Author Topic: OO Icons: Childlike?  (Read 8240 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #45 on: June 15, 2012, 12:31:15 PM »
Quote
It seems like you are engaging in a form of selective cultural iconoclasm by rejecting Chinese art form and style for icons and demanding that Chinese adopt the Greek style of art to portray Christ and the Mother of God.

I'll ask that simple question again, Stanley: Was Jesus Christ or His mother Chinese?
Our Divine Lord came for all men, not just the Jews. The Greek style icon is beautiful and inspiring, of course, and it has brought millions of souls to reflection on the mysteries and truths of Christianity, but it seems a bit harsh on the Chinese to deny them an artistic license in their depiction of the Holy Family.

He came for all men, but He didn't come as all men. How is it 'harsh' to the Chinese to tell them the fact that he was a Middle-Eastern Jew--not Chinese, not sub-saharan African, not a blonde Scandanavian, and not a white American. What is it about the actual person of Jesus Christ that you find so objectionable?
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #46 on: June 15, 2012, 12:50:14 PM »
Quote
It seems like you are engaging in a form of selective cultural iconoclasm by rejecting Chinese art form and style for icons and demanding that Chinese adopt the Greek style of art to portray Christ and the Mother of God.

I'll ask that simple question again, Stanley: Was Jesus Christ or His mother Chinese?
Our Divine Lord came for all men, not just the Jews. The Greek style icon is beautiful and inspiring, of course, and it has brought millions of souls to reflection on the mysteries and truths of Christianity, but it seems a bit harsh on the Chinese to deny them an artistic license in their depiction of the Holy Family.

He came for all men, but He didn't come as all men. How is it 'harsh' to the Chinese to tell them the fact that he was a Middle-Eastern Jew--not Chinese, not sub-saharan African, not a blonde Scandanavian, and not a white American. What is it about the actual person of Jesus Christ that you find so objectionable?

BTW, my wife is Chinese. I (and she) would object just as much, and for the same reasons, to you portraying her as a white woman as I have been to the portrayal of the Theotokos as Chinese. What you seem to be missing here is that Christ and the Theotokos are not abstractions that you can portray however you are most comfortable. They are actual people with whom we have a relationship.
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2012, 01:01:06 PM »
BTW, my wife is Chinese. I (and she) would object just as much, and for the same reasons, to you portraying her as a white woman as I have been to the portrayal of the Theotokos as Chinese.
Consider the icon in reply #44. It looks like Mary is depicted as white here.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 01:02:10 PM by stanley123 »

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,999
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2012, 04:05:08 PM »
Her face here captures a moment of Divine revelation.

Every time I've seen this image referenced by Orthodox commentators it is used to epitomize the difference between Orthodox spirituality and that of heretics. The West lost the sense of dispassion and distrust of swaying emotions in divine revelation. This clearly expresses the kind of sentimentality which came to dominate Western Christendom in its art and hagiography, and then later with pietism.

I didn't know that the Song of Songs was written by pietists.

I have tasted my own medicine, and it is bitter. Like the sweet naval-nectar of the Song.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 04:05:56 PM by Alveus Lacuna »

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2012, 05:12:30 PM »
BTW, my wife is Chinese. I (and she) would object just as much, and for the same reasons, to you portraying her as a white woman as I have been to the portrayal of the Theotokos as Chinese.
Consider the icon in reply #44. It looks like Mary is depicted as white here.

Yeah. And I think it fails as icon for the same reason the Chinese image does. It's a piece of religious art, but it's not an image (icon) of the Theotokos and Christ Child (who certainly didn't have blue eyes).
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2012, 06:10:51 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

My Favorite…




I've always admired how comfortably interchangeable Ethiopians are about the ethnicity of Jesus. It seems that Ethiopian Christians, including churches and monasteries themselves, easily accept and embrace the veneration of all three ethnic conceptions of Jesus, and therein you will find European images of Jesus with blue eyes, Middle Eastern images of Jesus with brown skin and Semitic features, and black images of Jesus with darker skin and a small Ethiopian style Afro :)

While this variation has upset the sensibilities of some outside observers, I've always interpreted it as evidence of the overwhelmingly pious acceptance of Jesus and any representation there of.



stay blessed,
habte selassie
That's how I feel about it.
So you do accept the European images of Jesus, even though He was not European? How widespread is this acceptance? Do you also accept the Chinese images?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvaltRzYMTI
Is there anything wrong with a Chinese lady praying before such an oriental style image of Mary? Will her prayers be rejected because she is not praying before a traditional Byzantine icon?

