Author Topic: Schlock Icons  (Read 492146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1755 on: July 16, 2014, 10:36:57 PM »


San Juan Diego, father of the Mother of God, miraculously conceived in his womb, pointing to her as the Savior and Redeemer. Oy.  :P >:( >:( >:(
That is not what is being represented.  The Mother of God put her image on his cloak.  How should we represent it?

Unfortunately, the above image of San Juan Diego indeed speaks of what I expressed earlier. It's a prime example of someone putting paint to board without a thorough understanding of iconographic language and tradition. As this thread clearly shows, this failing is not restricted to those who are not Orthodox.

So when I see icons where two angels are holding up the Mandylion, that means the angels got together and conceived Christ?  

I know you know better than that.  ::)

EDIT: Denise easily refuted this silly notion of yours:

no...because those ones are not suspended in 'robe form' over someones tummy...leaving in doubt if its a 'worn item' or a rendering of whats inside the person.


those are clearly being held by their hands....
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 10:38:26 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1756 on: July 16, 2014, 10:38:17 PM »
His cloak reminds me of a fiddleback "apron" chasuble.
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1757 on: July 16, 2014, 10:47:03 PM »
AHA....but there is the whole entire point.

an icon, is supposed to, via itself, teach us or show us that story.  I shouldn't have to know the story in advance in order to understand what is being conveyed.

Yes, these days we can all read, so we often -do- know....but it was not always thus, and icons taught the story visually.

If I have to know the story in advance to realize its not a man-womb, then the icon fails to teach or instruct.

Which touches on an issue with icons in general, as much of the meaning/symbolism is easily lost on people. Take the icon of St. Veronica's veil, for example. If I showed my relatives that, they'd no doubt think that it was her holding Jesus' head (or some guy's head) on a cloth. And what about those stars/Greek letters/colors/etc.? All of those things must be learned, and cannot be understood without already knowing much of it in advance. Likewise, icons of eastern apparitions have the same issue of needing to know the story.

In fact, I amusingly remember when I saw an icon of the Life-Giving Spring one of the first few times I even visited an Orthodox church. I thought it looked like some kind of juicer/blender or something. 8)



No-one emerges from the baptismal font magically knowing everything there is to know about Orthodoxy. A great effort is made by many to devour books and patristic writings. Is it too much to expect that people also put at least some effort in learning what icons teach?  ::)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 10:47:30 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,518
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1758 on: July 16, 2014, 11:08:58 PM »
I don't know the story behind the icon. I am newly orthodox so I don't have a whole body of symbols of icons at my disposal.

But I see the icon, and know he is going to give birth to the Theotokos. Because even non orthodox have seen an icon of Our Lady, with Jesus inside her stomach. A bit more advanced icon folks might have seen Saint Elizabeth with Saint John or Saint Anna with the Theotokos.

And that he should contact TLC the tv channel so they can run another installment of 'I am a man and pregnant' on their network.

All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,068
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1759 on: July 16, 2014, 11:10:53 PM »


San Juan Diego, father of the Mother of God, miraculously conceived in his womb, pointing to her as the Savior and Redeemer. Oy.  :P >:( >:( >:(
That is not what is being represented.  The Mother of God put her image on his cloak.  How should we represent it?

Unfortunately, the above image of San Juan Diego indeed speaks of what I expressed earlier. It's a prime example of someone putting paint to board without a thorough understanding of iconographic language and tradition. As this thread clearly shows, this failing is not restricted to those who are not Orthodox.

So when I see icons where two angels are holding up the Mandylion, that means the angels got together and conceived Christ?  

I know you know better than that.  ::)

I do, and I believe you do as well, which is why I'm surprised at your evaluation of the image in question.  

Anyone familiar with the story of Guadalupe, who sees an image of a native wearing a garment with an image on it, and can read the inscription "Saint Juan Diego" can make the necessary connections.  None of those is "San Juan Diego, father of the Mother of God, miraculously conceived in his womb, pointing to her as the Savior and Redeemer".  To read all that into the image requires a considerable amount of ignorance of the event depicted and/or intentional misreading and misunderstanding.      

