![]() When we have done our apprenticeship we can then explore stylistic variation with confidence. By far the best way to progress forward quickly is to learn from those more experienced. And without more experienced eyes critiquing our work we can get a false impression of our worth. In no particular order of priority, I suggest that the following are some key features of an intellectual culture likely to create good liturgical art, and by liturgical art I mean the whole range, from psalmody to architecture, church furnishings to iconography.Īlthough we can learn a lot by ourselves – by trial and error, by reading, by observation – this can be a slow way to learn. So what might be the characteristics of such a healthy icon culture? Sergius of Radonezh and his monastery and the genius of Prokhor of Gorodets. ![]() Andrei Rublev would not have been possible without St. They are healthy plants because of healthy soil. The great painters of the past have not appeared out of a vacuum, but are the culmination of a community, of a cultural environment. I think the best response is not so much to answer this question directly, but rather to ask what is the healthiest environment for iconographic endeavour so that it is difficult for liturgical artists to get it wrong rather than difficult to get it right. How does one distinguish between authentic variation and arbitrary innovation in icons? What is the difference between bad workmanship, egotistical novelty, and inspired contributions to the icon tradition? It is still our second and not our first language. So the revival of traditional Orthodox liturgical arts has begun, but we must consider it as in yet an immature stage. Traditional iconography began to revive in Greece in the mid twentieth century, largely through the work and writings of Photios Kontoglou. Liturgical arts in Russia became debased from around the time of Peter the Great (1672-1725) and in Greece and the Balkans from around the late fifteenth century, after the Turkish conquests. Iconography in our times is in such a “neo-Byzantine” phase. This tentativeness is due to the lack of confidence in handling the new language, and fear of debasing the tradition through innovation. Renewals can prove to be pseudo-revivals, at least in their formative stages. It is often the case that when a tradition is revived it is more conservative than the epoch that it seeks to emulate. But we need to be careful of overemphasizing this unchangingness. In our times the conservative nature of Orthodoxy in general and its arts in particular is emphasized. But the fact that we can date and give the provenance of works by their style alone shows the great diversity there exists within these parameters. Well made icons are always recognizably icons, so clearly there are characteristics common to all good icons. They are Pentecostal, declaring the same divine truth in different languages. In this sense, icons are a mini incarnation, a union of divine and human energies. Christ from a Byzantine Illumination, 14th CenturyĮach culture and individual brings something of their own to the icons they paint.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |