Leonardo da Vinci's 'Last Supper' - an icon?

[Nick M.]

Sorry for bothering everyone, but would "The Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci be considered an icon by the Orthodox Church? What requirements have to be met for something to be an icon?

[Paul Cowan]

Sorry for bothering everyone, but would "The Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci be considered an icon by the Orthodox Church? What requirements have to be met for something to be an icon?

Olga needs to answer this and she may have already in another thread, but in short. No. It is a nice painitng, but not an icon.

[David S.]

Ouspensky says that 'when we speak of icons, we will have in mind all sacred images, whether they are paintings on boards, frescoes, mosaics or sculptures.' And that 'they are distinguished not by their significance but by their use and purpose.' (Theology of the Icon, vol. 1 p35.)

However Ouspensky argues that 'artists paint icons as they were painted by the ancient and holy iconographers.' (p11) - which at first I thought might leave da Vinci out of the equation but I'm sure that there are representations of the Last Supper in the Catacombs. So perhaps it becomes a matter not of theme but style.

Anyway, regardless, it would seem to me - and my limited knowledge - that the biggest problem facing the idea of da Vinci's Last Supper being an icon is simply the fact that he wasn't a member of the Orthodox Church. Even his status as a Christian seems dubious. I know I am right in thinking that an icon - to be truly important - must have been painted by a Christian - am I right to go further and say that for an icon to be Orthodox it needs to have painted by an Orthodox believer?

[Jonathan Michael]

Ouspensky says that 'when we speak of icons, we will have in mind all sacred images, whether they are paintings on boards, frescoes, mosaics or sculptures.' And that 'they are distinguished not by their significance but by their use and purpose.' (Theology of the Icon, vol. 1 p35.)


Bold emphasis mine.

It seems to me that this is primarily the reason da Vinci's painting cannot be rightly considered an icon. It's purpose was not liturgical (for veneration in a church or in a private home) but for the decoration of the refectory of a convent.

We could spend a long time going over the ways in which da Vinci's depiction reflects older, Orthodox, depictions of the Mystical Supper, and the ways in which it departs from the traditional forms (as seen on most icon screens in Orthodox churches) and becomes uncanonical. We could also spend some time thinking about the preparations of prayer and fasting an iconographer must undergo to guard against his/her work being uncanonical, and how da Vinci measures up. Yet however interesting these discussions might be, I believe the short answer to the original question is:
"no, because da Vinci's The Last Supper is not intended for liturgical use*"

I welcome any corrections, and look forward to the aforementioned interesting discussions, which will be too in depth for me to contribute to.



*and by "liturgical" I include not only services within a church but private prayers in family homes.

[Ben Johnson]

It seems to be using naturalism too much to be an icon.

[Ciero F.]

Bold emphasis mine.

It seems to me that this is primarily the reason da Vinci's painting cannot be rightly considered an icon. It's purpose was not liturgical (for veneration in a church or in a private home) but for the decoration of the refectory of a convent.

We could spend a long time going over the ways in which da Vinci's depiction reflects older, Orthodox, depictions of the Mystical Supper, and the ways in which it departs from the traditional forms (as seen on most icon screens in Orthodox churches) and becomes uncanonical. We could also spend some time thinking about the preparations of prayer and fasting an iconographer must undergo to guard against his/her work being uncanonical, and how da Vinci measures up. Yet however interesting these discussions might be, I believe the short answer to the original question is:
"no, because da Vinci's The Last Supper is not intended for liturgical use*"

I welcome any corrections, and look forward to the aforementioned interesting discussions, which will be too in depth for me to contribute to.



*and by "liturgical" I include not only services within a church but private prayers in family homes.

So the frescoed icons in trapezas in monasteries on Mt Athos arent icons either useing this criteria.

[Kosta]

The davinci painting is just that, a painting. As Ben points out the style is too naturalistic . An icon is not meant to depict a natural carnal scene but the transfigured spiritual state. It does not follow the rules of iconography in terms of color and style, it is not a window into heaven but seems to portray a wordly dinner party. There are no nimbus on the saints or on Christ, and no theological value can be drawn from it in terms of the Eucharist.

