Statuary: A statue of Christ breaking bread

[Olympiada]

I found a disturbing photograph on Flickr, http://flickr.com/photos/presterjim/27873022/
of a statue of Jesus Christ breaking bread. What disturbed me about it is Jesus Christ looked so human, it seemed to foster idolatry. This is an area I know nothing about. Can someone please explain why we do not use statues in our temples. Does anyone else find this statue unsettling?
Olympiada

[Andreas Moran]

I don't find it unsettling because it is not an image of Christ. Because someone makes an image, statue or otherwise, and calls it an image of Christ, that doesn't make it one. Only images of Christ made within the iconographical Tradition of the Orthodox Church are images of Christ. Any other so-called image of Christ may be a work of art depicting Christ but it has no validity or spiritual power as far as we are concerned.

We do not have statues because they are more earthbound than a painting and are not apt to act as windows into heaven. Icons have such features as inverse perspective, lettering, and a gold or neutral background so that they negative illusion, and rather depict a reality beyond the very limited reality that can be depicted by normal perspective and naturalism. (It is telling that early twentieth century avant-garde painters in Russia, such as Malevich, used the traditions of icon painting to achieve abstraction in their works.)

PS I don't see why stained glass should not be used in Orthodoxy. I have seen it in a church in a village in Cyprus, and there is an Orthodox stained glass artist who lives here in Essex, close to the monastery.

[Olympiada]

I don't find it unsettling because it is not an image of Christ. Because someone makes an image, statue or otherwise, and calls it an image of Christ, that doesn't make it one. Only images of Christ made within the iconographical Tradition of the Orthodox Church are images of Christ. Any other so-called image of Christ may be a work of art depicting Christ but it has no validity or spiritual power as far as we are concerned.

We do not have statues because they are more earthbound than a painting and are not apt to act as windows into heaven. Icons have such features as inverse perspective, lettering, and a gold or neutral background so that they negative illusion, and rather depict a reality beyond the very limited reality that can be depicted by normal perspective and naturalism. (It is telling that early twentieth century avant-garde painters in Russia, such as Malevich, used the traditions of icon painting to achieve abstraction in their works.)

PS I don't see why stained glass should not be used in Orthodoxy. I have seen it in a church in a village in Cyprus, and there is an Orthodox stained glass artist who lives here in Essex, close to the monastery.
Thanks Andreas. I am trying to befriend that Catholic priest who posted that and I am not so sure that is such a great idea. I rejected Catholicism and I need to remember that. You are spot on.

[Kris]

What disturbed me about it is Jesus Christ looked so human, it seemed to foster idolatry

But is not the very heart of St. John of Damascus' argument in favour of iconography that it attests to the Incarnation of God as a true Man?

I don't like statues in general, and specifically not this one, but I don't see why the disturbing element was Christ's humanity, much less how this could foster idolatry.

Forgive my confusion.

[Kosta]

The statue is an uncanonical image. Our Church limits canonical images to 2-dimensional images, theologically refered to as "windows into heaven".

The images should not be painted using a model whose posing. Renassaince art is not inconograghy

[Olga]

It seems this statue is on the grounds of the Roman Catholic cathedral in Philadelphia (correct me if I'm wrong). If it were on the grounds of an Orthodox church, there would be cause for concern. I do not find this statue unsettling, rather, I find it devoid of any sense of awe or majesty, hardly likely to evoke any awe or prayerful state of mind.

Michelangelo's Pieta, and a good part of Renaissance art, while not part of Orthodox tradition, nevertheless does have an awe-inspiring quality about it. By contrast, this "Christ" looks like a bland, muscle-bound lad barely out of his teens. Muscular, yes, but still bland, and devoid of any sense that he is the Son of God (other than the marks of the crucifixion wounds. It seems that in an attempt to emphasise Christ's human nature to make Him "easier to relate to" (an unfortunately common tendency of modern western religious art), the sculptor has forgotten to instil any sense of the Divine in this work.

Kosta is also correct to point out that it is improper to base an Orthodox icon on a real person's likeness. Renaissance painters and sculptors frequently modelled their subjects' likenesses on their wives, daughters, public figures, or even themselves. The figure of Apostle Bartholomew in the fresco of the Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel is a case in point: The saint is holding his flayed skin in one hand. Though the face is distorted, it is clear that the face is that of Michelangelo.

With regard to the absence of statues in Orthodox veneration, there are various reasons, not least of which was the need to remove all possibility of objects of veneration being seen as idol-worship. Three-dimensional statues of idols have been made since earliest antiquity, and their clear association with pagan practice was a major reason the post-iconoclastic Church decreed them to be unsuitable for veneration.

A flat, two-dimensional icon, painted in a deliberately non-naturalistic style, was established as the standard for the Church's "visual art" (if I must use such a term ...), though, of course, icons as we know them were produced from the earliest days of the Christian period.

IMHO, stained-glass windows would be quite acceptable for use in Orthodox churches, as long as the content, composition and artistic style is in keeping with canonical iconography. I have often wondered why this medium never took off in the Orthodox world. Must look into it.

