Why statues are not used in the EOC?

[LBK]

The best known counter-example is Isaakievsky Sobor in St Petersburg.

http://o-spb.ru/archives/69

It is more a traditional ban than a theological one.

One statue-filled church, built only about 300 years ago, does not prove anything.

[griego catolico]

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

I'd like to hear a Catholic response to this post.

There are indeed Orthodox churches and monasteries that use and venerate statues to the present day:

http://www.tervenichi.ru/terv_video/2012_08_28skit  (Video)

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2012_08_28skit

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/uspenskit2011

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009soborbm

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009pokrov (Blessing of outdoor statue)

[Shanghaiski]

Statues, like organs, altar girls, clean-shaven priests and bishops, cross-dressing monastics, and joint prayer services with Hindoos are very much the exception, not the rule. Doubtless, one can find anything in an Orthodox church, but that does not mean that such a thing belongs there or is a reflection of Orthodox tradition.

[Alveus Lacuna]

There are indeed Orthodox churches and monasteries that use and venerate statues to the present day:

http://www.tervenichi.ru/terv_video/2012_08_28skit  (Video)

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2012_08_28skit

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/uspenskit2011

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009soborbm

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009pokrov (Blessing of outdoor statue)

One church of thousands which shows obvious latinizations doesn't constitute any real Orthodox tradition.

[griego catolico]

There are indeed Orthodox churches and monasteries that use and venerate statues to the present day:

http://www.tervenichi.ru/terv_video/2012_08_28skit  (Video)

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2012_08_28skit

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/uspenskit2011

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009soborbm

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009pokrov (Blessing of outdoor statue)

One church of thousands which shows obvious latinizations doesn't constitute any real Orthodox tradition.

The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow shows obvious latinizations as well: outdoor statues, westernized iconography, depiction of God the Father as white-haired old man, etc.

[LBK]

There are indeed Orthodox churches and monasteries that use and venerate statues to the present day:

http://www.tervenichi.ru/terv_video/2012_08_28skit  (Video)

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2012_08_28skit

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/uspenskit2011

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009soborbm

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009pokrov (Blessing of outdoor statue)

One church of thousands which shows obvious latinizations doesn't constitute any real Orthodox tradition.

The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow shows obvious latinizations as well: outdoor statues, westernized iconography, depiction of God the Father as white-haired old man, etc.

Erroneous exceptions don't make a tradition, as others have correctly pointed out. God the Father images have been consistently and frequently denounced by the Church as wrong and doctrinally unsound, but human nature, stubborn as it is, continues to perpetuate them.

[ialmisry]

Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (Exodus 25:18-20) "

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.
Also the Bronze serpent Moses made, was also ordered by God. So it is another exception.

We can't make images or statues for religious purposes without a specific commandment from God.

Please show me in the New Testament, a specific commandment by God that we can make and use images/statues of Jesus and the Saints.

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father.  How can you ask 'show us the Father?'"

Btw, in the OT it specifically says not to make a graven image because the Hebrews never saw any form on Sinai.  That changed, even before the Apostles beheld Him on Tabor.

To say that we need a specific commandment from God to portray Him in the Flesh is to deny the Incarnation.  The NT indicates such denial comes not from Christ but the Antichrist.

[ialmisry]

kx9, is there anything in St John of Damascus' quotes I posted that you find problematic?

Yes, I find it problematic... explanation given below.

Some relevant quotes from St John of Damascus on why icons do not violate the Ten Commandments:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

Since the invisible God became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.

First of all, if John of Damascus had given this opinion based on what was written in the Bible, then it would be of consideration. But I feel that what he has said is just his opinion on something that is not written in the Bible.

Ah, and your "feelings" are the measure of all things, and not the mind of the Church?

It is best not to go beyond what is written.

The table of contents of the Bible wasn't written, so you "go beyond what is written" every time you appeal to Holy Scripture.

