Topic: Schlock Icons

[Shanghaiski]

AFAIK, it's just an iconographic depiction of the vision of the Holy Cross which happened circa 1925 (?) on Old Calendar Holy Cross Day (?) as a sign from God in favor of the Orthodox calendar and against the godless Gregorians.

[Agabus]

AFAIK, it's just an iconographic depiction of the vision of the Holy Cross which happened circa 1925 (?) on Old Calendar Holy Cross Day (?) as a sign from God in favor of the Orthodox calendar and against the godless Gregorians.

That's what I gathered this as. I just saw it on some blog run by a guy whose first name was "Reader."

I haven't actually seen this image presented as an icon as such (no halos, etc.), but I'm sort of the mind that painting something in an iconographic style is its own commentary.

[Shanghaiski]

The iconographic rendition of a headlock is strange.

[Agabus]

The iconographic rendition of a headlock is strange.

Yeah, it looks like he's going for the kill.

[Mor Ephrem]

[LBK]

Oh, yes, one of my, ermmm, "favorites" from the abundance of 9/11-themed "icons" out there. 

[Maria]

Not gonna copy that one.

From where did you dudes dig that one up? (had to put in the d-alliteration)

[mike]

[orthonorm]

The iconographic rendition of a headlock is strange.

*dying laughing*

[Agabus]

Have mercy on me, indeed.

Is that supposed to be the cosmos, or just Jesus bling?

[Mor Ephrem]

He looks sick.  Like we need to pull the car over and let him have a moment. 

[LBK]

Here's the original, without the 'shopped inscriptions.




Not that it makes the image any more palatable ... if it isn't by the hand of the now-notorious Fr Stamatis Skliris, it must be from someone influenced by him. The eyes are far too large, and have a distinctly creepy look. The reflections in the iris make it look like Christ has had lens implants as a result of surgery to remove cataracts. 

[brastaseptim]

Here's the original, without the 'shopped inscriptions.




Not that it makes the image any more palatable ... if it isn't by the hand of the now-notorious Fr Stamatis Skliris, it must be from someone influenced by him. The eyes are far too large, and have a distinctly creepy look. The reflections in the iris make it look like Christ has had lens implants as a result of surgery to remove cataracts. 

The Lord look's like He's about to cry Human and Divine tears in one sobbing session.

[AZCatholic]

A unusual icon of the Virgin.


LBK, do you the meaning behind these icons?

[AZCatholic]

I was surprised when I saw this one. I thought the ark of salvation was a modern icon.

[mike]

That Theotokos is not that bad. Pantocrator with Apostles is fine.

I do not like the 3rd one. Why would one paint 3 Theotokos on one icon?

[LBK]

A unusual icon of the Virgin.

LBK, do you the meaning behind these icons?

This one is simply an import from RC paintings. The giveaways are the crowns on the Virgin and Child, the style and colors of the Virgin's garments, the Child's holding of an orb and scepter, the moon on which the Virgin stands (this motif does not appear in icons dating from before about the 18th century), and the inscription for the Child: Instead of the traditional IC-XC, it is ИIC-XC (also rendered in other works as ИIC-XPC), reflecting the Latin IHS monogram for Christ.

[LBK]

[

These simply show Christ (in the second one, the Crucifixion) surrounded by the Twelve Apostles, in a stylistic variant of the Christ the True Vine icons. Instead of a grapevine with an apostle at the end of each of its branches, a quite attractive Celtic knot-style motif (also seen in Byzantine art and some Russian folk art) is used to "gather" the apostles around Christ.

The only uncanonical elements are the presence of God the Father in the upper border of the second icon, and the naming of the four mystical creatures at the four corners of the first one. IIRC I have mentioned in a recent post here of the error of labeling the angel, eagle, ox and lion as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I do not like the 3rd one. Why would one paint 3 Theotokos on one icon?

