Well technically they are not Coptic, they just represent Coptic icons...
Coptic art displays a mix of native Egyptian and Hellenistic influences.... the paintings you posted were american style painting that represent coptic figures like the saints, or Jesus Christ...
Here is the main reason why this western stuff should not be used, which no one has touched upon:
1. Most of the figures in Western art are friends, mistresses, concubines, local trash, mentors, sponsors, and patrons.
2. Figures, in some instances, were to elevate and adorn a persona of an era. Sometimes a given face of a bishop of pope would be superimposed over a saint figure in order to depict that bishop or pope as that "saint".
3. Figures of some bishops and popes were also superimposed over demonic figures in order to voice dissent and damnation of that given person.
4. Sometimes figures out of era are superimposed in a non-chronological aspect purely as artistic interpretation.
5. Sometimes a cultural expression supersedes the correct representation. This is seen in the clothes and architecture and mannerisms in the figures.
6. The western artists had no theological training and just used there simple minds and even their arrogance to express their choice. For example, how can Michelangelo depict God [the Father] when the Lord, Himself, declares that no one has seen the Father except the Son.
7. Artists would compete and try to outdo each other in different aspect of their artistic interpretations.
In terms of true iconography, it is the opposite of all of the above.
Icons are a manifestation of Theology, Church Teaching, Hagiography, not a jaunt or a joyride into a drunken depiction.
Anyone who has been on a short tour of the Louvre, the Palace of Versailles, or the British Museum, will hear the different guides identifying different historical figures in different religious depictions, as a glorification or damnation of that figure.
Again, my argument stands. The byzantinian church have always used the more naturalized images. Does that make them unorthodox? Sure we have our own style and heritage and that's all great. But the other images have a strength too. To ban them from our churches because they aren't Coptic enough for you... Well, it's a shame. It's a strength to recognize the value of what we have in Coptic icons, and to appreciate the logic and workmanship of others'.
DEar epiphania, Appreciating the logic and workmanship of others doesn't really compel us to include them in our church. I know there are many arguments posted, but for me we shouldn't adopt them fullstop, not because they are ugly or less expressive. Not all of them to me look like that, in fact many of them are marvellous, and have numerous stories, sometimes not even spiritual, behind them, but our Coptic icons should still be irreplaceable. But trust me in this day and age of business beyond measure; who cares? Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10539.msg128296#msg128296 date=1296032554] DEar epiphania, Appreciating the logic and workmanship of others doesn't really compel us to include them in our church. I know there are many arguments posted, but for me we shouldn't adopt them fullstop, not because they are ugly or less expressive. Not all of them to me look like that, in fact many of them are marvellous, and have numerous stories, sometimes not even spiritual, behind them, but our Coptic icons should still be irreplaceable. But trust me in this day and age of business beyond measure; who cares? Oujai
Ok. I'm good with that. I like our coptic icons because all of their history and traditions. but I enjoy looking at naturalized pictures too. I don't think they should be banned.and I don't think this is an example of orthodoxy being protestantized. that's all ^^
I think they should be banned, simply because they are not icons.
An icon is a "window into heaven".
These western images are a "window into an artist's life experiences."
In a sense they are phoney images and are a deception. In another descriptive you can see that they are for the glorification of the artist's thoughts and beliefs rather than the Glory of God and His Siants.
St. John Chrysostom has a book dedicated to Icons.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=10539.msg128301#msg128301 date=1296040027] I think they should be banned, simply because they are not icons.
An icon is a "window into heaven".
These western images are a "window into an artist's life experiences."
In a sense they are phoney images and are a deception. In another descriptive you can see that they are for the glorification of the artist's thoughts and beliefs rather than the Glory of God and His Siants.
St. John Chrysostom has a book dedicated to Icons.
By that line of logic then wouldn't you say if all the artist wants and cares about is to give glory to God, then that will come out in the picture. and it'll be totally awesome. If the artist had experienced life with God, then thats what the paintings will show. plus as an artist, the latter are more fun to draw ^^
Orthodoxy does not give us the freedom to do what we think is fun in the Church. Everything in the Church is there for a purpose to form our spiritual lives. We do not choose what we like, rather we embrace a life of spiritual discipline that extends to every aspect of Church life.