[Olga]

An icon, unlike a religious painting from a non-Orthodox tradition, is many things:


It must conform to the liturgical, doctrinal and dogmatic principles and teachings of the Orthodox Church
It should be painted in a non-naturalistic style (i.e. it should attempt to portray what is heavenly, spiritually perfected, otherworldly)
it must not be the result of the artist's free imagination. Any figures of saints, holy ones, Christ or the Mother of God, cannot be modelled on the appearance of persons who were not those the icon depicts. In other words, a painting of the Madonna painted to resemble a Venetian doge's wife, or painting a saint using as a model a nobleman, or, as often occured, the artist himself, goes utterly against a central principle of iconography.
These are not the only criteria of what makes an icon, but it's a pretty good start.

It is also worth mentioning that icons are regarded as icons not only in how the subject or feast is portrayed, but also in how the icon is treated. During a Vespers/Vigil service, the "icon of the day" is placed on the stand set for the saint's day or feast day. People arriving at church for the service first venerate this icon. During the Magnification at Matins, the icon is censed by the clergy and verses are sung by clergy and choir in honour of the saint or feast depicted in the icon. At other times during various services (Vespers, Matins, the Hours prior to Liturgy), all icons in the church, including the icon of the saint or feast, are censed. At feasts of artoklasia (blessing of bread, wine and oil) rank, the festal icon is venerated before the people are anointed by the priest or deacon. Etc, etc, etc. To my knowledge, nothing close to this happens in non-Orthodox liturgical practice.

So, returning to the OP's question as to whether Da Vinci's painting can be venerated as an icon: My answer would be the same as Paul Cowan's - a well-executed painting, but in no way an icon.

[Jonathan Michael]

It seems to me that this is primarily the reason da Vinci's painting cannot be rightly considered an icon. It's purpose was not liturgical (for veneration in a church or in a private home) but for the decoration of the refectory of a convent.

We could spend a long time going over the ways in which da Vinci's depiction reflects older, Orthodox, depictions of the Mystical Supper, and the ways in which it departs from the traditional forms (as seen on most icon screens in Orthodox churches) and becomes uncanonical. We could also spend some time thinking about the preparations of prayer and fasting an iconographer must undergo to guard against his/her work being uncanonical, and how da Vinci measures up. Yet however interesting these discussions might be, I believe the short answer to the original question is:
"no, because da Vinci's The Last Supper is not intended for liturgical use*"

I welcome any corrections, and look forward to the aforementioned interesting discussions, which will be too in depth for me to contribute to.



*and by "liturgical" I include not only services within a church but private prayers in family homes.
So the frescoed icons in trapezas in monasteries on Mt Athos arent icons either useing this criteria.

Well, there have already been two definitions of icons by people quite authoritative on the subject which say that icons are defined by their use (both intended and actual). This doesn't mean that all "non-icons" have equal worth, and this is where the more in-depth analysis (regarding style, content, and methods of painting) comes in. Clearly an iconographic depiction - in effect a direct copy of a pre-existing icon - used in a non-liturgical way is more worthy of veneration and respect than a non-iconographic depiction. This is why we would take care not to desecrate any leaflets or church flyers which contain iconographic depictions of Christ or the Saints by throwing them in a bin, even though their purpose is not "liturgical" but decorative.

Da Vinci's last supper clearly shares some similarities with the Mystical Supper icons in terms of composition, yet differs from them wildly in others, and because of that loses some of its "worth", particularly in terms of instructional value. A direct copy of the Mystical Supper icon used in a monastery refectory retains the elements of the original and so is therefore more worthy, useful, educational, and, yes, even holier than Leonardo da Vinci's painting.

However, despite all that, as a useful starting point, I still believe that answering the question of whether something is a Holy Icon can begin by considering the image's intended and actual use. It doesn't mean that images defined as "not icons" are worthless.

