Schlock Icons

[biro]

I just asked because I've never heard it used in an Orthodox setting so it struck me as odd.

You've never been to a Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? Or Orthros in an Eastern Orthodox church? The phrase "Calling to mind our most blessed and glorious Lady the Theotokos..." occurs about a million times.

I've been to a Coptic church a few times, but other than that, it's been all Indian Orthodox for me.

I'm just kind of tired of the "Those darned Latins!" business getting thrown around all the time. Or, "Orthodox can say it but other people can't." "Our Lady" is a perfectly legitimate term.

[sheenj]

I just asked because I've never heard it used in an Orthodox setting so it struck me as odd.

You've never been to a Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? Or Orthros in an Eastern Orthodox church? The phrase "Calling to mind our most blessed and glorious Lady the Theotokos..." occurs about a million times.

I've been to a Coptic church a few times, but other than that, it's been all Indian Orthodox for me.

I'm just kind of tired of the "Those darned Latins!" business getting thrown around all the time. Or, "Orthodox can say it but other people can't." "Our Lady" is a perfectly legitimate term.

Yeah, that's not what I was suggesting at all. Like I said, I've never heard it used in an Orthodox context, so I asked  if it was OK for Orthodox to use it. Turns out it is, so end of story.

[LBK]

I don't think that icon is schlock, maybe some of the elements within it could be excluded, but  overall it seems fine.

Someone already posted one for DC, and I've seen one for Athens/Piraeus. Fr. Josiah Trenham has one in his Church for Riverside, CA.

It isn't a new thing.

There is quite a difference in composition between proper icons of the Mother of God as protector and patroness of certain regions, islands or cities, and the Skliris-inspired image.

1. Proper icons of this type are uniform in their artistic style, maintaining the non-realistic, abstracted rendering of landscape and human figures alike. The image above does not. The heavenly and otherworldly collides with photographic realism. There is no harmony or order in what is portrayed.

2. Proper icons of this type would show saints of the region, island or city, churches and other holy places associated with the place, and, at the most, one or two secular landmarks (though this is rarely necessary, if the other compositional elements readily identify the place). The image posted above is littered with all sorts of superfluous and cutesy detail, like the basketballer's arm (with the letters NBA in the Cyrillic alphabet painted on the ball he is holding - WHY??), the musicians on the motorway, and the fairground.

This painting is little more than a feel-good exercise, a "Visit Sunny Los Angeles!" pop poster, not a holy icon which evokes prayer and compunction and draws us closer to the presence of God.

And I'll repeat my earlier observation: There are no stars of Ever-virginity on the garments of the Mother of God. Completely unacceptable.

[Nephi]

All this glittering has to be schlock.

[Eastern Mind]

All this glittering has to be schlock.

It looks like a myspace glitter graphic

[Nephi]

It looks like a myspace glitter graphic

Pretty sure it is, but it was being shared on Orthodox tumblr pages and had to post it here.

[Eastern Mind]

It looks like a myspace glitter graphic

Pretty sure it is, but it was being shared on Orthodox tumblr pages and had to post it here.

LBK ain't gonna like this...

[Michał Kalina]

Icon usually placed at the church I attend secondly most often has some brocade / false diamond ornaments and the general impression is exactly the one as the one from this gif.

[LBK]

It looks like a myspace glitter graphic

Pretty sure it is, but it was being shared on Orthodox tumblr pages and had to post it here.

LBK ain't gonna like this...

Stating the obvious, aren't you? 

That's the digital version of stuck-on glitter in haloes and puff paint highlights. Yup, there seems to be no limit to tackifying perfectly good icons. 

[Antonis]

I have seen some monasteries do a very good job of applying such ornaments, even "tacky" glitter glue. I have several such icons and they are really well done and beautiful.

[LBK]

I have seen some monasteries do a very good job of applying such ornaments, even "tacky" glitter glue. I have several such icons and they are really well done and beautiful.

It is disrespectful to the work of the iconographer. The spiritual beauty of an icon, even a mounted paper print, needs no such frivolous and cheap "adornments".