Naturalistic art is rejected by Orthodoxy. It is irrelevant that a person might prefer it. I might enjoy singing English folk songs but my preferences have no bearing on what happens in the Church.
The Eastern Orthodox have been busy removing Western naturalised religious art from their Churches as they also understand that Orthodoxy rejects it as a means of iconography.
The proper Russian icons I own are all in an authentic iconographic style. The naturalistic ones are a result of the effects of a period of Western dominance. They are not icons either.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128304#msg128304 date=1296042964]
The Eastern Orthodox have been busy removing Western naturalised religious art from their Churches as they also understand that Orthodoxy rejects it as a means of iconography.
The proper Russian icons I own are all in an authentic iconographic style. The naturalistic ones are a result of the effects of a period of Western dominance. They are not icons either.
Father Peter
If thats true, then what is the original style of the bazyntinians? all of seen of them is the natural style.
I'm not sure that I'm following this as an issue, to appeal to tradition is fine but whats the reason for the tradition is way?
Is realism in iconography wrong? Is sentimentalism in iconography wrong?
I remember when I was much younger I went to a Caravaggio exhibition and this was my first exposure to graphic religious art. I remember that upon leaving the exhibition with some friends from my youth group we agreed that the pictures were 'religious' but they weren't really 'iconic' as in you can't venerate a naked picture of mary magdaline for example.
I was moved by one picture that I keep on my wall and still meditate on to this day is this:
The first thing people will notice is that the imagery in this photo is very similar to the the scene in the passion of Christ when He has the crown of thorns placed on His head. This artist was the inspiration for a lot of how the movie looked.
The reason I like it is because I meditate on the men placing the crown of thorns on Christs head and how Christ is holding a cane like them as representation of how the suffering of Christ was because of His Will not the will of mere men and the man reaching across to Christs hand to share in the suffering with Him.
I recall that when the passion of Christ was out pretty much everyone including clergy appreciated how graphic it was as a real reminder of what Christ suffered. I'm not sure that that makes these kinds of images qualify as iconography but I will mention that one reason these kinds of paintings didn't exist is because the skills required to create them didn't exist. Real life painting like this required the advent of photo-sensitive substances like photos that were projected onto the canvas by something like a mirror and marked onto it which the artist then painted over - I believe that this was only discovered very recently.
If this is the case then art - much like science will advance with time - tradition is not about being antiquarian, its about using the most powerful vehicles available in our current age for sharing and communicating the apostolic truths and with time new ways of doing it will emerge as human knowledge advances.
I agree that there are times when these pictures become too artistic and its more about art and symbolism than devotion but is there really any valid reason in the tradition to exclude life like pictures from being icons?
Ok, so I searched bayzintinan art and got some of the painings from Hagia Sophia. They were really flat too. I want to know whats with this flat thing in iconography? why do we do it? what's it's purpose?
Lifeindeath, naturalism has no place in the Church iconography. It has nothing to do with ability of artists. The introduction of sentiment and emotionalism through naturalism in art is deeply un-Orthodox.
It seems that we need to learn again in our own times that personal preferences have no place in the Church, and we need to learn again what the Tradition means before we lose the greatest treasure mankind possesses.
Russian traditional iconography is represented by this icon, one of the most well known and famous. It is not naturalistic.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128312#msg128312 date=1296045773] Lifeindeath, naturalism has no place in the Church iconography. It has nothing to do with ability of artists. The introduction of sentiment and emotionalism through naturalism in art is deeply un-Orthodox.
It seems that we need to learn again in our own times that personal preferences have no place in the Church, and we need to learn again what the Tradition means before we lose the greatest treasure mankind possesses.
Russian traditional iconography is represented by this icon, one of the most well known and famous. It is not naturalistic.
