Arguments on iconography
++
Towards Understanding Orthodox
Iconography
By Archimandrite Kyprian
Pyzhov
April 5, 2003 (Russky Pastyr) -- One often hears discussions and even
arguments over how to properly paint icons: in the "old" or "new" style.
When icons of the "old style" are discussed, these are usually thought
of as the ancient primitive types, darkened from age, archeologically
interesting, and often feigned copies from them made by home-grown
artist-dilettantes. The "new style" is described as icons without any
style, in bright, pastel tones. Such superficial, ordinary way of
painting icons limits the understanding of many who make judgments on
one style or the other. Such arguments often arise among parishioners
and clergymen, when a parish church is to be adorned with icons. Some
recognize only the "Vasnetsoff style!"
Squabbles over "styles" often heighten to the point of conflict and the
ruination of friendships, for the reason that generally, the recognition
of true art from amateur attempts of printed icons, whether in the old
or new style, which often do not correspond to the original works of
art, sometimes copies of originals or of amateur works. The absence of
original icons and of professional icon-painters possessing the
techniques of one type of icon painting school or another, can be
considered
the main reason of the observed decline. Torn away from its native
culture, most compatriots lost the ability to discern an original from a
fake, the true from the false; this sickness, touching upon the various
facets of life of the Russian emigration, is apparently reflected in the
attitude towards ecclesiastical art, simplifying the ability to
understand it to the point where the Catholic publications of paper
copies in the pseudo-ancient and pseudo-new styles are accepted by
Orthodox ?migr?s as genuine icons. Of course, if blessed by the proper
Church rite, these paper icons replace real icons; but one cannot accept
this and move on without desiring to
replace it with a hand-painted icon created by the hand of a master?But,
one hears, where does one find such a master?...That is a valid
question; still, the hope remains, and God will help find one, if the
desire is earnest and true. If not, the habit of accepting imitations
will take root, and it may atrophy the very desire to pray before icons.
The ancient art of icon-painting, blessed by the Church, may be lost,
and along with it, the ignorance of the dogma of the veneration of icons
confirmed at the VII Ecumenical Council will be firmly established.
Fortunately, there remains that desire among many Russians to see real
icons in their churches and homes; there is no dearth of those who wish
to practice icon-painting; but without the technical training, not
knowing the "A-B-C's," it is impossible. Ignorance of the laws of
painting, lack of training and knowledge of its forms and techniques
preclude one from becoming a master painter. This is required for all
forms of art and craft, and it is more important for those who take to
depicting the holy faces of the Savior, the Mother of God, the apostles
and other saints of God.
Icon-painting abroad remains on an amateur level because it is often
approached without the proper training; lack of training in drawing,
possessing no sense for the laws of the harmonic arrangement of colors
and not knowing how to use paints, those who paint icons "from
inspiration" set out to paint the image of Christ, or the Mother of God.
Those desiring to paint in the "new style" copy famous depictions of the
Savior or the Mother of God by the artists Vasnetsoff for the Cathedral
of St. Vladimir in Kiev. Most often they copy German-made lithographs
thereof.
The iconographic legacy shared by Russian masters, even during recent
times, with the sources of origination, was interrupted in the diaspora,
and attempts towards its rebirth are halting, and success is seen only
in separate instances.
In our homeland, the art of icon painting often changed: technical
methods of different periods varied as much as compositional ones. But
deeply rooted in Byzantine religious art, and assuming its legacy, our
art of icon painting is a branch of that tree which manifests in color
the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Discovered by scholars, the
surviving wall paintings of the ancient churches of the Russian north
are witness to the lofty artistic culture of the Russian masters of the
Novgorod School of the XIV, XV, XVI and part of the XVII centuries,
which, developing in original forms, was undoubtedly connected with the
golden age of the great artistic culture of the southern Slavic masters
of the Balkan Peninsula (especially Macedonia) of the XII and XV
centuries and in close artistic relation to the great art of ancient
Byzantium.
