Topic: Schlock Icons

[Agabus]

Many religious bloggers (and forumers) seem to have this weird idea that they are fighting for truth and righteousness by flaming people for what they see as incorrect beliefs.

It's not weird.  They are fighting for truth and righteousness.  They are fighting...for the LORD. 

If they were really fighting for G-d, they would never use the all-caps LORD, they would use HaShem.

[Agabus]

From here:

[Hawkeye]

I wouldn't be bothered so much if the "re-imagining" didn't look so terrible. It's got nothing on the Pantokrator.

Funny that the sign of the cross was kept.

[Eastern Mind]

From here:

UGH. That's ghastly.   The Sinai Pantocrator was perfect just the way it was.

[mike]

The Sinai Pantocrator was perfect just the way it was.

Actually I prefer something a bit less realistic.

[The_Convert]

Is that second Greek word (Internetakias) an actual word? Does anyone have an idea what that could mean?

[mike]

Nerd?

[orthonorm]

Nerd?

werd!

[LBK]

Is that second Greek word (Internetakias) an actual word? Does anyone have an idea what that could mean?

Internekakias could be roughly translated as "prolific internet user" or "netgeek". It's very likely become part of present-day Greek slang.

[Agabus]

Christ the prisoner.

[LBK]

Christ the prisoner.

Little different to this piece, Christ of Columbine, attempting to shoehorn Christ into a specific time and place to suit and serve a particular cause. Standard MO for artists like Robert Lentz and their protegees:



The artist's spiel:

Following the murders of the children at Columbine High School in Colorado, I began to imagine creating an icon of a teenaged Christ. It seems the world these kids have inherited is increasingly impossible for them to bear. With the massive numbers of deaths in September 2001, we all feel the stalking presence of evil. .....

...... However, the deliberate murder of innocent people In Manhattan or Afghanistan is evil. How to respond to this conflicting vision of death? Bringing the icon of the teenage Christ into the world gave me an opportunity.

I painted the frame in black and white and brought a Taos teenager, as Christ, into the ominous landscape, dressing him in traditional colors worn by Christ in his adult icons; blue (divinity) over red (humanity). Christ is the only color in the icon, he is the light and the life in the midst of death.

[orthonorm]

Christ the prisoner.

I asked LBK among others about this icon sometime ago and got nothing in return from her.

So much for her complaints about people not taking her storied expertise seriously.

[orthonorm]

Christ the prisoner.

Little different to this piece, Christ of Columbine, attempting to shoehorn Christ into a specific time and place to suit and serve a particular cause. Standard MO for artists like Robert Lentz and their protegees:

Wanna bet?

[LBK]

Christ the prisoner.

I asked LBK among others about this icon sometime ago and got nothing in return from her.

You're getting something from me now, aren't you?

So much for her complaints about people not taking her storied expertise seriously.

Of whom you're the foremost.  

[LBK]

Christ the prisoner.

Little different to this piece, Christ of Columbine, attempting to shoehorn Christ into a specific time and place to suit and serve a particular cause. Standard MO for artists like Robert Lentz and their protegees:

Wanna bet?

Please elaborate.

[orthonorm]

Christ the prisoner.

I asked LBK among others about this icon sometime ago and got nothing in return from her.

You're getting something from me now, aren't you?

So much for her complaints about people not taking her storied expertise seriously.

Of whom you're the foremost.  

There was a moment of some serious discussion about this icon that you could've influenced. This was before I realized exactly how idiosyncratic and without much theoretical weight you judged things. It was sensitive and serious inquiry for help.

And the response was:

[LBK]

Christ the prisoner.

I asked LBK among others about this icon sometime ago and got nothing in return from her.

You're getting something from me now, aren't you?

So much for her complaints about people not taking her storied expertise seriously.

Of whom you're the foremost.  

There was a moment of some serious discussion about this icon that you could've influenced.

And the response was:

I could have influenced? Sorry, not buying it, not when, even at that time, you rarely missed opportunities to denigrate what I posted on iconography, and none of it constructive or cogent.

This was before I realized exactly how idiosyncratic and without much theoretical weight you judged things. It was sensitive and serious inquiry for help.

What I write on iconography is underpinned by the historical, liturgical, scriptural and patristic traditions of the Church. No idiosyncrasy or frivolous thought involved.

[orthonorm]

Christ the prisoner.

I asked LBK among others about this icon sometime ago and got nothing in return from her.

You're getting something from me now, aren't you?

