Iconography
began on the day our Lord Jesus Christ pressed a cloth to His face and
imprinted His divine-human image thereon. According to tradition, Luke the
Evangelist painted the image of the Mother of God and many icons painted by
him, still exist today. As an artist, he painted the first icons of the Mother
of God, but also those of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and possibly others
which have not come down to us.
Thus, iconography began. Then it
came to a halt for a time. Christianity was cruelly persecuted: all that was reminiscent
of Christ was destroyed and subjected to ridicule. Thus, during the course of
the persecutions, iconography did not develop, but Christians attempted to
express in symbols what they wished to convey. Christ was portrayed as the Good
Shepherd, and also in the guise of various personalities from pagan mythology.
He was also depicted in the form of a vine, an image hearkening back to the
Lord's words: "I am the true Vine. ... ye are the branches" (Jn.
15:1, 5). It was also accepted practice to depict Christ in the form of a fish,
because if one writes in Greek "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior" (Iisus
Hristos, Theu Ios, Sotir) and then groups
together the first letter of each word, one discovers that one has written the
Greek word IHTHIS, "fish." So, Christians
depicted a fish, thereby reminding people of these words, which were recognized
by all, who believed in the Savior. This also became known to the pagans, and
consequently the image of the fish was held suspect.
When, following the victory of Emperor
Constantine the Great over Maxentius, freedom was given to Christians.
Christianity quickly transformed the Roman Empire and replaced paganism. Then iconography flourished with
full force. We see directives concerning iconography at the first ecumenical
councils. In some church hymns, which still are frequently used, iconography is
mentioned.
Now what are icons? Icons are
precisely the union between painting and those symbols and works of art that
replaced icons during the time of persecution. The icon is not simply a
representation, a portrait. The icon reminds of the spiritual aspect of the
Saint depicted.
Christianity is the inspiration
of the world. Christ founded His Church in order to inspire, to transfigure the
world, to cleanse it from sin and bring it to that state in which it will exist
in the ages to come. Christianity was founded upon the earth and operates upon
the earth, but it reaches to Heaven in its structure; Christianity is that
bridge and ladder whereby men ascend from the earthly Church to the Heavenly.
Therefore, a simple representation, which recalls the earthly characteristics
of some face, is not an icon. Even an accurate depiction, in the sense of
physical build, still signifies nothing. A person may be very beautiful
externally, yet at the same time be very evil. On the other hand, he may be
ugly, and at the same time a model of righteousness. Thus, we see that an icon
must indeed depict that which we see with our eyes, preserving the
characteristics of the body's form, for in this world the soul acts through the
body; however, at the same time, it must point towards the inner, spiritual
essence. The precise task of the iconographer is to render, to the greatest
extent possible, those spiritual qualities, whereby the person depicted
acquired the Kingdom of Heaven, won the Lord’s imperishable crown as the Church's true
significance is the salvation of man's soul. That which is on the earth
perishes when we bring the body to the grave; but the soul passes on to another
place. When the world comes to an end, consumed by fire, there will be a new
earth and a new Heaven, as the Apostle John the Theologian says, With the eyes
of his soul, he foresaw the New Jerusalem, so clearly described in his sacred
Revelation. The Lord came to prepare the whole world for this spiritual
rebirth. To prepare oneself for this new Kingdom, one must uproot from within
oneself those seeds of sin which entered mankind with our ancestors' fall into
sin, distorting our pristine, grace-endowed nature; and one must plant within
oneself those virtues which they lost in the fall. Our icons speak of the
Christian's goal is to change and improve daily.
In remembering the saints and
their struggles, an icon does not simply represent the saint as he appeared
upon the earth. No, the icon depicts his inner spiritual struggle; it portrays
how he attained the state where he is now, considered an angel on earth, a
heavenly man. This is precisely the manner in which the Mother of God and Jesus
Christ are portrayed. Icons should depict that transcendent sanctity which
permeated the saints. The Lord Jesus Christ is the union of all that is human
and all that is divine; and when depicted in an icon, the Savior must be
painted so that we sense that He is a man, a real man, at the same time,
something more exalted than any man, that we not simply approach Him as we
would approach a visitor or an acquaintance. We should feel that He is One Who
is close to us, our Lord, Who is merciful to us, and at the same time an
awe-inspiring Judge, Who wants us to follow Him and wishes to lead us to the
Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, we should not depict only the spiritual aspect of
the saint, completely disregarding how he looked while alive on earth. This
would also be an extreme. All saints should be depicted so as to convey their
individual characteristics as much as possible — soldiers should be portrayed
arrayed for battle; holy hierarchies in their Episcopal vestments . . . It is
incorrect to depict bishops of the first centuries vested in the sakkos, for at
that time, bishops wore the phelonion, not the sakkos. This is not such a great
error, for it is far better to make a mistake in what is physical than in what
is spiritual, to ignore, the spiritual aspect.