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2012, 06:26:41 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

My Favorite…




I've always admired how comfortably interchangeable Ethiopians are about the ethnicity of Jesus. It seems that Ethiopian Christians, including churches and monasteries themselves, easily accept and embrace the veneration of all three ethnic conceptions of Jesus, and therein you will find European images of Jesus with blue eyes, Middle Eastern images of Jesus with brown skin and Semitic features, and black images of Jesus with darker skin and a small Ethiopian style Afro :)

While this variation has upset the sensibilities of some outside observers, I've always interpreted it as evidence of the overwhelmingly pious acceptance of Jesus and any representation there of.



stay blessed,
habte selassie
That's how I feel about it.
So you do accept the European images of Jesus, even though He was not European? How widespread is this acceptance? Do you also accept the Chinese images?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvaltRzYMTI
Is there anything wrong with a Chinese lady praying before such an oriental style image of Mary? Will her prayers be rejected because she is not praying before a traditional Byzantine icon?


Everything's gonna be ok

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2012, 06:27:40 PM »
Her face here captures a moment of Divine revelation.

Every time I've seen this image referenced by Orthodox commentators it is used to epitomize the difference between Orthodox spirituality and that of heretics. The West lost the sense of dispassion and distrust of swaying emotions in divine revelation. This clearly expresses the kind of sentimentality which came to dominate Western Christendom in its art and hagiography, and then later with pietism.

I didn't know that the Song of Songs was written by pietists.

I have tasted my own medicine, and it is bitter. Like the sweet naval-nectar of the Song.

Everything's gonna be ok

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2012, 06:35:47 PM »
Quote
It seems like you are engaging in a form of selective cultural iconoclasm by rejecting Chinese art form and style for icons and demanding that Chinese adopt the Greek style of art to portray Christ and the Mother of God.

I'll ask that simple question again, Stanley: Was Jesus Christ or His mother Chinese?
Our Divine Lord came for all men, not just the Jews. The Greek style icon is beautiful and inspiring, of course, and it has brought millions of souls to reflection on the mysteries and truths of Christianity, but it seems a bit harsh on the Chinese to deny them an artistic license in their depiction of the Holy Family.

He came for all men, but He didn't come as all men. How is it 'harsh' to the Chinese to tell them the fact that he was a Middle-Eastern Jew--not Chinese, not sub-saharan African, not a blonde Scandanavian, and not a white American. What is it about the actual person of Jesus Christ that you find so objectionable?

Everyone knows that Jesus was born in Kyiv (i.e. the south-central-western subsection of Kyiv previously known as Bethlehem) and spoke Ukrainian.  If you don't believe this you are a Russian propagandist heretic...    :P     ;)

 

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2012, 08:19:06 PM »

 But if you move away from even attempting to portray that actual individual and instead portray Christ/God according to your personal preferences without regard to the actual historical fact of the Incarnation, then you are moving away from iconography and into the area of idols--where we portray God as *we* would like to see him, not as He as actually was/is.
So does that mean that Roman Catholics and Chinese Catholics are idolaters, since they incorporate European or Chinese features in their religious images?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2012, 08:29:49 PM »

 But if you move away from even attempting to portray that actual individual and instead portray Christ/God according to your personal preferences without regard to the actual historical fact of the Incarnation, then you are moving away from iconography and into the area of idols--where we portray God as *we* would like to see him, not as He as actually was/is.
So does that mean that Roman Catholics and Chinese Catholics are idolaters, since they incorporate European or Chinese features in their religious images?

It means that religious art showing Christ, His Mother and the saints according to ahistoric personal preferences is not iconography. Religious art, yes. Iconography, no.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2012, 08:55:58 PM »

 But if you move away from even attempting to portray that actual individual and instead portray Christ/God according to your personal preferences without regard to the actual historical fact of the Incarnation, then you are moving away from iconography and into the area of idols--where we portray God as *we* would like to see him, not as He as actually was/is.
So does that mean that Roman Catholics and Chinese Catholics are idolaters, since they incorporate European or Chinese features in their religious images?