[Jonathan Michael]

Olga,

On the subject of icons needing to be "non-naturalistic", I would obviously agree, but also say that "non-naturalistic" is not an exclusive term. What I mean is that an icon is non-naturalistic if it includes certain stylistic features, such as halos, the three stars upon Mary's shawl, the "I AM" in Christ's halo, and so on. I say this because there are a number of icons, later Russian icons especially, which could be described as naturalistic in terms of their style, yet still include the non-naturalistic features (halos and so on) which reveal the heavenly reality. I know some of these icons are controversial for being so "western" or "Roman" looking (and they almost certainly do have Western influence), but some of them are wonderworking icons, and cannot really be considered as non-icons.

Would you agree?

[Olga]

Olga,

On the subject of icons needing to be "non-naturalistic", I would obviously agree, but also say that "non-naturalistic" is not an exclusive term. What I mean is that an icon is non-naturalistic if it includes certain stylistic features, such as halos, the three stars upon Mary's shawl, the "I AM" in Christ's halo, and so on. I say this because there are a number of icons, later Russian icons especially, which could be described as naturalistic in terms of their style, yet still include the non-naturalistic features (halos and so on) which reveal the heavenly reality. I know some of these icons are controversial for being so "western" or "Roman" looking (and they almost certainly do have Western influence), but some of them are wonderworking icons, and cannot really be considered as non-icons.

Would you agree?

To a great extent, no. The infiltration of "naturalistic" painting styles into Orthodox countries from the 17th century onwards was to such an extent that more traditional iconography was almost lost. Vast numbers of people, over several generations, only had these sorts of icons to venerate. The acceptance of certain images such as Derzhavnaya, the Mother of God Seraphim-Diveyevo as miraculous is as much economia as anything else - the "imperfect" becoming sanctified. However, their acceptance does not let iconographers "off the hook". It is still imperative that they paint according to canon.

Several years ago, an article was published by a Dcn Alexander Musin, who argued for the canonicity of the naturalistic-style icons of the Synodal period (18th-20thC) in Russia. In essence, he was saying that the artistic style doesn't matter, and, moreover, was critical of the "traditional" approach of noted iconologists such as Ouspensky and Trubetskoy. The crucial point he missed completely was that many of these western-style icons are deficient in content when it comes to the expression of the Orthodox faith. These images are simply copies of western religious art. Here is an excerpt from a critique I wrote in response to Dcn Alexander's article:

Musin states that an icon is to be comprehended in its entirety, and not as a series of symbols. He also states that naturalistic works have just as much right to be called icons as they are present in consecrated Orthodox churches, and that the artistic style itself does not preclude such an image from being regarded as a true icon.

This suggests that it is possible to regard an image's artistic style as a separate entity, which contradicts one of the planks of Musin's argument against the iconologists. However, even if this were not the case, there is another, far more serious reason why naturalistic images which have found their way into Orthodox churches in recent centuries are at best, dubious, and at worst, uncanonical:

Over the years, I have looked at thousands of icons, of any century, of any country of provenance, including those of western/Synodal style. Far from artistic style being "irrelevant" to the canonicity of an image, it is inextricably linked to it. Few would disagree that, of all icons, festal icons are the richest repository of Orthodox doctrine and theology, with the icons for the Nativity of the Lord and the Resurrection being perhaps the richest of all, and very complex in their composition.

Yet, what do we see when coming across Synodal images of these feasts? I have already described the theological and doctrinal deficiencies of the Annunciation image featured in the article. How is the Nativity portrayed in a Synodal/naturalistic "icon"? Considerably differently to a proper icon which, by definition, is in complete conformity with the liturgical imagery of the feast, which, is in turn, defined by scripture and Holy Tradition.