Therefore it is not wise to quote someone when they have given their opinion on something which the Bible doesn't say or is silent on the matter.

Show us where that is written in the Bible.

Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?

Because we glorify those whom God has glorified.

[Achronos]

Isa, what or whom is the Antichrist?

[theistgal]

Erroneous exceptions don't make a tradition, as others have correctly pointed out.

Maybe, but the problem is that every EO church I've ever visited has at least one of these "erroneous exceptions".

As has every EC church and every RC church, and btw I once saw a Free Will Baptist church with an icon of the Theotokos prominently displayed in their Nativity scene. (two erroneous exceptions for the price of one!).

Maybe the real answer is: there are no perfect churches this side of Heaven. But of course as Father Jack once said, "That would be an ecumenical matter!"

[Papist]

Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (Exodus 25:18-20) "

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.
Also the Bronze serpent Moses made, was also ordered by God. So it is another exception.

We can't make images or statues for religious purposes without a specific commandment from God.

Please show me in the New Testament, a specific commandment by God that we can make and use images/statues of Jesus and the Saints.

Why? You don't believe that the Old Testament was inspired by God?

[lovesupreme]

kx9, I would remind you that neither the Old nor New Testaments describe the doctrine of the Trinity, yet you (presumably) hold to it. Don't you think that other aspects of the Christian faith also weren't written down?

[88Devin12]

Statues outside the Church? No problem...
Statues inside the Church? Problem...

Statues aren't bad, or evil, or blasphemous. But they shouldn't be inside a Church. Unless they are used to hold a relic for veneration, are kept vague and are essentially holy mannequins. Like (as a silly example) if there's a holy wristwatch worn by a Saint, I'd see no problem putting it on a statue of a hand and wrist.

In the Byzantine Rite... No statues, no organs, no westernized icons.
In the Western Rite... No issue with statues or westernized religious paintings, as long as they aren't treated or venerated like icons.

Also, reliefs, entablatures and engravings aren't an issue in the Byzantine Rite.

[Surnaturel]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous. In the RCC they are visual aids to prayerful contemplation. When I see a 'statue' (more like a mannequin?) of the crucified Lord during the Eucharistic meal I think about how much The Lord loves me and what he endured in His love and sometimes, then, when I pray on my knees awaiting the Eucharist I picture the cross and resurrection before I approach the mystery. In all of this I never think that the crucifix is alive or intrinsically divine.

[LBK]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

[Surnaturel]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

I understand the reasoning of EO veneration, I was just providing a Catholic explanation since it was requested. I disagree that 3d = wordly and 2d = ethereal. Perhaps it's a difference in cultural perception.

[LBK]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

I understand the reasoning of EO veneration, I was just providing a Catholic explanation since it was requested. I disagree that 3d = wordly and 2d = ethereal. Perhaps it's a difference in cultural perception.

It has nothing to do with cultural perception. Linear perspective and three dimensions, as well as time as we know it, are specifically earthly, temporal parameters.

There is also a durable misconception, still found in art reference books, and among art historians, that the iconographers of the early Christian period “couldn’t draw or paint”, that this was a primitive or naïve art form. It must be remembered that they were the descendants of the people who gave the world the physical perfection of Classical sculpture and murals (such as the sculptures of Praxiteles and Pheidias, or the Greek and Roman frescoes), and where the development of geometry allowed the refinement of linear perspective in depicting three dimensions on a flat surface.

Therefore, a flat, abstracted, non-realistic form of painting, and the non-anatomical rendering of bodily proportions and features (elongation, disproportionate relative sizes of facial features, minimal modeling) was specifically and deliberately adopted as the standard for iconography, as it represents and depicts what is heavenly, spiritually-transformed, and not of this world.

[Surnaturel]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

I understand the reasoning of EO veneration, I was just providing a Catholic explanation since it was requested. I disagree that 3d = wordly and 2d = ethereal. Perhaps it's a difference in cultural perception.

