Icons and ideals: dialog with a
colleague
(Translation of my essay
in Russian)
I have been planning for a
long time to write an essay on the topic of why I paint
the icons in the way that I do, i.e. not in any specific
historical style – Moscow, Byzantine, Novgorod, etc. A
dialog which recently took a place, between me and
another iconographer, provided me with lively material.
This dialog was provoked by my small illustrated journal
entry which outlined my views on icon painting, and on
the icons of the monk Gregory Krug and of the nun Ioanna
Reitlinger, in particular:
“Sister Ioanna (Reitlinger)
is among the most outstanding iconographers of 20c.
“Sister Ioanna’s icons possess an amazing quality: they
are full of Easter (Resurrection) joy and childlike
faith.” (I. K. Jazikova, Theology of Icons, 1995, p.
162). Fr. Gregory (Krug), another outstanding
iconographer of that time, was an amazing master of
colours and light, and I do not know anyone among his
contemporaries equal to him in this respect.
Reitlinger and
Krug have a common creative approach to the icon. Such
an approach is considered to be heretical, blasphemous,
or delusional by some modern iconographers. Reitlinger
and Krug attempted to bring into icon painting the means
of modern painting. Not the content but the means – a
peculiar expressiveness of light and colour, line, and
freedom of painting.
From the notes of sister
Ioanna:
“Is it possible to paint
icons while I am searching? (when I haven’t found yet?)
But will it ever be – “I found”? Everything is in the
search. And revealed only in the search. Otherwise it is
the delusion of a false vision.”
“The icon is not an
artwork [a picture] but an object for a prayer, and I
was tortured by the question how to make it in a way so
it would be spiritual, so it would not disturb the
prayer but at the same time to be art. Because we,
artists, precisely wish to bring our art to the feet of
our Lord.”
(quoted from
http://gazetakifa.ru/content/view/1613/)
It is necessary to note
here that the constant search for expressiveness has
been a prominent feature of Christian art during all
times. If one could briefly look at the examples of
Church art from its beginning to our present time then
the picture would be stunningly diverse. A person alien
to Church art could even decide that there is no
connection between its different examples but they would
be mistaken. There is a connection – the action of the
Holy Spirit who creates through imperfect and sinful
artists, and the Canon of Christian art. This Canon is
essentially a few rules which define in broad terms how
to depict the Kingdom of Heaven.”
[end of journal entry]
I would like to emphasize
here that all three iconographers whom I mentioned were
monastics, i.e. their lives was a lives of prayer and
contemplation.
This text produced the
following dialog mentioned in the beginning of this
essay. I am publishing it here without omission. It is
very revealing because it shows the polarized
understanding of what the icon ought to be, by the
members of the Church. The dialog clearly demonstrates
how the attitude to the icon reflects one’s personal
theology and hierarchy of values.
[B. – my colleague; his very
peculiar choice of words are translated closely to the
original. For the sake of readability the text of each
discussant is given their own colour]
B.: And I cannot see
the beauty in dirty, untidy painted shapes and the lines
which are leading nowhere – even if I stick my nose
straight into the icon.
I: Well, anyone else
but not these iconographers can be accused of dirtiness
of colour and mistakes in lines. The colour and light on
the icons of Fr. Gregory are such that one is amazed how
a human being could create such a thing. The colour
schemes of sister Ioanna are also beyond words – it
would be good for modern iconographers to learn from
her.
B: To learn what? This smeared
paint? She is just unable to apply the paint – she
smears it thinly and dirty. I could put up with it if
there were analogies of it in the history of icon
painting. But no – there is nothing, apart from some
barbarian villages near Pskov. It is outrageous. And Men
[an iconographer, the daughter of Fr. Alexander Men] is
just filth.
I: It’s strange – why
are you so emotional?
1 – There are many analogies
– take the frescos of the catacombs and see. They are
“smeared” just like that.
2 – Even if there were no
analogies it wouldn’t mean that “it is prohibited”.
3 – If you cannot see the
mastery in the icons of sister Ioanna / if mastery means
to you only “even tone and smoothness” then it
demonstrates your lack of understanding, not the
iconographer’s “lack of skill”.
>> And Men is just filth
I’m sorry, “filth” is not a
serious argument. If you think so then please explain
why.
B.: 1. Shabby frescos
cannot be an excuse here.
2. Here the usage of word
“prohibited” is not correct. It is “prohibited to do
God’s work carelessly”.
3. It only means that icon
painting is limited not only by illiterate Pskovian
iconographers and primitives.