If the underlying premise of your argument is "Icons are Eastern Orthodox, and no one should ever have anything to do with them unless they are Eastern Orthodox", then just say that.  But to take what is a non-Orthodox image painted by non-Orthodox Christians to depict a non-Orthodox event for non-Orthodox people and to criticise it along the lines you did is otherwise nonsensical.  There are a number of canonical icons which could be opened up to scrutiny if we want to go down that road.  

I also find it telling that you did not answer Fr Lance's question, which was about as straightforward as it gets.  Rather than explain to him how this particular image could be painted to conform to the iconographic norms you are familiar with, you simply reiterated your original criticism and went on to lambast bad icons and the iconographers who paint them.  If it can't be painted properly at all, then just say so and explain why.  But that wasn't to be found in this thread either.      

Quote
EDIT: Denise easily refuted this silly notion of yours:

no...because those ones are not suspended in 'robe form' over someones tummy...leaving in doubt if its a 'worn item' or a rendering of whats inside the person.


those are clearly being held by their hands....

I'm sorry, LBK, but Denise refuted nothing and neither did you.  I'm open to refutation, but it must actually refute, not just repeat.  
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,068
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1760 on: July 16, 2014, 11:15:54 PM »
AHA....but there is the whole entire point.

an icon, is supposed to, via itself, teach us or show us that story.  I shouldn't have to know the story in advance in order to understand what is being conveyed.

Yes, these days we can all read, so we often -do- know....but it was not always thus, and icons taught the story visually.

If I have to know the story in advance to realize its not a man-womb, then the icon fails to teach or instruct.

Which touches on an issue with icons in general, as much of the meaning/symbolism is easily lost on people. Take the icon of St. Veronica's veil, for example. If I showed my relatives that, they'd no doubt think that it was her holding Jesus' head (or some guy's head) on a cloth. And what about those stars/Greek letters/colors/etc.? All of those things must be learned, and cannot be understood without already knowing much of it in advance. Likewise, icons of eastern apparitions have the same issue of needing to know the story.

Exactly. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,518
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1761 on: July 16, 2014, 11:17:48 PM »
AHA....but there is the whole entire point.

an icon, is supposed to, via itself, teach us or show us that story.  I shouldn't have to know the story in advance in order to understand what is being conveyed.

Yes, these days we can all read, so we often -do- know....but it was not always thus, and icons taught the story visually.

If I have to know the story in advance to realize its not a man-womb, then the icon fails to teach or instruct.

Which touches on an issue with icons in general, as much of the meaning/symbolism is easily lost on people. Take the icon of St. Veronica's veil, for example. If I showed my relatives that, they'd no doubt think that it was her holding Jesus' head (or some guy's head) on a cloth. And what about those stars/Greek letters/colors/etc.? All of those things must be learned, and cannot be understood without already knowing much of it in advance. Likewise, icons of eastern apparitions have the same issue of needing to know the story.

Exactly. 

Yesh will be overjoyed to know we are giving up on that whole icon thing because we modern folks are just unable to learn what the symbols  all mean. 

All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1762 on: July 16, 2014, 11:20:23 PM »
Quote
Anyone familiar with the story of Guadalupe, who sees an image of a native wearing a garment with an image on it, and can read the inscription "Saint Juan Diego" can make the necessary connections.  None of those is "San Juan Diego, father of the Mother of God, miraculously conceived in his womb, pointing to her as the Savior and Redeemer".  To read all that into the image requires a considerable amount of ignorance of the event depicted and/or intentional misreading and misunderstanding.  

Yet the painter of this image has used specific, established iconographic symbolism, whether in knowledge or ignorance, resulting in the message of the painting to be a distortion of even the RC story. Is this so difficult for you to understand?
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1763 on: July 16, 2014, 11:40:18 PM »
Quote
I also find it telling that you did not answer Fr Lance's question, which was about as straightforward as it gets.  Rather than explain to him how this particular image could be painted to conform to the iconographic norms you are familiar with, you simply reiterated your original criticism and went on to lambast bad icons and the iconographers who paint them.  If it can't be painted properly at all, then just say so and explain why.  But that wasn't to be found in this thread either.  
   

Not "telling" at all. Do you answer every single question or message directed to you?