Multiple different icons of the Mother of God on a single panel are very common in Russian tradition. Moreover, it is clear that this icon was painted as a commission for a particular family, due to the presence of several other saints and an archangel in the borders of the composition. These would be patrons of the members of the family, and the two icons of the Mother of God in the upper corners might be of particular devotional significance for that family. Many icons of the Mother of God are associated with intercession for specific illnesses or situations in life.

[FatherGiryus]

Here's an oldie but goodie...

[biro]

Oh dear. 

[Iconodule]

Here's an oldie but goodie...

It's not a schlock icon. It's a Roerich painting. Yes, he was a syncretist. I doubt he expected anyone to regard this painting as an Orthodox icon.

[WeldeMikael]

(Sufi Mystic Al-Hallaj.)

heh.

[ilyazhito]

Why even depict a non-Orthodox person in pseudo-iconographic style? I thought that Islamic art did not allow the depiction of human figures.

[Dominika]

I thought that Islamic art did not allow the depiction of human figures.

It's not so simple. Persian, Turkish, Mongolian art etc. depict the first four caliphs, events from the "prophet" Muhammad life and so on. Sufism is not the "orthodox" islam so it's not so surprising and as for the aureole it's present in these islamic images too. It's very universal symbol


In some pictures even Muhammad's faces is shown, in other instead his face there is a fire.

See other islamic pictures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Medieval_Persian_manuscript_Muhammad_leads_Abraham_Moses_Jesus.jpg/220px-Medieval_Persian_manuscript_Muhammad_leads_Abraham_Moses_Jesus.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Miraj_by_Sultan_Muhammad.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Portrait_of_the_Prophet_Muhammad_riding_the_buraq_steed_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GF0KEy-tqTo/SMZif6mxD_I/AAAAAAAAATA/Lc6IydJut0M/s400/burraq.jpg
http://www.harekrsna.de/artikel/burak-kamadhenu/Buraq-Muhammad2.jpg

[Iconodule]

Sufism is not the "orthodox" islam so it's not so surprising and as for the aureole it's present in these islamic images too.

Depends on who you ask. Before modern movements like the Wahhabis, Sufism was considered an integral part of "orthodox" Islam. For example, Al-Ghazali, who happened to be a Sufi, is probably the most influential and highly regarded Muslim theologian/ philosopher in history.

[AZCatholic]

LBK,
What is going on in this icon? Would it be acceptable to venerate it?

Here is another

[LBK]

These images are titled You Are A Priest Forever According to the Order of Melchizedek. They are not suitable for veneration. They are examples of speculative, imaginative images which appeared in Russia in about the 16th century.

The imagery is very confusing, showing the “New Testament” Trinity at the top (which is not canonical in itself). Then the Holy Trinity is again featured on the cross: God the Father, the Holy Spirit as a young man and Christ as a crucified seraph. The motif of the crucified seraph is clearly a Western import, adapted from the vision of St Francis of Assisi during which he received the stigmata. There is the eight-pointed star of the “Eternal Eighth Day,” the symbols from Revelation of the four evangelists.

Iconography is, at its core and essence, an expression and proclamation of the revelation of God to mankind. God revealed Himself most fully in the person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word. To show Him in types and shadows, in prefigurations, diminishes the fullness of His revelation.

St John of Damascus expressed it best:

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed 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 for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from venerating the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

[Mor Ephrem]

Is that what those are?  Wow.  I was wondering what St Spyridon was doing in that first icon. 

[LBK]

Is that what those are?  Wow.  I was wondering what St Spyridon was doing in that first icon. 

 

Oh, I have images of this ilk in my schlock file that are even weirder than the ones AZCatholic posted. 

[Dominika]

Not so shlock, but... Christ the All Seeing Eye



Well, most of the works of this man are... Let's say, strange. And that I've found him dute to official Antiochian website...


But, this is probably the best (and that I could accept in some way) image of Christ Merciful

[IoanC]

What it really means is: "Jesus, I trust in you. Please, don't mess up!"

But, this is probably the best (and that I could accept in some way) image of Christ Merciful

[LBK]

Not so shlock, but... Christ the All Seeing Eye



Well, most of the works of this man are... Let's say, strange. And that I've found him dute to official Antiochian website...