It has nothing to do with cultural perception. Linear perspective and three dimensions, as well as time as we know it, are specifically earthly, temporal parameters.

There is also a durable misconception, still found in art reference books, and among art historians, that the iconographers of the early Christian period “couldn’t draw or paint”, that this was a primitive or naïve art form. It must be remembered that they were the descendants of the people who gave the world the physical perfection of Classical sculpture and murals (such as the sculptures of Praxiteles and Pheidias, or the Greek and Roman frescoes), and where the development of geometry allowed the refinement of linear perspective in depicting three dimensions on a flat surface.

Therefore, a flat, abstracted, non-realistic form of painting, and the non-anatomical rendering of bodily proportions and features (elongation, disproportionate relative sizes of facial features, minimal modeling) was specifically and deliberately adopted as the standard for iconography, as it represents and depicts what is heavenly, spiritually-transformed, and not of this world.

I disagree. That seems to be your perception of what 2D vs. 3D images signify. Transcendence can be ascertained in a 3D image as well and it would be silly to argue otherwise. You may believe that it is more fitting to use images rather than statues and that is your right but I simply disagree.

[Nephi]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

This reminded me of posts I found once that included pictures of Russian (folk) statues. Namely here and here. Except possibly the Christ Imprisoned statue, the other ones seem to capture the feel of an icon much more than Western statuary.

What are your thoughts on these?

[LBK]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

I understand the reasoning of EO veneration, I was just providing a Catholic explanation since it was requested. I disagree that 3d = wordly and 2d = ethereal. Perhaps it's a difference in cultural perception.

It has nothing to do with cultural perception. Linear perspective and three dimensions, as well as time as we know it, are specifically earthly, temporal parameters.

There is also a durable misconception, still found in art reference books, and among art historians, that the iconographers of the early Christian period “couldn’t draw or paint”, that this was a primitive or naïve art form. It must be remembered that they were the descendants of the people who gave the world the physical perfection of Classical sculpture and murals (such as the sculptures of Praxiteles and Pheidias, or the Greek and Roman frescoes), and where the development of geometry allowed the refinement of linear perspective in depicting three dimensions on a flat surface.

Therefore, a flat, abstracted, non-realistic form of painting, and the non-anatomical rendering of bodily proportions and features (elongation, disproportionate relative sizes of facial features, minimal modeling) was specifically and deliberately adopted as the standard for iconography, as it represents and depicts what is heavenly, spiritually-transformed, and not of this world.

I disagree. That seems to be your perception of what 2D vs. 3D images signify. Transcendence can be ascertained in a 3D image as well and it would be silly to argue otherwise. You may believe that it is more fitting to use images rather than statues and that is your right but I simply disagree.

Surnaturel, you probably don't know that I have studied, taught about, and written about iconography for many years. Icons are not simply religious art painted in an abstracted style. They express what Orthodoxy teaches and proclaims, and they serve liturgical functions which are simply absent from non-Orthodox traditions. "Theology in color" is an often-used phrase to describe them. Icons are the visual counterpart to hymnography. Just as Orthodox liturgical hymns and prayers express what we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi), so do icons.

Furthermore, an iconographer is not an artist allowed free rein on his creativity or expression, be it self-expression or the expression of the patron who has commissioned the icon. He is an instrument of the Church, and, like a hymnographer, must use his talents to properly express what the Church believes and espouses.

[Surnaturel]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

This reminded me of posts I found once that included pictures of Russian (folk) statues. Namely here and here. Except possibly the Christ Imprisoned statue, the other ones seem to capture the feel of an icon much more than Western statuary.

What are your thoughts on these?

I am not opposed to them in that I don't think they are intrinsically evil or sinful, but I prefer Orthodox artistry in images, I don't think it translates well into that form. With statues I prefer the simplicity of say Mother Mary or Mother Teresa which, for me, is subtle and gentle enough to draw my mind to God in a fitting way (no color).