The academicians N.P. Kondakov, N.P. Likhachev, N.V. Pokrovsky, P.P.
Muratov and other scholars of ancient Russian painting (by painting, we
mean wall-painting in churches and icons painted on wood), fairly
consider this period the blossoming of the art of icon painting in Rus,
and its highest manifestation.
The end of the XVII century is considered the beginning of the decline
of purely-artistic creativity and the development of mannerism, which
lowered the artistic quality of icon-painting. Recognizing the authority
of such profound scholars and connoisseurs of art as the above-mentioned
scholars, who showed that mannerism forced out the pure art of the
ancient schools of icon painting, one however cannot value the high
value of the mannerist period, developing on the grace-filled foundation
of the previous epoch, which was created on the symbolism of catacomb
Christianity. The mannerist period not only imitated the lofty heights
of its ancestry, it had its own achievements and breadth of scope,
expressed in the original artistic directions of the Stroganoff, Suzdal,
Muscovite, Tver, Yaroslav and
other schools, which distinguished themselves in their originality and
in the technical methods of painting, yet had one common thread: they
were deeply spiritual! Icon painters of those times well- knew the
spiritual essence of the teachings of the Church of Christ and with
remarkable resourcefulness could illustrate it on walls
and in icons.
Mannerism crowded out the lofty achievements of the masterpieces of the
artistic golden age. But it could not do otherwise-who could satisfy the
enormous need for icons in the growing territory of Holy Rus?
If the XVII century is considered the period of mannerist icon painting,
then truly it can be called the age of the flowering of mannerism
through to the present day.
The schools of icon painting mentioned above gave us excellent masters,
who, by heading the icon-painting studios, adorned with frescoes a
multitude of churches of Muscovite Russia and its principalities. In the
second have of the XVII century, the canonical severity of the icon-
painting style gradually lost its form; spiritually ascetic faces of
saints were replaced with Europeanized, almost portrait-like, images of
the salaried icon painter of the Faceted Palace, Simon Ushakov, who laid
the foundation of the new trend called the "Ushakov School."
The unification with Little Russia, where the religious art developed
under Polish influence, which assumed everything created by Catholic
Italy, which in turn "blindingly" recreated pagan classicism on the
walls and ceilings of its churches and palazzi, began to be reflected in
the religious art of Muscovite Russia.
The age of reforms of Peter I attracted famous architects from abroad:
Tresini, Lebnon, Rastrelli and many others who built palaces and
churches in the popular Baroque style of the day, with their interiors
resplendent with the busy Rococo-the French decorative style more
suitable for ballrooms than Orthodox iconostases.
European architecture demanded its corresponding style of icon painting:
images of saints assuming mannerist poses appeared, with rosy cheeks,
styled hair and costumes of the salon style. For the realization of the
new damands, lay artists were invited, whose students became master icon
painters, the disseminators of new forms in the art of icon painting.
These forms, along with its technique, were quickly mastered by Russian
masters and amateurs, who boldly covered the walls not only of new
churches but even old ones-monuments of ancient Russian art--with their
Europeanized paintings. Individual icons prepared in provincial
workshops with pretensions to some sort of "Rennaissance," or "Rococo"
are singularly unattractive; but still, there is a method, a skill in
its craft.
Since the middle of the last century [the 19th], the Italian-Polish
manner assumes a more severr form-the saccharine mannerism disappears,
and the Europeanization of icon painting becomes more appropriate for
the depiction of Orthodox sensibility, losing, at the same time, any
significance in artistic value. Despite the facelessness and limpness of
the established mannerism, it entered the mainstream of life, the eye of
the Orthodox worshiper becomes accustomed to it, and in this way, the
"new style" is granted the right to exist, as mentioned in the beginning
of this article.