To me that that icon looked quite naturalistic - not in the sense of the Caravaggio icon which is like a photograph - but other than the gold paint in the background the pictures illustrated don't fit the typical iconographical patterns we use today like making the eyes large to portray wisdom, etc. Are there specific characteristics defined somewhere about necessary traits in an Orthodox icon?
Lol! Rublev's icon is not naturalistic at all. The proportions of the angels are all elongated. Their features are stylised. They are not the representations of real people sitting in a studio. The fact that Greek and Egyptian styles of iconography differ does not matter. What matters is the theology and practice of iconography which is the same. And what matters is being obedient to the Tradition of the Church not constantly deciding for ourselves what we prefer. That attitude is entirely Protestant. What we like and what we prefer has no bearing on the Church, we must receive the Tradition, seek to understand the Tradition, and pass on the Tradition.
Here is an Eastern Orthodox icon of Christ...
It is very similar in content and design to the Coptic icon of Christ I have on my iconostasis.
Here is an icon of the Virgin Mary that shows clearly the very large eyes of iconography. Features are exaggerated. Not because the iconographer lacks the skill of later Western artists but because he has a theological and spiritual aim, not an emotional one.
Icons are produced in the context of very strict rules. No one can just make an icon. It is a spiritual practice that must be learned as a disciple.
With respect, the Caravaggio has no place in Orthodox spirituality at all. Indeed I did not watch Mel Gibson's The Passion for the same reasons. It represents a deformed Western faith not the authentic Orthodox tradition and Gospel. I would be very uncomfortable in any Church which hung it. If you visit the National Gallery you will see that until the 12th-13th century the West retained a properly Orthodox iconographic style. It was only with the humanist movement that art became separated from spirituality and theology.
This crucifix from San Damiano, and the time of Francis of Assisi shows that there was still an iconography in the West, although even here it is beginning to enter a transition.
1900 years of Church Tradition until Western artistic influence was allowed entry to the Church.
Before the 19th century it would have been unthinkable for such Western art to find a place in the Church.
This icon from the 17th century shows that the deliberate technique had not changed from the 6th century icon of St Mena with Christ which I show below it. The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
+marmar+, icons should be in each of our homes. These Western pictures ARE NOT 'giving a right and nice image of Jesus'. We must not accept things into our spiritual life just because WE think they are OK. The picture of Jesus with the globe really has no place in an Orthodox home.
A big deal must be made because these things ARE NOT ORTHODOX and corrupt our Orthodox Faith.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128357#msg128357 date=1296071066] 1900 years of Church Tradition until Western artistic influence was allowed entry to the Church.
Before the 19th century it would have been unthinkable for such Western art to find a place in the Church.
This icon from the 17th century shows that the deliberate technique had not changed from the 6th century icon of St Mena with Christ which I show below it. The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
+marmar+, icons should be in each of our homes. These Western pictures ARE NOT 'giving a right and nice image of Jesus'. We must not accept things into our spiritual life just because WE think they are OK. The picture of Jesus with the globe really has no place in an Orthodox home.
A big deal must be made because these things ARE NOT ORTHODOX and corrupt our Orthodox Faith.
Father Peter
Dear Fr. Peter,
Forgive me, but I learned that icons are not allowed to be in a home ..because it has to be devoted with Holy Meron and those only are allowed to be in church?? ???
And Yes, I don't see any 'western' pics in my church, but I do see it in the cantine of the church and they even sell it and I see manyyyy coptic orthodox churches and monasteries do sell those pictures, even monks and abouna's do have them.
A printed copy of an icon is not blessed with myron.
Every Orthodox Christian from all traditions that I have known has printed copies of icons in the home.
And I am surprised that you have been told you may not have a proper icon in the home. This is also traditional in all Orthodox countries. Indeed before printing it would have been the norm to have icons in the home.
I have shown you that it is the constant tradition of the Church until recent times that we do not use in Orthodoxy such Western non-Orthodox pictures, and especially the very moden images that are not even Roman Catholic. Why would we welcome something that is not Orthodox into our homes and Churches?
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128363#msg128363 date=1296072888] A printed copy of an icon is not blessed with myron.
Every Orthodox Christian from all traditions that I have known has printed copies of icons in the home.