Sorry I would show an example but I am new here and have not figured out how to post pics

[Surnaturel]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

I understand the reasoning of EO veneration, I was just providing a Catholic explanation since it was requested. I disagree that 3d = wordly and 2d = ethereal. Perhaps it's a difference in cultural perception.

It has nothing to do with cultural perception. Linear perspective and three dimensions, as well as time as we know it, are specifically earthly, temporal parameters.

There is also a durable misconception, still found in art reference books, and among art historians, that the iconographers of the early Christian period “couldn’t draw or paint”, that this was a primitive or naïve art form. It must be remembered that they were the descendants of the people who gave the world the physical perfection of Classical sculpture and murals (such as the sculptures of Praxiteles and Pheidias, or the Greek and Roman frescoes), and where the development of geometry allowed the refinement of linear perspective in depicting three dimensions on a flat surface.

Therefore, a flat, abstracted, non-realistic form of painting, and the non-anatomical rendering of bodily proportions and features (elongation, disproportionate relative sizes of facial features, minimal modeling) was specifically and deliberately adopted as the standard for iconography, as it represents and depicts what is heavenly, spiritually-transformed, and not of this world.

I disagree. That seems to be your perception of what 2D vs. 3D images signify. Transcendence can be ascertained in a 3D image as well and it would be silly to argue otherwise. You may believe that it is more fitting to use images rather than statues and that is your right but I simply disagree.

Surnaturel, you probably don't know that I have studied, taught about, and written about iconography for many years. Icons are not simply religious art painted in an abstracted style. They express what Orthodoxy teaches and proclaims, and they serve liturgical functions which are simply absent from non-Orthodox traditions. "Theology in color" is an often-used phrase to describe them. Icons are the visual counterpart to hymnography. Just as Orthodox liturgical hymns and prayers express what we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi), so do icons.

Furthermore, an iconographer is not an artist allowed free rein on his creativity or expression, be it self-expression or the expression of the patron who has commissioned the icon. He is an instrument of the Church, and, like a hymnographer, must use his talents to properly express what the Church believes and espouses.

I think that 'theology in color' is an excellent way to describe Eastern iconography. I find it beautiful to be sure. All that I am saying is that statues are not idolatrous in and of themselves in a prayerful context.

[LBK]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

I understand the reasoning of EO veneration, I was just providing a Catholic explanation since it was requested. I disagree that 3d = wordly and 2d = ethereal. Perhaps it's a difference in cultural perception.

It has nothing to do with cultural perception. Linear perspective and three dimensions, as well as time as we know it, are specifically earthly, temporal parameters.

There is also a durable misconception, still found in art reference books, and among art historians, that the iconographers of the early Christian period “couldn’t draw or paint”, that this was a primitive or naïve art form. It must be remembered that they were the descendants of the people who gave the world the physical perfection of Classical sculpture and murals (such as the sculptures of Praxiteles and Pheidias, or the Greek and Roman frescoes), and where the development of geometry allowed the refinement of linear perspective in depicting three dimensions on a flat surface.

Therefore, a flat, abstracted, non-realistic form of painting, and the non-anatomical rendering of bodily proportions and features (elongation, disproportionate relative sizes of facial features, minimal modeling) was specifically and deliberately adopted as the standard for iconography, as it represents and depicts what is heavenly, spiritually-transformed, and not of this world.

I disagree. That seems to be your perception of what 2D vs. 3D images signify. Transcendence can be ascertained in a 3D image as well and it would be silly to argue otherwise. You may believe that it is more fitting to use images rather than statues and that is your right but I simply disagree.

Surnaturel, you probably don't know that I have studied, taught about, and written about iconography for many years. Icons are not simply religious art painted in an abstracted style. They express what Orthodoxy teaches and proclaims, and they serve liturgical functions which are simply absent from non-Orthodox traditions. "Theology in color" is an often-used phrase to describe them. Icons are the visual counterpart to hymnography. Just as Orthodox liturgical hymns and prayers express what we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi), so do icons.