I might add to Andreas' post on the early 20thC Russian painters: The artist Leon Bakst, in his drawings for the costumes for the debut performance of Stravinsky's ballet The Rite of Spring, undeniably used abstract forms derived from Russian iconography.

[Andreas Moran]

I might add to Andreas' post on the early 20thC Russian painters: The artist Leon Bakst, in his drawings for the costumes for the debut performance of Stravinsky's ballet The Rite of Spring, undeniably used abstract forms derived from Russian iconography.


Dear Olga,

One of the threads in my wife's PhD thesis showed how Russian artists of the early 20th century, far from rejecting their heritage in icons, used iconography in their work. Furthermore, some of them used their work to express Christian ideas even if their theology was too influenced by Silver Age philosophy. Malevich used the Cross in some of his work, and his famous black canvas was an attempt to express Orthodox apophatic theology. Kandinsky used the patterns of episcopal vestments as shown in icons in some of his paintings. (My wife encountered a lot of academic opposition to her thesis because at that time (1980's), any reference to Christianity was still frowned upon. She was supported by Prof D V Sarabyanov.) Some years ago, I spoke with an art historian who had had conversations with Kandinsky's widow, Nina, and she said that Kandinsky kept his Orthodox faith all his life, prayed every day, and went to church on feast days.

[Anthony]

Does anybody know when three-dimensional scupture became normal in the Latin church?

[Demetrios Galanidis]

IMHO, stained-glass windows would be quite acceptable for use in Orthodox churches, as long as the content, composition and artistic style is in keeping with canonical iconography. I have often wondered why this medium never took off in the Orthodox world. Must look into it.


I seem to recall reading that traditionally blessed icons should not be painted (written) upon easily mutable media, such as glass or canvas. Traditionally, a stiff, prepared wooden board is used. Hence, stained glass, being easily broken, should be avoided. It does seem than churches in the US are employing stained glass windows. I've seen some of an iconic character and others (in my own Greek parish and in a new nearby ROCOR parish) that are not iconic in nature.

As to statues, I also recall reading of statues existing in Constantinople pre-1204 (and probably 1204-1261) and I must read up on when (which local or general council) condemned their use. Recently I saw a photo of a venerated Orthodox statue in Serbia - don't know exactly how to fit that one into this!

[Nina]

I might add to Andreas' post on the early 20thC Russian painters: The artist Leon Bakst, in his drawings for the costumes for the debut performance of Stravinsky's ballet The Rite of Spring, undeniably used abstract forms derived from Russian iconography.

Really??? I am very familiar with Bakst and have seen his work but I never read, or knew what you say.

[Sophronia]

Kosta is also correct to point out that it is improper to base an Orthodox icon on a real person's likeness. Renaissance painters and sculptors frequently modelled their subjects' likenesses on their wives, daughters, public figures, or even themselves. .
Just a few thoughts from an unworthy iconographer:

It is my understanding that Orthodox Icons are (when possible) based on the transfigured likeness of the holy person being portrayed. Just as the icon of Christ portrays His person (in His two natures human and divine) so too the icons of His most pure Mother and His Angels and Saints. But never would we Orthodox paint a holy icon based on the appearance of some OTHER person. And in my understanding what makes an icon a holy icon is appropriateness of the subject and how they are portrayed as divinized rather than the material used per say. There is some ancient historical comment Eusebius?) concerning a statue of Christ erected in His honor by the woman with a hemmorhage that was cured. Also many icons on sarcophagi and ivories were made in three dimensions in the days of early Christianity. Icons were/are done in needlework and tapestry, mosaic tile, stained glass and cloisonne. And we must not forget that many wonderworking icons are covered with embossed metal rizas and precious gems. Then there is the fact that these days many people have "icons" which are massed produced reproductions of often old and badly damaged originals printed on photo paper and sometimes laminated onto plywood.

There is and always was of course, controvery among iconographers about materials and methods. And of course the personal preferences of the persons who acquire the icons figure in to the picture also. But most important for me at least is the blessing of the priest in church. It is it not this blessing which makes the icon a window to heaven and doorway of divine grace and power?

In Christ,
Alexandra (Sandy)

[M.C. Steenberg]

It is relatively easy to issue a blanket condemnation of statuary as wholly other and therefore of little or no value; but I think an attention to purpose is really what is needed. Iconography is one very specific thing: if we attempt to hold artistic forms up to its standard and aims, most will fail (this has been the subject of discussion in another thread very recently: O'doxy and the Arts (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4263)). It's quite easy to say that a statue - such as that in the photograph at the front of this thread - is not iconographic; but of course it isn't. This is akin to saying an orange doesn't make a terribly satisfying apple.

Artistic forms tend to aim at quite different things than do icons: their purpose is most often the conjuring up and specific focusing of emotions -- e.g. a symphony of celebration is designed to cause one to be drawn up into the overwhelming feeling of joy and exuberance; a renaissance statue of the 'Deposition of Christ' is mean to cause one to feel intense agony, pain, sadness.

These are not the aims of iconography, which principally tends away from the manipulation of the emotions. The aim here is rather to express the transfigured reality of the subject in a manner that generates transforming apatheia, and the transfiguring of the one who prays with it.

