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

I just got a new camera, and used my church for practice. Enjoy!

[Linked Image]
The photos. [flickr.com]

I'm having a hard time getting the pic to embed here. Just follow the link.

A very impressive church. I like the iconography and especially the iconastasis.

Fr David Straut

Are many of the churches in your Eparchy so, well..., umm..., Orthodox looking? I really mean no offense to anyone by asking. It's just that in my limited experience, here in New Jersey, this is not the case.

Fr David Straut
St Elizabeth the New-Martyr Orthodox Church
Rocky Hill, New Jersey
www.saint-elizabeths.org [saint-elizabeths.org]

Father David, there are many EC parishes that have succeeded in looking more true to their patrimony. There are a good many in the midwest that would make a byzantophile drool.

Am I right in my thinking that Father Thomas wrote these Icons?

I'm not sure who *wrote* the original icons. Was it Pseudo-Athanasius who *wrote* the photographs of them?

Why is *wrote* written as *wrote?*

I took the photos. Fr. Loya painted them. Well, he didn't paint the photos, of course. You get my meaning.

EDIT: He didn't paint them all. I think the iconostasis is from Eikona. The wall murals are his.

For some reason, when I replied I didn't have the little editorial boxes above my post (as I do now) and so I used the asterisks to denote italics (which I would have preferred to use). The use of "wrote" for painting icons is a pet peeve of mine, but c'est la vie many people think it is the proper terminology. No offense intended, Dr Eric.

Fr David

Down in Texas ours certainly are.

BTW, these make excellent desktop wallpaper. Added all but the "tall" images to my wallpaper cycle.

Mr. P-S,

Did you get any pictures of the "Harrowing of Hell"?

CDL

I am Ukrainian Orthodox (PC); we use the term to "write icons" in English because I am sure as you know being in a Russian jurisdiction, the verb written is used in Slavic languages.
Icons are among many things the Gospel in symbols and colours.
Thus, the Word of God is presented with the help of the Holy Spirit.
For example see the Kontakion of the Sunday of the Triump of Orthodoxy:
"The indefinable word of the Father made Himself definable, having taken flesh of Thee, O Mother of God, and having refashioned the spoiled image to its former estate, has suffused it with Divine Beauty. But confession slavation we show it forth in deed and word."

Anyone who spoke of painting icons in our church or community would immediately be corrected. This is a long standing tradition and is correct for Slavic Orthodox.

In fact, when I left home to go to university I was surprised to learn from Greek Orthodox students that in their tradition they do speak of "painting icons".

Orest

I tried, but I didn't like how they turned out.

Father Bless!

I was under the impression that one writes an Icon instead of paints an Icon. I thought that this is part of the Theology of Iconography versus Picture Painting.

Your Unworthy Son,

Dr. Eric

Dear Orest,

I certainly understand where this comes from. Icono-graphy literally means "the writing of images." However, as I pointed out in my brief jesting post, photo-graphy comes from the same Greek structure "the writing of [an image] with light." We say in English I take a photograph, not I write a photograph. We could go through the same thing with cinematography. I make a motion picture, I do not write a motion picture. I think that the people who adopted the term "write icons" rather than the standard English language term "paint icons" (because, after all, what they iconographer does is use brushes and paint rather than a stylus and ink) are trying to make the point that iconography is different than any other sort of painting. So their hearts are in the right place, but they are not speaking standard English.

Fr David Straut

Dear Dr. Eric,

I cannot speak for Father David, but some think that 'write' sounds affected. Perhaps it is associated with people who are 'more Orthodox than thou', and that could certainly make it a turn off by association.

In Greek, iconography is 'eikonographia'.

'Graphia' means 'writing'/'grapho' means I write, so it does make perfect sense as a translation...but, then again, we could always say 'I graphed'!!!!

