Status of print and digital icons

[Stuart Dunn]

What are people's opinions on icons that aren't handpainted, but perhaps digital photographs or reproductions of famous icons? Are they true icons? If so would this be the same as the image of the Icon on one's computer or the Internet?

[Olga]

The short answer to your question, Stuart, is "yes, printed icons are just as worthy as hand-painted ones". There was a thread in 2006 on this forum called "Brass and Printed Icons", where this was discussed. Though the thread soon strayed into a different direction, it's still worth reading it. Here are a couple of posts from this thread:



It is not how the icon is made (hand-painted v printed) that makes it suitable or unsuitable for veneration. The content, what is depicted on the icon is more important, for instance, an "icon" depicting the so-called New Testament Trinity is non-canonical, and should not be venerated, irrespective of whether it is printed or painted. Other non-canonical "icons" which, sadly, continue to be produced are Angel of Blessed Silence (or Great Counsel), its related composition of Christ Holy Wisdom, and the All-Seeing Eye of God. None of these are suitable for veneration.



I might add also that there is a recent example of a myrrh-streaming icon of St Nicholas of Myra, a printed icon laminated with plastic and mounted on board, which was produced by a monastery in Wisconsin. The interesting thing is that this icon was considered "unfit" for sale by the monastery, because of a flaw in the mounting process. Such icons were given away, not sold, to visitors to the monastery for this reason.

An Orthodox priest from Indiana acquired one of these icons, and, in 1996, on the morning of the feast-day of St Nicholas, the icon which had been placed on the main icon stand in the church began streaming myrrh. It has done so ever since, and miracles have been reported from those who have venerated the icon or have been anointed with the myrrh. Despite extensive examination, no rational or scientific explanation for this phenomenon has been found.

I was privileged to see and venerate this icon when it came to Australia in late 2000, and, on hearing its history, I couldn't help thinking of the passage "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone" - that even an ordinary printed icon which was deemed not good enough for sale, but simply given away, became a source of miracles.


Ii is worth remembering that the vast majority of icons in Orthodox homes, and a good number of the portable icons in churches, are of the printed variety. Iconographers of any sort, let alone good ones, are not exactly thick on the ground in many parts of the world. A good iconographer will justifiably expect payment of at least a few hundred dollars for a 8''x12'' icon of a single saint, more if more figures are to be painted. Not everyone can afford this sort of outlay, particularly as a person or household usually would have several icons as a bare minimum (many have a dozen or more).

Regarding digital images on a computer screen, or stored on a hard drive: such images are not "made of matter" as a printed or painted icon is. It is when the image is printed and therefore "made substantial", that it can be venerated as an icon. The common custom also is that any completed icon, painted or printed, mounted or framed, is blessed by a priest on the church altar, then it is ready for veneration.

[Andreas Moran]

Though they have Sr Maria, the monastery here commonly uses mounted prints of icons for feast days.

I have often wondered what to do with newsletters, magazines and so forth which have pictures of icons in them -how should we dispose of them - always by burning? It somehow doesn't seem right just to chuck them in the garbage.

[Max Percy]

Though they have Sr Maria, the monastery here commonly uses mounted prints of icons for feast days.

I have often wondered what to do with newsletters, magazines and so forth which have pictures of icons in them -how should we dispose of them - always by burning? It somehow doesn't seem right just to chuck them in the garbage.

I agree. I burn them. It has made me aware how icons have become marketing tools.

[Nina]

Yes we burn them. Do not throw icons in the garbage, please.

[Stuart Dunn]

The reason I asked this is because I had a thought one night while laying in bed. You know those digital photograph frames? The ones where you can load pictures on a memory card and it will cycle (some of the better ones will let you pause or stop at a certain picture) through the images. One could in theory download these icons, arrange them chronologically in order of when their liturgical day is, keep the icon of the current saint's feast as the image for that whole day (so that one may remember whose feast it is and say some appropriate prayers, as well as offer proper veneration), and then when his/her feast day is over, cycle to the saint for the next day and repeat. It is merely a thought, and if it is wrong please forgive me and correct me. I realize now it is not the same as one that is printed, but I didn't know since it was a scanned copy (I assume that is how they get the images on the Internet) if it somehow could be considered material since the ones printed on glossy paper are also copies just in a more tangible since.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Our parish actually has a non-digital Greek equivalent. It is a very thick frame inside another glass frame that contains over 300 icon prints from the Menaion and Feast days. We use it on our analogion.

I'd be nervous seeing a digital icon in a church, but I think it a cool idea for home use although I can see where some might have reservations. There is an Athonite monastery with a website where you can "light" a digital candle. Cute, but it makes me cringe a bit...

[Stuart Dunn]

Yeah, I would never think of doing a digital icon in church. It was just a thought for home use or even those who travel a lot and don't get to take their icons (other than maybe the foldable, portable ones) with them.

[Nina]

Yes that is a great idea! Even just to have the icons change and different saints' images be there with you. :) It is like watching beloved people all at the same time. So thank you, dear Stuart for the idea. If I ever buy one I will do this.