Similarly, a Synodal "icon" of the Resurrection shows Christ rising from the tomb, holding a crozier with a white banner emblazoned with a red cross, with or without the Roman guards cowering in fear. This image might be acceptable in a western Christian denomination, but it is completely inadequate in conveying the meaning of this Feast of Feasts as espoused by the Orthodox Church. It can be said that the icon of the Resurrection is the distillation of all theology and salvation history, and the summation of God's purpose for mankind. In the Synodal image, do we see the prophets and other OT holy figures, including St John the Baptist, on one side? Do we see the assembly of the faithful who represent the Church of the New Testament? Do we see Christ pulling Adam and Eve out of their graves? Do we see the dark hole of Hades, with the smashed gateposts, the broken locks, and the forces of evil bound in chains? We do not.

Artistic style in Orthodox iconography is not irrelevant, nor is it a matter of aesthetic preference, nor is my repudiation of the naturalistic style simply an anti-western bias. I have shown that artistic style is fundamental to the canonicity of any image which purports to be an icon, because western-style images are, by their content and composition, deficient in their theological and doctrinal integrity and fidelity to the Orthodox Church.

I have shown that the influx of naturalistic images into the Orthodox Church has had, and continues to have, serious doctrinal, liturgical and theological consequences. An image which does not conform to the doctrines, theology and liturgical content of the Orthodox Church cannot be called an icon, irrespective of its presence in a consecrated Orthodox church.

If anyone is interested in reading Dcn Alexander's article and my response to it, please feel free to PM me.

[Jonathan Michael]

Thank you for your reply, Olga.

I agree that the acceptance of naturalistic icons as wonder-working does not mean that iconographers have free licence to paint icons in this style where canonical guidelines on style exist. However, in your response you give an example of a "western-influenced" image that has a markedly different content to the canonical, Orthodox form. I don't think the example of the Resurrection Icon you give addresses the question of "style", but perhaps we're thinking of different meanings of the word "style".

I have found a Coptic icon of the deficient Resurrection Icon described:
http://www.anchorite.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/resurc.jpg

When I talked about "style", I would class the above icon as "non-naturalistic" (non-Western), because the image of Christ, the angels' wings, and so on, are all highly stylized. So, just as a non-canonical icon (the Coptic one above) can be painted in a stylized way and remain uncanonical because of its content, so too can a canonical icon be painted in a more naturalistic way, provided none of the content - the message - is distorted or diminished. I agree with you that in the case of festal icons, too much teaching is present for it to be successfully depicted in a naturalistic way, and that the traditional "Byzantine" style is more appropriate.

Just to be clear, when I talk of "naturalistic" and "non-naturalistic" depictions, I am talking about the difference between this icon:
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/images330/mandylion4.jpg

and this icon:
http://www.orthodoxincense.com/images/Books/OrthodoxDogmatic.jpg

[Olga]

I have found a Coptic icon of the deficient Resurrection Icon described:
http://www.anchorite.org/blog/wp-con.../04/resurc.jpg

It should be remembered that the Copts only accept the first three Ecumenical Councils as within their tradition. The Councils which speak specifically about iconography are the Quinisext and Seventh, which, to my knowledge, have not been accepted by the non-Chalcedonian churches. I welcome correction on this.

[Andreas Moran]

To Olga's explanation of the reasons for the canonical way of icon painting, we may add that iconographers of canonical icons are not free to choose their artistic style, any more than hymnographers are free to choose any poetic style or format they like, celebrants at the liturgy to choose what hymns they like, and so forth. To western minds, used to every kind of freedom, Orthodoxy's prescribing of all aspects of faith and worship may appear constraining, even oppressive. By its prescriptions, however, Orthodoxy seeks to and does ensure right faith and right worship: Ortho - doxy. It is why Orthodoxy is Orthodox and the rest of Christendom is not. Furthermore, no contributor to Orthodoxy should act from self will, and in the case of the icongrapher, departure from the canons of iconography necessarily entails free exercise of the imagination and display of artistic talent which are expressions of self will and pride.