So much for her complaints about people not taking her storied expertise seriously.

Of whom you're the foremost.  

There was a moment of some serious discussion about this icon that you could've influenced.

And the response was:

I could have influenced? Sorry, not buying it, not when, even at that time, you rarely missed opportunities to denigrate what I posted on iconography, and none of it constructive or cogent.

This was before I realized exactly how idiosyncratic and without much theoretical weight you judged things. It was sensitive and serious inquiry for help.

What I write on iconography is underpinned by the historical, liturgical, scriptural and patristic traditions of the Church. No idiosyncrasy or frivolous thought involved.

Think or buy whatever you want. I would gladly forward the messages I sent others about decisions I was trying to make pending your contributions. You agreed to help me. The pain still haunts me.

I know where your strengths lie and where they do not and know how to make use of and appreciate them. You though haven't learned the limits of your expertise. We've been here before and when asked a direct question you dissemble and like most try to steer the conversation toward your own strengths (something like iconographic curation) which are necessary and helpful.

However you believe the curator can answer everything about a collection of objects rather than offering a list of them and a history of how that list came to be within a historigraphical horizon.

But yes, you could've used your prodigious talent to affect a real moment in more than a few persons lives rather than posting screeds on oc.net. You can choose to deny that fact, but I promise it is the truth.

[orthonorm]

Christ the prisoner.

I asked LBK among others about this icon sometime ago and got nothing in return from her.

You're getting something from me now, aren't you?

So much for her complaints about people not taking her storied expertise seriously.

Of whom you're the foremost.  

There was a moment of some serious discussion about this icon that you could've influenced.

And the response was:

I could have influenced? Sorry, not buying it, not when, even at that time, you rarely missed opportunities to denigrate what I posted on iconography, and none of it constructive or cogent.

This was before I realized exactly how idiosyncratic and without much theoretical weight you judged things. It was sensitive and serious inquiry for help.

What I write on iconography is underpinned by the historical, liturgical, scriptural and patristic traditions of the Church. No idiosyncrasy or frivolous thought involved.

Think or buy whatever you want. I would gladly forward the messages I sent others about decisions I was trying to make pending your contributions. You agreed to help me. The pain still haunts me.

I know where your strengths lie and where they do not and know how to make use of and appreciate them. You though haven't learned the limits of your expertise. We've been here before and when asked a direct question you dissemble and like most try to steer the conversation toward your own strengths (something like iconographic curation) which are necessary and helpful.

However you believe the curator can answer everything about a collection of objects rather than offering a list of them and a history of how that list came to be within a historigraphical horizon.

But yes, you could've used your prodigious talent to affect a real moment in more than a few persons lives rather than posting screeds on oc.net. You can choose to deny that fact, but I promise it is the truth.

But it is water under the bridge so speak now, my bringing it up is to illustrate if you had engaged in the question that was posed to you, you would not level both of the examples above to the same thing. But who cares about nuance?

[orthonorm]

Christ the prisoner.

Little different to this piece, Christ of Columbine, attempting to shoehorn Christ into a specific time and place to suit and serve a particular cause. Standard MO for artists like Robert Lentz and their protegees:

Wanna bet?

Please elaborate.

Let's talk stakes.

[LBK]

But it is water under the bridge so speak now, my bringing it up is to illustrate if you had engaged in the question that was posed to you, you would not level both of the examples above to the same thing. But who cares about nuance?

I would have indeed put both images on the same level, even if the "prisoner" image had been so painted in honest ignorance (the "Columbine" one was certainly not painted in ignorance). Icons are not subservient to causes, no matter how noble or worthy such causes may be, neither should they be vehicles for an artist's or patron's self-expression. I have railed against various such images, on various threads, and have given clear and cogent reasons for my position.

[LBK]

Let's talk stakes.

I don't do cryptic. You're perfectly capable of expressing yourself in clear, standard English.

[orthonorm]

Let's talk stakes.

I don't do cryptic. You're perfectly capable of expressing yourself in clear, standard English.

That is English.

Oh . . . I see the back pedaling in your statement already. So it is not the same. OK.

Since you don't understand the word:

That which is laid down as a wager; that which is staked or hazarded; a pledge.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stake

But hey, you are already backpedaling . . .

[orthonorm]

Frankly, I was thinking about $1k or so that I could show that indeed there is a difference between the two entries above.

I was going to then suggest we select three judges.

But you are already crying uncle and moving into your pet apologies.

[LBK]

Let's talk stakes.

