

(http://www.geocities.com/anotski_25/history_images/classical_architecture/painting-32.jpg)

Images of a shepherd with a lamb over his back were very popular -- and very symbolic -- in the Greco-Roman world for a number of centuries, especially in the second century. Most of the philosophical schools (among which Christianity was sometimes numbered) taught that right-living consisted of (1) piety toward God and (2) philanthropy/benevolence toward neighbors.

Piety was depicted by a man in an orans position (lifting up hands in prayer). Philanthropy by a man with a sheep over his shoulders. These twin images appear on many pagan (and Christian) sarcophagi, and were even made part of the State's iconography by particularly philosophically inclined emperors like Marcus Aurelius.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 21, 2013, 04:20:31 AM
well, i went back through the thread and found this point on early veneration of icons had already been made on page 1:

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this?

I have seen several modern Orthodox icons of the Good Shepherd. In the Roman Catacombs, there are something like 114 documented representations of the Good Shepherd, dating from the 2nd through 3rd century. There's also a very famous late antique/early Byzantine version of the Good Shepherd in Ravenna. Reproduced below:

(http://www.geocities.com/anotski_25/history_images/classical_architecture/painting-32.jpg)

Images of a shepherd with a lamb over his back were very popular -- and very symbolic -- in the Greco-Roman world for a number of centuries, especially in the second century. Most of the philosophical schools (among which Christianity was sometimes numbered) taught that right-living consisted of (1) piety toward God and (2) philanthropy/benevolence toward neighbors.

Piety was depicted by a man in an orans position (lifting up hands in prayer). Philanthropy by a man with a sheep over his shoulders. These twin images appear on many pagan (and Christian) sarcophagi, and were even made part of the State's iconography by particularly philosophically inclined emperors like Marcus Aurelius.

I don't think the ancient origin and presence of iconography is being disputed. I think we all know its existed since the Apostles since it was inherited from Judaism.

What I was saying earlier, was that the way iconography was viewed and treated evolved over the first few hundred years and that they weren't kissing and bowing before the iconography until a few hundred years later.

However, just because such a kind veneration wasn't there to begin with doesnt mean its wrong, I mean we almost had them ripped from our hands for good, and it makes sense that we'd hold it as more dear after almost losing it altogether.

I assure you LBK and Michal, I'm not an extreme liberal. You can find others out there, especially popular Orthodox scholars, writers and speakers who agree with me on many of those things.

My mistake was not taking their advice and not confronting someone with it when they don't agree. I just feel offended when I'm told that I have to hold a strict view of icons, or that I must not be fully Orthodox because of my views. But of course, this is, unfortunately how the Internet works, and anyone who brings up any Orthodox topic on the net can almost guarantee that someone will eventually question their Orthodoxy.

I was wrong to bring the subject into public rather than keeping it among like-minded folk, and confronting someone directly who I knew wouldnt agree with what I was saying. There is a place within Orthodoxy for scholarly study, inquisitive and critical analysis, logical reasoning and exercise of intellect. We have a long history of Orthodox Intellectuals going back to St. Basil and even before him, but my mistake is trying to push the views of those whose opinions I value onto those who I know may even be afraid of such line of thinking.

Lastly Michal, I didn't get these from books, or at least not entirely. With the hundreds of books in English out there, there are also hundreds of podcasts and talks that are available for free which are done by people who are well respected by the Orthodox community and who even may have had prominence in our seminaries and organizations.

I must, however, bow out of this discussion and attempt to limit my activity from here on. My spiritual guides have never told me I am un-Orthodox in the ideas I hold, but they've given some advice to avoid discussion websites because they can get so offensive and to the unhealthy point of even doubting the Orthodoxy of others in the church. I hadn't heeded their words until now, and I feel that I should finally make an effort wife it seems these Orthodox websites have done nothing but cause scandal whenever any opinion is expressed at all, no matter how okay it may seem. This is nothing against the creators of this site, but just a statement on how these sort of things always work, whether they are Orthodox or not.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: AustralianDiaspora on January 30, 2013, 06:23:53 PM
Apologies if this has been talked about already (couldn't see it skimming through), but has anyone else seen the Icon depicting Christ as a child learning to walk?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 30, 2013, 06:48:36 PM
Apologies if this has been talked about already (couldn't see it skimming through), but has anyone else seen the Icon depicting Christ as a child learning to walk?

It doesn't strike me that that would be a traditional icon, but rather a piece of art.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on February 19, 2013, 10:12:29 AM
Just a little strange -I mean this beard :o

(http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20110315elpepucul_7/LCO340/Ies/San_Maximo.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 19, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
Just a little strange -I mean this beard :o

(http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20110315elpepucul_7/LCO340/Ies/San_Maximo.jpg)

Every single icon I've seen (dozens) of St Maximus the Greek all show him with a gigantic beard. It's impossible to mistake him for any other saint. He must have been quite a sight when he was alive!  :o  :laugh:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mabsoota on February 19, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
i bet he had to carefully wash and examine his beard on the last day before great lent, to make sure there were no particles of cheese or fish hidden inside!

 :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: That person on February 20, 2013, 02:27:00 PM
88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.
Just an English FYI: When you have a count noun like "books," you would use "fewer" instead of "less." "Less" is used for things that can't be exactly quantified, like "water," although you could have fewer liters of water. Native speakers screw this up pretty often, and it's not a huge deal,  but it's a personal annoyance, and I thought you might appreciate learning the distinction.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on February 20, 2013, 02:28:24 PM
88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.
Just an English FYI: When you have a count noun like "books," you would use "fewer" instead of "less." "Less" is used for things that can't be exactly quantified, like "water," although you could have fewer liters of water. Native speakers screw this up pretty often, and it's not a huge deal,  but it's a personal annoyance, and I thought you might appreciate learning the distinction.

ty
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 11, 2013, 05:09:05 PM

So, what about this one?

It seems strange to me only because Joachim and Anna are embracing....and above them is the Theotokos - as if she existed prior to them conceiving her.

It also looks like they are praying to her, in order to conceive a child.

Does it seem strange to anyone else?

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4141/4802718906_3aae431670_z.jpg)

Maybe, I am just reading too much in to it.



Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 11, 2013, 05:10:51 PM


...as compared to this one...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3577/3650092171_34c88b250f.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: NicholasMyra on March 11, 2013, 05:16:39 PM
I guess the Theotokos is their thought/desire bubble in that icon.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on March 11, 2013, 05:26:56 PM

So, what about this one?

It seems strange to me only because Joachim and Anna are embracing....and above them is the Theotokos - as if she existed prior to them conceiving her.

It also looks like they are praying to her, in order to conceive a child.

Does it seem strange to anyone else?

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4141/4802718906_3aae431670_z.jpg)

Maybe, I am just reading too much in to it.





Yes, something's wrong with that.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 11, 2013, 05:39:23 PM

So, what about this one?

It seems strange to me only because Joachim and Anna are embracing....and above them is the Theotokos - as if she existed prior to them conceiving her.

It also looks like they are praying to her, in order to conceive a child.

Does it seem strange to anyone else?

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4141/4802718906_3aae431670_z.jpg)

Maybe, I am just reading too much in to it.





Yes, something's wrong with that.

What is also problematic is the presence of the marital bed in the background. It is unnecessary, and a feature that is practically absent from the traditional historic iconography of this feast. It seems to have appeared only in recent years. I have also seen this feature in some contemporary icons of the Conception of St John the Baptist.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: choy on March 11, 2013, 05:42:46 PM
I guess the Theotokos is their thought/desire bubble in that icon.

Or being cleansed from Original Sin at the moment of conception ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 11, 2013, 05:49:49 PM


...as compared to this one...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3577/3650092171_34c88b250f.jpg)



The presence of Christ blessing, not the Mother of God, in the upper border is a great improvement on the first composition. However, there are a couple of errors in this one as well: St Joachim was an aged man at the time, so his hair and beard should be white or gray, not brown. The same error is seen in the first image, which also shows St Anna as youthful. The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" is frequently used liturgically and in the lives of saints), such as seen in icons of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste, or in icons of other martyrs where an angel is seen holding a crown above the saint's head. Sts Joachim and Anna lived to old age, they did not die as martyrs.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: NicholasMyra on March 11, 2013, 06:15:02 PM
I assumed the crowns represented that their house would become associated with royalty.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 11, 2013, 06:37:15 PM
I assumed the crowns represented that their house would become associated with royalty.

Understandable, but not the case. The usual iconographic way of showing someone is of noble birth is by their clothing: elaborate cuffs and necklines, and sometimes decorated outer garments. People of high birth who forsake their wealth and privilege for a life of poverty or monasticism are shown wearing plain outer garments in drab colors, while the neckline and cuffs of their inner tunic are decorated.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 11, 2013, 08:31:25 PM

Wow!  LBK, you are so smart!  I never knew that about the crowns.

You are definitely my go-to person when it comes to icons!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on March 11, 2013, 09:03:58 PM
I assumed the crowns represented that their house would become associated with royalty.

Understandable, but not the case. The usual iconographic way of showing someone is of noble birth is by their clothing: elaborate cuffs and necklines, and sometimes decorated outer garments. People of high birth who forsake their wealth and privilege for a life of poverty or monasticism are shown wearing plain outer garments in drab colors, while the neckline and cuffs of their inner tunic are decorated.

However, were not Anna and Joachim of the line of David?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 11, 2013, 09:27:26 PM
I assumed the crowns represented that their house would become associated with royalty.

Understandable, but not the case. The usual iconographic way of showing someone is of noble birth is by their clothing: elaborate cuffs and necklines, and sometimes decorated outer garments. People of high birth who forsake their wealth and privilege for a life of poverty or monasticism are shown wearing plain outer garments in drab colors, while the neckline and cuffs of their inner tunic are decorated.

However, were not Anna and Joachim of the line of David?

Joachim was from David's line, Anna from Aaron's. Being that as it may, the crowns in the second image posted speak of martyrdom, not of noble birth. Their presence in the image distorts what the Church teaches about these two saints.

Here are examples of historic icons of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste which show martyr's crowns floating in mid-air:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6-IhkW8bD0Q/TjStlO5jzeI/AAAAAAAAEII/qVxKDgQdQfQ/s1600/s1838003.jpg)

(http://pravicon.com/images/icons/9/9805.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 12, 2013, 12:15:32 AM
....so, what about this one?

(http://thehandmaid.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/holy-theotokos-icon.jpg?w=820)


....and is it okay for the Theotokos to wear the "crown"?  I've heard that is a RC invention, and that the Orthodox shun away from placing a crown on her head?

Is that true?



Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 12, 2013, 12:18:59 AM
That one was posted recently in the Schlock Icons thread, starting with this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.msg893114.html#msg893114
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 12, 2013, 12:23:14 AM

Got it!  Thanks!

I'm glad the "crown" is allowed.  We've got a really pretty icon in our church, where she's wearing a crown.



Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 12, 2013, 12:51:11 AM

Got it!  Thanks!

I'm glad the "crown" is allowed.  We've got a really pretty icon in our church, where she's wearing a crown.


It's not that crowns are actually prohibited, but they are an unnecessary addition which adds nothing useful or edifying to what is being expressed in the icon. In some cases, the combination of an elaborately-decorated riza/oklad and sumptuous crowns on both the Virgin's and Child's heads, turns the icon into a gaudy, glittering bauble, rather than a work of gravitas, stillness, and spiritual power. The covering of all but the faces and hands of the Virgin and Child also robs the icon of much of the detail which expresses and proclaims what the Church teaches.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 12, 2013, 06:29:54 PM

Here's another question I have - why is her cheek bleeding?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/601446_538357239542594_1486568665_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on March 12, 2013, 06:31:32 PM
Very good question.  :o
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 12, 2013, 06:32:07 PM
...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/398874_430490587040468_1734501706_n.jpg)

I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  :D

The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on March 12, 2013, 06:34:26 PM
I believe the globe thing with the Cross sticking out of it was a symbol of royalty in some countries. You see it in old tapestries of kings of England, for instance.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Orthodox11 on March 12, 2013, 06:38:36 PM
I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world

Globus cruciger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 12, 2013, 06:55:04 PM

Here's another question I have - why is her cheek bleeding?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/601446_538357239542594_1486568665_n.jpg)



The Iveron (Iverskaya) icon, named after the Athonite monastery, also known as Portaitissa (of the Portal) has quite a colorful history. During the ninth century, Emperor Theophilus, who was an iconoclast, ordered the wholesale destruction of icons, wherever they were. His troops would raid churches, houses, and anywhere they thought icons could be found. A soldier saw this icon of the Mother of God at a woman's house, and stabbed it with his sword. The Virgin's face immediately began to bleed, and the soldier fled in fright.

How this woman's icon found its way to Mt Athos is another, and wonderful, story.  :)

There are other icons of the Mother of God which have bled after being attacked. The Cypriot Makhairas (Of the Dagger) icon is one, where, IIRC, a Saracen attacked the icon, which bled. This miracle not only led him to repent of his act, but he was also later baptized into the Christian faith.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 12, 2013, 06:59:11 PM
...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/398874_430490587040468_1734501706_n.jpg)

I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  :D

The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...

Ah, yes, another product of the fevered imaginations of Russian ultranationalist ultramonarchist brigade, who regard the assassination of Tsar Nicholas as a "redeeming sacrifice", in the same way Christ's sacrifice redeems mankind. Vile, heretical rubbish. Schlock of the worst kind.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 12, 2013, 06:59:16 PM
Wow!  Nice.

We have a similar icon in our church.  I was told the story, that a man was driving his cart along a back road, and encountered a woman carrying a child, walking in the mud.  Feeling sorry for her, he stopped and offered to give her a ride.  She and her little boy, got in the back of the cart.

As he was driving along the oxen slowed, and he pulled out his whip to give them some encouragement.  As he reached back to get some speed, he felt that he had hit the woman in the back.  Fearing he had hurt her, he immediately stopped and jumped out to take a look.....she was gone, and in her place was an icon of the Mother of God, holding the Christ Child....with a bleeding cheek, where the whip had snapped at her.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 12, 2013, 07:00:23 PM
...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/398874_430490587040468_1734501706_n.jpg)

I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  :D

The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...

Ah, yes, another product of the fevered imaginations of Russian ultranationalist ultramonarchist brigade, who regard the assassination of Tsar Nicholas as a "redeeming sacrifice", in the same way Christ's sacrifice redeems mankind. Vile, heretical rubbish. Schlock of the worst kind.

Thank you.  I had thought the same thing....but, wanted to make sure it wasn't the Ukrainian in me imagining things.  :D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on March 13, 2013, 10:11:55 AM
The Iveron (Iverskaya) icon...

Very poor copy...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 13, 2013, 10:20:48 AM
The Iveron (Iverskaya) icon...

Very poor copy...

I've seen many western-style icons that are far more saccharine and mawkish.  :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 13, 2013, 11:03:44 AM
...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/398874_430490587040468_1734501706_n.jpg)

I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  :D

The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...

Ah, yes, another product of the fevered imaginations of Russian ultranationalist ultramonarchist brigade, who regard the assassination of Tsar Nicholas as a "redeeming sacrifice", in the same way Christ's sacrifice redeems mankind. Vile, heretical rubbish. Schlock of the worst kind.

Thank you.  I had thought the same thing....but, wanted to make sure it wasn't the Ukrainian in me imagining things.  :D


I've posted another image in similar vein in the "Schlock icons" thread, as is more appropriate  ;) :

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.msg896367.html#msg896367
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on March 15, 2013, 05:13:57 AM
(http://www.ortodoksi.net/images/4/43/Musta_saara.jpg) From the website of the Finnish Orthodox Church. I have no idea who is depicted here.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 15, 2013, 05:23:36 AM
....so, what about this one?

(http://thehandmaid.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/holy-theotokos-icon.jpg?w=820)


....and is it okay for the Theotokos to wear the "crown"?  I've heard that is a RC invention, and that the Orthodox shun away from placing a crown on her head?

Is that true?

Wow! That's beautiful.

We have Icons portraying St. Mary with a crown in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2594/stmaryam1jpeg.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/stmaryam1jpeg.png/)

(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/373/stmaryqueenofheavenjpeg.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/stmaryqueenofheavenjpeg.png/)



Selam

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 15, 2013, 05:57:01 AM
(http://www.ortodoksi.net/images/4/43/Musta_saara.jpg) From the website of the Finnish Orthodox Church. I have no idea who is depicted here.

http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo! :D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on March 15, 2013, 09:32:28 AM
http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo! :D

Quote
Saint Sarah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarah), also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]

This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Quote
Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on March 15, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo! :D

Quote
Saint Sarah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarah), also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]

This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Quote
Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.

Thank you for these quotations.

So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ???), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 15, 2013, 07:49:26 PM
So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ???), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.

St Mary of Egypt is one.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on March 15, 2013, 09:56:35 PM
http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo! :D

Quote
Saint Sarah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarah), also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]

This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Quote
Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.

Thank you for these quotations.

So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ???), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.
I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

(http://ypseni.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/saint_katherine_large.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 15, 2013, 10:19:53 PM
I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

(http://ypseni.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/saint_katherine_large.jpg)

Quite true. Many ancient icons and mosaics of St Catherine (and other female saints of noble birth or regal rank) show her wearing earrings, though they are far less obvious and distracting than those in the icon you posted. A famous one is from St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, from the 13th century:

(http://riversfromeden.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/st-catherine-icon-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on March 15, 2013, 10:39:27 PM
I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

(http://ypseni.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/saint_katherine_large.jpg)

Quite true. Many ancient icons and mosaics of St Catherine (and other female saints of noble birth or regal rank) show her wearing earrings, though they are far less obvious and distracting than those in the icon you posted. A famous one is from St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, from the 13th century:

(http://riversfromeden.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/st-catherine-icon-3.jpg)
Yea, most of the ones I have seen (such as the one on my church's iconostasis) show the earrings as smaller and more akin to the one you posted.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: yeshuaisiam on March 16, 2013, 08:04:19 AM
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/1EC1819.jpg)

I know it was an old post but -
Is this actually even an EO icon?

It looks COMPLETLY masonic.... Never seen one like this in an EO church or elsewhere...
Just curious.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on March 28, 2013, 11:30:59 AM
(http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net//hphotos-ak-ash4//483706_580659905280166_884190116_n.jpg)

Another one hypercolor.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 28, 2013, 11:39:14 AM
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/1EC1819.jpg)

I know it was an old post but -
Is this actually even an EO icon?

It looks COMPLETLY masonic.... Never seen one like this in an EO church or elsewhere...
Just curious.


Not an icon at all, and has never been considered as one. It's a masonic painting.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 28, 2013, 11:41:24 AM
(http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net//hphotos-ak-ash4//483706_580659905280166_884190116_n.jpg)

Another one hypercolor.

The Restoration of the Icons
, the festal icon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Nothing at all strange about it.

Hypercolor? What do you mean?  ???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on March 28, 2013, 11:44:18 AM
Hypercolor? What do you mean?  ???

Sweet pastel infantile coloristics. I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't like it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 28, 2013, 12:05:11 PM
Hypercolor? What do you mean?  ???

Sweet pastel infantile coloristics. I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't like it.

The icon you posted has been painted on a church wall. How an icon shows up on a computer screen is often not how it looks in its actual surroundings. Image processing, the settings on one's computer screen, and even the type of computer monitor can affect color perception. CRTs (picture tubes) are superior to flat screens in reproducing accuracy of color, shade, saturation, etc.

A good iconographer will examine the size of a church and the light which enters it, how much light, and where it falls, and select his palette (range of colors) accordingly. A large church which is well-lit by natural light can accept a bolder, stronger intensity of colors; a smaller church with diffuse lighting would be better served with a softer, warmer color range.

EDIT: The icon posted is probably also very large in real life, very likely several yards/meters across. What makes its way onto a computer monitor is a more highly-saturated version of the actual icon, due to the much smaller size of the digital image relative to the original.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Elisha on March 28, 2013, 01:01:15 PM
Hypercolor? What do you mean?  ???

Sweet pastel infantile coloristics. I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't like it.

The icon you posted has been painted on a church wall. How an icon shows up on a computer screen is often not how it looks in its actual surroundings. Image processing, the settings on one's computer screen, and even the type of computer monitor can affect color perception. CRTs (picture tubes) are superior to flat screens in reproducing accuracy of color, shade, saturation, etc.

A good iconographer will examine the size of a church and the light which enters it, how much light, and where it falls, and select his palette (range of colors) accordingly. A large church which is well-lit by natural light can accept a bolder, stronger intensity of colors; a smaller church with diffuse lighting would be better served with a softer, warmer color range.

EDIT: The icon posted is probably also very large in real life, very likely several yards/meters across. What makes its way onto a computer monitor is a more highly-saturated version of the actual icon, due to the much smaller size of the digital image relative to the original.


I would venture to guess that this acrylic painted either on canvass and glued onto the wall or possibly acrylic painted directly on the wall.  While I'm not an artist and don't really know jack, my parish is in the process (a long at that - pay as you go and I hope the iconographer is healthy enough in his life to finish the church) of real frescoes on the walls.  Real frescoes (if it is not the following, then it is just a mural) have the base painting done in about a 12-hour window directly on wet plaster.  The plaster itself is the binder for the pigment and when totally dry becomes chemically the same as marble.  The details are added in the following days, where the initial period (12-24 hours approx after the 12-hour window) can be in between fresco and secco, while afterwards is secco I think using egg tempera.  This is the time-tested method for painting churches that are hundreds of years old with enduring frescoes.  At least currently in America, most "frescoes" and even panel icons are done in acrylic, with the wall panels usually done on canvas in a studio then glued onto the walls.  From what I have been told, painting in acrylic can be done much faster than traditional methods like fresco and egg tempera, allowing the iconographer to "produce" a lot more work.  Unfortunately, as Michal says, since acrylic is a synthetic paint that is only 50 or so years old, it is not time tested and moreso, looks rather bright and garish (although I'm told it can be made more subdued if intended) in comparison to traditional methods.  There is a beautiful Serbian church in the Sacramento area that I have sung a couple of concerts at.  It appears they did acrylic directly on dry-plastered walls and there is damage, I believe from water/rain leaks, in the pendentives.  Frescoes would be resistant from this type of water leaks for the most part.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 28, 2013, 01:13:31 PM
Quote
since acrylic is a synthetic paint that is only 50 or so years old, it is not time tested and moreso, looks rather bright and garish

Do not think that egg tempera is automatically more subdued in tone than acrylics. We are used to seeing old tempera icons under a layer of darkened olifa varnish, and centuries-old frescoes and murals (any painting, not just iconography) under decades or centuries of soot and grime, whether or not a top coat of varnish has been applied. The work of art restorers and conservators constantly proves this.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on March 28, 2013, 08:36:08 PM
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/419175249_2e3e9c46ab_z.jpg)

I wish I could see the outside of the building better. This looks super occult from a distance. What is it depicting?
I was watching a Russian show this evening called Battle of the Prophets (Around minute 30 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK2iK-hFD6Q), which compares various modern day prophets.
It compared/contrasted the canonized Matrona of Moscow with Vanga of Bulgaria, noting that they were both blind. It said that Vanga had a large following, was treated very well by the government even during the era promoting scientific materialism. Patriarch Alexei II presided at her funeral and a little body part(?) from her that was specially kept did not decay.

It adds that she was not canonized due to the issue with the ikons that you and others posted on page two of this thread. They (or at least the Trinity one) were considered Masonic ikons and that there was a religious problem with the depiction of the Trinity as a result. A person interviewed who was close to Vanga claimed that the  (or his backers?) took people's money donations and built the ikons in this way without people or Vanga expecting this. It claims towards the end of the clip (about minute 37) that the clergy were forced to consecrate the chapel/church after refusing to do so.

MK was here
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 28, 2013, 09:09:46 PM
They (or at least the Trinity one) were considered Masonic ikons and that there was a religious problem with the depiction of the Trinity as a result.

There is no need for the existence of a masonic connection in the origin and painting of these images, There is a multitude of things wrong with all of them, not just the one of the Trinity, to render them completely and utterly unsuitable for veneration as icons.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on March 29, 2013, 12:01:44 AM
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/1EC1819.jpg)


Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.
Actually, it's masonic: http://goo.gl/vZWb9
Checkerboard floor is a giveaway, FYI. No idea why.

In the movie I mentioned above, it shows Nostradamus' tomb by a checker floor too.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Elisha on April 01, 2013, 11:59:04 AM
Quote
since acrylic is a synthetic paint that is only 50 or so years old, it is not time tested and moreso, looks rather bright and garish

Do not think that egg tempera is automatically more subdued in tone than acrylics. We are used to seeing old tempera icons under a layer of darkened olifa varnish, and centuries-old frescoes and murals (any painting, not just iconography) under decades or centuries of soot and grime, whether or not a top coat of varnish has been applied. The work of art restorers and conservators constantly proves this.


LBK,

Actually, for the most part, I am used to seeing relatively young (or brand new) egg tempera icons.  Nearly all of the icons in my church that are not the frescoes are painted by either our Matuschka (Mat. Anne Margitich) or Fr. Patrick Doolan, both of whom studied under Leonid Ouspensky in Paris before he reposed.  Nearly every acrylic icon I have seen has looked bright and garish in comparison (most notably those at the Antiochian parish where I grew up).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on April 08, 2013, 01:52:47 PM

Anybody know who the four figures are who are pouring the water?

This is the ceiling of a baptistry.

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/64833_10200499233420056_372639866_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on April 08, 2013, 01:55:23 PM
Saints, I think?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on April 08, 2013, 02:15:16 PM

I'm not so sure...they don't have halos.

One is pouring water from a pitcher, and the other has water coming from her hands.

At first I thought it was the four corners of the earth?  Four directions?  Four season?  

I have no idea.

Here's another pic, so you can see the baptismal font, below the images.

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/535684_10200499233700063_1556557530_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on April 08, 2013, 05:10:54 PM
Rain, cloud, salty water, sweet water?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on April 08, 2013, 07:30:45 PM

Well....I would think rain and cloud would be kind of the same thing.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on April 09, 2013, 12:29:10 AM
There is little of direct reference to four streams or four sources of water in the hymnography of either the baptismal service, or the feast of Theophany, nor the Great Blessing of Water, nor in St John Chrysostom's homily on the latter feast. In all four texts, the water of the Jordan, and of the baptismal font, is constantly referred to in plural form: waters, streams, etc. On this basis, unless I or others discover anything more concrete, it is safe to say that these four figures are purely decorative.

There is an inscription in white lettering on the right-hand side of the baptistry ceiling. While I think it is most likely a commemoration of patronage and/or of the iconographer, is there any chance, Liza, that you could post an enlargement of this section?  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on April 09, 2013, 12:34:15 AM

There you are!  I was awaiting your input!!!  :)

Yes, I will enlarge that section and post.

However, it's probably a "commemoration", as they were everywhere...."in memory of...., for the health of....."
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LenInSebastopol on April 09, 2013, 09:11:49 PM
(http://www.diocese.ko.if.ua/images/news/2941.jpg)

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC (http://kolomyya.org/se/sites/ep/?nid=19851)

I love keeping it real!
Thanks.



Lord, forgive me, a sinner
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LenInSebastopol on April 09, 2013, 09:23:17 PM
^ They're horrible! The holy ones on the iconostasis look ghastly, emaciated, ravaged, with a deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes, bordering on naked terror. Might be OK in a medieval Gothic church, but there is no place for such travesties in an Orthodox church! Whoever painted these images has NO idea of what iconography is. Where is the gravitas, stillness, dignity, reverence and spiritual power that good and proper icons possess and proclaim? What a crying shame that a beautiful iconostasis, made by skilled hands, has been spoiled by these artistic flights of fancy. Shameful.

Look at the outside of the church.
It looks like those people who would live in that kind of place.
Forgive me, but as a catechumen and totally unstudied in iconography, those definitely do not look "ideal" and fulfill your definitions above (thanks, I needed those words, due to my status).
And I do not want those to be my "ideal" of heaven.....but the function they serve is to remind me that getting to look like your ideal, one must look like them here on Earth....or at least the "better" ones probably did.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LenInSebastopol on April 09, 2013, 09:37:11 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/547332_485971198080845_1001428011_n.jpg)

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  >:( >:( >:(

Really? Can you document when and where it was first written?

Read post #109. And the image posted here was painted by Christine Uveges, a Byzantine Catholic, and used in Right to Life marches and campaigns. I have also seen the same composition painted by other artists, and used for the same purpose. The artist herself is on public record with this statement:

Quote
Every year we are in Washington D.C. at the ProLife Rally


And the artist has authorised that copies of this image are handed out during these rallies.

I repeat: the use of iconography to promote sociopolitical causes, even "good" ones, is a shameful debasement of what icons are and stand for.

No doubt, you are right. And it is true, two wrongs do not make a right.
And it is effective.
10,000 words is conveyed in a single pictograph. And for those women who have known Christ and forgotten in their hours of need, pray this reminds them.
We are NOT in heaven yet, Father. Some of us are left here on Earth to fight for what is good, true and beautiful.
There are sheep, there are shepherds and then there are sheep dogs who fight the wolves that will devour your flock. Let those that are sheep dogs fight the ones that do evil. Fast and pray.


Lord, forgive me, a sinner.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on June 04, 2013, 02:51:15 PM

I understand the icon, I've just never seen the Vine sprouting from Christ's side like that.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/944605_10151608880786738_398628003_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on June 04, 2013, 02:57:51 PM
10,000 words is conveyed in a single pictograph.

(http://www.dakotafence.com/3d/products/images/2009/SIGNS/sm/W3-1a%20Stop%20Ahead%20Symbol.jpg)

If you are sharing the road with me, I hope you are capable of reading very quickly.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DuxI on June 04, 2013, 04:42:51 PM

 A person interviewed who was close to Vanga claimed that the  (or his backers?) took people's money donations and built the ikons in this way without people or Vanga expecting this. It claims towards the end of the clip (about minute 37) that the clergy were forced to consecrate the chapel/church after refusing to do so.


Vanga knew about the icons and that there was a cannonical problem for the consecration of the church she built. Look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F32vZEzdFLs

From what i know, that Church is not consecrated at all.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on June 05, 2013, 12:23:49 AM

 A person interviewed who was close to Vanga claimed that the  (or his backers?) took people's money donations and built the ikons in this way without people or Vanga expecting this. It claims towards the end of the clip (about minute 37) that the clergy were forced to consecrate the chapel/church after refusing to do so.
Vanga knew about the icons and that there was a cannonical problem for the consecration of the church she built. Look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F32vZEzdFLs
From what i know, that Church is not consecrated at all.
DuxI,

Can you summarize what is in the interview? What is Vanga saying, and what is the bishop's response in the movie? Unfortunately I only know Russian, and all I clearly understood was that she said "this church is not good".

By the way, this surprisingly reminds me of a dream I had last night, where another teenager was walled inside a basement with a mural icon across another wall, and my friends and I were going to rescue him.

Quote
Vanga's dying wish was for her to be buried in the yard of her little house so that people could draw strength from her grave... The ‘Vanga' charity foundation decided to refuse her request and she was buried near the ‘St. Petka Bulgarian' church.
http://keramatad.com/english/landmarks-predela-hotel/rupite-st-petka-43
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alpo on June 05, 2013, 10:43:00 AM
What do you think of these?

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/4273445f0416278b4b0c6040f39758e3/tumblr_mhye8enbWL1rk4qt8o1_500.jpg)(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2735/images/2631/NAT-CHI__14334.1323201138.900.900.jpg)

I kind of like them.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on June 05, 2013, 10:47:54 AM
Who made them?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alpo on June 05, 2013, 10:50:18 AM
^No idea. I copied them from another forum. I'll ask where the poster found them.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on June 05, 2013, 10:58:43 AM
What do you think of these?

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/4273445f0416278b4b0c6040f39758e3/tumblr_mhye8enbWL1rk4qt8o1_500.jpg)(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2735/images/2631/NAT-CHI__14334.1323201138.900.900.jpg)

I kind of like them.

Save for the whole dove thing.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alpo on June 05, 2013, 11:07:32 AM
Save for the whole dove thing.

I don't mind the dove but I'd like to see Christ depicted as a small adult.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on June 05, 2013, 11:09:26 AM
Uncut Mountain Supply (http://www.uncutmountainsupply.com/categories/other-images/religious-paintings.html) sells them under "religious paintings." It doesn't say who originally did them unfortunately, but refers to them as "Chinese silk paintings."

They have others (but apparently lack the Annunciation one) as well:

(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2737/images/2633/J%2526IM-CHI__19528.1323201563.900.900.jpg)(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2736/images/2632/ADOR-CHI__62274.1323201271.900.900.jpg)(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2738/images/2637/CPM10__25241.1328207708.900.900.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on June 05, 2013, 11:10:55 AM
Save for the whole dove thing.

I don't mind the dove but I'd like to see Christ depicted as a small adult.

This makes the least sense possible. But hey, I am sure LBK will agree in part with both of us.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on June 05, 2013, 08:01:33 PM
Try this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17565.0.html
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: William on June 05, 2013, 09:21:54 PM
What are the the jury's thoughts on this one?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m7nZ69Jpwkw/Ua9Dr4wGQnI/AAAAAAAAjMM/R7rCRqllSxY/s1600/n26.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: JamesR on June 05, 2013, 09:40:13 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on June 05, 2013, 10:53:22 PM
What are the the jury's thoughts on this one?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m7nZ69Jpwkw/Ua9Dr4wGQnI/AAAAAAAAjMM/R7rCRqllSxY/s1600/n26.jpg)

Poking small printed icons into the frame of a larger one is nothing unusual. The photo of the little kid could be in memory of a child who died at a very young age. Fixing military insignia on the frame is a bit much, though.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on June 05, 2013, 10:53:57 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein

IIRC this and similar neo-Stalinist abominations were covered in the "Schlock icons" thread.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 05, 2013, 11:15:42 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein

Somewhere here I have discussed how this is not a proper canonical icon of Stalin. For one, there is no record he ever was a bishop. Instead, he should be portrayed in uniform. His death was under mysterious circs, so it could be martyrdom, but it works better if he's holding a scroll with some text of his voluminous writings. Or he could be depicted holding the cathedral of Christ the Savior.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on June 05, 2013, 11:25:20 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein

Somewhere here I have discussed how this is not a proper canonical icon of Stalin. For one, there is no record he ever was a bishop. Instead, he should be portrayed in uniform. His death was under mysterious circs, so it could be martyrdom, but it works better if he's holding a scroll with some text of his voluminous writings. Or he could be depicted holding the cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Very good, Grasshopper. Very good.  ;) :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: William on June 05, 2013, 11:31:51 PM
What are the the jury's thoughts on this one?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m7nZ69Jpwkw/Ua9Dr4wGQnI/AAAAAAAAjMM/R7rCRqllSxY/s1600/n26.jpg)

Poking small printed icons into the frame of a larger one is nothing unusual. The photo of the little kid could be in memory of a child who died at a very young age. Fixing military insignia on the frame is a bit much, though.

I mean the style of the icon of Christ.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on June 05, 2013, 11:38:38 PM
What are the the jury's thoughts on this one?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m7nZ69Jpwkw/Ua9Dr4wGQnI/AAAAAAAAjMM/R7rCRqllSxY/s1600/n26.jpg)

Poking small printed icons into the frame of a larger one is nothing unusual. The photo of the little kid could be in memory of a child who died at a very young age. Fixing military insignia on the frame is a bit much, though.

I mean the style of the icon of Christ.

Falls short in many ways. Bland and anodyne, IMHO.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DuxI on June 06, 2013, 06:56:29 PM

DuxI,

Can you summarize what is in the interview? What is Vanga saying, and what is the bishop's response in the movie? Unfortunately I only know Russian, and all I clearly understood was that she said "this church is not good".

By the way, this surprisingly reminds me of a dream I had last night, where another teenager was walled inside a basement with a mural icon across another wall, and my friends and I were going to rescue him.

Quote
Vanga's dying wish was for her to be buried in the yard of her little house so that people could draw strength from her grave... The ‘Vanga' charity foundation decided to refuse her request and she was buried near the ‘St. Petka Bulgarian' church.
http://keramatad.com/english/landmarks-predela-hotel/rupite-st-petka-43

Well, the Metropolitan comes to Vanga to tells her that there are obstacles for the consecration of the church,  that the canons are clear and that they need to be respected, because the Church is one, and if she is member of the church, she must respect that. She then answers to him that his words come late, that there are two days late. and also says that even the first time when the Metropolitan came, said that this church is not good. Then she says all will be fixed, that the place is holy, a place were young people have died and that it is late to talk now (for changes) after which she starts saying to him that he is Bishop, that and that the church will be consecrated and blessed, a priest will be put, a keeper. Then she says that he must be soft as cotton and sweet as sugar (in Slavic languages, that means to be good and gentle). The Metropolitan says that the people around her are confusing her, she says to him the same. Then she says that she was visited by 300 people a day, and that his job is easy and starts talking about her past. The Metropolitan tries to explain that things are not so simple, but she continues to say that the church will be consecrated and makes plans for keeper. She mentioned also the entry of Christ at the Temple and his reaction towards the traders.  The Metropolitan again tries to explain the things in the church, she then says that she wants to go to bed. Then the Metropolitan says to the person that makes the interview about the situation when the Apostles were brought before the Jewish priests and that what is made by God will not fall, and by man, no matter how much tries, will be destroyed. He ends saying: if this temple is a reason for the soul of Vanga to be lost, it is better the temple to be gone!

Тhat is all for which Vanga spoke with the Metropolitan.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on June 06, 2013, 08:16:31 PM

DuxI,

Can you summarize what is in the interview? What is Vanga saying, and what is the bishop's response in the movie? Unfortunately I only know Russian, and all I clearly understood was that she said "this church is not good".

By the way, this surprisingly reminds me of a dream I had last night, where another teenager was walled inside a basement with a mural icon across another wall, and my friends and I were going to rescue him.