[88Devin12]

I have seen some monasteries do a very good job of applying such ornaments, even "tacky" glitter glue. I have several such icons and they are really well done and beautiful.

I've also seen glitter around an icon, silver and in the areas often covered by the pressed metal covers. However, this icon with the glitter background was hidden back in a closet in the altar area, maybe there was a reason...

[LBK]

I have seen some monasteries do a very good job of applying such ornaments, even "tacky" glitter glue. I have several such icons and they are really well done and beautiful.

I've also seen glitter around an icon, silver and in the areas often covered by the pressed metal covers. However, this icon with the glitter background was hidden back in a closet in the altar area, maybe there was a reason...

It was probably donated to the church by a well-meaning parishioner, but the priest wisely dispatched it to a cranny. Church cupboards are repositories of this sort of thing, as well as sources of damaged oil lamps and censers, old drapes and holey stikharia, and cracked lamp glass. Few things ever get thrown out. 

Occasionally, such items can be restored to something more acceptable. Old RC wall crucifixes and processional crosses painted with western-type Crucifixion scenes can often be rehabilitated. I was once called upon to convert a wall crucifix about two feet tall which had been languishing in a church cupboard into an Orthodox processional cross, and I'm currently in the process of stripping a painted processional cross of its rather lurid imagery, to then stain and lacquer it, and attach an iconographic Christ mounted on thin board to it.

[88Devin12]

I have seen some monasteries do a very good job of applying such ornaments, even "tacky" glitter glue. I have several such icons and they are really well done and beautiful.

I've also seen glitter around an icon, silver and in the areas often covered by the pressed metal covers. However, this icon with the glitter background was hidden back in a closet in the altar area, maybe there was a reason...

It was probably donated to the church by a well-meaning parishioner, but the priest wisely dispatched it to a cranny. Church cupboards are repositories of this sort of thing, as well as sources of damaged oil lamps and censers, old drapes and holey stikharia, and cracked lamp glass. Few things ever get thrown out. 

Occasionally, such items can be restored to something more acceptable. Old RC wall crucifixes and processional crosses painted with western-type Crucifixion scenes can often be rehabilitated. I was once called upon to convert a wall crucifix about two feet tall which had been languishing in a church cupboard into an Orthodox processional cross, and I'm currently in the process of stripping a painted processional cross of its rather lurid imagery, to then stain and lacquer it, and attach an iconographic Christ mounted on thin board to it.

There were a few other icons with this one but they either had broken glass or broken frames and were of Orthodox Saints and canonically painted (though some of a western style, but our whole iconostasis is that way). I've thought about buying new frames and maybe drilling some more screws into the brick so they can hang in the sanctuary. I'll leave the glitter one there though, but maybe mount it in the closet instead of just laying there...

[LBK]

There were a few other icons with this one but they either had broken glass or broken frames and were of Orthodox Saints and canonically painted (though some of a western style, but our whole iconostasis is that way). I've thought about buying new frames and maybe drilling some more screws into the brick so they can hang in the sanctuary. I'll leave the glitter one there though, but maybe mount it in the closet instead of just laying there...

Check with your priest first. 

As for frames, you might need to get them custom framed, as many old icons aren't a modern standard size. If any icons are painted, not mounted prints, make sure there is a space between the glass and the surface of the icon. The best way to do this is to have a proper kiot made, or a double frame: the inner frame (traditionally in a gold or silver finish), then the glass, then the outer frame (a suitable timber molding in a mid-to-dark tone, not plastic or metallic). This mimics the effect of a kiot.

[88Devin12]

There were a few other icons with this one but they either had broken glass or broken frames and were of Orthodox Saints and canonically painted (though some of a western style, but our whole iconostasis is that way). I've thought about buying new frames and maybe drilling some more screws into the brick so they can hang in the sanctuary. I'll leave the glitter one there though, but maybe mount it in the closet instead of just laying there...

Check with your priest first. 

As for frames, you might need to get them custom framed, as many old icons aren't a modern standard size. If any icons are painted, not mounted prints, make sure there is a space between the glass and the surface of the icon. The best way to do this is to have a proper kiot made, or a double frame: the inner frame (traditionally in a gold or silver finish), then the glass, then the outer frame (a suitable timber molding in a mid-to-dark tone, not plastic or metallic). This mimics the effect of a kiot.

The Priest that put them there is gone and we have no permanent attached Priest.

[LBK]

There were a few other icons with this one but they either had broken glass or broken frames and were of Orthodox Saints and canonically painted (though some of a western style, but our whole iconostasis is that way). I've thought about buying new frames and maybe drilling some more screws into the brick so they can hang in the sanctuary. I'll leave the glitter one there though, but maybe mount it in the closet instead of just laying there...

Check with your priest first. 

As for frames, you might need to get them custom framed, as many old icons aren't a modern standard size. If any icons are painted, not mounted prints, make sure there is a space between the glass and the surface of the icon. The best way to do this is to have a proper kiot made, or a double frame: the inner frame (traditionally in a gold or silver finish), then the glass, then the outer frame (a suitable timber molding in a mid-to-dark tone, not plastic or metallic). This mimics the effect of a kiot.

The Priest that put them there is gone and we have no permanent attached Priest.

You'll still need a priest's permission to do such things, especially anything done in the sanctuary. Not doing so is asking for trouble - I speak from very long experience.

You might simply have to wait until a permanent replacement for your former priest is appointed. 

[88Devin12]

Edit: sent a reply by a PM since its detracting from the thread discussion.

[FatherGiryus]

Thought it was one of those 'Twilight' vampire references...

All this glittering has to be schlock.

[LBK]

Thought it was one of those 'Twilight' vampire references...

 

[Shanghaiski]

It looks like a myspace glitter graphic

Pretty sure it is, but it was being shared on Orthodox tumblr pages and had to post it here.

LBK ain't gonna like this...

Stating the obvious, aren't you? 

That's the digital version of stuck-on glitter in haloes and puff paint highlights. Yup, there seems to be no limit to tackifying perfectly good icons. 

I'm waiting for cyber myrrh to flow from it.

[dcommini]

It looks like a myspace glitter graphic

What is that? 

[LBK]

It looks like a myspace glitter graphic

Pretty sure it is, but it was being shared on Orthodox tumblr pages and had to post it here.

LBK ain't gonna like this...

Stating the obvious, aren't you? 

That's the digital version of stuck-on glitter in haloes and puff paint highlights. Yup, there seems to be no limit to tackifying perfectly good icons. 

I'm waiting for cyber myrrh to flow from it.

Brilliant! 

[Antonis]

I have seen some monasteries do a very good job of applying such ornaments, even "tacky" glitter glue. I have several such icons and they are really well done and beautiful.

It is disrespectful to the work of the iconographer. The spiritual beauty of an icon, even a mounted paper print, needs no such frivolous and cheap "adornments".

[William]

LBK, what about rizas and the like?

[Antonis]

It's all blasphemy. All of it.

[William]

It's all blasphemy. All of it.

Can you stop? I'm not on the whiney bandwagon that hates the fact that LBK has iconographic standards, I was asking a question. Thanks.

[Nephi]

It's all blasphemy. All of it.

Can you stop? I'm not on the whiney bandwagon that hates the fact that LBK has iconographic standards, I was asking a question. Thanks.

I was actually about to ask what she thought of them as well, and likewise as a genuine question.

[Shanghaiski]

Well, to be fair, it is the Church that has iconographic standards. LBK is just articulating them.

Now, there are icons in churches which don't meet the standards, just as there are priests who do not meet the canonical requirements for ordination, and some of those icons and priests work miracles. But they are exceptions. And we do not make rules from exceptions.

[OrthoMEX]

you have to copy and paste the whole link just clicking the blue part will just take you to my wall            
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=2596092317033&set=a.1187085892753.22403.1696472180&type=1&theater

[LBK]

LBK, what about rizas and the like?

It's all blasphemy. All of it.

Can you stop? I'm not on the whiney bandwagon that hates the fact that LBK has iconographic standards, I was asking a question. Thanks.