However, I will give you an answer: From the Orthodox perspective, no, this story cannot be depicted in any way iconographically, as it is outside Orthodox tradition, and San Juan Diego is not an Orthodox saint.

As for how RCs and BCs choose to do with it, there are countless paintings of the Virgin as described in the story. If they're content with painting the image on the cloak, so be it - but calling such images icons in the true sense of the word is still a stretch. What is completely unacceptable is the depiction posted earlier. I do not need to repeat myself in stating why it is so.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 11:40:52 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,068
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1764 on: July 16, 2014, 11:52:32 PM »
AHA....but there is the whole entire point.

an icon, is supposed to, via itself, teach us or show us that story.  I shouldn't have to know the story in advance in order to understand what is being conveyed.

Yes, these days we can all read, so we often -do- know....but it was not always thus, and icons taught the story visually.

If I have to know the story in advance to realize its not a man-womb, then the icon fails to teach or instruct.

Which touches on an issue with icons in general, as much of the meaning/symbolism is easily lost on people. Take the icon of St. Veronica's veil, for example. If I showed my relatives that, they'd no doubt think that it was her holding Jesus' head (or some guy's head) on a cloth. And what about those stars/Greek letters/colors/etc.? All of those things must be learned, and cannot be understood without already knowing much of it in advance. Likewise, icons of eastern apparitions have the same issue of needing to know the story.

Exactly. 

Yesh will be overjoyed to know we are giving up on that whole icon thing because we modern folks are just unable to learn what the symbols  all mean. 



No, that's not my intention.  I don't think the only choices are "PhD in iconology" or "burn them all with fire". 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,518
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,068
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1766 on: July 17, 2014, 12:01:28 AM »
Quote
Anyone familiar with the story of Guadalupe, who sees an image of a native wearing a garment with an image on it, and can read the inscription "Saint Juan Diego" can make the necessary connections.  None of those is "San Juan Diego, father of the Mother of God, miraculously conceived in his womb, pointing to her as the Savior and Redeemer".  To read all that into the image requires a considerable amount of ignorance of the event depicted and/or intentional misreading and misunderstanding.  

Yet the painter of this image has used specific, established iconographic symbolism, whether in knowledge or ignorance, resulting in the message of the painting to be a distortion of even the RC story. Is this so difficult for you to understand?

Yes, and I have a graduate theological degree, so I'm not yet convinced that it's just because I'm too slow.  AFAIK, there is no established iconographic way of depicting a native American, his typical clothing, or the image of Guadalupe.  To attempt an icon of this subject already involves some interpretation, application, and adaptation of established norms.  But to focus on an image "suspended in 'robe form' over someones tummy...leaving in doubt if its a 'worn item' or a rendering of whats inside the person" and then conclude that the entire icon teaches that Juan Diego miraculously conceived Mary in his womb is as ludicrous as seeing the icon of our Lady on a bishop's panagia and assuming that he miraculously conceived Mary in his womb.  It seems fairly obvious that context plays a role in interpretation, but these arguments are more akin to "sola icona".  
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,068
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1767 on: July 17, 2014, 12:03:08 AM »
Quote
I also find it telling that you did not answer Fr Lance's question, which was about as straightforward as it gets.  Rather than explain to him how this particular image could be painted to conform to the iconographic norms you are familiar with, you simply reiterated your original criticism and went on to lambast bad icons and the iconographers who paint them.  If it can't be painted properly at all, then just say so and explain why.  But that wasn't to be found in this thread either.  
   

Not "telling" at all. Do you answer every single question or message directed to you?

However, I will give you an answer: From the Orthodox perspective, no, this story cannot be depicted in any way iconographically, as it is outside Orthodox tradition, and San Juan Diego is not an Orthodox saint.

OK.  Now we are getting somewhere.  I agree with this.   

Quote
As for how RCs and BCs choose to do with it, there are countless paintings of the Virgin as described in the story. If they're content with painting the image on the cloak, so be it - but calling such images icons in the true sense of the word is still a stretch. What is completely unacceptable is the depiction posted earlier. I do not need to repeat myself in stating why it is so.