And I am surprised that you have been told you may not have a proper icon in the home. This is also traditional in all Orthodox countries. Indeed before printing it would have been the norm to have icons in the home.
I have shown you that it is the constant tradition of the Church until recent times that we do not use in Orthodoxy such Western non-Orthodox pictures, and especially the very moden images that are not even Roman Catholic. Why would we welcome something that is not Orthodox into our homes and Churches?
Father Peter
A printed copy...ah. Then it's ok, didn't see that it was printed. I just meant that icons, like the icons made by Adel Nassief, blessed with holy myron are not allowed to be in home..that is special 4 the church. But an icon at paper is ok,
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128370#msg128370 date=1296073352] +marmar+, as I said, before printing the ONLY icons were consecrated ones and these did exist in every home.
Father Peter
ooh, so consecrated icons DID exist in every home? And now not ..right?
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128357#msg128357 date=1296071066] 1900 years of Church Tradition until Western artistic influence was allowed entry to the Church.
Before the 19th century it would have been unthinkable for such Western art to find a place in the Church.
This icon from the 17th century shows that the deliberate technique had not changed from the 6th century icon of St Mena with Christ which I show below it. The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
+marmar+, icons should be in each of our homes. These Western pictures ARE NOT 'giving a right and nice image of Jesus'. We must not accept things into our spiritual life just because WE think they are OK. The picture of Jesus with the globe really has no place in an Orthodox home.
A big deal must be made because these things ARE NOT ORTHODOX and corrupt our Orthodox Faith.
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=10539.msg128378#msg128378 date=1296074767] [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128357#msg128357 date=1296071066] 1900 years of Church Tradition until Western artistic influence was allowed entry to the Church.
Before the 19th century it would have been unthinkable for such Western art to find a place in the Church.
This icon from the 17th century shows that the deliberate technique had not changed from the 6th century icon of St Mena with Christ which I show below it. The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
+marmar+, icons should be in each of our homes. These Western pictures ARE NOT 'giving a right and nice image of Jesus'. We must not accept things into our spiritual life just because WE think they are OK. The picture of Jesus with the globe really has no place in an Orthodox home.
A big deal must be made because these things ARE NOT ORTHODOX and corrupt our Orthodox Faith.
The beauty of Orthodox icons in general is that they tell a story. They can be read. We say in the Coptic Church that an icon is written. In fact there are books written about specific icons to explain the symbolism. Even before writing an icon, the person writing it must be theologically trained and should be fasting (if I'm recalling this correctly). Actually one of the beauty of icons was that they allowed the illiterate (of which there is many back then) to "read" the life of a saint.
HG Bishop Daniel wrote an amazing book about the subject which can be found here
The beauty of Orthodox icons in general is that they tell a story. They can be read. We say in the Coptic Church that an icon is written. In fact there are books written about specific icons to explain the symbolism. Even before writing an icon, the person writing it must be theologically trained and should be fasting (if I'm recalling this correctly). Actually one of the beauty of icons was that they allowed the illiterate (of which there is many back then) to "read" the life of a saint.
HG Bishop Daniel wrote an amazing book about the subject which can be found here
i'm not saying anything is wrong with Coptic Icons. I love them. But there also is nothing wrong (in my opinion) with natural icons if they being painted in monasteries by monks who are under the supervision of bishops.
The beauty of Orthodox icons in general is that they tell a story. They can be read. We say in the Coptic Church that an icon is written. In fact there are books written about specific icons to explain the symbolism. Even before writing an icon, the person writing it must be theologically trained and should be fasting (if I'm recalling this correctly). Actually one of the beauty of icons was that they allowed the illiterate (of which there is many back then) to "read" the life of a saint.
HG Bishop Daniel wrote an amazing book about the subject which can be found here
Comments
Coptic art displays a mix of native Egyptian and Hellenistic influences.... the paintings you posted were american style painting that represent coptic figures like the saints, or Jesus Christ...