4. Because it is filth.
Sanctified by the 7th Ecumenical Council
iconography used volume and modeling with shade and
light. But here are carelessness, thick primitivism and
ad-libbing invention (what worth are these shadows with
squinted eyes).
I: Thank you!
>> 1. Shabby frescos cannot
be an excuse here.
It is not so shabby. There
are also other frescos of Cappadocia, there is also the
icon ‘Transfiguration’ by Theophanes the Greek, and many
others. I cannot accept your “fresco” objection because
I cannot see why it is permitted to paint on a wall
thinly and unevenly, but on a wooden panel – not. It
depends on the purpose and individuality of an
iconographer.
>> 2. Here the usage of the
word “prohibited” is not correct. It is “prohibited to
do God’s work carelessly”.
Looking at the icons of Fr.
Gregory and sister Ioanna and, the most important,
knowing their lives, I cannot imagine that they did
God’s work carelessly.
>> 4. Because it is filth.
Sanctified by 7th Ecumenical Council
iconography used volume and modeling with shade and
light. But here are carelessness, thick primitivism and
ad-libbing invention (what worth are these shadows with
squinted eyes).
The 7th Ecumenical Council
didn’t say anything about modeling with shade and light.
But I am nit-picking of course
(I do not see squinted eyes by
the way, or the absence of modeling with shade and
light).
I think that our disagreement
derives from our
different criteria for a “genuine icon”. My criteria are
prayerfulness, experience of the action of the Holy
Spirit, agreement with the Gospels. Your criteria are
smoothness, precision, Byzantine-like.
B.: So you cannot see the
difference between the technique of fresco and icon
painting? As for Theophanes etc one should read the
restorers carefully. There was no such “ethereal” and
“transparency” quality in those times because a)with
time the paint crystallizes and become more transparent
and b) there are losses during cleaning. Then, Dionisius,
despite transparency, is not dirty. But here is
untidiness, and even deliberate
untidiness.
>> Looking at the icons of
Fr. Gregory and sister Ioanna and, the most important,
knowing their lives, I cannot imagine that they did
God’s work carelessly.
2. Especially if one take
into account that Fr. Gregory suffered mental illness.
4. The council didn’t say
anything about modeling with shade and light. But there
is the icon painting which grew out of this Council. And
it has continued following the original principals
consistently, until artistically inclined decadent
intelligencia felt the desire to play with Pskov
primitives and threw away all classics of icon painting.
>>
prayerfulness, experience of an action of the Holy
Spirit, agreement with the Gospels.
If St
Seraphim of Sarov told me this then I would believe it.
But here it is an absolutely wild, outrageous excuse. I
don’t think that all Byzantine icons were painted
without and experience of
“the
action of the Holy Spirit”.
But here, with which
spirit should
one come in touch to be able to smear such grime-filth?
I:
>> 2. Especially if one take
into account that Fr. Gregory suffered mental illness.
“I remember yet another
case. There was in Paris a remarkable painter, still not
quite mature, who suddenly became ill: he began to feel
the smell of sulfur. His mother and sister decided not
to argue with him, hoping that he will eventually settle
down. If he said to them that he was smelling the
sulfur, they would sniff and agree that it was so
indeed. With time he grew worse. And then the pious
family turned to the Church. I remember how that young
iconographer was exorcized, confessed, sprinkled with
holy water, offered Holy Communion anointed with oil,
but he was falling ill more and more. I was a doctor at
that time, and I was approached with the question what
to do. My answered made them very angry:
- Please leave all this. He
is ill, not possessed. Send him to the hospital to have
ECT (at the time it was the only thing that could be
done in this area). I still remember the inflammation
with which the family and clergy addressed me:
- How can you say such a
thing? And what if it is possession? – What do you know
about it?
- I am sorry. However, I
only know – although you may perceive it as cynical –
that, if it is possession then ECT will not hurt a
demon. On the other hand if it is illness then your
friend will recover.
He recovered within a year –
but something incredibly interesting happened during the
course of illness. He entered the illness being immature
as an iconographer, but went out as ripened. His icons
became different, mature and deep”
(Metropolitan Anthony of
Sourozh, ‘On the Spiritual and Physical Illness’)
B.: And what about
the answer to the core of the topic?
I: You probably did not understand
– it was the answer to the core of topic. Other, points
outlined by you, are secondary and derive from your lack
of understanding precisely “the core” but I will answer.
>> So you cannot see the difference
between the technique of fresco and icon painting?