What is an icon "in the true sense of the word"?  For instance, is the only true icon an Eastern Orthodox icon?  What is this "true sense"? 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1768 on: July 17, 2014, 12:18:26 AM »
Quote
 AFAIK, there is no established iconographic way of depicting a native American, his typical clothing,

St Peter the Aleut is an Orthodox saint, with a great many icons painted of him. We also have the saints of Hieromartyr Mitrofan and the Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion, all painted as ethnic Chinese, with the laymen in the composition wearing traditional Chinese dress.

Quote
But to focus on an image "suspended in 'robe form' over someones tummy...leaving in doubt if its a 'worn item' or a rendering of whats inside the person" and then conclude that the entire icon teaches that Juan Diego miraculously conceived Mary in his womb is as ludicrous as seeing the icon of our Lady on a bishop's panagia and assuming that he miraculously conceived Mary in his womb.

A bishop's Panagia painted on an icon is clearly a medallion on a chain. It is neither a miraculous image imprinted on his vestments or riassa, nor symbolic of conception or incarnation.

Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,068
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1769 on: July 17, 2014, 12:44:32 AM »
Quote
 AFAIK, there is no established iconographic way of depicting a native American, his typical clothing,

St Peter the Aleut is an Orthodox saint, with a great many icons painted of him.

Is the depiction of St Peter the Aleut the iconographic standard for all native Americans, or just for an Aleut?  How would one paint a native American from the town of Cuauhtitlan in Mexico? 

Quote
Quote
But to focus on an image "suspended in 'robe form' over someones tummy...leaving in doubt if its a 'worn item' or a rendering of whats inside the person" and then conclude that the entire icon teaches that Juan Diego miraculously conceived Mary in his womb is as ludicrous as seeing the icon of our Lady on a bishop's panagia and assuming that he miraculously conceived Mary in his womb.

A bishop's Panagia painted on an icon is clearly a medallion on a chain. It is neither a miraculous image imprinted on his vestments or riassa, nor symbolic of conception or incarnation.



In other words, context plays a role in interpretation. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,518
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1770 on: July 17, 2014, 12:50:44 AM »
Context?

Or the fact that the medallion is the wrong size, and obviously hanging from a gold chain and is thus not

A. A robe over an expectant person
B. A bit of fabric held up in front of the person by invisible hands

Without a way to tell which

Not sure that's a context thing, rather a 'recognizable item' issue

But what do I know
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1771 on: July 17, 2014, 01:00:12 AM »
Quote
How would one paint a native American from the town of Cuauhtitlan in Mexico?  

I have no idea. I am not an expert in Mexican ethnography. I also fail to see what this question has to to do with the acceptability or otherwise of the San Juan Diego painting being discussed here.

Quote
In other words, context plays a role in interpretation.

If someone has trouble seeing the difference between a bishop's pendant on an icon, and a large representation of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over the bishop's body .....
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 01:00:45 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1772 on: July 17, 2014, 01:17:46 AM »
Quote
What is an icon "in the true sense of the word"?  For instance, is the only true icon an Eastern Orthodox icon?  What is this "true sense"?

Depiction of eternal truths, the fullness of which is found in Orthodoxy. Of the revelation of God, most potently through His incarnation. Of being in time and beyond time, simultaneously. Painted in a non-naturalistic, abstracted style to reflect heavenly, spiritual reality, not bound to the earth and the world. Prayed to and venerated, in honor and supplication to him, her or those depicted. Painted with prayer and fasting. Painted not according to the artistic whims of the painter or his patron, but in obedience and service to the Church. Painted in full harmony with the liturgical deposit of the Church. An indispensible element of liturgical worship.

This is by no means all there is to it, only a start.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1773 on: July 17, 2014, 01:40:27 AM »
"Shlock" means blasphemous or something, right?

Anyway, I saw an icon for Harvey Milk, Joseph Stalin, and Putin once.

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1774 on: July 17, 2014, 02:00:23 AM »
If someone has trouble seeing the difference between a bishop's pendant on an icon, and a large representation of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over the bishop's body .....
You mean like this?

You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1775 on: July 17, 2014, 02:32:59 AM »
Umm, Antonis, that is on the back of the vestment. Last time I checked, bishop-saints are shown in frontal or, occasionally seven-eighths or three-quarter profile in their icons.  :P ::)
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 02:33:15 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1776 on: July 17, 2014, 02:34:47 AM »
"Shlock" means blasphemous or something, right?