The taking root of this taste in icons of this type was to a great
degree aided by the oleographic publications of Fesenko, Pleshcheev and
others in Odessa. These prints were mostly made from crude "lubok"-type
originals, but they were eagerly purchased by the people thanks to their
low price and attractive bright colors. Still, these anti-artistic icons
were not painted by self-taught amateurs-with all their faults, they
possessed a level of skill. The icon workshops of Mt. Athos, Valaam and
many other monasteries, and also in private workshops, icon painters of
the school of Realism had an expertise in the technique of oil painting;
they could carefully render every curl of hair and every fold of cloth.
The masters of this school, as in all things, were highly-qualified,
some not; but there was always the skill of craft evident in each icon
painted in Russia distinguishing it from those painted abroad. If
earlier centuries, which tied Russian church painting with the lofty
artistic-spiritual heights of Byzantium, comprised the epoch of pure art
in Russia, and subsequent periods excelled in craft, then the icon
painting done abroad in our century can truly be called "the ?migr?
style."
What is happening in the Homeland now, we don't know; it is very
possible that the catacombs of today have developed new symbolism,
instead of icons, which are being destroyed by the godless Soviet state;
but Russian abroad, over the course of a half a century, emulating both
styles of icon painting could not elevate it to the level of craft.
Imitators of ancient painting, that is, those who paint in the "old
style" did not understand its main value-the ability to express the
spiritual essence of the person depicted, but they concentrate on the
"incorrectness," that is on those particularities which contradict
realistic perception, they took this as the most important thing, and in
their pseudo-ancient works they stressed that which could have been
avoided without violating the general composition and style.
The process of decline and crude imitations of religious art to a
greater degree touched upon the countries of the Orthodox East. At the
present time in Greece there
is an artistic rebirth of the Byzantine style, which is expressed in the
distortion of wonderful forms and lines and the stylistically-developed,
spiritually lofty creations of the ancient artists of Byzantium. The
contemporary Greek icon painter Contaglou, with the cooperation of the
Church of Athens, published a series of reproductions of his works,
which cannot but be considered artless emulations of the great Greek
artist Panselinos, who adorned with his frescoes the churches of Mt.
Athos of the XIV century. Contaglou's admirers and his students say that
"saints should not look like real people"-but what are they supposed to
look like? The primitiveness of such reasoning harms those who see and
do not superficially regard the spiritual and esthetic beauty of ancient
icon painting and who rejects its
surrogates, offered as examples of an allegedly-reborn Byzantine style.
Often, the expression of enthusiasm for the "old style" is not genuine,
revealing in its proponents simply a pretension and inability to discern
true art from crude imitation.
In imitative works by contemporary icon painters, style is
"over-stylized," picking out one certain characteristic of the body, the
head or hands, expressing in old icons a prayerful reverence, the
contemporary stylizer subjects it to intolerable emphasis, to the point
where the holy image becomes laughable. An detailed rendering of folds
of cloth, which requires special study, when subjected to such
"stylization," looks more like rough-hewn wood than folds of silk. Faces
are intentionally darkened "so that they would look like the old style,"
when the darkness of ancient icons is not an original characteristic,
but the opposite: properly cleaned icons of old are striking in the
color. At the present time, the Latin church has also become interested
in Byzantine art-the pages of Catholic publications are splashed with
almost-blasphemous distortions of the images of the icons of the Eastern
Church. (These illustrations are often added to articles on the "Eastern
Rite," which reveals the artificiality of the Catholic understanding of
Orthocox icon-painting.)
The false opinion that icons must be painted with pre-arranged types,
with harshly-defined contours, to show some sort of "expressiveness,"
differentiating saints from "real people," evokes the opposite reaction
in many people, which recalls the German [Expressionist] lithographs, or
copies thereof, and leads to the impression that the "new style" is
"better, after all!"
