“We Can See Iconoclasm in the Form of Poorly Rendered Icons and Misinformed Veneration”
Is it possible to manifest the expressiveness usual for paintings in traditional icons, or notice in paintings that which is characteristic of iconographic images? Is it true that an iconographer is forbidden to express emotions in his work? What are so-called “dead icons”?
These are the questions which faced participants in the fifth seminar of a cycle called “Problems Relevant to the Theory of Iconographic Imagery — Past and Present”, featuring SFI Rector and member of the Association of Art Critics, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences Aleksandr Kopirovskij. Kopirovskij’s presented on the topic “Icon and Picture: Problems of Perception”. The seminar session, which took place at the Andrej Rublev Museum of Ancient Russian Art on the 3rd of June, was chaired by Yulia Aleshkova, PhD.
“Historically, the veneration of icons was the victory over iconoclasm, i.e. over the negation of the very possibility that the image [of God] could be illustrated,” said Kopirovskij. “But today, when icons can be rendered by nearly anyone who can manage to hold a brush, independent of whether that person has a personal relationship with the image or is simply filling an order, the very practice of iconography and the veneration of icons faces us with some difficult questions. More often than not these days, icons are created not by the Church from within its tradition, but by individual people — both believers and non-believers, by people who may or may not have any talent or ability.”
“We can discern contemporary iconoclasm in the form of poorly rendered icons and misinformed veneration,” continued Kopirovskij. Icons are venerated as if they were things: people are ready to kiss them without even properly looking. Just try to say ‘Look at this!…’ and you hear in response ‘no, don’t do that’. To me this is in the spirit of “there’s no need to understand Theology, you just need to be there and listen. No need to sort out what is going on in a rite or its meaning… and a need to understand prayers? No thanks.”
“Many people are sure that the primary difference between an icon and a painting lies in that a painting stirs up feeling and that an icon must not do this, in principle,” said seminar chair Yulia Aleshkova. “At the same time, such a complete ‘sterilization’ of the iconic image in quest of dispassion can lead to so called ‘dead icons’.”
In response, Aleksander Mikhailovich suggested that those sitting in the audience look at the face of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God — projected for all to see — and discern whether or not the image contains emotion.
“The subtraction of emotion will blow a lifeless hole in the image, whereas overdoing the emotion would turn the icon into a picture that would get on your nerves — sometimes that’s also useful, but not for church prayer. Now to transfigure emotion — that is high class work,” commented Kopirovskij. “In any case, when we look at the face of the Mother of God in the Vladimir icon, we understand that on the one hand she is infinitely far from us, while on the other hand she’s not so far at all. And she’s looking at us.”
During this three-hour-long dive into the history of iconography and painting, Aleksandr Mikhailovich demonstrated monumental works of ancient Russian art from the 12th through the 17th century, works by monastic iconographer Mother Ioanna (Reitlinger), Raphael’s “Sistene Madonna”, images of Christ in the Russian paintings of Aleksandr Ivanov and Ivan Kramskij, as well as a work by contemporary iconographer Andrej Akimov (1959–2019) entitled “Students of Community and Brotherhood Life”, in which we can see images of Sergej Averintsev, elder Aleksij Mechev of Moscow, and Aleksander Pushkin.
The virtual tour began with Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper”. Kopirovskij reminded the assembled crowd that this is a painting — not an icon, but a fresco in a dining hall. He suggested that this image be compared to later illustrations of the same event. On this example it becomes clear that a direct, linear path of historical evolution from icon to picture is barely noticeable, and the reverse, that icons and pictures do not “crowd each other out” — rather, in their depth they reveal their own certain kinship. Even the terminology itself and the pre-designations of art criticism for the determination of one form or the other are known to be conditional, to some degree.
“That which makes icons and paintings akin to each other is the living image made manifest,” summarized Yulia Aleshkova. “…and if an icon, or a painting, lacks this living manifestation, then it cannot be an icon — it is but a token or vestige that has left Reality behind.”