It means that religious art showing Christ, His Mother and the saints according to ahistoric personal preferences is not iconography. Religious art, yes. Iconography, no.
However, the statement implied that this moves Roman Catholics into the area of idols.
How does religious art move Roman Catholics and Chinese Catholics into the area of idols?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2012, 09:14:44 PM »
Quote
But if you move away from even attempting to portray that actual individual and instead portray Christ/God according to your personal preferences without regard to the actual historical fact of the Incarnation, then you are moving away from iconography and into the area of idols--where we portray God as *we* would like to see him, not as He as actually was/is.

An elegant and accurate summary of the gulf which divides proper iconography and much other religious art.

Here's another way of putting it, a quote from Solrunn Nes, iconographer and Roman Catholic:

Quote
The common classical heritage of Christian art is embedded in an objective tradition, one which is conventional, canonical, dogmatic, didactic, and liturgical. The antithesis of true Christian iconography in the Church is therefore that which presumes to abandon the objective for the subjective, tradition based on God’s revelation for social propaganda, dogma for mere sentiment, the canon for self-expression.

You see, Stanley, it is possible for a Roman Catholic to "get" the difference between iconography and religious art.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #58 on: June 16, 2012, 12:23:41 AM »
Quote
But if you move away from even attempting to portray that actual individual and instead portray Christ/God according to your personal preferences without regard to the actual historical fact of the Incarnation, then you are moving away from iconography and into the area of idols--where we portray God as *we* would like to see him, not as He as actually was/is.

An elegant and accurate summary of the gulf which divides proper iconography and much other religious art.

Here's another way of putting it, a quote from Solrunn Nes, iconographer and Roman Catholic:

Quote
The common classical heritage of Christian art is embedded in an objective tradition, one which is conventional, canonical, dogmatic, didactic, and liturgical. The antithesis of true Christian iconography in the Church is therefore that which presumes to abandon the objective for the subjective, tradition based on God’s revelation for social propaganda, dogma for mere sentiment, the canon for self-expression.

You see, Stanley, it is possible for a Roman Catholic to "get" the difference between iconography and religious art.
I don't doubt that there are Roman Catholics who agree with the Eastern Orthodox teaching on icons. However, as I mentioned before,  I don't know if it can be proven conclusively  that E. Orthodox depiction of Mary is historically correct and accurate and not somewhat embellished by subjective or cultural sentiment.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,671
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #59 on: June 16, 2012, 01:12:16 AM »
Is historical accuracy what makes an icon true? Is the truth of an icon of Jesus contained in its resemblance to the face of Jesus of Nazareth, or to His physical form?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 01:16:35 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #60 on: June 16, 2012, 01:58:25 AM »
Is historical accuracy what makes an icon true? 
Unlike some of the posters on OC.net, my opinion is no. That is one reason why I do not object to the respectful religious imagery of  the OO icons and also why I do not object to the respectful  religious depiction of the Holy Mother of God in the traditional Chinese style as indicated in the link.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,671
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #61 on: June 16, 2012, 02:19:32 AM »
Is historical accuracy what makes an icon true? 
Unlike some of the posters on OC.net, my opinion is no. That is one reason why I do not object to the respectful religious imagery of  the OO icons and also why I do not object to the respectful  religious depiction of the Holy Mother of God in the traditional Chinese style as indicated in the link.

I agree, for the most part.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #62 on: June 16, 2012, 04:55:36 AM »
Is historical accuracy what makes an icon true?  
Unlike some of the posters on OC.net, my opinion is no. That is one reason why I do not object to the respectful religious imagery of  the OO icons and also why I do not object to the respectful  religious depiction of the Holy Mother of God in the traditional Chinese style as indicated in the link.

Nicephorus Callistus was a 14th century church historian. He compiled various writings pertaining to the Mother of God, written by earlier saints and fathers. Here is a relevant passage:

"She was of average stature, or as others suggest, slightly more than average; her hair golden in appearance; her eyes bright with pupils like shiny olives; her eyebrows strong in character and moderately dark, her nose pronounced and her mouth vibrant bespeaking sweet speech; her face was neither round nor angular, but somewhat oblong; the palm of her hands and fingers were longish...

