Looking at a framed fabric “icon” (can I call it that if it isn’t drawn or painted?) which was given to me by sincere, devout, Egyptian Orthodox neighbors several years ago, and now I’m wondering: Is this ok? I think it’s beautiful. No weird animals or eye features. But how would I know what to look for? They had one very similar to it hanging in their home. I suspect it was mass-produced.
Yes, the term "icon" technically just means image. It doesn't have to be painted or mosaic.
As for the image itself, how are you using it? The question of orthodox or heterodox iconography only comes into play when the image in question is presented for veneration. And veneration is going to have to be the subject of the next post, I think. When we like a picture and put it on the wall, that's not religious veneration. If it reminds us of something or someone important - my mother and uncle have pride of place in my studio. I have a framed print of a Caravaggio that means a great deal to me personally. I have photos of my grandparents and step father. I don't venerate any of these. My gilded Pantocrator icon is in the prayer corner along with my Eleusa icon of the Theotokos and the Archangel Michael, and I do venerate those. A charcoal drawing of the Sinai Pantocrator is on my desk and it looks at me very pointedly and I look back at it. I pray to Jesus through it; that's veneration.
I wouldn't get too upset or worried by having an image you don't completely understand in your home. This isn't superstition.
Well, these examples of non- sacred art are very revealing and rather nauseating. Makes me want to look away in shame. Sheesh. I sometimes get a catalog of icons that are mass produced - they aren't like this, but they are kind of soulless. Churning out the icon experience without the careful substance that makes them truly sacred. I do have 2 icons - copies of the famous pantocrator and the Hospitality of Abraham. I love these and find them very deep, mysterious, and there doesn't seem to be an end to their depths. Thanks for this valuable lesson.
If the catalog is coming from a place called "Monastery Icons", toss it. That company is run by a syncretic (read: pagan) shaman who "blesses" what they churn out.
1. In his Orthodox Survival Course, Fr. Seraphim Rose has a very interesting discussion of late Medieval / early Renaissance art, and he points out the beginnings of decadence, emotionalism and naturalism that are present in the works of even very early Western painters such as Duccio and Giotto. I remember laughing when I first thought about Giotto as "decadent", but -- as Hilary is pointing out here as well -- Rose was discerning something real and present in the trends of the time. So the aesthetic results of the theological schism become evident nearly right away if one was sensitive enough to perceive them.
2. Somewhat related to that, there was a great round table discussion last year at St. Vladimir's Seminary among Jonathan Pageau, Aiden Hart and Andrew Gould -- three Orthodox artists who in different ways are trying to find a way to localize Orthodoxy once again within the West. It is a difficult dance because, while there are conventions and guidelines to icons, there are also acceptable regional and cultural expressions within those frameworks. And one challenge for Orthodoxy in America will be to achieve that expression without succumbing to temptations that result in (or reflect) theological distortions. It is interesting to realize that the art can reflect a theological or dogmatic error, so the attempt to localize icons can, in effect, reveal a theological misunderstanding and also run the risk of propagating or spreading such misunderstanding, leading to wider-spread error. The roundtable discussion I mentioned is available on YouTube. During the Q&A, it was put to the panelists as to whether they thought there were such risks and temptations involved in pursuing the projects they are involved in, and very interestingly, I would say that only Jonathan Pageau really took this issue to heart, whereas Gould in particular seemed to poo-poo it as a non-issue.
3. Regarding the image of the holy family, would it be fair to say that it is also heretical because it depicts Joseph as youthful, which would imply (1) there is still more youthful passion present in the union, calling into question the purity of their union and (2) implying that the "brothers of Jesus" were not from an earlier marriage, and therefore making it all but impossible to maintain the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity?
I like Seraphim Rose for a lot of stuff, and enjoyed his book on Liberalism. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says. He was probably very holy, but also, let's face it, a bit of a nutter. I've never thought the two are mutually exclusive - at least I sincerely hope not, being a bit of a loose nut myself.
I'm definitely going to check out that roundtable.