Quote
Vanga's dying wish was for her to be buried in the yard of her little house so that people could draw strength from her grave... The ‘Vanga' charity foundation decided to refuse her request and she was buried near the ‘St. Petka Bulgarian' church.
http://keramatad.com/english/landmarks-predela-hotel/rupite-st-petka-43

Well, the Metropolitan comes to Vanga to tells her that there are obstacles for the consecration of the church,  that the canons are clear and that they need to be respected, because the Church is one, and if she is member of the church, she must respect that. She then answers to him that his words come late, that there are two days late. and also says that even the first time when the Metropolitan came, said that this church is not good. Then she says all will be fixed, that the place is holy, a place were young people have died and that it is late to talk now (for changes) after which she starts saying to him that he is Bishop, that and that the church will be consecrated and blessed, a priest will be put, a keeper. Then she says that he must be soft as cotton and sweet as sugar (in Slavic languages, that means to be good and gentle). The Metropolitan says that the people around her are confusing her, she says to him the same. Then she says that she was visited by 300 people a day, and that his job is easy and starts talking about her past. The Metropolitan tries to explain that things are not so simple, but she continues to say that the church will be consecrated and makes plans for keeper. She mentioned also the entry of Christ at the Temple and his reaction towards the traders.  The Metropolitan again tries to explain the things in the church, she then says that she wants to go to bed. Then the Metropolitan says to the person that makes the interview about the situation when the Apostles were brought before the Jewish priests and that what is made by God will not fall, and by man, no matter how much tries, will be destroyed. He ends saying: if this temple is a reason for the soul of Vanga to be lost, it is better the temple to be gone!

Тhat is all for which Vanga spoke with the Metropolitan.
Thank you for your very good explanation of this very interesting video. I had assumed that things were the other way around. I think someone here had said that Vanga did not want the icons the way they were. Plus, I noticed that she wanted to be buried by her house.

I don't know what to make of it. For example, was it organized by freemasons, for example, or just a home-grown group of "new agers"?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DuxI on June 06, 2013, 08:31:12 PM

DuxI,

Can you summarize what is in the interview? What is Vanga saying, and what is the bishop's response in the movie? Unfortunately I only know Russian, and all I clearly understood was that she said "this church is not good".

By the way, this surprisingly reminds me of a dream I had last night, where another teenager was walled inside a basement with a mural icon across another wall, and my friends and I were going to rescue him.

Quote
Vanga's dying wish was for her to be buried in the yard of her little house so that people could draw strength from her grave... The ‘Vanga' charity foundation decided to refuse her request and she was buried near the ‘St. Petka Bulgarian' church.
http://keramatad.com/english/landmarks-predela-hotel/rupite-st-petka-43

Well, the Metropolitan comes to Vanga to tells her that there are obstacles for the consecration of the church,  that the canons are clear and that they need to be respected, because the Church is one, and if she is member of the church, she must respect that. She then answers to him that his words come late, that there are two days late. and also says that even the first time when the Metropolitan came, said that this church is not good. Then she says all will be fixed, that the place is holy, a place were young people have died and that it is late to talk now (for changes) after which she starts saying to him that he is Bishop, that and that the church will be consecrated and blessed, a priest will be put, a keeper. Then she says that he must be soft as cotton and sweet as sugar (in Slavic languages, that means to be good and gentle). The Metropolitan says that the people around her are confusing her, she says to him the same. Then she says that she was visited by 300 people a day, and that his job is easy and starts talking about her past. The Metropolitan tries to explain that things are not so simple, but she continues to say that the church will be consecrated and makes plans for keeper. She mentioned also the entry of Christ at the Temple and his reaction towards the traders.  The Metropolitan again tries to explain the things in the church, she then says that she wants to go to bed. Then the Metropolitan says to the person that makes the interview about the situation when the Apostles were brought before the Jewish priests and that what is made by God will not fall, and by man, no matter how much tries, will be destroyed. He ends saying: if this temple is a reason for the soul of Vanga to be lost, it is better the temple to be gone!

Тhat is all for which Vanga spoke with the Metropolitan.
Thank you for your very good explanation of this very interesting video. I had assumed that things were the other way around. I think someone here had said that Vanga did not want the icons the way they were. Plus, I noticed that she wanted to be buried by her house.

I don't know what to make of it. For example, was it organized by freemasons, for example, or just a home-grown group of "new agers"?

You are welcome.
Yes, that was her wish, but the foundation did not respect it, and buried her near the church.
The pictures in the church were made by Светлин Русев (Svetlin Rusev), the man with the glasses in the video, working in the church. I do not know what to say too, because i do not know much about this person.
I know more about Vanga, but from my family, they went to ask her something, and i can just say that really she knew things that ordinary people did not...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shiny on June 06, 2013, 08:36:41 PM
anodyne

a new word to put in my small vocab
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on June 06, 2013, 09:03:10 PM
I know more about Vanga, but from my family, they went to ask her something, and i can just say that really she knew things that ordinary people did not...
That sounds very interesting, and I would like to hear more about it.

Perhaps the best explanation is that she was not a bad person, and was a person with a gift, but also was not an extremely holy person either like we normally associate with the gifts.

I don't see anything proving she was bad. And I allow that religious customs and styles change. Perhaps some of the Old Believers' ways were better. On the other hand, I am confused why, if she was a holy person she would not follow the bishops' strong advice, especially when it comes to a matter of "church business"- like building a church.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on June 06, 2013, 09:18:35 PM
Here is a scene from the recent Russian or Ukrainian movie Viy:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/418431_336421006397727_1623523439_n.jpg)

The original 1967 movie Viy was filmed in an abandoned cossack church.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 06, 2013, 09:28:10 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein

Somewhere here I have discussed how this is not a proper canonical icon of Stalin. For one, there is no record he ever was a bishop. Instead, he should be portrayed in uniform. His death was under mysterious circs, so it could be martyrdom, but it works better if he's holding a scroll with some text of his voluminous writings. Or he could be depicted holding the cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Very good, Grasshopper. Very good.  ;) :laugh: :laugh:

The original Man of Steel needs some irony in his iconography.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on June 06, 2013, 09:44:12 PM
I know more about Vanga, but from my family, they went to ask her something, and i can just say that really she knew things that ordinary people did not...
That sounds very interesting, and I would like to hear more about it.

Perhaps the best explanation is that she was not a bad person, and was a person with a gift, but also was not an extremely holy person either like we normally associate with the gifts.

I don't see anything proving she was bad. And I allow that religious customs and styles change. Perhaps some of the Old Believers' ways were better. On the other hand, I am confused why, if she was a holy person she would not follow the bishops' strong advice, especially when it comes to a matter of "church business"- like building a church.

Dear DuxI,

I recommend taking this conversation from Strange Icons to the Vanga thread here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,43761.0.html
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on June 07, 2013, 01:30:16 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein

Somewhere here I have discussed how this is not a proper canonical icon of Stalin. For one, there is no record he ever was a bishop. Instead, he should be portrayed in uniform. His death was under mysterious circs, so it could be martyrdom, but it works better if he's holding a scroll with some text of his voluminous writings. Or he could be depicted holding the cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Fantastic. And who you calling snarky?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on June 07, 2013, 02:31:35 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein

Somewhere here I have discussed how this is not a proper canonical icon of Stalin. For one, there is no record he ever was a bishop. Instead, he should be portrayed in uniform. His death was under mysterious circs, so it could be martyrdom, but it works better if he's holding a scroll with some text of his voluminous writings. Or he could be depicted holding the cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Fantastic. And who you calling snarky?

Wit and snark are not the same thing.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: podkarpatska on June 07, 2013, 07:55:02 AM
^Whether a comment is "snark" or "wit" typically can be found in the ear of the listener or reader, as the case may be.  I came across a brief piece on this subject a few years back, written by an upstate NY reporter.

"When Dorothy Parker said “She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.” It was funny, biting and witty.
But you don’t hear that style of “funny” as much any more.
Rather what you read in newspapers & blogs and hear on television shows is just as mean, but without the, let’s call it, panache. And Snarky is Witty’s cheap, lazy cousin."

http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/Snark.htm

Wit is an art form. Snark is not.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on June 07, 2013, 10:16:12 AM
^Whether a comment is "snark" or "wit" typically can be found in the ear of the listener or reader, as the case may be.  I came across a brief piece on this subject a few years back, written by an upstate NY reporter.

"When Dorothy Parker said “She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.” It was funny, biting and witty.
But you don’t hear that style of “funny” as much any more.
Rather what you read in newspapers & blogs and hear on television shows is just as mean, but without the, let’s call it, panache. And Snarky is Witty’s cheap, lazy cousin."

http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/Snark.htm

Wit is an art form. Snark is not.

Precisely, my dear podkarpatska. Precisely.  :-* :laugh:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on June 25, 2013, 12:17:15 PM
"The Hospitality of Abraham in the style of St. Alban’s Psalter, by Peter Murphy"

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/8a7a113bd648f712bd64e748f4475631/tumblr_mot5y4MlB21rqlm1co1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on June 25, 2013, 12:28:30 PM
I like it ^
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on June 25, 2013, 01:14:09 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein

Somewhere here I have discussed how this is not a proper canonical icon of Stalin. For one, there is no record he ever was a bishop. Instead, he should be portrayed in uniform. His death was under mysterious circs, so it could be martyrdom, but it works better if he's holding a scroll with some text of his voluminous writings. Or he could be depicted holding the cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Fantastic. And who you calling snarky?

Wit and snark are not the same thing.

Please stick to adjudicating what you think are proper icons and stay away from humor. You do a poor enough job of the former in spite of all your expertise. I can't imagine what would become of the world, if we had to wait for you to OK every attempt at wit.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on June 25, 2013, 01:16:21 PM
"The Hospitality of Abraham in the style of St. Alban’s Psalter, by Peter Murphy"

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/8a7a113bd648f712bd64e748f4475631/tumblr_mot5y4MlB21rqlm1co1_500.jpg)

LBK ain't going to like this because although you can't depict God the Father as an "old man" nor at all, you can depict Him as a man in this particular icon. Making the icon so precise to bring out the noetic nature of the visitors to Abraham I think means you can no longer have your Trinity cake and eat it to.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on June 25, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
LBK ain't going to like this because although you can't depict God the Father as an "old man" nor at all, you can depict Him as a man in this particular icon. Making the icon so precise to bring out the noetic nature of the visitors to Abraham I think means you can no longer have your Trinity cake and eat it to.

It seems almost the exact same as any other Hospitality icon, except the stylistic differences. So what do you mean? This seems to do what you're saying a bit more:

(http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/biggerFiles/hospitalityAbrahamNeophytos.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on June 25, 2013, 01:26:30 PM
LBK ain't going to like this because although you can't depict God the Father as an "old man" nor at all, you can depict Him as a man in this particular icon. Making the icon so precise to bring out the noetic nature of the visitors to Abraham I think means you can no longer have your Trinity cake and eat it to.

It seems almost the exact same as any other Hospitality icon, except the stylistic differences. So what do you mean? This seems to do what you're saying a bit more:

(http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/biggerFiles/hospitalityAbrahamNeophytos.jpg)

"Style" is important, frankly I don't believe in such a thing. Maybe I am wrong, and LBK will think it is wonderful.

My argument goes to the Trinitarian interpretation of Rublev, which LBK AFAIK defends, and yet I cannot for the life of me understand. I mean I understand the reasons for the Trinitarian interpretation but not her breaking ranks with her absolute prohibition against depicting God the Father.

I could be wrong about all this. But when I've asked her about it before, she simply goes into tangential questioning mode.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 25, 2013, 01:51:07 PM
Interesting...all three angels in that icon have crosses in their halos.  Three Christs?  Did the Father and the Holy Spirit also die on the Cross? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on June 25, 2013, 02:03:45 PM
Interesting...all three angels in that icon have crosses in their halos.  Three Christs?  Did the Father and the Holy Spirit also die on the Cross? 

That's the only time I've seen a depiction like that. It seems the norm is to not have any crosses, but a Google search shows the middle one sometimes with a cross-halo:

(http://www.progressmme.com/stgeorge/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/icon-abraham.jpg)(http://archangelsbooks.com/prodimages/Giant/Icons/a-22.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 02, 2013, 03:43:47 PM
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Saint-Nicholas-of-Myra-Naive-Reverse-Handpainted-Orthodox-Church-Icon-on-Glass-/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/2gAAAOxyB0VRtaZh/$(KGrHqJHJ!4FBPo+)gpmBRt,Zgl+(g~~60_12.JPG?rt=nc)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 02, 2013, 07:55:38 PM
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Saint-Nicholas-of-Myra-Naive-Reverse-Handpainted-Orthodox-Church-Icon-on-Glass-/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/2gAAAOxyB0VRtaZh/$(KGrHqJHJ!4FBPo+)gpmBRt,Zgl+(g~~60_12.JPG?rt=nc)

Romanian, painted on glass. A centuries-old folk-art tradition. The original is probably tiny, hence the simple detailing. The artist in this case made a boo-boo when tracing the draft: the saint is blessing with his left hand. Ooops.  :o :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on July 03, 2013, 07:03:30 AM
It was most likely a child's job.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 03, 2013, 08:04:22 AM
It was most likely a child's job.

Not at all "most likely". The simple, naive style and wobbly draftsmanship could just as easily come from an inexperienced adult. I've seen many drawings and paintings over the years by adults with limited artistic ability which share the characteristics of this glass icon.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 04, 2013, 12:19:24 PM
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/ANTIQUE-ORTHODOX-CHRISTIAN-ART-GOLD-HAND-PAINTED-WOOD-St-NICHOLAS-ICON-SIGNED-/00/s/NzgyWDgwMA==/z/tVQAAOxyY3ZR08DF/$T2eC16dHJH!FFl4wy-U(BR08DFZNT!~~60_3.JPG)

Haven't seen this kind of color scheme before with all the black and yellow
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 04, 2013, 12:27:03 PM
Was it painted in Pittsburgh? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: NicholasMyra on July 04, 2013, 12:35:35 PM
Was it painted in Pittsburgh? 
I would have expected that comment from Achronos.  :D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 04, 2013, 12:43:19 PM
Was it painted in Pittsburgh? 

Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Black and yellow, black and yellow
Black and yellow, black and yellow
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on July 04, 2013, 12:45:24 PM
Gold. Black and gold.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Deacon Lance on July 04, 2013, 01:32:34 PM
Yinz guys don't know nothin.  If it was painted in the God-protected Holy City of Champions the vestments would be black and gold and the the mitre would be decorated with the tri-color hypocycloids representing the Holy Trinity.  Fer cryin out loud.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 04, 2013, 01:42:12 PM
Hypocycloids?  Is that really what they call them?  I lived in the area for a year and never heard that term...I never would've imagined anyone there using the word "hypocycloid".  LOL.   
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Deacon Lance on July 04, 2013, 01:53:45 PM
Hypocycloids?  Is that really what they call them?  I lived in the area for a year and never heard that term...I never would've imagined anyone there using the word "hypocycloid".  LOL.   
That is the technical name for them according to US Steel who created the logo.  Most would call them the three thingies in the Steeler emblem.  :D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 05, 2013, 01:45:23 AM
How to ruin a perfectly good Kazanskaya:

It looks like one person painted the Mother of God, and very well, someone else painted the Child. Not sure what the second painter was on at the time ....

(http://pravicon.com/download/i12073)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 05, 2013, 02:08:52 AM
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/ANTIQUE-ORTHODOX-CHRISTIAN-ART-GOLD-HAND-PAINTED-WOOD-St-NICHOLAS-ICON-SIGNED-/00/s/NzgyWDgwMA==/z/tVQAAOxyY3ZR08DF/$T2eC16dHJH!FFl4wy-U(BR08DFZNT!~~60_3.JPG)

Haven't seen this kind of color scheme before with all the black and yellow

It's no wonder you haven't. Black is the one color which is completely wrong as a background. It represents death, darkness, and evil, the polar opposite of the qualities which have led to the sanctification of the holy one depicted on the icon, in this case, St Nicholas of Myra. Black is used sparingly, and in specific circumstances, such as the abyss of Hades in icons of the Resurrection, and the darkness surrounding the bearded Kosmos figure holding a basket of scrolls at the bottom of Pentecost icons.

While gold is the ideal background, as, among other things, it represents purity, incorruption and the unfading Light which comes from God, other colors may be, and are, used, mainly for reasons such as the availability of pigments in a local area, and the impracticality in many cases of providing very large areas of gold-leafed background. Novgorod icons are known for their distinctive vermilion backgrounds, Pskov icons for their sage green, etc. Deep blue is a very common choice for icons painted on church walls, across many traditions.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 16, 2013, 03:56:37 PM

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q74/s720x720/945923_494769633928481_1624443043_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on July 16, 2013, 04:12:54 PM
That skyline is much too impressive to be Los Angeles...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on July 16, 2013, 04:18:48 PM
Nice parks, though.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on July 16, 2013, 04:19:39 PM
Black represents death, darkness, and evil, the polar opposite of the qualities which have led to the sanctification of the holy one depicted on the icon, in this case, St Nicholas of Myra.

Which is why all clergy wear black, to show the evils of the bodies we are trapped in.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: augustin717 on July 16, 2013, 04:57:34 PM
Black represents death, darkness, and evil, the polar opposite of the qualities which have led to the sanctification of the holy one depicted on the icon, in this case, St Nicholas of Myra.

Which is why all clergy wear black, to show the evils of the bodies we are trapped in.
almost spit a mixture of polish sausage and beer on my keyboard
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 16, 2013, 07:01:22 PM
In that Los Angeles icon, who are the people in the center left and right? Looks like a Native American Mary on the left, but I may be wrong.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 16, 2013, 07:43:08 PM

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q74/s720x720/945923_494769633928481_1624443043_n.jpg)

IIRC I commented on this image, or a segment of it, in the "Schlock icons" thread a while back.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on July 17, 2013, 06:40:09 PM
IIRC I commented on this image, or a segment of it, in the "Schlock icons" thread a while back.

IIRC it was another one LA icon.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2013, 07:16:30 PM
IIRC I commented on this image, or a segment of it, in the "Schlock icons" thread a while back.

IIRC it was another one LA icon.

Both paintings contain the same compositional elements, so I regard them as essentially the same.

Here's one of my posts on it:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.msg865760.html#msg865760
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 21, 2013, 10:04:31 PM
Not really strange but "different," and I didn't want to start a new thread altogether. Anyway, I've seen icons of this rendition of Christ around the web before, and wondered if anyone knew any more about them? The hand position makes me think it's maybe OO, IDK.

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Coptic-Christian-Art-Print-Christ-Icon-Christianity-Orthodox-Church-Arabic-New-/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/$T2eC16F,!zQE9s3sqIw0BQFqBOhw9g~~60_57.JPG)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: NicholasMyra on July 21, 2013, 10:20:28 PM
(http://www.skete.com/images/products/icons/CJ787.jpg)

One of my favorite icons.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 21, 2013, 10:28:25 PM
Not really strange but "different," and I didn't want to start a new thread altogether. Anyway, I've seen icons of this rendition of Christ around the web before, and wondered if anyone knew any more about them? The hand position makes me think it's maybe OO, IDK.

Yeah, that looks like a Coptic version of a Greek icon.  Only the hand position gives it away as Coptic (e.g., the vestments are definitely Greek and not Coptic).   
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 25, 2013, 04:44:25 PM

I've never seen this one before.

It was entitled "Love".

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/q71/s720x720/481075_339787452817924_1561484812_n.jpg)

It could be misleading to the casual onlooker, who doesn't know to read the letters identifying the Theotokos.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on July 25, 2013, 04:48:08 PM
300th!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 25, 2013, 04:49:19 PM

^LOL!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 25, 2013, 07:49:50 PM

I've never seen this one before.

It was entitled "Love".

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/q71/s720x720/481075_339787452817924_1561484812_n.jpg)

It could be misleading to the casual onlooker, who doesn't know to read the letters identifying the Theotokos.


It is a copy of a triptych panel by the early Renaissance master Cimabue, and it represents the assumption of the Virgin. Other painters of the era painted similar compositions, with some showing both Christ and the Virgin seated on the same heavenly throne.

Here is Cimabue's work:

(http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/65/6500/VJX6100Z/posters/maestro-di-cesi-tryptic-of-the-virgin-see-also-279477-and-279478-oil-on-panel.jpg)

In reply to Liza's comment, even if an observer could identify the woman as the Mother of God, this image is still, erm, problematic from the Orthodox POV. The bodily assumption of the Mother of God after her death is accepted and mentioned, but not elaborated upon, in hymns and teachings. It is a mystery, and one which iconography has never portrayed, unlike non-Orthodox religious art.

What Orthodox iconography does show, and rightly so, is Christ mystically appearing at His Mother's dormition. He is surrounded by a mandorla of uncreated light in which are numerous seraphim, and He is holding the soul of His Mother, as a babe in swaddling-clothes. This beautifully and eloquently expresses the incomparable honor of the Virgin - as she gave birth and nurtured her Son and God, the Life of all, so He received her soul to escort it to heaven Himself, she being more honorable and more glorious than the hosts on high, as the hymn says. Allowing a "mere" angel to take her soul just would not do. The hymns of the Dormition must surely be the loveliest and most evocative of all the feasts of the Mother of God.

In Cimabue's painting, and its variants, while the Virgin is in a supplicatory posture, she is still seated at the same level as Christ. In iconographic deesis (supplicatory) panels which show Christ enthroned at the center, flanked by the Virgin and St John the Baptist (and others, in many cases), only Christ is enthroned. The Mother of God is indeed the most powerful of intercessors, but she is not, and never can be, equal to God. She was graced with divinity in the fullest sense, but she is not divine herself.




Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on July 26, 2013, 03:29:06 PM
And no stars ^.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 26, 2013, 03:35:05 PM

... A definite no-no!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 26, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
Even if the stars were there, it wouldn't make this image acceptable as an icon. There is simply too much else wrong with it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 26, 2013, 09:51:58 PM
Even if the stars were there, it wouldn't make this image acceptable as an icon. There is simply too much else wrong with it.

Well, I like it.  I know you don't care.  :P  But I think it's a sweet image. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 26, 2013, 10:12:43 PM
Even if the stars were there, it wouldn't make this image acceptable as an icon. There is simply too much else wrong with it.

Well, I like it.  I know you don't care.  :P  But I think it's a sweet image. 

My dear Mor, sentimentality and iconography don't mix.  ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 26, 2013, 10:17:37 PM
Note that I deliberately avoided calling it an icon.  Don't I get brownie points at least for that?  :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 26, 2013, 10:21:07 PM
Note that I deliberately avoided calling it an icon.  Don't I get brownie points at least for that?  :P

Glad you clarified.  :-*
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 27, 2013, 12:21:02 AM
Note that I deliberately avoided calling it an icon.  Don't I get brownie points at least for that?  :P

You'll have to content yourself with brownie points in two natures.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 29, 2013, 04:39:26 PM

This icon isn't exactly "strange", however, I've never seen one like it.

What is the Mother of God holding?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/s720x720/523387_341331879330148_1380661096_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 29, 2013, 07:28:57 PM
It looks like a chalice. Here is another version of it, which I find disturbing because of the Child's portrayal - in profile, and as a generic chubby babe, not as the all-knowing God before the Ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims:

(http://pravicon.com/images/icons/12/12686.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 30, 2013, 05:45:55 AM
For those who can't see the image I posted, here's the same one from another site:

(http://sol-family.ucoz.org/chasha_terpenija.jpeg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 30, 2013, 09:27:12 AM
It looks like a chalice. Here is another version of it, which I find disturbing because of the Child's portrayal - in profile, and as a generic chubby babe, not as the all-knowing God before the Ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims:

Clearly, LBK, you're a little too judgmental on this one.  Our little Lord doesn't look like a generic chubby babe, those are cuter in real life.  This is clearly a sick baby being taken care of by our Lady, who doesn't seem to be able to get him to eat, take his medicine, etc.  Give him a chance to recover, geez.   ::)  :P 

Actually, they don't even look related.  If they looked like mother and son but he was a little more chubby, I wouldn't mind it so much (I know, my taste doesn't matter), but it bothers me that the child bears no resemblance to the mother.  I've never felt that way about an otherwise normal-looking icon before.  He looks like the Christological equivalent of Grumpy Cat.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 30, 2013, 09:29:59 AM
It looks like a chalice. Here is another version of it, which I find disturbing because of the Child's portrayal - in profile, and as a generic chubby babe, not as the all-knowing God before the Ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims:

Clearly, LBK, you're a little too judgmental on this one.  Our little Lord doesn't look like a generic chubby babe, those are cuter in real life.  This is clearly a sick baby being taken care of by our Lady, who doesn't seem to be able to get him to eat, take his medicine, etc.  Give him a chance to recover, geez.   ::)  :P  

Actually, they don't even look related.  If they looked like mother and son but he was a little more chubby, I wouldn't mind it so much (I know, my taste doesn't matter), but it bothers me that the child bears no resemblance to the mother.  I've never felt that way about an otherwise normal-looking icon before.  He looks like the Christological equivalent of Grumpy Cat.

 :laugh: :laugh:

You might be onto something here, Mor. Looking more closely, that baby does look sick. Like he's about to puke.  :P ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 30, 2013, 03:00:40 PM

Here's one more.  I realize the Mother of God is often referred to as the "Ladder" between Heaven and Earth, however, I've never seen her holding a ladder.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/993659_341671992629470_1459475601_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on July 30, 2013, 03:05:56 PM
(http://www.incommunion.org/incommunion.org/wp-content/uploads//2011/12/singing-in-a-strange-land-graphic-198x300.jpg)

Our Lady of Law?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 30, 2013, 07:03:49 PM

Here's one more.  I realize the Mother of God is often referred to as the "Ladder" between Heaven and Earth, however, I've never seen her holding a ladder.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/993659_341671992629470_1459475601_n.jpg)


That's a mix of The Uncut Mountain, but The Unburnt Bush.  Odd.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 30, 2013, 07:09:49 PM

Lol!  That explanation did little to help. Now I am seeing the use of a ladder to climb the mountain to reach the burning bush.




Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on July 30, 2013, 07:16:17 PM

Here's one more.  I realize the Mother of God is often referred to as the "Ladder" between Heaven and Earth, however, I've never seen her holding a ladder.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/993659_341671992629470_1459475601_n.jpg)


for some reason this reminds me of those dreadful senior photos where there was a large picture and then another sort of ghosted profile shot in the same picture.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 31, 2013, 03:29:42 PM

This is a week of unknown icons on Facebook.

What about this one?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/547139_341755299287806_1904276618_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on July 31, 2013, 07:33:05 PM
I have a similar-looking one. I forget the name, sorry, but I believe it has to do with the Theotokos as an intercessor for the sick.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 31, 2013, 11:53:33 PM

This is a week of unknown icons on Facebook.

What about this one?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/547139_341755299287806_1904276618_n.jpg)

It's known as The Healer (Целительница, Tselitel'nitsa), and it depicts the miraculous healing of a gravely-ill priest by the Mother of God.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 01, 2013, 12:14:10 AM
I have never seen this one before.

Interesting.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 01, 2013, 04:25:47 AM

This is a week of unknown icons on Facebook.

What about this one?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/547139_341755299287806_1904276618_n.jpg)

It's known as The Healer (Целительница, Tselitel'nitsa), and it depicts the miraculous healing of a gravely-ill priest by the Mother of God.

That kid doesn't look like a priest.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 01, 2013, 04:47:14 AM

This is a week of unknown icons on Facebook.

What about this one?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/547139_341755299287806_1904276618_n.jpg)

It's known as The Healer (Целительница, Tselitel'nitsa), and it depicts the miraculous healing of a gravely-ill priest by the Mother of God.

That kid doesn't look like a priest.

The description of the icon through Russian sources says the man was a "cleric" (клирик) . He could have been of one of the lesser ordained ranks, where a beard and long hair is not mandatory.  :police:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 10, 2013, 06:49:35 AM
My parents've recently bought it for me. He looks a bit chubby.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: CrystalMind on August 10, 2013, 01:47:20 PM
I've seen this icon a few times, but given the recent discussion in this thread about dark background colors being a no-no, I was curious. I'm still very new to all of this (Orthodoxy, icons, etc).

(http://www.christthesavioroca.org/images/Icons/ChristPrisoner2.jpeg)

(This is the largest version I could find, sorry for the low-res.)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 10, 2013, 07:26:51 PM
I've seen this icon a few times, but given the recent discussion in this thread about dark background colors being a no-no, I was curious. I'm still very new to all of this (Orthodoxy, icons, etc).

(http://www.christthesavioroca.org/images/Icons/ChristPrisoner2.jpeg)

(This is the largest version I could find, sorry for the low-res.)

I've seen this one many a time. It's a Roman Catholic painting from around the 19th century, and given a Russian/Slavonic inscription. Not an icon at all.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Orthodox11 on August 10, 2013, 07:30:29 PM
The description of the icon through Russian sources says the man was a "cleric" (клирик) . He could have been of one of the lesser ordained ranks, where a beard and long hair is not mandatory.  :police:

Maybe beardlessness was the disease from which he needed healing?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: CrystalMind on August 10, 2013, 09:03:30 PM
I've seen this one many a time. It's a Roman Catholic painting from around the 19th century, and given a Russian/Slavonic inscription. Not an icon at all.

Thanks for the info; I wouldn't have known. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 10, 2013, 10:37:10 PM
I've seen this one many a time. It's a Roman Catholic painting from around the 19th century, and given a Russian/Slavonic inscription. Not an icon at all.

Thanks for the info; I wouldn't have known. :)

Happy to help.  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 10, 2013, 10:37:44 PM
The description of the icon through Russian sources says the man was a "cleric" (клирик) . He could have been of one of the lesser ordained ranks, where a beard and long hair is not mandatory.  :police:

Maybe beardlessness was the disease from which he needed healing?

I'll pay that.  :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on August 10, 2013, 10:51:32 PM
I find disturbing because of the Child's portrayal - in profile, and as a generic chubby babe, not as the all-knowing God before the Ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims.

But didn't he empty himself of his omniscience at the time of the incarnation? He had to grow in knowledge to be fully human.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 10, 2013, 11:07:36 PM
I find disturbing because of the Child's portrayal - in profile, and as a generic chubby babe, not as the all-knowing God before the Ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims.

But didn't he empty himself of his omniscience at the time of the incarnation? He had to grow in knowledge to be fully human.

The hymns and icons of the Church consistently and clearly proclaim the divine omniscience of the Child. The feasts which commemorate Christ while He was still a child (Nativity, Circumcision, Meeting, Mid-Pentecost) are most eloquent in expressing this mystery.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 10, 2013, 11:51:18 PM
But didn't he empty himself of his omniscience at the time of the incarnation? He had to grow in knowledge to be fully human.

Read Luke 2.52, but also John 2.25.  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: CrystalMind on August 12, 2013, 12:26:25 AM
So... Uncut Mountain Supply (http://www.uncutmountainsupply.com/icons/of-saints/by-name/h-i/st-herman-of-alaska-arctic-detail-1he10/) is selling this as an icon of St. Herman of Alaska. It seems odd?  ???

(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2550/images/2440/1HE10__26980.1316243298.900.900.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 12, 2013, 12:43:41 AM
So... Uncut Mountain Supply (http://www.uncutmountainsupply.com/icons/of-saints/by-name/h-i/st-herman-of-alaska-arctic-detail-1he10/) is selling this as an icon of St. Herman of Alaska. It seems odd?  ???

(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2550/images/2440/1HE10__26980.1316243298.900.900.jpg)

Definitely. Especially as there are a multitude of proper, well-executed and beautiful icons which have been painted over the years of this saint. Is it really so difficult for stockists to make the effort to source and sell good stuff?  :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 19, 2013, 03:33:14 PM
What is the point of that?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 19, 2013, 03:35:40 PM
What is the point of that?

The point of a finger.  ;D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: monkvasyl on August 19, 2013, 03:45:36 PM
What is the point of that?

In places were a Christian could be persecuted for having an icon, this one could easily be hidden when necessary.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 19, 2013, 03:48:58 PM
What is the point of that?

In places were a Christian could be persecuted for having an icon, this one could easily be hidden when necessary.

Do you think it was painted for that? Seriously?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 20, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
What is the point of that?

In places were a Christian could be persecuted for having an icon, this one could easily be hidden when necessary.

Do you think it was painted for that? Seriously?

Because it can be done. Isn't it Russian? Brought to you by the same folks who built the biggest cannon, the biggest bell, the biggest church, the biggest empire, etc. Now, why not go to the other end of the scale?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 20, 2013, 11:09:41 AM
What is the point of that?

In places were a Christian could be persecuted for having an icon, this one could easily be hidden when necessary.

Do you think it was painted for that? Seriously?

Because it can be done. Isn't it Russian? Brought to you by the same folks who built the biggest cannon, the biggest bell, the biggest church, the biggest empire, etc. Now, why not go to the other end of the scale?

You beat me to it.  :laugh: Russians are renowned for their miniatures, the Palekh region particularly so.

I've seen quite a few miniature icons, but never one that small! I'm impressed. Very impressed.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on August 20, 2013, 02:03:38 PM
I used to have a miniature icon like that. I attached it to the rearview mirror in the car. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 21, 2013, 01:03:06 AM
From the website of Holy Protection Monastery in White Haven, PA, see the Dormition icon in the attached file. 

Is it common for the "little" Lady in our Lord's hands to look like a cute baby with wings?  I want to pinch her cheeks! 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 02:45:12 AM
From the website of Holy Protection Monastery in White Haven, PA, see the Dormition icon in the attached file. 

Is it common for the "little" Lady in our Lord's hands to look like a cute baby with wings?  I want to pinch her cheeks! 

Oh, dear God! Sentimental fluff and nonsense! There oughta be a law ....

I can assure you that is is NOT common! Never have I seen wings on any holy one's soul, be it that of the Mother of God, or of any saint at his repose when his soul is taken to heaven by an angel.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 21, 2013, 04:41:32 AM
You beat me to it.  :laugh: Russians are renowned for their miniatures, the Palekh region particularly so.

I've seen quite a few miniature icons, but never one that small! I'm impressed. Very impressed.

If there any reason for it to be created other but boasting about skills? I mean, how can one kiss that for example?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 04:50:45 AM
You beat me to it.  :laugh: Russians are renowned for their miniatures, the Palekh region particularly so.

I've seen quite a few miniature icons, but never one that small! I'm impressed. Very impressed.

If there any reason for it to be created other but boasting about skills? I mean, how can one kiss that for example?

My, you have a narrow view of certain things! So using one's talent for glorifying God isn't good enough? And how many icons painted directly onto church walls or inside cupolas have you kissed, Michal?  :police:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 21, 2013, 05:06:16 AM
You beat me to it.  :laugh: Russians are renowned for their miniatures, the Palekh region particularly so.

I've seen quite a few miniature icons, but never one that small! I'm impressed. Very impressed.

If there any reason for it to be created other but boasting about skills? I mean, how can one kiss that for example?

My, you have a narrow view of certain things! So using one's talent for glorifying God isn't good enough?

How it's gloryfing God? Can you give a single practical usage of that?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 05:26:15 AM
You beat me to it.  :laugh: Russians are renowned for their miniatures, the Palekh region particularly so.

I've seen quite a few miniature icons, but never one that small! I'm impressed. Very impressed.

If there any reason for it to be created other but boasting about skills? I mean, how can one kiss that for example?

My, you have a narrow view of certain things! So using one's talent for glorifying God isn't good enough?

How it's gloryfing God? Can you give a single practical usage of that?

Are you not aware that icons are (should be) painted with prayer and fasting?

I'm also waiting for your answer to this:
Quote
And how many icons painted directly onto church walls or inside cupolas have you kissed, Michal?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 21, 2013, 05:32:13 AM
I'm also waiting for your answer to this:
Quote
And how many icons painted directly onto church walls or inside cupolas have you kissed, Michal?

Probably a couple whan I was a child. However, frescoes have also decorative and educational purposes what can't be said abut that.

Waiting for your answer.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 05:44:33 AM
I'm also waiting for your answer to this:
Quote
And how many icons painted directly onto church walls or inside cupolas have you kissed, Michal?

Probably a couple whan I was a child. However, frescoes have also decorative and educational purposes what can't be said abut that.

Waiting for your answer.

And an icon of the Mandylion has no teaching value??
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 21, 2013, 06:02:04 AM
I'm also waiting for your answer to this:
Quote
And how many icons painted directly onto church walls or inside cupolas have you kissed, Michal?

Probably a couple whan I was a child. However, frescoes have also decorative and educational purposes what can't be said abut that.

Waiting for your answer.

And an icon of the Mandylion has no teaching value??

It hasn't sinceit has to watched with a magnifier.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 06:09:30 AM
I'm also waiting for your answer to this:
Quote
And how many icons painted directly onto church walls or inside cupolas have you kissed, Michal?

Probably a couple whan I was a child. However, frescoes have also decorative and educational purposes what can't be said abut that.

Waiting for your answer.

And an icon of the Mandylion has no teaching value??

It hasn't sinceit has to watched with a magnifier.

You're clutching at straws again in your attempt to prove you're right, when all you're doing is showing up how shallow and mean-spirited you are. An icon doesn't stop being an icon, even when it is smaller than a thumbnail.

I again praise the skill, discipline and love of God of whoever painted this little gem. Does anyone know who he/she is?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 21, 2013, 06:11:05 AM
You again ignored the fact painting icons is not something you do for Guinness records.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 06:15:40 AM
You again ignored the fact paintin icons is not something you do for Guinness records.

How do you know this was the reason for the painting of this miniature? Russians have been painting icon miniatures for many centuries, it's not a new phenomenon.

Give it up, Michal. You're looking more and more foolish and mean-spirited with each post.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 21, 2013, 06:17:47 AM
You again ignored the fact paintin icons is not something you do for Guinness records.