In conversation with others she preserved decorum, neither becoming silly nor agitated, and indeed especially never angry; without artifice, and direct, she was not overly concerned about herself, and far from pampering herself, she was distinctly full of humility. Regarding the clothing which she wore, she was satisfied to have natural colors, which even now is evidenced by her holy head-covering. Suffice it to say, a special grace attended all her actions."


Nicephoros Callistus borrowed his description from St Epiphanius of Cyprus, from the "Letter to Theophilus Concerning Icons."

St Epiphanius of Cyprus lived from AD 310 to 403. So we have a pretty clear description of the physical appearance of the Mother of God from very early in the Christian era, and one which has been consistently and faithfully adhered to by Orthodox iconographers to this day.

What say you, Stanley?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 04:57:24 AM by LBK »
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline William

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,354
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #63 on: June 16, 2012, 07:24:22 AM »
Mary was blonde?!
Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #64 on: June 16, 2012, 09:37:21 AM »
Mary was blonde?!

Not necessarily. A dominant feature of my mother's family is that they start off blond/blonde as babies and tots, then turn a warm light brown as children, and are darker by their teens. However, in daylight, the golden "lights" in their hair are still visible.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline William

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,354
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #65 on: June 16, 2012, 09:44:11 AM »
That's a bit how my dad's family is. Really light blonde when young then brown or dirty blonde later.
Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #66 on: June 16, 2012, 04:14:54 PM »
Is historical accuracy what makes an icon true?  
Unlike some of the posters on OC.net, my opinion is no. That is one reason why I do not object to the respectful religious imagery of  the OO icons and also why I do not object to the respectful  religious depiction of the Holy Mother of God in the traditional Chinese style as indicated in the link.

Nicephorus Callistus was a 14th century church historian. He compiled various writings pertaining to the Mother of God, written by earlier saints and fathers. Here is a relevant passage:

"She was of average stature, or as others suggest, slightly more than average; her hair golden in appearance; her eyes bright with pupils like shiny olives; her eyebrows strong in character and moderately dark, her nose pronounced and her mouth vibrant bespeaking sweet speech; her face was neither round nor angular, but somewhat oblong; the palm of her hands and fingers were longish...

In conversation with others she preserved decorum, neither becoming silly nor agitated, and indeed especially never angry; without artifice, and direct, she was not overly concerned about herself, and far from pampering herself, she was distinctly full of humility. Regarding the clothing which she wore, she was satisfied to have natural colors, which even now is evidenced by her holy head-covering. Suffice it to say, a special grace attended all her actions."


Nicephoros Callistus borrowed his description from St Epiphanius of Cyprus, from the "Letter to Theophilus Concerning Icons."

St Epiphanius of Cyprus lived from AD 310 to 403. So we have a pretty clear description of the physical appearance of the Mother of God from very early in the Christian era, and one which has been consistently and faithfully adhered to by Orthodox iconographers to this day.

What say you, Stanley?

Thank you kindly for these interesting references. It does appear that Nicephorus Callistus has given us a detailed description of the Mother of God. That is one advantage of a board like OC.net, where we can learn and become more knowledgeable about our Christian faith and about its history.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,019
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #67 on: June 16, 2012, 04:42:53 PM »
Is historical accuracy what makes an icon true?  
Unlike some of the posters on OC.net, my opinion is no. That is one reason why I do not object to the respectful religious imagery of  the OO icons and also why I do not object to the respectful  religious depiction of the Holy Mother of God in the traditional Chinese style as indicated in the link.

Nicephorus Callistus was a 14th century church historian. He compiled various writings pertaining to the Mother of God, written by earlier saints and fathers. Here is a relevant passage:

"She was of average stature, or as others suggest, slightly more than average; her hair golden in appearance; her eyes bright with pupils like shiny olives; her eyebrows strong in character and moderately dark, her nose pronounced and her mouth vibrant bespeaking sweet speech; her face was neither round nor angular, but somewhat oblong; the palm of her hands and fingers were longish...

In conversation with others she preserved decorum, neither becoming silly nor agitated, and indeed especially never angry; without artifice, and direct, she was not overly concerned about herself, and far from pampering herself, she was distinctly full of humility. Regarding the clothing which she wore, she was satisfied to have natural colors, which even now is evidenced by her holy head-covering. Suffice it to say, a special grace attended all her actions."


