I am not capable of so much literate text, but this needs to be shared widely so that ignorance multiplies less.
Original taken from mmekourdukova
in chapter six
I apologize to those who already read all this a long time ago and/or long ago surpassed it, against the backdrop of my LiveJournal book it will look like a text for Sunday school, but I made a vow to post at least a few chapters of what was written ten years ago
bestseller with some decent pictures (they printed a bestseller without pictures).
So I'll post it in pieces from time to time.
So,
chapter 6,
Canon in icon painting.
...Now we are finally moving on from secondary, insignificant - and even non-existent, fictitious (but still accepted by others as the main) features artistic language icons - to a more significant characteristic, which we certainly must include in the definition of an icon: the icon must be canonical
. It remains for us to clarify what this means.
A simple translation from Greek will not help us: canonical means correct, and we are precisely trying to establish which icon, based on the totality of all its characteristics, can be considered correct, that is, truly an icon. In practice, the expression “canonical icon” has a narrower meaning: it is an icon corresponding iconographic canon
, which should under no circumstances be confused with style
, as the average person often does.
Canon and style are concepts so different that the same icon can turn out to be impeccable in iconography and completely unacceptable in style. The iconography may be archaic, but the style may be advanced
(this happens when metropolitan masters are invited to the provinces, where the customer is unfamiliar with the latest themes and compositional discoveries). Conversely, the style may be archaic, but the iconography may be developed.
(this happens when local self-taught artisans are given orders by a theologian who has visited the capital).
The iconography may be "Western" but the style may be "Eastern"
(most amazing example- Sicilian Catholic cathedrals X
And, on the contrary, iconography can be “eastern” with a “western” style (there are countless examples, primarily the Athonite and Russian icons of the Mother of God of the XVIII-
XX centuries, often preserving the traditional “Byzantine” typology).And finally, an icon that is impeccable in terms of style may turn out to be non-canonical: such, for example,
Old Testament Trinity icons with a baptized halo near one of the Angels.First half of the 15th century, Russian Museum
The iconographic non-canonicality in this case can be easily corrected - you just need to clean up the crosshairs on the halo. With the stylistic discrepancy between the icon and church truth, the situation is different: it can be corrected only by completely rewriting the icon in a different, acceptable style, that is, by destroying the original image. We will talk about acceptable and unacceptable style below, and in this chapter the subject of our attention will be iconographic canon is a theologically based scheme of the plot, which can be represented by some kind of generalized drawing or even a verbal description.
This means that we must assume that there is a known set of such schemes, a certain set of them, approved and approved supreme body Church authorities, the Ecumenical or at least the Local Council, how were the texts included in the New Testament approved in their time? Such vaults, so-called. iconographic originals actually exist. But the earliest Greek original appeared only in the 10th century, and the earliest Russian originals date back to XVI V. There is no doubt that the drawings and descriptive texts contained in them were compiled on the basis of already written icons. Several dozen different editions of Russian icon painting originals are known: Sophia, Siya, Stroganov, Pomeranian, the so-called Kyiv sheets and a number of others, and the quality and accuracy of the descriptions in later monuments is much higher than in earlier ones. None of the known editions is complete, all contain discrepancies, often indications of other options, and sometimes, next to the description of such a “different version,” its criticism is placed. For example, when depicting St. Theodore of Pamphylia in the form of an old man in holy robes can be read: “but all this is very unfair, since in his youth he suffered for Christ and was not a bishop.” Or even more harshly: “the foolish icon painters are in the habit of absurdly painting like St. Martyr Christopher with his dog's head... which is a fable."
But even the presence of absurdities and contradictions in the iconographic originals is not as important as the fact that they are all simply practical reference books for artists and have no force church documents, absolutely normative and generally binding . The Seventh Ecumenical Council, having destroyed the heresy of iconoclasm and ordered the creation of sacred images, did not adopt, develop or even decide to develop any set of exemplary models. Rather, on the contrary, from the very beginning, having called on icon painters to follow the models recognized by the Church, the Council already suggested the possibility of expanding and changing the iconographic canon . It was in anticipation of such expansion, and not in order to suppress it, that the Council called for increased responsibility in this matter and assigned this responsibility to the highest church hierarchy.
Let's say that in 787 it was technically impossible to create and disseminate a normative set of iconographic schemes. But no such action was taken in the future. Neither in 1551 Stoglavy, nor in 1666-7. Great Moscow Cathedrals, major milestones in the history of Russian icon painting, still have not approved any regulatory documents, whether in the form of canonization of the iconographic original of any edition, or in the form of references to famous icons. Typography and engraving had long been known in Rus'; any icon-painting workshop kept more or less complete collections of sample drawings, but no one made an attempt to sort, systematize and publish these samples. The councils only adopted a number of prohibitory orders regarding some subjects, but otherwise limited themselves to general recommendations to strengthen control over the quality of church painting, to follow tested and established models in tradition - not only without listing, but also without precisely naming a single (!) of these samples .
There is an unfortunate misconception, a peculiar tradition of ignorance, to believe that the Stoglavy Council decided “paint for painters icons from ancient models, as Greek painters paint or painted, and as Rublev wrote.” These two lines, readily reproduced even by serious publicationsas a general resolution on all issues of canonical icon painting - indeed a genuine quotation from the acts of the Council, but... cut off mid-sentence and taken out of context. Let's finish it: “...Rublev and the rest are notorious painters, and sign the Holy Trinity, but do nothing from their plans.”
