The death of icons in the RC tradition

[John Wilson]

I remember one day looking at an icon in church, in particular how saints are depicted as glorified, with uncreated light surrounding their heads, and it suddenly struck me that the halo so often depicted in the west (above angels' heads for example) was simply a corruption of the divine light depicted in orthodox icons. I did a bit of a search through religious art and found that up until the 14th century, artists in Italy painted glorified saints in a similiar manner to the east. In the 15th century, however, all that began to change. At some point, instead of being light radiated from the head, it became a disc floating just behind the head and as time passed the disc moved up to be floating horizontally above the head. Finally, I suspect with Rafael, although he may have been influenced by others, the disc became a ring, the halo we in the west are so familiar with.
http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/8604.jpg
http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/8605.jpg
http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/8606.jpg
http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/8607.jpg
http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/8608.jpg
http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/8609.jpg
Although some of the features of orthodox icons remain (holding a staff or cross) it seems as though icons as understood by the orthodox church have ceased to be in the RC tradition and have been replaced by religious art with little or no theological value at all. They have ceased to teach and have simply become a feast for the eyes, engaging the passions instead of the mind.

Has this struck anybody else the way it has me? Does anyone have any thoughts on how and why this was able to happen? I realise it probably has much to do with the Renaissance (or perhaps all the iconographers were killed by the plague?) but as I have little knowledge of european history I'm not able to really understand how things came about.

Yours in Christ,
John.

[Richard McBride]

Dear Beloved of the Lord, John;

T’was a nice observation, concerning the migration of the Splendorous Light, from its shining forth inside-to-out, to its floating-ring stage above the head. And it remains a nice question for investigating. Sorry, I cannot add insight.

However, it ought not be surprising if you do find that this evidence emerges amidst the long and general history of iconoclasm which again burst forth in Vatican II. And that, in turn, probably has something to do with the way Western (especially Protestant) thinking has recently returned so strongly to misconceptions founded upon a Judaism which never existed. I have noticed, anecdotally, how more and more Roman Catholic and Protestant interests seem to be converging (remarking on the side, that this direction, unhappily, is taking both parties away from contact with Orthodoxy); which is to repeat, it ought not surprise to find that both (for some reason I cannot fathom) are doing an end-run around Orthodoxy by imagining this new Jewish fable. It probably has something to do with the fact that all iconoclasm passes through the event of Aaron’s golden calf, which Moses angrily forced everyone to consume. It makes for a most interesting scenario. I hope you continue to share your researches with us.

A different direction to your migrating Light hypothesis may have to do with the aesthetic perception of space (Raum); for that has links with various types of visual perspective, and these types do something to explain how we, in the West, have insisted upon seeing the world differently over the past half millennium, from more traditional methods found throughout the world.

If you are interested in these things, you have probably already found that this matter of perception was one of those revolutionary issues to emerge out of the Renaissance. And your illustrations, as do many others, show a direct relation to this tradition of spatial thinking in the West. It moved from a system of Roman mural depictions (to which we now have lost all sensitivity, and which we may no longer even ‘read’), slowly through the beautiful depth illusions of Gothic perspective (a long standing system which the West now tends to pass off as primitive, but which is interesting and sophisticated, based upon its own rules; from all that to its final hurrah as Cubism).

The Church often speaks of the planer flatness of its iconic images, compared to the West’s inventiveness. That inventiveness follows this path of spatial perception, from the Roman murals (a “jumble” of flat buildings, stacked, one atop the other), through Gothic changes to Byzantine imagery, then to the explosion of one point perspective in Florence, in the 15thC. Alberti’s famous little book (I believe it was, de la pintura, but my memory may not be reliable) was taken from theories of Brunaleschi and one or two others, and once published, it became the powerful new formula for Western vision. One point perspective had a huge impact upon all Western thinking, and eventually was to be visible as one part of the foundation underlaying the Modernism of the past three centuries.

All that aside, John, I appreciate your uncluttered and clear vision of the ‘halo’ problem. I should be able to clarify so nicely.

richard mcb

[John Wilson]

I suspect that it is mostly because in Rome, the painting of the walls and ceilings has been handed over wholesale to the artists themselves, with little or no criticism or input from the church. The artists were free to paint their own interpretation using whatever style was in vogue at the time, without reference to orthodox tradition.

I did come across an interesting perspective however, which may help us to understand why there was no apparent resistance to the changes, which revolves around the RC doctrine regarding grace. In this article by Father Michael Azkoul (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html) in the section headed 'Icons', he makes the following statements:


Icons are more than sacred pictures. Everything about them is theological. For example, they are always flat, flat so that we who inhabit the physical world will understand that the world of the spirit where Christ, His Mother, the angels, the saints, and the departed dwell, is a world of mystery which cannot be penetrated by our five senses.

Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its worship. The statues are life-like and three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were in a state of nature. This "naturalism" stems from the medieval idea that "grace perfects nature."

The person or persons are represented on the icon as deified. He or she is not a perfect human being, but much more: They are transfigured and glorified. They have a new and grace-filled humanity.

Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God for man. Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall, that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect its idea of grace.