St. Mark, from a Gospel Book produced at Corbie. Bibliotheque Munuicipale, Amiens. 1050 AD.
Here we see the subordination of volume and naturalism to flat color fields,linear rhythm, abstraction and ornament. To some this work might appear to be “cartoonish.” But, we should bear in mind that, before “cartoons” in the modern sense ever came around, the medieval craftsmen exploited abstract form in order to emphasize the supra-sensual, noetic content of their works.
The Catacomb painters were surrounded and imbued by the Hellenic artistic heritage, but today we have a plethora of artistic models via the internet, instantly made accessible through an image search by the mere push of a button. The many schools of iconography, and art running the course of many centuries and cultures, can be viewed simultaneously as we scroll down our computer screens. Who can deny the positive sides of this information technology? What iconographer nowadays has not availed himself of this vast resource? We have also seen in the 20th century major developments in the history of painting. In particular its reassessment of naturalism, exploration of “primitive” art and abstraction, which in some respects parallels and affirms the pictorial language of the icon. Even the sacred art of non-Orthodox cultures can be studied more readily, as we consider pictorial problems in iconography. Some iconographers would even argue that the breakthroughs of 20th century painting, and elements of contemporary secular art, can be revalorized, put to the service of the icon.[viii] Others might prefer to find inspiration and clues in the parallels found between the sacred art of the East and the icon. However, these two alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive, an iconographer can perhaps embrace both possibilities. The visual culture of our contemporary world is larger than it has ever been. It seems to me hard to deny that these factors will have some degree of impact on contemporary iconography, but only time will tell. Things are not so neatly compartmentalized along cultural lines anymore in the “global village” of our postmodern world. So an insular attitude towards iconography seems to be insufficient, if not a stifling denial, within our current predicament.
Archangel Gabriel from the scene of the Annunciation. Sr George church, Kurbinovo, 1191 AD.
This fresco is a good example of the the two pictorial approaches seen above, the Greco-Roman naturalism and Romanesque abstraction. This style, in its exuberant rhythm, can be referred to as “mannerist,” and this is not to be taken as a negative epithet.
It is unquestionable that various national cultural temperaments have left their mark in the life of the Church. These are to be rightly cherished as contributing to the richness of the Orthodox liturgical experience. It is then worth looking at the question of culture from another angle, which brings us back to the catacombs. For the Church creative engagement with contemporary culture did not just end at the catacombs. Rather, it would eventually transform the entire Roman Empire. Maybe we should pause for a moment and consider whether or not we are taking things for granted as we isolate ourselves within an ecclesial ghetto, forgetting that Church culture can still have major impact and shed some light on the state of the civilization surrounding us, particularly the state of contemporary art. Some might resist dialogue with the contemporary art community, but in doing so are they just breeding a fundamentalism that deprives both the liturgical and non-liturgical artist of unexpected revitalization, positive convergence and cross-fertilization? And believe me, by raising these concerns we are not here opening the doors of the Orthodox Church to the modernist trends that the Roman Catholics have suffered from for many centuries now, but that became rampant after Vatican II. We are definitely not advocating liturgical reforms or the creation of “modern” icons! Yet, in resisting arbitrary novelty or modernism in iconography we should be wary of the other extreme, a static and ossifying formalism in liturgical art, which is another way of taking the letter for the spirit of Tradition.
Annunciation, by George Kordis. Contemporary icon.
Here we see an icon which at first glance might appear to be “untraditional,” but, in fact, is in accord with the “mannerist” example we’ve shown above.
Yes,Tradition stands above contingencies and not to be thought of as bound to historic determinism. However, it continually generates new forms of ecclesial art, as it accepts and revalorizes useful aspects of the surrounding culture, albeit in slow increments and subtle ways, perhaps indiscernible at the given moment. But creative participation in this dynamic, as we have said, always presupposes obedience to the mind of the Church, an obedience which is paradoxically liberating. This creativity does not demand from us to first become saints, in order to then theologize in color. No, we first make choices in humble submission to Tradition, to the best of our capability, then the Church tests and decides on their efficacy. I doubt St. Rublev considered himself a saint when he decided to edit the composition of the Hospitality of Abraham to its bare essentials, in order to articulate theological nuances previously overlooked. Yet, he saw beyond the letter and dared to depict what he apprehended of the living Tradition with his noetic eyes. He saw the prototype, not as the outward form given to him to be reproduced, but as the inner meaning, the logos, contained in the composition.
St. Paul’s Vision on the Road to Damascus, by George Kordis. Contemporary icon.
In this icon can be seen the confluence of traditional pictorial forms, along with the revalorization of 20th century painting. That is, we see some aspects of the Byzantine style and Romanesque “mannerism,” along with the use of flat and broad fields of color reminiscent of Van Gogh and 20th century abstraction. All of this tends to have a sense of “expressionist” vigor, wish clearly conveys the sense of dynamic and transformative encounter of the sacred event.