Leaving aside the possibility of interpreting expressions such as “they write or wrote” or “notorious painters” as broadly as desired, we will only point out the following: this quote is not a major decree that should determine the entire course of development of Russian icon painting, but just a response (not part, but complete answer ) to a question to the Council of Tsar Ivan IV , whether in the icons of the Holy Trinity it is necessary to write crossed halos for all three Angels, or only for the middle one, or not to cross the halos at all, and whether to mark the middle Angel with the name of Christ.And nothing more, either in this conciliar response or in the other ninety-nine chapters, relates to the regulation of iconography.
Such manipulations, either intentional or out of ignorance, support the absurd myth about a certain canon that was once approved and written down somewhere. What it is is also unknown, but it is known for sure that “a step to the right, a step to the left” from this canon is a heresy. So, anyone who undertakes to judge canonical iconography should first of all remember that in reality -
- Neither during the time of the united Church, nor in Eastern Orthodoxy there existed - and does not exist to this day - any rules, no documents that would organize and stabilize the iconographic canon. Iconography in the Church has developed over almost two millennia in mode self-regulation. The best was preserved and developed, some not very successful decisions were abandoned, without, however, making them anathema. And they were constantly looking for something new - not for the sake of novelty as such, but for the greater glory of God, often coming in this way to the well-forgotten old.
Let us give several examples of changes in the iconographic canon over time to give an idea of the breadth of what seems to the ignorant to be established and frozen once and for all.
The Annunciation as an iconographic subject has been known since III century
Fresco from the catacombs of Priscilla, Rome, 3rd century.
The wings of Archangel Gabriel appear only at the turn of V - VI centuries, and already at this time several options are known: with the Mother of God sitting or standing, at a well or in a temple, with yarn or reading, with a covered or open head... In VIII V. in Nicaea the excerpt “The Annunciation with the Child in the Womb” appears - and remains unique for a long time.
"Ustyug Annunciation" 12th century.
In Russia, such an image first appears in the 12th century, but only in the 16th - 17th centuries. V. it becomes widespread, after which interest in it fades away again.
The oldest images of the Epiphany ( IV - V centuries) represent Christ beardless, naked and turned full face to the viewer; the waters of the Jordan reach up to His shoulders.
Ravenna, Arian Baptistery, 5th century.
Müstair (Switzerland), 800
The composition often includes the figure of the prophet Isaiah, who predicted the Epiphany, and the demons of the Sea and Jordan. Angels with veils appear only with I X century The sling on the loins of Christ, standing in ankle-deep water, appears to XII c., and then they begin to dress John the Baptist in a hair shirt, and not just a tunic and chiton. From that time on, we encounter images of Christ in a three-quarter turn, as if taking a step towards the Forerunner, or covering his groin with his hand. In Russia, all kinds of water demons are immeasurably less popular than in Greece.
The appearance of Christ Himself, that is, his verbal description, however rather vague, was canonized only by the Council of Trulla in 692, and before that, at least three types were distinguished in the iconography of the Savior. Byzantine (later supplanting all others) - with a thick, short beard and slightly curly curls falling on the shoulders. Syrian - with an oriental face type, a small trimmed beard and a dense head of short, tightly curled black curls. Roman - with a forked beard and shoulder-length blond hair. Finally, the archaic type of beardless youth, found both in the West and in the East (most often in scenes of miracles).
Nerezi
Arles, Archaeological Museum, 4th century.
London, Victoria and Albert Museum, 8th century.
The earliest known versions of the Transfiguration of the Lord date back to VI century, and they are already different: in the church of Sant'Apollinare in Classe (Ravenna), the artist did not dare to show Christ transfigured, and instead of His figure we see marked with letters α And ω cross in a sphere shining with stars. The prophets Moses and Elijah on either side are represented by half-figures in white robes emerging from cirrus clouds; in the same clouds above the cross we see the blessing right hand of the Lord. Mount Tabor is represented by many small rocks, scattered like hummocks on the flat ground, and the three apostles appear in the form of three white lambs looking at the cross.
In the monastery of St. Catherine on Sinai we no longer encounter a symbol, but an anthropomorphic figure of the transfigured Christ in a mandorla permeated with rays. Mount Tabor is missing, the three apostles and prophets on their sides are placed in a row on colored stripes of soil. Until XI V. prophets are often included in the circle or ellipse of the mandorla, then they are no longer included in it. TO XII V. the psychological characteristics of the disciples take shape: the impressionable and youngest John fell on his back and covered his face with his hands, Jacob fell to his knees and barely dared to turn his head, Peter from his knees looked straight at the Teacher with all his eyes.
And since XIV V. additions to the usual scheme appear - scenes of ascent to Tabor and descent back, or Christ helping the apostles rise from the ground.
Similar historical excursions possible for any iconographic subject, from holidays and gospel scenes to images of saints, the Lord Himself and the Mother of God. Its iconography, in particular, can in itself serve as a refutation of the idea of the canon as a dogma frozen forever. There are more than two hundred various types Her icons, more than two hundred iconographic schemes, which consistently, century after century, were born in the Church and were accepted by her, are included in her treasury. Only a part of these icons were miraculously revealed, that is, found - in a forest, on a mountain, in the waves of the sea, as a thing that did not belong to anyone and came from nowhere. The other part - and there is documentary evidence of this in reference books on the iconography of the Mother of God - appeared as a result of the creative daring of the icon painter, in accordance with the will of the customer.