These are quite different aims. They really oughtn't be compared as if they were different styles of the same project; they aren't, and such comparisons are always fairly unprofitable. Classic works of art generally will be judged horrifically bad as icons; and sanctified and classic icons will generally be judged as pitiful art. But neither aims to be the other. The canons of expectation and creation are wholly different.

I tend to think the statue of Christ breaking bread, shared at the front of this thread, is rather unimpressive -- not as a 'bad icon', as it isn't an icon; but rather, as ineffectual art. I imagine (and only imagine, as I cannot know) that the artist was attempting to convey emotions of friendship and unity: here is Christ, passing out food at the table in a kind and familiar gesture. But I don't think the statue really does this, or at least not terribly well. It is so 'normal' that it doesn't even convey the emotions that I think the artist was intending. This in stark contrast to the statuary of some of the classic sculptors - Michaelangelo, etc. -- who knew how to manipulate stone so that the emotions they wished to draw out of the observer really were drawn out (oftentimes, in Michaelangelo's case, by deliberate distortion of the proportions of the bodies: enormous hands and forearms, for example).

Again, this is a very different project than the icon.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Just a note to say that I have moved the discussion on stained glass windows to its own thread, now found here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4293), so that the current thread can remain on the topic of statuary.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Kostas, in the above you wrote:


The statue is an uncanonical image. Our Church limits canonical images to 2-dimensional images, theologically refered to as "windows into heaven".

Actually, this is not precisely correct. Three-dimensional iconography is found in most Orthodox churches in the form of relief carving (or, in most cases, relief pressed metalwork) that covers the Gospel book, and is the standard form of adornment of the crosses used for blessing. Relief icons, carved in wood, ivory or stone (or pressed in metal) are also standard in many churches, and are amongst some of the most ancient icons in the Church's history.

This is something different from full statuary, which in its free-standing dimension is all but forced into the realm of realism, in which an icon is little interested. But the dimensions available in relief still allow for the more figurative representation required by the canons of the icon, and as such it has long formed a part of Orthodox worship.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I often hear mention made of Church canons that specifically forbid the production and/or use of full statuary in Orthodox Churches. However, I have never been able actually to find such a canon (not that I have looked terribly closely). I would extremely grateful if any knew where such a canon is to be found, and might be able either to direct me to the text, or post it here in the thread.

Many thanks in advance.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father Anthony]

Actually, I saw a news article recently and if need be will find and post the link to it, of Greek soldiers protecting a monastery in one of the disputed Balkan regions with a miracle working statue. Yes, the monastery is an Orthodox women's monastery. The statue happens to be one of the more famous religious items of veneration in that region.

As to whether statuary belongs in Orthodox Churches, it has always been my understanding that it is not our form of sacred art. Looking at most religious statuary that exists and has been common for the last several centuries, I can see why. But I have seen some religious statuary from the first millennium of origins from Brittany and Celtic areas (when the church was still united), although rather primitive are simple and almost in the iconographic style that we we see in our sacred images today.

So I have to agree with Deacon Matthew, there may not be an explicit canon prohibiting statuary, it just may not be our tradition.

You may now proceed to hurl rocks (and statue pieces at me).

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Father Anthony, you wrote:


So I have to agree with Deacon Matthew, there may not be an explicit canon prohibiting statuary, it just may not be our tradition.

I wouldn't say that I am presenting this as a position I wish to back; I was simply making the observation that though I often hear mention of such a canon, I've never actually seen it. It may well: if so, I'd be very grateful to see it.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father Anthony]

Father Deacon Matthew,

I agree and so would I. Excuse the previous post, it was "BC" Before Coffee this morning.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Effie Ganatsios]

Actually, I saw a news article recently and if need be will find and post the link to it, of Greek soldiers protecting a monastery in one of the disputed Balkan regions with a miracle working statue. Yes, the monastery is an Orthodox women's monastery. The statue happens to be one of the more famous religious items of veneration in that region.

As to whether statuary belongs in Orthodox Churches, it has always been my understanding that it is not our form of sacred art. Looking at most religious statuary that exists and has been common for the last several centuries, I can see why. But I have seen some religious statuary from the first millennium of origins from Brittany and Celtic areas (when the church was still united), although rather primitive are simple and almost in the iconographic style that we we see in our sacred images today.

So I have to agree with Deacon Matthew, there may not be an explicit canon prohibiting statuary, it just may not be our tradition.

You may now proceed to hurl rocks (and statue pieces at me).

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father Anthony, would you be kind enough to post the link?

Is the fact that statues are forbidden a remnant of Jewish law that has been passed on to us?

[Father Anthony]

Gladly,

http://sofiaecho.com/article/insight-greek-protectors-of-miracle-monastery/id_25147/catid_5

I hope this link works out since I never inserted one here before.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

[Effie Ganatsios]

Gladly,

http://sofiaecho.com/article/insight-greek-protectors-of-miracle-monastery/id_25147/catid_5

I hope this link works out since I never inserted one here before.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Thanks, Father Anthony. This article was quite objective and peaceloving.
The Greek soldiers in Kosovo are part of the Nato force in that region and are doing a good job. Whoever gave them this assignment was obviously a sensitive person.