I was actually about to ask what she thought of them as well, and likewise as a genuine question.

Strictly speaking, a riza is an unnecessary embellishment which obscures the content of an icon. The beauty of lilies is not improved by gilding them. A riza which only covers a plain background is tolerable.

However, a great number of icons, past and present, consist of a riza through which the hands and faces of the figures are visible, but, underneath, that's all there is. This is simply deception. It would be better to have a humble paper icon print mounted and framed, with no riza or oklad at all, than one of these fakes, even if the face and hands are skilfully painted.

[88Devin12]

Well, to be fair, it is the Church that has iconographic standards. LBK is just articulating them.

Now, there are icons in churches which don't meet the standards, just as there are priests who do not meet the canonical requirements for ordination, and some of those icons and priests work miracles. But they are exceptions. And we do not make rules from exceptions.

I think LBK is expressing a more fanatical view of the standards our church has. It's like some who take monasticism and the Orthodox tradition of monasticism and then magnify that x100 and create an odd, more extreme view.

[LBK]

Well, to be fair, it is the Church that has iconographic standards. LBK is just articulating them.

Now, there are icons in churches which don't meet the standards, just as there are priests who do not meet the canonical requirements for ordination, and some of those icons and priests work miracles. But they are exceptions. And we do not make rules from exceptions.

I think LBK is expressing a more fanatical view of the standards our church has. It's like some who take monasticism and the Orthodox tradition of monasticism and then magnify that x100 and create an odd, more extreme view.

Devin, the hole you're digging for yourself is only getting deeper. Stop digging, if you know what's good for you.   

[88Devin12]

Well, to be fair, it is the Church that has iconographic standards. LBK is just articulating them.

Now, there are icons in churches which don't meet the standards, just as there are priests who do not meet the canonical requirements for ordination, and some of those icons and priests work miracles. But they are exceptions. And we do not make rules from exceptions.

I think LBK is expressing a more fanatical view of the standards our church has. It's like some who take monasticism and the Orthodox tradition of monasticism and then magnify that x100 and create an odd, more extreme view.

Devin, the hole you're digging for yourself is only getting deeper. Stop digging, if you know what's good for you.  

I'm in no hole. It's as ridiculous as someone who insists on crossing themselves exactly right every time or bowing at the waist every time before asking a blessing.

It's legalism and pharisaism, ridgidity for the sake of ridgidity.

I've accepted the people with these views are simply Orthodoxys version of Obsessive Compulsive. Or people who are suffering from the shock of their past traditions, like former Anglicans who are deathly afraid of any discussion about women's priesthood.

Or those who insist every parish has to always face East, or that the Liturgy of St James cannot and shouldn't ever be celebrated because the Priest faces West.

[Antonis]

It's legalism and pharisaism, ridgidity for the sake of ridgidity.

+1

When one is condemning humble, Athonite-style monks as being disrespectful with their "frivolous and cheap 'adornments'" that is a sure sign of going over the edge:

It is disrespectful to the work of the iconographer. The spiritual beauty of an icon, even a mounted paper print, needs no such frivolous and cheap "adornments".

I find their love and dedication to glorifying a saint with painstaking, careful work to be humbling.

My icon of Saint John Chrysostom, "frivolously and cheap[ly]" adorned:

[LBK]

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.” (King John: Act iv Scene 2.)

Shakespeare knew what he was talking about. 

[88Devin12]

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.” (King John: Act iv Scene 2.)

Shakespeare knew what he was talking about. 

Hyperdox Herman: Argues we shouldn't use icons painted by non-Orthodox, quotes non-Orthodox to support his stance on icons.

[LBK]

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.” (King John: Act iv Scene 2.)

Shakespeare knew what he was talking about. 

Hyperdox Herman: Argues we shouldn't use icons painted by non-Orthodox, quotes non-Orthodox to support his stance on icons.

Clutching at straws, aren't we? 

[88Devin12]

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.” (King John: Act iv Scene 2.)

Shakespeare knew what he was talking about. 

Hyperdox Herman: Argues we shouldn't use icons painted by non-Orthodox, quotes non-Orthodox to support his stance on icons.

