They're just the standardised forms that developed out of each place. Iconography differs quite a lot from region to region. Take a look at Coptic some time, in which the figures are almost entirely geometric. I think the elongation of the fingers and noses - which also differs from place to place - are an attempt to show an idealised human form, heavenly perfections and all that.
One of my cousins is an iconographer. She receives a blessing from her priest and must have all her materials blessed before she even starts making an icon.
Iconography is Scripture and Tradition in color. Every color as well as every symbol has a meaning. That's why there are so many rules governing iconography. It would be like taking the Douay-Rheims Bible and mutilating it into a "teen" bible.
Yes, but we do have to make distinctions. Even Orthodox iconographers distinguish between canonical or liturgical icons, intended for formal veneration in churches and convents, and work that is merely "sacred art" - that is simply paintings of sacred subjects. The first is a formal liturgical work that must be done very strictly according to the canons, and is indeed part of the full practice of the Faith (as it ought to be for us). The second does not have to conform to these rigorous standards, though stepping outside the boundaries even for informal works is considered unwise and inadvisable, since even informal works can lead people to wrong conclusions. But for the Latin West, for better or worse, those standards no longer apply. We don't have formal liturgical iconography in that sense in our churches, and our sacred art, while it retains in the best cases a didactic purpose, is only "sacred art" in the Orthodox sense. That is, none of our paintings of sacred subjects in our churches are intended to be *venerated as sacred objects*. We don't bow before or bless ourselves with paintings in Latin churches. They do not have the status of, say, sacred relics - which we do treat in an equivalent manner to the veneration of icons by the Orthodox. No matter how beautiful, or by what illustrious name, the object itself does not have the same purpose or status in the Latin west as icons do in the East. Therefore the standards for creating them are not, nor should be, as rigorous. The visual language should be retained, and as I will show in the next post on this subject it was for a very long time after Italy was no longer (nominally) under the Emperor in Constantinople. The development of Italo-Byzantine painting into Italian Gothic, Trecento and Quattrocento painting is a legitimate and worthy movement of authentic sacred art. It's all very interesting, and has led me into the direction of Trecento painting in my own work. stay tuned.
Renaissance "sacred" art leaves me cold. I've never had any desire to see the Sistine Chapel or Michaelangelo's David. Renaissance secular art is another matter.
However I've always been moved to my core by Byzantine sacred art. It is otherworldly, a window on the divine.
I can recommend a few online sources. To start with, if you have no training in drawing I would say either Julia Bridget Hayes' drawing tutorials for beginners, which are available under the name "Ikonographics" on Patreon. Or her teacher, the great George Kordis who also does online drawing instruction video courses for beginners, at a somewhat higher price.
I do NOT recommend taking a local weekend course - where they get you to trace a photocopy of an original icon - if you have had no experience or training in drawing skills. Many people imagine they can skip drawing - which is seen as no fun and difficult to learn, and produce decent work. This is ENTRELY false. If you are going to commit to this work, do so properly and start as a true student, from the beginning.
,Your comments are SO to the point! I wish you would remark on those nauseating, effeminate fluffy angels seen everywhere . In Scripture, people are usually terrified when they see an angel, even our Lady is troubled by their appearance. Now, anyone who does a good deed--especially women are "angels. To make matters worse, have you seen the statues of cats and dogs (much as I love them) with wings. Actually, come to think of it, they're more attractive than putti! Urg! ,
They're just the standardised forms that developed out of each place. Iconography differs quite a lot from region to region. Take a look at Coptic some time, in which the figures are almost entirely geometric. I think the elongation of the fingers and noses - which also differs from place to place - are an attempt to show an idealised human form, heavenly perfections and all that.
Well, that was more along the lines of a rhetorical question...
One of my cousins is an iconographer. She receives a blessing from her priest and must have all her materials blessed before she even starts making an icon.
Iconography is Scripture and Tradition in color. Every color as well as every symbol has a meaning. That's why there are so many rules governing iconography. It would be like taking the Douay-Rheims Bible and mutilating it into a "teen" bible.
Yes, but we do have to make distinctions. Even Orthodox iconographers distinguish between canonical or liturgical icons, intended for formal veneration in churches and convents, and work that is merely "sacred art" - that is simply paintings of sacred subjects. The first is a formal liturgical work that must be done very strictly according to the canons, and is indeed part of the full practice of the Faith (as it ought to be for us). The second does not have to conform to these rigorous standards, though stepping outside the boundaries even for informal works is considered unwise and inadvisable, since even informal works can lead people to wrong conclusions. But for the Latin West, for better or worse, those standards no longer apply. We don't have formal liturgical iconography in that sense in our churches, and our sacred art, while it retains in the best cases a didactic purpose, is only "sacred art" in the Orthodox sense. That is, none of our paintings of sacred subjects in our churches are intended to be *venerated as sacred objects*. We don't bow before or bless ourselves with paintings in Latin churches. They do not have the status of, say, sacred relics - which we do treat in an equivalent manner to the veneration of icons by the Orthodox. No matter how beautiful, or by what illustrious name, the object itself does not have the same purpose or status in the Latin west as icons do in the East. Therefore the standards for creating them are not, nor should be, as rigorous. The visual language should be retained, and as I will show in the next post on this subject it was for a very long time after Italy was no longer (nominally) under the Emperor in Constantinople. The development of Italo-Byzantine painting into Italian Gothic, Trecento and Quattrocento painting is a legitimate and worthy movement of authentic sacred art. It's all very interesting, and has led me into the direction of Trecento painting in my own work. stay tuned.
Perhaps surprisingly the BBC dealt with this quite well https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006s7gv
Very interesting. This is the same guy I think who did an excellent series on the importance of drawing.
Renaissance "sacred" art leaves me cold. I've never had any desire to see the Sistine Chapel or Michaelangelo's David. Renaissance secular art is another matter.
However I've always been moved to my core by Byzantine sacred art. It is otherworldly, a window on the divine.
Could you recommend places to learn the art of icon painting? It may be in Europe or the US.
I can recommend a few online sources. To start with, if you have no training in drawing I would say either Julia Bridget Hayes' drawing tutorials for beginners, which are available under the name "Ikonographics" on Patreon. Or her teacher, the great George Kordis who also does online drawing instruction video courses for beginners, at a somewhat higher price.
https://www.ikonographics.net/
https://writingthelight.com/online/
I do NOT recommend taking a local weekend course - where they get you to trace a photocopy of an original icon - if you have had no experience or training in drawing skills. Many people imagine they can skip drawing - which is seen as no fun and difficult to learn, and produce decent work. This is ENTRELY false. If you are going to commit to this work, do so properly and start as a true student, from the beginning.
,Your comments are SO to the point! I wish you would remark on those nauseating, effeminate fluffy angels seen everywhere . In Scripture, people are usually terrified when they see an angel, even our Lady is troubled by their appearance. Now, anyone who does a good deed--especially women are "angels. To make matters worse, have you seen the statues of cats and dogs (much as I love them) with wings. Actually, come to think of it, they're more attractive than putti! Urg! ,