Anyway, I saw an icon for Harvey Milk, Joseph Stalin, and Putin once.

Schlock, for the purposes of this thread, means something that might look like an icon, but is completely worthless for veneration. Blasphemy and irreverence often comes into it. IIRC DeniseDenise provided a dictionary definition of the word somewhere in the thread.

Have you gone through all of this thread, Amatorus? You'll find those and more on it.  :P
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 02:38:41 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1777 on: July 17, 2014, 02:49:07 AM »
Umm, Antonis, that is on the back of the vestment. Last time I checked, bishop-saints are shown in frontal or, occasionally seven-eighths or three-quarter profile in their icons.  :P ::)
Okay, how about the front?



I have plenty more examples.
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1778 on: July 17, 2014, 02:52:37 AM »
P.S. Please source where you've found that was the back, because all of mine say it was actually the front, such as this handy picture, which identifies it as such in the lower left.



« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 03:02:28 AM by Antonis »
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1779 on: July 17, 2014, 03:04:32 AM »
Umm, Antonis, that is on the back of the vestment. Last time I checked, bishop-saints are shown in frontal or, occasionally seven-eighths or three-quarter profile in their icons.  :P ::)
Okay, how about the front?



I have plenty more examples.

Grasping at straws? Hardly. Episcopal vestments are often festooned with icons front and back, to this day.

Show me an icon of a bishop-saint that shows a large motif of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over his body.  ::)


« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 03:05:14 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1780 on: July 17, 2014, 03:09:10 AM »
Umm, Antonis, that is on the back of the vestment. Last time I checked, bishop-saints are shown in frontal or, occasionally seven-eighths or three-quarter profile in their icons.  :P ::)
Okay, how about the front?



I have plenty more examples.

Grasping at straws? Hardly. Episcopal vestments are often festooned with icons front and back, to this day.

Show me an icon of a bishop-saint that shows a large motif of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over his body.  ::)



You just skip from one argument to another every time you are proven wrong.

Why did you object and say the icon was supposedly on the back of the sakkos if it didn't really matter at all if "Episcopal vestments are often festooned with icons front and back, to this day"? It doesn't make any sense. You just create one convoluted argument after another until your counterpart gives up from frustration.
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1781 on: July 17, 2014, 03:18:20 AM »
On the contrary. Iconography is not photographic representation, but a depiction of spiritual transfiguration and heavenly realities.

All you've done is post pictures of episcopal vestments with icons on them. For your "argument" to hold water, show me an icon of a bishop-saint that shows a large motif of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over his body. 
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1782 on: July 17, 2014, 03:24:50 AM »
On the contrary. Iconography is not photographic representation, but a depiction of spiritual transfiguration and heavenly realities.

All you've done is post pictures of episcopal vestments with icons on them. For your "argument" to hold water, show me an icon of a bishop-saint that shows a large motif of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over his body. 

Yea, yea. You just repeated what you said in the last post with some more verbiage.

Again,


Quote
Why did you object and say the icon was supposedly on the back of the sakkos if it didn't really matter at all if "Episcopal vestments are often festooned with icons front and back, to this day"? It doesn't make any sense. You just create one convoluted argument after another until your counterpart gives up from frustration.
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,068
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1783 on: July 17, 2014, 03:25:21 AM »
Context?

Or the fact that the medallion is the wrong size, and obviously hanging from a gold chain and is thus not

A. A robe over an expectant person

Fact, obviously, thus?  Yet when it was a tilma hanging in front of a Mexican, the only possible interpretation was that he was pregnant with the Theotokos.  The fact that the subject depicted is a man should've been enough to eliminate this false interpretation, but it wasn't.  What makes jewelry so special?    

Quote
B. A bit of fabric held up in front of the person by invisible hands

Without a way to tell which

Not sure that's a context thing, rather a 'recognizable item' issue

But what do I know

Everyone seems to know that I don't know enough, but when I ask questions, I get anything but solid answers.  Who knows indeed.
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1784 on: July 17, 2014, 03:28:02 AM »
What I've gathered is that it's plain to a blind man when a saint is holding a piece of cloth, but only the most pious of Orthodox hawks could see when it's draped over a man's shoulders.