1. Most of the figures in Western art are friends, mistresses, concubines, local trash, mentors, sponsors, and patrons.
2. Figures, in some instances, were to elevate and adorn a persona of an era. Sometimes a given face of a bishop of pope would be superimposed over a saint figure in order to depict that bishop or pope as that "saint".
3. Figures of some bishops and popes were also superimposed over demonic figures in order to voice dissent and damnation of that given person.
4. Sometimes figures out of era are superimposed in a non-chronological aspect purely as artistic interpretation.
5. Sometimes a cultural expression supersedes the correct representation. This is seen in the clothes and architecture and mannerisms in the figures.
6. The western artists had no theological training and just used there simple minds and even their arrogance to express their choice. For example, how can Michelangelo depict God [the Father] when the Lord, Himself, declares that no one has seen the Father except the Son.
7. Artists would compete and try to outdo each other in different aspect of their artistic interpretations.
In terms of true iconography, it is the opposite of all of the above.
Icons are a manifestation of Theology, Church Teaching, Hagiography, not a jaunt or a joyride into a drunken depiction.
Anyone who has been on a short tour of the Louvre, the Palace of Versailles, or the British Museum, will hear the different guides identifying different historical figures in different religious depictions, as a glorification or damnation of that figure.
Appreciating the logic and workmanship of others doesn't really compel us to include them in our church. I know there are many arguments posted, but for me we shouldn't adopt them fullstop, not because they are ugly or less expressive. Not all of them to me look like that, in fact many of them are marvellous, and have numerous stories, sometimes not even spiritual, behind them, but our Coptic icons should still be irreplaceable. But trust me in this day and age of business beyond measure; who cares?
Oujai
DEar epiphania,
Appreciating the logic and workmanship of others doesn't really compel us to include them in our church. I know there are many arguments posted, but for me we shouldn't adopt them fullstop, not because they are ugly or less expressive. Not all of them to me look like that, in fact many of them are marvellous, and have numerous stories, sometimes not even spiritual, behind them, but our Coptic icons should still be irreplaceable. But trust me in this day and age of business beyond measure; who cares?
Oujai
Ok. I'm good with that. I like our coptic icons because all of their history and traditions. but I enjoy looking at naturalized pictures too. I don't think they should be banned.and I don't think this is an example of orthodoxy being protestantized. that's all ^^
An icon is a "window into heaven".
These western images are a "window into an artist's life experiences."
In a sense they are phoney images and are a deception. In another descriptive you can see that they are for the glorification of the artist's thoughts and beliefs rather than the Glory of God and His Siants.
St. John Chrysostom has a book dedicated to Icons.
I think they should be banned, simply because they are not icons.
An icon is a "window into heaven".
These western images are a "window into an artist's life experiences."
In a sense they are phoney images and are a deception. In another descriptive you can see that they are for the glorification of the artist's thoughts and beliefs rather than the Glory of God and His Siants.
St. John Chrysostom has a book dedicated to Icons.
By that line of logic then wouldn't you say if all the artist wants and cares about is to give glory to God, then that will come out in the picture. and it'll be totally awesome. If the artist had experienced life with God, then thats what the paintings will show. plus as an artist, the latter are more fun to draw ^^
Naturalistic art is rejected by Orthodoxy. It is irrelevant that a person might prefer it. I might enjoy singing English folk songs but my preferences have no bearing on what happens in the Church.
The Eastern Orthodox have been busy removing Western naturalised religious art from their Churches as they also understand that Orthodoxy rejects it as a means of iconography.
The proper Russian icons I own are all in an authentic iconographic style. The naturalistic ones are a result of the effects of a period of Western dominance. They are not icons either.
Father Peter
The Eastern Orthodox have been busy removing Western naturalised religious art from their Churches as they also understand that Orthodoxy rejects it as a means of iconography.
The proper Russian icons I own are all in an authentic iconographic style. The naturalistic ones are a result of the effects of a period of Western dominance. They are not icons either.
Father Peter
If thats true, then what is the original style of the bazyntinians? all of seen of them is the natural style.
I'm not sure that I'm following this as an issue, to appeal to tradition is fine but whats the reason for the tradition is way?