However, it is far worse when
everything is correct in the physical, sense, but the saint appears as an
ordinary man, photographed, devoid of the spiritual. When this is the case, the
depiction cannot be considered an icon. Sometimes undue attention is spent on
making the icon beautiful. If this is not detrimental to the spirituality of
the icon, it is good, but if the beauty distracts our vision so that we forget
what is most important — that one must save one's soul, must raise one's soul
to the heights of Heaven — the beauty of the depiction is detrimental. It
cannot be considered an icon, but merely a painting. An icon is an image, which
leads us to be holy, God-pleasing person, or raises us up to Heaven, or evokes
a feeling of repentance, compunction, prayer, a feeling that one must bow down
before this image. The value of an icon is that, when we approach it, we want
to pray before it with reverence. If the image elicits this feeling, it is an
icon.
Our iconographers were zealous
about this reverence, as can be seen in those ancient iconographers of the time
before Russia’s conversion and our Russian
iconographers, too, beginning with the Venerable Alypius of the Kiev Caves, who painted a number of icons of the
Mother of God, some of which still survive. These wondrous icons, which continued
the Byzantine tradition of the painting of icons which inspire compunction,
were not necessarily painted in dark colors; frequently they were done in
bright hues; nonetheless, these colors evoked a desire to pray before such
icons. An example of this style can be seen in the holy hierarch Peter, a
native of Galicia who later became Metropolitan of Kiev and
All Russia, painted icons, some of which were until recently to be found in the
Cathedral of the Dormition in Moscow. An entire school of iconography was also
established in Novgorod under the direction of the holy hierarch Alexis of
Novgorod, where a whole series of icons have been preserved. The Venerable
Andrew Rublev painted an icon of the Holy Trinity which is now famous not only
in the Christian world, but throughout the half-Christian world as well.
Unfortunately, this Orthodox
movement started to collapse when Russia began to be infiltrated by Western
influence. In certain respects, Russia's acquaintance with the European West was
very beneficial. Many technical sciences and other useful knowledge came from
the West. We know that Christianity has never had any aversion to knowledge of
that which originates outside itself. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian
and John Chrysostom studied in pagan universities, and many writers, among whom
were our spiritual authors and many of the best theologians, were also well
acquainted with pagan writers. The Apostle Paul himself even cited quotations
from pagan poets in the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, not all that was Western
was good for Russia. Western ideas also wrought horrible
moral damage at that time, because Russians began to accept, along with useful
knowledge, that which was alien to our Orthodox way of life, to our Orthodox
faith. The educated portion of society soon sundered themselves from the life
of the people and from the Orthodox Church, which was regulated by
ecclesiastical norms. Later, this alien influence touched iconography as well.
Images of the Western type began to appear in icons. Perhaps these icons were
beautiful from an artistic point of view, but they were completely lacking in
sanctity. They were beautiful in the sense of earthly beauty, but these icons
could even be scandalous at times, and devoid of spirituality. These were not
icons. They were distortions of icons, exhibiting a lack of comprehension of
what an icon actually is.
The first purpose of this article
is to promote an understanding of the true icon, and the second is to cultivate
a love for the true icon. And therefore, increase our desire to adorn our
churches and our homes with genuine icons and not with Western paintings. These
paintings tell us nothing about righteousness or sanctity, they are merely
pleasant to look upon. Of course, there are icons painted correctly in the
iconographic sense, but yet very crudely executed. One can paint quite
correctly in the theoretical sense and at the same time quite poorly from a
practical standpoint. This does not mean that, from the principle of
iconography itself, these icons are bad. On the other hand, it happens that one
can paint beautifully, yet completely ignore the rules of iconography. Both
such approaches are harmful. One must strive to paint icons well in principle,
method and execution. This is why we oppose certain people and their attempts
to paint our churches, for they have the wrong approach, the wrong point of
view. They may paint well, perhaps; but when the point of view is incorrect,
when the direction is wrong, no matter how well the locomotive runs, it nonetheless
slips off the track and is derailed. This is precisely what happens to those
who execute their work technically and correctly, yet due to an incorrect
approach and an incorrect point of view, they travel the wrong path.