We are fully aware that for some “theologians of the icon” the last phrase sounds like pure blasphemy. What kind of creative daring or will of the customer can there be if “everyone knows” that canonical icons are the recorded visions of some ancient fathers who saw the invisible world as clearly as we have not been given and will never be given, and therefore our lot is only as accurately as possible copy a certain small group of icons “recognized” by these experts.
About the complete inconsistency of this essentially vulgar materialistic theory, which undoubtedly arose from the simplification and reduction to absurdity of some of the ideas of Fr. Pavel Florensky, we wrote in detail in the chapter “Spiritual Vision”. In subsequent chapters we will return to the relationship between spiritual vision and its artistic embodiment, but in this discussion about the iconographic canon it will be enough to simply note the following facts:
Neither o. Pavel Florensky, nor the zealous vulgarizers of his hypotheses, do not name a single name from this legendary series of ancient holy fathers, whose clairvoyance, “frozen and hardened,” supposedly gave us the iconographic canon.
Likewise, they do not name a single icon, which probably arose as a result of such a somewhat supernatural fixation of spiritual vision.
And they do not cite a single historical document that would confirm at least one fact of the emergence of some stable canonical version as a direct (not through a story, a recording, an order to an artist, but a direct) consequence of someone’s insight.
Just the complete absence in church history Documentary evidence of this “hardened vision theory” should be alarming. And if we add to this the examples already listed above of changes, expansions, and variations of canonical schemes over the course of two thousand years of Christian history? After all, if a certain legendary “hardened vision” is sacred and the only true one, then all subsequent ones must be false? And if there are still several such true “hardened visions” of the same event, of the same saint, does this mean that their number can always be increased by one more true unit?
If the Seventh Ecumenical Council more than a thousand years ago, to admonish the iconoclasts, decided that the incarnation of God in human form allows us to depict Him, then should we - and can we - conclude from this, as some narrow-minded “icon theologians” do, that iconography depicts exclusively things that were actually seen by someone and in some specific and absolutely objective way (how? Where is this photographic plate?!) captured for subsequent humble copying? In canonical iconography (even if we do not touch on the controversial and extremely interesting theological, artistic and historical question of the image of God the Father) there are a great many examples of depicting things and persons that have never been seen by anyone. Who saw the wings of the Angels of the Trinity of the Old Testament? Why before V centuries, no one saw wings on Angels, and after, on the contrary, no one saw wingless angels? Why did no one see John the Baptist’s wings as part of the Deesis rank, but did someone see his wings in other iconographic types representing the same saint? Who has seen the demons of the Sea and Jordan depicted in the icon of the Epiphany? An unpleasant old man - The spirit of doubt in the icon of the Nativity of Christ? An old man with twelve scrolls, representing the Cosmos in the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles? Why in the same composition IX -X centuries they also saw the Mother of God among the apostles - and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove above Her head - and to XII V. They stopped seeing Her, although the text of Acts, indicating Her presence in the house, remained unchanged? Who saw the soul of the Mother of God in the form of a swaddled baby in the arms of Christ in the icon of the Assumption? An angel with a sword cutting off the hands of the Jew Avphonius? Clouds “transporting” the apostles to the bed of the Mother of God - and why did some see these clouds as “single-placed”, others as “three-placed”, some saw them drawn by an Angel, and others saw them as “self-propelled”? We could continue this list, but we will dwell on what has already been said - especially since we ourselves are disliked by that mundane, vulgar tone, incompatible with the subject of the image, into which anyone inevitably falls who wants to explain, establish, record and thereby ensure everything in the sacred art of icon painting oneself the right to issue - or not to issue - a patent for holiness.
May the reader not understand the above in the sense of “no one has ever seen anything at all.” Here we simply want to point out that until now there have been no attempts to seriously explore the question of the relationship between the spiritual insights of saints and those special artistic images that we know as icons. Which allows one to interpret this subject at random and, under the guise of Orthodox theology, to spread dense shamanism in colors. Just one example: on the book trays of the last European Orthodox Congress, the author came across a series of thick glossy albums of icon samples. These were roughly sketched with the help of a thick marker, barely recognizable traces, reproducing - page by page - both volumes of the “Book of Icon Samples” by Gleb Markelov. There is no attempt on copyright - having mutilated the drawings, they were turned into “original works”. And at the same time (how cunning!) and no “inventions of our own”, the reader is offered, as follows from the accompanying article, those same canonical “hardened visions”, you can simply admire them, or you can transfer them to the board, color them and receive a formal guarantee that this at least reproduces what has already been recognized as truth. This is what the brightest theories turn out to be when a deep professional study of an icon is replaced by poetic speculation.
Instead of looking for false-mystical, external artistic creativity(and therefore inevitably vulgar) explanations of the origin of the canonical schemes, we should have more confidence in the church practice icon painting and icon veneration. Historical practice - about which enough has already been said - and modern practice. Canonical Orthodox iconography is developing and expanding today, just like centuries ago - except that the level of theological and general literacy of icon painters and their customers has increased somewhat. Icons of newly glorified saints appear - painted from photographic materials and verbal descriptions. Icons of the most ancient saints are being created anew, whose images never existed or have not reached us due to the loss of the tradition of icon painting in the country where these saints became famous. Such icons, without a doubt, are “composed” by artists - by analogy with well-known images of saints of a similar lifestyle and deed, adjusted for some local features. As a rule, there are many such attempts - successful and completely unsuccessful - and in the end the one that is of the greatest artistic interest, gives a convincing and individualized psychological picture a saint is an image of a living person who has become like Christ - the living God. Icons appear original models for which ancient frescoes or book miniatures served - hundreds of the rarest and most interesting compositions, hidden for centuries in library depositories or in foreign monasteries, and now - in reproductions - available to the entire Christian world.
