www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pictures of my church

I guess that it is just an idiosyncrasy of the English language. What I do know is that if I would have used any term other than написать, "to write" when speaking of icons, Archmandrite Cyprian (Pijoff) of Blessed Memory, probably the foremost iconographer of the 20th century, would have immediately corrected me. To use his words, translated of course, "You paint a cowbarn, you write an icon, as the icon, properly written, tells the story of the unutterable glory of God".
Alexandr

Certainly you paint a cowbarn. You also paint a Rembrandt (or, more accurately, Rembrandt did the painting). Since I have no talent with a paintbrush - for either sort of purpose - that's the best I can do!

You are probably familiar, at least from photographs, with the incomparable "painted churches" of northern Romania, around Sibiu. I've never heard anyone call them "written churches", although the thought is amusing!

But you are arousing envy in my soul on a related matter - I've had no luck getting this e-mail program to accept either Greek or Cyrillic; can you advise me on how this might be accomplished?

Fr. Serge

I am REALLY impressed with the quality of the photographs of these icons on flickr.

Thanks! I was experimenting--got a new camera. (Olympus e-510)

I'll get some of the grounds outside the church once we get a nice covering of snow.

Karl,

I love the new toy! I have an Olympus Evolt-500. Just make sure you do your firmware updates .

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Well it seems to me that the issue of contention seems to centre around the issue of the role of an iconographer in writing icons for a church.

Then the two questions raised, are part of this main issue:
1) Why depart from the standard schema of replacing St. Luke writing an icon in a group of usually the 4 evangelists writing their Gospels. This destroys the symetry and also looks out of place or odd.
2) The tradtion of St. Luke writing the icon of the Theotokos the Hodigitria is not followed and again the iconographer has chosen to make up a new interpretation of this old tradtion thereby rejecting centuries of church tradition. I could give you quotes from the liturgy about St. Luke and the first icon by human hands but I will try to keep my answer short.

But to get back to the main issue: the role of an iconographer.
By tradition iconographers study with a master, are immersed in prayer and knowedgeable about the church liturgiacl services. For example, many of the themes and symbols used in iconography of the Theology are taken from the Akathist to the Theotokos.

In addition to being an apprentice or learning from a master, there are also manuals of iconography that have instructions etc.
Plus, of course prayers for the iconographer to pray. You can see on the web that today there are iconography schools in seminaries where aspiring iconographers learn and take part in the full liturgical life of the church with the rest of the seminarians. Having experienced appropriate training. the aspiring iconographer is blessed by the eparchial bishop to be an iconographer or blessed by the church. You can see this on the web where it is mentioned that a specific iconographer has been blessed for example by the Greek Orthodox Archdioce of North America to pursue iconography.

Here is a good quote about the Holy Spirit:

Thus, the iconographer is to be under the inspritation of the Holy Spirit, the true author of the icon, and follow the time honoured tradtions. An icon is not about personal interpretation and the artist's creativity. That is one of the reasons why real iconographers do not sign their names.

I don't know anything about the iconographer of your church (have you mentioned the name?), but to me it seems like either he doesn't know the tradtions of the church or he does know and wants to create some new personal expressions by purposelessy ignoring tradition.

Did your bishop approve the schema of the wall murals? Or was the choice made by the parish council or the choice made by the iconographer alone?
Maybe it is not too late and the wall murals could be corrected.

I believe Ouspensky was the first to write about true tradtional iconography in the modern era in the Western world. His book "The Meaning of Icons" is the standard text. I would advise you to consult it.

Also as Alexandr has already mentioned Fr. Kiprian (ROCOR) and Holy Trinity Monastery was and remains the standard that we Orthodox aspire to, especially in North America.

Unfortunately, today I see too many artists who want to make a quick buck by pretending to be iconographers. Then of course there are very sincere and religious people who want to write icons and attempt to copy them, that is are self-taught, and at the same time add their own interpretations out of good intentions and ignorance. There are people like this, who have artistic talent and good intentions who do not know the need for study with a master, learning the tradtions and prayer.


It might be useful for you to ask the powers that be in your parish and yourself what wanted or what you wanted to achieve or what was the goal of the iconography in your parish.

I believe that using the term *write* icons instead of *painting* icons is correct.

...

So, someone wants to refer to icon painting as *writing*. This sound right to me. Icons, like the Gospels, are theologies, not mere biographies. They also prefer reverse perspective where the focal point is inside the viewer, not on some distant horizon. The icon is not a re-presentation or symbolic of reality that is created by brush and paint, it is like Jesus' mother in the icon who is pointing to the supreme reality who is God. This is my understanding of the Byzantine preference for icons rather than painted religious pictures.

Our Lord said to see and hear. I can accept the Byzantine appreciation of seeing the theology of the Gospels in images. The Gospel is not only heard, but it is also seen. If one wanted to simply view pretty pictures, even religious ones, they can have a field day with an endless supply of pious paintings. The same goes for stories about our Lord that can be read. But there is nothing on par with the Gospel and Iconography. We are not dealing with mere stories and paintings; we are dealing with proclamation; theology proclaimed.

One does not *make* a motion picture, one *films* it. The filming captures the images of the reality which are the actors, scenery, and other objects. The film, the camera, the sound recorder already exist. No one can *make* them even the final product, but one can *film* or record them.

Ed

Bless Father,

I think your point of comparison was the extensive use of paneling, rising to ceiling (or near-ceiling) height, and very limited grillwork - styling which is very prevalent in temples of the Orthodox Slav Churches, but less frequently encountered in temples of the Eastern Catholic and non-Slav Orthodox Churches. Am I correct?

Many years,

Neil