A Discourse in Iconography
by Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco
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, also according to tradition, there still
exist today many Icons which were painted by him. An artist, he painted not only 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 did Iconography begin. 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" (St. John 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" (Iesous Christos, Theou Hios, Zoter)
and then groups together the first letter of each word, one discovers that one has
written the Greek word Ichthys, "fish." And so, Christians depicted a
fish, thereby calling to mind these words which were known to those who believed in the
Savior. This also became known to the pagans, and consequently the image of the fish was
also 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 already see directives
concerning Iconography at the first ecumenical councils. In some church hymns, which today
are still frequently used, mention is also made of Iconography.
Now what are Icons? Icons are precisely the union between painting and those symbols
and works of art which replaced Icons during the time of persecution. The Icon is not
simply a representation, a portrait. In later times only has the bodily been represented,
but an Icon is still supposed to remind people of the spiritual aspect of the person
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 age 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; yet at the same time it
must point towards the inner, spiritual essence. The task of the Iconographer is precisely
to render, as far as possible and to as great an extent as possible, those spiritual
qualities whereby the person depicted acquired the Kingdom of Heaven, whereby he won an
imperishable crown from the Lord, for 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, for
with the eyes of his soul he already 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. The Christian's goal is to change daily, to improve daily, and it is of
this that our Icons speak.
In calling to mind 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 to that 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, yet at the same time something more exalted than a man, that we not
simply approach Him as we app. roach a visitor or an acquaintance. No, 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 must not turn away to one side or the other. 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 hierarchs 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 sakkas, and yet 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, as it were, the spiritual aspect.
However, it is far worse when everything is correct in the physical, bodily sense, but
the saint appears as an ordinary man, as if he had been photographed, completely devoid of
the spiritual. When this is the case, the depiction cannot be considered an Icon.
Sometimes much 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 to
such an extent 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
already detrimental. It cannot be considered an Icon, but merely a painting. It may be
very beautiful, but it is not an Icon. An Icon is an image which leads us to a holy,
God-pleasing person, or raises us up to Heaven, or evokes a feeling of repentance, of
compunction, of prayer, a feeling that one must bow down before this image. The value of
an Icon lies in the fact that, when we approach it, we want to pray before it with
reverence. If the image elicits this feeling, it is an Icon.
This is what our Iconographers were zealous about—those ancient Iconographers of
the time before the conversion of Russia, of whom there were many, 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; but these colors evoked a desire to pray before such Icons. 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 established in Novgorod under the direction of
the holy hierarch Alexis of Novgorod, a whole series of whose 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 as a whole 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 much 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 well acquainted with pagan
writers. The Apostle Paul himself cited quotations from pagan poets even in the Holy
Scriptures. Nevertheless, not all that was Western was good for Russia. It also wrought
horrible moral damage at that time, for the 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, in which all was regulated by ecclesiastical norms. Later, alien
influence touched Iconography as well. Images of the Western type began to appear, perhaps
beautiful from an artistic point of view, but completely lacking in sanctity, beautiful in
the sense of earthly beauty, but even scandalous at times, and devoid of spirituality.
Such were not Icons. They were distortions of Icons, exhibiting a lack of comprehension of
what an Icon actually is.
The purpose of this article is, first of all, to promote an understanding of the true
Icon, and secondly, to cultivate a love for the Icon and the desire that our churches and
our homes be adorned with genuine Icons and not with Western paintings which tell us
nothing about righteousness or sanctity, but 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.
From Orthodox Life , Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan-Feb 1980), pp. 42-45.
Translated from: Heritage, Vol. 1, # 1 (September, 1968), pp. 4-8.
|