Furthermore, an iconographer is not an artist allowed free rein on his creativity or expression, be it self-expression or the expression of the patron who has commissioned the icon. He is an instrument of the Church, and, like a hymnographer, must use his talents to properly express what the Church believes and espouses.

I think that 'theology in color' is an excellent way to describe Eastern iconography. I find it beautiful to be sure. All that I am saying is that statues are not idolatrous in and of themselves in a prayerful context.

Yet three-dimensional statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration. This is no accident. And "beauty" does not, in itself, make an icon holy . A look at the "Strange icons" and "Schlock icons" threads will show you that many images which are "beautiful" and painted in an abstracted style associated with iconography are not icons at all.

[Surnaturel]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

I understand the reasoning of EO veneration, I was just providing a Catholic explanation since it was requested. I disagree that 3d = wordly and 2d = ethereal. Perhaps it's a difference in cultural perception.

It has nothing to do with cultural perception. Linear perspective and three dimensions, as well as time as we know it, are specifically earthly, temporal parameters.

There is also a durable misconception, still found in art reference books, and among art historians, that the iconographers of the early Christian period “couldn’t draw or paint”, that this was a primitive or naïve art form. It must be remembered that they were the descendants of the people who gave the world the physical perfection of Classical sculpture and murals (such as the sculptures of Praxiteles and Pheidias, or the Greek and Roman frescoes), and where the development of geometry allowed the refinement of linear perspective in depicting three dimensions on a flat surface.

Therefore, a flat, abstracted, non-realistic form of painting, and the non-anatomical rendering of bodily proportions and features (elongation, disproportionate relative sizes of facial features, minimal modeling) was specifically and deliberately adopted as the standard for iconography, as it represents and depicts what is heavenly, spiritually-transformed, and not of this world.

I disagree. That seems to be your perception of what 2D vs. 3D images signify. Transcendence can be ascertained in a 3D image as well and it would be silly to argue otherwise. You may believe that it is more fitting to use images rather than statues and that is your right but I simply disagree.

Surnaturel, you probably don't know that I have studied, taught about, and written about iconography for many years. Icons are not simply religious art painted in an abstracted style. They express what Orthodoxy teaches and proclaims, and they serve liturgical functions which are simply absent from non-Orthodox traditions. "Theology in color" is an often-used phrase to describe them. Icons are the visual counterpart to hymnography. Just as Orthodox liturgical hymns and prayers express what we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi), so do icons.

Furthermore, an iconographer is not an artist allowed free rein on his creativity or expression, be it self-expression or the expression of the patron who has commissioned the icon. He is an instrument of the Church, and, like a hymnographer, must use his talents to properly express what the Church believes and espouses.

I think that 'theology in color' is an excellent way to describe Eastern iconography. I find it beautiful to be sure. All that I am saying is that statues are not idolatrous in and of themselves in a prayerful context.

Yet three-dimensional statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration. This is no accident. And "beauty" does not, in itself, make an icon holy . A look at the "Strange icons" and "Schlock icons" threads will show you that many images which are "beautiful" and painted in an abstracted style associated with iconography are not icons at all.

Right. But again, I am not arguing for or against icons ITT. I have no problem with them. Rather I am defending the RC use of statues while not claiming that other churches should adopt the ancient Latin tradition since you have your own ancient form of veneration.

[LBK]

Idolatry would be worshiping a statue or image as though that image was actually God or pagan gods. This was the perennial sin of Israel which constantly struggled with polytheism. In short, there is a supreme distinction between the icon and the idol and I feel like they are being collapsed into one when in reality they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with using a statue or an image for deeper contemplation of the divine mysteries, but if a person used either as though they were actually gods then either could be idolatrous.