I was lucky enough to attend in person. Hopefully the slides show up well in Youtube as the main part of the discussion before Q&A was each of the three presenting their work and talking through it.
I do think that the "the theological schism" didn't have to happen. There could have been a legitimate balance between western naturalism - Italian "softness" - and Byzantine formalism, if the whole trend in painting hadn't been grasped and used by the elite billionaires and used for their purposes. I'm absolutely willing to blame Cosimo de Medici for the schism and the destructive new path. He was a cynical, cagey bastard and smart enough to see an opportunity to cement his family's fortunes politically and financially. I think we could have had a sacred art in continuity with the tradition that didn't create this false world if the natural development had been allowed to continue developing. There were artists and intellectual churchmen at the time who saw the long term repercussions of the new direction and rejected it. But they didn't get the de Medici backing and so have been sidelined by history - and of course bringing them back to the public eye is a lot of what I'm trying to do.
As I have become more involved in and committed to Orthodoxy, it remains as a key question for me: what exactly is the role of secular art for Orthodox? I think a good deal of Orthodoxy looks at the history of the West, and says "No role", because the spiritual risks are too great. All art should be "Orthodox". But what does that actually mean in practice? It certainly cannot mean that all art meets the criteria of sacred art. Even something as explicitly religious (and Orthodox) as, say, The Brothers Karamazov, would likely if put under a theological microscope, be found to "fail" some test of dogma.
And, to bring up Seraphim Rose again, he would not infrequently advise young seekers to "stop reading theological works" and tell them "Go read some Dickens and Shakespeare, and listen to some Beethoven and Mozart."
I'm not sure there is a well worked out "theory" of art and society with respect to Orthodoxy (or even Traditional Roman Catholicism), but it is an interesting topic.
"It is a difficult dance because, while there are conventions and guidelines to icons, there are also acceptable regional and cultural expressions within those frameworks."
It is an abiding fault of the Latins that we want hard and fast rules for everything, to take out of every situation as much possibility of error as possible, to fence reality around to make it safe. But I think this fails to take into consideration the action of the Holy Ghost. It's not that the HG wants us to break rules. It's that He knows we are not capable of making rules for everything and that even if we were we would use that ability to completely eliminate authentic freedom in favour of a totalitarian concentration camp. We really want rules for every problem, but sometimes it really is a matter of just feeling our way forward and working things out as best we can as we go along.
I’ve been reading Coleridge’s Notes and Lectures on Shakespeare, and what you are saying puts me in mind of one passage where Coleridge defends Shakespeare’s “wildness” on the basis that a healthy organic entity has its rules and forms but these must be allowed to develop and grow according to their own logic, and that logic will not be apparent until the work is complete and will not make sense using only pre-existing rules as the benchmark. An artist may make his own rules whose necessity and appropriateness are not apparent using only prior models:
“No work of true genius dares want its appropriate form, neither indeed is there any danger of this. As it must not, so genius cannot, be lawless; for it is even this that constitutes it genius: the power of acting creatively under laws of its own origination. …. The true ground of the mistake [Voltaire’s judgement that Shakespeare was chaotic and lacked order] lies in the confounding mechanical regularity with organic form. The form is mechanic, when on any given material we impress a pre-determined form, not necessarily arising out of the properties of the material; as when to a mass of wet clay we give whatever shape we wish it to retain when hardened. The organic form, on the other hand, is innate; it shapes, as it develops, itself from within, and the fulness of its development is one and the same with the perfection of its outward form. Such as the life is, such is the form. Nature, the prime genial artist, inexhaustible in diverse powers, is equally inexhaustible in forms — each exterior is the physiognomy of the being within, it’s true image reflected and thrown out from the concave mirror.”
There is a phrase applied in Chinese art which I like: 至人無法, which translates to something like “For the perfected individual, there are no rules.” This is not antinomianism but a recognition that great artists - once they have mastered existing conventions - are capable of going beyond them in ways that “work”.
That is just…ugh. And in a cathedral no less. What a monstrosity. There’s a reason certain acts are meant to be private…sacred moments. That’s pornographic.