[Andrew]

Father Anthony, would you be kind enough to post the link?

Is the fact that statues are forbidden a remnant of Jewish law that has been passed on to us?

The Old Testament Church had statues... the Brass Serpent, the angels on the Ark, etc.

[Shawn Lazar]

For what it's worth, pretty much every Western-Rite church I've been to has had statues, crucifixes, and so forth. I was also under the impression that Orthodoxy forbade that, but I guess not.

[Kosta]

For whatever reasons (and at the same time obvious reasons) statues have never been apart of the apostolic tradition. Whether statues existed in churches before the iconoclastic controversy is irrelevant because their existence were not seen as a legitimate christian expression regardless if they were in churches.

This is evidenced by the iconoclasts themselves. The iconoclasts arguments was never over statues but over 'pictures' and whether they can be venerated. In the Iconoclastic robber-council of 754, the heretics anathemized those that portray Christ in "lifeless pictures" using "colors".
The iconoclasts didnt attack statues because the iconodules didnt accept them to begin with.

In the 7th Ecumenical Council in session 1 a number of bishops who adhered to the iconoclastic pseudo-council repented and were recieved back into the Church by confession, these were Basil of Ancyra, Theodore of Myra and one Theodosius. The confession of Theodosius sheds light on these images, that they were all flat images using a number of materials:

"....Of every kind of material of gold and silver and of every color so that his incarnation maybe set forth to all men. Likewise there maybe painted the lives of the saints and prophets and martyrs..... For people go forth to meet with lights and incense the 'laurata' and images of the emperors when they are sent out to cities and rural districts, they honor surely not the tablet covered with wax (aka encaustic painting) but the emperor himself. How much more is it neccesary in our churches of Christ our God, the image of God our saviour and of his spotless Mother and all of the holy blessed fathers and ascetics should be painted? Even as St. Basil says, "Writers and painters set forth the great deeds of war, the one by word, the others by pencils, and each stirs many to courage..."

We can see here that only 2-dimensional images are involved in the iconoclastic controversy. Gold and silver were used in icons as they are now, and these images were "painted" images and the artist uses "pencils", another words they were 'written not 'chiseled'. The example Theodosius used were pictures of emperors painted on 'tablets' using wax paints, a technique known as encuastic also used for icon painting. Ironically statues of emperors were abundant.

Likewise 100 years earlier in canon 82 of the council of trullo (extension of the 6th ecumenical council) it says that the icon of the lamb(type of Christ) is to cease and only his human form is to be "painted" sometimes translated as "colored expression". Again only 2-dimensional images are recognized as proper christian expression not statues.

I have many problems with the WR attempts to make statues equal with icons. They can defend statuary all they want and quote theologians all they want, but the fact remains; the councils and Fathers did NOT have statues in mind when they defended icons and their veneration.

[Olympiada]

I just have to say my problem with the statute is it is so physical, it seems to be inviting lustful thoughts about Jesus Christ.

[Olga]

Please forgive this long post, but it adds to what Kosta wrote. The style of English is rather quaint and long-winded in parts, but is still worth reading.

Act 7, of the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

“We define the rule with all accuracy and diligence, in a manner not unlike that befitting the shape of the precious and vivifying Cross, that the venerable and holy icons, painted or mosaic, or made of any other suitable material, be placed in the holy churches of God upon sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, houses and streets, both of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of our spotless Lady the holy Mother of God, and also of the precious Angels, and of all Saints. For the more frequently and oftener they are continually seen in pictorial representation, the more those beholding are reminded and led to visualize anew the memory of the originals which they represent and for whom moreover they also beget a yearning in the soul of the persons beholding the icons. Accordingly, such persons are prompted not only to kiss these and to pay them honorary adoration, what is more important, they are imbued with the true faith which is reflected in our worship which is due to God alone and which befits only the divine nature. But this worship must be paid in the way suggested by the form of the precious and vivifying Cross, and the holy Gospels, and the rest of sacred institutions, and the offering of wafts of incense, and the display of beams of light, to be done for the purpose of honouring them, just as it used to be the custom to do among the ancients by way of manifesting piety. For any honour paid to the icon (or picture) redounds upon the original, and whoever bows down in adoration before the icon, is at the same time bowing down in adoration to the substance (or hypostasis) of the one therein painted. For thus the doctrine of our Holy Fathers, it was the tradition of the universal Church."