How lifeless it would be for the Church, if we were all to sit around and wait for some kind of authorization, as to the legitimacy of our sanctity, before we did anything creative in our work. So we act in spite of our weaknesses, as we struggle towards deification, offering the gift of art back to God. Hence, those who try to make a contribution in this creative effort, as they serve the Church to the best of their capabilities, should not be hastily condemned or dismissed if their articulation seems to be for the moment imprecise and obscure, seemingly untraditional. We must be patient. The Church will decide in its own time. In the end, what enters into the milieu of liturgical art is vetted by the Body through the grace of the Holy Spirit. That which is not conducive to its edification and is pastorally harmful, not in harmony with Tradition, inevitably falls to the side as dross. That which remains is the purified gold that adorns the glorious garment of Tradition.
To be continued…
Notes:
[i]This article is an expanded and revised version of On the Gift of Art, which responded to the exhibition” Gifts” (December 2013 – January 2014), State Museum of Architecture, Moscow. See http://sacredmurals.com/texts/on_the_gift_of_art.htm
[ii] This passage forms part of the statement of purpose of the IKONA group, mainly composed by iconography professors in European universities, their leader is Dr. George Kordis, Faculty of Theology, University of Athens. Their aim is to counter the static repetition of old models in iconography. Their statement further says, “Today unfortunately the art of icon painting in all Orthodox countries seems to be static and engaged in an uncreative repetition of its glorious past. Old masterpieces are reproduced again and again and the art of icon painting looks unable to continue the real tradition of the Church and its attitude against the different painting modes of the world.” For the full statement see: http://eikona.org/
[iii]Titus Burckhardt explains, “Granted that spirituality in itself is independent of forms, this in no way implies that it can be expressed and transmitted by any and every sort of form. Through its qualitative essence form has a place in the sensible order analogous to that of truth in the intellectual order; this is the significance of the Greek notion of eidos. Just as a mental form such as a dogma or doctrine can be the adequate, albeit limited, reflection of a Divine Truth, so can a sensible form retrace a truth or a reality which transcends both the plane of sensible forms and the plane of thought.” A point to notice here is the notion of “adequate, albeit limited, reflection of a Divine Truth” (emphasis added). Titus Burckhardt, Sacred Art in East and West: Principles and Methods, Perennial Books LTD., Middlesex, U.K. 1986, pp. 7-8.
[iv]As V. Lossky says, “The dynamism of Tradition allows no inertia either in the habitual forms of piety or in the dogmatic expressions that are repeated mechanically like magic recipes of Truth, guaranteed by the authority of the Church. To preserve the ‘dogmatic tradition’ does not mean to be attached to doctrinal formulas: to be within Tradition is to keep the living Truth in the Light of the Holy Spirit; or rather, it is to be kept in the Truth by the vivifying power of Tradition. But this power, like all that comes from the Spirit, preserves by a ceaseless renewing.”As quoted by C.A. Tsakiridou in Icons in Time, Persons in Eternity: Orthodox Theology and the Aesthetics of the Christian Image, Ashgate Publishing LTD, Surrey, U.K. p. 65.
[v]Tsakiridou, Ibid., p. 64.
[vi]Lossky also notes, “The pure notion of Tradition can then be defined by saying that it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, communicating to each member of the Body of Christ the faculty of hearing, of receiving, of knowing the Truth in the Light which belongs to it, and not according to the natural light of human reason.” Ibid.
[vii]Chantal Savinkoff, “Une leçon d’iconographie avec Léonide Ouspensky: Extraits d’un entreitien avec Chantal Savinkoff,” Paris, February 1974. In The Orthodox Messenger, Special Issue, “Life of the icon in the West,” No 92, 1983. Our translation from the French text. http://www.pagesorthodoxes.net/eikona/iconographie-ouspensky.htm
[viii]The IKONA group is a case in point. On this regard their statement reads, “The IKONA group… attempts to give a motive for an interchange with contemporary art, tracing the possibility of adopting elements from secular art. The main goal is not the creation of modern icons outside the tradition of the Church, or the replacement of the old mode. The continuity and the enrichment of the tradition is what is intentionally pursued by the members of the Group IKONA.” http://eikona.org/, op. cit., n.2.
Fr. Silouan Justiniano | May 14, 2014 at 2:38 pm | Tags: culture, iconography, Secular Art, Temperament, Tradition | Categories: Iconography, Theory | URL:
http://wp.me/p2txuG-14E
This article is the first of a series, taken from the excellent website:
Dom Alex Echeandia shall be soon returning to this monastery. He has been a pupil of Aidan Hart, an Orthodox iconographer with a deservedly high reputation. Aidan Hart has suggested that he should explore ways of “peruvianising” the icon, perhaps allowing it to be influenced by the Cusco School, much in the same way as the author of this article suggests using the romanesque. We must pray for Brother Alex who is to be ordained priest in October on St Luke’s feast day, the saint who is the patron saint of iconographers, and see how things turn out.