The iconography of the Mother of God is expanding, that is, new, previously non-existent images of Her are written and subsequently, upon examination, canonized by the Church, bearing some special, for some reason relevant in our day, shade of the Orthodox view of the Mother of God. Icons appear, painted in prayerful remembrance of some events of our days - for example, the image of the innocently murdered Bethlehem babies - in memory of the terrorist attack in Beslan, the image of the Akhtyrskaya Mother of God with miracles performed during the war in Chechnya, and others.
What follows from these - and many other similar - facts? That the iconographic canon is so fragile that one can doubt its very existence and neglect it? Not at all. Fidelity to the canon is the most essential characteristic of an icon. But this fidelity should be understood not as an eternal and universally obligatory quoting of the same once and for all established models, but as a loving and free adherence to tradition and its living continuation. If the conciliar mind of the Church has always refrained and continues to this day from strict specific instructions, then we, spectators and judges, need to be all the more careful and sensitive. Alas, it often happens that the judgment “non-canonical icon” only testifies to the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of the one who pronounces such a verdict.
An artist faithful to canonical iconography must first of all know well this iconography in all its richness, and especially well the iconography of the times of the united Church, the root and foundation of all subsequent development of Christian art. Deciding to create - at the request of the customer or on his own - a new iconographic version of this or that plot, the artist must look for analogues in the treasury of the past, thereby verifying the correctness of his thoughts on God. By introducing into newly painted icons any features that do not have theological significance and serve only to actualize, modernize the icon, neither the customer nor the artist should cross a certain line, remembering that the main purpose of the icon in the Church is to serve the eternal, and not to preach on a topic today's newspaper.
And, of course, the decisive word regarding the iconographic canon is the question of who, what and where
to depict belongs not to the artist, but to the Church, and the main responsibility falls on the church hierarchy.
The question is about How to depict, on the contrary, is entirely the responsibility of the artist, and the next chapter of our essays is devoted precisely to this “how,” i.e., style.
From Byzantium to Russia came not only the main types of icons, but also samples (prorisi) - guidelines for writing specific subjects. Except verbal descriptions, there were also contour drawings in the drawings.
Icon painters used techniques that had been developed in church painting over several centuries. Collected together, these techniques became a canon (from the Greek kanon - “rule”), consecrated by the Church and mandatory for all artists. Isographers were required to “do in their likeness,” that is, to paint according to models recognized in Orthodoxy, and the Church strictly followed this.
The samples used by icon painters described in detail the types of faces, color and shape of the clothes of the saints, and also contained entire passages from theological works and quotes that artists could reproduce on open books or scrolls of saints on icons. However, only novice icon painters used the samples; masters “from God” worked “on inspiration,” and no canons could hide the depth of their talent. For them, the samples were only guidelines. The works of famous masters (Andrei Rublev, Dionisy, Simon Ushakov) were recognizable and unlike the works of other isographers. While maintaining the traditional scheme for creating an icon, the painters brought their own artistic knowledge into the work, showed their inherent sense of color harmony, and sometimes personal feelings and experiences, which, however, did not in any way violate the general prayer structure of the icon.
While working on the icon, the artist never set himself the goal of embodying this or that historical event in time and space. An icon, in its essence, stands outside of time, and all historical and everyday elements (details of architecture, clothes of saints, etc.) play a random role in it.
Icon painters did not create three-dimensional space. An icon is a flat world, where there is no depth, no horizon line, no shadows that objects always cast in a picture. This does not mean that medieval masters had no idea about the perspective and volume of the image. They did not need volume; most icons were flat, which emphasized the Divine essence of the image. Art critics note that the isographers deliberately used reverse perspective, making the objects appear to be spread out on the surface of the icon. Ignoring the laws of direct perspective, the medieval artist showed what was important to him.
To identify a religious image, icon painters used techniques such as highlighting or shading individual details (slides, tents, trees, robes, faces, etc.). However, the image still remained flat. The spatial depth of the icon is so small that all objects and figures located at different distances seem to be moved closer to each other.
Painting is often called the art of a frozen moment, but icon painters often depicted two or more events unfolding in time on one icon. For example, in the icon of the Transfiguration, Christ and his disciples appear three times. First, the Savior and his followers climb Mount Tabor; then, already on the mountain, Christ is transfigured, and the apostles, amazed by this miracle, fall on their faces; Then the artist shows how Christ and the disciples descend from the mountain.
The faces on the icons look frozen, the figures are devoid of movement. And there is an explanation here: icon painters usually depict saints in a state of religious self-absorption, mystical contemplation. Communication with God does not tolerate the fuss inherent in any movement.
There are others in icon painting important rules. The most significant characters (Christ, the Virgin Mary) are depicted large, regardless of location (in the depths of the composition or in the foreground). On the icons you can see the earth, presented in the form of hills, vegetation, buildings, but the iconic landscape is conditional, its elements are rather signs, which indicate where, when and under what circumstances this or that event of the Holy Scripture took place. So, in his famous “Trinity” Andrei Rublev depicted a tree and some kind of building, and only from the text of the Bible can one understand that the tree is an oak tree, and the building is the house of Abraham. When creating a landscape, an icon painter does not take nature as a model, as a secular artist does. He writes out only abstract forms that help to reveal the main thing: the calm rhythm of spiritual life.