Interpretation (from The Rudder):

An idol is one thing, a statue is another thing, and an icon (or picture) is a different thing. For an idol differs from an icon in that the icon is a likeness of a true thing and its original, whereas the idol is an image of a false and inexistent thing, and is not the likeness of an original, according to Origen and Theodoret — just as were the idols of the false and inexistent gods of the Greeks. We call those images which embody the whole figure statues and carved or sculptured figures in general. As for this kind of images, namely, the statues, the catholic (Orthodox) Church not only does not adore them, but she does not even manufacture them, for many reasons:

1) because in its present definition this Council says for images to be produced with paints (or colours), with mosaic, or tessellated work, and with any other suitable material (which means with gold and silver and other metals, as Theodosius the bishop of Amorion says in Act 4 of the same Council) upon the sacred utensils, and robes, including sheets and cloths; upon walls and boards, and houses and streets. It did not mention a word about construction of a statue. Rather it may be said that this definition of this Council is antagonistic to statues;

2) because neither the letters written by patriarchs in their correspondence with one another, and to emperors, nor the letters of Pope Gregory to Germanus and of Pope Adrian to the present Council, nor the speeches and orations which the bishops and monks made in connection with all the eight Acts of the present Council said anything at all about statues or sculptured figures. But also the councils held by the iconomachs, and especially that held in Blachernae in the reign of Copronymus, in writing against the holy icons, mention oil paintings and portraits, but never statues or sculptured figures, which, if they existed, could not have been passed over in silence by the iconomachs, but, on the contrary, they would have been written against with a view to imputing greater blame to the Orthodox;

3) because although the woman with an issue of blood made a bronze statue of Christ in memory of and by way of giving thanks for the miracle and the benefaction which it had conferred upon her; and she set it up in the Panead, at the feet of which there sprang up a plant, or herb, which cured various ailments; and, as some say, that statue was smashed to pieces by the Emperor Maximinus, before Constantine the Great, and the bronze was seized by him; or else Julian the Apostate seized it, and put in its place the statue of Jupiter, as an anonymous writer says. Though, I say, the woman who had an issue of blood did make this statue (which the Christians took into the Church and honoured; and people went to see it out of a yearning for the original of it, as Philostorgus the Arian historically records), yet, as a matter of fact, that work of the woman who had an issue of blood was a concession from God, who, for goodness’ sake accepted it, making allowances for the imperfect knowledge of the woman who set it up; and because that was an embodiment and mark not of the grace of the Gospel, but of the old Law, as Pope Gregory II says in writing to St. Germanus (for the old Law had the two Cherubim, which were gold statues and sculptured figures containing all the body of the angelic powers, according to ch. 38 of Exodus, which Cherubim, according to an unknown expositor, had the face of a calf, and adored the Ark of the Covenant (here called the Ark of the Testimony, and by this adoration separated the Israelites from the idolatry of the Egyptians, who used to adore the calf. For the Jews learned from this that if a calf adored the Ark, it followed that the Egyptians were wrong in adoring it as a god).

Not only the old Law, but also the custom of the Greeks fostered the erection of statues and sculptured figures, as St. Germanus writes in a letter to Thomas of Claudiopolis which is to be found in Act 4 of the present Council, and which says: “It being obvious that the Saviour levelled His own grace to condescension with the faith of the woman, and showed what has been made evident to us above, namely, that it is not that what is performed is in general the object, but that it is the aim of the one performing it that is being reduced to experience . . . ." And again: “We do not say this, so that we may find an excuse for exercising the art of making bronze pillars, but merely in order to make it plain that the Lord did not discard the national custom at this point, but, instead, availed Himself of it to exhibit therein for a considerable length of time the wonder-working and miracle-working efficiency of His own benevolence; on which account it is not devout to disparage the custom of a somewhat more pious nature which has prevailed among us.”

You see here three things as plainly as day, to wit: 1) that the erection of the statue of Christ was moral, and that the Lord accepted it as a matter of compromise with the times; 2) that statues ought not to be manufactured; and 3) that it is more pious and more decent for the venerable images to be depicted, not by means of statues, but by means of colours in paintings. For the same saint said above by way of anticipation that in historically recording the facts concerning the statues, he historically recounts the fact that the icons of the Apostles Peter and Paul, painted in colours, were still extant . . . Canon LXXXII of the 6th, moreover, says that we ought to prefer the grace of the Gospel to the legal form, and ought to set up the human character, or figure, of Christ in icons instead of the olden lamb even in oil paintings.

So that from all that has been said it is proved that the Westerners are acting contrary to the definition of this holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council, and contrary to the tradition of the Church in making statues and sculptured figures and plaster of paris replicas, and setting them up in their churches. We said hereinabove those representations which embody the whole of that which they represent are called statues and sculptured work and plaster of paris figures in general, whereas those representations which do not embody the whole of the person or other object which they are intended to represent, but at most merely exhibit them in relief, projecting, that is to say, here and there above the level and surface of the background, are not called statues or sculptured work or plaster of paris figures or any such name, but, instead, they are called holy icons (or, if they are not holy, simply pictures). Such are those which are to be found engraved or stamped or otherwise delineated upon the sacred vessels, on divine Gospels, and other holy books, on precious crosses, of silver and gold, according to Dositheus (p. 656 of the Dodecabiblus); to the same class are assigned also images cast in wax and more or less in relief, that is to say, projecting at various points above and receding at other points below the plane surface of the image, concerning which divine Chrysostom (in his Discourse wherein he argues that one and the same Lawgiver is the author of both the Old and the New Testament; and in Discourse 307 on the vesture of priests, the origin of which is to be found in the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ) says the following:

“I myself have loved the images cast in wax as a matter of piety. For I beheld an angel in an image driving back hordes of barbarians. I saw barbarian troops being trodden underfoot, and the words of David coming true, wherein he says: ‘Lord, in thy city Thou wilt do their image havoc’ (p. 852 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records, in Act 6 of the 7th C.; and p. 647 of the sixth vol. of Chrysostom). Oecumenius, too, accepts and approves this kind of image which is cast in wax in the manner above described (in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews). Hence, in writing to Symeon the bishop of Bostra, Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch says: “though, as a matter of fact, an image is nothing else than a piece of wood and colours mixed and mingled with wax” (p. 845 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records). In the same class with these images are placed also the images which are carved in wooden crosses (crucifixes) and medallions. They, too, likewise are wrought in relief and project above the plane of the level surface, and do not compromise the whole body of the person or thing represented.

The reason and cause why statues are not adored or venerated (aside from the legal observation and custom noted hereinabove) seem to me to be the fact that when they are handled and it is noticed that the whole body and all the members of the person or thing represented are contained in them and that they not only reveal the whole surface of it in three dimensions, but can even be felt in space, instead of merely appearing as such to the eye alone, they no longer appear to be, nor have they any longer any right to be called, icons or pictures, but, on the contrary, they are sheer replications of the originals. Some persons, though, assert or opine that the reason why the Church rejected or did away with statues was in order to avoid entirely any likeness to idols. For the idols were statues of massive sculpture, capable of being felt on all sides with the hand and fingers.

It is clear from the above that, while bas-relief and embossed images are permissible for veneration, fully 3-dimensional statues are not.

[Nina]

For what it's worth, pretty much every Western-Rite church I've been to has had statues, crucifixes, and so forth. I was also under the impression that Orthodoxy forbade that, but I guess not.

I (as Kosta and Olga also mention) do not think Orthodoxy has statues. One example here and one there does not mean Orthodoxy had statues. I think your observation and impression are right. A couple of statues in Orthodoxy are outside influences.

As Olympiada who started this thread rightly says that statue is not even beautiful. It does not at all make one kneel in prayer and repentance. But also even as art, the purpose is not achieved. I have seen statues of dictators that were almost like alive. Dictators raised statues everywhere, for implanting their cult to people.

[Andreas Moran]

In northern Russia, there is a folk tradition of making 'semi-statues' of saints. They are free standing but rather flat - not naturalistically round. They are carved from wood and painted. There is one of St Nicholas in the narthex of our parish church of St Nicholas in Moscow. I have not seen people venerate it at all.

[Olga]

Really??? I am very familiar with Bakst and have seen his work but I never read, or knew what you say.

While Bakst painted in a variety of styles, mainly in what became known as Art Nouveau, the artistic style of the painting in this link (and others of his) show definite iconographic influence.

http://www.thehipcircle.com/assets/bakst/bakst-firebird.jpg

[Olga]

I just have to say my problem with the statute is it is so physical, it seems to be inviting lustful thoughts about Jesus Christ.

Personally, this statue does nothing for me, but, of course, I can't speak for others. Iconography is, by definition, rendered in a non-realistic, dispassionate style, not only to better portray spiritual, not earthly, realities, but also to eliminate any chance of arousing lust or any other inappropriate thoughts when the icon is viewed or venerated.

http://www.days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ii379&175.htm

Consider the iconography of Blessed Basil the Holy Fool of Moscow, or of St Mary of Egypt: These saints are often portrayed naked or nearly so. Yet their bodies and their gestures are painted in such a way that any corrupting or sensual thoughts are impossible to sustain. The bare flesh and wizened appearance represent the complete denial of self and emptying of self that these ascetic saints practiced and attained.

[Andreas Moran]

Consider the iconography of Blessed Basil the Holy Fool of Moscow, or of St Mary of Egypt: These saints are often portrayed naked or nearly so. Yet their bodies and their gestures are painted in such a way that any corrupting or sensual thoughts are impossible to sustain. The bare flesh and wizened appearance represent the complete denial of self and emptying of self that these ascetic saints practiced and attained.

Compare Roman Catholic paintings and some statuary from the High Renaissance onwards: Bernini's notorious sculpture of St Theresa, any number of 'penitent Magdalenes', and as for Caravaggio's 'St John the Baptist' in the Capitoline Museum . . . !

[Nina]

While Bakst painted in a variety of styles, mainly in what became known as Art Nouveau, the artistic style of the painting in this link (and others of his) show definite iconographic influence.

http://www.thehipcircle.com/assets/bakst/bakst-firebird.jpg

Ah, I just saw this. Thank you for the link Olga.
I knew that Bakst painted icons in the beginnings. Actually he was expelled from the Academy of St. Petersburg because of the daring new nuances he gave to the icon of Crucifixion. Although some say he was expelled because of antisemitism (Bakst was Jewish-Russian). I saw this "icon" he painted and from what I remember it was black and white. But it is so interesting to know that he was influenced by icons and adopted this to his style. And it is only logical. He grew up in Russia.