I see, in technical and
special aspects, but not in tasks and content. The tasks
are the same: the depiction of the Kingdom of God,
transparently or thickly, the most important thing is –
truthfully.
>> As for Theophanes etc one should read
the restorers carefully. There were no such “ethereal”
and “transparency”
>> Then,
Dionisius, despite transparency, is not dirty. But here
is untidiness, and even deliberate.
Mentioning the source one ought to provide the reference
(restorers’ names and works).
So, you insist that Theophanes is “not
transparent” but Dionisius is “transparent but not
dirty”. I.e., transparency is still permissible but
permissible, as you write, “if it is not dirty”. Here we
should define the terminology: dirty in
professional slang means dirty colour – muddy,
but not untidy, i.e. applied unevenly. There is
no hint of “dirt” in Krug’s and Reitlinger’s icons shown
here, but there is a deliberate unevenness of paint.
Thus you are speaking about unevenness.
Speaking about restorers, precisely a restorer writes
about unevenness and expressionism as original qualities
of ancient icons: A.N.Ovchinnikov , Symbolism of
Christian Art Moscow 1999, the chapters ‘Icon of St.
Panteleymon’ and ‘Mother of God Svenkaya-Pecherskaya’.
And, since the conversation touched “unevenness”, here
is another reference: History of Icon Painting,
Moscow 2002, chapter ‘The technique of Icon Painting’ –
please notice the fragments of the icons there,
especially Mother of God Pimenovskaya 14c.
>> 4. Council didn’t say anything
about chiaroscuro. But there is icon painting which grew
out of this Council. And it had continued to follow the
original principals consistently…
Your
reasoning reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses thesis
that the conception of the Holy Trinity did not exist
before the Council of Nicaea. Christian painting existed
until the Seventh Council, in different forms and
styles. However, what is mentioned by you, modeling with
light and shade, are present on the icons of Reitlinger
and Krug (how to paint icons without light and shade is
a peculiar question indeed), therefore your opposing
“traditional modeling with light and shade” to their
icons does not have any ground.
>> I don’t think that all Byzantine icons
were made without “the experience of
an action of the Holy Spirit”.
And you are right
not to. It would be absurd to state that “all Byzantine
icons were made without “the
experience of the action of the Holy Spirit”.
The conversation above was
about Byzantine style as a criterion of “correctness”.
>>
But here, with which spirit one should come in
touch to be able to smear such grime-filth?
Judging by the words you
have chosen this is a rhetorical question. Everyone
works and sees within the limits of their abilities the
spirit whose action they experience.
B.: Truly, they have
eyes but do not see.
I: Conclusion. Judging by the
views which you have expressed, your criteria of the
genuiness and quality of an icon are: its conformity to
a certain historical style, namely Byzantine of a
certain period, and also the evenness and smoothness of
layers of paint on it. Thus the ancient Christian
examples; Georgian icons of 11-15th cc.;
icons made in Russia in 11-14cc.; icons of Novgorod and
other Northern styles; etc do not match your idea about
“correct icon” – otherwise you would not insist that
there no such precedents in history of Christian art.
It
reminded me – especially the words you use, I quote:
“just filth”, “to smear such grime-filth”, “what worth
are these shadows with squinted eyes”, “decadent
intelligencia’, and also your usage of the fact of Fr.
Gegory’s mental illness as an argument against his
“fitness” as an iconographer – they reminded me about
two historical events. First – the reaction of
painters-academics to the works of the impressionists
and post-impressionists. Second – the exhibition
‘Degenerative Art’ organized in 1937 in Munich during
the Nazi regime. Klee, Marc, Kandinsky and others were
denounced as “degenerate”. The critics of that time
could not understand that the criticized deliberately
painted unevenly and did “untidy” work
However, since then the
works of “degenerates” have been returned to the
museums, and the icons of sister Ioanna were shown on
solo exhibition in the Andronicov monastery (in the
Museum of Ancient Russian Art named after St. Andrey
Rublev). But of course she painted the icons not for the
sake of recognition but for God’s sake.
B.: Yes, yes. Apology
(sic!) to Nazi (Soviet, totalitarian) prosecutions is
also symptomatic in polemics for the sake of the smear.