Yes. I saw. The next story about it is that someone has taken a hammer to it. The bishop in charge of the cathedral it was displayed in expressed his complete bafflement that it aroused such violent dislike. Complete. Bafflement.
Via Crucis reminds me of some of the odder Jesus prints my grandparents had in their house. Bad theology leads to bad sacred art, which leads back to bad theology (my grandmother was a very emotional Charismatic). This is why some of my Protestant friends relatives remain vehement iconoclasts - they fear that anything that might be considered sacred art must inevitably lead to heresy and idolatry, but they're divided about the place for things like Via Crucis. Some (like my grandmother) would have little issue with Via Crucis as they would consider it simply "artistic interpretation" and something to hang in one's home, or a church hallway or pastor's office, for the emotional "hit", but they would *never* put it in any worship space. Others would be looking for the nearest bonfire (I have one close relative who winces often at my icons, and expresses fear of them).
Apologies if this was addressed in one of your prior posts - the Orthodox actually have a rather strong objections to the Sacred Heart devotions just on principle, it's not just a matter of that devotion having arisen after the schism.
The objections to the devotion stem first from it being itself a result of the late Medieval general shift in focus from the Risen Christ to the Suffering Christ. You have covered that shift before rather well on its own, but the Sacred Heart is seen by Orthodox theologians as an extension of that into an unhealthy focus on the bodily parts of Christ, and another step away from Christ the God Man as a person of the Trinity. It is basically dividing Christ into parts as though each part has its own powers ("why is His heart to be specially venerated or worshipped apart from Him as a whole" they would ask). Any division of Christ potentially could reopen old arguments about the person of Christ. And the subject itself is also considered a form of sensuality (devotion to a physical aspect). The Orthodox would therefore say that part of the reason you will not find an accepted iconographic form for the Sacred Heart is that the subject itself is just not acceptable - any attempts to create an "icon" of that will therefore also be unacceptable.
That being said, neither are Orthodox supposed to depict God the Father or (with very limited exceptions only pertaining to specific theophanies) God the Holy Spirit, but when the Tsars subsumed and then abolished the Patriarchate of Moscow, that sort of stuff sprang up all over and lingers to this day.
" as they would consider it simply "artistic interpretation" and something to hang in one's home, or a church hallway or pastor's office, for the emotional "hit","
And that's something I've got no argument with. If you like it, put it in your house. Just don't hang the thing over an altar and propose it for the veneration of the Faithful.
I can see this. I have yet to find any image of the Sacred Heart devotion that doesn't strike me wrong, and that goes especially for the frankly gross bodily images of a naturalistic heart as though a surgeon has just cut it out of a living body. It's honestly disgusting and makes me think of horror movies more than devotion.
And perhaps that avoidance of horror on the one hand leads to the schmalz on the other - it may be difficult to achieve any kind of dispassion. I think the danger here particularly comes from the old understanding that the heart is still seen and understood as the seat of one's emotions, and one's noetic understanding. After all, when we feel strong emotions, the physical manifestations do center there. Ergo, a devotion to the Heart is going to naturally pull towards emotions of one kind or another.
I have the same misgivings about a popular (and I believe Russian originating) icon of the Theotokos showing her holding 7 knives, which is called usually something like "Mary of the 7 Sorrows". I get that this is showing that her heart was pierced by 7 sorrows, but again it appeals to an emotional response (all the knives are pointing at her heart). At least her expression is usually dispassionate, but there are some really schmalzy types too. The types almost never either show or indicate Christ either, which (with some exceptions like the Protecting Veil icons, which depict a specific vision or event) is considered dangerous territory.
I'm afraid I myself often see the type and think "Mary the carnival knife thrower" with the way she is often holding the knives.
We worship His other bodily parts (His Precious Blood, His Holy Face and Head); and these devotions are part of focusing on particular aspects of God, such as His mercy. I fail to see how it's wrong to feel certain emotions; as long as we are in control of them. Why would it be wrong to feel sorrow at the crucifixion, and joy at His resurrection?