Nicephoros Callistus borrowed his description from St Epiphanius of Cyprus, from the "Letter to Theophilus Concerning Icons."

St Epiphanius of Cyprus lived from AD 310 to 403. So we have a pretty clear description of the physical appearance of the Mother of God from very early in the Christian era, and one which has been consistently and faithfully adhered to by Orthodox iconographers to this day.

What say you, Stanley?

Thank you kindly for these interesting references. It does appear that Nicephorus Callistus has given us a detailed description of the Mother of God. That is one advantage of a board like OC.net, where we can learn and become more knowledgeable about our Christian faith and about its history.

Tell me this is irony, Stanley . . .

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline Cantor Krishnich

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 545
  • Mar Ahmed the Daftadar
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #68 on: June 16, 2012, 04:57:08 PM »
I think the Theotokos of Jerusalem is the best icon of the Theotokos, especially in terms of actual appearance.



Heres the story if you dont already know it: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Panagia_Ierosolymitissa
Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner!

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #69 on: June 16, 2012, 04:58:48 PM »
Is historical accuracy what makes an icon true?  
Unlike some of the posters on OC.net, my opinion is no. That is one reason why I do not object to the respectful religious imagery of  the OO icons and also why I do not object to the respectful  religious depiction of the Holy Mother of God in the traditional Chinese style as indicated in the link.

Nicephorus Callistus was a 14th century church historian. He compiled various writings pertaining to the Mother of God, written by earlier saints and fathers. Here is a relevant passage:

"She was of average stature, or as others suggest, slightly more than average; her hair golden in appearance; her eyes bright with pupils like shiny olives; her eyebrows strong in character and moderately dark, her nose pronounced and her mouth vibrant bespeaking sweet speech; her face was neither round nor angular, but somewhat oblong; the palm of her hands and fingers were longish...

In conversation with others she preserved decorum, neither becoming silly nor agitated, and indeed especially never angry; without artifice, and direct, she was not overly concerned about herself, and far from pampering herself, she was distinctly full of humility. Regarding the clothing which she wore, she was satisfied to have natural colors, which even now is evidenced by her holy head-covering. Suffice it to say, a special grace attended all her actions."


Nicephoros Callistus borrowed his description from St Epiphanius of Cyprus, from the "Letter to Theophilus Concerning Icons."

St Epiphanius of Cyprus lived from AD 310 to 403. So we have a pretty clear description of the physical appearance of the Mother of God from very early in the Christian era, and one which has been consistently and faithfully adhered to by Orthodox iconographers to this day.

What say you, Stanley?

Thank you kindly for these interesting references. It does appear that Nicephorus Callistus has given us a detailed description of the Mother of God. That is one advantage of a board like OC.net, where we can learn and become more knowledgeable about our Christian faith and about its history.

Tell me this is irony, Stanley . . .


No.

Offline William

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,354
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #70 on: June 16, 2012, 05:09:55 PM »
Why isn't Our Lady's hair ever depicted in icons? I want to see that pretty golden blond.

Also, why do you capital the "Our" in "Our Lady" or "Our Lord"?
Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Offline Cantor Krishnich

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 545
  • Mar Ahmed the Daftadar
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #71 on: June 16, 2012, 06:51:23 PM »
Why isn't Our Lady's hair ever depicted in icons? I want to see that pretty golden blond.

Also, why do you capital the "Our" in "Our Lady" or "Our Lord"?

William, first of all, I HIGHLY doubt that the Theotokos had blond hair. In Middle Eastern cultures, religious women dont show their hair in public and headcoverings are/were prevalent in society. Orthodox Jews dont show their hair to any man except their husbands and they cover their hair in public. Many Orthodox Christian women pray with headcoverings. The Theotokos is depicted wearing a veil because of religious reasons, cultural reasons, & modesty.

Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner!

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #72 on: June 16, 2012, 07:08:25 PM »
Why isn't Our Lady's hair ever depicted in icons? I want to see that pretty golden blond.