How do you know this was the reason for the painting of this miniature? Russians have been painting icon miniatures for many centuries, it's not a new phenomenon.

Give it up, Michal. You're looking more and more foolish and mean-spirited with each post.

You've still failed to provide a single reason why one would be painting them (apart from boasting about his skills).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 06:23:50 AM
You again ignored the fact paintin icons is not something you do for Guinness records.

How do you know this was the reason for the painting of this miniature? Russians have been painting icon miniatures for many centuries, it's not a new phenomenon.

Give it up, Michal. You're looking more and more foolish and mean-spirited with each post.

You've still failed to provide a single reason why one would be painting them (apart from boasting about his skills).

Did/do the painters of Palekh paint their miniature icons simply to boast about their skills? Indeed, using your logic, every iconographer is simply to show off their artistic skill.

Go back and read my posts again. Your stubbornness is there for all to see.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 21, 2013, 06:27:55 AM
Indeed, using your logic, every iconographer is simply to show off their artistic skill.

No, because mst icons can be used as objects of veneration, as educational tools, as tools for helping to focus on prayer, as decorations... This can be used in none of these ways. So I'm asking, why?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 06:39:22 AM
Indeed, using your logic, every iconographer is simply to show off their artistic skill.

No, because mst icons can be used as objects of veneration, as educational tools, as tools for helping to focus on prayer, as decorations... This can be used in none of these ways. So I'm asking, why?

Please note the bolded words. Did I not mention prayer and fasting as part of the discipline of painting an icon several posts ago?

You are so eager to score points off me you're ignoring what I've said. Not a good look.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on August 21, 2013, 06:40:48 AM
Indeed, using your logic, every iconographer is simply to show off their artistic skill.

No, because mst icons can be used as objects of veneration, as educational tools, as tools for helping to focus on prayer, as decorations... This can be used in none of these ways. So I'm asking, why?

Please note the bolded words. Did I not mention prayer and fasting as part of the discipline of painting an icon several posts ago?

You are so eager to score points off me you're ignoring what I've said. Not a good look.

So has it been useless since it was painted?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 21, 2013, 10:41:14 AM
Indeed, using your logic, every iconographer is simply to show off their artistic skill.

No, because mst icons can be used as objects of veneration, as educational tools, as tools for helping to focus on prayer, as decorations... This can be used in none of these ways. So I'm asking, why?

Please note the bolded words. Did I not mention prayer and fasting as part of the discipline of painting an icon several posts ago?

You are so eager to score points off me you're ignoring what I've said. Not a good look.

So has it been useless since it was painted?

Not at all, even though you keep trying to say so. It's still an icon of Christ, and it can still be prayed before. Heck, it can even be venerated by kissing one's fingertip and touching it onto the icon, in the same way that icons out of reach of one's lips are venerated. You would have seen this kind of veneration many times in your life. For all we know, this miniature was painted to be placed in a locket, and worn and venerated like a baptismal cross. Instead of a photograph of a loved one, there is an icon of Christ.

Still want to call it useless?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on August 21, 2013, 11:50:00 AM
What is the point of that?

In places were a Christian could be persecuted for having an icon, this one could easily be hidden when necessary.

Do you think it was painted for that? Seriously?

Because it can be done. Isn't it Russian? Brought to you by the same folks who built the biggest cannon, the biggest bell, the biggest church, the biggest empire, etc. Now, why not go to the other end of the scale?

You beat me to it.  :laugh: Russians are renowned for their miniatures, the Palekh region particularly so.

I've seen quite a few miniature icons, but never one that small! I'm impressed. Very impressed.

It's beautiful.  Where can I find miniature icons like that?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on September 06, 2013, 10:21:35 AM
You beat me to it.  :laugh: Russians are renowned for their miniatures, the Palekh region particularly so.

I've seen quite a few miniature icons, but never one that small! I'm impressed. Very impressed.

If there any reason for it to be created other but boasting about skills? I mean, how can one kiss that for example?

My, you have a narrow view of certain things! So using one's talent for glorifying God isn't good enough?

How it's gloryfing God? Can you give a single practical usage of that?

It might actually be used as a "miniature" in a dollhouse.  Girls often play with dollhouses, reenacting daily routines with the little family, and thereby, learning themselves. 

Why not have little icons on the walls in the dollhouse, so they learn that is "normal" and to be expected?

(http://www.melaniefletcher.com/images/crafts/bethans_dollhouse06.jpg)

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwSEZ8QnGGwJ0IKWVQVii679BFOUmwU6tZ6HKQRS63zQMLmQzs7Q)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on September 06, 2013, 10:22:34 AM

I've never seen an icon like this.  She seems to be dressed as a bishop.

(https://sphotos-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/1150907_531984370190452_1093702707_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Romaios on September 06, 2013, 10:31:38 AM
^She's depicted as Abbess (Gerontissa) of the Holy Mountain.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on September 06, 2013, 10:33:41 AM

Ahhhh.... of course!

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Philipa on September 06, 2013, 10:41:33 AM
The dollhouse is beautiful. Is it yours Liza?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 06, 2013, 10:53:21 AM

I've never seen an icon like this.  She seems to be dressed as a bishop.

(https://sphotos-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/1150907_531984370190452_1093702707_n.jpg)

She is wearing a mantiya of a bishop or archimandrite. This image, called Gerontissa (Eldress) is a variant of the Abbess of Athos, a reference to her being the patron and protector of the Holy Mountain, known to the Greeks as The Garden of the Mother of God (To perivoli tis Panaghias).

While she is known as the Abbess of Athos, to show her in a mantle, and of the type worn by male clergy or archimandrites, is not correct. The Abbess title is figurative, not literal, so she should be shown in her conventional garb. Moreover, obscuring her clothing robs the image of much of the symbolism of her garments. Here is a more acceptable version, though it would have been even better if there was a motif of Christ present somewhere, either in the upper border, or in an upper corner:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SR2Ej2wbaCA/Uciu4OecAcI/AAAAAAAAHHc/N7NR0pYbZcs/s1600/5.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on September 06, 2013, 11:00:37 AM

While she is known as the Abbess of Athos, to show her in a mantle, and of the type worn by male clergy or archimandrites, is not correct. The Abbess title is figurative, not literal, so she should be shown in her conventional garb. Moreover, obscuring her clothing robs the image of much of the symbolism of her garments.


Thanks for the explanation LBK.  I was also just a bit worried about the bishop's robes, so someone doesn't interpret or refer to it, as approving of a female clergy.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 06, 2013, 11:31:07 AM

While she is known as the Abbess of Athos, to show her in a mantle, and of the type worn by male clergy or archimandrites, is not correct. The Abbess title is figurative, not literal, so she should be shown in her conventional garb. Moreover, obscuring her clothing robs the image of much of the symbolism of her garments.


Thanks for the explanation LBK.  I was also just a bit worried about the bishop's robes, so someone doesn't interpret or refer to it, as approving of a female clergy.

The implication that the Mother of God is a cleric is a major problem in showing her in a mantiya. There's a weird Russian one I have on file where the Mother of God is shown fully vested, holding a chalice, with the inscription Bestower of the Gifts. Blatant heresy.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on September 06, 2013, 01:55:41 PM

While she is known as the Abbess of Athos, to show her in a mantle, and of the type worn by male clergy or archimandrites, is not correct. The Abbess title is figurative, not literal, so she should be shown in her conventional garb. Moreover, obscuring her clothing robs the image of much of the symbolism of her garments.


Thanks for the explanation LBK.  I was also just a bit worried about the bishop's robes, so someone doesn't interpret or refer to it, as approving of a female clergy.

The implication that the Mother of God is a cleric is a major problem in showing her in a mantiya. There's a weird Russian one I have on file where the Mother of God is shown fully vested, holding a chalice, with the inscription Bestower of the Gifts. Blatant heresy.


Are not ordained abbots not allowed to wear mantya? Arent abbesses not allowed to wear mantyas? They were pectoral crosses.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 06, 2013, 10:00:47 PM

While she is known as the Abbess of Athos, to show her in a mantle, and of the type worn by male clergy or archimandrites, is not correct. The Abbess title is figurative, not literal, so she should be shown in her conventional garb. Moreover, obscuring her clothing robs the image of much of the symbolism of her garments.


Thanks for the explanation LBK.  I was also just a bit worried about the bishop's robes, so someone doesn't interpret or refer to it, as approving of a female clergy.

The implication that the Mother of God is a cleric is a major problem in showing her in a mantiya. There's a weird Russian one I have on file where the Mother of God is shown fully vested, holding a chalice, with the inscription Bestower of the Gifts. Blatant heresy.


Are not ordained abbots not allowed to wear mantya? Arent abbesses not allowed to wear mantyas? They were pectoral crosses.

An archimandrite wears one with the rectangular panels, but without the episcopal stripes. The mantiya of an abbess is plain black. The Mother of God in the image Liza posted is wearing an episcopal mantiya, which is completely wrong.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: ialmisry on September 06, 2013, 10:05:33 PM

While she is known as the Abbess of Athos, to show her in a mantle, and of the type worn by male clergy or archimandrites, is not correct. The Abbess title is figurative, not literal, so she should be shown in her conventional garb. Moreover, obscuring her clothing robs the image of much of the symbolism of her garments.


Thanks for the explanation LBK.  I was also just a bit worried about the bishop's robes, so someone doesn't interpret or refer to it, as approving of a female clergy.

The implication that the Mother of God is a cleric is a major problem in showing her in a mantiya. There's a weird Russian one I have on file where the Mother of God is shown fully vested, holding a chalice, with the inscription Bestower of the Gifts. Blatant heresy.


Are not ordained abbots not allowed to wear mantya? Arent abbesses not allowed to wear mantyas? They were pectoral crosses.

An archimandrite wears one with the rectangular panels, but without the episcopal stripes. The mantiya of an abbess is plain black. The Mother of God in the image Liza posted is wearing an episcopal mantiya, which is completely wrong.
Yeah, I saw that strange thing awhile ago. I thought the Episcopalians had taken over.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 19, 2013, 11:53:49 AM
The cover of the July-September 2013 edition of Georgian Mirror (http://marthoman.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/trinity_indian.jpg), an Indian Orthodox publication, depicts an icon of the Hospitality of Abraham done in a South Indian style. 

The caption at the bottom translates (roughly) as "Vision of the Trinity", but I welcome corrections. 

I tried uploading the image to this thread, but Mr Computer told me that the upload folder was full and so no attachment could go through.  The link above should work. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Arachne on September 19, 2013, 12:03:14 PM
The cover of the July-September 2013 edition of Georgian Mirror (http://marthoman.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/trinity_indian.jpg), an Indian Orthodox publication, depicts an icon of the Hospitality of Abraham done in a South Indian style. 

The skin tone is reminiscent of the Simpsons. *flees*
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: sheenj on September 19, 2013, 12:06:06 PM
The cover of the July-September 2013 edition of Georgian Mirror (http://marthoman.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/trinity_indian.jpg), an Indian Orthodox publication, depicts an icon of the Hospitality of Abraham done in a South Indian style. 

The caption at the bottom translates (roughly) as "Vision of the Trinity", but I welcome corrections. 

I tried uploading the image to this thread, but Mr Computer told me that the upload folder was full and so no attachment could go through.  The link above should work. 

On one hand, I'm fairly sure they didn't use vazhela plates to eat rice and curry back in Ancient Caanan. But then again I don't think the nomadic herdsmen of that time would carry around wooden tables as depicted in Fr. Rublev's icon either.

PS, what does the inscription along the side say? I think the first word is "Abrahaminte" but it's really hard to tell.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 19, 2013, 12:18:58 PM
PS, what does the inscription along the side say? I think the first word is "Abrahaminte" but it's really hard to tell.

അതിഥിസല്‍ക്കാരം (athitthisalkaaram): hospitality (lit. "the serving of the guests")
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on September 22, 2013, 10:11:18 PM
The cover of the July-September 2013 edition of Georgian Mirror (http://marthoman.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/trinity_indian.jpg), an Indian Orthodox publication, depicts an icon of the Hospitality of Abraham done in a South Indian style. 

The caption at the bottom translates (roughly) as "Vision of the Trinity", but I welcome corrections. 

I tried uploading the image to this thread, but Mr Computer told me that the upload folder was full and so no attachment could go through.  The link above should work. 

Very neat. Is this a recent thing (hence strange icons thread, I guess), or are there actually some interpretations of the Hospitality of Abraham as Trinitarian in the OO Churches?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 23, 2013, 12:06:22 AM
We regard the appearance of the three angels to Abraham as a type of the Trinity, that interpretation is quite traditional.  This icon, on the other hand, is a modern, South Indian version of the Byzantine icon of this subject.  AFAIK, Byzantine style iconography and Indian adaptations thereof are a recent phenomenon in India (~30-40 years?). 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on September 23, 2013, 12:29:06 PM
Just a bit strange - I've never before seen such type of icon of st. Matrona
(http://spc.rs/files/u5/2013/9/matrona_04.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 23, 2013, 06:02:18 PM
Just a bit strange - I've never before seen such type of icon of st. Matrona
(http://spc.rs/files/u5/2013/9/matrona_04.jpg)

This is not meant to be an icon in its own right, but is part of a "life" icon - the saint is shown in a large central panel, surrounded by smaller panels, each panel showing a scene from the saint's life.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on September 24, 2013, 05:09:02 AM
This is not meant to be an icon in its own right, but is part of a "life" icon - the saint is shown in a large central panel, surrounded by smaller panels, each panel showing a scene from the saint's life.

I forgot about this case, as I'd seen it alone. Now it's explained, thank you :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on October 05, 2013, 10:24:52 PM
Hmm...

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3055/2509747245_52c28802fe_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 05, 2013, 10:29:47 PM
Hmm...

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3055/2509747245_52c28802fe_z.jpg)

That looks suspiciously like an image of the "Perfect Freemason" I saw in my father-in-law's Freemason History book.  I'll see if I can rustle up a photo.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on October 05, 2013, 10:31:30 PM
What on earth is that thing?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on October 05, 2013, 10:32:46 PM
Hmm...

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3055/2509747245_52c28802fe_z.jpg)

Wow, just wow...  :o
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on October 05, 2013, 10:38:46 PM
What on earth is that thing?

I think it's the sun, so nothing on earth. :angel:

Anyway, it's from the Bulgarian Rila Monastery which otherwise has some of the most beautiful stuff I've ever seen pictures of.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: PoorFoolNicholas on October 05, 2013, 11:48:57 PM
What on earth is that thing?

Revelation 10:1
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on October 05, 2013, 11:58:38 PM
Thanks!  I would never have guessed that...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 06, 2013, 12:04:31 AM
What on earth is that thing?

Revelation 10:1

Portrayed very literally.  Interesting.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 06, 2013, 08:27:50 PM
So, this is what I was reminded of:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FyW1f0JRbf4/UlIDU8XtBAI/AAAAAAAAABs/xeIaWod9Aag/w240-h320-no/freemason.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Eastern Mind on October 06, 2013, 11:17:16 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nwBJ5L3q6vA/STSjywq8mbI/AAAAAAAAAYY/dOdg9A5B80U/s400/stalin-as-saint.jpg)

/thread

inb4crazyoldbrainwashedrussianscomein

Ah, ha. This is the one Christopher Hitchens must have been going on about.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Iconodule on October 07, 2013, 04:03:03 PM
Hmm...

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3055/2509747245_52c28802fe_z.jpg)

Oh man, that rules. I'd like to see some more Orthodox depictions from St. John's Apocalypse.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shiny on October 07, 2013, 04:10:18 PM
^ that is all sorts of awesome.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on October 09, 2013, 11:40:20 AM

How about this one?

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/s720x720/1380840_10151910838018570_1688608229_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 09, 2013, 12:06:30 PM

How about this one?

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/s720x720/1380840_10151910838018570_1688608229_n.jpg)

My Greek is bad..."Mama ???Atima?" 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on October 09, 2013, 12:47:12 PM

Might it be "Fatima"?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on October 09, 2013, 01:01:11 PM
I doubt it.  The kids are all wrong. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 09, 2013, 01:11:17 PM
I doubt it.  The kids are all wrong. 

Why do you hate children? ;D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on October 09, 2013, 01:43:57 PM
The Fatima apparitions were to three children--two girls and a boy--and didn't involve the Christ Child until the very last vision.  But this icon has what appear to be three boys.  I don't know why you would assume I hate children?  ???  That's rather unkind.   
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 09, 2013, 01:48:24 PM
The Fatima apparitions were to three children--two girls and a boy--and didn't involve the Christ Child until the very last vision.  But this icon has what appear to be three boys.  I don't know why you would assume I hate children?  ???  That's rather unkind.   
I apologize, I was being facetious.  I wrote based solely on what you wrote:  "The kids are all wrong."  Please forgive me.

Yes, you're right, if it is an "icon" of the Fatima apparition.  Unless, these three boys are representative of all children?  I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on October 09, 2013, 01:52:34 PM
I apologize, I was being facetious.  I wrote based solely on what you wrote:  "The kids are all wrong."  Please forgive me.

(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/311/8/3/bazinga_by_browniecheesecake-d32d71y.jpg)

;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Eastern Mind on October 09, 2013, 02:38:45 PM
That icon reminds me of the "Sub Tuum" hymn.

LBK where are you???  :laugh:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on October 09, 2013, 03:34:41 PM

LBK where are you???  :laugh:

I was wondering the same thing!  :D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 09, 2013, 05:37:01 PM
Here I am!  :D

Where did this image come from?

I thought the inscription was trying to say "Fatima", but the first letter is an Y (ou in Slavonic), not a Θ (f in Slavonic). There's a chance it could be trying to say "The Mother of All" (Mama o Ultima) though it appears to be misspelled. If so, the picture is yet another piece of social commentary. Honorable in intent, but outside the boundaries of what icons are supposed to be.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on October 09, 2013, 05:43:06 PM

I got it off someone's wall on Facebook.   No additional information was provided.  It was just in a set of icon images.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on October 09, 2013, 05:43:34 PM
Hmm...

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3055/2509747245_52c28802fe_z.jpg)

Oh man, that rules. I'd like to see some more Orthodox depictions from St. John's Apocalypse.

LOL! Wow.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 09, 2013, 05:47:28 PM

I got it off someone's wall on Facebook.   No additional information was provided.  It was just in a set of icon images.

Any chance of a link? The other images might provide clues.  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on October 15, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
I realize this isn't really an icon, but what would the use for this be other than perhaps decoration?

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/ORTHODOX-Footstep-Pochaev-Mother-of-God-/00/s/NTQwWDcyMA==/$(KGrHqN,!qUFB,qzFGhJBQhY,0MP7g~~60_3.JPG)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: William on October 15, 2013, 11:08:38 PM
"The Hospitality of Abraham in the style of St. Alban’s Psalter, by Peter Murphy"

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/8a7a113bd648f712bd64e748f4475631/tumblr_mot5y4MlB21rqlm1co1_500.jpg)

LBK ain't going to like this because although you can't depict God the Father as an "old man" nor at all, you can depict Him as a man in this particular icon. Making the icon so precise to bring out the noetic nature of the visitors to Abraham I think means you can no longer have your Trinity cake and eat it to.

Sorry orthonorm but you are wrong here. The icon is of the Trinity, not of the Father. In fact it's more of an icon of an icon since the angels with Christ acted as a type of the Trinity.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Irish Melkite on October 15, 2013, 11:48:50 PM
I realize this isn't really an icon, but what would the use for this be other than perhaps decoration?

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/ORTHODOX-Footstep-Pochaev-Mother-of-God-/00/s/NTQwWDcyMA==/$(KGrHqN,!qUFB,qzFGhJBQhY,0MP7g~~60_3.JPG)

It's supposed to represent the footprint left behind after the apparition of Our Lady of Pochaev. Strange.

Many years,

Neil 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2013, 02:49:15 AM
I realize this isn't really an icon, but what would the use for this be other than perhaps decoration?

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/ORTHODOX-Footstep-Pochaev-Mother-of-God-/00/s/NTQwWDcyMA==/$(KGrHqN,!qUFB,qzFGhJBQhY,0MP7g~~60_3.JPG)

It's supposed to represent the footprint left behind after the apparition of Our Lady of Pochaev. Strange.

Many years,

Neil 

It is indeed representing the miraculous footprint at Pochaev. It would have been far better to have a properPochaevskaya icon which features the footprint (many of them do).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 16, 2013, 06:40:49 AM
"The Hospitality of Abraham in the style of St. Alban’s Psalter, by Peter Murphy"

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/8a7a113bd648f712bd64e748f4475631/tumblr_mot5y4MlB21rqlm1co1_500.jpg)

Was the lamb's head in the chalice in the original?  I can't tell.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on October 16, 2013, 06:46:10 AM
Was the lamb's head in the chalice in the original?  I can't tell.

Looks more like a Bothan (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bothan) than a lamb to me.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2013, 06:52:07 AM
Quote
Was the lamb's head in the chalice in the original?  I can't tell.

Not a lamb's head, but a calf's head.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 16, 2013, 09:13:40 AM
I saw this one after I saw the ones with Mary with her hair uncovered.

(http://figuadalupe.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/helperinbirth-small.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Eastern Mind on October 16, 2013, 09:17:27 AM
I actually really like that one. Hoping it's okay.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2013, 09:21:18 AM
A step in the right direction, showing the Mother of God in her traditional form of dress. It would have been better, however, if the Child was shown clothed - not out of prudishness, but in keeping with iconographic tradition. This icon is, after all, a variant of the Znamennaya (Of the Sign, Platytera) type, where the Child, clothed, is shown over the Virgin's body, surrounded by a blaze of uncreated Light, echoing the passage of Isaiah 7:14 : Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Emmanuel.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 16, 2013, 09:42:35 AM
I can't upload, but here are some links of the Helper in Birth icons:

Uncovered hair, naked Christ
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Virgin-Helper-in-Birth-Russian-Mini-Icon-3-x-2-5-Religious-Icon-/151092313083#ht_478wt_1161

Covered hair, clothed Christ.
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/8015991
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2013, 09:48:09 AM
I can't upload, but here are some links of the Helper in Birth icons:

Uncovered hair, naked Christ
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Virgin-Helper-in-Birth-Russian-Mini-Icon-3-x-2-5-Religious-Icon-/151092313083#ht_478wt_1161

Covered hair, clothed Christ.
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/8015991

The second one is much more preferable to the first.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 16, 2013, 09:50:25 AM
I can't upload, but here are some links of the Helper in Birth icons:

Uncovered hair, naked Christ
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Virgin-Helper-in-Birth-Russian-Mini-Icon-3-x-2-5-Religious-Icon-/151092313083#ht_478wt_1161

Covered hair, clothed Christ.
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/8015991

The second one is much more preferable to the first.

I thought so.  With the more modern one I was able to post, is the depiction of Christ looking more like a real baby acceptable?  I know even when depicted as a child, He will usually look much older than, say, a baby or toddler.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 16, 2013, 09:55:01 AM
I can't upload, but here are some links of the Helper in Birth icons:

Uncovered hair, naked Christ
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Virgin-Helper-in-Birth-Russian-Mini-Icon-3-x-2-5-Religious-Icon-/151092313083#ht_478wt_1161

Covered hair, clothed Christ.
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/8015991

The second one is much more preferable to the first.

I thought so.  With the more modern one I was able to post, is the depiction of Christ looking more like a real baby acceptable?  I know even when depicted as a child, He will usually look much older than, say, a baby or toddler.

I was just about to post on that very detail. You are quite correct. The Child should always be shown as all-wise (as indicated by the scroll He is holding - as an adult, Christ holds either a scroll or a Gospel book, depending on the composition of the icon), and all-knowing, never as a generic, helpless baby.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on November 04, 2013, 06:17:49 PM
Hmm...

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3055/2509747245_52c28802fe_z.jpg)

Oh man, that rules. I'd like to see some more Orthodox depictions from St. John's Apocalypse.

Looks like a cartoon for children.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: orthonorm on November 04, 2013, 06:27:51 PM
Hmm...

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3055/2509747245_52c28802fe_z.jpg)

Oh man, that rules. I'd like to see some more Orthodox depictions from St. John's Apocalypse.

Looks like a cartoon for children.

So is that good or bad? Usually children are considered the epitome of human being or the worst of it. It is rather confusing.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Iconodule on November 04, 2013, 06:37:24 PM
Hmm...

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3055/2509747245_52c28802fe_z.jpg)

Oh man, that rules. I'd like to see some more Orthodox depictions from St. John's Apocalypse.

Looks like a cartoon for children.

So what's the grown-up way of depicting a sun-headed angel with a cloud body walking on candlestick legs feeding a book to someone?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Romaios on November 04, 2013, 06:50:44 PM
So what's the grown-up way of depicting a sun-headed angel with a cloud body walking on candlestick legs feeding a book to someone?

(http://www.thoe.net/img/abstract_angel.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on December 03, 2013, 11:30:04 AM
Kinda like this one:

(https://scontent-a-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/943013_574317045972423_1703662908_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on December 03, 2013, 02:05:06 PM
I wouldn't feel comfortable venerating it but, as a piece of art, I like it too.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rosc on December 30, 2013, 08:38:41 AM
(http://content.foto.mail.ru/mail/ululavis/_blogs/i-7627.jpg)

Can anyone tell me about this icon? I don't remember how I came across it, while searching for other icons on google is all I know. Haven't seen any others similar to it.

Also, recommend a good book about Theotokos icons?


Thanks

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 30, 2013, 09:27:54 AM
(http://content.foto.mail.ru/mail/ululavis/_blogs/i-7627.jpg)

Can anyone tell me about this icon? I don't remember how I came across it, while searching for other icons on google is all I know. Haven't seen any others similar to it.

Also, recommend a good book about Theotokos icons?


Thanks



It's not really an icon, it is similar to various western paintings with titles such as Madonna of the Streets.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: dhinuus on December 30, 2013, 06:20:18 PM
Icon from St. Gregorios Indian Orthodox Church, Punnamoodu, Charumoodu, Alappuzha District, Kerala, INDIA
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-NgbQf2sMS7Y/TSTErz6ricI/AAAAAAAACDo/rdXxw0prIdE/w500-h280-no/Mural_Charummoodu.bmp)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on December 30, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
My goodness, what is up with that green Jesus? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on December 30, 2013, 09:44:28 PM
My goodness, what is up with that green Jesus? 

Maybe they didn't have the ethnically appropriate color to work with so they used green instead.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on December 30, 2013, 10:02:05 PM
(http://www.diocese.ko.if.ua/images/news/2941.jpg)

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC (http://kolomyya.org/se/sites/ep/?nid=19851)
Oh my....  :(

Our Lady of Football?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on December 30, 2013, 11:59:39 PM
My goodness, what is up with that green Jesus? 

He is sick of your sins.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on December 31, 2013, 12:05:58 AM
My goodness, what is up with that green Jesus? 

He is sick of your sins.

While that is undoubtedly true (to the extent that the immutable God can get himself so worked up over my sins), I'm not sure if that's the answer.  I want to believe there's some traditional Indian/Hindu meaning to the colour scheme that has been adopted.  I really want to.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on December 31, 2013, 12:33:44 AM
My goodness, what is up with that green Jesus? 

He is sick of your sins.

While that is undoubtedly true (to the extent that the immutable God can get himself so worked up over my sins), I'm not sure if that's the answer.  I want to believe there's some traditional Indian/Hindu meaning to the colour scheme that has been adopted.  I really want to.

Hindu meanings in Christian iconography makes me green with sickness.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on December 31, 2013, 12:47:10 AM
Hindu meanings in Christian iconography makes me green with sickness.

(http://www.borsig11.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/kathakali2.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Shanghaiski on December 31, 2013, 12:53:03 AM
Hindu meanings in Christian iconography makes me green with sickness.

(http://www.borsig11.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/kathakali2.jpg)

Who is that? St. Severus? (He should be headless if it's a Chalcedonian statue.) :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 31, 2013, 12:53:34 AM
My goodness, what is up with that green Jesus? 

He is sick of your sins.

While that is undoubtedly true (to the extent that the immutable God can get himself so worked up over my sins), I'm not sure if that's the answer.  I want to believe there's some traditional Indian/Hindu meaning to the colour scheme that has been adopted.  I really want to.

Is green the color of Uncreated Light?  :P :P ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on December 31, 2013, 12:57:03 AM
Who is that? St. Severus? (He should be headless if it's a Chalcedonian statue.) :)

Learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathakali).  ;)

Is green the color of Uncreated Light?  :P :P ;)

I thought the Uncreated Light was pink! 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: dhinuus on December 31, 2013, 12:58:20 AM
Hindu meanings in Christian iconography makes me green with sickness.
So did Christ himself establish the meanings of Byzantine iconography? Or was it influenced by the Hebrew tradition of the OT ?  Or did Hellenism influence Byzantine iconography? If it is the last, please let me know why pagan Greek (Hellenism) influence is ok in Christianity but pagan Indian (Hinduism) influence is NOT ok?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on December 31, 2013, 01:21:33 AM
Hindu meanings in Christian iconography makes me green with sickness.
So did Christ himself establish the meanings of Byzantine iconography? Or was it influenced by the Hebrew tradition of the OT ?  Or did Hellenism influence Byzantine iconography? If it is the last, please let me know why pagan Greek (Hellenism) influence is ok in Christianity but pagan Indian (Hinduism) influence is NOT ok?

I'm pretty sure he was joking with me, not making a serious criticism. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on January 17, 2014, 06:17:19 PM
Hindu meanings in Christian iconography makes me green with sickness.
So did Christ himself establish the meanings of Byzantine iconography? Or was it influenced by the Hebrew tradition of the OT ?  Or did Hellenism influence Byzantine iconography? If it is the last, please let me know why pagan Greek (Hellenism) influence is ok in Christianity but pagan Indian (Hinduism) influence is NOT ok?
Some people say that there is paganism in Christian art. They claim that the pictures of the son and moon on either side of Christ (this is especially clear in the Indian ikon posted above), which is sometimes seen, is a holdover from pictures of pagan deities. I do not know if this is the case.

Granted, just because something is pagan does not mean it is wrong, perhaps. We say that pagans could make some correct observations in their thought about God, but we do not consider they have Right Faith or the catholic faith.

On another note, Hinduism is perhaps the main polytheist religion to have survived after so many centuries. It is not clear to me whether Buddhism is polytheist, although I know at least some Buddhist sects have deities.

One thing I would question is how different our angels are from the polytheist deities. In both cases we are talking about divine beings created by the main deity. In the Abrahamic religion, the good angels are loyal servants of God, while in polytheism they are much more independent of the main deity. So that is a difference. In the Abrahamic religion, the angels are either with God and loyal servants or going against God and/or man.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 17, 2014, 06:45:46 PM
One thing I would question is how different our angels are from the polytheist deities. In both cases we are talking about divine beings created by the main deity.

Not quite.  Angels aren't divine. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mike on January 17, 2014, 07:00:04 PM
Well, they share with God some supernatural powers humans do not get. And IIRC, eg. Olympian gods were not equal in power either. Zeus was on the top, then his siblings, then offsprings of Kronos' children incest with each other, then gods born with lesser deities, then gods born with humans...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 17, 2014, 07:01:59 PM
Well, they share with God some supernatural powers humans do not get.

Humans share with God some qualities which angels do not, but that doesn't suddenly make humans divine. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Eastern Mind on January 17, 2014, 07:13:23 PM
I realize this isn't really an icon, but what would the use for this be other than perhaps decoration?

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/ORTHODOX-Footstep-Pochaev-Mother-of-God-/00/s/NTQwWDcyMA==/$(KGrHqN,!qUFB,qzFGhJBQhY,0MP7g~~60_3.JPG)

It's supposed to represent the footprint left behind after the apparition of Our Lady of Pochaev. Strange.

Many years,

Neil 

It is indeed representing the miraculous footprint at Pochaev. It would have been far better to have a properPochaevskaya icon which features the footprint (many of them do).

The footprint of the Theotokos? :)

I have to learn more about this (and since I've gotten 4 weeks worth of algebra homework done in one week, I've earned it ^_^ )
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on February 07, 2014, 11:12:47 PM
Found a picture of this Western icon, and I noticed it has oval-shaped halos for Jesus and the Theotokos, but a normal one for St. Joseph. This isn't the first time I've seen oval-shaped halos in more ancient icons. What's up with them?

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1609635_10202475972954694_1433613157_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 08, 2014, 05:04:28 AM
Found a picture of this Western icon, and I noticed it has oval-shaped halos for Jesus and the Theotokos, but a normal one for St. Joseph. This isn't the first time I've seen oval-shaped halos in more ancient icons. What's up with them?

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1609635_10202475972954694_1433613157_n.jpg)

This illumination looks like it's from about the 12th century. It didn't take long after this, at the dawn of the Renaissance at the turn of the following century for haloes to be shown as flat disks or transparent ovals, with their centers over the crown of the saint's head.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on February 08, 2014, 12:54:42 PM
This illumination looks like it's from about the 12th century. It didn't take long after this, at the dawn of the Renaissance at the turn of the following century for haloes to be shown as flat disks or transparent ovals, with their centers over the crown of the saint's head.

So was there any specific reason behind their using both oval halos and round halos at the same time?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Velsigne on February 08, 2014, 01:19:08 PM
When I saved this icon of the Theotokos from an online image, I noticed that the eyes are two different colors.

What does this mean?  I've never noticed this in icons before.

(http://www.pravmir.ru/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/0751-580x386.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on February 08, 2014, 02:53:50 PM
Wow. That's interesting. Was it painted by Bowie Cat?

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/hF77D48CE_zpsbb1ff8a2.jpg) (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/neon000/media/hF77D48CE_zpsbb1ff8a2.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on February 08, 2014, 02:58:40 PM
When I saved this icon of the Theotokos from an online image, I noticed that the eyes are two different colors.

What does this mean?  I've never noticed this in icons before.

(http://www.pravmir.ru/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/0751-580x386.jpg)

Oh, She is beautiful.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 08, 2014, 07:17:06 PM
When I saved this icon of the Theotokos from an online image, I noticed that the eyes are two different colors.

What does this mean?  I've never noticed this in icons before.

(http://www.pravmir.ru/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/0751-580x386.jpg)

The eyes are not two different colors. There is a rectangular patch of light haze over the eye on the viewer's right (the Virgin's left) which gives a bluish tinge to the area covered by the haze. The hazy patch is most likely a reflection in the glass covering the icon (such as a distant window), which the photograph picked up.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Velsigne on February 09, 2014, 02:13:02 AM
Thanks!  Now I can see it.   :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Velsigne on February 09, 2014, 02:15:05 AM

Oh, She is beautiful.

Yes, it's from that nice thread you started about the nuns.  Some wonderful photos there.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on February 14, 2014, 03:22:21 PM

Macrame icons.

(http://www.arthit.ru/applied-art/0127/macrame-art-1.jpg)

(http://www.arthit.ru/applied-art/0127/macrame-art-9.jpg)

(http://www.arthit.ru/applied-art/0127/macrame-art-5.jpg)

(http://www.arthit.ru/applied-art/0127/macrame-art-14.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on February 14, 2014, 10:09:02 PM
^I actually like those. Especially the first two, although the first is better.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on February 14, 2014, 10:14:41 PM

I liked them, too.  ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Adela on February 14, 2014, 10:24:04 PM
I liked the macramé icons.  My mom did macramé in the 1970s and made macramé purses, plant hangers, owl wall hangings and even a big macramé thunderbird.  But nothing like the icons.  That is some serious skill there.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on February 14, 2014, 10:44:14 PM
I liked the macramé icons.  My mom did macramé in the 1970s and made macramé purses, plant hangers, owl wall hangings and even a big macramé thunderbird.  But nothing like the icons.  That is some serious skill there.

Indeed.

Those macramé icons are all beautiful.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on February 24, 2014, 10:34:09 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/547332_485971198080845_1001428011_n.jpg)

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  >:( >:( >:(

Quite similar, by painted by a Georgian Orthodox:
(http://www.orthodoxy.ge/galerea/trigishvili/mshobelta.jpg)
LBK, what do you think about this one?


And some other Georgian icons. Maybe not so strange, just a bit unusual (well, most of Georgian icons I find unusual, probably becasue I'm not used to them):
(http://www.orthodoxy.ge/galerea/shtsintsadze/garejelebi.jpg)
(http://www.orthodoxy.ge/galerea/shtsintsadze/100000.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 24, 2014, 05:15:40 PM

Quite similar, by painted by a Georgian Orthodox:

(http://www.orthodoxy.ge/galerea/trigishvili/mshobelta.jpg)

LBK, what do you think about this one?


This is a version of the icon The Word Made Flesh, which is associated in some parts of the Orthodox world with helping in childbirth. It is a variation of the well-known icon Of the Sign (Platytera, Znamenniye).

The "original" was of western origin, and showed the Mother of God bare-headed, with her hair draped over her shoulders. In this Georgian version, she is shown in her conventional garments, as she should be, though it would have been good to include the stars of ever-virginity.  :(
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 24, 2014, 05:19:32 PM

And some other Georgian icons. Maybe not so strange, just a bit unusual (well, most of Georgian icons I find unusual, probably becasue I'm not used to them):
(http://www.orthodoxy.ge/galerea/shtsintsadze/garejelebi.jpg)
(http://www.orthodoxy.ge/galerea/shtsintsadze/100000.jpg)


These show assemblies of saints, the first appears to show saints of a particular monastery (I can't read Georgian inscriptions); the second of a group of martyrs from a particular place. Similar icons can be found in other Orthodox traditions.  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on March 01, 2014, 11:14:55 PM
Of a miracle of St. Menas (http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/miracle-of-saint-menas-in-el-alamein-in.html).