For traveling I have some small paper icons which have plastic over them. I have not seen them here, but I have seen them in Greece a lot. So I have collected some favorites and keep them with me when I travel regardless if they celebrate or not, since they are beloved family anyway. I also have little triptych, or diptych... but I usually tend to give them away so often I just end up with the paper icons only.

On the other hand I have collected larger paper icons with plastic over them and when they celebrate they stay at the icon place for some time in front of the oil lamp.

I see that you are RC. Do you have icons also? I have seen some RC people do have some icons/pictures, like in Italy for instance, but the family of my fiance who is part RC does not have icons and I wonder if you have icons too since you were thinking about such idea.

[Matthew Namee]

Yeah, I would never think of doing a digital icon in church. It was just a thought for home use or even those who travel a lot and don't get to take their icons (other than maybe the foldable, portable ones) with them.
Maybe it's just me, but the idea of digital icons seems like exactly the sort of thing that would have been a hit in the Byzantine Empire. I've read all sorts of stories about the gadgets and tricks they employed in church. One French Crusader just before the sack of Constantinople reported seeing the body of Christ rise of its own accord out of the ground. Turns out, this was the burial shroud of Christ (aka the Shroud of Turin) rigged up on some kind of machine. They also had icons behind veils, and the veils would somehow automatically move aside, revealing the icon. And has anyone else heard about the Hagia Sophia having some kind of windows which, at the right time, created a rainbow inside the church itself? I heard this once, but I'm not sure if it's true.

[Stuart Dunn]

I see that you are RC. Do you have icons also? I have seen some RC people do have some icons/pictures, like in Italy for instance, but the family of my fiance who is part RC does not have icons and I wonder if you have icons too since you were thinking about such idea.


Nope, no icons. I have considered purchasing one on several occasions, but never could pick one to start with. And since I already buy books galore, I didn't want this to become something else and end up buying like 10,000 icons.

[Nina]

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of digital icons seems like exactly the sort of thing that would have been a hit in the Byzantine Empire. I've read all sorts of stories about the gadgets and tricks they employed in church. One French Crusader just before the sack of Constantinople reported seeing the body of Christ rise of its own accord out of the ground. Turns out, this was the burial shroud of Christ (aka the Shroud of Turin) rigged up on some kind of machine. They also had icons behind veils, and the veils would somehow automatically move aside, revealing the icon. And has anyone else heard about the Hagia Sophia having some kind of windows which, at the right time, created a rainbow inside the church itself? I heard this once, but I'm not sure if it's true.

Giggles... I had grandparents and great-grandparents who lived in Constantinople and they recounted many things from oral tradition and memories of their forefathers, but I never heard these things. Maybe that French Crusader was lured in to sack Constantinople that way. It is true that there was much wealth donated to churches and monasteries, but much of it went to the poor and needy. Geronda Paisios also speaks about it.

I do not think digital icons would have been a hit for those ppl because (actually I refrained from posting it above) my grandparents always commented that they did not like the new icons we would bring home. And we would say "But these are icons too!" and they would say: "No. Icons are the icons of old. Those icons were holy and performed miracles because people who made them and those who prayed to them were holy people." Not to mention they were very tactile as people and placed icons everywhere even in their chest. I grew up with a small oval icon of Panagia and Christ under my pillow.

[Nina]

Nope, no icons. I have considered purchasing one on several occasions, but never could pick one to start with. And since I already buy books galore, I didn't want this to become something else and end up buying like 10,000 icons.

:) Maybe you can get one of Theotokos and baby Christ. If you have that icon you need no more. If you need more you can get little paper ones enveloped in plastic which are given often for free (as blessings in Orthodox monasteries), or that are sold sometime for just cents. Are you thinking of becoming Orthodox that you read so many books (?) because I see your contribution here always as so helpful and you have helped me so much with many ideas and information about Orthodox resources. :)

[Stuart Dunn]

Are you thinking of becoming Orthodox that you read so many books (?) because I see your contribution here always as so helpful and you have helped me so much with many ideas and information about Orthodox resources. :)

Thank you for that. Your love for people and their problems has helped me too. But no thoughts on becoming Orthodox. I love my RC faith. I just feel Catholics and Orthodox can learn a lot from each other if we can get past our historical prejudices towards one another and worry more about what we agree on than what we disagree on. So some days I'll listen to EWTN (http://www.ewtn.com), and other days I'll listen to Ancient Faith Radio (http://ancientfaith.com/). And while no one can be considered both Catholic and Orthodox, I like to consider myself a Catholic with some Orthodox tendencies (if that makes any sense...perhaps a friend of the Orthodox Church would be a better way to put it.)

[Olga]

.... my grandparents always commented that they did not like the new icons we would bring home. And we would say "But these are icons too!" and they would say: "No. Icons are the icons of old. Those icons were holy and performed miracles because people who made them and those who prayed to them were holy people."

At risk of sounding pedantic, this is not true. All icons (of canonical depiction) are holy. Some do go on to exhibit miraculous behaviour, such as myrrh-streaming. Age also has little to do with it. There are ample examples of icons of quite recent provenance, such as the Hawaii-Iveron discussed on this thread, which have been shown to be miraculous. Yet others have been shown to be miraculous by their actions, e.g. delivering from danger, without necessarily exuding myrrh or displaying other outward manifestation.