Due to the fact that it was customary to cover icons with drying oil, they darkened over time. Drying oil gradually absorbed all the soot that fell on it as a result of the burning of many candles and lamps. After 100-150 years, the icon became so “dark” that only the outlines of the design could be seen on it. The old icon was updated by a new painter, and he did it in his own manner. Some revered icons were renewed so many times that almost nothing remained of the original image; it was hidden under several later layers of painting. Restorers only learned to clean late deposits on icons in the 20th century. People learned the true appearance of the ancient Russian icon only after the first public exhibitions of cleared icons, organized in 1911 in Petrograd and in 1913 in Moscow.
The master of icon painting does not depict the event itself, not certain person, not a specific form of nature, he gives events, faces, forms as if by hints. Its goal is not to attract the viewer to earthly things, but to force them to renounce them and acquire a prayerful attitude, to feel a sense of unity with those represented on the icon.
An icon is not a painting, but a theology expressed not verbally, but figuratively. It reflects prayerful composure and peace in communication with the Lord. And this is given realistically, without the illusion that exists even in the most talented painting, with just lines and colors. Icon painters depict not the earthly (low) world, but the Divine (high) world, where the laws of space, movement and time are different. “I am not of this world (John 8:23), said Christ, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
Icon as a word is of Greek origin and literally means “image”. Byzantium is considered to be the birthplace of the icon, and it was from there that this “image” came to life.
Interestingly, in the early Christian tradition there was no rule to create man-made images of the Almighty. This was explained by one of the commandments Old Testament, prohibiting “making an idol,” as well as the direct connection of such images with pagan worship. The first completely denied any possibility of depicting God; this tradition still remains in others (Islam, Judaism).
Meanwhile, under these conditions, it was considered acceptable to use appropriate symbols that “remind” believers of the basic ideas and images of Christianity, which, however, remained understandable only to them. Thus, in the catacombs that served the first Christians, the walls were decorated with special images, among which there were, for example, symbols:
- Baskets with loaves that stand on fish are a symbol of the miracle of multiplying the loaves and feeding a thousand people with 5 loaves and two fish
- Grapevine - like the Lord's planting
- Dove, ship, etc.
Gradually, images of God as an anthropomorphic (i.e. human-like) image begin to appear. Along with them, an intellectual dispute and struggle arises and intensifies, called the process of clash between icon-worshipers and iconoclasts. Historically, this is the period of the 8th-9th centuries, when the ban on the veneration of icons was formalized first by the secular authorities (Byzantine Emperor Leo III), and then by the church (Council of 754).
As a result of this struggle, icon veneration was also officially permitted by the authority of the Council of 843. This was not done “from scratch”; by that time the theologians of Byzantium had managed to develop a whole harmonious system, which was included in the corresponding theory of the icon. Among these titans of thought are Theodore the Studite and John of Damascus, who are now the “fathers of the church.”
Christian icon theory
The icon as the image of God was recognized as a symbol and declared to be a mediator between man and the invisible world.
The images had their own hierarchy:
- God is the prototype
- Logos (as the realized word of God) – the second type of images
- Man is the third species
The main question is how can one depict the invisible God? According to legend, we know that God appeared to the elders and prophets as a heavenly light, burning bush or in the form of three travelers. This is an Old Testament tradition. In New Testament history, we know another image of God - this is the Son of the Lord, who appeared in the world in the form of a man. This image was allowed to be used in icons, when the supernatural, heavenly, divine appears before us through the embodied human. That is, permission to venerate icons was based on the main dogma of the incarnation of Christ.
God the Father himself was never depicted by Byzantine icon painters, but in the European part and in Rus' there were icons where the first person of the Trinity could be represented by a gray-haired old man.
However, it was in Byzantium that by the 10th century the symbolism of the icon, its genres, and types of iconography began to take shape.
Canon of Christian icon
Canonicity can be called the main feature or feature of an icon. Since this image was to be used in church practice and to establish a connection between man and God, everything in it had to be subject to the same “rules”, i.e. canon. This canon was determined primarily by the theological content component, and only then by aesthetics. Image composition, icon shapes, color, accessories, etc. were determined by dogma, which made them understandable to all believers.
Such canonical provisions did not appear directly with the emergence of Christianity; on the contrary, ancient cultures knew about them to one degree or another. Egyptian art was characterized by high level canonicity, there was a canon in ancient culture, but on a smaller scale.
In Christian culture, the canon provided, in addition, sufficient average level execution of the icon, image samples were verified, selected and available, nothing had to be “invented” or “authoredly” developed, since there were already stable models of iconographic images. Among other things, in the Middle Ages the master did not even sign the work; all icons were created by “anonymous people.”
The iconographic canon extended to the following elements:
The plot and composition of the image on the icon
The plot of the icon corresponded to Scripture; the choice of the content element was left to the church. To implement this or that order, the icon painter had samples, slits and so-called “Explanatory Originals”, in which the entire image was already presented and specified. It was by these subject-compositional “standards” that believers recognized the icon and could distinguish between them in essence.
It is interesting that in Rus', already from the 12th century, the Byzantine canon began to undergo changes, when stable types of iconography “changed” or even new ones of their own appeared, determined by local traditions. This is how the canon of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary arose, for example, or icons with images of saints of a certain area.