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/1385055_218894041632863_1439465955_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on March 13, 2014, 01:04:00 AM
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1958318_589030844523408_2062726056_n.jpg)

It seems one of the faces was removed/damaged and then was replaced with a cut out from another icon (painted in an entirely different style)?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on March 13, 2014, 01:05:20 AM
ancient photoshop!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on March 13, 2014, 01:08:11 AM
The ancients need to update their software and restart their computers.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on March 13, 2014, 01:10:13 AM
I also like the flagon and assorted foods.  :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on March 13, 2014, 01:14:25 AM
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1958318_589030844523408_2062726056_n.jpg)

It seems one of the faces was removed/damaged and then was replaced with a cut out from another icon (painted in an entirely different style)?

Yes, the face on the angel on the right is quite unlike the Ushakov style of the rest of the icon. The great question is what was behind this intrusion.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on April 02, 2014, 04:29:57 PM

Any ideas?

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/l/t1.0-9/10015090_428362133966920_18385987_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on April 02, 2014, 05:46:19 PM

Any ideas?

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/l/t1.0-9/10015090_428362133966920_18385987_n.jpg)

This is not an icon intended for veneration, but a didactic image. The image of an anonymous "crucified monk" attempts to encapsulate the steadfastness of faith, humility, dying to self, and renunciation of worldly life.

This version is rather graphic and lurid, I would say unnecessarily so. Other versions I've seen express the above, without the grand histrionics.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on April 03, 2014, 07:52:49 AM

Any ideas?

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/l/t1.0-9/10015090_428362133966920_18385987_n.jpg)

This is not an icon intended for veneration, but a didactic image. The image of an anonymous "crucified monk" attempts to encapsulate the steadfastness of faith, humility, dying to self, and renunciation of worldly life.

This version is rather graphic and lurid, I would say unnecessarily so. Other versions I've seen express the above, without the grand histrionics.

What do the cups filled with flame represent?  On other less "graphic" versions, the monk is actually crucified, so he isn't holding anything.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on April 03, 2014, 08:19:11 AM

Any ideas?


This is not an icon intended for veneration, but a didactic image. The image of an anonymous "crucified monk" attempts to encapsulate the steadfastness of faith, humility, dying to self, and renunciation of worldly life.

This version is rather graphic and lurid, I would say unnecessarily so. Other versions I've seen express the above, without the grand histrionics.

What do the cups filled with flame represent?  On other less "graphic" versions, the monk is actually crucified, so he isn't holding anything.

Other versions I've seen show the monk or nun holding candles. I suspect it refers to striving to be "the light of the world", as in Matthew 5: 14-16:

“You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on April 03, 2014, 08:40:23 AM

Any ideas?


This is not an icon intended for veneration, but a didactic image. The image of an anonymous "crucified monk" attempts to encapsulate the steadfastness of faith, humility, dying to self, and renunciation of worldly life.

This version is rather graphic and lurid, I would say unnecessarily so. Other versions I've seen express the above, without the grand histrionics.

What do the cups filled with flame represent?  On other less "graphic" versions, the monk is actually crucified, so he isn't holding anything.

Other versions I've seen show the monk or nun holding candles. I suspect it refers to striving to be "the light of the world", as in Matthew 5: 14-16:

“You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Thank you.  I haven't seen that version with the candles.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on April 07, 2014, 09:59:25 AM

Wishing everyone a blessed Feast of the Annunciation!!!

As I was looking at some icons this morning, a few interesting ones popped up.

(http://www.asimplechristian.com/images/ann251.jpg)

While I understand the meaning of the fetus within her....at this point of her life, the fetus would not have been there, though.  She was just being visited by Angel Gabriel and informed of what would occur if she agreed. 

...and then this one was a shocker.

(http://images.oca.org/icons/lg/greatfeasts/0325Annunciation0012.jpg)

Angel Gabriel looks aggressive, as if he's about to pounce and mug her....and she looks totally frightened and curled up in a defensive position.  Again, I understand she was a bit shocked at seeing an angel...but....
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on April 07, 2014, 10:01:08 AM
ouch...her neck in the second one looks extremly painful....maybe she slept wrong......
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on April 07, 2014, 03:42:55 PM
It seems this is depicting a pre-born Christ, which would be the oldest icon of such a thing I've seen so far (the others usually being motivated by pro-life stuff). It's apparently based on a 12th century icon, the Annunciation of Ustyug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustyug_Annunciation).

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/1901752_736563136384099_4558646944918858717_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on April 07, 2014, 03:47:34 PM
It seems this is depicting a pre-born Christ, which would be the oldest icon of such a thing I've seen so far (the others usually being motivated by pro-life stuff). It's apparently based on a 12th century icon, the Annunciation of Ustyug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustyug_Annunciation).

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/1901752_736563136384099_4558646944918858717_n.jpg)

I have a copy of this at home, but it's much darker than this image: I like this one because you can see the details better. 

I was looking for an icon of the Annunciation, and I picked this one because of the infant Christ peering out from within.  ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on April 07, 2014, 05:12:39 PM
It seems this is depicting a pre-born Christ, which would be the oldest icon of such a thing I've seen so far (the others usually being motivated by pro-life stuff). It's apparently based on a 12th century icon, the Annunciation of Ustyug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustyug_Annunciation).

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/1901752_736563136384099_4558646944918858717_n.jpg)

Is He pre-born or just small?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: podkarpatska on April 07, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
ouch...her neck in the second one looks extremly painful....maybe she slept wrong......

I can never tell if it's just strange or true schlock!  The top one seems schlochky to me, the lower one just strange...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on April 07, 2014, 05:18:55 PM
It seems this is depicting a pre-born Christ, which would be the oldest icon of such a thing I've seen so far (the others usually being motivated by pro-life stuff). It's apparently based on a 12th century icon, the Annunciation of Ustyug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustyug_Annunciation).

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/1901752_736563136384099_4558646944918858717_n.jpg)

Is He pre-born or just small?

Well, since it's at the Annunciation Christ hadn't been born yet, and if you notice she's not actually holding him in any way.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on April 07, 2014, 05:24:45 PM
Is He pre-born or just small?

Well, since it's at the Annunciation Christ hadn't been born yet, and if you notice she's not actually holding him in any way.

Yeah, you're probably right. I was too preoccupied thinking about "Our Lady of the Sign" that I forgot the Annunciation was the subject.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on April 07, 2014, 07:13:33 PM

Wishing everyone a blessed Feast of the Annunciation!!!

As I was looking at some icons this morning, a few interesting ones popped up.

(http://www.asimplechristian.com/images/ann251.jpg)

While I understand the meaning of the fetus within her....at this point of her life, the fetus would not have been there, though.  She was just being visited by Angel Gabriel and informed of what would occur if she agreed. 


The Ustiug Annunciation shows Christ as a Child, but still all-knowing, as is proper. The version posted by Liza shows an amorphous fetus sporting a halo.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on April 07, 2014, 07:20:28 PM

...and then this one was a shocker.

(http://images.oca.org/icons/lg/greatfeasts/0325Annunciation0012.jpg)

Angel Gabriel looks aggressive, as if he's about to pounce and mug her....and she looks totally frightened and curled up in a defensive position.  Again, I understand she was a bit shocked at seeing an angel...but....


This compositional type, showing the surprise and wonder of the Mother of God at Archangel Gabriel's message, is not uncommon, but whoever painted this version needs to seriously improve his draftsmanship. Here is a historic version:

(http://www.arthermitage.org/Painting/Icon-Annunciation.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on April 09, 2014, 04:12:45 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vZnY0VjHYY8/U0UqCHxiNaI/AAAAAAAAnlU/GluNELpczJ4/s1600/paisios+frescoe.png)

Is that Turkish Delight? 

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/04/a-fresco-of-elder-paisios-talking-with.html#more
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on April 09, 2014, 05:28:44 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vZnY0VjHYY8/U0UqCHxiNaI/AAAAAAAAnlU/GluNELpczJ4/s1600/paisios+frescoe.png)

Is that Turkish Delight? 


Well, it's pink and white, and in small lumps, so .....  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on April 11, 2014, 08:32:36 AM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vZnY0VjHYY8/U0UqCHxiNaI/AAAAAAAAnlU/GluNELpczJ4/s1600/paisios+frescoe.png)

Is that Turkish Delight? 


Well, it's pink and white, and in small lumps, so .....  :)
...it's λουκούμι, which means GREEK Delight, of course!  Served with GREEK coffee and a little GREEK water.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on April 11, 2014, 11:04:59 AM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vZnY0VjHYY8/U0UqCHxiNaI/AAAAAAAAnlU/GluNELpczJ4/s1600/paisios+frescoe.png)

Is that Turkish Delight? 

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/04/a-fresco-of-elder-paisios-talking-with.html#more

Is it bad that I first wondered why there is a bee skep on top of the church with a cross on top?

Christian bees?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on May 03, 2014, 04:22:46 PM
What is going on in this icon?

(http://www.e-e-e.gr/dragon_moon_worship/dragon_panagia.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on May 03, 2014, 04:49:32 PM
"And she shall crush the serpent's head."
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on May 03, 2014, 04:57:28 PM
What's with all the heads though? I would have guessed there'd be a snake, or maybe a dragon, but why a hydra?  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Luka on May 03, 2014, 05:00:34 PM
Apparently it's a vision from Revelation 12 - Dragon waiting to devour the Child that is to be born of the Woman clothed in the Sun with a wreath-crown of twelve stars.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on May 03, 2014, 05:07:51 PM
What is going on in this icon?

(http://www.e-e-e.gr/dragon_moon_worship/dragon_panagia.jpg)

Revelation? I can't look it up right now, but isn't there a woman with 12 stars (crowning her head?) who is about to give birth, and the dragon crouches before her to devour her child?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Asteriktos on May 03, 2014, 05:08:35 PM
Ahh, thanks!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on May 03, 2014, 05:09:23 PM
What is going on in this icon?

(http://www.e-e-e.gr/dragon_moon_worship/dragon_panagia.jpg)

Revelation? I can't look it up right now, but isn't there a woman with 12 stars (crowning her head?) who is about to give birth, and the dragon crouches before her to devour her child?

Oops, sorry, that's twice now I replied without seeing the next page of posts. My apologies.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Regnare on May 06, 2014, 12:25:18 AM
What is going on in this icon?

(http://www.e-e-e.gr/dragon_moon_worship/dragon_panagia.jpg)
Revelation 12:1-4. "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born."

This is probably done by a Catholic, because I've never heard an Orthodox writer connect the Theotokos to the Woman Clothed With The Sun.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on May 06, 2014, 12:43:12 AM
What is going on in this icon?

(http://www.e-e-e.gr/dragon_moon_worship/dragon_panagia.jpg)
Revelation 12:1-4. "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born."

This is probably done by a Catholic,
because I've never heard an Orthodox writer connect the Theotokos to the Woman Clothed With The Sun.

It was painted by a Roman Catholic. His name is Fr William Hart McNichols, and he is a Jesuit priest. He is also a protege of the notorious Robert Lentz, a Franciscan friar. Between the two of them, they have produced a great many paintings which resemble icons, but are anything but - many of these do not even conform to Roman Catholic teaching, let alone Orthodox. At best, they are misguided; at their worst, they are blasphemous and heretical.

Unfortunately, the fact that so much of their work is tainted, even that which passes muster should be avoided.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on May 30, 2014, 01:34:14 PM


I've never see one like this.  Christ is a teenager/young man.

(http://www.easterngiftshop.com/media/ecom/prodsm/10_4_07_icons_The%20Holy%20Family%20email.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on May 30, 2014, 08:45:28 PM


I've never see one like this.  Christ is a teenager/young man.

(http://www.easterngiftshop.com/media/ecom/prodsm/10_4_07_icons_The%20Holy%20Family%20email.jpg)

This is an adaptation of the Holy Trinity icon derived from the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham, but the three angels are replaced by the Mother of God, St Joseph the Betrothed, and the young Christ. The “Holy Family” idea is foreign enough to Orthodox tradition, but its intrusion into the well-established iconography of the Holy Trinity is extremely problematic, to say the least. It presents a very confused conflation of the Holy Trinity and the three persons depicted here.

It is a great shame that such an image, expressing ideas contrary to what the Orthodox Church teaches, was painted by someone who is Orthodox, and who has been painting icons for a generation. This isn't the honest mistake of a novice.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on May 30, 2014, 08:54:26 PM

Thanks for the clarification.  That's what I thought, also.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on May 30, 2014, 09:00:04 PM

Thanks for the clarification.  That's what I thought, also.


 :)

Really, this image belongs in the "Schlock Icons" thread. Yet another example of a work which is skilfully painted, but risks causing spiritual confusion and damage to the unsuspecting.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on May 30, 2014, 09:09:55 PM

Yeah...I was going to post it there, but, I couldn't post an icon with Christ and the Theotokos depicted so nicely, in a "Schlock" category.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on May 30, 2014, 09:13:46 PM

Yeah...I was going to post it there, but, I couldn't post an icon with Christ and the Theotokos depicted so nicely, in a "Schlock" category.


Ah, there's the rub. The "prettiness" of this image is what makes it so subversive. That's why it deserves to be seen as schlock.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 30, 2014, 09:33:23 PM
It is a great shame that such an image, expressing ideas contrary to what the Orthodox Church teaches, was painted by someone who is Orthodox, and who has been painting icons for a generation. This isn't the honest mistake of a novice.

If it was painted by a veteran Orthodox iconographer who should know better, why wouldn't s/he know better and do better?  Or is there more going on here? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on May 30, 2014, 09:50:04 PM
It is a great shame that such an image, expressing ideas contrary to what the Orthodox Church teaches, was painted by someone who is Orthodox, and who has been painting icons for a generation. This isn't the honest mistake of a novice.

If it was painted by a veteran Orthodox iconographer who should know better, why wouldn't s/he know better and do better?  Or is there more going on here? 

This person is not the only Orthodox painting unsatisfactory images. Most of his work is fine, but the continued presence of this and at least one other of his works in Orthodox bookstores and on his website is cause for concern. If painting these images was indeed an honest mistake, then they should be withdrawn from circulation. If these works were painted for a non-Orthodox patron, then they should be clearly designated as such, and not disseminated as Orthodox icons. There comes a point in an iconographer's life where he must draw the line and decline commissions where the subject matter is contrary to Orthodox teaching, whether the prospective patron is Orthodox or not.

There are plenty of others, including the Andreyevs of the Prosopon School, and Fr Stamatios Skliris, a Greek Orthodox priest. These hold themselves out to be authorities on iconography, yet a good part of their work is unfit for veneration, to put it mildly. The Schlock Icons thread has ample evidence of this.

As to why such "knowledgeable" people continue to paint unsatisfactory images, it doesn't take much thought to come up with reasons why.  :P

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on July 11, 2014, 07:21:59 AM
Last days when I was in Serbia I bought a small paper icon almost identical with this one:
(http://svetisimeon.org/serb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/duhovi2.png)

See what (actually, who) is in the place of traditional Cosmos ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on July 11, 2014, 07:28:54 AM
International folks?  Odd.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 11, 2014, 09:24:32 AM
Last days when I was in Serbia I bought a small paper icon almost identical with this one:
(http://svetisimeon.org/serb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/duhovi2.png)

See what (actually, who) is in the place of traditional Cosmos ;)

This isn't just strange, it's schlock. Another "creative" tweak to an icon whose form and purpose was established many centuries ago. What a waste of time, effort, paint and leaf.  :P >:( >:(
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 11, 2014, 10:30:57 AM
The “Holy Family” idea is foreign enough to Orthodox tradition,

I almost missed this, but may I ask about it?

Why is it that the "Holy Family" idea is not acceptable? Is it only that Christ is older, or are the three pictured with the infant Christ also a problem?

(It occurs to me that St. Joseph is essentially a provider/protector and not a "father" in the true sense - is that the reason?)

I may be sorry I asked. I have a fair number of small depictions that I use as Christmas decorations, but I love them very much. (One is carved from Olive wood supposedly from Israel and features the Holy Family within the Star of Bethlehem - that's my favorite.) And I just unpacked a statuette of the Exodus (Holy Family plus the donkey) that I've had packed for a few years (fearing the cats would break it as I had nowhere safe to put it). I would not like to have to give them all up, but if they are problematic I would like to know?

Thank you.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on July 11, 2014, 10:33:13 AM
Last days when I was in Serbia I bought a small paper icon almost identical with this one:
(http://svetisimeon.org/serb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/duhovi2.png)

See what (actually, who) is in the place of traditional Cosmos ;)

This isn't just strange, it's schlock. Another "creative" tweak to an icon whose form and purpose was established many centuries ago. What a waste of time, effort, paint and leaf.  :P >:( >:(

You can imagine my facet when I looked at this icon longer (I'd bought it because it was only icon that had been missing in my collection of the 12 great feasts, and from distance I'd seen it's Pentecost, and the purpose had been to have just an icon of it, nothing so special or unique) ;) However, I don't consider it so schlock as some presented in another thread. Surely, the symbolism of the original icon is deeper, but this one at least doesn't promote some heretical stuff (at least it seems to me so)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on July 12, 2014, 07:17:25 PM
The “Holy Family” idea is foreign enough to Orthodox tradition,

I almost missed this, but may I ask about it?

Why is it that the "Holy Family" idea is not acceptable? Is it only that Christ is older, or are the three pictured with the infant Christ also a problem?

(It occurs to me that St. Joseph is essentially a provider/protector and not a "father" in the true sense - is that the reason?)

I may be sorry I asked. I have a fair number of small depictions that I use as Christmas decorations, but I love them very much. (One is carved from Olive wood supposedly from Israel and features the Holy Family within the Star of Bethlehem - that's my favorite.) And I just unpacked a statuette of the Exodus (Holy Family plus the donkey) that I've had packed for a few years (fearing the cats would break it as I had nowhere safe to put it). I would not like to have to give them all up, but if they are problematic I would like to know?

Thank you.

This may or may not be 'The Answer'

however....you say they are decorations.  I would say that is just fine, despite the idea that the Holy Family idea is not part of Tradition. Clearly the three people depicted in your decorations WERE in the same places.....logically they were, so depicting a Biblical event is not some no-no.

But venerating these as icons...no.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 12, 2014, 07:26:55 PM
The “Holy Family” idea is foreign enough to Orthodox tradition,

I almost missed this, but may I ask about it?

Why is it that the "Holy Family" idea is not acceptable? Is it only that Christ is older, or are the three pictured with the infant Christ also a problem?

(It occurs to me that St. Joseph is essentially a provider/protector and not a "father" in the true sense - is that the reason?)

I may be sorry I asked. I have a fair number of small depictions that I use as Christmas decorations, but I love them very much. (One is carved from Olive wood supposedly from Israel and features the Holy Family within the Star of Bethlehem - that's my favorite.) And I just unpacked a statuette of the Exodus (Holy Family plus the donkey) that I've had packed for a few years (fearing the cats would break it as I had nowhere safe to put it). I would not like to have to give them all up, but if they are problematic I would like to know?

Thank you.

Anna, please PM me on this.  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 12, 2014, 09:40:06 PM
St. Joseph is so underappreciated in Orthodoxy. Makes me sad.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 12, 2014, 10:51:49 PM
The “Holy Family” idea is foreign enough to Orthodox tradition,

I almost missed this, but may I ask about it?

Why is it that the "Holy Family" idea is not acceptable? Is it only that Christ is older, or are the three pictured with the infant Christ also a problem?

(It occurs to me that St. Joseph is essentially a provider/protector and not a "father" in the true sense - is that the reason?)

I may be sorry I asked. I have a fair number of small depictions that I use as Christmas decorations, but I love them very much. (One is carved from Olive wood supposedly from Israel and features the Holy Family within the Star of Bethlehem - that's my favorite.) And I just unpacked a statuette of the Exodus (Holy Family plus the donkey) that I've had packed for a few years (fearing the cats would break it as I had nowhere safe to put it). I would not like to have to give them all up, but if they are problematic I would like to know?

Thank you.

This may or may not be 'The Answer'

however....you say they are decorations.  I would say that is just fine, despite the idea that the Holy Family idea is not part of Tradition. Clearly the three people depicted in your decorations WERE in the same places.....logically they were, so depicting a Biblical event is not some no-no.

But venerating these as icons...no.



Thanks Denise. :)

Since the whole idea of icons is new to me since Christmas was packed away ... But anyway, I would never "venerate" them. I have a statuette of Christ as a shepherd on my bookshelf too, but yes, the idea of venerating Christian decorations, pretty much rubs hard against the old Protestant mindset. I look at them and think about what they represent sometimes? But I do that with various kinds of art. :)

Thank you for the reply. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 12, 2014, 11:16:57 PM
St. Joseph is so underappreciated in Orthodoxy. Makes me sad.

+1

There's still no room in the inn. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mabsoota on July 13, 2014, 05:51:26 AM
in coptic tradition, we have many old icons of the 'flight to egypt' with saint mary, saint joseph and our Lord Jesus.
for example here:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/coptic-artwork-picture.html

is this ok from the EO iconography point of view?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on July 13, 2014, 06:01:23 AM
(http://www.monasteryicons.com/graphics/products/regular/603.jpg)
This one, no.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/The_Flight_into_Egypt_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/640px-The_Flight_into_Egypt_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)

This one's good.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 13, 2014, 02:23:33 PM
St. Joseph is so underappreciated in Orthodoxy. Makes me sad.

Good point, Kelly. He's very meaningful to me, as an older man with a rather-unexpected family, and I often ask him to pray for me.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 13, 2014, 03:10:04 PM
St. Joseph is so underappreciated in Orthodoxy. Makes me sad.

Good point, Kelly. He's very meaningful to me, as an older man with a rather-unexpected family, and I often ask him to pray for me.

He was stepfather to God Incarnate - that's a huge deal.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 13, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
And his response to the high calling was one of great patience and self-sacrifice unusual among family men. Something exemplary, that should be often put before us (I edited to add).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 13, 2014, 07:48:07 PM
in coptic tradition, we have many old icons of the 'flight to egypt' with saint mary, saint joseph and our Lord Jesus.
for example here:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/coptic-artwork-picture.html

is this ok from the EO iconography point of view?

Nothing wrong with it at all. A lovely icon, Mabsoota!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 13, 2014, 07:53:26 PM
(http://www.monasteryicons.com/graphics/products/regular/603.jpg)
This one, no.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/The_Flight_into_Egypt_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/640px-The_Flight_into_Egypt_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)

This one's good.

Precisely.  :)

For those who feel St Joseph is given short shrift by the Orthodox, this is not the case. He is present in icons of the Nativity and the Meeting of the Lord, which are present in every Orthodox church in the world. Many churches also feature the Flight into Egypt, and the first Sunday after the Nativity is dedicated to him, along with King David and St James the Brother of the Lord.

The highly visible western veneration of St Joseph dates only to about the 16th century, through the efforts of St Theresa of Avila.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 13, 2014, 08:13:38 PM
I guess I just don't get why there can't be icons of St. Joseph as an individual as opposed to being  a tiny character in two festal icons. Sts. Joachim and Anna get more attention than poor St. Joseph and we know a lot more about Joseph than we do about them.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Father H on July 13, 2014, 08:31:01 PM
in coptic tradition, we have many old icons of the 'flight to egypt' with saint mary, saint joseph and our Lord Jesus.
for example here:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/coptic-artwork-picture.html

is this ok from the EO iconography point of view?

Of course!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 14, 2014, 02:59:11 AM
I guess I just don't get why there can't be icons of St. Joseph as an individual as opposed to being  a tiny character in two festal icons. Sts. Joachim and Anna get more attention than poor St. Joseph and we know a lot more about Joseph than we do about them.

There are indeed proper, canonical icons of St Joseph. He may be holding a scroll bearing the incarnational prophecy of of Isaiah 7:14, and/or a pair of turtle-doves (the sacrificial offering he brought to the Temple 40 days after Christ's birth), and/or a staff which has sprouted, reflecting the means by which he was chosen to be the betrothed of young Virgin.

What he should not be doing is holding the Christ-child, in the manner of icons of the Mother of God. This is a major theological and iconographic error.

Yet again, I offer to email to anyone who is interested an article on the iconography of St Joseph, from the liturgical, historical and doctrinal tradition of the Church.  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 14, 2014, 03:08:48 AM
Yes I would like to see that LBK! My e-mail address is in my profile. I also want to get one of the icons you describe.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on July 14, 2014, 10:10:11 AM
A good one
(http://www.orthodox.net/ikons/joseph-the-betrothed-03.png)

A bad one
(http://my.execpc.com/~kmknapp/images/joseph-icon.bmp)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 14, 2014, 10:18:00 AM
Oh, yes indeed.

The second one is by the Jesuit priest and Robert Lentz protégé , William Hart McNichols.

Ugh.  :P :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 14, 2014, 10:53:56 AM
A good one
(http://www.orthodox.net/ikons/joseph-the-betrothed-03.png)

A bad one
(http://my.execpc.com/~kmknapp/images/joseph-icon.bmp)


Wow, I don't know much and that makes a VERY distinct comparison for me! On a number of points!

I have to wonder WHY someone would paint something like the second one? (Just a rhetorical - not actual - question.)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 14, 2014, 12:33:56 PM
The thrust of the two could not be more different. In the first, he's a patient servant standing to the side of events, spending his old age in self-sacrifice. In the second, he usurps all the rights and beauties of the Theotokos.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 14, 2014, 07:06:52 PM
Quote
I have to wonder WHY someone would paint something like the second one? (Just a rhetorical - not actual - question.)

In the case of this particular artist and his mentor, it is pride that he knows better than iconographic tradition, not because of honest ignorance.  :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: genesisone on July 14, 2014, 07:10:57 PM
In the second, he usurps all the rights and beauties of the Theotokos.
Even worse, I'm seeing shades of father, son, and holy spirit. (lack of capitalization intended)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 14, 2014, 07:33:09 PM
In the second, he usurps all the rights and beauties of the Theotokos.
Even worse, I'm seeing shades of father, son, and holy spirit. (lack of capitalization intended)

Quite right. The artist has appropriated an existing uncanonical composition, known as Otechestvo (Paternity), and further compounded the heresy:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Otechestvo_ikona_Novgorod.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 14, 2014, 10:53:17 PM
In the second, he usurps all the rights and beauties of the Theotokos.
Even worse, I'm seeing shades of father, son, and holy spirit. (lack of capitalization intended)

Wow I did not catch that. A natural step to take if you doubt Christ's birth of a virgin, however.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 14, 2014, 10:56:59 PM
In the second, he usurps all the rights and beauties of the Theotokos.
Even worse, I'm seeing shades of father, son, and holy spirit. (lack of capitalization intended)

Quite right. The artist has appropriated an existing uncanonical composition, known as Otechestvo (Paternity), and further compounded the heresy:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Otechestvo_ikona_Novgorod.jpg)



Wow.  I had not seen the Otechestvo, but yes that is disturbing on SO many levels.

Who is the figure in the lower right of the Otechestvo? I feel like I shouldn't even be asking, but I would like to know?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 14, 2014, 10:58:45 PM
Wow.  I had not seen the Otechestvo, but yes that is disturbing on SO many levels.

Why do you find it disturbing, Anna? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 14, 2014, 11:10:42 PM
Wow.  I had not seen the Otechestvo, but yes that is disturbing on SO many levels.

Why do you find it disturbing, Anna?  

Well, I am absolutely NO expert. I've only studied a limited number of icons. But ...

1. The biggest thing, by far, for me, is the positioning of "Joseph". I've never seen an icon of anyone but the Theotokos in this position with Christ, and it's so obviously similar. It just seems highly inappropriate.

2. The age of Joseph is far off. He appears to be a relatively young man, in contrast to all the teaching we have about him. It would undermine much other teaching about the Theotokos, and make her ever-virginity seem suspect, at best.

3. A minor point, but the resemblance between the two figures. The Joseph looks more like Christ - than Christ does. Somehow this seems to imply, on an unconscious level, that Joseph would be Jesus' biological father.

4. The dove - as mentioned - the whole Father-Son-dove iconography puts me in mind of the Trinity, and icons depicting the Trinity in this way are considered not canonical? Further, even if they were, putting Joseph in the position of God the Father is ... A problem, IMO.

Those are my main problems with it. But it's difficult for me to find something praiseworthy in it, in the face of all the issues it feels like it stirs in me.

Forgive me, I can be off in something. I'm just learning all this. And I hope nothing I've said is inadvertently offensive to anyone. But what I've gotten from Orthodoxy so far, makes me think of these issues.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 14, 2014, 11:13:42 PM
Wow.  I had not seen the Otechestvo, but yes that is disturbing on SO many levels.

Why do you find it disturbing, Anna?  

Ohhhh! You meant the Otechestvo? I'm sorry, it does sound like that's what I was disturbed by.

No, I'm sorry, I was relating the Otechestvo to the Joseph and Jesus icon, and upset about the Joseph one. My apologies. I have not looked closely at the Otechestvo. All I know is those types I have been told are not strictly canonical, as it is not permitted to portray The Father. And I wondered who the people are. I don't have much to comment on that one though. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 14, 2014, 11:19:28 PM
More accurately, one portrays the Father whenever one portrays the Son (John 14:9).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 14, 2014, 11:21:38 PM
Wow.  I had not seen the Otechestvo, but yes that is disturbing on SO many levels.

Why do you find it disturbing, Anna?  

Ohhhh! You meant the Otechestvo? I'm sorry, it does sound like that's what I was disturbed by.

No, I'm sorry, I was relating the Otechestvo to the Joseph and Jesus icon, and upset about the Joseph one. My apologies. I have not looked closely at the Otechestvo. All I know is those types I have been told are not strictly canonical, as it is not permitted to portray The Father. And I wondered who the people are. I don't have much to comment on that one though. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

No worries.  Yes, I had in mind the Otechestvo, not the various St Joseph icons.  I saw an opportunity: I wanted to see what someone "relatively unfamiliar" with Orthodoxy thought when seeing such images.  I wanted to know your unfiltered, original thoughts, as opposed to thoughts based on what you might have learned, what you might have been told/taught to believe or think about such images, etc.  
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 14, 2014, 11:22:15 PM
More accurately, one portrays the Father whenever one portrays the Son (John 14:9).

Not exactly.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 14, 2014, 11:24:09 PM
More accurately, one portrays the Father whenever one portrays the Son (John 14:9).

Not exactly.

:) Come on, spit it out. I know you have something to say about all this.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 14, 2014, 11:24:47 PM
More accurately, one portrays the Father whenever one portrays the Son (John 14:9).

Not exactly.

:) Come on, spit it out. I know you have something to say about all this.

;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: WPM on July 14, 2014, 11:26:19 PM
You're taking icons and calling them "strange" ...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 14, 2014, 11:28:30 PM
Wow.  I had not seen the Otechestvo, but yes that is disturbing on SO many levels.

Why do you find it disturbing, Anna?  

Ohhhh! You meant the Otechestvo? I'm sorry, it does sound like that's what I was disturbed by.

No, I'm sorry, I was relating the Otechestvo to the Joseph and Jesus icon, and upset about the Joseph one. My apologies. I have not looked closely at the Otechestvo. All I know is those types I have been told are not strictly canonical, as it is not permitted to portray The Father. And I wondered who the people are. I don't have much to comment on that one though. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

No worries.  Yes, I had in mind the Otechestvo, not the various St Joseph icons.  I saw an opportunity: I wanted to see what someone "relatively unfamiliar" with Orthodoxy thought when seeing such images.  I wanted to know your unfiltered, original thoughts, as opposed to thoughts based on what you might have learned, what you might have been told/taught to believe or think about such images, etc.  

Oh, I have a handful of questions. Generally reserving judgement until I know more.

I will say this - a very quick glance makes me think it teaches something like - "The Father produced the Son, and from the Son came the Holy Spirit". I see a problem, maybe subliminally, with "rank" here as well. That's my quick impression, and unvarnished and untaught, lol.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 14, 2014, 11:28:47 PM
We should have an icon of St. Joseph teaching Jesus how to pee while standing, to demonstrate Christ's full humanity in an area he couldn't quite learn from Mary. :angel:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 14, 2014, 11:30:36 PM
I really like the otechestvo, even though I can see how one could learn bad theology from it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 14, 2014, 11:31:08 PM
We should have an icon of St. Joseph teaching Jesus how to pee while standing, to demonstrate Christ's full humanity in an area he couldn't quite learn from Mary. :angel:

Who says he urinated?  The Gospels say nothing of this.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 14, 2014, 11:31:53 PM
You're taking icons and calling them "strange" ...

Is that an icon of Luther in your avatar?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 14, 2014, 11:32:52 PM
We should have an icon of St. Joseph teaching Jesus how to pee while standing, to demonstrate Christ's full humanity in an area he couldn't quite learn from Mary. :angel:

There's something strangely profound in this strangely shallow suggestion.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 14, 2014, 11:33:26 PM
I really like the otechestvo, even though I can see how one could learn bad theology from it.

It could also teach proper theology insofar as Christ still sent the Holy Spirit, and/or the fact that the Spirit eternally rests in and upon the Son. Etc.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: WPM on July 14, 2014, 11:36:31 PM
Wow.  I had not seen the Otechestvo, but yes that is disturbing on SO many levels.

Why do you find it disturbing, Anna? 

I get a "little disturbance" in my mind over religious imagery.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 14, 2014, 11:38:05 PM
I'm also looking at the red winged wheels near the footstool, and reminded about enemies being made into His footstool, but the only winged wheel I can recall was seen by Elijah, right?

The Father holds a scroll, but Christ doesn't. One of the men in the towers does. And I don't know why the towers, who those men are, and who the one on the ground is. That just makes me wonder. That's all I've got.


But our Creed says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. I just started looking into what that actually means, because apparently I had always misunderstood "proceed" in the Creed.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 14, 2014, 11:41:27 PM
I really like the otechestvo, even though I can see how one could learn bad theology from it.

It could also teach proper theology insofar as Christ still sent the Holy Spirit, and/or the fact that the Spirit eternally rests in and upon the Son. Etc.
I had considered that part of it, though I think some might object and say the icon displays some kind of "ranking" of the Trinity. This same objection could not be made in icons of the Trinity where they are shown equally enthroned, however.

Regardless, I definitely like the otechestvo.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 14, 2014, 11:41:51 PM
Ezekiel, I think you mean, but he was not the only one. At any rate, the wheels drive the throne of God.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 14, 2014, 11:43:03 PM
I'm also looking at the red winged wheels near the footstool, and reminded about enemies being made into His footstool, but the only winged wheel I can recall was seen by Elijah, right?
Those are cherubim, and the orthodoxy of their presence in such icons is undisputed.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 14, 2014, 11:52:21 PM
I really like the otechestvo, even though I can see how one could learn bad theology from it.

It could also teach proper theology insofar as Christ still sent the Holy Spirit, and/or the fact that the Spirit eternally rests in and upon the Son. Etc.
I had considered that part of it, though I think some might object and say the icon displays some kind of "ranking" of the Trinity. This same objection could not be made in icons of the Trinity where they are shown equally enthroned, however.

Regardless, I definitely like the otechestvo.

The two major icons I can imagine that show them equal would be the Visitation of Abraham or the Ethiopian "Three Old Men"-style Trinity. Almost all other New Testament Trinity icons perhaps suggest, or could at least, a ranking by virtue of the Holy Spirit just being a bird. That said, the specific locations of each person does seem to be a "biggest-to-smallest" ranking of descending importance in this one, but Idk.

I have a guilty pleasure of liking New Testament Trinity icons myself, but this one I don't like nearly as much for some reason that I can't put my finger on.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 14, 2014, 11:57:11 PM
I really like the otechestvo, even though I can see how one could learn bad theology from it.

It could also teach proper theology insofar as Christ still sent the Holy Spirit, and/or the fact that the Spirit eternally rests in and upon the Son. Etc.
I had considered that part of it, though I think some might object and say the icon displays some kind of "ranking" of the Trinity. This same objection could not be made in icons of the Trinity where they are shown equally enthroned, however.

Regardless, I definitely like the otechestvo.

The two major icons I can imagine that show them equal would be the Visitation of Abraham or the Ethiopian "Three Old Men"-style Trinity. Almost all other New Testament Trinity icons perhaps suggest, or could at least, a ranking by virtue of the Holy Spirit just being a bird. That said, the specific locations of each person does seem to be a "biggest-to-smallest" ranking of descending importance in this one, but Idk.

I have a guilty pleasure of liking New Testament Trinity icons myself, but this one I don't like nearly as much for some reason that I can't put my finger on.
I hadn't thought of this.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 15, 2014, 12:00:44 AM
Ezekiel, I think you mean, but he was not the only one. At any rate, the wheels drive the throne of God.

Oh, thank you, you are right!

Now I did not remember them connected with the throne of God. That makes much more sense then. Thank you. All I could see was that they seemed connected with a footstool.

I think this is why we need icons explained. I don't like to assume too much!

And especially since I'm not that strong in the OT. I suppose I should concentrate more on it, but it's difficult to get away from my more favorite parts of Scripture.

Thanks for the correction though. Can't believe I confused Elijah with Ezekiel, lol.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 15, 2014, 12:03:41 AM
I'm also looking at the red winged wheels near the footstool, and reminded about enemies being made into His footstool, but the only winged wheel I can recall was seen by Elijah, right?
Those are cherubim, and the orthodoxy of their presence in such icons is undisputed.

Thank you. :)

I had figured they must be angels. My problem was connecting them with the footstool, which if they are angels, makes no sense to me. Peter has kindly corrected me though, and I get that part now. :)

Thank you for the correction as well.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 12:04:32 AM
In the second, he usurps all the rights and beauties of the Theotokos.
Even worse, I'm seeing shades of father, son, and holy spirit. (lack of capitalization intended)

Quite right. The artist has appropriated an existing uncanonical composition, known as Otechestvo (Paternity), and further compounded the heresy:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Otechestvo_ikona_Novgorod.jpg)



Wow.  I had not seen the Otechestvo, but yes that is disturbing on SO many levels.