It's an unusual composition, but has little to do with the All-seeing Eye "icons". Christ Emmanuel is in the center, surrounded by a mandorla of uncreated light, as He is in many icons, including the Mother of God of the Sign type. There is nothing wrong with this portrayal, as Christ is shown in His incarnate form, not as a prefiguration. The four medallions in the corner simply depict the Wedding at Cana, the Crucifixion, Theophany, and the Resurrection.

[LBK]

But, this is probably the best (and that I could accept in some way) image of Christ Merciful

The above is a slightly modified version of the Divine Mercy imagery of the Roman Catholic church, based on the visions of St Faustina. This iconographer has painted various images in an iconographic style of themes and images which are outside Orthodox tradition, such as the "Holy Family". He has even painted this, a strange and doctrinally confusing work, combining the Holy Family with the iconography of the Holy Trinity:



Schlock indeed. There is just so much that is wrong with this image.

[orthonorm]

Schlock indeed. There is just so much that is wrong with this image.

You should hold a contest.

Make a list of everything wrong with the image. Then everyone gets a chance to PM you what they think you think is wrong with it. You decide the winner and award a prize.

You could also post the best of the worst submissions.

Edutainment.

[Nephi]

But, this is probably the best (and that I could accept in some way) image of Christ Merciful

Proper icon or not, I rather like this.

[AZCatholic]

LBK,
Can you explain these icons.

[LBK]

Both of those are known as Only-begotten Son, referring to this hymn sung at every Orthodox Divine Liturgy:

Only-begotten Son and immortal Word of God, who for our salvation condescended to be incarnate of the Holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, and without change became man, and was crucified, trampling down Death by death. O Christ our God, one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.

Like the You are a Priest Forever image posted earlier, they are examples of complex didactic images. Honorable in intent, but serving no real useful purpose. The hymn is beautifully clear and concise in expressing the core of the Faith. The "icon" is, by contrast, complex and confusing, the antithesis of clarity and illumination.

[LBK]

I'm split whether this is true schlock or just weird. It's on a par with the didactic images AZCatholic posted.



St John Chrysostom is holding a figure of Christ in one hand (who's missing parts of His arms), and a knife in the other. It's intended to illustrate this prayer, intoned by the priest during the preparation of the bread and wine which will become the Body and Blood of Christ:

Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God; broken yet not divided; forever eaten yet never consumed, but sanctifying those who partake of it.

Ick.

[Mor Ephrem]

I'm split whether this is true schlock or just weird.

Our Lord doesn't look amused. 

[Agabus]

I'm split whether this is true schlock or just weird. It's on a par with the didactic images AZCatholic posted.

It is, at the least, weird.

[Agabus]

Not sure if schlock, but something seems weird here.

[LBK]

Not sure if schlock, but something seems weird here.

Yup. In icons of the Theophany, the Holy Spirit became manifest as a dove. The Spirit is not a dove by nature, so, outside of the icons of that feast, showing the Spirit as a dove is wrong. The same goes for the four mystical creatures. Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were human beings by nature, not an angel, lion, ox or eagle. If these creatures are to be in a icon, the names of the evangelists should not be inscribed next to them.

Unfortunately, the above image persists, painted in the apses of altars, and embossed on the covers of liturgical Epistle books. People never learn.  

[hecma925]

I'm split whether this is true schlock or just weird. It's on a par with the didactic images AZCatholic posted.

It is, at the least, weird.

I wouldn't venerate it. 

[LBK]

I'm split whether this is true schlock or just weird. It's on a par with the didactic images AZCatholic posted.

It is, at the least, weird.

I wouldn't venerate it. 

Neither would I. My "dilemma" is only in which category it falls into - schlock or just weird. Either way, the image ain't kosher, even if it's been painted on the wall of a monastery church. 

[Agabus]

I thought about posting this in the kitsch products earlier, but thought it fit well here. How common are diptychs with two images of the same person, anyway?

Aside from the Guadeloupe discussion (which we've had many times before), we're missing the stars, of course.