Figure on the icon
Canonically, the depiction of the figure was also strictly “regulated.” Thus, the main (or semantically main) figure had to be located frontally, i.e. facing the believer. It was given motionless and large. Such a figure was the “center” of the icon. Less significant figures in this plot were presented in profile, they were characterized by movement, complex pose, etc. If there was a person on the icon, then he was depicted as an elongated figure with an emphasis on the head. If it was a person’s face, then the upper part of the face with emphasis on the eyes and forehead stood out. In this way, the predominance of the spiritual over the sensual was emphasized. In contrast, the man’s mouth was depicted as disembodied, his nose thin, his chin small. In the images of saints, their name was written next to the face.
Color in Russian iconography
The symbolism of color in icon images is also strictly canonical. Meanwhile, the Russian tradition of iconography is characterized by an unusually bright and rich palette and color scheme.
The Byzantine tradition is characterized by the essential supremacy of the golden color, which was supposed to reflect the divine light itself. In such icons both the background and important details images – halos, cross, etc. On Russian icons, gold will be replaced with paints, and purple (the power of the emperor), which was very significant in Byzantium, will not be used at all.
The red color on our icons will be most widely used in the Novgorod school, where the background will be covered with red, replacing Byzantine gold. In terms of content, it will symbolize the color of the Redeemer’s blood, the flame of life.
For white the meaning of divine light and innocence was prescribed; it was used in the clothes of both Christ and the righteous and saints.
For blacks, the content was determined by the symbols of death and hell; in general it was used very rarely and, if necessary, could be replaced by dark tones of blue or brown.
Green was the color of the earth (predominant in the Pskov school of icon painting), this color seemed to be opposed to heavenly or royal.
Blue is a symbolism of the sky, eternity, and had the meaning of truth. Both the Savior and the Mother of God could have been dressed in blue robes.
Space in an icon
The arrangement of figures and the construction of the image space itself is another important component of the canon. Today we know about three types of planar display of space available in art. These are the prospects:
- straight line (concentric space). Characteristic of the Renaissance period, expresses the active position and point of view of the artist
- parallel (static space). The image is located along the canvas, typical of oriental art and Ancient Greece
- reverse (eccentric space). Chosen as canonical for icon painting
This perspective reflected the essence of dogmatic provisions, when the icon was understood not as a window into real world, as a painting of the Renaissance, but in a way of “manifesting” the heavenly world. Here it is not the artist who looks at what he depicts, but the character of the icon who looks at the believer. The space itself is symbolic:
- a hill can represent a mountain,
- a bush is a whole forest,
- the bulbs of churches - a whole city.
An icon can thus have a vertical line that connects earth and sky; So in the lower part of the image the mobile, changeable, human is given, and in the upper part - eternity, the heavenly world.
Genres of Russian icon painting
- Bytean letter
- Proverbs
- Honest icons (this “section” will appear in icon painting a little later)
Based on these definitions, genre features are formed, among which the most significant are:
Historical and legendary
Those. based on Genesis writing and reproducing plots of events from Sacred history.
This genre of Russian icon painting is characterized by: narrative (“church alphabet” for illiterate believers), detail, vitality and mobility.
Symbolic-dogmatic
Those. based on "parables".
They are characterized by: rigor of composition, rigidity of attachment to dogma, abstractness of figures, and almost lack of plot. The main emphasis is symbolism and canonical semantic elements. Example - “Oranta”, “Eucharist”, .
Personal or “honest”
Those. written in honor of a specific character - a saint, an apostle.
The features of this genre of icon painting are the frontality of the face and figure, and the abstractness of the background. The image itself may be half-length or full-length; the life of the saint may also be present (the face is bordered by fragments (stamps) with plot content from his life).
Genre of the Theotokos cycle
This is a special genre of Russian icon painting, in which all three of the above genre elements merge into a single whole. The faces of the Mother of God with the Child narrate as certain historical events, this is how specific Christian dogmas affirm (incarnation, salvation, sacrifice) and carry a huge symbolic load.
Virgin Mary icon painting in Rus' is one of the most revered and beloved genres. The iconography of the Blessed Virgin has several of its own types of image, which we will discuss separately. In a separate text we will consider the history of Russian icon painting and its school.
Did you like it? Don't hide your joy from the world - share it"Why does the iconographic canon exist and what is the iconographic original"
The icon is painted according to special rules that are mandatory for the icon painter. The set of certain icon painting techniques used to construct an image on an icon board is called iconographic canon. “Canon” is a Greek word, it means: “rule”, “measurement”, in the narrow sense it is a construction tool, a plumb line by which the verticality of walls is checked; in a broad sense - an established standard against which something newly created is compared.
Vision gives a person almost 80% of information about the world around him. And therefore, realizing the importance of painting for the holy work of evangelism, already in the early Christian church attempts began to arise to create their own language of sacred images, different from the surrounding pagan and Jewish world.
Icon painting rules were created over a long period of time not only by icon painters, or, as they used to say, isographers, but also by the Fathers of the Church. These rules, especially those that related not to the technique of execution, but to the theology of the image, were convincing arguments in the struggle of the Church against numerous heresies. The arguments, of course, are in lines and colors.
In 691, the Fifth-Sixth, or Trullo, Council took place, so named because it was held in the hall of the imperial palace - Trullum. At this council, important additions to the decisions of the Fifth and Sixth Councils were adopted, as well as some decrees that were very significant for the formation of Orthodox iconography.