Clutching at straws, aren't we? 

Nope, just sensing the profound irony.

[88Devin12]

It's legalism and pharisaism, ridgidity for the sake of ridgidity.

+1

When one is condemning humble, Athonite-style monks as being disrespectful with their "frivolous and cheap 'adornments'" that is a sure sign of going over the edge:

It is disrespectful to the work of the iconographer. The spiritual beauty of an icon, even a mounted paper print, needs no such frivolous and cheap "adornments".

I find their love and dedication to glorifying a saint with painstaking, careful work to be humbling.

My icon of Saint John Chrysostom, "frivolously and cheap[ly]" adorned:

Here is my icon of Christ I bought in Greece, one of my favorites that I own, that is "frivolously and cheap[ly]" adorned.

It's definitely NOT "schlock":

[William]

I guess people are really attached to their dumb glitter.

[Shanghaiski]

There are rules, and there are exceptions. To make rules out of exceptions is madness.

Here's an illustration.

In Orthodoxy, you can have a former male prostitute who killed 10 people become a priest and even work miracles. He can even process with a myrrh-streaming glitter-bedecked icon through the streets and people will prostrate themselves to get a blessing.

In Idiocy, it is decided that the priesthood is a great vocation for all former male proestitutes and murderers and that glitter is good everywhere because it symbolizes the uncreated light. But eventually people stop prostrating themselves for blessings and there are no miracles.

[88Devin12]

There are rules, and there are exceptions. To make rules out of exceptions is madness.

Here's an illustration.

In Orthodoxy, you can have a former male prostitute who killed 10 people become a priest and even work miracles. He can even process with a myrrh-streaming glitter-bedecked icon through the streets and people will prostrate themselves to get a blessing.

In Idiocy, it is decided that the priesthood is a great vocation for all former male proestitutes and murderers and that glitter is good everywhere because it symbolizes the uncreated light. But eventually people stop prostrating themselves for blessings and there are no miracles.

Yet you and LBK have not illustrated how riza and precious stones on icons are an "exception" rather than the rule.

All that has been illustrated is LBK's ideas are closer to a little old babushka's piety and simple faith than to a deeper, more theological, more intellectual and more learned/informed piety and faith. The former isn't worse than the latter unless the former starts demanding that their faith is the norm, when it isn't and hasn't ever been.

I'm currently reading the Brother's Karamazov, and yes, it is fiction, but based heavily on Russian life at the time. I've seen a lot of this sort of "piety" being illustrated in the book, where the people refuse to question the Genesis story as being literal, or who think only in literal terms about the "faith of a mustard seed" passage. Such is a simple faith, usually by those who are earnest, good Orthodox Christians.

But, at the same time, faith and one's knowledge of the faith, and knowledge of iconography and hymnography should go deeper (if it can). Some have to stay on that basic level (otherwise, if seriously challenged, they lose their faith entirely), and that is fine. But they shouldn't demand that everyone remain on that basic, simple level.

It's like how we tell new converts about the unchanging Liturgy, how it is the liturgy of the ancient church and unchanged. Yet we know that it has in fact, changed, significantly. St. John Chrystostom would not be comfortable serving it today, though he'd find many aspects familiar (of course, especially his and St. Basil's prayers). Even more-so, St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr wouldn't feel very familiar in our Liturgy today because of how different it is. It isn't like it evolved from the First Century to the Fourth and then stopped evolving. It continued to change and evolve. Same thing for our iconography. Someone from the First or Second Century may look at our iconography and won't recognize many of the elements within them, but could probably still see the influence that Jewish iconography and Early Christian iconography has had and that there is clearly a line connecting the two.

[LBK]

All that has been illustrated is LBK's ideas are closer to a little old babushka's piety and simple faith than to a deeper, more theological, more intellectual and more learned/informed piety and faith. The former isn't worse than the latter unless the former starts demanding that their faith is the norm, when it isn't and hasn't ever been.

See this post, Devin:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19963.msg867368.html#msg867368

[Michał Kalina]

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Schlock Icons