It's not wrong to feel sorrow at the Crucifixion, nor joy at the Resurrection. Indeed, if you go through Holy Week within the Orthodox Church, for instance, the entire week is an emotional roller coaster. But the concern is not about whether one is in control per se. Rather there are two other operative questions regarding emotion:
1. Does an emotional response point to God, or are the emotions are an end in themselves? Unfortunately there is a tendency, worst in some Protestant denominations, to judge that one is not "saved" if one does not constantly veer between high emotional states. That state of feeling is the goal, as is sustaining it as long as possible, as a substitute for actual repentance.
2. Is the emotional response a natural reaction, or is it deliberately cultivated and stoked? For instance, it is natural to feel sorrow at the Crucifixion - we are walking with Jesus to a horrible and painful death. It is not natural, though, to attempt to keep trying to stoke that sorrow in others.
Regarding 1. This is primarily a charismatic tendency; not a western, or even protestant, one. Charasmatism as a wider trend is generally a response to larger trends, and can serve good purposes, even if it does have significant spiritual risks (especially without the buttresses of Tradition). It also exists, in different forms, everywhere. Including in the EO church (though more common amongst women).
Regarding 2. Than how can you have art, if there is no *emotion*? Art is about converying ideas and concepts to others, and emotion plays a strong part of this. How can you portray the crucifixion without portraying sorrow, and thereby invoking that emotion in those engaging with it? Even in eastern style iconographic art? To suggest otherwise is to argue against art (as well as literature, esp. poetry) as a concept.
"It's not wrong to feel sorrow at the Crucifixion, nor joy at the Resurrection. Indeed, if you go through Holy Week within the Orthodox Church, for instance, the entire week is an emotional roller coaster. But the concern is not about whether one is in control per se. Rather there are two other operative questions regarding emotion"
And Charismaticism comes directly out of Protestant Pentecostalist movements, dragged into the Catholic Church in the late 1960s after the manufactured collapse of traditional liturgical and devotional life. It is a counterfeit of authentic mysticism.
It's a historical fact. Charismaticism was introduced into the Catholic Church by an alliance with some student radicals and Pentecostalists. The true mystical tradition of Christianity - that dates to the earliest centuries- had been sidelined in the Church since the 16th century. It was almost entirely forgotten by the mid 20th. These things are very easy to look up; well documented and public.
Let me address Orthodox iconography very particularly: it is not supposed to be overly emotional, nor to elicit an emotional reaction per se. Icons are to depict even historical events in a form that conveys their eternal spiritual truths. For instance, St. Ignatius of Antioch was taken to Rome and fed to lions. And yet if you look at this icons, the lions are not themselves looking overly fierce even as they clamp onto him, nor is Ignatius shown in agony. Rather he is looking at us impassively. The eternal truth of Ignatius's martyrdom is that he went willingly to it and the Kingdom beyond that moment.
Or to turn to the Crucifixion, many Eastern icons of this do not show Christ suffering - His face is passive, and the emphasis is not on the wounds or the gore of the moment. They certainly do show the Theotokos, St. John, the Centurion, and others weeping at the foot of the cross, but this is natural mourning, and the purpose of the icon is to draw you both into that moment, but also beyond it into the eternal. It's not wrong to weep at the sight, but one mustn't end there.
Fr. John Behr has a great series contrasting looking at a moments photographically vs. seeing them eternally.
Looking at a framed fabric “icon” (can I call it that if it isn’t drawn or painted?) which was given to me by sincere, devout, Egyptian Orthodox neighbors several years ago, and now I’m wondering: Is this ok? I think it’s beautiful. No weird animals or eye features. But how would I know what to look for? They had one very similar to it hanging in their home. I suspect it was mass-produced.
Yes, the term "icon" technically just means image. It doesn't have to be painted or mosaic.