In canons 73, 82 and 100, the Church begins to develop canons, which become a kind of shield against the penetration of pictorial heresy into the Orthodox icon.
And the Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in 787, approved the dogma of icon veneration and outlined the place and role of sacred images in liturgical church practice. Thus, we can say that the entire Church of Christ, its entire conciliar mind, participated in the development of canonical icon-painting rules.
The canon for the icon painter was the same as the Divine Service Rules for the clergy. Continuing the service regulations for the clergy. Continuing this comparison, we can say that the service book for the isographer becomes iconographic original.
An icon painting original is a set of specific rules and recommendations that teaches how to paint an icon, and the main attention in it is paid not to theory, but to practice.
It is obvious that the very first established role models existed already in the initial period of the formation of canonical icon painting. One of the earliest iconographic originals that has survived to this day, which is based, of course, on even earlier ones, is considered to be an excerpt written in Greek from “Antiquities of Church History by Ulpius the Roman on the Appearance of the God-Bearing Fathers,” dating back to the year 993. It contains verbal descriptions of the most famous Church Fathers. Here, for example, is the description of St. John Chrysostom: “John of Antioch was very small in stature, had a large head on his shoulders, and was extremely thin. His nose was long, his nostrils were wide, his complexion was pale yellow, his eyes were sunken, large, and at times glowing with friendliness, his forehead open and large, riddled with many wrinkles, large ears, a small, very sparse, gray beard.”
There are originals that, in addition to purely verbal descriptions, also contain pictorial images of saints. They are called facial. Here it is necessary to recall the “Menology of Emperor Vasily II”, compiled at the end of the 10th century. The book, in addition to the biographies of saints, also contains 430 color miniatures, which served as authoritative models for icon painters.
Facial script, or as it is also called - sample, personal, spread among icon painters in various editions. You can call “Stroganovsky” and “Bolshakovsky originals”, “Guryanovsky”, “Siysky” and others. A book compiled in the 18th century by the hieromonk and painter Dionysius Furnoagrofiot, entitled “Herminia, or instruction in the art of painting,” became widely known.
So, the isographer worked within a fairly strict canonical framework. But wasn’t the canon something that constrained the icon painter, hindering him? This question is most typical for people familiar with the history of fine art, because secular art criticism frames the problem exactly this way: the canon is a hindrance, liberation from it is the creative freedom of expression of the artist: from Raphael’s “Sistine Madonna” to Malevich’s “Black Square”.
One of the modern icon researchers, Academician Rauschenbach, very emotionally and figuratively expressed his opinion about what the rejection of any canonical framework in the fine arts led to: “...Medieval art is in many respects superior to the art of the Renaissance. I believe that The Renaissance was not only a movement forward, it was also associated with losses. Abstract art is a complete decline. The pinnacle for me is the icon of the 15th century... From a psychological point of view, I can explain it this way: medieval art appeals to reason, the art of the New Age and the Renaissance - to the feelings, and the abstract to the subconscious. This is a clear movement from man to monkey."
This is precisely the path followed by the iconography of the Western Roman Church. Along the path of destruction of the canon, along the path of admiring physical, emotional beauty - that beauty against which the 100th rule of the already mentioned Trullo Council was directed: “Let your eyes see rightly, and guard your heart with all care,” Wisdom bequeaths: for the bodily senses are convenient bring their impressions into the soul. Therefore, from now on we do not allow images to be drawn on disks or otherwise represented, charming the eyes, corrupting the mind and producing the ignition of unclean pleasures."
According to Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin), the author of the interesting essay “On Language Orthodox icon", the canon is the centuries-old precious experience of the entire Eastern Church, the experience of spiritual vision and its transformation in a visual image. The canon does not fetter the icon painter, but gives him freedom. From what? From doubts, from the danger of a gap between content and form, from what we would call “lying against a saint.” The canon gives freedom to the form itself..."
It was mentioned earlier that for previous generations, born and lived in the Orthodox environment, the language of the icon was quite accessible, for this language is understandable only for people who know Holy Bible, the order of worship and those participating in the Sacraments. For a modern person, especially someone who has recently come to the Church, this is much more difficult to achieve. Another difficulty lies in the fact that, starting from the 18th century, the canonical icon was replaced by icons of the so-called “academic” writing - essentially, paintings on religious themes. This style of icon painting, which is characterized by frank admiration of the beauty of forms, emphasized decorativeness and splendor of the decoration of the icon board, came to Russia from the Catholic West and received special development in the post-Petrine era, during the synodal period of Russian history. Orthodox Church.
This period began with a special decree of Peter I, in which he abolished the Patriarchate in Rus', and appointed an official, the chief prosecutor, to manage all the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, who headed the leadership of the Holy Synod. The patriarchate was restored only at the Local Council of 1917-1918.
Of course, the political and economic reorientation of the entire life of the Russian state, actively initiated by Peter and supported by subsequent rulers, could not but affect the spiritual life of all layers of society. This also affected icon painting.
At the present time, despite the fact that modern icon painters are reviving the traditions of ancient Russian writing, in many churches one can mostly see images in the “academic” style.
In any case, an icon is always a shrine, no matter in what picturesque manner it is executed. The main thing is that the degree of responsibility of the icon painter for his work to the one he depicts is always felt: the image must be worthy of the Prototype.
"Encyclopedia of Orthodox icons. Fundamentals of the theology of the icon."
Byzantine iconographic canon
Canon- totality strictly established rules and techniques for works of art of this type. The Church “created art, guiding the hands of icon painters with its spiritual experience” (P. Florensky).