Is realism in iconography wrong? Is sentimentalism in iconography wrong?
I remember when I was much younger I went to a Caravaggio exhibition and this was my first exposure to graphic religious art. I remember that upon leaving the exhibition with some friends from my youth group we agreed that the pictures were 'religious' but they weren't really 'iconic' as in you can't venerate a naked picture of mary magdaline for example.
I was moved by one picture that I keep on my wall and still meditate on to this day is this:
The first thing people will notice is that the imagery in this photo is very similar to the the scene in the passion of Christ when He has the crown of thorns placed on His head. This artist was the inspiration for a lot of how the movie looked.
The reason I like it is because I meditate on the men placing the crown of thorns on Christs head and how Christ is holding a cane like them as representation of how the suffering of Christ was because of His Will not the will of mere men and the man reaching across to Christs hand to share in the suffering with Him.
I recall that when the passion of Christ was out pretty much everyone including clergy appreciated how graphic it was as a real reminder of what Christ suffered. I'm not sure that that makes these kinds of images qualify as iconography but I will mention that one reason these kinds of paintings didn't exist is because the skills required to create them didn't exist. Real life painting like this required the advent of photo-sensitive substances like photos that were projected onto the canvas by something like a mirror and marked onto it which the artist then painted over - I believe that this was only discovered very recently.
If this is the case then art - much like science will advance with time - tradition is not about being antiquarian, its about using the most powerful vehicles available in our current age for sharing and communicating the apostolic truths and with time new ways of doing it will emerge as human knowledge advances.
I agree that there are times when these pictures become too artistic and its more about art and symbolism than devotion but is there really any valid reason in the tradition to exclude life like pictures from being icons?
It seems that we need to learn again in our own times that personal preferences have no place in the Church, and we need to learn again what the Tradition means before we lose the greatest treasure mankind possesses.
Russian traditional iconography is represented by this icon, one of the most well known and famous. It is not naturalistic.
Lifeindeath, naturalism has no place in the Church iconography. It has nothing to do with ability of artists. The introduction of sentiment and emotionalism through naturalism in art is deeply un-Orthodox.
It seems that we need to learn again in our own times that personal preferences have no place in the Church, and we need to learn again what the Tradition means before we lose the greatest treasure mankind possesses.
Russian traditional iconography is represented by this icon, one of the most well known and famous. It is not naturalistic.
To me that that icon looked quite naturalistic - not in the sense of the Caravaggio icon which is like a photograph - but other than the gold paint in the background the pictures illustrated don't fit the typical iconographical patterns we use today like making the eyes large to portray wisdom, etc. Are there specific characteristics defined somewhere about necessary traits in an Orthodox icon?
Here is an Eastern Orthodox icon of Christ...
It is very similar in content and design to the Coptic icon of Christ I have on my iconostasis.
Here is an icon of the Virgin Mary that shows clearly the very large eyes of iconography. Features are exaggerated. Not because the iconographer lacks the skill of later Western artists but because he has a theological and spiritual aim, not an emotional one.
Icons are produced in the context of very strict rules. No one can just make an icon. It is a spiritual practice that must be learned as a disciple.
With respect, the Caravaggio has no place in Orthodox spirituality at all. Indeed I did not watch Mel Gibson's The Passion for the same reasons. It represents a deformed Western faith not the authentic Orthodox tradition and Gospel. I would be very uncomfortable in any Church which hung it. If you visit the National Gallery you will see that until the 12th-13th century the West retained a properly Orthodox iconographic style. It was only with the humanist movement that art became separated from spirituality and theology.
This crucifix from San Damiano, and the time of Francis of Assisi shows that there was still an iconography in the West, although even here it is beginning to enter a transition.
Father Peter
Naturalistic art is rejected by Orthodoxy. It is irrelevant that a person might prefer it.
can you provide a source for this?