Olga, when you say:


Personally, this statue does nothing for me, but, of course, I can't speak for others. Iconography is, by definition, rendered in a non-realistic, dispassionate style, not only to better portray spiritual, not earthly, realities, but also to eliminate any chance of arousing lust or any other inappropriate thoughts when the icon is viewed or venerated.

This exactly is what I was taught also and this is how I feel also.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

When I was growing up in Montreal there was a very famous Roman Catholic Church called St Joseph's Oratory. Within this very large church was a crucified Jesus Christ almost life size. On the cross He was portrayed very graphically with wounds and blood.

Being a boy at the time and just one person I'm not sure how representative my reactions were to this cross. They probably were increased by having always been brought to a Protestant church where especially at the time no depictions of the crucified Christ were seen and especially of this kind.

In any case I have to say that there was something powerful about this particular depiction/statue of Christ which drew one to it. It didn't produce the effect being in the presence of an icon would. You know- that kind of peace one feels before an iconographic depiction of the Crucifixion.

Rather what drew one to this Cross was the human drama & pain it showed along with a deep sympathy for Christ. I don't say this in a critical way- I was a boy then anyway and let the experience speak for itself. But seeing as how someone of that age in general takes in things in a more simple, uncritical way this reaction shows something I think of what the different styles- 'natural' & iconographic- try to achieve.

By the way western art is actually not natural. For example the famous Renaissance depiction of the prince with his retinue freezes everyone in mid stride; which is as un-natural a depiction as could possibly be.

Rather than being 'natural' this depiction actually abstracts from reality and then abstracts in depiction each character into their ideal representation. This too is representative art just as much as iconography. The difference is in how it sees what is representative of reality. Something similar I think follows with the depiction of the Crucifixion which in the depiction referred to above really is not realistic- rather it sought to convey a certain point about the Crucifixion. This I think is important.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Shawn Lazar]

Hey I'm from Montreal too! Have we already spoken about that?

As far as I'm aware, all of the Biblical examples St. John of Damascus uses to defend iconography are drawn from instances where statuary was approved by God for use in the Tabernacle/Temple, such as the pomegranite carvings, the cherubim on the ark of the covenant, etc. So I'm not quite sure why (some?) Orthodox reject statuary, or give icons a place of privilege. I suppose its just someone's own subjective experience that makes the difference? Surely icons can lead to idolatry just as easily as statues?

By the by, I was just using the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox library the other day, and noticed that their (very beautiful) campus was marked by several statues depicting different bishops, archbishops, and the like. More evidence, I suppose, that statuary is acceptable in Orthodoxy?

[Nina]

By the by, I was just using the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox library the other day, and noticed that their (very beautiful) campus was marked by several statues depicting different bishops, archbishops, and the like. More evidence, I suppose, that statuary is acceptable in Orthodoxy?

I have been also to Holy Cross a lot, and they have one statue of Patriarch Athenagora and in the Library dedicated to Archbishop Iakovos they have his. So where in the chapel/church there did you see a statue with the purpose of venerating? Also you speak like the campus is filled with statues, but it is not. And we should not confuse statues for worship, veneration (from which there are none at the Seminary of the Holy Cross) and statues as in secular tradition in memory of a prominent figure.

[Father Serafim]

As I have always understood it, icons are blessed before they are painted i.e. the iconographer receives a blessing to paint. By the time they come to Church they are already blessed. It is customary in the Russian Church to say special prayers and bless them with holy water. As I explain to our parishioners, the icon is already holy, and as such I place it on the Prestol (Holy Table) during the Liturgy.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Statuary is not forbidden by Orthodoxy, it is simply not allowed inside the Church, just like instrumental music. It is fine in and of itself, but not appropriate in the corporate worship setting. You won't see anyone venerating those statues at Holy Cross, I suspect.

[Shawn Lazar]

Oh, no statues within churches. But why? I suppose that I'm not sure how St. John of Damascus can appeal to the example of the bronze serpent, and the cherubim, and the other carvings in order to defend iconography, while other Orthodox people will deny the use statues. It seems the Roman Catholics are more consistent on this issue?

(I did not go inside the Holy Cross chapel, only around the campus. And during my short walk I saw two life-sized statues and two busts. There may be more, but certainly not less.)

[Nina]

Oh, no statues within churches.

Ok that is important, that you admit. Because I can vouch that there are no statues inside the chapel (that's how the church is called there) of the Holy Cross.

[Kosta]

Oh, no statues within churches. But why? I suppose that I'm not sure how St. John of Damascus can appeal to the example of the bronze serpent, and the cherubim, and the other carvings in order to defend iconography, while other Orthodox people will deny the use statues. It seems the Roman Catholics are more consistent on this issue?

(I did not go inside the Holy Cross chapel, only around the campus. And during my short walk I saw two life-sized statues and two busts. There may be more, but certainly not less.)

Actually, St Theodore the Studite the other champion of icons condemned the bronze serpent as not being an appropriate image. When an iconoclast asked him why the bronze serpent was destroyed because the jews burned incense to it, St Theodore replied, that it was for the same reason that the Apostle Paul did not list it in the book of Hebrews. He asks, 'What veneration can you give a serpent" and gives an explanation. Finally he says..."If the prototype doesnt deserve worship, the copy must also be spurned".