Who is the figure in the lower right of the Otechestvo? I feel like I shouldn't even be asking, but I would like to know?

The three small figures are of two pillar-dwelling saints, the third is possibly of one of the younger apostles (Thomas, John or Philip). Their presence simply points to this image having been painted to include these three saints, who are very likely patron-saints of members of the household which commissioned it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 12:10:20 AM
I really like the otechestvo, even though I can see how one could learn bad theology from it.

It could also teach proper theology insofar as Christ still sent the Holy Spirit, and/or the fact that the Spirit eternally rests in and upon the Son. Etc.

No, it does not. It ranks the Persons of the Trinity as unequal; it depicts God the Father as an old man, where He has only ever been revealed as a voice and as a rushing wind, and never as incarnate; and it depicts the Holy Spirit as a dove, when the Spirit is not a dove by nature. The Holy Spirit as a dove is only permissible in icons of Theophany (Baptism of the Lord), as it is in this form that the Spirit was manifest at that particular time and place.

Time and again, the Church has denounced such imagery, yet they continue to be painted, whether through honest ignorance, or stubborn pride.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 12:14:33 AM
We should have an icon of St. Joseph teaching Jesus how to pee while standing, to demonstrate Christ's full humanity in an area he couldn't quite learn from Mary. :angel:

You disgust me, Nephi. I expected better from you.  >:( >:(
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 15, 2014, 12:18:14 AM
Beep beep, all aboard the bus to Hell. I laughed.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2014, 12:32:35 AM
...it depicts God the Father as an old man, where He has only ever been revealed as a voice and as a rushing wind, and never as incarnate; and it depicts the Holy Spirit as a dove, when the Spirit is not a dove by nature. The Holy Spirit as a dove is only permissible in icons of Theophany (Baptism of the Lord), as it is in this form that the Spirit was manifest at that particular time and place.

1.  Leaving aside the appearance to Abraham, the visions of the prophet Daniel, etc., if you claim that the Father "has only ever been revealed as a voice and as a rushing wind", does this mean that the Father could be depicted as a voice or as a wind if there was an iconographic convention for painting these things?  Why or why not?  

2.  The Spirit is not a dove by nature, but can be depicted as such in the Theophany icon because you say that it was in that particular form that He manifested "at that particular time and place".  Leaving aside the fact that it is not clear from the Gospels whether the Spirit manifested in the form of a dove or merely descended like a dove, what does this principle mean for other iconographic conventions that are not strictly limited to "particular time and place" (e.g., depictions of the child Jesus as a miniature thirty year old in the arms of his Mother or appearing as if entombed in the Nativity icon)?  
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on July 15, 2014, 12:37:19 AM
Beep beep, all aboard the bus to Hell. I laughed.

not a bus..its a handbasket...and i am clearly in it....since I not only snickered, I thought of at least two good follow on quips.


 :-[
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 12:40:02 AM
...it depicts God the Father as an old man, where He has only ever been revealed as a voice and as a rushing wind, and never as incarnate; and it depicts the Holy Spirit as a dove, when the Spirit is not a dove by nature. The Holy Spirit as a dove is only permissible in icons of Theophany (Baptism of the Lord), as it is in this form that the Spirit was manifest at that particular time and place.

1.  Leaving aside the appearance to Abraham, the visions of the prophet Daniel, etc., if you claim that the Father "has only ever been revealed as a voice and as a rushing wind", does this mean that the Father could be depicted as a voice or as a wind if there was an iconographic convention for painting these things?  Why or why not?  
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2014, 12:48:12 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 15, 2014, 12:49:17 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?

Hopefully not someone like Yanni. *shudder*
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 12:54:12 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?

I was going to ask the same thing.  ???

As for asking if it is uncommon, I would go as far as to say it's practically non-existent. I have never seen any instance of it in the many, many icons of this feast I have seen.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on July 15, 2014, 12:56:02 AM
I am now imagining an odd mash up of the maroon5 dude and ceelo green


(http://cdn.idolator.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/23/the-voice-adam-levine-blake-shelton-christina-aguilera-cee-lo-green-600x450.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2014, 01:01:58 AM
Please, not her.  We want Shakira. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 01:19:36 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
"This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased."
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2014, 01:23:24 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
"This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Are you saying that those words are painted onto the icon? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 01:23:57 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
"This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Words are not made of anything. God the Father remains invisible and bodiless.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 01:27:02 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
"This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Are you saying that those words are painted onto the icon? 
Yes, in Greek, in a small orb above the Holy Spirit descending as a dove.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 01:27:29 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
"This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Words are not made of anything. God the Father remains invisible and bodiless.
And yet that wasn't the point.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 01:30:24 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
"This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Words are not made of anything. God the Father remains invisible and bodiless.
And yet that wasn't the point.

It is very much the point. God the Father, as He has revealed Himself, remains invisible and bodiless. A voice has no form or shape, and it certainly doesn't look like a bearded old man.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2014, 01:32:34 AM
...it depicts God the Father as an old man, where He has only ever been revealed as a voice and as a rushing wind, and never as incarnate; and it depicts the Holy Spirit as a dove, when the Spirit is not a dove by nature. The Holy Spirit as a dove is only permissible in icons of Theophany (Baptism of the Lord), as it is in this form that the Spirit was manifest at that particular time and place.

1.  Leaving aside the appearance to Abraham, the visions of the prophet Daniel, etc., if you claim that the Father "has only ever been revealed as a voice and as a rushing wind", does this mean that the Father could be depicted as a voice or as a wind if there was an iconographic convention for painting these things?  Why or why not?  

2.  The Spirit is not a dove by nature, but can be depicted as such in the Theophany icon because you say that it was in that particular form that He manifested "at that particular time and place".  Leaving aside the fact that it is not clear from the Gospels whether the Spirit manifested in the form of a dove or merely descended like a dove, what does this principle mean for other iconographic conventions that are not strictly limited to "particular time and place" (e.g., depictions of the child Jesus as a miniature thirty year old in the arms of his Mother or appearing as if entombed in the Nativity icon)?
 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 01:34:51 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
"This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Words are not made of anything. God the Father remains invisible and bodiless.
And yet that wasn't the point.

It is very much the point. God the Father, as He has revealed Himself, remains invisible and bodiless. A voice has no form or shape, and it certainly doesn't look like a bearded old man.
Whose point, yours? I was making no point, merely commenting on Mor's post. I wasn't addressing you.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 01:36:31 AM
In the icon of the theophany at my church, the Father is "depicted" as a voice. Is this uncommon?

What does "the voice" look like when painted as an image?
"This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Are you saying that those words are painted onto the icon? 
Yes, in Greek, in a small orb above the Holy Spirit descending as a dove.
It might also be worth noting that the mandorla surrounding the Holy Spirit is connected via a narrow strip of light to the orb surrounding the Father's voice, showing the Spirit proceeding from the Father.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 01:44:50 AM
Quote
does this mean that the Father could be depicted as a voice or as a wind if there was an iconographic convention for painting these things?  Why or why not?  

Voice and wind have no form or substance. The absence of any real attempt to portray wind and voice in icons is also telling. It also bears repeating that there is a difference between a divine manifestation, and the fullness of divine revelation. The Father and the Holy Spirit have only fleetingly and sporadically revealed themselves in symbolic manifestations of one sort or another, and not in the fullness of their nature. The Father is not a wind or voice, the Spirit is not a white bird by nature. Christ, OTOH, became incarnate, taking human flesh and making it his own, and even allowed three of His disciples to glimpse a small taste of the fullness of His divinity at the Transfiguration.

Quote
Leaving aside the fact that it is not clear from the Gospels whether the Spirit manifested in the form of a dove or merely descended like a dove, what does this principle mean for other iconographic conventions that are not strictly limited to "particular time and place" (e.g., depictions of the child Jesus as a miniature thirty year old in the arms of his Mother or appearing as if entombed in the Nativity icon)?  

The "maturity" of the Child expresses His eternal existence and His omniscience. He is not a generic helpless babe, but fully and completely God as well as Man. His depiction as a babe in swaddling clothes in a stone crib again looks to His coming passion death and burial. Icons are static and narrative, all at the same time.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2014, 02:17:47 AM
Quote
does this mean that the Father could be depicted as a voice or as a wind if there was an iconographic convention for painting these things?  Why or why not?  

Voice and wind have no form or substance. The absence of any real attempt to portray wind and voice in icons is also telling.

OK, so there is no iconographic convention for depicting wind or speech. 

Quote
It also bears repeating that there is a difference between a divine manifestation, and the fullness of divine revelation. The Father and the Holy Spirit have only fleetingly and sporadically revealed themselves in symbolic manifestations of one sort or another, and not in the fullness of their nature. The Father is not a wind or voice, the Spirit is not a white bird by nature. Christ, OTOH, became incarnate, taking human flesh and making it his own, and even allowed three of His disciples to glimpse a small taste of the fullness of His divinity at the Transfiguration.

Has the fullness of Christ's divinity been revealed to men, or only "a small taste...at the Transfiguration"?  Because it seems you're making a point of how the fullness of the Father's and the Spirit's nature hasn't been revealed to us, and so we cannot depict them; and yet, we can depict Christ, whose humanity is revealed to us, but whose divinity is only "glimpsed".  How much "glimpsed divinity" is enough to justify a painting? 

And if Christ's divinity can be glimpsed, and we can paint icons of Christ incorporating this, is his divinity something different from that of the Father and of the Spirit, that they cannot be depicted? 

If the divinity is shared with the Father and the Spirit, what prevents them from being painted?     

When we paint the icon of Christ, what are we depicting? 

Quote
The "maturity" of the Child expresses His eternal existence and His omniscience. He is not a generic helpless babe, but fully and completely God as well as Man. His depiction as a babe in swaddling clothes in a stone crib again looks to His coming passion death and burial. Icons are static and narrative, all at the same time.

To an extent, I cannot respond to this without knowing the answers to the questions above, because on one hand you are arguing that "maturity" is an indication of a fullness of divinity which, on the other hand, we only have a "small taste" of.

But without disagreeing with what you wrote, it doesn't really address my question.  Why does "particular time and place" make all the difference when it comes to the depiction of the Spirit as a dove, but doesn't seem to matter at all when it comes to depicting an age appropriate child in the arms of his mother, nursing from her breast, etc.?  Why does it suddenly become acceptable to depict a miniature thirty year old doing these things?  Surely that is not appropriate to the "particular time and place" depicted. 

And if Matthew, Mark, and John only say the Spirit descended like a dove at Christ's baptism, and Luke is the only one to specify that the Spirit descended in bodily form as a dove, none of these necessitate the painting of a white bird.  And yet that's exactly what we get, and it is legitimate except when it's not.  On what basis? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: mabsoota on July 15, 2014, 01:53:13 PM
i agree with lbk's comments on this one.
icons are not pictures, they are stories.

but i thought nephi's suggestion was very funny.
i am sure he was not serious!
i think he was making the point that there are reasons why certain things are not portrayed in iconography.
(sorry, the bus to hell is cancelled due to lack of a driver...)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 15, 2014, 04:45:01 PM
Our priest said that the Father is not to be depicted in Eastern Orthodox canonical icons. The reason he gave is that He has not appeared to us. 

The only possible exception being the visitation to Abraham - and I often see them as angels. I'm not sure on that one.

Not wishing to argue. Is there a difference between Eastern Orthodox and perhaps Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, etc.?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 06:48:34 PM
Ikonography is a lost art form. We have to do the best with what we have. Today's Ikons are in reality ,copies of
Italian Renaissance paintings.

and that's the truth. and yes , even  in mother russia.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 07:12:42 PM
Ikonography is a lost art form. We have to do the best with what we have. Today's Ikons are in reality ,copies of
Italian Renaissance paintings.

and that's the truth. and yes , even  in mother russia.

This is not true at all. Traditional iconography was almost lost by the beginning of the 20th century, but it has well and truly been revived. The naturalistic paintings are still around, and, in many cases, are being removed from churches and replaced with proper traditional and canonical iconography. As for "Mother Russia", good, traditional icons are being painted everywhere, not just since the fall of the Soviet system, but even before it.

Here's an example, the iconography of Mother Juliana of blessed memory, who painted a series of icons for the Trinity-St Sergius Lavra in the mid-20th century.

http://www.pravmir.ru/prepodobnyj-sergij-ikony-monaxini-iulianii-sokolovoj/

Scroll down to the fifth picture on the page, where a series of her work begins. These are no Italian Renaissance paintings, but icons of the highest level of skill, reverence and spiritual power.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 15, 2014, 07:15:20 PM
Ikonography is a lost art form. We have to do the best with what we have. Today's Ikons are in reality ,copies of
Italian Renaissance paintings.

and that's the truth. and yes , even  in mother russia.

This is not true at all. Traditional iconography was almost lost by the beginning of the 20th century, but it has well and truly been revived. The naturalistic paintings are still around, and, in many cases, are being removed from churches and replaced with proper traditional and canonical iconography. As for "Mother Russia", good, traditional icons are being painted everywhere, not just since the fall of the Soviet system, but even before it.

Here's an example, the iconography of Mother Juliana of blessed memory, who painted a series of icons for the Trinity-St Sergius Lavra in the mid-20th century.

http://www.pravmir.ru/prepodobnyj-sergij-ikony-monaxini-iulianii-sokolovoj/

Scroll down to the fifth picture on the page, where a series of her work begins. These are no Italian Renaissance paintings, but icons of the highest level of skill, reverence and spiritual power.

Wow - I really, really like those.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 07:15:41 PM
Our priest said that the Father is not to be depicted in Eastern Orthodox canonical icons. The reason he gave is that He has not appeared to us. 

The only possible exception being the visitation to Abraham - and I often see them as angels. I'm not sure on that one.


The Hospitality of Abraham, and the variant which does not include Abraham and Sarah, are indeed canonical. It should be remembered that, like the other manifestations of the Father and the Holy Spirit, that is what these angels represent. They are manifestations, not incarnations.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 07:23:14 PM
the rules for ikonography  haven't  been followed by anyone since the   crusaders  razed the Holy City. believe what you will.

I'm not  referring to what they look like to you but how they conform to the very exacting rules for this type of art form.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 07:31:59 PM
Ikonography is a lost art form. We have to do the best with what we have. Today's Ikons are in reality ,copies of
Italian Renaissance paintings.

and that's the truth. and yes , even  in mother russia.

This is not true at all. Traditional iconography was almost lost by the beginning of the 20th century, but it has well and truly been revived. The naturalistic paintings are still around, and, in many cases, are being removed from churches and replaced with proper traditional and canonical iconography. As for "Mother Russia", good, traditional icons are being painted everywhere, not just since the fall of the Soviet system, but even before it.

Here's an example, the iconography of Mother Juliana of blessed memory, who painted a series of icons for the Trinity-St Sergius Lavra in the mid-20th century.

http://www.pravmir.ru/prepodobnyj-sergij-ikony-monaxini-iulianii-sokolovoj/

Scroll down to the fifth picture on the page, where a series of her work begins. These are no Italian Renaissance paintings, but icons of the highest level of skill, reverence and spiritual power.

Wow - I really, really like those.

Another master (mistress?) iconographer of our times was Xenia Pokrovsky, who began painting icons in Russia in the 1960s, and emigrated to the US in 1991, where she painted countless icons, and taught many, until her death last year. Just as important as her mastery of the skill of painting, her sense of the spiritual was where it should be - the opposite of the new-agey mess that the Prosopon "school" espouses.

May her memory and her legacy be eternal.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ansgar on July 15, 2014, 07:41:09 PM
the rules for ikonography  haven't  been followed by anyone since the   crusaders  razed the Holy City. believe what you will.

I'm not  referring to what they look like to you but how they conform to the very exacting rules for this type of art form.

Could you elaborate on what exactly these rules are? I must admit, I fail to see how modern iconography can in any way be compared to renaissance paintings.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2014, 07:43:01 PM
Our priest said that the Father is not to be depicted in Eastern Orthodox canonical icons. The reason he gave is that He has not appeared to us. 

The only possible exception being the visitation to Abraham - and I often see them as angels. I'm not sure on that one.

Not wishing to argue. Is there a difference between Eastern Orthodox and perhaps Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, etc.?

There are differences, certainly, though my personal assessment is that they are not substantial.  In any case, I don't think this particular topic is one of them, at least not yet. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 07:45:13 PM
"Here's an example, the iconography of Mother Juliana of blessed memory, who painted a series of icons for the Trinity-St Sergius Lavra in the mid-20th century. "

unfortunately the ikons depicted do not adhere to the traditional ikonography which is very strict ,I admit, and for this reason do not exist .

true ikons do not depict the human form  showing movement.
They must be flat two dimensional only and abstract .

Ikons depicting Christ must be in portrait form or seated. and so on..
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ansgar on July 15, 2014, 07:55:05 PM
"Here's an example, the iconography of Mother Juliana of blessed memory, who painted a series of icons for the Trinity-St Sergius Lavra in the mid-20th century. "

unfortunately the ikons depicted do not adhere to the traditional ikonography which is very strict ,I admit, and for this reason do not exist .

true ikons do not depict the human form  showing movement.
They must be flat two dimensional only and abstract .

Ikons depicting Christ must be in portrait form or seated. and so on..

Show us an example, please.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 07:59:03 PM
the rules for ikonography  haven't  been followed by anyone since the   crusaders  razed the Holy City. believe what you will.

I'm not  referring to what they look like to you but how they conform to the very exacting rules for this type of art form.

Please tell us how these icons, all produced well after the Crusader period, do not "conform to the very exacting rules for this type of art form", Christodoulostheou:

(http://images.oca.org/icons/lg/july/0720elijahprophet.jpg)

(http://calindragan.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/63a29a06.jpg)

(http://www.divinum.ru/gallery/images/yaroslavskaya-5.jpg)



Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 08:11:37 PM
winged horses : throwback to pre christian times.

 Depicting hands of saints or holy persons  ;verbotten
Exceptions : Christ and/ or  Blessed mother. 

Color red ,normally not used...

remember ,ikonography went through big changes after renaissance.   
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 08:13:24 PM
Quote
true ikons do not depict the human form  showing movement.
They must be flat two dimensional only and abstract .

(http://www.goarch.org/special/beheading_saint_john_the_baptist/JBaptBehead.jpg/image_preview)

Quote
Ikons depicting Christ must be in portrait form or seated. and so on..

(http://toledofavs.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/14/files/2013/08/Icon_Transfiguration1.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 08:16:29 PM
winged horses : throwback to pre christian times.

 Depicting hands of saints or holy persons  ;verbotten
Exceptions : Christ and/ or  Blessed mother.  

Color red ,normally not used...

remember ,ikonography went through big changes after renaissance.  

Winged horses: How was Prophet Elijah/Elias taken up to heaven?

Red: Nonsense. What are the colors of the outer garment of the Mother of God, and the inner garment of Christ? What color are the tongues of fire descending on the Apostles at Pentecost?

As for uncovered hands, how can saints of priest or bishop rank bless with a covered hand? And countless saints, and the Mother of God at the Annunciation, show a hand, palm outward, held close to their body, to depicty their humility, renunciation of worldly passions, and submission to God.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on July 15, 2014, 08:18:05 PM
Never heard that 'rule' about not depicting hands. I've seen hands in every icon in my church.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 08:18:37 PM
I'm not saying they can't be used or shouldn't be .

The beheading of the Baptist is far from being anywhere  near authentic.

Christ in Hades has enough abstract to make it closer to the real thing ;but here as well the colors are way wrong..
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 15, 2014, 08:19:47 PM
the rules for ikonography  haven't  been followed by anyone since the   crusaders  razed the Holy City. believe what you will.

I'm not  referring to what they look like to you but how they conform to the very exacting rules for this type of art form.

You must never have heard of Paleologos, Macedonia, Feofen Grek, &c. &c. &c.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 08:20:03 PM
I'm not saying they can't be used or shouldn't be .

The beheading of the Baptist is far from being anywhere  near authentic.

Christ in Hades has enough abstract to make it closer to the real thing ;but here as well the colors are way wrong..

Do you paint icons? Do you teach on iconography? I would like to know where you have got your "rules" from.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on July 15, 2014, 08:21:09 PM


The beheading of the Baptist is far from being anywhere  near authentic.



Oh, boy. Here we go.  ::)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ansgar on July 15, 2014, 08:28:23 PM
Sixth century. I see hands.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Petersinai.jpg/332px-Petersinai.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 08:30:57 PM
Byzantine Icons, Frescoes and Mosaics
(Orthodox Byzantine Icons)
Click link to read what it takes for an icon to be a byzantine icon
Introduction: The Essential Feature of Icons



Contents
1. Image of the invisible, presence of the Invisible
2. The first images
3. The Holy Virgin Mary proclaimed Mother of God
4. Iconography and Iconoclasm in Byzantium
5. The triumph of Orthodoxy
6. Conclusion
7. Bibliography









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We have known icons since at least the 5th or 6th century. Even so, they seemed to have disappeared in the first half of the 20th century. They did not disappear, however, but they were suppressed. In the Soviet era in Russia, for example, icon painting was forbidden. Nonetheless, several icon painters painted or restored icons in secret. Then icons made a comeback. So one may raise the question 'what is it that makes icons so special' ? What is it that makes people, monks and others, even risk their lives by continuing to paint icons?


Image of the invisible, presence of the Invisible
The icon is an efficient means for knowing God, the Holy Virgin and the Saints. It's not a work of art that only illustrates the Holy Scriptures. It constitutes a confession of religious truths. Says St. Paul "Christ is the visible image of the invisible God" (Col. 1, 15).

Father Daniel Rousseau writes "Christian iconography, and foremost the possibility to represent Christ, is based on the fact of the Incarnation (a). Just like the theologian expresses the living Truth in words by means of his thought process, the iconographer expresses the living Truth, the Revelation of the Tradition of the Church by means of his art (b). Consequently, the sacred art of icons cannot be some arbitrary creation of artists. Better than any other sacred image, the icon of Christ " not made by the hand of man " expresses the dogmatic principle of iconography. (This refers to the miraculous icon of the Holy Face of the XIIth century, also known as Acheiropoietos, shown to the left at the start of this page). That's why the 7th Synod (787) gives it very special attention. And to commemorate the definitive triumph of the holy images, this icon of Christ is venerated the day of "Orthodoxy". (Daniel Rousseau, L'Icône, Splendeur de Ton Visage, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1982, pp. 232-233.)
(a) Cf. Dogma of Chalcedon.
(b) Note: The above text is a translation from the French text by Fr. Rousseau. One might add that illumination by the Holy Spirit is a required key element for both the theologian and the iconographer to be able to express the living Truth.

Here is possibly another way of saying "something similar, but not identical":
« Christian (Orthodox) iconography expresses in images the same Gospel message that Scripture communicates by words. Image and word illuminate each other. »  (Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Two: The Celebration of the Christian Mystery" paragraph 1160. Here is the link to paragraphs 1154-1162.)

Only "something similar, but not identical" because one might interprete the above phrase as saying « Christian (Orthodox) iconography expresses [to the unlettered] in images the same Gospel message that Scripture communicates [to the literate] by words. Image and word illuminate each other. » This interpretation might lead to the conclusion that Iconography and Scripture are identical. But they are not. Scripture cannot substitute Iconography. And Iconography cannot substitute Scripture.

« In truth there is nothing in Western Christian experience quite the same as the Eastern Orthodox Icon. It is as fundamental and essential to our theology and dogma as scripture. St. Theodore the Studite wrote: "Just as everyone, no matter how perfect, is in need of the Gospel tablet, so (does one need) the painting expressed according to it" (c).»
(The Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Canada "To the Glory of God: the Icon", 1998, http://www.istocnik.com/articles/40/eng_glory.html.)
(c) Note: St. Theodore the Studite also wrote: "If contemplation with the intellect had been sufficient, it would have sufficed for the Word to come among us intellectually only" .»


The first images
It took a long time before we saw the icon appear the way we know it today through its ancient representations. Its development was influenced by complex historical contexts and many cultural dependencies. It was also influenced by the war of the holy images during which the fury of the iconoclasts destroyed innumerable highly venerated icons.


Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 08:35:47 PM
Sixth century. I see hands.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Petersinai.jpg/332px-Petersinai.jpg)

that's not sixth century . try again.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 08:38:49 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ADysATyO2Q/ShgrQY4sCiI/AAAAAAAACU8/pVr_gfGe_bY/s1600-h/RabulaGospelsFolio14vPentecost.jpg

Sixth century.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 08:40:48 PM
Sixth century. I see hands.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Petersinai.jpg/332px-Petersinai.jpg)

that's not sixth century . try again.
Yes it is, or you can argue with the monks of St Catherine's monastery about it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 15, 2014, 08:40:59 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ADysATyO2Q/ShgrQY4sCiI/AAAAAAAACU8/pVr_gfGe_bY/s1600-h/RabulaGospelsFolio14vPentecost.jpg

Sixth century.

Yeah reds were excessively common pigments in ancient times. It's blues that were hard to come by.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 15, 2014, 08:44:04 PM
Sixth century. I see hands.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Petersinai.jpg/332px-Petersinai.jpg)

that's not sixth century . try again.

What motivates you to say that? This is a famous example. The style and technique (encaustic) are extremely characteristic of place and era (pre-iconoclastic era).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 08:45:06 PM
Sixth century. I see hands.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Petersinai.jpg/332px-Petersinai.jpg)

that's not sixth century . try again.
Yes it is, or you can argue with the monks of St Catherine's monastery about it.

Link please.. can you provide one that works.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ansgar on July 15, 2014, 08:52:21 PM
Sixth century. I see hands.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Petersinai.jpg/332px-Petersinai.jpg)

that's not sixth century . try again.
Yes it is, or you can argue with the monks of St Catherine's monastery about it.

Link please.. can you provide one that works.

This article talks about it.
http://monasteryicons.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/the-icons-of-the-monastery-of-st-catherine-of-sinai/
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 08:52:41 PM
Sixth century. I see hands.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Petersinai.jpg/332px-Petersinai.jpg)

that's not sixth century . try again.
Yes it is, or you can argue with the monks of St Catherine's monastery about it.

Link please.. can you provide one that works.
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/SinaiIcons/SinaiIcons.html

This university source claims early 7th century, though there are also other examples of 6th century icons on that page with revealed hands and the color red.

Regardless, far too early to suffer from "renaissance influences."
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 09:05:47 PM
From the time of the First Crusade, the presence of Crusaders in the Sinai until 1270 spurred the interest of European Christians and increased the number of intrepid pilgrims who visited the monastery. The monastery was supported by its dependencies in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Crete, Cyprus and Constantinople.

The crusaders sacked St. Catherine's monastery. nothing survived.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 09:08:33 PM
From the time of the First Crusade, the presence of Crusaders in the Sinai until 1270 spurred the interest of European Christians and increased the number of intrepid pilgrims who visited the monastery. The monastery was supported by its dependencies in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Crete, Cyprus and Constantinople.

The crusaders sacked St. Catherine's monastery. nothing survived.
I'm going to take the monks' words over your unsupported ones.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 09:14:11 PM
It took a long time before we saw the icon appear the way we know it today through its ancient representations. Its development was influenced by complex historical contexts and many cultural dependencies. It was also influenced by the war of the holy images during which the fury of the iconoclasts destroyed innumerable highly venerated icons.

don't take my word for it.. read the history of greek orthodoxy.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 09:15:25 PM
Okay, this isn't worth it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on July 15, 2014, 09:16:43 PM
It took a long time before we saw the icon appear the way we know it today through its ancient representations. Its development was influenced by complex historical contexts and many cultural dependencies. It was also influenced by the war of the holy images during which the fury of the iconoclasts destroyed innumerable highly venerated icons.

don't take my word for it.. read the history of greek orthodoxy.



I'm pretty sure Antonis is a chanter in a Greek Orthodox parish. But do correct me if I'm wrong. ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ansgar on July 15, 2014, 09:17:30 PM
From the time of the First Crusade, the presence of Crusaders in the Sinai until 1270 spurred the interest of European Christians and increased the number of intrepid pilgrims who visited the monastery. The monastery was supported by its dependencies in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Crete, Cyprus and Constantinople.

The crusaders sacked St. Catherine's monastery. nothing survived.

The first part is from wikipedia. The last sentence, I assume, is your invention. The monastery has numerous icons and manuscripts from the first Millennium.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 09:18:24 PM



Quote
true ikons do not depict the human form  showing movement.
They must be flat two dimensional only and abstract .

(http://www.goarch.org/special/beheading_saint_john_the_baptist/JBaptBehead.jpg/image_preview)

Quote
Ikons depicting Christ must be in portrait form or seated. and so on..

(http://toledofavs.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/14/files/2013/08/Icon_Transfiguration1.jpg)



see the construction of the  tower ?

And the uniform of the soldier [executioner]?

that's from the 13th century.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on July 15, 2014, 09:19:56 PM
Christo, can you prove it?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 09:20:31 PM
It took a long time before we saw the icon appear the way we know it today through its ancient representations. Its development was influenced by complex historical contexts and many cultural dependencies. It was also influenced by the war of the holy images during which the fury of the iconoclasts destroyed innumerable highly venerated icons.

don't take my word for it.. read the history of greek orthodoxy.



I'm pretty sure Antonis is a chanter in a Greek Orthodox parish. But do correct me if I'm wrong. ;)
That I am. A novice, anyway.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on July 15, 2014, 09:21:53 PM
Thank you. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 09:22:40 PM
so, the crusaders didn't loot orthodox monasteries. ?

 few ikons survived, and those few which did were post the ikonoclasts.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ansgar on July 15, 2014, 09:29:26 PM
so, the crusaders didn't loot orthodox monasteries. ?

 few ikons survived, and those few which did were post the ikonoclasts.

Yes, crusaders looted monasteries, but not saint Catherine's. It is your word against the archaeologists. The unique thing about the monastery is exactly it's collection of pre-iconoclastic icons.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 15, 2014, 09:30:47 PM
so, the crusaders didn't loot orthodox monasteries. ?

 few ikons survived, and those few which did were post the ikonoclasts.
It is well known that the Monastery of St Catherine and its icons were spared such destruction.

As others have asked, where are your sources for these unheard of iconographic conventions? Likewise, where are your iconographic examples of these rules?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 09:39:47 PM
so, the crusaders didn't loot orthodox monasteries. ?

 few ikons survived, and those few which did were post the ikonoclasts.

Yes, crusaders looted monasteries, but not saint Catherine's. It is your word against the archaeologists. The unique thing about the monastery is exactly it's collection of pre-iconoclastic icons.

You may be right.. At  least that's the accepted opinion. I'll agree with you on that one.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ansgar on July 15, 2014, 09:46:44 PM
so, the crusaders didn't loot orthodox monasteries. ?

 few ikons survived, and those few which did were post the ikonoclasts.

Yes, crusaders looted monasteries, but not saint Catherine's. It is your word against the archaeologists. The unique thing about the monastery is exactly it's collection of pre-iconoclastic icons.

You may be right.. At  least that's the accepted opinion. I'll agree with you on that one.

You're welcome.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2014, 10:20:55 PM
Christo, still waiting for you to provide the source of the iconographic rules you spoke about on uncovered hands, the use of the color red, and other statements of yours.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 10:23:43 PM
Christo, still waiting for you to provide the source of the iconographic rules you spoke about on uncovered hands, the use of the color red, and other statements of yours.
[/quote
you know what, you're right . and i was wrong.  have a good nite.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on July 15, 2014, 10:37:15 PM

Christodoulostheou, welcome to the Forum!

There's no right/wrong.  We are here to learn from each other.

You are new here and not used to our posters.

Please, do not take things personally, and don't be offended.

Folks, go easy on our "newbies" or they won't want to stick around, long enough to learn from us, or to teach us something we don't know.

;)

Once again, welcome Christodoulostheou!

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Christodoulostheou on July 15, 2014, 10:44:57 PM
Christo, still waiting for you to provide the source of the iconographic rules you spoke about on uncovered hands, the use of the color red, and other statements of yours.

Of course, you are absolutely correct . And I am entirely wrong. And thank you for the good conversation. have a wonderful evening.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 16, 2014, 01:54:00 AM
Our priest said that the Father is not to be depicted in Eastern Orthodox canonical icons. The reason he gave is that He has not appeared to us. 

The only possible exception being the visitation to Abraham - and I often see them as angels. I'm not sure on that one.


The Hospitality of Abraham, and the variant which does not include Abraham and Sarah, are indeed canonical. It should be remembered that, like the other manifestations of the Father and the Holy Spirit, that is what these angels represent. They are manifestations, not incarnations.



Thank you. :)

It does make sense, since Scripture explains it that way as well. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 16, 2014, 01:55:01 AM
Ikonography is a lost art form. We have to do the best with what we have. Today's Ikons are in reality ,copies of
Italian Renaissance paintings.

and that's the truth. and yes , even  in mother russia.

This is not true at all. Traditional iconography was almost lost by the beginning of the 20th century, but it has well and truly been revived. The naturalistic paintings are still around, and, in many cases, are being removed from churches and replaced with proper traditional and canonical iconography. As for "Mother Russia", good, traditional icons are being painted everywhere, not just since the fall of the Soviet system, but even before it.

Here's an example, the iconography of Mother Juliana of blessed memory, who painted a series of icons for the Trinity-St Sergius Lavra in the mid-20th century.

http://www.pravmir.ru/prepodobnyj-sergij-ikony-monaxini-iulianii-sokolovoj/

Scroll down to the fifth picture on the page, where a series of her work begins. These are no Italian Renaissance paintings, but icons of the highest level of skill, reverence and spiritual power.

Wow - I really, really like those.

Another master (mistress?) iconographer of our times was Xenia Pokrovsky, who began painting icons in Russia in the 1960s, and emigrated to the US in 1991, where she painted countless icons, and taught many, until her death last year. Just as important as her mastery of the skill of painting, her sense of the spiritual was where it should be - the opposite of the new-agey mess that the Prosopon "school" espouses.

May her memory and her legacy be eternal.

I really like the ones you linked too as well. I'll have to look up the other iconographer. Thank you. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 16, 2014, 01:56:37 AM
Our priest said that the Father is not to be depicted in Eastern Orthodox canonical icons. The reason he gave is that He has not appeared to us. 

The only possible exception being the visitation to Abraham - and I often see them as angels. I'm not sure on that one.

Not wishing to argue. Is there a difference between Eastern Orthodox and perhaps Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, etc.?

There are differences, certainly, though my personal assessment is that they are not substantial.  In any case, I don't think this particular topic is one of them, at least not yet. 

Thank you. I should have been more specific. I was wondering if there were differences between them where iconography or accepting certain icons as canonical, etc. was concerned. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 16, 2014, 04:34:02 AM
Has the fullness of Christ's divinity been revealed to men, or only "a small taste...at the Transfiguration"?  Because it seems you're making a point of how the fullness of the Father's and the Spirit's nature hasn't been revealed to us, and so we cannot depict them; and yet, we can depict Christ, whose humanity is revealed to us, but whose divinity is only "glimpsed".  How much "glimpsed divinity" is enough to justify a painting

Enough to prove its existence without destroying those who beheld it.

From the feast of the Transfiguration:

Christ, the Light that shone before the sun, who in the body went about the earth, having fulfilled before His Crucifixion, as befitted His divine majesty, all things pertaining to His fearful dispensation, this day has mystically manifest the image of the Trinity upon Mount Tabor. For taking the three disciples He had expressly chosen, Peter, James, and John, He led them up into the mountain; and for a short time He concealed the flesh He had assumed, and was transfigured before them, making manifest the excellence of the original beauty, though not in its full perfection. For while giving them full assurance He also spared them, lest at the sight they should lose their lives: yet they saw as much as their bodily eyes were able to receive. He likewise called before Him the chief prophets Moses and Elijah, who testified to His divinity, that He is indeed the true brightness of the essence of the Father, the Ruler of the living and the dead. Therefore a cloud wrapped them like a tent; and out of the cloud from above loudly sounded the voice of the Father, testifying and saying: This is my beloved Son, whom I have begotten without change from the womb before the morning star: Him have I sent to save those who are baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who confess with faith that the One Power of the Godhead is indivisible. Listen to Him. And, O Christ our God, supreme in goodness, who loves mankind, shine upon us with the light of Your unapproachable glory and make us worthy to inherit Your never-ending Kingdom.

On the mountain of transfiguration the chosen apostles saw the overwhelming flood of Your light, O Christ who has no beginning. They saw Your divinity which no man may approach. They were caught up into a divine trance. The cloud of light shone around them on every side. They heard the voice of the Father confirming the mystery of Your incarnation: for even after taking flesh You remain the only-begotten Son, the Saviour of the world.

On Mount Tabor, O Lord, You have shown today the glory of Your divine form to Your chosen disciples, Peter, James, and John. For they looked upon Your garments that gleamed as the light. They saw Your face that shone more than the sun. Unable to endure the vision of Your brightness which none can bear, they fell to the earth, completely powerless to lift up their gaze. For they heard a voice that testified from above: This is my beloved Son, who has come into the world to save mankind.

You were transfigured on the Mount, O Christ God, revealing Your glory to Your disciples as far as they could bear it. Let Your everlasting light shine upon us sinners. Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Giver of Light, glory to You.
(Troparion of the feast)

Today, as He has promised, Christ, shining on Mount Tabor, clearly disclosed to His disciples the image and reflection of the divine brightness; and filled with Godlike and brilliant splendor, they cried out for joy: Let us sing to our God, for He has been glorified.

You were transfigured on the mountain, O Christ God, and Your disciples beheld Your glory as far as they could see it, so that when they would behold You crucified, they would understand that the suffering was voluntary, and would proclaim to the world that You are truly the Radiance of the Father.
(Kontakion of the feast)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 16, 2014, 04:42:03 AM

And if Christ's divinity can be glimpsed, and we can paint icons of Christ incorporating this, is his divinity something different from that of the Father and of the Spirit, that they cannot be depicted? 