But what about the "Vasnetsoff style?" We respond that icon painting
does not know such a style. Everyone knows that a great artist lived in
Russia, Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsoff, who painted "The Three
Bogatyrs," "Alyonushka," "The Blind Bards," and that he illustrated
stories and fables. The main memorial of Vasnetsoff's work is the fresco
work in St. Vladimir Cathedral in Kiev with its grand image of the
Mother of God over the altar. Reproductions of the images of the Savior
and the Mother of God with Child were widely distributed. These two
icons by Vasnetsoff are everywhere and are used in schoolbooks,
calendars and other publications. These images can often be seen on
iconostases (especially in America). These images limit the possibility
of using the "Vasnetsoff style" for wider use. All attempts to paint
"like Vasnetsoff" lead to poor results and have a very amateurish
flavor. The same can be said for the artist Nesteroff, who painted the
famous work "Holy Russia," with the wonderful landscape of the Russian
North. Nesterov took part in painting the frescoes of St. Vladimir
Cathedral and the church of the Convent of SS Martha and Maria in
Moscow. In his image of the Savior, Nesterov wished to reproduce, in a
painterly fashion, the wonderful image of Christ by Rublev, yet he
distorted His features with an imaginary "psychological" expression. The
icons of Saints Martha and Maria, on the same iconostasis, are clearly
the portraits of persons known to the artist, as are all the other holy
images painted for the Vladimir Cathedral and Convent of Martha and
Maria. Nesterov's paintings are also widely distributed as prints, known
as the "Nesterov style."
And so, in tearing away from one's natural roots and losing the legacy
connecting the Russian master icon painters with the sources of Russian
icon painting, can one
hope for its rebirth in the diaspora? Apparently, no. But the
improvement in the quality of icons painted by various individuals who
have no schooling or artistic
training is possible-but only when the main attention is paid to
preparation. If those who wish to paint icons do not labor over
mastering draftsmanship, the interrelation of color, proportion and
composition in general, if they do not try, repeatedly, to copy the
details of good, clear reproductions (which can be easily obtained now),
then it will be impossible to hope for the improvement in the quality of
icon painting abroad.
The quality of any icon depends not only from artistic taste or
religious inspiration of the artist, but from the knowledge of
technique, beginning with the preparation of the panel and ground, the
ability to use paints, both tempera and oils, and others, the ability to
gild, burnish, etc. If developed technique defines the quality of any
craft, this applies more so to that of the painting of icons.
Al
Suggestion: when you copy an article from a web site, could you
include the URL? It's easy to highlight the address on the browser's
address bar and copy it, the paste it into another location.
Thanks,
Al
_______________________
++ <arch...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3F573867...@erols.com>...
> Published by Russian Orthodox Church, April 5, 2003
>
> Towards Understanding Orthodox
> Iconography
>
> By Archimandrite Kyprian
> Pyzhov
>
>
>
snip
June R Harton
>
> Towards Understanding Orthodox
> Iconography
>
> By Archimandrite Kyprian
> Pyzhov
>But
> deeply rooted in Byzantine religious art, and assuming its legacy, our
> art of icon painting is a branch of that tree which manifests in color
> the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Discovered by scholars, the
> surviving wall paintings of the ancient churches of the Russian north
> are witness to the lofty artistic culture of the Russian masters of the
> Novgorod School of the XIV, XV, XVI and part of the XVII centuries,
> which, developing in original forms, was undoubtedly connected with the
> golden age of the great artistic culture of the southern Slavic masters
> of the Balkan Peninsula (especially Macedonia) of the XII and XV
> centuries and in close artistic relation to the great art of ancient
> Byzantium.
Generally misleading statement, Schneider, since there was no "Macedonia"
in the Balkans in those time periods.
from: Spirit
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
Dmitri
>in the Balkans in those time periods.
>
Hmmmmmmm.......what WOULD Yannis say about your lies????????
Dmitri Mosier
Iowa City, Iowa
June R Harton
"Dmitri " <orth...@aol.comorzinio> wrote in message
news:20030906112935...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >Generally misleading statement, Schneider, since there was no "Macedonia"
> >in the Balkans in those time periods.
> Hmmmmmmm.......what WOULD Yannis say about your lies????????
Mosier, why are you baring false witness again? did you relapse?
from: Spirit of Truth