Three-dimensional images speak of earthbound, worldly, temporal reality. The flatness of icons and bas-reliefs speaks of heavenly, other-worldly, spiritual reality. This, in a nutshell, is why statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration.

I understand the reasoning of EO veneration, I was just providing a Catholic explanation since it was requested. I disagree that 3d = wordly and 2d = ethereal. Perhaps it's a difference in cultural perception.

It has nothing to do with cultural perception. Linear perspective and three dimensions, as well as time as we know it, are specifically earthly, temporal parameters.

There is also a durable misconception, still found in art reference books, and among art historians, that the iconographers of the early Christian period “couldn’t draw or paint”, that this was a primitive or naïve art form. It must be remembered that they were the descendants of the people who gave the world the physical perfection of Classical sculpture and murals (such as the sculptures of Praxiteles and Pheidias, or the Greek and Roman frescoes), and where the development of geometry allowed the refinement of linear perspective in depicting three dimensions on a flat surface.

Therefore, a flat, abstracted, non-realistic form of painting, and the non-anatomical rendering of bodily proportions and features (elongation, disproportionate relative sizes of facial features, minimal modeling) was specifically and deliberately adopted as the standard for iconography, as it represents and depicts what is heavenly, spiritually-transformed, and not of this world.

I disagree. That seems to be your perception of what 2D vs. 3D images signify. Transcendence can be ascertained in a 3D image as well and it would be silly to argue otherwise. You may believe that it is more fitting to use images rather than statues and that is your right but I simply disagree.

Surnaturel, you probably don't know that I have studied, taught about, and written about iconography for many years. Icons are not simply religious art painted in an abstracted style. They express what Orthodoxy teaches and proclaims, and they serve liturgical functions which are simply absent from non-Orthodox traditions. "Theology in color" is an often-used phrase to describe them. Icons are the visual counterpart to hymnography. Just as Orthodox liturgical hymns and prayers express what we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi), so do icons.

Furthermore, an iconographer is not an artist allowed free rein on his creativity or expression, be it self-expression or the expression of the patron who has commissioned the icon. He is an instrument of the Church, and, like a hymnographer, must use his talents to properly express what the Church believes and espouses.

I think that 'theology in color' is an excellent way to describe Eastern iconography. I find it beautiful to be sure. All that I am saying is that statues are not idolatrous in and of themselves in a prayerful context.

Yet three-dimensional statues have never been part of Orthodox veneration. This is no accident. And "beauty" does not, in itself, make an icon holy . A look at the "Strange icons" and "Schlock icons" threads will show you that many images which are "beautiful" and painted in an abstracted style associated with iconography are not icons at all.

Right. But again, I am not arguing for or against icons ITT. I have no problem with them. Rather I am defending the RC use of statues while not claiming that other churches should adopt the ancient Latin tradition since you have your own ancient form of veneration.

You are still missing the point, Surnaturel, as do so many non-Orthodox, particularly Roman Catholics and even some Byzantine Catholics, I have had the same discussion with. The purpose of icons, which were, after all, the sole proper "art form" considered suitable for veneration (I include icons on other items such as Gospel books, etc, which, in themselves, are worthy of veneration), and in existence from the beginning of the Christian era when the Church was undivided, is quite different from the post-schism use of statues by the non-Orthodox.

Even icons painted in a naturalistic style, with linear perspective, shadows cast by the figures and features in the composition, and modeling which reproduces volume, are, strictly speaking, deficient as objects of veneration. These speak of time, place and space as seen through earthly eyes and parameters. Yet, in heaven, there is no time as we know it; there is no night and day, but the Light that never sets, the eternal Day that never ends, where all that is earthly, mortal and corruptible has been transfigured, transformed and perfected. It is these things, and more, which the icon seeks to portray and express, something which a 3D statue is manifestly incapable of doing.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Why statues are not used in the EOC?