No, there is no difference in the divinity of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. However, icons are concerned with how God has revealed Himself to us. Christ our God took on flesh and lived among us. He was born to us a Child, God before the ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims. Christ our God suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Moreover, the divinity of Christ is most potently expressed in His every icon with the name of God inscribed in His halo.

By contrast, the other persons of the Holy Trinity have seen it fit to reveal themselves in fleeting and symbolic manifestations.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 16, 2014, 04:45:54 AM

Why does "particular time and place" make all the difference when it comes to the depiction of the Spirit as a dove, but doesn't seem to matter at all when it comes to depicting an age appropriate child in the arms of his mother, nursing from her breast, etc.?  Why does it suddenly become acceptable to depict a miniature thirty year old doing these things?  Surely that is not appropriate to the "particular time and place" depicted.  

Icons are simultaneously static and narrative - depicting events in temporal time, and the eternal "today", as so many of our hymns say. Icons are material, but express spiritual, heavenly realities. The dove at Theophany is how God the Spirit chose to manifest at that time, but the Spirit is not a dove by nature.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 17, 2014, 12:09:39 AM
Has the fullness of Christ's divinity been revealed to men, or only "a small taste...at the Transfiguration"?  Because it seems you're making a point of how the fullness of the Father's and the Spirit's nature hasn't been revealed to us, and so we cannot depict them; and yet, we can depict Christ, whose humanity is revealed to us, but whose divinity is only "glimpsed".  How much "glimpsed divinity" is enough to justify a painting

Enough to prove its existence without destroying those who beheld it.

In the Gospels, the Father's voice was heard on at least three occasions and no one was destroyed.  The Spirit manifested himself at the Jordan and in the Upper Room and no one was destroyed.  So what is the difference? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 12:11:01 AM
Has the fullness of Christ's divinity been revealed to men, or only "a small taste...at the Transfiguration"?  Because it seems you're making a point of how the fullness of the Father's and the Spirit's nature hasn't been revealed to us, and so we cannot depict them; and yet, we can depict Christ, whose humanity is revealed to us, but whose divinity is only "glimpsed".  How much "glimpsed divinity" is enough to justify a painting

Enough to prove its existence without destroying those who beheld it.

In the Gospels, the Father's voice was heard on at least three occasions and no one was destroyed.  The Spirit manifested himself at the Jordan and in the Upper Room and no one was destroyed.  So what is the difference? 

Did you not read the Transfiguration hymns I posted?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 17, 2014, 12:29:17 AM

And if Christ's divinity can be glimpsed, and we can paint icons of Christ incorporating this, is his divinity something different from that of the Father and of the Spirit, that they cannot be depicted? 

No, there is no difference in the divinity of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. However, icons are concerned with how God has revealed Himself to us. Christ our God took on flesh and lived among us. He was born to us a Child, God before the ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims. Christ our God suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Moreover, the divinity of Christ is most potently expressed in His every icon with the name of God inscribed in His halo.

By contrast, the other persons of the Holy Trinity have seen it fit to reveal themselves in fleeting and symbolic manifestations.

What was the nature of those "fleeting and symbolic manifestations"? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 17, 2014, 12:32:40 AM
Has the fullness of Christ's divinity been revealed to men, or only "a small taste...at the Transfiguration"?  Because it seems you're making a point of how the fullness of the Father's and the Spirit's nature hasn't been revealed to us, and so we cannot depict them; and yet, we can depict Christ, whose humanity is revealed to us, but whose divinity is only "glimpsed".  How much "glimpsed divinity" is enough to justify a painting

Enough to prove its existence without destroying those who beheld it.

In the Gospels, the Father's voice was heard on at least three occasions and no one was destroyed.  The Spirit manifested himself at the Jordan and in the Upper Room and no one was destroyed.  So what is the difference? 

Did you not read the Transfiguration hymns I posted?

I did, thrice.  I'm asking you because I didn't find the answer to my question therein. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 12:33:31 AM

And if Christ's divinity can be glimpsed, and we can paint icons of Christ incorporating this, is his divinity something different from that of the Father and of the Spirit, that they cannot be depicted? 

No, there is no difference in the divinity of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. However, icons are concerned with how God has revealed Himself to us. Christ our God took on flesh and lived among us. He was born to us a Child, God before the ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims. Christ our God suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Moreover, the divinity of Christ is most potently expressed in His every icon with the name of God inscribed in His halo.

By contrast, the other persons of the Holy Trinity have seen it fit to reveal themselves in fleeting and symbolic manifestations.

What was the nature of those "fleeting and symbolic manifestations"? 

You'll need to define "nature" first.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 12:35:41 AM
Has the fullness of Christ's divinity been revealed to men, or only "a small taste...at the Transfiguration"?  Because it seems you're making a point of how the fullness of the Father's and the Spirit's nature hasn't been revealed to us, and so we cannot depict them; and yet, we can depict Christ, whose humanity is revealed to us, but whose divinity is only "glimpsed".  How much "glimpsed divinity" is enough to justify a painting?  

Enough to prove its existence without destroying those who beheld it.

In the Gospels, the Father's voice was heard on at least three occasions and no one was destroyed.  The Spirit manifested himself at the Jordan and in the Upper Room and no one was destroyed.  So what is the difference?  

Did you not read the Transfiguration hymns I posted?

I did, thrice.  I'm asking you because I didn't find the answer to my question therein.  

You're looking for an answer to why "No-one was destroyed"?  ???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 17, 2014, 12:51:18 AM

And if Christ's divinity can be glimpsed, and we can paint icons of Christ incorporating this, is his divinity something different from that of the Father and of the Spirit, that they cannot be depicted? 

No, there is no difference in the divinity of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. However, icons are concerned with how God has revealed Himself to us. Christ our God took on flesh and lived among us. He was born to us a Child, God before the ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims. Christ our God suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Moreover, the divinity of Christ is most potently expressed in His every icon with the name of God inscribed in His halo.

By contrast, the other persons of the Holy Trinity have seen it fit to reveal themselves in fleeting and symbolic manifestations.

What was the nature of those "fleeting and symbolic manifestations"? 

You'll need to define "nature" first.

What is the difference between "fleeting and symbolic manifestations" and "how God has revealed Himself to us"? 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 01:02:43 AM

And if Christ's divinity can be glimpsed, and we can paint icons of Christ incorporating this, is his divinity something different from that of the Father and of the Spirit, that they cannot be depicted?  

No, there is no difference in the divinity of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. However, icons are concerned with how God has revealed Himself to us. Christ our God took on flesh and lived among us. He was born to us a Child, God before the ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims. Christ our God suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Moreover, the divinity of Christ is most potently expressed in His every icon with the name of God inscribed in His halo.

By contrast, the other persons of the Holy Trinity have seen it fit to reveal themselves in fleeting and symbolic manifestations.

What was the nature of those "fleeting and symbolic manifestations"?  

You'll need to define "nature" first.

What is the difference between "fleeting and symbolic manifestations" and "how God has revealed Himself to us"?  

I do try to write in plain, standard English, Mor.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 17, 2014, 01:13:15 AM
Has the fullness of Christ's divinity been revealed to men, or only "a small taste...at the Transfiguration"?  Because it seems you're making a point of how the fullness of the Father's and the Spirit's nature hasn't been revealed to us, and so we cannot depict them; and yet, we can depict Christ, whose humanity is revealed to us, but whose divinity is only "glimpsed".  How much "glimpsed divinity" is enough to justify a painting?  

Enough to prove its existence without destroying those who beheld it.

In the Gospels, the Father's voice was heard on at least three occasions and no one was destroyed.  The Spirit manifested himself at the Jordan and in the Upper Room and no one was destroyed.  So what is the difference?  

Did you not read the Transfiguration hymns I posted?

I did, thrice.  I'm asking you because I didn't find the answer to my question therein.  

You're looking for an answer to why "No-one was destroyed"?  ???

Putting out of your mind for the time being the selection of hymns you posted, try to follow the above exchange, paying close attention to the bold red and to the bold black.

To my question about how much glimpsed divinity is enough to justify painting an icon of a person of the Trinity, you responded with "Enough to prove its existence without destroying those who beheld it".  What is the difference here between the Son on one hand and the Father and the Spirit on the other? 

For example, if you hear the Father's voice and live to tell about it, you have not been destroyed.  So is that voice somehow "not enough proof" for the existence of the Father?  But if it is sufficient proof for the Father's existence AND if the witnesses have not been destroyed, this would seem to satisfy your requirement of glimpsing enough divinity "to prove its existence without destroying those who beheld it", and we could justify painting an icon of that subject.  Yet, your claim is that we cannot paint icons of the Father and the Spirit.  There is a disconnect here somewhere.           
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 17, 2014, 01:15:02 AM

And if Christ's divinity can be glimpsed, and we can paint icons of Christ incorporating this, is his divinity something different from that of the Father and of the Spirit, that they cannot be depicted?  

No, there is no difference in the divinity of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. However, icons are concerned with how God has revealed Himself to us. Christ our God took on flesh and lived among us. He was born to us a Child, God before the ages, as the kontakion of the Nativity proclaims. Christ our God suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Moreover, the divinity of Christ is most potently expressed in His every icon with the name of God inscribed in His halo.

By contrast, the other persons of the Holy Trinity have seen it fit to reveal themselves in fleeting and symbolic manifestations.

What was the nature of those "fleeting and symbolic manifestations"?  

You'll need to define "nature" first.

What is the difference between "fleeting and symbolic manifestations" and "how God has revealed Himself to us"?  

I do try to write in plain, standard English, Mor.

So do I, but you asked for a definition of "nature".  I simply reformulated my question to avoid using a term which, in a theological context, can be used in several ways.   
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on July 17, 2014, 06:06:16 AM
Painting is nice, but on a cutout of Australia....

(http://modeoflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/icon-of-our-lady-of-australia.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: john_mo on July 17, 2014, 07:15:35 AM
^ I can't describe why this is wrong, but it just doesn't feel right.

Plus, you know that there are Greece, Russian cutouts out there.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on July 17, 2014, 07:25:35 AM
I'm sure there are, but it wouldn't be too surprising.  I mean, it is Greece and Russia.

Aussies aren't immune to putting an icon on random things, I guess.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 07:52:03 AM
Painting is nice, but on a cutout of Australia....

(http://modeoflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/icon-of-our-lady-of-australia.jpg)

Ridiculous.  :P >:(
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on July 17, 2014, 07:53:33 AM
So, schlock Orthoproduct?  :police:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: john_mo on July 17, 2014, 07:57:19 AM
So, schlock Orthoproduct?  :police:

The iconography itself seems legit.  The only concern is the canvas.  I don't know of any rules regarding this, so I think it's not necessarily schlock.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 08:30:56 AM
So, schlock Orthoproduct?  :police:

The iconography itself seems legit.  The only concern is the canvas.  I don't know of any rules regarding this, so I think it's not necessarily schlock.

It is indeed schlock. There are established ways of showing a saint or the Mother of God as patron and protector of nations or regions. This depiction is not.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on July 17, 2014, 08:32:22 AM
All I have to say is


'What, no digeridoo?'

Clearly this is no good.

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 08:44:19 AM
All I have to say is


'What, no digeridoo?'

Clearly this is no good.

 :laugh:

I'll pay that.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: john_mo on July 17, 2014, 10:35:16 AM
All I have to say is


'What, no digeridoo?'

Clearly this is no good.

 :laugh:

Thought I saw one in there.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 10:44:59 AM
All I have to say is


'What, no digeridoo?'

Clearly this is no good.

 :laugh:

Thought I saw one in there.

Didgeridoos aren't tapered like the instrument the angel is playing. They're essentially the same diameter throughout.  ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Amatorus on July 17, 2014, 03:28:55 PM
What is the first icon ever recorded in Church history?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 17, 2014, 04:11:43 PM
What is the first icon ever recorded in Church history?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Amatorus on July 17, 2014, 04:13:30 PM
...rustic.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 17, 2014, 04:16:12 PM
This is a bit strange.

Quote
June 14 old style - June 27 new style (http://subscribe.ru/group/nostalgiya-po-sssr-i-nashemu-detstvu/6933940/)
 
Miraculous Icon of the "Weeping Virgin of the Savior on its removal from the Cross", called by the people "Plakuschey" or "weeping", known since 1848.
Then, during the cholera epidemic two months there was no rain, there was a threat of famine.
Parishioners of Assumption church (temple known since the XVI century) village Shubin carried the icon of the temple and made a prayer in front of her.
Queen of Heaven have asked God for this rain, which peep from noon till evening, and was gradual.
Epidemic and the threat of famine retreated.

(http://iconbm.ru/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1621&catid=267&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=3)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 17, 2014, 04:30:15 PM
What is the first icon ever recorded in Church history?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg)

Is this an icon of the icon of the Holy Napkin? (If I asked that right?)

At first I thought it was someone beheaded, but then I saw the lines that looks the ones in Christ's halo for the orders of angels???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 17, 2014, 04:35:48 PM
(http://iconbm.ru/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1621&catid=267&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=3)

Wow. Just wow.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 17, 2014, 04:46:59 PM
I'm confused.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 17, 2014, 04:55:10 PM
It's as tho Salvador Dali really became an iconographer.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 17, 2014, 05:54:28 PM
(http://iconbm.ru/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1621&catid=267&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=3)

Wow. Just wow.

The robe is wrapped around both Christ and the Theotokos?

I see His head, hand, and feet.

It is odd.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 17, 2014, 05:59:53 PM
(http://iconbm.ru/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1621&catid=267&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=3)

Wow. Just wow.

The robe is wrapped around both Christ and the Theotokos?

I see His head, hand, and feet.

It is odd.

The description I included pretty much says that it's of Christ's removal from the cross. Beyond that I'm not entirely sure.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 07:18:09 PM
(http://iconbm.ru/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1621&catid=267&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=3)

Wow. Just wow.

The robe is wrapped around both Christ and the Theotokos?

I see His head, hand, and feet.

It is odd.

The description I included pretty much says that it's of Christ's removal from the cross. Beyond that I'm not entirely sure.

What an addition to my schlock file! The Salvador Dali description suits it perfectly. It's just as weird and disturbing as the triple-headed Trinities, as well as being way, way off theologically.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on July 17, 2014, 07:24:04 PM
It's like a levitation magic routine!

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 07:42:40 PM
It's like a levitation magic routine!



My thought as well ....  :o :P :D
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 17, 2014, 08:00:15 PM
I imagine an accurate name for it would be something like "The Pieta Both Crucified and Enthroned".
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 17, 2014, 08:02:45 PM
I imagine an accurate name for it would be something like "The Pieta Both Crucified and Enthroned".

It's not worth such dignity ....
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on July 17, 2014, 08:37:11 PM
With zero disrespect (or at least none more than then She is suffering in this icon already)

may I suggest she appears to be sneaking Our Lord into the cinema, under her overly large cloak?

"Our Lady of the one ticket-two entries", comes to mind.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 20, 2014, 12:07:51 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/JQtf3m3.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 20, 2014, 12:14:03 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/JQtf3m3.jpg)

The Matrioshka doll "icon". It's the equivalent of the equally uncanonical Paternity. It has the added bonus of the mother of St Anna standing behind her daughter. Most versions I've seen of this schlock omit her.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on July 20, 2014, 01:43:37 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yZLODQjC5ho/Tf3SHeehqDI/AAAAAAAAC_U/x35JkLB_luU/s1600/%25CE%25B1%25CE%25B3%25CE%25B9%25CE%25BF%25CE%25B9%2B%25CF%2580%25CE%25B1%25CE%25BD%25CF%2584%25CE%25B5%25CF%2582.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 20, 2014, 02:54:23 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/JQtf3m3.jpg)
Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 20, 2014, 06:29:51 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yZLODQjC5ho/Tf3SHeehqDI/AAAAAAAAC_U/x35JkLB_luU/s1600/%25CE%25B1%25CE%25B3%25CE%25B9%25CE%25BF%25CE%25B9%2B%25CF%2580%25CE%25B1%25CE%25BD%25CF%2584%25CE%25B5%25CF%2582.jpg)

This is either a segment from the icon of All Saints, or of the Last Judgement. The inscription on the right reads [All] the saints entering Paradise. Some of the saints are easily identifiable, including Apostles Peter and Paul, and Cyril of Alexandria. The seraph guarding the entrance to Paradise has raised his swords to allow their passage.

Paradise is represented by the walled garden (a place of light, a place of green pasture, a place of refreshment, whence pain, grief and sighing have fled away, as funeral and memorial hymns say), in which can be seen Abraham with the souls of the righteous in his bosom, the crucified thief who confessed Christ, and the Mother of God.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 20, 2014, 09:22:26 AM

Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

Bad theology is bad theology, no matter how you slice it.  :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on July 20, 2014, 07:03:11 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JQtf3m3.jpg)

The Matrioshka doll "icon". It's the equivalent of the equally uncanonical Paternity. It has the added bonus of the mother of St Anna standing behind her daughter. Most versions I've seen of this schlock omit her.

Does that mean that the icons that show St. Anna, the Theotokos, and Christ in a similar manner are bad icons?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 20, 2014, 07:22:56 PM
Yes, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 20, 2014, 07:39:18 PM
Is the woman all the way up top supposed to be St. Anna's mother? What is her name?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 20, 2014, 07:44:21 PM
Is the woman all the way up top supposed to be St. Anna's mother? What is her name?

Yes, that woman is supposed to be St Anna's mother. The inscription reads "St Maria, Foremother (grandmother) of the Mother of God".

What needs to be remembered is that any reference to the mother of St Anna is practically absent in Orthodox tradition, and there is nothing I have found in sources that she is indeed a saint. No feast date, nothing.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 20, 2014, 07:49:54 PM
I'll add the following about that image: Just as the uncanonical Paternity image paints a false Trinitarian theology, in not only showing God the Father in a form which He has never been revealed, but speaking of an inequality of the three Persons, the Maternity image expresses the quasi-trinitarian idea of a "Mother, Daughter, Holy Grand-daughter".
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 20, 2014, 08:12:14 PM
Okay, I thought my Google-fu was broken because I wasn't finding any reference to her either.

I find the fact that they just made up a name for her to be stranger than depicting her.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on July 20, 2014, 08:13:14 PM
Okay, I thought my Google-fu was broken because I wasn't finding any reference to her either.

I find the fact that they just made up a name for her to be stranger than depicting her.


if in doubt....all females are Mary...all males are Joseph
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 21, 2014, 07:27:33 PM
What on earth is this?

(http://nebula.wsimg.com/obj/OTk3MzAwRUFGODBGNkU1NkQzRkI6ZmE2NTk1NDU0M2YzNzk1MTA3MjM5NTNiMTQ4NWE4NGU6Ojo6OjA=)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on July 21, 2014, 07:28:29 PM
Is it out of Revelation, maybe?  ???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 21, 2014, 07:39:33 PM
From an image search:

http://www.macdougallauction.com/Indexx1211.asp?id=524&lx=a

Quote
*524.  A RARE ICON OF "THE PURE SOUL"  

NORTHERN RUSSIA, END OF THE 17TH TO BEGINNING OF THE 18TH CENTURY


Allegorical depictions of Pure and Sinful Souls are known in Russian art from the latter half of the 16th century, often in illustrated manuscripts commemorating the dead (necrologies). Judging from the unusual white background, the artist replicated a miniature from a book.

The Pure Soul is depicted on the left as the Virgin in real attire and wearing a crown adorned with flowers. To her right is a lion (anger), a serpent (sin) and on the right, squatting naked in a cave, is the devil, symbolising the sinful soul. Christ enthroned in heaven above, awaits the worship of the Pure Soul and Guardian Angel. At the centre is the Sun with a human face and the border texts explain what is depicted.

In the 18th-19th centuries, edifying works about the Pure and Sinful Soul were in demand amongst Old Believers, both icons and printed sheets incorporated texts from either a necrology or the Blessed Monk Dorotheus's Thirty Great and Original Virtues, which formed part of the Tsvetnik (Flower-bed), a book widely popular with Old Believers. It is in the latter where the deep meaning of this edifying subject finds its fullest expression: “Human purity attaches man to God, and the purity of God dwells in man” (Tsvetnik of the Blessed Monk Dorotheus, Grodno, 1790, p. 187).

An important distinction of this icon is that the detailed border inscriptions bear no relation to either literary sources. Addressing the viewer — an extremely rare feature in an icon — the lower border reads: “See, O man, the parable of life painted here: if thou wilt ascend to the heavenly kingdom, then preserve thy purity of soul, otherwise thou shalt suffer eternal torment”.

Given the rarity of the subject and the detailed, original text, this icon is of considerable interest and belongs to a particular edifying type of Old Believer icon painting.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 21, 2014, 07:40:37 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JQtf3m3.jpg)
Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

It is beautiful.

If you have any concerns, ask your priest. Ignore LBK.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 21, 2014, 07:42:57 PM
From an image search:

http://www.macdougallauction.com/Indexx1211.asp?id=524&lx=a

Quote
*524.  A RARE ICON OF "THE PURE SOUL"  

NORTHERN RUSSIA, END OF THE 17TH TO BEGINNING OF THE 18TH CENTURY


Allegorical depictions of Pure and Sinful Souls are known in Russian art from the latter half of the 16th century, often in illustrated manuscripts commemorating the dead (necrologies). Judging from the unusual white background, the artist replicated a miniature from a book.

The Pure Soul is depicted on the left as the Virgin in real attire and wearing a crown adorned with flowers. To her right is a lion (anger), a serpent (sin) and on the right, squatting naked in a cave, is the devil, symbolising the sinful soul. Christ enthroned in heaven above, awaits the worship of the Pure Soul and Guardian Angel. At the centre is the Sun with a human face and the border texts explain what is depicted.

In the 18th-19th centuries, edifying works about the Pure and Sinful Soul were in demand amongst Old Believers, both icons and printed sheets incorporated texts from either a necrology or the Blessed Monk Dorotheus's Thirty Great and Original Virtues, which formed part of the Tsvetnik (Flower-bed), a book widely popular with Old Believers. It is in the latter where the deep meaning of this edifying subject finds its fullest expression: “Human purity attaches man to God, and the purity of God dwells in man” (Tsvetnik of the Blessed Monk Dorotheus, Grodno, 1790, p. 187).

An important distinction of this icon is that the detailed border inscriptions bear no relation to either literary sources. Addressing the viewer — an extremely rare feature in an icon — the lower border reads: “See, O man, the parable of life painted here: if thou wilt ascend to the heavenly kingdom, then preserve thy purity of soul, otherwise thou shalt suffer eternal torment”.

Given the rarity of the subject and the detailed, original text, this icon is of considerable interest and belongs to a particular edifying type of Old Believer icon painting.

Thank you, Antonis.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 21, 2014, 07:44:02 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/JQtf3m3.jpg)
Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

It is beautiful.

If you have any concerns, ask your priest. Ignore LBK.
Funny you say that, I received it from our presbytera.  ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 21, 2014, 07:45:01 PM
From an image search:

http://www.macdougallauction.com/Indexx1211.asp?id=524&lx=a

Quote
*524.  A RARE ICON OF "THE PURE SOUL"  

NORTHERN RUSSIA, END OF THE 17TH TO BEGINNING OF THE 18TH CENTURY


Allegorical depictions of Pure and Sinful Souls are known in Russian art from the latter half of the 16th century, often in illustrated manuscripts commemorating the dead (necrologies). Judging from the unusual white background, the artist replicated a miniature from a book.

The Pure Soul is depicted on the left as the Virgin in real attire and wearing a crown adorned with flowers. To her right is a lion (anger), a serpent (sin) and on the right, squatting naked in a cave, is the devil, symbolising the sinful soul. Christ enthroned in heaven above, awaits the worship of the Pure Soul and Guardian Angel. At the centre is the Sun with a human face and the border texts explain what is depicted.

In the 18th-19th centuries, edifying works about the Pure and Sinful Soul were in demand amongst Old Believers, both icons and printed sheets incorporated texts from either a necrology or the Blessed Monk Dorotheus's Thirty Great and Original Virtues, which formed part of the Tsvetnik (Flower-bed), a book widely popular with Old Believers. It is in the latter where the deep meaning of this edifying subject finds its fullest expression: “Human purity attaches man to God, and the purity of God dwells in man” (Tsvetnik of the Blessed Monk Dorotheus, Grodno, 1790, p. 187).

An important distinction of this icon is that the detailed border inscriptions bear no relation to either literary sources. Addressing the viewer — an extremely rare feature in an icon — the lower border reads: “See, O man, the parable of life painted here: if thou wilt ascend to the heavenly kingdom, then preserve thy purity of soul, otherwise thou shalt suffer eternal torment”.

Given the rarity of the subject and the detailed, original text, this icon is of considerable interest and belongs to a particular edifying type of Old Believer icon painting.

Thank you, Antonis.
It seems that it is not strictly an "icon" as many of us would understand it, but an illustration in an iconographic style.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 21, 2014, 07:45:31 PM
Such images were common in Russia between the 16th and 19th centuries. Some pretty weird stuff exists from then. Unfortunately, they are unsuitable for veneration, as they are imaginative and allegorical. At best, they could be seen as didactic.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 21, 2014, 07:47:54 PM

Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

It is beautiful.

If you have any concerns, ask your priest. Ignore LBK.



Beauty alone does not make an icon proper. A beautiful icon which does not express what the Church teaches and believes is no icon at all. The Schlock Icons thread is full of "beautiful" images which are theologically rubbish.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 21, 2014, 07:48:56 PM

Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

It is beautiful.

If you have any concerns, ask your priest. Ignore LBK.



Beauty alone does not make an icon proper. A beautiful icon which does not express what the Church teaches and believes is no icon at all. The Schlock Icons thread is full of "beautiful" images which are theologically rubbish.
You are drawing a connection Maria has not made that beauty=canonicity. She merely said it was beautiful and told me to ask the advice of my priest.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 21, 2014, 07:54:04 PM

Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

It is beautiful.

If you have any concerns, ask your priest. Ignore LBK.



Beauty alone does not make an icon proper. A beautiful icon which does not express what the Church teaches and believes is no icon at all. The Schlock Icons thread is full of "beautiful" images which are theologically rubbish.
You are drawing a connection Maria has not made that beauty=canonicity. She merely said it was beautiful and told me to ask the advice of my priest.

She also stated "ignore LBK". Yet, not so long ago, she sought my advice on an icon she was after. She can't have it both ways.  :police:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 21, 2014, 07:55:34 PM

Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

It is beautiful.

If you have any concerns, ask your priest. Ignore LBK.



Beauty alone does not make an icon proper. A beautiful icon which does not express what the Church teaches and believes is no icon at all. The Schlock Icons thread is full of "beautiful" images which are theologically rubbish.
You are drawing a connection Maria has not made that beauty=canonicity. She merely said it was beautiful and told me to ask the advice of my priest.

She also stated "ignore LBK". Yet, not so long ago, she sought my advice on an icon she was after. She can't have it both ways.  :police:
If you're anything like the saints you can have a good understanding of theology and still be wrong sometimes.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 21, 2014, 07:57:59 PM

Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

It is beautiful.

If you have any concerns, ask your priest. Ignore LBK.



Beauty alone does not make an icon proper. A beautiful icon which does not express what the Church teaches and believes is no icon at all. The Schlock Icons thread is full of "beautiful" images which are theologically rubbish.
You are drawing a connection Maria has not made that beauty=canonicity. She merely said it was beautiful and told me to ask the advice of my priest.

She also stated "ignore LBK". Yet, not so long ago, she sought my advice on an icon she was after. She can't have it both ways.  :police:
If you're anything like the saints you can have a good understanding of theology and still be wrong sometimes.

Exactly. Even saints are not infallible. Christ is the only sinless One.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 21, 2014, 08:01:34 PM

Have a version of this in my house. They have brought much consolation to the people around me.

It is beautiful.

If you have any concerns, ask your priest. Ignore LBK.



Beauty alone does not make an icon proper. A beautiful icon which does not express what the Church teaches and believes is no icon at all. The Schlock Icons thread is full of "beautiful" images which are theologically rubbish.
You are drawing a connection Maria has not made that beauty=canonicity. She merely said it was beautiful and told me to ask the advice of my priest.

She also stated "ignore LBK". Yet, not so long ago, she sought my advice on an icon she was after. She can't have it both ways.  :police:
If you're anything like the saints you can have a good understanding of theology and still be wrong sometimes.

Antonis and Maria, I would be delighted if you could provide us all with a thorough analysis of the theology of that image, and how it conforms with the liturgical, patristic and doctrinal traditions of the Church.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 21, 2014, 08:49:33 PM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 21, 2014, 08:52:15 PM
Uh oh, there's a little too much joy here:

(http://www.icon-art.ru/icons/show/3854/700x1200/Ikona_Presvjatojj_Bogorodicy_Trekh_radostejj.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 21, 2014, 08:54:11 PM
I do not like that one.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 21, 2014, 09:01:29 PM
It obeys the canonical rule of "St Joseph's restraining order," though.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 21, 2014, 09:04:44 PM
It obeys the canonical rule of "St Joseph's restraining order," though.

(http://i.imgur.com/nWxE4he.gif)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 21, 2014, 10:14:07 PM
It obeys the canonical rule of "St Joseph's restraining order," though.

LOL

The court must have also ordered that he look sad every time he's around Jesus.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 21, 2014, 10:27:15 PM
It obeys the canonical rule of "St Joseph's restraining order," though.

LOL

The court must have also ordered that he look sad every time he's around Jesus.
Mustn't think he's trying to upstage the Theotokos!  :police:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 22, 2014, 12:23:43 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 22, 2014, 02:35:30 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

I agree. It is not sufficient to read only what LBK posts, we need her citations so that we know she has done the research if she is going to present herself as the OC.net expert on iconography.  By they way, how many Icons has LBK written?

The icon that Antonis has posted is perfectly canonical showing the ancestors of Christ. These were holy women. If we were to imitate the lives of these women, there would not be less flame throwing or baiting going on.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 22, 2014, 02:36:42 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 22, 2014, 02:42:52 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

I agree. It is not sufficient to read only what LBK posts, we need her citations so that we know she has done the research if she is going to present herself as the OC.net expert on iconography.  By they way, how many Icons has LBK written?

The icon that Antonis has posted is perfectly canonical showing the ancestors of Christ. These were holy women. If we were to imitate the lives of these women, there would not be less flame throwing or baiting going on.


How many icons have you painted, Maria? By what liturgical, patristic, historical, and doctrinal authority do you claim the image is "perfectly canonical"?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 22, 2014, 02:47:02 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

I agree. It is not sufficient to read only what LBK posts, we need her citations so that we know she has done the research if she is going to present herself as the OC.net expert on iconography.  By they way, how many Icons has LBK written?

The icon that Antonis has posted is perfectly canonical showing the ancestors of Christ. These were holy women. If we were to imitate the lives of these women, there would not be less flame throwing or baiting going on.


How many icons have you painted, Maria? By what liturgical, patristic, historical, and doctrinal authority do you claim the image is "perfectly canonical"?

Where is your proof, LBK? You falsely claimed it was not canonical when Antonio's Presbytera gifted it to him.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 22, 2014, 02:48:20 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.

Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

(http://lagleder.net/images/paternit.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 22, 2014, 02:53:28 AM

Where is your proof, LBK? You falsely claimed it was not canonical when Antonio's Presbytera gifted it to him.

The mere fact of the image being a gift from the wife of a priest does not confer canonicity upon it. Canonicity comes from an icon's ability to properly and faithfully proclaim theology and teachings. I made no false claim, so stop putting words in my mouth. It makes all your pleas for Christian charity and love ring hollow.



Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 22, 2014, 03:01:00 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.

Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

(http://lagleder.net/images/paternit.jpg)
There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 22, 2014, 03:10:07 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.

Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

(http://lagleder.net/images/paternit.jpg)
There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.

The matter of God the Father as an old man has been denounced time and time again across the centuries by the Church, yet people still persist in painting it. End of story.

Toll-houses have nothing to do with the matter at hand, neither does Christ's earthly genealogy. You're trying to muddy the waters, but it's not working.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 22, 2014, 03:34:55 AM
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.

Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

(http://lagleder.net/images/paternit.jpg)
There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.

The matter of God the Father as an old man has been denounced time and time again across the centuries by the Church, yet people still persist in painting it. End of story.

Toll-houses have nothing to do with the matter at hand, neither does Christ's earthly genealogy. You're trying to muddy the waters, but it's not working.



Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?

Apparently HOCNA condemns this paternity icon, but they left ROCOR and have endorsed several heresies after their departure from Orthodoxy, so I cannot trust what they teach.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: JamesR on July 22, 2014, 04:43:46 AM
My favorite icon is Christ Tempted in the Desert. Have any of you ever been able to come across one that's for sale? The iconographer at my parish offered to paint me one but I can't afford the $240 he charges.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 22, 2014, 05:05:28 AM
Quote
Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?

Theologoumenon? Not at all.

It was condemned at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The letter of St Gregory II of Rome to the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian, which was incorporated into the acts of that Council. An excerpt from this letter:

 “Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.”


St John of Damascus, in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, and in his In Defense of the Holy Images, and St Theodore of the Studion in his treatise on icons also condemn such imagery. They are by no means the only saints or Fathers who do the same.

Some selections from the Damascene:

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the color of the flesh...

If we made an image of the invisible God, we should in truth do wrong. For it is impossible to make a statue of one who is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless. Again, if we made statues of men, and held them to be gods, worshipping them as such, we should be most impious. But we do neither. For in making the image of God, who became incarnate and visible on earth, a man amongst men through His unspeakable goodness, taking upon Him shape and form and flesh, we are not misled.

It is impossible to make an image of God, who is a pure spirit, invisible, boundless, having neither form nor circumscription. How can we make an image of what is invisible? "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (Jn. 1.18) And again, "No one shall see My face and live, saith the Lord." (Ex. 33.20)

Images are of various kinds. First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. "For no man has seen God." (Jn. 1.18) Again, "Not that any one has seen the Father." (Jn. 6.46) The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father: "Who is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1.15) and to the Hebrews, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1.3) In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father and it is enough for us," [94] our Lord replied, "Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip? He who sees Me, sees the Father." (Jn. 14.8-9) For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. (I Cor. 12.3) Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature, language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.


It is worth noting that, in this treatise, St John refers constantly to his forebears among the saints and fathers to give authority to what he says.

Two more questions which should be asked:

1. Did God the Father become incarnate?

2. Does the Church celebrate any feasts dedicated to the Father alone?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: qawe on July 22, 2014, 06:42:59 AM
Quote
Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?

Theologoumenon? Not at all.

It was condemned at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The letter of St Gregory II of Rome to the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian, which was incorporated into the acts of that Council. An excerpt from this letter:

 “Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.”


St John of Damascus, in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, and in his In Defense of the Holy Images, and St Theodore of the Studion in his treatise on icons also condemn such imagery. They are by no means the only saints or Fathers who do the same.

Some selections from the Damascene:

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the color of the flesh...

If we made an image of the invisible God, we should in truth do wrong. For it is impossible to make a statue of one who is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless. Again, if we made statues of men, and held them to be gods, worshipping them as such, we should be most impious. But we do neither. For in making the image of God, who became incarnate and visible on earth, a man amongst men through His unspeakable goodness, taking upon Him shape and form and flesh, we are not misled.

It is impossible to make an image of God, who is a pure spirit, invisible, boundless, having neither form nor circumscription. How can we make an image of what is invisible? "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (Jn. 1.18) And again, "No one shall see My face and live, saith the Lord." (Ex. 33.20)

Images are of various kinds. First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. "For no man has seen God." (Jn. 1.18) Again, "Not that any one has seen the Father." (Jn. 6.46) The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father: "Who is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1.15) and to the Hebrews, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1.3) In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father and it is enough for us," [94] our Lord replied, "Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip? He who sees Me, sees the Father." (Jn. 14.8-9) For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. (I Cor. 12.3) Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature, language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.


It is worth noting that, in this treatise, St John refers constantly to his forebears among the saints and fathers to give authority to what he says.

Two more questions which should be asked:

1. Did God the Father become incarnate?

2. Does the Church celebrate any feasts dedicated to the Father alone?

Then what about the Rublev icon depicting the Trinity, in which 1 of the men represents the Father?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 22, 2014, 07:00:24 AM
The Rublyev Trinity, like the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham, show all three angels as equal. None of the angels are identified by name on either icon, and none bear the distinctive halo which we see in icons of Christ. The three mysterious men at the Oak of Mamre are a manifestation, not an incarnation. This distinction is extremely important.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 22, 2014, 10:06:37 AM
Wow, what happened to this thread while I was sleeping?

1. We have gone way off track.

2. This seemingly obvious condemnation of depicting the Father in the Damascene's writings is not apparent to me.

3. I was always taught that the Trinity is very obviously distinguished in Rublev's depiction, despite their not literally being the Trinity. The Father wears orange, the Son wears blue and red (just like in icons of him, a very distinct color scheme), and the Spirit wears green (the color of the Holy Spirit). Further, while being seated equally at the table, both the Son and Holy Spirit are shown bending their heads to the Father.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 27, 2014, 02:49:53 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10494814_10152539486819784_6164974461204986042_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 27, 2014, 08:05:48 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10494814_10152539486819784_6164974461204986042_n.jpg)

The apostles should be holding a model of a church, symbolic of them being the pillars and founders of the Church, as many a hymn to them proclaims. The church is there, but obscured behind the totally misplaced motif of a Eucharistic symbol.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonis on July 27, 2014, 08:16:01 PM
I heard you like symbolism, so I put the Body of Christ in the Body of Christ so you can contemplate while you contemplate.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 27, 2014, 08:21:04 PM
I heard you like symbolism, so I put the Body of Christ in the Body of Christ so you can contemplate while you contemplate.