As for the image itself, how are you using it? The question of orthodox or heterodox iconography only comes into play when the image in question is presented for veneration. And veneration is going to have to be the subject of the next post, I think. When we like a picture and put it on the wall, that's not religious veneration. If it reminds us of something or someone important - my mother and uncle have pride of place in my studio. I have a framed print of a Caravaggio that means a great deal to me personally. I have photos of my grandparents and step father. I don't venerate any of these. My gilded Pantocrator icon is in the prayer corner along with my Eleusa icon of the Theotokos and the Archangel Michael, and I do venerate those. A charcoal drawing of the Sinai Pantocrator is on my desk and it looks at me very pointedly and I look back at it. I pray to Jesus through it; that's veneration.
I wouldn't get too upset or worried by having an image you don't completely understand in your home. This isn't superstition.
Post on veneration => yes please 😊
Well, these examples of non- sacred art are very revealing and rather nauseating. Makes me want to look away in shame. Sheesh. I sometimes get a catalog of icons that are mass produced - they aren't like this, but they are kind of soulless. Churning out the icon experience without the careful substance that makes them truly sacred. I do have 2 icons - copies of the famous pantocrator and the Hospitality of Abraham. I love these and find them very deep, mysterious, and there doesn't seem to be an end to their depths. Thanks for this valuable lesson.
If the catalog is coming from a place called "Monastery Icons", toss it. That company is run by a syncretic (read: pagan) shaman who "blesses" what they churn out.
Wow, had no idea! How weird. I already toss those catalogs - now I know why...
I learned a lot today, Hilary, including your above response to Brittany. Thanks.
Thank you for this article and project.
A few thoughts and comments:
1. In his Orthodox Survival Course, Fr. Seraphim Rose has a very interesting discussion of late Medieval / early Renaissance art, and he points out the beginnings of decadence, emotionalism and naturalism that are present in the works of even very early Western painters such as Duccio and Giotto. I remember laughing when I first thought about Giotto as "decadent", but -- as Hilary is pointing out here as well -- Rose was discerning something real and present in the trends of the time. So the aesthetic results of the theological schism become evident nearly right away if one was sensitive enough to perceive them.
2. Somewhat related to that, there was a great round table discussion last year at St. Vladimir's Seminary among Jonathan Pageau, Aiden Hart and Andrew Gould -- three Orthodox artists who in different ways are trying to find a way to localize Orthodoxy once again within the West. It is a difficult dance because, while there are conventions and guidelines to icons, there are also acceptable regional and cultural expressions within those frameworks. And one challenge for Orthodoxy in America will be to achieve that expression without succumbing to temptations that result in (or reflect) theological distortions. It is interesting to realize that the art can reflect a theological or dogmatic error, so the attempt to localize icons can, in effect, reveal a theological misunderstanding and also run the risk of propagating or spreading such misunderstanding, leading to wider-spread error. The roundtable discussion I mentioned is available on YouTube. During the Q&A, it was put to the panelists as to whether they thought there were such risks and temptations involved in pursuing the projects they are involved in, and very interestingly, I would say that only Jonathan Pageau really took this issue to heart, whereas Gould in particular seemed to poo-poo it as a non-issue.
3. Regarding the image of the holy family, would it be fair to say that it is also heretical because it depicts Joseph as youthful, which would imply (1) there is still more youthful passion present in the union, calling into question the purity of their union and (2) implying that the "brothers of Jesus" were not from an earlier marriage, and therefore making it all but impossible to maintain the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity?
I like Seraphim Rose for a lot of stuff, and enjoyed his book on Liberalism. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says. He was probably very holy, but also, let's face it, a bit of a nutter. I've never thought the two are mutually exclusive - at least I sincerely hope not, being a bit of a loose nut myself.
I'm definitely going to check out that roundtable.
I was lucky enough to attend in person. Hopefully the slides show up well in Youtube as the main part of the discussion before Q&A was each of the three presenting their work and talking through it.
Yeah, Rose is highly controversial within Orthodoxy - there's a push to canonize him, but there's also a push to NOT canonize him.