A case in point:

A Russian lady I have come to know very well, who is now in her mid-eighties, has an icon of the Mother of God Korsunskaya hanging in her dining room. She invited me to her house not long after we had become acquainted. During dinner, I kept glancing at this little icon, no more than four inches by three, its varnish blackened with time. I gradually worked out that it was an icon of the Mother of God. I remarked to her that the icon must be quite old. She then told me about the 1930s flight of her family to escape Stalin's purges of those deemed to be kulaki - and this included small-scale landowners like her family, not just the wealthy gentry. Kulaki, like clergy, were regarded as "enemies of the State", according to the Soviet credo. The family lived in a town near the Romanian border.

They managed to get to the border safely. However, the border guards at the checkpoints would routinely send back anyone they considered to have no "legitimate" reason to stay. Somehow, the lady's mother began speaking to the guard in Romanian, a language she had not used for many years. She had spent time there in her youth, and had Romanian relatives. "OK," said the guard, "you can stay". "What about them?" said the mother, referring to her husband and children. "We don't split up families" was the guard's reply. The family was free to enter the country. During this entire episode, from fleeing the house, to getting approval to stay in Romania, the Korsunskaya was tucked snugly down this woman's front.

Was this little icon miraculous? Let readers decide for themselves.


Not to mention they were very tactile as people and placed icons everywhere even in their chest. I grew up with a small oval icon of Panagia and Christ under my pillow.

Nina has hit on a very important point, the tangible nature of icons. Perhaps the most strident argument against the veneration of icons used by the iconoclasts was that of "worshipping matter", i.e. venerating things made of wood, paint, stone, or other earthly materials was idolatry. Of course, the iconoclasts were quite mistaken, as they missed the point that humble, fallen, earthly substances were sanctified through the incarnation of Christ. We do not worship the wood or paint, nor the paper and ink, but we venerate what (or who) is represented on the icon.

St John of Damascus rebuts this notion in a very elegant and concise way:


Since the invisible One became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form, nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave, and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.

and:


Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material, and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from venerating the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

In addition, iconography, like so many aspects of Orthodox worship, is comprehended with all of our senses. Sight is the most obvious. Liturgically, the features of an icon, especially festal icons, are made clear by the hymnody sung at the Vigil and Liturgy (hearing). The icon is censed at the Polyeleos, or in one's home using a hand censer (smell). The culmination of this is the partaking of Holy Communion at Liturgy of that saint's day or feast (taste). The faithful venerate icons by crossing themselves, bowing, and kissing them (touch).

I would be the first to agree that it it is not possible to involve every sense every time an icon is prayed before, or venerated, in our homes or when travelling. But it seems to me, going on St John's proclamation, that it would be more proper to have an icon of tangible substance, even if it is a humble printed icon, even laminated in plastic, for one's veneration, rather than an intangible, "immaterial" image in a digital frame. Though I have an archive of several thousand icons on file on my hard drive, for this reason, I do not have an icon (or a series of icons) as a screensaver on my computer, as these digital images have no form or substance in and of themselves. It is only when they are printed that they become real and tangible, therefore in a form suitable for veneration.

[Nina]

Was this little icon miraculous? Let readers decide for themselves.


Being misunderstood was the reason when I mention above feeling reluctant posting the words of my grandparents. I never said that new icons are not holy. Just the image of those holy is enough, not to mention the grace of God and everything else.

On the other hand what my grandparents told to us is not up for discussion since from what I know they tried to teach us several things through those words (plus I have read in words of Geronda Paisios that our piety can not be compared with that of the past generations - this does not mean God does not shower us with blessings, or that He does not sanctify the creation for the sake of our salvation, in contrary God and Saints are even more attentive, as Geronda says, to us than they were to past generations who were not as mischievous as we are).

What is more important those words were meant to tell about the inclination those people had towards what was holy and full of grace and not towards novelties - since it was mentioned that it would have been a hit with certain people. Additionally, we must not judge them, since those people lived with pieces of the Holy Cross in their lives and It was their blessing, their doctor, their wellness, or the notification to prepare for departure from this world.

About the tangible nature of icons. Yes, in moments of joy, pain etc. I need to hug my God, Panagia, Saints, to caress their face and kiss them same way I would greet my family when I see them after separation, or when we have such moments in our lives. The dwellers of Heaven are our family also.

[Nina]

Stuart, no matter. As you know you are welcome here by everyone and also your help with information is so great and the way you interact is very much appreciated. So humble.

P.S Thank you about the link for the bookstore in Australia. It had a couple of books I was looking for.

[Stuart Dunn]

P.S Thank you about the link for the bookstore in Australia. It had a couple of books I was looking for.


Very welcome. God found it, I didn't. Was the first place I'd seen the Little Russian Philokalia Volume 3 offered anywhere. If you order from them, you'll have to email them your address after placing an order since, the zip code box only allows typing of 4 digits and U.S. zip codes are 5.

[Nina]

Olga, I came upon this, which relates to what we discussed above:


The Church... getting old? Not quite. If you have a bit of piety and some good sense, you will not find satisfaction in novelties; this is why we see some people return to antiquity. They cannot for example, be touched by modern icons, because they realize the value that an old icon has.
p.381 With pain and love for contemporary man by Elder Paisios

[Olga]

Does Elder Paisios elaborate on the term "modern icons"? Does he mean those painted in a naturalistic, "western" style, or those which have been produced in recent years, painted in the traditional non-realistic styles? The distinction between the two is quite important.