[Jonathan Michael]

It should be remembered that the Copts only accept the first three Ecumenical Councils as within their tradition. The Councils which speak specifically about iconography are the Quinisext and Seventh, which, to my knowledge, have not been accepted by the non-Chalcedonian churches. I welcome correction on this.

Of course, and the content of the icon is deficient for the reasons you've already given. However, the style of the icon cannot, in any meaningful way, be described as "naturalistic". On the other hand, the second icon of the mandylion in my last post is quite naturalistic in its style, yet I don't see how its content is non-canonical, or even deficient when compared to the other icon of the mandylion I posted (which is a more stylized depiction). It was with icons like these in mind that I originally said that a naturalistic style in icon painting does not mean an icon is deficient, so long as it still includes the Orthodox elements which reveal the heavenly reality (like the halo around Christ's face).

[Ryan]

Of course, and the content of the icon is deficient for the reasons you've already given. However, the style of the icon cannot, in any meaningful way, be described as "naturalistic".

I find the style of the modern Coptic icons (in the vein of Isaac Fanous) to be fairly cartoonish, actually. I do like them though.

[Michael Stickles]

On the other hand, the second icon of the mandylion in my last post is quite naturalistic in its style, yet I don't see how its content is non-canonical, or even deficient when compared to the other icon of the mandylion I posted (which is a more stylized depiction). It was with icons like these in mind that I originally said that a naturalistic style in icon painting does not mean an icon is deficient, so long as it still includes the Orthodox elements which reveal the heavenly reality (like the halo around Christ's face).

Well, I'm not an expert (nor do I play one on T.V.), but it seems to me that there are a couple of subtle differences beyond just the painting style.

For example, in the second mandylion icon, Christ's face is rendered as if naturally lit from His right (our left); His left cheek and temple and the left side of His nose (the right from our viewpoint) are shadowed. Yet, as I understand it, shadows should not exist in icons, since a shadow is a place where light is diminished or absent, but in an icon everything is lit by the light of Christ. I didn't see any traditional style mandylion icons with shadows (some do have shading, but that's not at all the same thing).

I also noticed that while the traditional style mandylion icons I've seen show Christ's ears clearly, only the tips of Christ's earlobes are visible in the second mandylion icon in your post (assuming what I'm seeing isn't just odd swirls in the hair). Ears are representative of hearing, so Christ's ears being all or mostly covered doesn't seem to be an accurate message.

There might be other things, but those are the ones that jumped out at me.

In Christ,
Michael

[Jonathan Michael]

Most icons of Christ that I have seen - whether traditional or not - show Christ's ears at least partially hidden on account of His long hair; in fact one of the oldest surviving icons: the St. Catherine's monastery one from Mt. Sinai shows Christ's ears covered except for the tips.

As for shadows, I have read this before, and I agree that Christ and the Saints should not be depicted in icons casting shadows, for the reasons you give. However, I'm not sure about this distinction between "shading" and "shadow". The picture I posted is from a book cover which I happen to have a copy of, and most of the shadow/shading is underneath Christ's hairline; the impression of the icon I get of Christ's face being a source of light. There is a shadow (or shading?) on the left side of Christ's nose, but I can't personally say it detracts from the brightness of Our Lord's overall image.

Well, I confess an aesthetic bias toward these later Russian icons (though I like Coptic icons too, like Ryan) so naturally I see Christ's face as bright and shining in this specific icon, and don't see anything less than a perfect and beautiful image of Our Lord. Perhaps your own preferences also lead you to notice the shadows, and so be more wary. The key question would be whether someone with no prejudice would see the icon as bright and heavenly, or sensual and earthy.

[Michael Stickles]

Perhaps your own preferences also lead you to notice the shadows, and so be more wary.

Actually, it's more that I'll be taking an iconography workshop this summer, and so I've been paying a lot more attention to iconographic styles and details in preparation for that. I don't want to be "original", if you know what I mean (I love a line in one of Frederica Mathewes-Green's books, where she says "This is the early Christians' wisdom, not mine. I hope not to say anything original. If I do, ignore it.").