Topic: Strange icons

[Ansgar]

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.

[Antonis]

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?

[Christodoulostheou]

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.

[Ansgar]

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.

[LBK]

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.

[Christodoulostheou]

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.

[LizaSymonenko]

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!

[Christodoulostheou]

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.

[Anna.T]

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.

[Anna.T]

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.

[Anna.T]

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.

[LBK]

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)

[LBK]

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.

[LBK]

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.

[Mor Ephrem]

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? 

[LBK]

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?

[Mor Ephrem]

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"? 

[Mor Ephrem]

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. 

[LBK]

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.

[LBK]

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"? 

[Mor Ephrem]

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"? 

[LBK]

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.

[Mor Ephrem]

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.           

[Mor Ephrem]

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.   

[hecma925]

Painting is nice, but on a cutout of Australia....

[john_mo]

^ 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.

[hecma925]

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.

[LBK]

Painting is nice, but on a cutout of Australia....

Ridiculous. 

[hecma925]

So, schlock Orthoproduct? 

[john_mo]

So, schlock Orthoproduct? 

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.

[LBK]

So, schlock Orthoproduct? 

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.

[DeniseDenise]

All I have to say is


'What, no digeridoo?'

Clearly this is no good.

 

[LBK]

All I have to say is


'What, no digeridoo?'

Clearly this is no good.

 

I'll pay that. 

[john_mo]

All I have to say is


'What, no digeridoo?'

Clearly this is no good.

 

Thought I saw one in there.

[LBK]

All I have to say is


'What, no digeridoo?'

Clearly this is no good.

 

Thought I saw one in there.

Didgeridoos aren't tapered like the instrument the angel is playing. They're essentially the same diameter throughout. 

[Amatorus]

What is the first icon ever recorded in Church history?

[Porter ODoran]

What is the first icon ever recorded in Church history?

[Amatorus]

...rustic.

[Nephi]

This is a bit strange.

June 14 old style - June 27 new style
 
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.

[Anna.T]

What is the first icon ever recorded in Church history?

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???

[Porter ODoran]

Wow. Just wow.

[Antonis]

I'm confused.

[Porter ODoran]

It's as tho Salvador Dali really became an iconographer.

[Anna.T]

Wow. Just wow.

The robe is wrapped around both Christ and the Theotokos?

I see His head, hand, and feet.

It is odd.

[Nephi]

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.