[Nina]

Olga. No. The Elder does not make a distinction. If he did I would have included the explanation. But all the discussion was about the pious people of that era not being attracted by novelties, what I was saying also.

[Mary Brigid]

And has anyone else heard about the Hagia Sophia having some kind of windows which, at the right time, created a rainbow inside the church itself? I heard this once, but I'm not sure if it's true.

I've heard something like this, too, but I was told that the way that the glass in the mosaics of the iconostasis were positioned created a rainbow around the church.

[Shaun M.]

Regarding digital images on a computer screen, or stored on a hard drive: such images are not "made of matter" as a printed or painted icon is. It is when the image is printed and therefore "made substantial", that it can be venerated as an icon. The common custom also is that any completed icon, painted or printed, mounted or framed, is blessed by a priest on the church altar, then it is ready for veneration.

Sorry to bring up an old thread but I had a question. A computer screen is a physical object, and thus an icon on a screen is made physical through light, plastic or glass, etc. The only difference is the lack of permanence, not the lack of physicality (if it weren't physical, we couldn't see and touch it). So is the problem that it is not permanent? If that is the problem, then what about say a digital picture frame like Mr Dunn was describing being blessed in Church with the images already on it, would that be appropriate to venerate? What about a scanned image of a blessed icon?

[Herman Blaydoe]

It is within the authority of the Church to decide what is appropriate or not, but somehow kissing a computer screen does not appeal this this particular Pooh. Wood and egg tempera, at the very least, does not give off radiation. I spend far too much time in front of a monitor to want to reverence it. Since the image is not permanent, it could be said you are not reverencing it, you are reverencing the screen itself, which just doesn't seem right somehow.

Herman the likes his reality real, not virtual, Pooh

[D. W. Dickens]

While keenly aware that this is not a democracy, "Digital Icons" is utterly contradictory and I'd resist such an abomination. I'm already terribly concerned that we use icons as "decoration" on our websites, in our literature and parish bulletins.

[Olga]

It is within the authority of the Church to decide what is appropriate or not, but somehow kissing a computer screen does not appeal this this particular Pooh. Wood and egg tempera, at the very least, does not give off radiation. I spend far too much time in front of a monitor to want to reverence it. Since the image is not permanent, it could be said you are not reverencing it, you are reverencing the screen itself, which just doesn't seem right somehow.

Herman the likes his reality real, not virtual, Pooh

Quite so, Herman. We may be kissing glass when venerating a framed icon, or one in a kiot, but there's a real, tangible icon underneath, be it a paper print or hand-painted on board. The material, tangible nature of icons reflect the immaterial God becoming material, tangible flesh. A JPEG file on a hard drive or an image in a digital picture frame or computer screen is immaterial, a mere shadow.

[Ryan]

While keenly aware that this is not a democracy, "Digital Icons" is utterly contradictory and I'd resist such an abomination. I'm already terribly concerned that we use icons as "decoration" on our websites, in our literature and parish bulletins.

I find the parish bulletins especially problematic, because one has to dispose of them every week and inevitably people will not be able to treat them with proper respect. Thankfully my parish recently switched to icon-less bulletins.

[Rick H.]

I find the parish bulletins especially problematic, because one has to dispose of them every week and inevitably people will not be able to treat them with proper respect. Thankfully my parish recently switched to icon-less bulletins.

I wondered about this too. My daughter's baptismal name is Mary. Her Godmother made a very nice icon for her from a bulletin with Mary on the cover.

[Michael Stickles]

While keenly aware that this is not a democracy, "Digital Icons" is utterly contradictory and I'd resist such an abomination. I'm already terribly concerned that we use icons as "decoration" on our websites, in our literature and parish bulletins.

It does seem like you'd need an extra word in there - like "digital icon templates" or "digital icon designs" - to highlight that it's not actually an icon itself, but rather something that can be used to make an icon.

Our parish does use images in the bulletin insert (the insert has lives of some of the saints for that week), but I've been told the images are not icons/iconographic (I forget exactly how it was put). They definitely aren't images of full icons, though I never checked to see if any were just the "portrait" part cut out of the full image. Not sure what the image's status would be in that case.


We may be kissing glass when venerating a framed icon, or one in a kiot, but there's a real, tangible icon underneath, be it a paper print or hand-painted on board. The material, tangible nature of icons reflect the immaterial God becoming material, tangible flesh. A JPEG file on a hard drive or an image in a digital picture frame or computer screen is immaterial, a mere shadow.

Hmm. Venerating a JPEG icon image on a screen would effectively be venerating "a mere shadow". Seems like an apt metaphor for certain aspects of modern western attitudes (spiritual and otherwise).

In Christ,
Michael

[Shaun M.]

It is within the authority of the Church to decide what is appropriate or not, but somehow kissing a computer screen does not appeal this this particular Pooh. Wood and egg tempera, at the very least, does not give off radiation. I spend far too much time in front of a monitor to want to reverence it. Since the image is not permanent, it could be said you are not reverencing it, you are reverencing the screen itself, which just doesn't seem right somehow.