I don't do cryptic. You're perfectly capable of expressing yourself in clear, standard English.

That is English.

Oh . . . I see the back pedaling in your statement already. So it is not the same. OK.

Since you don't understand the word:

That which is laid down as a wager; that which is staked or hazarded; a pledge.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stake

But hey, you are already backpedaling . . .

You speak of bets and stakes - just come clean, already! This cryptic shtick is getting old.

EDIT: Just saw your latest post.

1. I'm not a gambler, and the thought of betting on the comparison of two "icons" is simply ridiculous.

2. What apologies?

[TheTrisagion]

Frankly, I was thinking about $1k or so that I could show that indeed there is a difference between the two entries above.

I was going to then suggest we select three judges.

But you are already crying uncle and moving into your pet apologies.

I think it would be best if I set the stakes.  If orthonorm wins, LBK pays me $1k.  If LBK wins, orthonorm pays me $1k.  I think that will satisfy all relevant parties (i.e. me)

[orthonorm]

Let's talk stakes.

I don't do cryptic. You're perfectly capable of expressing yourself in clear, standard English.

That is English.

Oh . . . I see the back pedaling in your statement already. So it is not the same. OK.

Since you don't understand the word:

That which is laid down as a wager; that which is staked or hazarded; a pledge.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stake

But hey, you are already backpedaling . . .

You speak of bets and stakes - just come clean, already! This cryptic shtick is getting old.

What is cryptic about suggesting a bet? Have you have made a friendly wager? There is a back and forth, setting of terms, etc.

And see above. If you weren't so hasty in posting I already suggested a wager.

But you are already folding and making my case, which is OK. Cause sometimes being right is better than being a little more financially solvent.

[orthonorm]

Frankly, I was thinking about $1k or so that I could show that indeed there is a difference between the two entries above.

I was going to then suggest we select three judges.

But you are already crying uncle and moving into your pet apologies.

I think it would be best if I set the stakes.  If orthonorm wins, LBK pays me $1k.  If LBK wins, orthonorm pays me $1k.  I think that will satisfy all relevant parties (i.e. me)

Hey, I am OK with a vig. But the debate like usual is a moving target with LBK.

[LBK]

I edited my previous post.

[orthonorm]

And really, calling me cryptic here is really lazy. It just makes no sense here. I bet even J Michael would understand the posts.

LBK has already admitted her initial comments were less than circumspect and that is fine by me.

[orthonorm]

Let's talk stakes.

I don't do cryptic. You're perfectly capable of expressing yourself in clear, standard English.

That is English.

Oh . . . I see the back pedaling in your statement already. So it is not the same. OK.

Since you don't understand the word:

That which is laid down as a wager; that which is staked or hazarded; a pledge.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stake

But hey, you are already backpedaling . . .

You speak of bets and stakes - just come clean, already! This cryptic shtick is getting old.

EDIT: Just saw your latest post.

1. I'm not a gambler, and the thought of betting on the comparison of two "icons" is simply ridiculous.

2. What apologies?

People's words are worth well what they are worth.

And they are not icons, so who cares? And we wouldn't be gambling on them but rather your incredibly reductive treatment of them and Robert Lenz tossed in for whatever reason.

But again, this is settled well enough.

I am playing the slow roll here. So I figure it a win.

[LBK]

And really, calling me cryptic here is really lazy. It just makes no sense here. I bet even J Michael would understand the posts.

LBK has already admitted her initial comments were less than circumspect and that is fine by me.

Where have I done so?  

[LBK]

But you are already folding and making my case, which is OK. Cause sometimes being right is better than being a little more financially solvent.

You're just sore that you didn't get what you wanted way back when. Sorry, I stand by what I write, and I'm certainly not stooping to silly games to satisfy your strange whims and fancies.
   

[orthonorm]

But you are already folding and making my case, which is OK. Cause sometimes being right is better than being a little more financially solvent.

You're just sore that you didn't get what you wanted way back when. Sorry, I stand by what I write, and I'm certainly not stooping to silly games to satisfy your strange whims and fancies.
   

No to you your: no one ever listens to me, I offer a counter example. There was a sensitive moment and I am not complaining that I didn't get what I wanted but rather that you didn't offer what you said you would. Then year(s) later you opine quite vaguely and broadly and inaccurately (as you have already admitted) later on the matter.

Your favorite whipping boy, Bob, has nothing to do with the person who made the image you equated to his work. Not in intent, which I normally don't care about, but a reverse image search by certain people could cause harm to them by your brazen comparison.