Edit: He would see, and he would disapprove.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 03:29:08 AM by Antonis »
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,068
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1785 on: July 17, 2014, 03:33:03 AM »
Quote
How would one paint a native American from the town of Cuauhtitlan in Mexico?  

I have no idea. I am not an expert in Mexican ethnography. I also fail to see what this question has to to do with the acceptability or otherwise of the San Juan Diego painting being discussed here.

When I stated that, to my knowledge, there was no iconographic standard on how to depict a native American, you referred me to icons of Aleuts and ethnic Chinese.  I didn't know what that had to do with Juan Diego, so I brought it back to that.  

Quote
Quote
In other words, context plays a role in interpretation.

If someone has trouble seeing the difference between a bishop's pendant on an icon, and a large representation of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over the bishop's body .....

.....go on.  

I do see a difference in the two, but it's obviously not the difference you have in mind, which is why I'm pursuing this topic.  I'm trying to understand and learn from someone who claims expertise in the field.    

An image of the Theotokos on a bishop's pendant on an icon of a bishop-saint is basically a bishop wearing an image of the Theotokos.  Juan Diego wearing a tilma with an image of the Theotokos on it is basically Juan Diego wearing an image of the Theotokos.  How come the bishop is wearing jewelry and Juan Diego is miraculously bearing Mary in his womb?  
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,825
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1786 on: July 17, 2014, 03:37:01 AM »
St. Michael, bearer of angels:


Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1787 on: July 17, 2014, 03:37:32 AM »
Quote
What makes jewelry so special?  

See above. If you can't see the difference between a pendant on a chain depicted on an icon which speaks of the episcopal rank of the saint, and an ancient established theological iconographic symbol, there's little more to say.

Mor, either you're genuinely seeking to learn, or you're taking this line of questioning as a mere intellectual exercise. Which is it?
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1788 on: July 17, 2014, 03:39:28 AM »
I suppose people could get the wrong theological ideas and start to think bishops were bearing homunculus panagias in their bellies.

Edit: I've also noted you haven't responded to my earlier question.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 03:40:01 AM by Antonis »
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1789 on: July 17, 2014, 03:41:58 AM »
St. Michael, bearer of angels:



The archangel is vested as a subdeacon. Crosses are common motifs in omophoria and oraria, as are icons in medallion form. Deacon's oraria in icons also are shown bearing the words Holy Holy Holy, as is also seen on the oraria of angels serving at the heavenly liturgy in icons and murals of this theme.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1790 on: July 17, 2014, 03:42:54 AM »
I suppose people could get the wrong theological ideas and start to think bishops were bearing homunculus panagias in their bellies.

Who's grasping at straws now?


Edit: I've also noted you haven't responded to my earlier question.

Remind me what this question was.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 03:44:07 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Faith: The Ancientist Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Patristic, Neptic, Hesychastic, Philoka-
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1791 on: July 17, 2014, 03:48:13 AM »
On the contrary. Iconography is not photographic representation, but a depiction of spiritual transfiguration and heavenly realities.

All you've done is post pictures of episcopal vestments with icons on them. For your "argument" to hold water, show me an icon of a bishop-saint that shows a large motif of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over his body. 

Yea, yea. You just repeated what you said in the last post with some more verbiage.

Again,


Quote
Why did you object and say the icon was supposedly on the back of the sakkos if it didn't really matter at all if "Episcopal vestments are often festooned with icons front and back, to this day"? It doesn't make any sense. You just create one convoluted argument after another until your counterpart gives up from frustration.
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1792 on: July 17, 2014, 03:50:55 AM »
On the contrary. Iconography is not photographic representation, but a depiction of spiritual transfiguration and heavenly realities.

All you've done is post pictures of episcopal vestments with icons on them. For your "argument" to hold water, show me an icon of a bishop-saint that shows a large motif of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over his body. 

Yea, yea. You just repeated what you said in the last post with some more verbiage.