The Mother of God was dedicated to God from the age of three when her parents took her to the Temple, where she stayed until her teens, and where she was formed and instructed in the things of God. For the rest of her days, she lived a quiet, modest, humble, contemplative, Godly life, giving herself completely to the service of God. She lived before monasticism came into the Church, but she is rightly seen as the model and standard to follow. To this day, nuns, including those in traditional non-Orthodox orders, conceal their hair as part of their monastic appearance.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #73 on: June 16, 2012, 07:26:08 PM »
Why isn't Our Lady's hair ever depicted in icons? I want to see that pretty golden blond.

Also, why do you capital the "Our" in "Our Lady" or "Our Lord"?

Pure selfishness.  She is not your Lady but Our Lady (next phase:  "OUR Lady")

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #74 on: June 16, 2012, 07:27:21 PM »
I think the Theotokos of Jerusalem is the best icon of the Theotokos, especially in terms of actual appearance.



Heres the story if you dont already know it: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Panagia_Ierosolymitissa

Have you consulted your Bishop about this Pan-Orthodoxy thing, especially since you are "Eastern Orthodox"?

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2012, 07:28:54 PM »
Mary was blonde?!

She was clearly Scandenavian when her parents immigrated to the Holy Land at age 5

Offline Father Peter

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,661
    • British Orthodox Church
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #76 on: June 19, 2012, 06:18:23 AM »
I prefer Our Lady of Chatham..

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #77 on: June 19, 2012, 06:17:09 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


 But if you move away from even attempting to portray that actual individual and instead portray Christ/God according to your personal preferences without regard to the actual historical fact of the Incarnation, then you are moving away from iconography and into the area of idols--where we portray God as *we* would like to see him, not as He as actually was/is.
So does that mean that Roman Catholics and Chinese Catholics are idolaters, since they incorporate European or Chinese features in their religious images?

It means that religious art showing Christ, His Mother and the saints according to ahistoric personal preferences is not iconography. Religious art, yes. Iconography, no.

In the strictest of senses, yes, but then again no.  After all, the term eikon simply means "image" and any "image" be it literal or figurative will do.  Etymology:  eikon = rooted from the word eiko which simply means "to be like" Not only are the portrayed images of Christ then all eikons in at least the most literal of senses, but also written or verbal accounts such as the Scriptures or the writings of the Fathers.  Further, every single human being is an "eikon" of God having been made in His Image, which is precisely why Christ asks us to love each other as ourselves, and that the least we do to each other we do directly to Him.  

Anything which reflects the appearance of Christ is an image of Christ, and any image is in the most literal sense of the term, an eikon.  True,  only certain images should be consecrated for Liturgical worship within Church services, however in a spiritual sense, Christ is revealed dynamically by any representation of Him in private use.  We shouldn't put heterodox images in the Church, granted, however, we should also understand that people experience Jesus Christ in many different ways and means. Then again, at least in Ethiopian history, we don't  have a strong an issue of iconoclasm to deal with as the Eastern Orthodox, so I can understand y'all's more strict interpretations to appease those rowdy Iconoclasts from Byzantium ;)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 06:17:50 PM by HabteSelassie »
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Offline Cantor Krishnich

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 545
  • Mar Ahmed the Daftadar
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #78 on: June 19, 2012, 06:51:49 PM »
Have you consulted your Bishop about this Pan-Orthodoxy thing, especially since you are "Eastern Orthodox"?


When I say "Pan-Orthodox", I mean that I like several aspects of the many different Orthodox jurisdictions. I LOVE Byzantine Chant but I also love churches that dont have pews, that have veiled women, use the old calendar, and I was very attracted to Russian spiritual literature/texts. I was converted into Orthodoxy under the OCA jurisdiction a few months ago and offically I am under OCA and my current home parish is OCA but I attend a variety of different church jurisdictions. As long as Im not a clergyman, I dont see why its a problem to refer to myself as Pan-Orthodox...do you have a better name for it?
Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner!

Offline Father Peter

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,661
    • British Orthodox Church
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #79 on: June 20, 2012, 02:51:36 AM »
We should all be pan-Orthodox. Nationalism and ethnocentrism are harmful to the proper development of the Church in the West.
Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Gorazd

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,961
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #80 on: June 20, 2012, 02:59:41 AM »
Mary was blonde?!

She was clearly Scandenavian when her parents immigrated to the Holy Land at age 5

How dare you deny that her parents were from Kyiv?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #81 on: June 20, 2012, 03:48:13 AM »
Mary was blonde?!