(http://www.mengsbizarreadventure.com/uploads/xhibit1.jpg)

Do it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 28, 2014, 08:35:02 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6189/6119423031_3031df71a0_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Arachne on July 28, 2014, 08:41:28 PM
https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6189/6119423031_3031df71a0_z.jpg

Looks as if someone's about to get his jabs (and a lolly afterwards?) ::)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 28, 2014, 10:57:54 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6189/6119423031_3031df71a0_z.jpg)

Someone has seriously over-egged the custard. Far too much frou-frou. And the Child looks like he's about to burst into tears: Mama! Please don't jab me!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on July 28, 2014, 11:29:03 PM
And the Child looks like he's about to burst into tears: Mama! Please don't jab me!

FWIW, I thought it kind of looked like he's about to sneeze.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 29, 2014, 12:33:42 AM

FWIW, I thought it kind of looked like he's about to sneeze.

Yes, I agree as his eyes are partly closed and his mouth is slightly opened. Hardly a pose seen in Orthodox Christian icons.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on July 29, 2014, 07:11:53 AM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6189/6119423031_3031df71a0_z.jpg)

I get the same expression as Jesus right before I sneeze.

edit - I was beaten to this observation.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ekdikos on July 29, 2014, 07:25:09 AM
What on earth is this?

(http://nebula.wsimg.com/obj/OTk3MzAwRUFGODBGNkU1NkQzRkI6ZmE2NTk1NDU0M2YzNzk1MTA3MjM5NTNiMTQ4NWE4NGU6Ojo6OjA=)

If you have higher resolution pic, I would be able to read Church Slavonic text, so far, I can only read few words.

"Purity of soul... .... of Our Lord Jesus Christ... Guardian angel... .... .... by the grace "
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: CopticDeacon on July 29, 2014, 08:18:50 AM
What about the "ancient of days" icon? I'm pretty sure it's canonical but due to the aged appearance and the fact that such an icon does not appear in coptic iconography I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on July 29, 2014, 08:23:11 AM
What about the "ancient of days" icon? I'm pretty sure it's canonical but due to the aged appearance and the fact that such an icon does not appear in coptic iconography I'm not sure.

The only acceptable Ancient of Days icon is of Christ, as clearly inscribed in this icon:

(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server1600/pw4nhjs/products/594/images/948/___42006.1380140918.490.588.jpg?c=2)

"Icons" of God the Father as a bearded old man are uncanonical and unsuitable for veneration.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: CopticDeacon on July 29, 2014, 08:35:10 AM

The only acceptable Ancient of Days icon is of Christ, as clearly inscribed in this icon:

(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server1600/pw4nhjs/products/594/images/948/___42006.1380140918.490.588.jpg?c=2)

"Icons" of God the Father as a bearded old man are uncanonical and unsuitable for veneration.



That's what I thought.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: JamesLesser on July 29, 2014, 12:06:06 PM
In the icon of Moses receiving the Tablets, is it portraying Christ as the Ancient of Days or is the Father?  I believe it is Christ.

(http://images.oca.org/icons/lg/september/0904icon-mpoy-unburntbush0012.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on July 31, 2014, 03:04:00 PM
http://indigenousjesus.blogspot.com/2012/11/father-john-giuliani-painter-of-native.html

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4jR5pwVJg98/UKq0TjYVcfI/AAAAAAAAB6s/6Dj7rkcyEh4/s1600/John+Giuliani_Lakota+Trinity+w+Red+Winged+Hawk.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on August 01, 2014, 09:15:25 PM
http://indigenousjesus.blogspot.com/2012/11/father-john-giuliani-painter-of-native.html

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4jR5pwVJg98/UKq0TjYVcfI/AAAAAAAAB6s/6Dj7rkcyEh4/s1600/John+Giuliani_Lakota+Trinity+w+Red+Winged+Hawk.jpg)

This reminds me of a ceramic Nativity set I painted some years ago, featuring a tepee and Native American children, a buffalo and wolf, etc. I always had very mixed feelings about it.

I think something that really bothers me is exchanging the dove as a representation of the Holy Spirit for a hawk/eagle. Kind of reverses the entire symbolism.

I do like the almost linking/intertwining of the hands of both of the human portrayals and the wings of the bird.

Ah, and in typing that last sentence it hit me. I did not want to call them "the Father and Christ" so I was seeking a term to use. I settled on calling them both "humans". But while Christ became man, the Father did not.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on August 01, 2014, 09:18:40 PM
In the icon of Moses receiving the Tablets, is it portraying Christ as the Ancient of Days or is the Father?  I believe it is Christ.

(http://images.oca.org/icons/lg/september/0904icon-mpoy-unburntbush0012.jpg)

Can it be Christ, if He is also being held by the Theotokos in the same icon? And he does look old. Is Christ ever painted that way?

(Not trying to answer you because I don't know, just my observations and I am asking.)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 01, 2014, 10:50:25 PM
In the icon of Moses receiving the Tablets, is it portraying Christ as the Ancient of Days or is the Father?  I believe it is Christ.

Can it be Christ, if He is also being held by the Theotokos in the same icon? And he does look old. Is Christ ever painted that way?


(Not trying to answer you because I don't know, just my observations and I am asking.)

If the bearded old man is Christ as the Ancient of Days, there should be an inscription of IC-XC around him. Given that the iconographer who produced this is Michael Damaskinos, it is almost certain that the old man is God the Father.

Damaskinos was a 16th century iconographer of the Cretan School, who traveled extensively through Italy, and lived in Venice for some years. His work borrows heavily from religious painting of the Renaissance, both in composition and painterly style.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 01, 2014, 11:27:03 PM
In the icon of Moses receiving the Tablets, is it portraying Christ as the Ancient of Days or is the Father?  I believe it is Christ.

Can it be Christ, if He is also being held by the Theotokos in the same icon? And he does look old. Is Christ ever painted that way?

(Not trying to answer you because I don't know, just my observations and I am asking.)

If the bearded old man is Christ as the Ancient of Days, there should be an inscription of IC-XC around him. Given that the iconographer who produced this is Michael Damaskinos, it is almost certain that the old man is God the Father.

He may not have the IC-XC inscription around him but he likewise lacks anything labeling him as God the Father (such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish). Indeed, with closer inspection, you can make out the cruciform halo unique to Christ rather than the eight-point or triangle halos that images of God the Father as the Ancient of Days often sport.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 01, 2014, 11:37:40 PM
The point is that the only proper iconographic portrayal of the Ancient of Days is one which clearly marks the old man as Christ. All three Persons of the Holy Trinity are eternal and timeless (which is what the idea of Ancient of Days expresses), but only one of the Persons became incarnate as Man, while remaining God.

Lord Sabaoth simply means Lord of (heavenly) Hosts. The Lord in question is the Holy Trinity.

The shape of the halo in Damaskinos' work is irrelevant in this case.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Sam G on August 01, 2014, 11:58:38 PM
(http://deathtotheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IMG_5111-466x700.jpg)

Is this the "Ancient of Days" or God the Father?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 01, 2014, 11:59:20 PM
Lord Sabaoth simply means Lord of (heavenly) Hosts. The Lord in question is the Holy Trinity.

True, but every figure I've seen marked as such on icons (including on several I own) was clearly intended to be God the Father.

The point is that the only proper iconographic portrayal of the Ancient of Days is one which clearly marks the old man as Christ. All three Persons of the Holy Trinity are eternal and timeless (which is what the idea of Ancient of Days expresses), but only one of the Persons became incarnate as Man, while remaining God.
...
The shape of the halo in Damaskinos' work is irrelevant in this case.

If the cruciform halo is unique to Christ, wouldn't it then mark the figure bearing it as none other?

I'm just not convinced the old man up top is meant to be God the Father and not God the Son, whatever Damaskinos may have done elsewhere.

Funny thing about that IC-XC inscription, the Christ in the Theotokos' lap seems to lack it too.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 01, 2014, 11:59:47 PM
(http://deathtotheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IMG_5111-466x700.jpg)

Is this the "Ancient of Days" or God the Father?

God the Father.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Sam G on August 02, 2014, 12:02:21 AM
Is it the shape of the halo that gives it away? No cross or XC IC?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 02, 2014, 12:02:29 AM
(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition? Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Sam G on August 02, 2014, 12:03:53 AM
(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition? Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

The Old Rite Church in Erie PA features no icons of God the Father to my knowledge.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 12:11:56 AM
Quote
True, but every figure I've seen marked as such on icons (including on several I own) was clearly intended to be God the Father
.

And this is precisely the problem with such portrayals.

Quote
If the cruciform halo is unique to Christ, wouldn't it then mark the figure bearing it as none other?

The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

Quote
I'm just not convinced the old man up top is meant to be God the Father and not God the Son, whatever Damaskinos may have done elsewhere.

Damaskinos' works, and that of his contemporary, Emmanuel Tzannes, are replete with imagery straight out of Renaissance art, which had long broken any connection with the forms and traditions of iconography. The works of these two men are interesting and skilfully-painted, but fall quite short of what iconography is and stands for.

Quote
Funny thing about that IC-XC inscription, the Christ in the Theotokos' lap seems to lack it too.

... and the standard inscription for the Mother of God is also absent. She is bearing only one star of ever-virginity, which is also a common feature of Roman Catholic art.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 02, 2014, 12:16:25 AM
(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition? Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

The Old Rite Church in Erie PA features no icons of God the Father to my knowledge.

It may have at some point, or possibly not - many parishes don't come close to having every "standard" icon.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 12:21:21 AM
(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition?

Among certain groups it seems. The priestless Chasovennye tradition ("Chapelist") to which I belong seems to accept it wholeheartedly. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the central icon of my parish's iconostasis, a large painting of the "New Testament Trinity" with Christ and God the Father seated and the Holy Spirit as a dove between them.

Other groups, such as the Pomortsy, are better about that sort of thing and eschew depicting either God the Father or the Holy Spirit, except perhaps in those icons where it is canonical. As Sam G noted, the Church of the Nativity in Erie, which came from the Pomortsy tradition, likewise seems to lack those elements.

Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

That last image of the Ancient of Days given by Sam G seems pretty representative. He is often depicted as the Ancient of Days with a halo consisting of two overlapping diamonds (often with one red and the other blue) and bearing the "Lord Sabaoth" inscription.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 12:23:06 AM
The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

It's sort of a moot distinction if only Christ is ever depicted with it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on August 02, 2014, 12:24:40 AM
(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition?

Among certain groups it seems. The priestless Chasovennye tradition ("Chapelist) to which I belong seems to accept it wholeheartedly. No where is this more obvious that in the central icon of my parish's iconostasis, a large painting of the "New Testament Trinity" with Christ and God the Father seated and the Holy Spirit as a dove between them.

Other groups, such as the Pomortsy, are better about that sort of thing and seem to eschew depicting either God the Father or the Holy Spirit, except perhaps in those icons where it is canonical. As Sam G noted, the Church of the Nativity in Erie, which came from the Pomortsy tradition, likewise lacks that sort of thing.

Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

That last image of the Ancient of Days given by Sam G seems pretty representative. He is often depicted as the Ancient of Days with a halo consisting of two overlapping diamonds (often with one red and the other blue) and bearing the "Lord Sabaoth" inscription.

But aren't red and blue the colors of the Christ?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 02, 2014, 12:29:31 AM
Among certain groups it seems. The priestless Chasovennye tradition ("Chapelist) to which I belong seems to accept it wholeheartedly. No where is this more obvious that in the central icon of my parish's iconostasis, a large painting of the "New Testament Trinity" with Christ and God the Father seated and the Holy Spirit as a dove between them.

Other groups, such as the Pomortsy, are better about that sort of thing and eschew depicting either God the Father or the Holy Spirit, except perhaps in those icons where it is canonical. As Sam G noted, the Church of the Nativity in Erie, which came from the Pomortsy tradition, likewise seems to lack those elements.

Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

That last image of the Ancient of Days given by Sam G seems pretty representative. He is often depicted as the Ancient of Days with a halo consisting of two overlapping diamonds (often with one red and the other blue) and bearing the "Lord Sabaoth" inscription.

Pretty neat, thanks. The Chapelists just got a +1 in my book (God the Father/NT Trinity icons have long  been a guilty pleasure of mine).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 12:34:37 AM
The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

It's sort of a moot distinction if only Christ is ever depicted with it.

Not moot at all. Icons must be faithful to what the Church teaches, and the fact remains that the Father never became incarnate.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 12:45:36 AM
The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

It's sort of a moot distinction if only Christ is ever depicted with it.

Not moot at all. Icons must be faithful to what the Church teaches, and the fact remains that the Father never became incarnate.

Exactly, which is why depictions of the Ancient of Days with the cruciform halo, yet without the explicit IC-XC inscription, must be of the Son.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 12:51:00 AM
(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition? Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

The Old Rite Church in Erie PA features no icons of God the Father to my knowledge.

It may have at some point, or possibly not - many parishes don't come close to having every "standard" icon.

I'm inclined to think they didn't, in accordance with their Pomortsy background.

In this photo of one of their processions, for example, where a Chapelist cast icon of the Crucifixion would depict the "Lord Sabaoth" at the very top, they have an image of the Saviour Not-Made-By-Hands. Unless they acquired new molds, they probably had those to begin with.

(http://static.squarespace.com/static/512d2034e4b08c7a561cbff9/5151cd79e4b0b4f3e8fed364/5151d1bee4b0e340ec55f85a/1364316610159/DSC_0531.JPG)

On a different note, does anyone know what the deal is with the flower at the bottom, below the skull of Adam? I've never noticed it before and the few icons I have which include it depict it more in the form of a bush.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 12:56:12 AM
The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

It's sort of a moot distinction if only Christ is ever depicted with it.

Not moot at all. Icons must be faithful to what the Church teaches, and the fact remains that the Father never became incarnate.

Exactly, which is why depictions of the Ancient of Days with the cruciform halo, yet without the explicit IC-XC inscription, must be of the Son.

Not so. Every single icon of Christ, whether as a child or adult, must bear the IC-XC inscription, just as every icon of the Mother of God should bear the inscription MP-OY.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 01:09:37 AM
The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

It's sort of a moot distinction if only Christ is ever depicted with it.

Not moot at all. Icons must be faithful to what the Church teaches, and the fact remains that the Father never became incarnate.

Exactly, which is why depictions of the Ancient of Days with the cruciform halo, yet without the explicit IC-XC inscription, must be of the Son.

Not so. Every single icon of Christ, whether as a child or adult, must bear the IC-XC inscription, just as every icon of the Mother of God should bear the inscription MP-OY.

I'm not arguing that any icon should lack such inscriptions, only that wherever they're missing (whether intentionally or due to negligence) around a figure with a cruciform halo, it's probably intended to be Christ and not, say, the Father.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 02, 2014, 01:19:17 AM
I'm not arguing that any icon should lack such inscriptions, only that wherever they're missing (whether intentionally or due to negligence) around a figure with a cruciform halo, it's probably intended to be Christ and not, say, the Father.

To be fair, I've seen icons of the Holy Spirit/God the Father with cruciform halos. They're definitely the exception, though.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Holy_Trinity_and_Saint_Nicholas.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 02, 2014, 01:20:46 AM
This is definitely one of the stranger renditions I've seen of this:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lvvXFZkOCNI/T8_gimxqZZI/AAAAAAAAA1U/HGuD4UOt8U4/s1600/1-holy-trinity-svitozar-nenyuk.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 01:25:41 AM
I'm not arguing that any icon should lack such inscriptions, only that wherever they're missing (whether intentionally or due to negligence) around a figure with a cruciform halo, it's probably intended to be Christ and not, say, the Father.

To be fair, I've seen icons of the Holy Spirit/God the Father with cruciform halos. They're definitely the exception, though.

I suppose one should look at the context then as well.

My real purpose behind arguing with LBK goes back to Damaskinos' icon of the Unburnt Bush. I just don't think the figure of the Ancient of Days is supposed to be God the Father but rather God the Son, even without the IC-XC inscription. That is all.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 02, 2014, 01:39:57 AM
I'm not arguing that any icon should lack such inscriptions, only that wherever they're missing (whether intentionally or due to negligence) around a figure with a cruciform halo, it's probably intended to be Christ and not, say, the Father.

To be fair, I've seen icons of the Holy Spirit/God the Father with cruciform halos. They're definitely the exception, though.

I suppose one should look at the context then as well.

My real purpose with arguing with LBK goes back to Damaskinos' icon of the Unburnt Bush. I just don't think the figure of the Ancient of Days is supposed to be God the Father but rather God the Son, even without the IC-XC inscription. That is all.

Oh, I agree. Considering how many clear depictions of Christ leave out the IC-XC inscription (correctly or incorrectly so), it's really not much of a stretch to assume that a cruciform halo = Christ.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 04:55:59 AM
I'm not arguing that any icon should lack such inscriptions, only that wherever they're missing (whether intentionally or due to negligence) around a figure with a cruciform halo, it's probably intended to be Christ and not, say, the Father.

To be fair, I've seen icons of the Holy Spirit/God the Father with cruciform halos. They're definitely the exception, though.

I suppose one should look at the context then as well.

My real purpose behind arguing with LBK goes back to Damaskinos' icon of the Unburnt Bush. I just don't think the figure of the Ancient of Days is supposed to be God the Father but rather God the Son, even without the IC-XC inscription. That is all.

What you think does not square with iconographic tradition, or the very real and serious deviations from that tradition by Damaskinos, Tzannes, and those of their ilk. It is impossible for them to have been unaware of the absolute necessity of the IC-XC inscription for icons of Christ, or of the absolute necessity to express the ever-virginity of the Mother of God through the painting of the three stars on her head and shoulders.

The Cretan School produced some of the finest and most spiritually sublime icons ever produced, but, as the Italo-Venetian influence grew within it, the spiritual and theological integrity of its works diminished, eventually becoming essentially imitations of Renaissance religious art painted in a diluted "iconographic" style.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 05:58:47 AM
I'm at a loss as to why you keep misunderstanding me, LBK. My bone of contention from the beginning was your statement that "it is almost certain that the old man is God the Father."

It is true that Damaskinos did not include the IC-XC inscription around his depiction of the Ancient of Days and I'll take your word for it that it most definitely should have been there. However, its absence is not enough to claim that the painter intended for the figure to be seen as God the Father and not God the Son, especially since he bears the cruciform halo, imagery unique to Christ.

None of this is about what Damaskinos should or should not have done but rather who he intended the figure to represent.

Since there are no elements indicating that the figure is meant to be the Father (no inscription of the sort, for instance) and yet there are elements clearing evoking the Son (the halo), I've concluded that it is not "almost certain that the old man is God the Father" but is more likely that the old man is, in fact, supposed to be Christ.

Do you disagree with my conclusion?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 06:06:49 AM
Yes, I do disagree with your conclusion, because of the frequent use of the cruciform halo in "icons" of God the Father, sitting next to Christ, in the so-called New Testament Trinity.

The absence of God the Father imagery in iconography before about the 16th century is also significant.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 06:17:37 AM
Yes, I do disagree with your conclusion, because of the frequent use of the cruciform halo in "icons" of God the Father, sitting next to Christ, in the so-called New Testament Trinity.

Well, okay then, now we're on the same page.

I'm just giving Damaskinos the benefit of the doubt. I see no reason for us to assume he's making more mistakes than we have to.

The absence of God the Father imagery in iconography before about the 16th century is also significant.

I agree.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 06:30:10 AM
Damaskinos makes many errors in his "icons", as I have pointed out. Giving him the benefit of the doubt is misguided at best, given that he trained as an iconographer in a Cretan monastery, before traveling to Italy.

Another of his western touches was to sign his work "by the hand of ...", and, at times, "creation of ....". Both these forms, particularly the latter, are the opposite of the humility of a true iconographer, who works in obedience as an instrument of the Church, using his talents and abilities to faithfully proclaim her truths in paint.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 02, 2014, 06:33:11 AM
Giving him the benefit of the doubt is misguided at best

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is like ethics 101.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 06:39:28 AM
Here, Damaskinos clearly uses the cruciform halo for God the Father. Do you still want to give Damaskinos the benefit of the doubt?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/TheiaLeitourgia_MihDamaskinos_MouseioArhiepiskKritis.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 02, 2014, 06:42:10 AM
Here, Damaskinos clearly uses the cruciform halo for God the Father. Do you still want to give Damaskinos the benefit of the doubt?

Now you have evidence to the contrary. In the absence of such evidence, giving someone the benefit of the doubt is an ethical imperative.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 06:43:22 AM
A "new testament trinity" by Emmanuel Tzannes, Damaskinos' contemporary. Note the haloes:

(http://home.yebo.co.za/~xenitis/ETzanesBenakiAgTriada1.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 06:45:54 AM
Do you have any examples of non-"New Testament Trinity" icons of God the Father by the hand of Damaskinos where the figure is clearly labelled as such?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 06:52:45 AM
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you looking for an image of God the Father on his own by this painter?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 07:01:39 AM
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you looking for an image of God the Father on his own by this painter?

Yes, indeed.

In a "New Testament Trinity" icon, one can easily tell the difference between God the Son and God the Father, even if neither is explicitly labelled as such. If one has the figure of the Ancient of Days alone, however, (as in the Unburnt Bush icon) without an inscription, it is perfectly within the realm of possibility that he could be intended to be the Son, as in traditional iconography.

I'm wondering whether Damaskinos ever explicitly painted icons of God the Father where one didn't have to depend on the context to figure it out.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 07:09:05 AM
You're still trying to justify God the Father paintings, aren't you? On what basis?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 07:17:05 AM
You're still trying to justify God the Father paintings, aren't you? On what basis?

I'm not trying to justify any God the Father paintings. I have noted in the past that I don't particularly agree with them myself (despite being surrounded by them) and that remains true.

I'm also becoming more inclined to believe that Damaskinos might have indeed intended for the Ancient of Days in the icon of the Unburnt Bush to be the Father. I'm just still unconvinced that we have to unequivocally assume that it is, that it can't have been the one time he decided to go down a more traditional road and depict the Son as such.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 02, 2014, 07:34:50 AM
Damaskinos has taken various artistic liberties in the Unburnt Bush painting, consistent with his Italo-Venetian influences. He has used the cruciform halo for the Father in other paintings. He indeed knew the "rules", and followed them in his early work, but his later work is art, not iconography.

There's nothing wrong with liking his Unburnt Bush as a piece of religious art. What it is not is an icon.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 07:49:38 AM
Damaskinos has taken various artistic liberties in the Unburnt Bush painting, consistent with his Italo-Venetian influences. He has used the cruciform halo for the Father in other paintings. He indeed knew the "rules", and followed them in his early work, but his later work is art, not iconography.

There's nothing wrong with liking his Unburnt Bush as a piece of religious art. What it is not is an icon.

No disagreements from me.

Setting aside any impressions I may have given earlier, I'm not much of a fan of that particular school of art. I find nearly nothing aesthetically pleasing about it.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Regnare on August 02, 2014, 11:57:08 AM
Can someone explain who the Son of Man is, if the Ancient of Days in Daniel is intended to be Christ? Does Christ appear twice and talk to Himself? What does the vision signify, if not the Father bestowing authority on the Son in the manner Jesus spoke of in the Gospels?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: JamesLesser on August 02, 2014, 02:02:59 PM
Thank you for this discussion on the Damaskinos icon.  I found it very helpful.  I value your analysis very much LBK.  From another website I was led to believe that it was not the Father that was being portrayed.  But now I see that it is most likely the Father, and that the Theotokos is not properly depicted as well.  

I also had another question.  Would it be proper to depict Christ, properly painted with the cruciform halo and the inscription, as giving the tablets to Moses?  Is this depiction theologically sound?  There are also other icons which depict only a hand giving the tablets to Moses, with no identification for the hand.  Is this proper?

Can someone explain who the Son of Man is, if the Ancient of Days in Daniel is intended to be Christ? Does Christ appear twice and talk to Himself? What does the vision signify, if not the Father bestowing authority on the Son in the manner Jesus spoke of in the Gospels?

I'm sorry I don't know enough to answer this.  
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 03, 2014, 12:53:19 AM
Quote
Would it be proper to depict Christ, properly painted with the cruciform halo and the inscription, as giving the tablets to Moses?

No, as He was not incarnate at the time.

Quote
There are also other icons which depict only a hand giving the tablets to Moses, with no identification for the hand.  Is this proper?

Yes. This is the proper way of depicting God giving the tablets to Moses.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 03, 2014, 02:22:40 AM
Quote
There are also other icons which depict only a hand giving the tablets to Moses, with no identification for the hand.  Is this proper?

Yes. This is the proper way of depicting God giving the tablets to Moses.

The hand is honestly quite bizarre in iconography. It clearly anthropomorphizes God in a way that's not particular to the post-incarnate person of the Logos, and just looks kind of silly IMO when done both in the East and in the West.

I mean, in the same vein of logic about depicting the Persons of the Godhead in general, when did God become incarnate, or even manifest himself, as a floating hand? It's like some iconographer had this internal monologue:

"It's not possible to depict the Father or the pre-incarnate Christ, so what am I to do? I can't just have the tablets magically appearing before Moses..."
"Oh! We all know that God has a body (which can be seen/hidden/cause death), which he hid with his hands, so I'll just depict God/the Father/the pre-incarnate Christ as a mystical hand in the sky! Problem solved."
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Father H on August 03, 2014, 02:37:10 AM
Quote
There are also other icons which depict only a hand giving the tablets to Moses, with no identification for the hand.  Is this proper?

Yes. This is the proper way of depicting God giving the tablets to Moses.

The hand is honestly quite bizarre in iconography. It clearly anthropomorphizes God in a way that's not particular to the post-incarnate person of the Logos, and just looks kind of silly IMO when done both in the East and in the West.

I mean, in the same vein of logic about depicting the Persons of the Godhead in general, when did God become incarnate, or even manifest himself, as a floating hand? It's like some iconographer had this internal monologue:

"It's not possible to depict the Father or the pre-incarnate Christ, so what am I to do? I can't just have the tablets magically appearing before Moses..."
"Oh! We all know that God has a body (which can be seen/hidden/cause death), which he hid with his hands, so I'll just depict God/the Father/the pre-incarnate Christ as a mystical hand in the sky! Problem solved."

Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: “Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

You will bring them in and plant them In the mountain of Your inheritance, In the place, O Lord, which You have made For Your own dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established

Your hands O Lord have made me and established me
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 03, 2014, 07:05:43 AM
Quote
There are also other icons which depict only a hand giving the tablets to Moses, with no identification for the hand.  Is this proper?

Yes. This is the proper way of depicting God giving the tablets to Moses.

The hand is honestly quite bizarre in iconography. It clearly anthropomorphizes God in a way that's not particular to the post-incarnate person of the Logos, and just looks kind of silly IMO when done both in the East and in the West.

I mean, in the same vein of logic about depicting the Persons of the Godhead in general, when did God become incarnate, or even manifest himself, as a floating hand? It's like some iconographer had this internal monologue:

"It's not possible to depict the Father or the pre-incarnate Christ, so what am I to do? I can't just have the tablets magically appearing before Moses..."
"Oh! We all know that God has a body (which can be seen/hidden/cause death), which he hid with his hands, so I'll just depict God/the Father/the pre-incarnate Christ as a mystical hand in the sky! Problem solved."

Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: “Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

You will bring them in and plant them In the mountain of Your inheritance, In the place, O Lord, which You have made For Your own dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established

Your hands O Lord have made me and established me

Thank you, Father.  :)

I would also add this:

Lord, Your mercy is forever. Do not disdain the work of Your hands.


Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 03, 2014, 01:13:28 PM
Quote
There are also other icons which depict only a hand giving the tablets to Moses, with no identification for the hand.  Is this proper?

Yes. This is the proper way of depicting God giving the tablets to Moses.

The hand is honestly quite bizarre in iconography. It clearly anthropomorphizes God in a way that's not particular to the post-incarnate person of the Logos, and just looks kind of silly IMO when done both in the East and in the West.

I mean, in the same vein of logic about depicting the Persons of the Godhead in general, when did God become incarnate, or even manifest himself, as a floating hand? It's like some iconographer had this internal monologue:

"It's not possible to depict the Father or the pre-incarnate Christ, so what am I to do? I can't just have the tablets magically appearing before Moses..."
"Oh! We all know that God has a body (which can be seen/hidden/cause death), which he hid with his hands, so I'll just depict God/the Father/the pre-incarnate Christ as a mystical hand in the sky! Problem solved."

Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: “Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

You will bring them in and plant them In the mountain of Your inheritance, In the place, O Lord, which You have made For Your own dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established

Your hands O Lord have made me and established me

Thank you, Father.  :)

I would also add this:

Lord, Your mercy is forever. Do not disdain the work of Your hands.




But I think you and Fr H are missing Nephi's point.  If it is improper to depict the Father because he never became incarnate, and if it is improper to depict the pre-incarnate Christ because he had not yet assumed flesh, then why paint a hand to represent either/both? 

The reasoning which points to language in Scripture which speaks of God's hands as the justification for painting a hand is nothing more than the reasoning which would point to "manifestations" of the Father and/or of the pre-incarnate Christ in the OT to justify "Old Man" icons.   
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on August 03, 2014, 02:34:30 PM
But I think you and Fr H are missing Nephi's point.  If it is improper to depict the Father because he never became incarnate, and if it is improper to depict the pre-incarnate Christ because he had not yet assumed flesh, then why paint a hand to represent either/both? 

The reasoning which points to language in Scripture which speaks of God's hands as the justification for painting a hand is nothing more than the reasoning which would point to "manifestations" of the Father and/or of the pre-incarnate Christ in the OT to justify "Old Man" icons. 

Exactly, as well as pre-incarnate icons of Christ as an angel, etc.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on August 03, 2014, 05:21:49 PM
These are not exactly strange- I do not think they have canonical problems- but they are different from many I've seen. These were recently installed at my parish. They're scenes from the life of St. George.

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-05/0A98ECEF-14CC-44DA-883C-9673672112B7_zpsnmbq33bw.jpg) (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/neon000/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-05/0A98ECEF-14CC-44DA-883C-9673672112B7_zpsnmbq33bw.jpg.html)

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-05/A761CF7B-D1F7-4065-9574-D9554F396BB0_zps88dn8rwf.jpg) (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/neon000/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-05/A761CF7B-D1F7-4065-9574-D9554F396BB0_zps88dn8rwf.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ekdikos on August 04, 2014, 05:35:11 AM
They decipt scenes from Life of Saint George the Trophy bearer... Only last is bit unusual, since I never saw Saint George seated on Throne...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on August 04, 2014, 06:19:15 AM
Quote
Only last is bit unusual, since I never saw Saint George seated on Throne...

While not as common as icons of him on horseback, there are various historic icons of St George enthroned:

A couple from Serbia:
 
(http://www.cirota.ru/forum/images/82/82755.jpeg)

Quote
http://www.cirota.ru/forum/images/10/10569.jpeg

A Greek one:

(http://www.georgy74.ru/images/phocagallery/articles/georgy/georgy/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_ib502.jpg)

There are also icons of Great-martyr Demetrius shown this way.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ekdikos on August 04, 2014, 06:59:30 AM
Quote
Only last is bit unusual, since I never saw Saint George seated on Throne...

While not as common as icons of him on horseback, there are various historic icons of St George enthroned:

A couple from Serbia:
 
(http://www.cirota.ru/forum/images/82/82755.jpeg)

Quote
http://www.cirota.ru/forum/images/10/10569.jpeg

A Greek one:

(http://www.georgy74.ru/images/phocagallery/articles/georgy/georgy/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_ib502.jpg)

There are also icons of Great-martyr Demetrius shown this way.



Well, I guess it has theological reasoning behind, after all we sing that Martyrs deserved crowns, for their Testimony of Christ.
Usually, Saint George is represented on horseback (usually representing his feast day, 23rd of April), or standing (usually icon connected with Feast of Renowation of Church of Saint George in Lyda, 3rd of November).
Byznatine icon, today in Athens:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Icon8.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 05, 2014, 01:34:28 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10649980_320338654811439_5691564187149021226_n.jpg?oh=2c7e214da747558a8a1f86445e776e56&oe=548F039B&__gda__=1419520035_2b3e993a591c9080fdf59d143257a18f)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Iconodule on September 05, 2014, 01:39:50 PM
When looking at icons, I often think, "This one would be cooler with a Nazi dragon."
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on September 05, 2014, 01:42:51 PM
This really -does- clarify the whole Episcopal staff thing for me.....it's a snake killing weapon...with symbols of -what-it can be used to kill, right there on it.  ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonious Nikolas on September 05, 2014, 02:13:17 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10649980_320338654811439_5691564187149021226_n.jpg?oh=2c7e214da747558a8a1f86445e776e56&oe=548F039B&__gda__=1419520035_2b3e993a591c9080fdf59d143257a18f)

I want this.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on September 05, 2014, 02:20:09 PM
Everything was normal until I scrolled to the bottom.  :) Although it's fine in the end. Indiana Jones and I feel the same way about these people.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Antonious Nikolas on September 05, 2014, 02:52:32 PM
Everything was normal until I scrolled to the bottom.  :) Although it's fine in the end. Indiana Jones and I feel the same way about these people.

You, me, Indy, Jake, Elwood...we're in good company.  :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on September 06, 2014, 10:53:56 PM

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10639690_372474332900808_8149271793398947963_n.jpg?oh=f6de96aa9717c3e14d37a808f0a9166b&oe=5498CEDB&__gda__=1420045831_814d8e085f003bcf5af351db83fe4492)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on September 06, 2014, 11:03:10 PM
That's the same one...  ???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LizaSymonenko on September 07, 2014, 06:17:34 AM

Lol!  So it is!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on September 08, 2014, 09:41:09 AM
First time in my life I've seen it, but maybe it's not so strange:
(https://scontent-b-cdg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1069182_589523134432805_1583440543_n.jpg?oh=3d61be25470cc3cfe8a60a527e528703&oe=54A18F38)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1005997_589523024432816_533862512_n.jpg?oh=a80f5af4992a0adc6bc2a98d007c706c&oe=54A2F35D&__gda__=1418332026_04f04f4b3a8a6414c0dd8ad537af17c0)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 08, 2014, 09:59:27 AM
These are of Sts Joachim and Anna, with their daughter, the (future) Mother of God. The old man at the base of the tree looking up at her is the forefather Jesse, the father of David the King and Psalmist.

The tree represents the root of Jesse, a prophecy of the Incarnation from Isaiah 11: There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of the root.

The Virgin is the rod of Jesse, and her Son is the flower. This imagery is clearly expressed in this hymn from the Nativity of the Lord:

Rod out of Jesse’s root, and flower that blossomed from his stem, O Christ, You have sprung from the Virgin, the praised from the mountain overshadowed by forest; You have come, made flesh from her who knew not wedlock, yet God not formed of matter. Glory to Your power, O Lord.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Nephi on September 21, 2014, 09:39:49 PM
"Mother of God and Emanuel in traditional Ukrainian regional garb."

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1600981_807601649263386_5520022671773328049_n.jpg?oh=a8575fa6072340a952fdebe972d4fd79&oe=54CFE83F&__gda__=1422709622_c67054bcaefca752de6f6066374fab7d)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on September 21, 2014, 09:51:41 PM
Why is her mantle red and not blue?  ???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on September 21, 2014, 10:28:06 PM
I'm fairly certain that the iconographic standard for the Theotokos is to have a red mantle over blue in contrast to the frequent depiction of Christ wearing blue over red.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 21, 2014, 11:12:03 PM
I'm fairly certain that the iconographic standard for the Theotokos is to have a red mantle over blue in contrast to the frequent depiction of Christ wearing blue over red.

It is not simply a visual contrast.

The red tunic of Christ represents His divinity and His status as King of Kings, while the blue mantle represents His clothing with humanity through His Incarnation. The Mother of God wears a blue tunic, as she was fully human and mortal as we all are, but her mantle is red, signifying her being graced by Divinity in conceiving and bearing God Incarnate.

The Ukrainian "icon" is nothing more than folk-nationalistic schlock, I'm afraid. Well-intentioned, I'm sure, but still very wrong, and unsuitable for veneration.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hawkeye on September 21, 2014, 11:29:27 PM
I'm fairly certain that the iconographic standard for the Theotokos is to have a red mantle over blue in contrast to the frequent depiction of Christ wearing blue over red.

It is not simply a visual contrast.

The red tunic of Christ represents His divinity and His status as King of Kings, while the blue mantle represents His clothing with humanity through His Incarnation. The Mother of God wears a blue tunic, as she was fully human and mortal as we all are, but her mantle is red, signifying her being graced by Divinity in conceiving and bearing God Incarnate.

That's my understanding as well.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Minnesotan on September 24, 2014, 07:25:45 PM
(http://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Gadget-Hackwrench-religion9.jpg)

Yep, that's St. Gadget Hackwrench of Disneyworld (http://www.odditycentral.com/news/russian-cult-worships-female-cartoon-character.html).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on September 24, 2014, 07:34:21 PM
I'm fairly certain that the iconographic standard for the Theotokos is to have a red mantle over blue in contrast to the frequent depiction of Christ wearing blue over red.

It is not simply a visual contrast.

The red tunic of Christ represents His divinity and His status as King of Kings, while the blue mantle represents His clothing with humanity through His Incarnation. The Mother of God wears a blue tunic, as she was fully human and mortal as we all are, but her mantle is red, signifying her being graced by Divinity in conceiving and bearing God Incarnate.

The Ukrainian "icon" is nothing more than folk-nationalistic schlock, I'm afraid. Well-intentioned, I'm sure, but still very wrong, and unsuitable for veneration.