My FOC who is a monk, liked a picture of Jesus with a world globe, similar to this one:
http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/AniJesusWorld.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/&usg=__0IUkSdNdAHB4vbq8BIN3FGMzaDA=&h=331&w=270&sz=39&hl=nl&start=162&zoom=1&tbnid=HdRJ5_JbWAT_bM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=128&ei=mHRATfSiEtGdOpCTkcEI&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djesus%2Bworld%2Bglobe%255C%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D559%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C3337&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=305&oei=hXRATdyAIMuP4Qaaga3sAg&esq=10&page=8&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:20,s:162&tx=84&ty=47&biw=1366&bih=559
He says the pic means that Jesus has might over the whole world.
I just don't understand the problem of it..as long as these pictures are giving a right and nice image of Jesus.. then why making a big deal of it? :)
However, I like coptic icons too, but those are only supposed to be in the Church, not in home or anywhere else.\
Gb
Before the 19th century it would have been unthinkable for such Western art to find a place in the Church.
This icon from the 17th century shows that the deliberate technique had not changed from the 6th century icon of St Mena with Christ which I show below it. The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
+marmar+, icons should be in each of our homes. These Western pictures ARE NOT 'giving a right and nice image of Jesus'. We must not accept things into our spiritual life just because WE think they are OK. The picture of Jesus with the globe really has no place in an Orthodox home.
A big deal must be made because these things ARE NOT ORTHODOX and corrupt our Orthodox Faith.
Father Peter
1900 years of Church Tradition until Western artistic influence was allowed entry to the Church.
Before the 19th century it would have been unthinkable for such Western art to find a place in the Church.
This icon from the 17th century shows that the deliberate technique had not changed from the 6th century icon of St Mena with Christ which I show below it. The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
+marmar+, icons should be in each of our homes. These Western pictures ARE NOT 'giving a right and nice image of Jesus'. We must not accept things into our spiritual life just because WE think they are OK. The picture of Jesus with the globe really has no place in an Orthodox home.
A big deal must be made because these things ARE NOT ORTHODOX and corrupt our Orthodox Faith.
Father Peter
Dear Fr. Peter,
Forgive me, but I learned that icons are not allowed to be in a home ..because it has to be devoted with Holy Meron and those only are allowed to be in church?? ???
And Yes, I don't see any 'western' pics in my church, but I do see it in the cantine of the church and they even sell it
and I see manyyyy coptic orthodox churches and monasteries do sell those pictures, even monks and abouna's do have them.
So are even this picture http://st-takla.org/Gallery/01-Jesus-Images-Pictures-of-Christ/01-Jesus-Childhood/www-St-Takla-org___Jesus-Childhood-01.html and all the others, (these are from st takla.org a coptic site) not allowed to be at a home or
a place in church (not the church itself, but e.g. the culture center). Cause we have a lot.
And please, could u give a source which confirms your words?
Thank you Father,
Every Orthodox Christian from all traditions that I have known has printed copies of icons in the home.
And I am surprised that you have been told you may not have a proper icon in the home. This is also traditional in all Orthodox countries. Indeed before printing it would have been the norm to have icons in the home.
I have shown you that it is the constant tradition of the Church until recent times that we do not use in Orthodoxy such Western non-Orthodox pictures, and especially the very moden images that are not even Roman Catholic. Why would we welcome something that is not Orthodox into our homes and Churches?
Father Peter
A printed copy of an icon is not blessed with myron.
Every Orthodox Christian from all traditions that I have known has printed copies of icons in the home.
And I am surprised that you have been told you may not have a proper icon in the home. This is also traditional in all Orthodox countries. Indeed before printing it would have been the norm to have icons in the home.
I have shown you that it is the constant tradition of the Church until recent times that we do not use in Orthodoxy such Western non-Orthodox pictures, and especially the very moden images that are not even Roman Catholic. Why would we welcome something that is not Orthodox into our homes and Churches?
Father Peter
A printed copy...ah. Then it's ok, didn't see that it was printed. I just meant that icons, like the icons made by Adel Nassief, blessed with holy myron are not allowed to be in home..that is special 4 the church. But an icon at paper is ok,
gb
Father Peter
+marmar+, as I said, before printing the ONLY icons were consecrated ones and these did exist in every home.