I do think that the "the theological schism" didn't have to happen. There could have been a legitimate balance between western naturalism - Italian "softness" - and Byzantine formalism, if the whole trend in painting hadn't been grasped and used by the elite billionaires and used for their purposes. I'm absolutely willing to blame Cosimo de Medici for the schism and the destructive new path. He was a cynical, cagey bastard and smart enough to see an opportunity to cement his family's fortunes politically and financially. I think we could have had a sacred art in continuity with the tradition that didn't create this false world if the natural development had been allowed to continue developing. There were artists and intellectual churchmen at the time who saw the long term repercussions of the new direction and rejected it. But they didn't get the de Medici backing and so have been sidelined by history - and of course bringing them back to the public eye is a lot of what I'm trying to do.
As I have become more involved in and committed to Orthodoxy, it remains as a key question for me: what exactly is the role of secular art for Orthodox? I think a good deal of Orthodoxy looks at the history of the West, and says "No role", because the spiritual risks are too great. All art should be "Orthodox". But what does that actually mean in practice? It certainly cannot mean that all art meets the criteria of sacred art. Even something as explicitly religious (and Orthodox) as, say, The Brothers Karamazov, would likely if put under a theological microscope, be found to "fail" some test of dogma.
And, to bring up Seraphim Rose again, he would not infrequently advise young seekers to "stop reading theological works" and tell them "Go read some Dickens and Shakespeare, and listen to some Beethoven and Mozart."
I'm not sure there is a well worked out "theory" of art and society with respect to Orthodoxy (or even Traditional Roman Catholicism), but it is an interesting topic.
"It is a difficult dance because, while there are conventions and guidelines to icons, there are also acceptable regional and cultural expressions within those frameworks."
It is an abiding fault of the Latins that we want hard and fast rules for everything, to take out of every situation as much possibility of error as possible, to fence reality around to make it safe. But I think this fails to take into consideration the action of the Holy Ghost. It's not that the HG wants us to break rules. It's that He knows we are not capable of making rules for everything and that even if we were we would use that ability to completely eliminate authentic freedom in favour of a totalitarian concentration camp. We really want rules for every problem, but sometimes it really is a matter of just feeling our way forward and working things out as best we can as we go along.
And of course, as you pointed out, obsession with rules leads to the insanity of purity spiralling. And who needs that.
I’ve been reading Coleridge’s Notes and Lectures on Shakespeare, and what you are saying puts me in mind of one passage where Coleridge defends Shakespeare’s “wildness” on the basis that a healthy organic entity has its rules and forms but these must be allowed to develop and grow according to their own logic, and that logic will not be apparent until the work is complete and will not make sense using only pre-existing rules as the benchmark. An artist may make his own rules whose necessity and appropriateness are not apparent using only prior models:
“No work of true genius dares want its appropriate form, neither indeed is there any danger of this. As it must not, so genius cannot, be lawless; for it is even this that constitutes it genius: the power of acting creatively under laws of its own origination. …. The true ground of the mistake [Voltaire’s judgement that Shakespeare was chaotic and lacked order] lies in the confounding mechanical regularity with organic form. The form is mechanic, when on any given material we impress a pre-determined form, not necessarily arising out of the properties of the material; as when to a mass of wet clay we give whatever shape we wish it to retain when hardened. The organic form, on the other hand, is innate; it shapes, as it develops, itself from within, and the fulness of its development is one and the same with the perfection of its outward form. Such as the life is, such is the form. Nature, the prime genial artist, inexhaustible in diverse powers, is equally inexhaustible in forms — each exterior is the physiognomy of the being within, it’s true image reflected and thrown out from the concave mirror.”
There is a phrase applied in Chinese art which I like: 至人無法, which translates to something like “For the perfected individual, there are no rules.” This is not antinomianism but a recognition that great artists - once they have mastered existing conventions - are capable of going beyond them in ways that “work”.