You could have offered a more nuanced contribution to the number of opinions I sought about the "Prisoner Jesus" image which could have helped me form a more thorough and sensitive argument against its use. I had my gut reactions at the time and turned directly to you for technical reasons to suggest it not being used as an icon. Others offered their opinions based on their own abilities. Your own mastery of the history of the iconographic tradition was what I was hoping to be able to benefit from.

Again think what you want, but I suggest in the future you follow up on your agreements made in private rather than glibly making comments which could be hurtful in the future to specific persons who don't come here and open themselves up to the slings and arrows of oc.net.

Perhaps Bob deserves your ire, the person responsible for the other image doesn't nor his well meaning supporters even if it only via extension by comparison to of the creator of that image to Bob. That I do know. Hence my rare occasion of asking about 20 oc.net members via PM something rather creating a thread. (That was when I realized there a was a limit to the amount of persons you could PM at once.)

Oh well. I know this doesn't fit whatever characterizations you have made about me and my esteem of your expertise, but I guess when you ignore the obvious counterfactuals you can enjoy the idol you have created in my image.

[orthonorm]

Now I am finished on this segment of this thread, lest the mods worry about a back and forth derailing the OnT.

[Nephi]

Christ the prisoner.

About the 'Christ in Prison' icon:  It came to pass because some of us who were going to the prison each week commented that it was true that we meet Christ when we visit His brethren.  I had been talking to Fr. Ted in Dayton about his prison ministry, and he told me that one of his guys wrote icons.  I got in contact with the inmate, and he did this icon for us.  It is a very traditional image, except that Christ is wearing an Ohio prison uniform.  The icon was a blessing to several of us at the OCPM gathering in Denver, and the original went home with a man whose son is in prison.

From here.

I think it's also influenced by Matthew 25:36, "I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me."

FWIW.

[hecma925]

This one looks fine.  No Ohio state prisoner garb.

[J Michael]

And really, calling me cryptic here is really lazy.

Is there a better place to call you cryptic?

I bet even J Michael would understand the posts.

I struggled mightily for hour after hour, ruminating over each and every word of each post, dictionary and thesaurus at my side, and yet....and yet....well, maybe a little, anyway.  

On a slightly more serious note, LBK is totally on target by saying to you, "You're perfectly capable of expressing yourself in clear, standard English."  What is sad is that you don't do so far more often, for when you do what you write is frequently not only interesting but also can be quite illuminating.  Yes, you do a cryptic shtick.  It only serves to alienate.  But perhaps that is your intention?

[orthonorm]

And really, calling me cryptic here is really lazy.

Is there a better place to call you cryptic?

I bet even J Michael would understand the posts.

I struggled mightily for hour after hour, ruminating over each and every word of each post, dictionary and thesaurus at my side, and yet....and yet....well, maybe a little, anyway.  

On a slightly more serious note, LBK is totally on target by saying to you, "You're perfectly capable of expressing yourself in clear, standard English."  What is sad is that you don't do so far more often, for when you do what you write is frequently not only interesting but also can be quite illuminating.  Yes, you do a cryptic shtick.  It only serves to alienate.  But perhaps that is your intention?

Sorry J Michal, that post was not fodder for your past grievances, but to point out that nothing cryptic was said here to anyone remotely familiar with English or its use in wagering on an argument. LBK was just appealing to whatever the mass has decided it an appropriate way to dismiss me, just as Bob is a lazy short cut to dismiss the image she equated with his work.

Furthermore, am I never cryptic. Some people understand me, fine. And well, those who have eyes will read and those who do not will not.

If you want to make posts about my posts, feel free to start an entire thread on it. Others have.

[Shiny]

J Michael and LBK:

The "I need help deciphering orthonorm's post" thread.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44950.msg756893.html

You're welcome. Since you all complain so much about his posts, I still cannot comprehend that thread isn't near the Random Postings huge.

On topic, Robert Lenz is a weird dude...didn't he do one of Harvey Milk?

[hecma925]

Yeah, it's so gay.

[FatherGiryus]

Where's the Twinkie?

Yeah, it's so gay.

[Shanghaiski]

Poor Jesus. Sure wish he would kick the horse habit.



Why he needs to keep a skull nearby when he shoots up is another matter...

I saw this acted out as a skit by a youth group.  Twice.  Live.   

I'm sorry. I would ask why, but...

[Mor Ephrem]

I'm sorry. I would ask why, but...

No, that's really not necessary. 

[Agabus]