[end of dialog]
Such was the sad result of
our dialog. It is indeed very sad when “smoothness and
evenness” taken as the major criterion of value obscure
the goodness of the masters’ works to the viewer, and
not a lay viewer but a professional one. It is difficult
for me as a professional to understand how anyone could,
while looking at the beautiful lines and glowing light
on Reitlinger’s and Krug’s icons, decide that their
authors are “unable” to apply the paint thickly and
evenly, and just “unable to draw”. In the real world one
can learn how to “paint evenly” in, for example, the
very beginning of the first year of Art College. I, just
like everyone who studied graphic design, had to learn
how to reach perfection in the art of application of the
paint on little squares evenly and smoothly – but that,
of course did not make anyone an artist instantly. One
becomes an artist while leaning from the masters, such
as Reitlinger and Krug.
The fact that my arguments
did not receive reasoned answers and that my request to
provide the references for the quoted sources was
ignored, is quite revealing. My colleagues answers were
restricted to emotional statements and authoritarian
appeals.
* * *
In conclusion I would
like to say a few words about how I understand the icon
and my work of an iconographer. Our teacher of
composition in the Academy of Printing Arts had
repeatedly advised us to test our work with the question
“what for?” He spoke about graphic arts and book design
but this question can be legitimately applied to the
icon, in which function and aesthetics have much common
with book art. What is an icon for? – Mostly, for
helping a viewer to concentrate his/her mind in
contemplation and prayer. The icon must be canonical,
i.e. it should not contradict to the Scriptures and the
lived Tradition. There are accepted definitions of the
icon as “contemplation in colours” or “theology in
colours”, thus it is also one of the fruits of
contemplation and mystical experience but always in the
frame of Eastern Orthodox theology. To satisfy these
criteria the icon should speak the symbolic language
which has been crystallizing over two thousand years of
Christian art – the language “where each sign is a
symbol meaning much more than it is”
(ibid, p. 17).
In my opinion, these three criteria: calling for the
prayerful state of mind, accordance to the canon
understood as accordance to the Scriptures and lived
Tradition, and the continuity of symbolic language
define the “truthfulness” of the icon.
Thus the content of the icon
is immeasurably more important than its style: it does
not matter in which style the icon is painted – the most
important is that its style is working for its content
but not against it. It is fitting to mention here about
a widely found identification of the concept of
genuine with style: for example I have often
heard the opinion that only “Byzantine” icons, or
“Russian” icons, or “icons with gold” are genuine,
true icons. The style is created by many components:
an epoch’s worldview, a national character, historical
events, individualities of the major artists, and many
other factors.
Therefore now, from some
distance in time, we can speak about the typical red
background and dramatic mood of Novgorod medieval icons,
the peculiar features of later Byzantine style,
primitivism of the style of Coptic icons, and so on.
These styles differ dramatically from each other and
this fact raises a legitimate question: if it was
possible to search for new means of artistic expression
at that time then why is it impossible now? The icons of
Reitlinger and Krug are the fruits of such a search.
They are icons of our epoch but, while being
contemporary they do not omit the major purpose of the
icon: the call to a prayerful state of mind and the
proclamation of the Good News. They are faithful to the
Scriptures and the lived Tradition. Despite the fact
that both these iconographers have their own, very
individual, style their icons are completely canonical,
prayerful and employ the same symbolic language as their
predecessors.
So, if the theology of the
Eastern Orthodox Church is constantly developing then
why should the icon which is theology in colours
stop developing after? Just as theology feeds on
Scripture and living Tradition, constantly enriched by
new insights and interpretations of each generation of
theologians, the icon must be enriched by the
discoveries and new interpretations of the
iconographers of each new generation. Surely,
iconographers always turn back to their historical
heritage, and may well choose a historical style which
suites their individual work considering it as their
exclusive guide. It is one thing to feed on heritage,
but another thing – to just copy past examples, and yet
completely another thing – to denounce all search as
“non-canonical”. Such an approach contradicts
Christianity itself which is not a mummy in the museum
but a living and developing organism.
As for me, I paint keeping
in mind the catacomb frescos and early icons which are
simple, laconic, and expressive in a rough way. In my
understanding, they are the closest to the first reading
of the Gospel which must turn one’s life upside down and
therefore very suitable to our time in which the words
of the Gospel have become so familiar that they are
hardly heard. There is a tendency in modern society to
make Christianity look like some kind of museum exhibit,
and the icon – some kind of a talisman or folk art (the
genuineness of which is measured by the amount of gold
used and also by belonging to a certain national
school). The stylization of the icon often obscures its
meaning and prevents one from looking deeper thus
encouraging its “mummy-like” interpretation. Precisely
because of that, for the sake of bringing the meaning of
the icon to the attention of the heart, and also because
of my personal aesthetic preference I consciously
rejected stylization and “prettiness”.
icon gallery
home |