To each his own, I suppose.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Fr. David,
I can see the point of your comparisons; however, as an Orthodox Slav I prefer to stand with the time honoured tradtions of my ancestors. I have mentioned that this is not a Greek Orthodox tradtion as strong as in the Slavic world.
There are many words and terms adopted in English by Orthodox in the English-speaking world.
Such as addressing a bishop as "Vladyka", sobornost and so on.
We are not trying to be "affected", we are merely following our traditions. Ukrainians began to emigrate to Canada in 1891 and we have many families of 5 and 6th generation in Western Canada who are still in our church and cherish our traditions.
Thus, I will continue to use the verb "write" in both English and Ukrainian in reference to icons.
Orest

Dr. Eric,
You are quite right indeed. Just consult Leonid Ouspensky's "The Meaning of Icons" and other Slavic theologians for confirmation.
God Bless,
Orest

The Eastern Catholic Byzantine churches down here around Atlanta all look very Eastern, especially the Melkite and Ukrainian ones. There's a Ruthenian one that is pretty Eastern as well. Can't think of anything "Latin" or "Western" about it.

Alexis

That's wonderful news Alexis. After seeing these pictures I wish I could visit some of these churches in person. I think there has been a revival in canonical iconography in both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches since the 1970's.

Am I correct in saying the iconography from the early 1900's and 1920's in both churches in North America is in the Russian naturalistic or Imperical Court style that was popular in the Russian Empire from the 1880's on? In Canada I have seen all these prints in that style or oil paintings ordered from the St. Petersburg in the oldest churches. I just assumed it was the same in the USA.

How are the choirs in your area?

There is a popular but baseless notion that "writing" icons is the proper way to express in words what the iconographer does. It is possible that the poster put "wrote" in asterisks to indicate, correctly, that "iconographer" and "photographer" have the same root-verb, grapheo, but nobody says that photographers "write" their photographs!

Fr. Serge

Dear Orest,

You should do as you have been taught, of course. I see how important an issue this is to you and I have no desire to get you to come around to my way of thinking.

I would, however, say that this issue has more to do with the English language than it does with ethnic pride. If you chose to use the Ukrainian word for "write" in this context as though it were an English word, I could perfectly understand. I myself prefer to call a Bishop Vladika, Despota, or Sayidna rather than "Master," for what I think are obvious reasons. Similarly, I am quite happy with Orthodox terminology which is not really organically English (if there really could be such a thing! ) such as Theotokos, troparion, exapostelarion, epitrachelion, epitimia, etc. These words convey something with specificity and conciseness which more homegrown English words do not. I just don't see that the English word "write" is more appropriate that "paint" in this context. To each his own.

Sorry to belabour my points! Good fast to you!

Fr David Straut

Could you folks do me a favor? Apparently my photo of our picture of St. Luke has stirred up some controversy, violating some canon or rule or tradition on the proper placement of icons in the church.

Could those of you more knowledgeable than me comment on this?

Here is the controversy. [flickr.com] http://flickr.com/photos/8367250@N03/2072433569/

My teacher says "write" but also says she won't correct people who say "paint." What makes sense to one person makes none to another.

I guess the complaint is using the Glykophilousa (sweet kiss) instead of the hodegetria (Directress).

We are getting twelve new ones, i think they are going to be 2x3', of the feasts. Sayedna Raya had part of our church built so it resembles the shape of the Ten Commandments - it is that area they are going to be done.

Here's a picture of the iconostasis and sanctuary of the Melkite church in Atlanta:[Linked Image]

A picture of the Melkite church in Augusta:
[Linked Image]

And the Ruthenian church just outside Atlanta:
[Linked Image]

As you can see, all of these are relatively Eastern.

Alexis

The modern interpretation iconostasia are quite beautiful in the both photos...they still retain the basic stylistic elements while offering a new approach

...this is very common in Greek Orthodox churches in this country too...that is why I can't understand why modern RC churches don't take the traditional which they already have, whether it be Romanesque, Gothic, etc., and reinterpret these interiors in a new way that still remains true to the original.

Alice

Alice,

Very good points!

I do like very much the iconostas in the first picture of the Melkite church in Atlanta. I like the gold-leafed branches that connect the icons.

I can't really tell from that second photo what the Melkite church in Augusta's iconostas looks like.

Alexis

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