The Byzantine iconographic canon regulated:
Compliance with all canonical rules inevitably led to ignoring linear perspective and chiaroscuro.
After the end of the period of "iconoclasm" the question of creating artistic means for the embodiment of “holiness” was especially acute. Thanks to the works of John of Damascus, it became clear what can be depicted on an icon and what cannot be depicted. It remains to find out and regulate how the appearance of saints and divine subjects should be depicted.
The result of these searches was the following installations:
Icon painting technique
Monumental painting was dominated by mosaic , later, during the decline of the empire, supplanted fresco .
The easel painting technique was as follows:
On a board (in Byzantium - cypress, in Rus' - pine or linden) or canvas ("pololoka"), a layer of white polished primer made of gypsum and chalk ("levkas") was applied, which was often covered with gold in the 13th-14th centuries. Then the contours of the drawing and a layer of paint were applied ( encaustic
, tempera
A protective layer (fixer) - drying oil, varnish - was applied on top of the paint layer. Framing the icon - Setting - made of wood, gold, silver, decorated precious stones.
Proportions of figures
The proportions of the human body, known since ancient times, are deliberately violated. The figures rush upward, become taller, thinner, shoulders narrow, fingers and nails lengthen. The entire body, except the face and hands, is hidden under the folds of clothing.
Face type and expression
The oval of the face is lengthened, the forehead is written high, the nose and mouth are small (the nose is with a hump),
eyes - large, almond-shaped. The gaze is stern and detached, the saints look past the viewer or through him.
Appearance and pose
The appearance of all saints, the clothes in which they should be written, the poses they can take, are strictly defined. Thus, the Apostle John Chrysostom should be depicted as fair-haired and with a short beard, and Saint Basil should be depicted as dark-haired with a long, pointed beard.
Iconography of the Mother of God. Iconography of Christ
"Flattening" - ignoring linear perspective.
Any transfer of volume is undesirable, as it draws attention to
the physical essence of the person depicted to the detriment of the spiritual essence. The figures become
two-dimensional. For the same purpose, a previously widely used technique encaustic
, which gives a too “tactile” surface is replaced by a dry and strict one tempera
.
Naturally, flat figures are inappropriate against a landscape or architectural background, which implies perspective and the transfer of volume. Ideally, the landscape disappears and gives way to the background, and
the empty space is filled with inscriptions - the name of the saint, the words of divine scripture.
The linear perspective of antiquity ("straight" perspective) was lost. Its place was taken by the so-called. “reverse” perspective (when the lines converge not behind the picture, in its imaginary depth, but in front of it, as if in the eyes of the viewer).
Now the artist painted not the object itself, but rather the idea of the object. In a five-domed temple, for example, all five domes were lined up in a straight line, without taking into account the fact that in reality two domes would be obscured. The table should show four legs, even though the back legs are not visible. The object on the icon should be revealed to a person in its entirety, the way it is accessible to the Divine Eye.
Color palette, ignoring light and shade.
The background of the icon (the so-called “light”) symbolizes one or another divine essence, regulated by the 6th century treatise “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” (for example, gold - Divine light, white - the purity of Christ and the radiance of his Divine glory, green - youth and vigor , red is a sign of the imperial rank, as well as the color of crimson, the blood of Christ and the martyrs). The same applied to the elements of clothing and their colors: the veil of the Mother of God - maforius
- they wrote cherry (sometimes blue or lilac), the Mother of God's dress - blue. On the contrary, Christ has a cloak- himation
- blue, and the tunic - shirt - cherry.
Since the background was of equal intensity, even the minimum volume of figures that the new painting allowed could not reveal chiaroscuro. To show the most convex point of the image, it was highlighted (for example, in the face, the tip of the nose, cheekbones, and brow ridges were painted with the lightest colors).
In addition, it was determined.
Circle of scripture plots And circle of compositions,
acceptable in icon painting.
Thanks to this system of conventions, the language of Byzantine icon painting emerged, well understood by all Orthodox Christians. Such icons no longer evoked reproaches of paganism and idolatry. The years of “iconoclasm” were not in vain - they led to the creation of a new type of art.
And yet, where did all these theoretical rules come from, where did the models come from that the icon painter was obliged to imitate?
There were primary sources, such icons are called first-revealed." Each "first-revealed icon" is the result of religious insight, visions, visions. But if we abstract from religious terminology and look at things more simply, without mysticism, "first-revealed" icons are great works of unknown medieval geniuses, really worthy of emulation. The first of the illustrations shows the icon of “Christ the Pantocrator” of the Monastery of St. Catherine (Athos), made using the encaustic technique.
The icon was created in the 6th century - long before the canon was formalized. But for 14 centuries now, Christ the Pantocrator has been mostly written this way.
Of course, within any canon some variations are acceptable. The icon painter’s vision is an interpretation of the canonical image based on his own spiritual experience (talent).
However, talent is a piecemeal thing, and the need for icons was great. Icon painting was revered and practiced by everyone who discovered the ability to do so - from monks to metropolitans. Of course, not all isographers had, and still have, spiritual vision (in other words, talent). It was they who needed, first of all, a canon for slavish copying of other people's works. However, true masters of icon painting, as Florensky noted, “breathe easily in canonical forms.” Only “nonentities” were “broken” on them and real talents were sharpened.” Therefore, the canon for the master is not shackles, but rather knightly armor.
Loading...