Herman the likes his reality real, not virtual, Pooh

Ok, you win. I suppose I hadn't thought of actually kissing a computer screen...

So I guess the real question is, what is precisely the status of digital icons? When I see one I can hardly help being reminded of whomever it portrays, which is part of an icon's purpose. Should they be used intentionally to that effect or no? Is it inappropriate to decorate religious websites with them the same way we decorate churches? And if it is right, should i cross myself when I see one on the computer?

-Shaun M.

[Paul Cowan]

Ok, you win. I suppose I hadn't thought of actually kissing a computer screen...

So I guess the real question is, what is precisely the status of digital icons? When I see one I can hardly help being reminded of whomever it portrays, which is part of an icon's purpose. Should they be used intentionally to that effect or no? Is it inappropriate to decorate religious websites with them the same way we decorate churches? And if it is right, should i cross myself when I see one on the computer?

-Shaun M.

Status = they are more than special pictures. If they cause you to pause and say a prayer, great
Use = Why not? everyone should be reminded to pause and say a little prayer
Appropriate = not possible to decorate websites the same, as a church is a real tangible place with "Real" icons. For websites, see above
Crossing = See 'status' and 'use' above and yes, if you can cross yourself, why not? It'll strenghten your arm if nothing else.

Personally, if I go to a website especially one that sells icons, I will probably not be saying a prayer and crossing myslef on every one I see. I may reflect on the person represented and have an emotional moment, then on to the next one. It is impractical to compare a website to a church. I laughed when I thought of all the lip imprints on my monitor. Where's the windex? I think we can over think things sometimes in the name of correctness. Something of convertitis. Not a bad word mind you, just a bit overboard.

Paul

[Kosta]

Sacred images on bulletins, magazines, computer screens or church calendars are not icons in the truest sense. The canons on iconography require icons to be painted or affixed onto a durable surface. A holy image on paper only becomes an icon worthy of veneration when it is framed or decoupaged or mounted onto a board, If an icon can be folded up or wrinkled or easily smashed, then its not really an icon. This canon extends not only to sacred images found in books, or on a compiter screen, where the image would disappear once you shut off the computer, it also extends to stained glass windows and tattoos. Stained glass is not durable and can easily be smashed, and no one should ever venerate a holy image that someone has tattooed on his arm (or any other part of the body) mistakenly thinking this is an icon.

[Michael Stickles]

A holy image on paper only becomes an icon worthy of veneration when it is framed or decoupaged or mounted onto a board, If an icon can be folded up or wrinkled or easily smashed, then its not really an icon.

That might be overstating things a bit. One of the stories "Father Maximos" tells in Kyriacos Markides' book The Mountain of Silence is about a monk who, while cleaning out his hermitage, found an old, worn-out piece of paper with the image of an icon of the Archangel Michael printed on it. He thought of burning it with some other papers he had no use for, but changed his mind and pinned it outside his door. The next day when he returned to his hermitage, he found a radiant stranger inside who introduced himself as the Archangel Michael. He had come to assist the hermit with some spiritual matters.

However, I have to say that if I had an icon which was printed on paper but not mounted, I personally wouldn't feel right putting it up for veneration without first framing or mounting it or something similar. I can't explain the "why" very well, except that it would seem "disrespectful" in some way - not necessarily as a universal principle, but definitely as a personal one.

In Christ,
Michael

[Olga]

However, I have to say that if I had an icon which was printed on paper but not mounted, I personally wouldn't feel right putting it up for veneration without first framing or mounting it or something similar. I can't explain the "why" very well, except that it would seem "disrespectful" in some way - not necessarily as a universal principle, but definitely as a personal one.

For one thing, if a paper icon was left unmounted or unlaminated or unframed, it would deteriorate pretty quickly if it was frequently handled and venerated. I would disagree with Kosta's distinction that "a holy image on paper only becomes an icon worthy of veneration when it is framed or decoupaged or mounted onto a board, If an icon can be folded up or wrinkled or easily smashed, then its not really an icon". I would also disagree with the idea that a stained-glass window of a canonical iconographic composition is unworthy of veneration, simply because it is rendered in glass, metal and lead. What of the age-old Romanian tradition of icons painted on glass? As for the fragility question, have not many western stained-glass windows survived for many centuries? A more fragile medium than wood or plastered wall, to be sure, but it is still material and tangible, which a digital image on a computer screen or digital frame is not.

I would agree, however, that a tattoo of an iconographic image is not only unsuitable for veneration, but, the act of tattooing such an image throws up all sorts of other dilemmas, some of which have been discussed in other threads. An argument can be made for the historic custom of a small and simple cross being tattooed onto the hands and foreheads of Coptic Christians, but otherwise, I find the idea of icons as tattoo subjects repulsive, and a debasement of iconography.

[Andreas Moran]

A Cypriot man in Birmingham (England, not Alabama!) had a fish and chip shop. He had pinned a paper illustration of an icon of Christ onto a beam inside the shop. One night, the shop was completely gutted by fire. I happened to be visiting at that time and went the following day to see the damage. The beam on which this paper 'icon' had been pinned was badly charred but the paper image of Christ was unharmed.