Not that you need another example of heretical art to prove your point, but did you catch this little news item? (Be sure you're sitting down.) https://blazingcatfur.ca/2024/07/03/vandals-behead-a-controversial-sculpture-of-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus-in-an-austrian-cathedral/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3BbzE1ZX8alD6dpzg_gnBhmAOKH0yGVrWR9wIrze3GTMemqAAuqosl8P4_aem_YYIx_GrsmP9j_xdK3a6zZQ
That is just…ugh. And in a cathedral no less. What a monstrosity. There’s a reason certain acts are meant to be private…sacred moments. That’s pornographic.
Yes. I saw. The next story about it is that someone has taken a hammer to it. The bishop in charge of the cathedral it was displayed in expressed his complete bafflement that it aroused such violent dislike. Complete. Bafflement.
Complete.
Via Crucis reminds me of some of the odder Jesus prints my grandparents had in their house. Bad theology leads to bad sacred art, which leads back to bad theology (my grandmother was a very emotional Charismatic). This is why some of my Protestant friends relatives remain vehement iconoclasts - they fear that anything that might be considered sacred art must inevitably lead to heresy and idolatry, but they're divided about the place for things like Via Crucis. Some (like my grandmother) would have little issue with Via Crucis as they would consider it simply "artistic interpretation" and something to hang in one's home, or a church hallway or pastor's office, for the emotional "hit", but they would *never* put it in any worship space. Others would be looking for the nearest bonfire (I have one close relative who winces often at my icons, and expresses fear of them).
Apologies if this was addressed in one of your prior posts - the Orthodox actually have a rather strong objections to the Sacred Heart devotions just on principle, it's not just a matter of that devotion having arisen after the schism.
The objections to the devotion stem first from it being itself a result of the late Medieval general shift in focus from the Risen Christ to the Suffering Christ. You have covered that shift before rather well on its own, but the Sacred Heart is seen by Orthodox theologians as an extension of that into an unhealthy focus on the bodily parts of Christ, and another step away from Christ the God Man as a person of the Trinity. It is basically dividing Christ into parts as though each part has its own powers ("why is His heart to be specially venerated or worshipped apart from Him as a whole" they would ask). Any division of Christ potentially could reopen old arguments about the person of Christ. And the subject itself is also considered a form of sensuality (devotion to a physical aspect). The Orthodox would therefore say that part of the reason you will not find an accepted iconographic form for the Sacred Heart is that the subject itself is just not acceptable - any attempts to create an "icon" of that will therefore also be unacceptable.
That being said, neither are Orthodox supposed to depict God the Father or (with very limited exceptions only pertaining to specific theophanies) God the Holy Spirit, but when the Tsars subsumed and then abolished the Patriarchate of Moscow, that sort of stuff sprang up all over and lingers to this day.
" as they would consider it simply "artistic interpretation" and something to hang in one's home, or a church hallway or pastor's office, for the emotional "hit","
And that's something I've got no argument with. If you like it, put it in your house. Just don't hang the thing over an altar and propose it for the veneration of the Faithful.
"unhealthy focus on the bodily parts of Christ"
I can see this. I have yet to find any image of the Sacred Heart devotion that doesn't strike me wrong, and that goes especially for the frankly gross bodily images of a naturalistic heart as though a surgeon has just cut it out of a living body. It's honestly disgusting and makes me think of horror movies more than devotion.
And perhaps that avoidance of horror on the one hand leads to the schmalz on the other - it may be difficult to achieve any kind of dispassion. I think the danger here particularly comes from the old understanding that the heart is still seen and understood as the seat of one's emotions, and one's noetic understanding. After all, when we feel strong emotions, the physical manifestations do center there. Ergo, a devotion to the Heart is going to naturally pull towards emotions of one kind or another.
I have the same misgivings about a popular (and I believe Russian originating) icon of the Theotokos showing her holding 7 knives, which is called usually something like "Mary of the 7 Sorrows". I get that this is showing that her heart was pierced by 7 sorrows, but again it appeals to an emotional response (all the knives are pointing at her heart). At least her expression is usually dispassionate, but there are some really schmalzy types too. The types almost never either show or indicate Christ either, which (with some exceptions like the Protecting Veil icons, which depict a specific vision or event) is considered dangerous territory.