She was clearly Scandenavian when her parents immigrated to the Holy Land at age 5

How dare you deny that her parents were from Kyiv?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Everybody knows they were Athenians.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #82 on: June 20, 2012, 06:01:27 PM »
Have you consulted your Bishop about this Pan-Orthodoxy thing, especially since you are "Eastern Orthodox"?


When I say "Pan-Orthodox", I mean that I like several aspects of the many different Orthodox jurisdictions. I LOVE Byzantine Chant but I also love churches that dont have pews, that have veiled women, use the old calendar, and I was very attracted to Russian spiritual literature/texts. I was converted into Orthodoxy under the OCA jurisdiction a few months ago and offically I am under OCA and my current home parish is OCA but I attend a variety of different church jurisdictions. As long as Im not a clergyman, I dont see why its a problem to refer to myself as Pan-Orthodox...do you have a better name for it?

How can you be pan-Orthodox and "Eastern Orthodox" at the same time?  Is all of Orthodoxy "Eastern"?  Is this what the Church teaches?

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #83 on: June 20, 2012, 06:03:48 PM »
We should all be pan-Orthodox. Nationalism and ethnocentrism are harmful to the proper development of the Church in the West.

Ah, can there be any such thing as a Coptic Church in Britain?  Is the Church in Britain "Oriental"?  Is this identification not harmful to the Church in the West? 

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #84 on: June 20, 2012, 06:05:13 PM »
Mary was blonde?!

She was clearly Scandenavian when her parents immigrated to the Holy Land at age 5

How dare you deny that her parents were from Kyiv?

Good point.  I forgot to mention that after emigration from Scandenavia they resided in Kyiv where she was baptized before they immigrated to the Holy Land. 

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #85 on: June 20, 2012, 06:09:15 PM »
Mary was blonde?!

She was clearly Scandenavian when her parents immigrated to the Holy Land at age 5

How dare you deny that her parents were from Kyiv?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Everybody knows they were Athenians.

They lived in exile in Athens for a time during the Holy Land time of troubles, but were clearly "practicing Ukrainian Orthodox" during their stay in Athens. 

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #86 on: June 20, 2012, 06:10:20 PM »
Sorry, forgot to add emoticons for those 5-10 years from now who don't know that this is well...   :laugh:    ::)

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,162
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #87 on: June 20, 2012, 09:26:27 PM »
Quote
It seems like you are engaging in a form of selective cultural iconoclasm by rejecting Chinese art form and style for icons and demanding that Chinese adopt the Greek style of art to portray Christ and the Mother of God.

I'll ask that simple question again, Stanley: Was Jesus Christ or His mother Chinese?
Our Divine Lord came for all men, not just the Jews. The Greek style icon is beautiful and inspiring, of course, and it has brought millions of souls to reflection on the mysteries and truths of Christianity, but it seems a bit harsh on the Chinese to deny them an artistic license in their depiction of the Holy Family.

He came for all men, but He didn't come as all men. How is it 'harsh' to the Chinese to tell them the fact that he was a Middle-Eastern Jew--not Chinese, not sub-saharan African, not a blonde Scandanavian, and not a white American. What is it about the actual person of Jesus Christ that you find so objectionable?

Everyone knows that Jesus was born in Kyiv (i.e. the south-central-western subsection of Kyiv previously known as Bethlehem) and spoke Ukrainian.  If you don't believe this you are a Russian propagandist heretic...    :P     ;)

 

Yes Father, but my UGCC friends say it was really a suburb of L'viv!  :)

Offline Orthodox11

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,999
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #88 on: June 20, 2012, 09:33:17 PM »
Good point.  I forgot to mention that after emigration from Scandenavia they resided in Kyiv where she was baptized before they immigrated to the Holy Land. 

The priest who baptised her was under the EP though.

Offline Alpo

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,267
  • My borcht recipe is better than your borcht recipe
Re: OO Icons: Childlike?
« Reply #89 on: June 21, 2012, 12:54:54 AM »
The main icons in my little Church are all by the excellent iconographer Stephane Rene and I love them very much.

I would like to see the best iconographers also experiment with the more ancient styles, such as those found in the monasteries.

What kind of the more ancient style is?