[Kosta]

I just want to point out that in Michael's and Andreas posts, in both instances the images on paper were pinned against a board. I still think on the other hand cutting out an icon from a bulletin and presenting it to the priest for the 40 day blessing is quite rare and debateable whether it is of the same value as a mounted litho.
Its a similar controversial situation with icons where a depiction of an uncanonical God the Father image is portrayed on the upper portion of the icon. We know its uncanonical but the main image on the icon may not be, God can find loopholes and has made some of these icons wonderworking. I guess being western art, the question on stained glass windows maybe open,I've never heard anyone venerating a stained glass window, but i admit im not familiar with the romanian glass icons.

[Michael Stickles]

I still think on the other hand cutting out an icon from a bulletin and presenting it to the priest for the 40 day blessing is quite rare and debateable whether it is of the same value as a mounted litho.

I don't know about "value" but I think this scenario does show one of the practical differences between types of icons. Perhaps "suitability" instead of "value" might get the point across better - I think we can all agree that there are uses for which an unmounted and unprotected paper print is just not as suitable as a mounted print or an icon written in egg tempera.


... God can find loopholes ...

I love that way of putting it (maybe it's just me and my quirky sense of humor).

In Christ,
Michael

[Richard A. Downing]

Please forgive me if this is slightly off topic, but this thread has me worrying that the picture (I think of it as an icon, but am learning that I might be wrong) of Our Lord that I have as the image on my computer screen might not be right. I mean, the image gets covered by windows from time to time, although I try to keep it visible. I am only a starting catechumen, so I have not yet had time to ask my Father about these things. Should one not use icon images in this way? I find it very useful to have the image of Our Lord in front of me, but perhaps I would be better served with a real icon over the computer screen.

InXC
Richard.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Interesting thought, an icon as a "desktop". Personally I think the desktop metaphor of the graphical user interface is a little too utilitarian as a place for an icon. Would you use an icon as the top of your real desk? So I think a small icon beside or on the monitor might be a better thing. An icon hidden by open windows doesn't really accomplish much since it is largely hidden.

But I don't see any harm in it as long as we acknowledge that it is not a "substitute" for a real icon.

[David Hawthorne]

About two months ago, I finished a year long process of printing the saint of the day on photo paper to use on my icon stand. Now I am able to change the icons daily and it is a real blessing to see the day's saint when I say my morning and evening prayers. I also have candles of various colors which I change depending on the proper liturgical color. But then, I AM just a crazy convert................

[Paul Cowan]

Not so crazy.

[Andreas Moran]

Please forgive me if this is slightly off topic, but this thread has me worrying that the picture (I think of it as an icon, but am learning that I might be wrong) of Our Lord that I have as the image on my computer screen might not be right. I mean, the image gets covered by windows from time to time, although I try to keep it visible. I am only a starting catechumen, so I have not yet had time to ask my Father about these things. Should one not use icon images in this way? I find it very useful to have the image of Our Lord in front of me, but perhaps I would be better served with a real icon over the computer screen.

InXC
Richard.

I have images of icons - I choose my words carefully there - saved from the internet on my screen. Today's is, unsurprisingly, of the Publican and the Pharisee. Yes, these images are covered by short cuts. I don't think of the icon image set as my background as an icon but as a reminder.

[Shaun M.]

I have images of icons - I choose my words carefully there - saved from the internet on my screen. Today's is, unsurprisingly, of the Publican and the Pharisee. Yes, these images are covered by short cuts. I don't think of the icon image set as my background as an icon but as a reminder.

This is precisely what I'm struggling with, the word "icon" means "image." So how can we distinguish between an "image of an icon" as opposed to a "icon"? What's the difference? Obviously we don't venerate all icons, but that doesn't mean they aren't icons. I've never seen anyone venerate the icons on the walls of a Church for instance. So I guess my question is two things, what is the difference between an "icon" and an "image of an icon", and what is an "icon" if it is not an image? Thanks, and sorry if I seem argumentative, I'm just struggling...

[Shaun M.]

About two months ago, I finished a year long process of printing the saint of the day on photo paper to use on my icon stand. Now I am able to change the icons daily and it is a real blessing to see the day's saint when I say my morning and evening prayers. I also have candles of various colors which I change depending on the proper liturgical color. But then, I AM just a crazy convert................

That sounds like a great idea, I'll have to think about trying that some day. :D

-Another Crazy Convert

[Paul Cowan]

I have venerated and have seen monks venerate icons on the walls of churches especially in the monasteries. They may not hold a place of primacy in the church as on the iconostasis, but should we not take the time to venerate ALL icons? Icons are not just decorative pictures. AN obedience was performed when writing them. Even the ones on the ceilings, we can't get to to kiss. Why is it obvious we don't venerate all icons? Or are you talking nonholy icons like on this desktop computer (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/icons)?

Perhaps we need to differentiate between an icon and a "holy" icon. We venerate Holy icons. a soldier is a walking icon. You can look at him/her and see from what he is wearing everything you need to know about who he is, what he has accomplished and what his speciality is.