I'm afraid I myself often see the type and think "Mary the carnival knife thrower" with the way she is often holding the knives.
We can thank the Baroque for the schmalz.
We worship His other bodily parts (His Precious Blood, His Holy Face and Head); and these devotions are part of focusing on particular aspects of God, such as His mercy. I fail to see how it's wrong to feel certain emotions; as long as we are in control of them. Why would it be wrong to feel sorrow at the crucifixion, and joy at His resurrection?
It's not wrong to feel sorrow at the Crucifixion, nor joy at the Resurrection. Indeed, if you go through Holy Week within the Orthodox Church, for instance, the entire week is an emotional roller coaster. But the concern is not about whether one is in control per se. Rather there are two other operative questions regarding emotion:
1. Does an emotional response point to God, or are the emotions are an end in themselves? Unfortunately there is a tendency, worst in some Protestant denominations, to judge that one is not "saved" if one does not constantly veer between high emotional states. That state of feeling is the goal, as is sustaining it as long as possible, as a substitute for actual repentance.
2. Is the emotional response a natural reaction, or is it deliberately cultivated and stoked? For instance, it is natural to feel sorrow at the Crucifixion - we are walking with Jesus to a horrible and painful death. It is not natural, though, to attempt to keep trying to stoke that sorrow in others.
Regarding 1. This is primarily a charismatic tendency; not a western, or even protestant, one. Charasmatism as a wider trend is generally a response to larger trends, and can serve good purposes, even if it does have significant spiritual risks (especially without the buttresses of Tradition). It also exists, in different forms, everywhere. Including in the EO church (though more common amongst women).
Regarding 2. Than how can you have art, if there is no *emotion*? Art is about converying ideas and concepts to others, and emotion plays a strong part of this. How can you portray the crucifixion without portraying sorrow, and thereby invoking that emotion in those engaging with it? Even in eastern style iconographic art? To suggest otherwise is to argue against art (as well as literature, esp. poetry) as a concept.
"It's not wrong to feel sorrow at the Crucifixion, nor joy at the Resurrection. Indeed, if you go through Holy Week within the Orthodox Church, for instance, the entire week is an emotional roller coaster. But the concern is not about whether one is in control per se. Rather there are two other operative questions regarding emotion"
And Charismaticism comes directly out of Protestant Pentecostalist movements, dragged into the Catholic Church in the late 1960s after the manufactured collapse of traditional liturgical and devotional life. It is a counterfeit of authentic mysticism.
This is a borderline slanderous thing to say about the Catholic charasmatics.
It's a historical fact. Charismaticism was introduced into the Catholic Church by an alliance with some student radicals and Pentecostalists. The true mystical tradition of Christianity - that dates to the earliest centuries- had been sidelined in the Church since the 16th century. It was almost entirely forgotten by the mid 20th. These things are very easy to look up; well documented and public.
Let me address Orthodox iconography very particularly: it is not supposed to be overly emotional, nor to elicit an emotional reaction per se. Icons are to depict even historical events in a form that conveys their eternal spiritual truths. For instance, St. Ignatius of Antioch was taken to Rome and fed to lions. And yet if you look at this icons, the lions are not themselves looking overly fierce even as they clamp onto him, nor is Ignatius shown in agony. Rather he is looking at us impassively. The eternal truth of Ignatius's martyrdom is that he went willingly to it and the Kingdom beyond that moment.
Or to turn to the Crucifixion, many Eastern icons of this do not show Christ suffering - His face is passive, and the emphasis is not on the wounds or the gore of the moment. They certainly do show the Theotokos, St. John, the Centurion, and others weeping at the foot of the cross, but this is natural mourning, and the purpose of the icon is to draw you both into that moment, but also beyond it into the eternal. It's not wrong to weep at the sight, but one mustn't end there.
Fr. John Behr has a great series contrasting looking at a moments photographically vs. seeing them eternally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg8HPs6qVSI
Thank you for the response
Outstanding. Well done Hilary.