I stand corrected. Thank you.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on September 28, 2014, 07:17:57 AM
I think it has been posted somewhere and discussed (however, surely not in this thread) but probably not this particular version; it's from a Serbian monastery, it seems to be Gradac (XIII c). If the exact fresco was posted, I'm sorry for the duplication :P

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/s720x720/615113_479058068795287_177752433_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 28, 2014, 07:38:47 AM
I think it has been posted somewhere and discussed (however, surely not in this thread) but probably not this particular version; it's from a Serbian monastery, it seems to be Gradac (XIII c). If the exact fresco was posted, I'm sorry for the duplication :P

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/s720x720/615113_479058068795287_177752433_o.jpg)

This is an icon of Christ as the Ancient of Days, as seen in the inscription IC-XC, painted in the four red medallions either side of Him. The double halo is rather odd, but everything else is quite proper.

In the lower section of the icon are these words from the hymn at the Eucharistic Canon: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord Sabaoth! Heaven and earth are full of Your glory.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on September 28, 2014, 10:14:08 AM
LBK as always full of knowledge :D Thank you for the explanation, as I hadn't any idea what the type of icon is it, and I couldn't read "heaven and earth..." - I was also wondering, why there on the left is written "Holy Holy..." ;) Well, I'm still wondering a bit. Maybe it' more connected with the fragment of the book of the prophet Isaiah or the Apocalypsis?...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on September 28, 2014, 10:20:26 AM
LBK as always full of knowledge :D Thank you for the explanation, as I hadn't any idea what the type of icon is it, and I couldn't read "heaven and earth..." - I was also wondering, why there on the left is written "Holy Holy..." ;) Well, I'm still wondering a bit. Maybe it' more connected with the fragment of the book of the prophet Isaiah or the Apocalypsis?...

The words Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord Sabaoth are on the left side, Heaven and earth are full of Your glory are on the right. The words are from Isaiah 6:3, and through this have become part of the Eucharistic hymn.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on September 28, 2014, 12:13:59 PM
LBK as always full of knowledge :D Thank you for the explanation, as I hadn't any idea what the type of icon is it, and I couldn't read "heaven and earth..." - I was also wondering, why there on the left is written "Holy Holy..." ;) Well, I'm still wondering a bit. Maybe it' more connected with the fragment of the book of the prophet Isaiah or the Apocalypsis?...

The words Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord Sabaoth are on the left side, Heaven and earth are full of Your glory are on the right. The words are from Isaiah 6:3, and through this have become part of the Eucharistic hymn.

Yes, I know :) I'm wondering why these particular words are written next to this particular image of Christ, why not diffrent quotation from the Bible or the Liturgy. So that's why I thought that in this context these words are more like from Isaiah or Apocalypsis (I know, the words are the same, I mean the background), than from Eucharistic Canon, I mean, their more "suitable" for such kind of Christ's icon - I hope now I put it clearly.
Anyway, interesting case, rather not so common.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Deacon Lance on September 28, 2014, 12:57:05 PM
I'm fairly certain that the iconographic standard for the Theotokos is to have a red mantle over blue in contrast to the frequent depiction of Christ wearing blue over red.

It is not simply a visual contrast.

The red tunic of Christ represents His divinity and His status as King of Kings, while the blue mantle represents His clothing with humanity through His Incarnation. The Mother of God wears a blue tunic, as she was fully human and mortal as we all are, but her mantle is red, signifying her being graced by Divinity in conceiving and bearing God Incarnate.

Yet one can find other sources which claim the opposite meanings for the colors.  Blue, the color of the sky, represents divinity and red, the color of blood, represents humanity.  Christ's blue over red represents his clothing our humanity with his divinity, the Birth-giver's red over blue represents her containing the divinity within her womb.  And of course we have the mosaics of Hagia Sophia and other churches of Constantinople, wear blue and gold predominate most icons of the Christ and his Mother. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 19, 2014, 07:35:20 AM
(http://pemptousia.com/files/2011/07/NEWICON-resize-_3-765x1024.jpg)

Never saw the Devil get choked out by angels.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on October 19, 2014, 01:08:45 PM
I can't see too well. Is that the Devil, or a dead person?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 19, 2014, 06:27:47 PM
I can't see too well. Is that the Devil, or a dead person?

It's the personification of sin and death, bound and chained. I agree about the angels having at him, though. Artistic license going a little too far.  :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Theophania on October 19, 2014, 07:08:37 PM
"Mother of God and Emanuel in traditional Ukrainian regional garb."

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1600981_807601649263386_5520022671773328049_n.jpg?oh=a8575fa6072340a952fdebe972d4fd79&oe=54CFE83F&__gda__=1422709622_c67054bcaefca752de6f6066374fab7d)

I really like this one. I sent it to Liza some months ago.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on October 19, 2014, 07:15:27 PM
I can't see too well. Is that the Devil, or a dead person?

It's the personification of sin and death, bound and chained. I agree about the angels having at him, though. Artistic license going a little too far.  :P

Okay, thanks.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 20, 2014, 12:39:57 AM
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdm9scz8aO1qd5iq9o1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Sam G on October 20, 2014, 12:43:55 AM
hecma925, you beat me to it!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on October 20, 2014, 12:47:07 AM
That's actually the least strange one on this thread.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 20, 2014, 12:51:20 AM
That's actually the least strange one on this thread.

Nah, angels choking out the personification of sin and death is less strange.  And Ukrainian Theotokos and Child is cute.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 20, 2014, 02:55:38 AM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FW0m7brECo4/T7AXB3VzLrI/AAAAAAAAEHI/j6yW2G_42As/s400/RESURRECTION-ICON.jpg)
There are TWO guys locked up in Hades!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Minnesotan on October 20, 2014, 02:56:55 AM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FW0m7brECo4/T7AXB3VzLrI/AAAAAAAAEHI/j6yW2G_42As/s400/RESURRECTION-ICON.jpg)
There are TWO guys locked up in Hades!

Adam and Steve?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 20, 2014, 03:02:44 AM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FW0m7brECo4/T7AXB3VzLrI/AAAAAAAAEHI/j6yW2G_42As/s400/RESURRECTION-ICON.jpg)
There are TWO guys locked up in Hades!

Adam and Steve?

More like sin and death.  :P
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on October 21, 2014, 06:11:37 PM
(http://www.picturesoffish.net/images/e//l300/pict/251513276275_1.jpg)                         (http://www.picturesoffish.net/images/e//l300/pict/190545674515_1.jpg)

Christ gives enormous blessings.                   His eyebrows are weirding me out.


Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on October 21, 2014, 07:17:24 PM
                   (http://www.picturesoffish.net/images/e//l300/pict/190545674515_1.jpg)
                His eyebrows are weirding me out.



(http://www.councilofelrond.com/wp-content/uploads/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/characters/haldir/rp_haldir05.jpg)



Coincidence? i think not
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Hamartolos on October 21, 2014, 09:07:17 PM
                       (http://www.picturesoffish.net/images/e//l300/pict/190545674515_1.jpg)

    His eyebrows are weirding me out.




I actually really like this icon.  Looks very realistic for an icon.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on October 21, 2014, 09:10:12 PM
(http://www.picturesoffish.net/images/e//l300/pict/251513276275_1.jpg)                         (http://www.picturesoffish.net/images/e//l300/pict/190545674515_1.jpg)

Christ gives enormous blessings.                   His eyebrows are weirding me out.




Angels have eyebrows?  ???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 22, 2014, 02:58:43 AM
Savior of the Huge Hands (and a bad case of sunburn):

(http://edinburghiconpainting.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/7/3/25736918/4140963_orig.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: DeniseDenise on October 22, 2014, 04:25:56 AM
Preaching all day long in Galilee with no shade is rough!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on October 22, 2014, 05:06:04 AM
He could also do with more sleep .....
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Iconodule on October 26, 2014, 07:14:52 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FW0m7brECo4/T7AXB3VzLrI/AAAAAAAAEHI/j6yW2G_42As/s400/RESURRECTION-ICON.jpg)
There are TWO guys locked up in Hades!

Adam and Steve?

Nice
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: charbelkaleab on October 26, 2014, 09:00:58 PM
Savior of the Huge Hands (and a bad case of sunburn):

(http://edinburghiconpainting.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/7/3/25736918/4140963_orig.jpg)

Oh Lord.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on November 23, 2014, 11:21:03 PM
Statues on Mount Athos! (http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/11/guardians-of-avaton-at-athonite.html)

 ;)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on November 24, 2014, 12:07:29 AM
Preaching all day long in Galilee with no shade is rough!

Quote from: LBK
He could also do with more sleep .....

Lord have mercy!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Maria on November 24, 2014, 12:08:03 AM
Statues on Mount Athos! (http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/11/guardians-of-avaton-at-athonite.html)

 ;)

Lord have mercy!
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: dhinuus on December 10, 2014, 07:16:46 PM
Does anyone know what the Holy Theotokos is holding in her right hand?    Is that the green cedar tree from the flag of Lebanon ?  If so what is the significance of that?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/265508_465123203549170_1072323914_o.jpg)

(http://www.flagstore.se/product_thumb.php?img=/images/lebanon_m.gif&w=300&h=180)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LenInSebastopol on December 10, 2014, 07:26:02 PM
Does anyone know what the Holy Theotokos is holding in her right hand?    Is that the green cedar tree from the flag of Lebanon ?  If so what is the significance of that?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/265508_465123203549170_1072323914_o.jpg)

(http://www.flagstore.se/product_thumb.php?img=/images/lebanon_m.gif&w=300&h=180)

Pride in their country, Lebanon?
Ceder from Lebanon was also used in the First Temple and she is holding the Last Temple of Jerusalem?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on December 14, 2014, 11:01:33 AM
(http://www.spc-basel.ch/uploads/pics/ikona-svi-sveti-spc-basel.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on December 30, 2014, 02:18:13 AM
I kind of like this one. Does anyone know anything about it?


(http://blogs.nd.edu/oblation/files/2014/01/BaptismoftheLord.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on December 30, 2014, 02:20:54 AM
It looks Maronite.  "The Baptism of Christ" written in Greek at the top, and "This is my Beloved Son" below it in Syriac. 
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Pravoslavac on December 30, 2014, 07:03:34 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gh7ZyJgVva0/UZt6oO8gaWI/AAAAAAAAAGU/2ZhCANOHNVg/s1600/sv.marko+efeski.jpg)

Saint Mark of Efes defending the Holy Faith against the arch-heretic of Rome.

On the script that the saint is holding, it is written "Run away from the papists like you run away from the snakes."
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Ansgar on December 30, 2014, 08:26:43 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gh7ZyJgVva0/UZt6oO8gaWI/AAAAAAAAAGU/2ZhCANOHNVg/s1600/sv.marko+efeski.jpg)

Saint Mark of Efes defending the Holy Faith against the arch-heretic of Rome.

On the script that the saint is holding, it is written "Run away from the papists like you run away from the snakes."

Maybe somebody can help me with this one, because I can't remember if I have ever heard a definite answer before. Is the depiction of saints trampling down heretics uncanonical? Because I seem to remember reading that the prober way of depicting heretics is with them having demons besides them.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Pravoslavac on December 30, 2014, 11:13:34 AM
(http://static.politika.co.rs/uploads/rubrike/149130/i/1/Ikona-iz-manastira-Jasenovac.jpg)

Icon of Jasenovac Martyrs. Icon depicts hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christian martyrs killed by Ustashe and Roman-Catholic clergy in world war 2, Yugoslavia. Jasenovac was largest death camp.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on December 30, 2014, 02:57:22 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gh7ZyJgVva0/UZt6oO8gaWI/AAAAAAAAAGU/2ZhCANOHNVg/s1600/sv.marko+efeski.jpg)

Saint Mark of Efes defending the Holy Faith against the arch-heretic of Rome.

On the script that the saint is holding, it is written "Run away from the papists like you run away from the snakes."

Maybe somebody can help me with this one, because I can't remember if I have ever heard a definite answer before. Is the depiction of saints trampling down heretics uncanonical? Because I seem to remember reading that the prober way of depicting heretics is with them having demons besides them.

Is it not strange that the heretic is holding keys?

I'm guessing he has also pierced Scripture with a sword. Though why the book is black?

But the keys still in his hand makes me wonder?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on December 30, 2014, 03:55:48 PM
I've always been told using icons for polemical purposes like this is wrong.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on December 30, 2014, 03:58:48 PM
(http://static.politika.co.rs/uploads/rubrike/149130/i/1/Ikona-iz-manastira-Jasenovac.jpg)

Icon of Jasenovac Martyrs. Icon depicts hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christian martyrs killed by Ustashe and Roman-Catholic clergy in world war 2, Yugoslavia. Jasenovac was largest death camp.
Holy Martyrs, pray for us!  :'(
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on December 30, 2014, 06:29:07 PM
I've always been told using icons for polemical purposes like this is wrong.

I wondered about that too. I've never seen any, as I recall.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on December 30, 2014, 06:44:48 PM
I've always been told using icons for polemical purposes like this is wrong.

I wondered about that too. I've never seen any, as I recall.
There's the delightful nuttiness of the add-on to the traditional Mystical Ark of Salvation icon to include the Pope, Luther, and international Jewry shooting at the Church.

(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2652/images/2542/GML11-E__99177.1405402042.900.900.jpg?c=2)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 30, 2014, 06:58:18 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gh7ZyJgVva0/UZt6oO8gaWI/AAAAAAAAAGU/2ZhCANOHNVg/s1600/sv.marko+efeski.jpg)

Saint Mark of Efes defending the Holy Faith against the arch-heretic of Rome.

On the script that the saint is holding, it is written "Run away from the papists like you run away from the snakes."

Maybe somebody can help me with this one, because I can't remember if I have ever heard a definite answer before. Is the depiction of saints trampling down heretics uncanonical? Because I seem to remember reading that the prober way of depicting heretics is with them having demons besides them.

This image is an angry propaganda piece, not an icon. It is no more suitable for veneration than the infamous "ark of salvation" painting which shows the "enemies of Orthodoxy" attempting to divert and destroy The Good Ship Orthodoxy.

The St Mark of Ephesus image has been discussed in another thread a few years ago, IIRC.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on December 30, 2014, 07:14:52 PM
I've always been told using icons for polemical purposes like this is wrong.

I wondered about that too. I've never seen any, as I recall.
There's the delightful nuttiness of the add-on to the traditional Mystical Ark of Salvation icon to include the Pope, Luther, and international Jewry shooting at the Church.

(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3800/30c33/products/2652/images/2542/GML11-E__99177.1405402042.900.900.jpg?c=2)


Ah ..... Hmmmmm.

Not sure how to react to that. Should it include the many denominations of Protestantism? But in general, the Protestants I know are mostly not seeking to destroy the Church. They simply have never met her. Yet they profess Christ and seek after Him.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 30, 2014, 07:54:27 PM
Folks might find this old post useful:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11209.msg297730.html#msg297730

Quote
No, that icon should not be venerated. It is simply a polemical propaganda piece, promoting a particular ecclesiopolitical ideology. Some food for thought:

Iconography is, above all else, concerned with the revelation of God in Trinity: of the incarnation of the Son and Word of God which has allowed the sanctification of fallen creation (matter), including humanity (made in the image of God)**; of the signs and wonders of the Divine revelation in both the Old and New Testament periods; and, in its portrayal of the saints, their transfiguration from mere men and women into those who have attained deification, a "oneness with God" and full participation of the heavenly life with God and in God, through the conduct of their earthly lives and their steadfast witness to the true faith. They have become true icons and reflections of the Divine. The word godly is most apt to describe them.

(** St John of Damascus sums this up beautifully: "Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.")

Secondly, in the same way that the saints have obliterated their passions to give themselves completely to God, icons must also reflect this dispassionate quality. Obvious displays of human emotions, even a “positive” one such as laughter, are considered to be manifestations of human passion, and therefore have no place in iconography. Christ’s kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18: 36), therefore the portrayal of saints in their spiritually transformed state must be dispassionate. This also applies to church singing and reading; the singers and readers are there to glorify God and serve the church by their efforts, not to self-aggrandize. Even the display of sorrow in the face of a saint or the Mother of God should be kept subtle, with the emotion conveyed with the eyes, not through histrionics.

Thirdly, there must be complete agreement between scripture, liturgical content (which represents the distillation of the doctrinal, dogmatic and theological position of the Church), and the pictorial content of an icon for any icon to be deemed canonical.

Hence there is no place for ugliness, anger, enmity, and other negative emotions in iconography. The purpose of an icon is to draw us closer to God. Of course, there are specific examples of didactic icons, such as Last Judgement and Ladder of Divine Ascent which feature fearsome dragon-like creatures swallowing unrepentant evildoers. The Resurrection icon shows the personification of sin and death bound in chains in the abyss. It may be said, therefore, if there is room for such portrayals in these canonical icons, then why object to the presence of the figures in the Ark of Salvation image?

I offer this reply: An icon is a material, tangible expression of the incarnate God. The iconographic portrayal of the saints as icons of Christ, then, should reflect the sanctity, dispassion and boundless compassionate mercy of Christ to those who repent of their sins. Do we not pray to the saints and the Mother of God to intercede on our behalf? Are we not exhorted to pray for our enemies, to love them, and not to hate them? Of all scripture passages on this theme, Matt. 5: 43-48 is perhaps the most useful and succinct:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

We are also assured that God is Love, and that His love and mercy are available to all who seek Him in true faith. There are petitions in various Orthodox litanies which ask for the repentance and return to the true faith of sinners, apostates, and, yes, enemies. One which immediately comes to mind is "Let us pray for those who love us, and those who hate us", a petition in the litany sung towards the end of the Great Compline services of Great Lent where the Canon of St Andrew of Crete is sung.

There is the question of the iconographic portrayal of prophets and saints who denounced kings and princes. Such scenes are found in the smaller panels of a "life" icon of a saint or prophet (an icon which has a large central panel of the saint or prophet, surrounded by a series of smaller panels showing scenes of his or her life). Keeping to the dispassionate nature of icons, these scenes of rebuke of kings and princes (such as in icons of Prophet Elijah, and any number of OT and NT saints and righteous ones) show the saint standing before the errant ruler with a hand raised in rebuke, but nothing more. It is also significant that such scenes, almost without exception, are never used as icons in their own right.

it is not surprising that certain schismatic groups have favoured this so-called Ark of Salvation image as it reflects their particular ideology. This image suggests that those who are not Orthodox are somehow beyond repentance and redemption. Can we really agree with this as Orthodox Christians? The persecuting Pharisee Saul openly boasted of his zeal and success in persecuting Christians, yet, by the grace of God, became one of the Princes of the Apostles, a pillar of Orthodoxy. There are also innumerable converts to the Orthodox faith who have come from every religious background imaginable, including atheism, paganism and communism; many who have become saints, in times of old, and in our present day. The grace of God knows no bounds.

Iconography, as I have said before, must never be used for political or ideological purposes. To portray the non-Orthodox as a whole as being irredeemable and in league with demonic and evil forces to destroy Orthodoxy is a shameful debasement of iconography. I am reminded of a reply to a convert to Orthodoxy as to how he came to the conclusion that the Orthodox faith was the true faith: "The Soviet Union was capable of destroying anything. Yet, despite its immense power and resources, it could not destroy the Orthodox Church. So that was good enough for me." The gates of hell cannot prevail, indeed ...
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on December 30, 2014, 07:58:06 PM
Thanks, LBK.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Anna.T on December 30, 2014, 08:27:21 PM
Thanks, LBK.

Yes, thank you. :)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Pravoslavac on December 30, 2014, 08:36:56 PM
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0AabpfoeUxs/TXf29KJRk2I/AAAAAAAAAHM/QmspAuXW8Xc/s1600/46596_153864631304141_100000418159731_379524_983818_n.jpg)

Here is another one, saint Mark of Ephesus trampling the pope of Rome, with saint Justin Popovich (right) and saint bishop Nikolai Velimirovich (left) and Lord Jesus Christ above all.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 30, 2014, 09:48:33 PM
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0AabpfoeUxs/TXf29KJRk2I/AAAAAAAAAHM/QmspAuXW8Xc/s1600/46596_153864631304141_100000418159731_379524_983818_n.jpg)

Here is another one, saint Mark of Ephesus trampling the pope of Rome, with saint Justin Popovich (right) and saint bishop Nikolai Velimirovich (left) and Lord Jesus Christ above all.

It still doesn't make such imagery right or suitable for veneration. Iconography should never be corrupted by polemics or anger. The saying written between Sts Justin and Nikolai should not be there, either.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Pravoslavac on December 31, 2014, 02:36:25 AM
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0AabpfoeUxs/TXf29KJRk2I/AAAAAAAAAHM/QmspAuXW8Xc/s1600/46596_153864631304141_100000418159731_379524_983818_n.jpg)

Here is another one, saint Mark of Ephesus trampling the pope of Rome, with saint Justin Popovich (right) and saint bishop Nikolai Velimirovich (left) and Lord Jesus Christ above all.

It still doesn't make such imagery right or suitable for veneration. Iconography should never be corrupted by polemics or anger. The saying written between Sts Justin and Nikolai should not be there, either.

I think in days of dirty ecumenism business, we need few icons like this. It is reminder, not polemics or anger.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 31, 2014, 04:07:24 AM

I think in days of dirty ecumenism business, we need few icons like this. It is reminder, not polemics or anger.

No, Pravoslavac, it is not. The image is angry and polemical. False beliefs and other "dirty business" contrary to Orthodoxy have always been around. Please go back and read reply #863. It explains why such images are not proper icons.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Pravoslavac on December 31, 2014, 05:04:05 AM

I think in days of dirty ecumenism business, we need few icons like this. It is reminder, not polemics or anger.

No, Pravoslavac, it is not. The image is angry and polemical. False beliefs and other "dirty business" contrary to Orthodoxy have always been around. Please go back and read reply #863. It explains why such images are not proper icons.

Saints are depicted on their icons together with their known achievements, saint Mark of Ephesus's achievement is victory over ecumenism and pope's plot. Saint George is depicted killing the dragon, meaning he defeated Roman torture, etc... Most saints of the 20th century were against ecumenism, clearly God has celebrated them. When the faith is defended, that is not anger, People are brainwashed that if someone is defending his faith, that he is full of hate.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 31, 2014, 05:26:43 AM

I think in days of dirty ecumenism business, we need few icons like this. It is reminder, not polemics or anger.

No, Pravoslavac, it is not. The image is angry and polemical. False beliefs and other "dirty business" contrary to Orthodoxy have always been around. Please go back and read reply #863. It explains why such images are not proper icons.

Saints are depicted on their icons together with their known achievements, saint Mark of Ephesus's achievement is victory over ecumenism and pope's plot. Saint George is depicted killing the dragon, meaning he defeated Roman torture, etc... Most saints of the 20th century were against ecumenism, clearly God has celebrated them. When the faith is defended, that is not anger, People are brainwashed that if someone is defending his faith, that he is full of hate.

There is a world of difference between the iconography of Sts George, St Demetrius, and other saints who triumphed over evil, and the picture you posted, which speaks of anger and the irredeemability of those in the Roman Catholic church. Are you saying that Roman Catholics are beyond salvation, simply because they are Roman Catholics?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Pravoslavac on December 31, 2014, 06:09:05 AM

I think in days of dirty ecumenism business, we need few icons like this. It is reminder, not polemics or anger.

No, Pravoslavac, it is not. The image is angry and polemical. False beliefs and other "dirty business" contrary to Orthodoxy have always been around. Please go back and read reply #863. It explains why such images are not proper icons.

Saints are depicted on their icons together with their known achievements, saint Mark of Ephesus's achievement is victory over ecumenism and pope's plot. Saint George is depicted killing the dragon, meaning he defeated Roman torture, etc... Most saints of the 20th century were against ecumenism, clearly God has celebrated them. When the faith is defended, that is not anger, People are brainwashed that if someone is defending his faith, that he is full of hate.

There is a world of difference between the iconography of Sts George, St Demetrius, and other saints who triumphed over evil, and the picture you posted, which speaks of anger and the irredeemability of those in the Roman Catholic church. Are you saying that Roman Catholics are beyond salvation, simply because they are Roman Catholics?

Every heresy is evil, so is Roman-Catholic heresy. And what happens to un-Orthodox and how are they saved, we don't know. God is merciful.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 31, 2014, 06:46:56 AM
Heresy is indeed evil, but angry, polemical paintings which look like icons are not the proper way to fight it.

Quote
And what happens to un-Orthodox and how are they saved, we don't know. God is merciful.

I, and I'm sure, most others here, completely agree with this.

So how can you justify an "icon" which shows Roman Catholics as cursed and about to be cast into hell? Those who paint such "icons" are putting themselves as the judges of the Roman Catholics as if they know how God will judge them. Can you now see why such paintings are false icons?
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Pravoslavac on December 31, 2014, 06:55:28 AM
Heresy is indeed evil, but angry, polemical paintings which look like icons are not the proper way to fight it.

Quote
And what happens to un-Orthodox and how are they saved, we don't know. God is merciful.

I, and I'm sure, most others here, completely agree with this.

So how can you justify an "icon" which shows Roman Catholics as cursed and about to be cast into hell? Those who paint such "icons" are putting themselves as the judges of the Roman Catholics as if they know how God will judge them. Can you now see why such paintings are false icons?

What do you think, what happened to all those heretics that were creating schisms and spreading heresies, the heretics that were defeated at Ecumenical Councils? Are they going to end up in heaven? And when pope is painted that he is about to be cast into hell, that also means his heresy does that too.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 31, 2014, 08:42:35 AM
Heresy is indeed evil, but angry, polemical paintings which look like icons are not the proper way to fight it.

Quote
And what happens to un-Orthodox and how are they saved, we don't know. God is merciful.

I, and I'm sure, most others here, completely agree with this.

So how can you justify an "icon" which shows Roman Catholics as cursed and about to be cast into hell? Those who paint such "icons" are putting themselves as the judges of the Roman Catholics as if they know how God will judge them. Can you now see why such paintings are false icons?

What do you think, what happened to all those heretics that were creating schisms and spreading heresies, the heretics that were defeated at Ecumenical Councils? Are they going to end up in heaven? And when pope is painted that he is about to be cast into hell, that also means his heresy does that too.

You haven't read post #863 on this page, have you? If you haven't, please go and read it again. Carefully.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on December 31, 2014, 01:10:48 PM
I agree that showing the Pope being cast into Hell is too much, but the second image doesn't do that

Also, there's some pretty harsh imprecation against entire nations in the Psalms and Prophets. The Hymns of Holy Saturday also turn on the blast furnace against Judas and "the Jews" (however that's construed).

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on December 31, 2014, 01:15:58 PM
This particular image doesn't show the Pope being cast into Hell.

Also, there's some pretty harsh imprecation against entire nations in the Psalms and Prophets. The Hymns of Holy Saturday also turn on the blast furnace against Judas and "the Jews" (however that's construed).



The hymns of Holy Week might treat the Sanhedrin and Judas harshly, but never do they openly condemn them as beyond redemption. Their redemption or otherwise is in God's hands, not ours. By contrast, the painters of images such as the "ark of salvation" and the ones posted by Pravoslavac have already passed judgement on the RCC.

On "entire nations" being condemned in the OT, a careful look at the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete is quite instructive.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Porter ODoran on December 31, 2014, 01:18:36 PM
I agree that showing the Pope being cast into Hell is too much, but the second image doesn't do that

Also, there's some pretty harsh imprecation against entire nations in the Psalms and Prophets. The Hymns of Holy Saturday also turn on the blast furnace against Judas and "the Jews" (however that's construed).

Since icons are supposed to be windows into eternity, the implication (probably not one the artist was aware of) would be that the pope depicted is eternally underfoot (yes, probably in hell).
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: rakovsky on January 09, 2015, 05:23:03 AM
There is an offensive Ethiopian ikon from the 14th century of the Virgin beating Jesus.
http://www.mybestcv.co.il/TextPage_EN.aspx?ID=10073843
It's heretical because Jesus was sinless and thus wouldn't be beaten by the Virgin unless it was her own sin to do so. The web page claims that there are gnostic or apocryphal stories of her doing this.

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on January 09, 2015, 05:44:59 AM
This particular image doesn't show the Pope being cast into Hell.

Also, there's some pretty harsh imprecation against entire nations in the Psalms and Prophets. The Hymns of Holy Saturday also turn on the blast furnace against Judas and "the Jews" (however that's construed).



The hymns of Holy Week might treat the Sanhedrin and Judas harshly, but never do they openly condemn them as beyond redemption. Their redemption or otherwise is in God's hands, not ours. By contrast, the painters of images such as the "ark of salvation" and the ones posted by Pravoslavac have already passed judgement on the RCC.

On "entire nations" being condemned in the OT, a careful look at the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete is quite instructive.
Ok.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on January 28, 2015, 01:34:58 PM
Quite brutal
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j3_EGOPAJko/TePPKwjmFGI/AAAAAAAAA0o/9-js5ye0OrU/s1600/theodore.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on January 28, 2015, 01:40:14 PM
What do the words say, please?  ???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Dominika on January 28, 2015, 01:46:05 PM
What do the words say, please?  ???
The martyrdom of st. priest-martyr Theodore (страдање светог свештеномученика Теодора)
More about him in English here (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theodore_(Nestorovi%C4%87)_of_Vr%C5%A1ac)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: biro on January 28, 2015, 01:47:44 PM
What do the words say, please?  ???
The martyrdom of st. priest-martyr Theodore (страдање светог свештеномученика Теодора)
More about him in English here (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theodore_(Nestorovi%C4%87)_of_Vr%C5%A1ac)

Lord have mercy.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on January 29, 2015, 01:39:22 AM
Yeah, that icon just makes me want to hate Turks.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on January 29, 2015, 01:59:52 AM
Yeah, that icon just makes me want to hate Turks.

That's one reason why that image should only be used as part of a series of small panels of scenes of the saint's life, surrounding a central panel of the saint in frontal pose. Such images should not be icons in their own right. The focus should be on the saint, not the inflaming of passions at the sight of a graphic rendition of his martyrdom.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 08, 2015, 03:32:34 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10405521_10205792115110134_3947225139603808670_n.jpg?oh=0c6d9cf8b99a5068e35bccce1fcc34cb&oe=554F27D5&__gda__=1431259562_6c1bdf074f5c4d27a2af828816a9894d)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Joha on February 08, 2015, 03:51:35 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10405521_10205792115110134_3947225139603808670_n.jpg?oh=0c6d9cf8b99a5068e35bccce1fcc34cb&oe=554F27D5&__gda__=1431259562_6c1bdf074f5c4d27a2af828816a9894d)

Someone lifted "pimp my ride" to a whole different level.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on February 09, 2015, 02:17:36 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10405521_10205792115110134_3947225139603808670_n.jpg?oh=0c6d9cf8b99a5068e35bccce1fcc34cb&oe=554F27D5&__gda__=1431259562_6c1bdf074f5c4d27a2af828816a9894d)

Is this real? Do you have any more information about it? Very disturbing.


Selam
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on February 09, 2015, 02:33:23 AM
Looks like a Mirage 2000 and if the roundel is any indication, it's either Greece's or El Salvador's air force; I'm thinking Greece.  But it looks photo-shopped.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 09, 2015, 04:00:21 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10405521_10205792115110134_3947225139603808670_n.jpg?oh=0c6d9cf8b99a5068e35bccce1fcc34cb&oe=554F27D5&__gda__=1431259562_6c1bdf074f5c4d27a2af828816a9894d)

Is this real? Do you have any more information about it? Very disturbing.


Selam

I call Photoshop.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: wgw on February 09, 2015, 08:01:24 AM
It could be real if it's a Mirage 2000.  The Hellenic Airforce has around 50ish of them, along with over a hundred F-16 Fighting Falcons and 34 F4 Phantoms (surprising to see someone still flying those). And if anyone would paint an icon of St. George on the dorsal side of a Mirage, it would be the Greeks.  The Russians might do the same thing but on a MiG or a Sukhoi.  Love those Soviet aircraft, especially the airliners.  And especially the Tu-114, the fastest and largest four engined turboprop airliner ever made, sharing a wing with the Tu-95 bear and having a 450 MPH cruising speed.  That's fast enough to compete with jets, which are only a hundred MPH faster on average (excepting the 747, which can cruise at 695 mph).  Aeroflot and Japan Air Lines used to fly a joint Moscow - Tokyo nonstop service on the Tu-114; would that I could travel back in time and experience THAT!  And unlike most Soviet airlines, AFAIK the Tu-114 never had a fatal accident, probably because the seven man crew, navigation dome and parts commonality with the Tu-95 Bear, which is still the Russians frontline strategic nuclear bomber, made pilot error, navigation error and maintenance errors less common, due to crew sharing with the Soviet Airforce. 

It's definitelt not the El Salvadorean Airforce, which makes sense given that for them to paint a Byzantine icon on their planes would be...unexpected, and the closest thing they have to a Mirage 2000 fighter jet is the Cessna A-37 jet trainer/light attack aircraft.  But given the Syriac Orthodox Church picking up nearly a million Guatemalans, we would be unwise to discount the possibility of Central America becoming a major mission field for the Orthodox, given the declining popularity of the Roman Catholics in the region.

But I find nothing disturbing about painting an icon of St. George slaying the dragon, or St. Michael the Archangel for that matter, on the underside of fighter jets of a predominantly Orthodox nation. After all, St. Athanasius insisted that military service was honorable.

Now for my contribution to the thread, I present the source for my own icon of St. Athanasius:

http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/marmusaapsepaintings.html

Sadly these have become "strange" in the sense of exceptional or unusual, and that's due to the mass iconoclasm the Syriac Orthodox have suffered since the Islamic conquest of their homeland.  Also notice how the frescoes were defaced to remove those not recognized as saints by the Catholics after the schism caused that monastery to fall into their hands, in a further blow to Syriac Orthodox liturgical heritage.  But what survives is priceless.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: wgw on February 09, 2015, 08:31:14 AM
By the way I agree entirely with LBK that the icons showing the Pope going to Hell, or being trampled on by Mark of Ephesus, or the Ark of Salvation with anti - Orthodox forces outside, are inappropriate.

Call me daft however but where were the Jews represented in the Ark of Salvation icon?  I saw Luther, the Pope, Julian the Apostate, attacking rulers,,the new age,mand two labels I couldn't read, one by a bishop in Orthodox vestments (perhaps an Eastern Catholic, Moscow Patriarchate bishop if this was from ROCOR pre-2006, or an ecumenist?) but I don't see any stereotypical jews in Haredi street attire or in prayer shawls, kippas and tefillin, with some Tzitzit visible, so if there is anti-Semitism in that icon, I am not seeing it explicitly but implicitly.  But granted some of the labels are too obscured to read properly and you might be noticing some imagery I've overlooked.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Irish Melkite on February 10, 2015, 01:11:31 AM
Quote
Also notice how the frescoes were defaced to remove those not recognized as saints by the Catholics after the schism caused that monastery to fall into their hands,

Let's try and stick to fact. Since the 'defaced' image third from left in the first photo is St John Chrysostom, its condition wouldn't seem to fit your hypothesis. To say nothing of the Theotokos and the infant Jesus.

Many years,

Neil
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: wgw on February 10, 2015, 01:56:56 AM
Sorry, my mistake.  I read elsewhere on the net that images of Jacob of Sarugh and Severus, for example, were defaced.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 10, 2015, 07:29:21 AM
Sorry, my mistake.  I read elsewhere on the net that images of Jacob of Sarugh and Severus, for example, were defaced.

Not everything you read on the internet is true.  :police:
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on February 14, 2015, 07:01:56 AM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-guzoyHBXScg/VN7LoE9o4fI/AAAAAAAAC00/asxjKFp47FA/s800-no/FB_IMG_1423881942927.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 14, 2015, 08:08:47 AM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-guzoyHBXScg/VN7LoE9o4fI/AAAAAAAAC00/asxjKFp47FA/s800-no/FB_IMG_1423881942927.jpg)

Why do you think this one is strange, hecma?  ???
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on February 14, 2015, 08:11:14 AM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-guzoyHBXScg/VN7LoE9o4fI/AAAAAAAAC00/asxjKFp47FA/s800-no/FB_IMG_1423881942927.jpg)

Why do you think this one is strange, hecma?  ???

The weird square and hexagon with a sigma in the middle.  It's not a watermark to prevent people from printing it.  If it's a logo, it's really weird to do it on the icon.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 14, 2015, 08:24:10 AM
It is indeed a watermark, put there by the Greek ecclesiastical goods company called Skordilis. Here is the same icon, from their website:

(http://www.ekklisiastika-eidi.gr/uploads/product_0_image_122.jpg)

One of the many pages featuring icons from this website:

http://www.ekklisiastika-eidi.gr/index.php?instance=products&pcid=5&category_id=4
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: hecma925 on February 14, 2015, 10:26:30 AM
Good to know.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on February 22, 2015, 10:10:04 PM
St. Constantine appearing to St Paisios, is the light depicted around St. Constantine improper?


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-51DekJi9ZgY/Tdbjkq7LGKI/AAAAAAAAQH0/XFS7awLnezQ/s1600/constantine%2Bpaisios.jpg)
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LBK on February 22, 2015, 10:29:18 PM
St. Constantine appearing to St Paisios, is the light depicted around St. Constantine improper?


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-51DekJi9ZgY/Tdbjkq7LGKI/AAAAAAAAQH0/XFS7awLnezQ/s1600/constantine%2Bpaisios.jpg)

Yes.

Here are a couple of examples of icons of the Visitation to St Sergius of Radonezh of the Mother of God and Apostles Peter and John. Neither show mandorlas surrounding the heavenly visitors, as is proper:

(http://www.trueicons.com/ico/icon017/med.jpg)

(http://images.oca.org/icons/lg/August/0824sergiusapparition01.jpg)

Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: Volnutt on February 22, 2015, 10:47:46 PM
Thanks.
Title: Re: Strange icons
Post by: LenInSebastopol on February 26, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
St. Constantine appearing to St Paisios, is the light depicted around St. Constantine improper?


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-51DekJi9ZgY/Tdbjkq7LGKI/AAAAAA