For definition purposes, I would say an icon is an image. but there is no image of an icon. Perhaps a better word might be a representation of an icon? Or just a really nice picture? If I take an icon I find on my computer and save it as my new background, I am not going to kiss it. I would also not kiss the original icon I found on some website. It is a picture of an icon. I would kiss the original the picture was taken of though.

Dont use your brain so much. Mine hurts already.

paul

PS: I've been dying for a way to show that little clip. :)

[Shaun M.]

I have venerated and have seen monks venerate icons on the walls of churches especially in the monasteries. They may not hold a place of primacy in the church as on the iconostasis, but should we not take the time to venerate ALL icons? Icons are not just decorative pictures. AN obedience was performed when writing them. Even the ones on the ceilings, we can't get to to kiss. Why is it obvious we don't venerate all icons? Or are you talking nonholy icons like on this desktop computer (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/icons)?

Perhaps we need to differentiate between an icon and a "holy" icon. We venerate Holy icons. a soldier is a walking icon. You can look at him/her and see from what he is wearing everything you need to know about who he is, what he has accomplished and what his speciality is.

For definition purposes, I would say an icon is an image. but there is no image of an icon. Perhaps a better word might be a representation of an icon? Or just a really nice picture? If I take an icon I find on my computer and save it as my new background, I am not going to kiss it. I would also not kiss the original icon I found on some website. It is a picture of an icon. I would kiss the original the picture was taken of though.

Dont use your brain so much. Mine hurts already.

paul

PS: I've been dying for a way to show that little clip. :)

Mr Cowan,

Of course all icons are icons, and the piety of the monks in kissing the icons on the walls of the Church speaks well of them, though to say that must always be done seems a little over-bearing just thinking of the number of icons in my own church, and I'm in a small parish...

Not kissing icons on a computer screen because of their transitory nature makes perfect sense, but I do struggle with what many people in this thread are saying, in that an icon is spoken of as something other than an image. In other words, I would tend to think that an icon is the image or portrayal that is seen and not primarily the material that makes it up. That being the reason a mosaic or print has the same status as a painting. But if it is possible for their to be an image that precisely represents an icon, that if it were cast in a different medium (printed) with nothing of it's visual characteristics altered in any way it would be an icon, which is able to edify and inspire and guide prayer exactly like an icon, which is not in a medium that is inherently disrespectful, which follows all of the canons governing icons, if it is possible for such an image NOT to be an icon, then clearly the determination of whether something is a real icon is independent of its status as an image. If this is the case than what is it that determines what makes a real icon? What is an icon if it is not an image?

Thanks,

-The Brain Abuser

PS - The link was funny. Thanks for sharin.

[Olga]

Shaun, an icon is indeed an image, but not all images are icons. As I mentioned in earlier posts, iconographic images (even of canonical content) which are simply digital files or desktop wallpaper are not really suitable for veneration, as they are immaterial and intangible.

Greek speakers have little trouble using the word eikona in everyday speech when referring to common images, or holy images worthy of veneration. Context is usually pretty obvious. The English language is even richer in words which have a variety of meanings and nuances (much to the consternation of folks trying to learn the language!). I suspect that the problem with the term icon as used in modern English is that it first gained mainstream use as a term in the computing field, then became a substitute for words such as paragon, exemplar or representative, such as sporting icon, iconic brand (ugh!), etc .

[Paul Cowan]

Mr Cowan,

Of course all icons are icons, and the piety of the monks in kissing the icons on the walls of the Church speaks well of them, though to say that must always be done seems a little over-bearing just thinking of the number of icons in my own church, and I'm in a small parish...

Not kissing icons on a computer screen because of their transitory nature makes perfect sense, but I do struggle with what many people in this thread are saying, in that an icon is spoken of as something other than an image. In other words, I would tend to think that an icon is the image or portrayal that is seen and not primarily the material that makes it up. That being the reason a mosaic or print has the same status as a painting. But if it is possible for their to be an image that precisely represents an icon, that if it were cast in a different medium (printed) with nothing of it's visual characteristics altered in any way it would be an icon, which is able to edify and inspire and guide prayer exactly like an icon, which is not in a medium that is inherently disrespectful, which follows all of the canons governing icons, if it is possible for such an image NOT to be an icon, then clearly the determination of whether something is a real icon is independent of its status as an image. If this is the case than what is it that determines what makes a real icon? What is an icon if it is not an image?



Please call me Paul. My father died a couple of years back. :)

Just a thought, if something "precisely represents an icon" then it is not "an icon" since one is and one represents it.

We do not say an icon is the person it represents, but is a representation of the person.

We venerate the person "through" the use of an icon. We do not venerate an icon "through" the use of something else. Following this path, we could get to the point of venerating the root of the tree the paper is made from that is affixed to the board the image is written on.

We can get lost in over thinking circular logic. We know what holy icons are. We see them in church. We know what is not a holy icon, we see them in the news racks at the grocery stores. A stop sign is an icon. Though we all venerate it to a degree by stopping at the corner, we do not go up and also kiss it. It is not a holy icon. But an icon nonetheless in a secular way. (Don't shoot me for this analysis Olga!)

Paul

[David Hawthorne]

That sounds like a great idea, I'll have to think about trying that some day. :D

-Another Crazy Convert

Pricey doing it on photo paper, but worth it for me. Every day I see a new old friend at my icon corner :-)

[Olga]

Just a thought, if something "precisely represents an icon" then it is not "an icon" since one is and one represents it.