The whole reason that statues arent used is simply because they were never part of the Apostolic Tradition. The first icon is said to have been painted by St Luke the Evangelist. The earliest (house)church ever excavated dating to 240 a.d. in Duro Europos Syria has frescos painted on the walls (statues were not found). The 7th Ecumenical council never spoke of statues, only of 2-dimensional icons. The 6th Ecumenical Council forbidded "painting" a Lamb as a symbol for Christ, not that statues of a lamb are exempt but because they didint exist.

Whatever statues may have been in Place in the Church of Hagia Sophia, like some try to argue, is irrelevant since they never were considered Apostolic Tradition but as anomalies.

[M.C. Steenberg]

In any case, the position on iconography in the Church is not historical in base, but theological and pastoral. St John called upon historical circumstances to note that the use of images - of physical representations of divine history - was not foreign to the religion of God's people; however, that historical defence is not the same thing as setting down a code of practice. The actual norms for the use of images in the Church are built out of pastoral need - a need in which the icon, rather than the statue, is understood as having more potent value, for many of the reasons that have been (and are being) discussed in this thread. So while, again so far as I can tell (and I await correction, should anyone ever be able to find an actual canon) it is not forbidden by a specific canon of the Church for statues to be used, it is the essentially universal practice that they are not - a tradition that has strong justification in the writings of many fathers, decisions on practice in synods, etc.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Olga]

From Leonid Ouspensky's book Theology of the Icon:

The decisions of the Quinisext Council were signed by the emperor, and a place was left for the signature of the Pope of Rome; following were the signatures of the Patriarchs Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem and George of Antioch. These were followed by the signatures of 213 bishops or their representatives. Among the signatures was that of Basil, archbishop of Gortyna (in Crete), who signed on behalf of the Church of Rome. There were also signatures of other bishops of the West. The authority of these representatives of Western Christianity is contested. Hefele writes: "It is true that the Vita Sergii in the Liber Pontificalis reports that the legates of Pope Sergius, having been deceived by the emperor, signed their names. But these legates of the pope were simply pontifical apocrisiaries living in Constantinople and not legates who had been sent expressly to take part in the council." In any case, as soon as the council had ended, the acts were sent to Rome requesting Pope Sergius' signature. He refused, even rejecting his copy of the acts. He declared that the decisions of the council had no value and asserted that he preferred death to accepting error. The error consisted undoubtedly in some teachings and practices which were condemned by the council, such as, for example, the obligatory celibacy of clergy, the Saturday fast (already forbidden by the First Ecumenical Council), the representation of Christ in the form of a lamb, and others. Yet the Roman Church eventually accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which refers to Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council. Therefore, it can be said that the Roman Church implicitly also recognises this canon. Pope St. Gregory II refers to Canon 82 in his letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Germanus. Pope Hadrian I, for example, solemnly declares in his letter to Patriarch St. Tarasius his adherence to the Quinisext Council; he does the same in a letter to the Frankish bishops in defence of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Pope John VIII spoke of the decisions of the Quinisext Council without voicing any objection. Later, Pope Innocent III, quoting Canon 82, calls the Quinisext Council the Sixth Ecumenical Council. But all this is only the agreement of some popes, whereas there were others who had contrary opinions. On the whole, the West did not receive the decisions of the Quinisext Council.

The teaching of the Church on the christological basis of the icon, therefore, remained foreign to Western Christianity. This teaching could not enrich the sacred art of the West, which even today retains certain purely symbolic representations such as the lamb. The refusal to accept the decisions of the Quinisext Council later had, in the realm of sacred art, a great importance. The Roman Church excluded itself from the process of a development of an artistic and spiritual language, a process in which all the rest of the Church took an active part, with the Church of Constantinople providentially becoming the leader. The West remained outside of this development.

The Orthodox Church, on the contrary, in accordance with the Quinisext Council, continued to refine its art in form and in contents, an art which conveys, through images and material forms, the revelation of the divine world, giving us a key to approach, contemplate and understand it. It seems to us that it is particularly important for Western Orthodoxy, as it emerges in our own time, to be well aware of the significance of Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council. The canon, in fact, is the theoretical basis of liturgical art. Whatever course Western Orthodox art will take in the future, it will not be able to bypass the basic directive which was formulated for the first time in this canon: the transmission of historical reality and the revealed divine truth, expressed in certain forms which correspond to the spiritual experience of the Church.

The above excerpt goes some way in explaining why there is such divergence in content and form of western religious art and that of canonical Orthodox iconography. Despite the church of Rome accepting the rulings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (convened almost a century later), it seems little mind was paid by that church to the prohibitions of that Council to the portrayal of God the Father as a bearded old man, hence the perpetuation of such images to this day. An indirect conclusion could therefore be drawn, that the west also similarly saw no problem with statues as ecclesiastical art.

[Girmay]

I am just familiarizing myself to the thread and interesting articles and discussions you have already. Though I am from different tradition of the oriental orthodox, I see many similarities among the orthodox family. So I need to keep reading first before introducing myself,

May God Bless us.