Again,


Quote
Why did you object and say the icon was supposedly on the back of the sakkos if it didn't really matter at all if "Episcopal vestments are often festooned with icons front and back, to this day"? It doesn't make any sense. You just create one convoluted argument after another until your counterpart gives up from frustration.

The fallacy of your insistence that I am wrong is right there in the section you've bolded.

And I'm still waiting for you to post an icon of any bishop-saint shown in the manner I've described.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1793 on: July 17, 2014, 03:55:09 AM »
Quote
When I stated that, to my knowledge, there was no iconographic standard on how to depict a native American, you referred me to icons of Aleuts and ethnic Chinese.  I didn't know what that had to do with Juan Diego, so I brought it back to that.  

St Peter the Aleut was a native American. San Juan Diego was one as well, though of a different nation. You still haven't explained the relevance of Juan Diego's ancestry in the discussion of the contentious image.

Quote
An image of the Theotokos on a bishop's pendant on an icon of a bishop-saint is basically a bishop wearing an image of the Theotokos.  Juan Diego wearing a tilma with an image of the Theotokos on it is basically Juan Diego wearing an image of the Theotokos.  How come the bishop is wearing jewelry and Juan Diego is miraculously bearing Mary in his womb?  

Must I repeat the visual and theological difference between a pectoral pendant in an icon, and a depiction of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over a saint's body in an icon?

I'm sorry Mor, ISTM you're just arguing for the sake of it.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 03:57:58 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1794 on: July 17, 2014, 03:56:27 AM »
Since I threw a wrench in the mix about RC saint Juan Diego, here's another weird icon.  Enjoy.



Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,375
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1795 on: July 17, 2014, 03:58:00 AM »
Is iconographicaster too much of a mouthful? ;) It would mean, you know, a pretender, analogous to a poetaster.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1796 on: July 17, 2014, 04:05:45 AM »
Since I threw a wrench in the mix about RC saint Juan Diego, here's another weird icon.  Enjoy.





Ugh. More syncretist schlock. Here's the explanation for it:

http://eliasiconsanjara.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/glorious-mysteries.html
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1797 on: July 17, 2014, 04:07:03 AM »
Is iconographicaster too much of a mouthful? ;) It would mean, you know, a pretender, analogous to a poetaster.

Dunno, but a wise soul here once coined the word schlockodoxy:laugh:
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,825
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1798 on: July 17, 2014, 04:07:38 AM »
and a depiction of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over a saint's body in an icon?

But that's not what the St. Juan Diego icon is portraying. It is showing an image of the Theotokos (surrounded by a mandorla) affixed to a tilma. The tilma is being worn by the person depicted.

I'm not sure I see a qualitative difference between that and an image of the Theotokos in a pendant, with the pendant being worn by a person depicted.

In neither case would the icon be attempting to affirm something theologically similar to Our Lady of the Sign. I think this is what Mor is getting at.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 04:07:49 AM by Nephi »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,489
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Schlock Icons
« Reply #1799 on: July 17, 2014, 04:31:42 AM »
and a depiction of Christ or the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla over a saint's body in an icon?

But that's not what the St. Juan Diego icon is portraying. It is showing an image of the Theotokos (surrounded by a mandorla) affixed to a tilma. The tilma is being worn by the person depicted.

I'm not sure I see a qualitative difference between that and an image of the Theotokos in a pendant, with the pendant being worn by a person depicted.

In neither case would the icon be attempting to affirm something theologically similar to Our Lady of the Sign. I think this is what Mor is getting at.

Unfortunately, your conclusion cannot be sustained. The incarnational imagery of the Mother of God of the Sign is ancient, distinct, unmistakeable, and definitive.

Moreover, the Mother of God should not be surrounded by a mandorla in icons. Mandorlas, a round or almond-shape blaze, represent the uncreated light and glory of God. The Virgin was graced by divinity in that she bore the Divine. She is indeed the most exalted being God ever created, or will ever create. It is for this reason that her icon is painted high above the altar in the apses of Orthodox churches. However, this fitting exaltation in no way implies any divinity on the part of the Virgin, she was human and mortal like any human being. She is as close to God as it is possible for a mortal but deified human being to be, but to show her surrounded by a blaze of uncreated light speaks of her being equal to God, which is simply untrue.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 04:32:17 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?