We do not say an icon is the person it represents, but is a representation of the person.

We venerate the person "through" the use of an icon. We do not venerate an icon "through" the use of something else. Following this path, we could get to the point of venerating the root of the tree the paper is made from that is affixed to the board the image is written on.

We can get lost in over thinking circular logic. We know what holy icons are. We see them in church. We know what is not a holy icon, we see them in the news racks at the grocery stores. A stop sign is an icon. Though we all venerate it to a degree by stopping at the corner, we do not go up and also kiss it. It is not a holy icon. But an icon nonetheless in a secular way. (Don't shoot me for this analysis Olga!)

Paul

Now why would I want to shoot you, Paul? I might be a grumpy old woman, but your analysis is actually quite good, particularly the bit in bold. Perhaps it might save some misunderstanding in certain circles by referring to them as "holy icons", as, often, the Greeks do.

[Richard A. Downing]

Thank you all for your help with this.
It all seems to me to be like the legal concept of 'intent' - as in 'a crime is committed only if the suspect intended harm...'. If an icon is intended to be holy, and seen as a representation of the one to be revered, then reverencing it is good. But if the icon is intended to be secular (and I hate the dualism implied here), then reverencing it would be wrong, perhaps even idolatrous. My electronic iconostasis of a screen background is intended to prompt me to reverence. When I go to the Chapel and I'm surrounded by the frescos of the saints, even though I may not reverence them by kissing, they are still (intended as) a real reminder of the Saints praying with us in the Church (or perhaps the other way round - us with the Saints who are already at prayer when we arrive).
I don't, in general, like legalisms as metaphors though, look where it got St Augustine.
InXC
Richard.

[Olga]

I was recently given a poster produced by the Museum of Applied Art in Frankfurt, Germany, which is from an exhibition held there in 1993-94. In the centre of the poster is a reproduction of a particularly beautiful 16th C icon of the Fiery Ascent of Prophet Elijah, painted in the Pskov style. Printed in the white border surrounding it is the name of the museum, the date of the exhibition, and other such information.

If this poster were to be displayed, how should it be treated? Should the border be trimmed, and the central panel be framed and mounted, then treated and venerated in the usual way? Or, should the poster be kept intact, then framed and hung, as a souvenir of the exhibition? If the latter, could the icon within the poster be venerated? Food for thought, friends.

[Andreas Moran]

I don't, in general, like legalisms as metaphors though, look where it got St Augustine.
InXC
Richard.

Nothing wrong with a legal way of thinking, Richard! At least, if used judiciously!

[Andreas Moran]

I was recently given a poster produced by the Museum of Applied Art in Frankfurt, Germany, which is from an exhibition held there in 1993-94. In the centre of the poster is a reproduction of a particularly beautiful 16th C icon of the Fiery Ascent of Prophet Elijah, painted in the Pskov style. Printed in the white border surrounding it is the name of the museum, the date of the exhibition, and other such information.

If this poster were to be displayed, how should it be treated? Should the border be trimmed, and the central panel be framed and mounted, then treated and venerated in the usual way? Or, should the poster be kept intact, then framed and hung, as a souvenir of the exhibition? If the latter, could the icon within the poster be venerated? Food for thought, friends.

Very similar is the case of Orthodox calendars. One would not venerate the icon illustration on a page of the calendar, but one could cut the illustration from the page and mount it, and then use it as any printed icon.

[Marie-Duquette]

I was recently given a poster produced by the Museum of Applied Art in Frankfurt, Germany, which is from an exhibition held there in 1993-94. In the centre of the poster is a reproduction of a particularly beautiful 16th C icon of the Fiery Ascent of Prophet Elijah, painted in the Pskov style. Printed in the white border surrounding it is the name of the museum, the date of the exhibition, and other such information.

If this poster were to be displayed, how should it be treated? Should the border be trimmed, and the central panel be framed and mounted, then treated and venerated in the usual way? Or, should the poster be kept intact, then framed and hung, as a souvenir of the exhibition? If the latter, could the icon within the poster be venerated? Food for thought, friends.


Why not, Olga? If the icon is appreciated, viewed with love which raises the heart to prayer? All the souvenir part being overlooked, concentrating on the "central beauty" which attracts the heart?

[Paul Cowan]

Nothing wrong with a legal way of thinking, Richard! At least, if used judiciously!

spoken like a true lawyer. :)

[Paul Cowan]

Thank you all for your help with this.
It all seems to me to be like the legal concept of 'intent' - as in 'a crime is committed only if the suspect intended harm...'. If an icon is intended to be holy, and seen as a representation of the one to be revered, then reverencing it is good. But if the icon is intended to be secular (and I hate the dualism implied here), then reverencing it would be wrong, perhaps even idolatrous. My electronic iconostasis of a screen background is intended to prompt me to reverence. When I go to the Chapel and I'm surrounded by the frescos of the saints, even though I may not reverence them by kissing, they are still (intended as) a real reminder of the Saints praying with us in the Church (or perhaps the other way round - us with the Saints who are already at prayer when we arrive).

InXC
Richard.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get across.