Father Peter
ooh, so consecrated icons DID exist in every home? And now not ..right?
1900 years of Church Tradition until Western artistic influence was allowed entry to the Church.
Before the 19th century it would have been unthinkable for such Western art to find a place in the Church.
This icon from the 17th century shows that the deliberate technique had not changed from the 6th century icon of St Mena with Christ which I show below it. The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
+marmar+, icons should be in each of our homes. These Western pictures ARE NOT 'giving a right and nice image of Jesus'. We must not accept things into our spiritual life just because WE think they are OK. The picture of Jesus with the globe really has no place in an Orthodox home.
A big deal must be made because these things ARE NOT ORTHODOX and corrupt our Orthodox Faith.
Father Peter
i dont understand what is wrong with some pictures of jesus. many non-coptic pictures can have lots of meaning to them. for example:http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Graphics/Christ-Centered/jesus.wept.jpg. this picture has so much meaning and reminds how bad we really are and how Christ does not like us to sin. How does this picture make Jesus look bad? Also, http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=643&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=jesus+the+good+shepherd&aq=f&aqi=g-sx2g-msx1&aql=&oq=. how do any of these pictures make him look bad? They are beautiful. Art is Art. I think it matters more how the Icons and pictures affect us rather than how they look or the style they are painted in.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10539.msg128357#msg128357 date=1296071066]
1900 years of Church Tradition until Western artistic influence was allowed entry to the Church.
Before the 19th century it would have been unthinkable for such Western art to find a place in the Church.
This icon from the 17th century shows that the deliberate technique had not changed from the 6th century icon of St Mena with Christ which I show below it. The Coptic Church was not unaware of Western art, it chose not to allow it a place in the Church. It is only in the 19th century that changes.
+marmar+, icons should be in each of our homes. These Western pictures ARE NOT 'giving a right and nice image of Jesus'. We must not accept things into our spiritual life just because WE think they are OK. The picture of Jesus with the globe really has no place in an Orthodox home.
A big deal must be made because these things ARE NOT ORTHODOX and corrupt our Orthodox Faith.
Father Peter
i dont understand what is wrong with some pictures of jesus. many non-coptic pictures can have lots of meaning to them. for example:http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Graphics/Christ-Centered/jesus.wept.jpg. this picture has so much meaning and reminds how bad we really are and how Christ does not like us to sin. How does this picture make Jesus look bad? Also, http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=643&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=jesus+the+good+shepherd&aq=f&aqi=g-sx2g-msx1&aql=&oq=. how do any of these pictures make him look bad? They are beautiful. Art is Art. I think it matters more how the Icons and pictures affect us rather than how they look or the style they are painted in.
Thanks copticuser20 for understanding. Oh, the first link doesnt work XD
Nice pics the others,
God bless
http://saint-mary.net/mm/icons/stmarys_icons/
The beauty of Orthodox icons in general is that they tell a story. They can be read. We say in the Coptic Church that an icon is written. In fact there are books written about specific icons to explain the symbolism. Even before writing an icon, the person writing it must be theologically trained and should be fasting (if I'm recalling this correctly). Actually one of the beauty of icons was that they allowed the illiterate (of which there is many back then) to "read" the life of a saint.
HG Bishop Daniel wrote an amazing book about the subject which can be found here
Something sort of off topic (it does display the beauty of coptic icons, though. There are 559 icons in the first link): http://saint-mary.net/mm/icons/Icons%20Archival/
http://saint-mary.net/mm/icons/stmarys_icons/
The beauty of Orthodox icons in general is that they tell a story. They can be read. We say in the Coptic Church that an icon is written. In fact there are books written about specific icons to explain the symbolism. Even before writing an icon, the person writing it must be theologically trained and should be fasting (if I'm recalling this correctly). Actually one of the beauty of icons was that they allowed the illiterate (of which there is many back then) to "read" the life of a saint.
HG Bishop Daniel wrote an amazing book about the subject which can be found here
i'm not saying anything is wrong with Coptic Icons. I love them. But there also is nothing wrong (in my opinion) with natural icons if they being painted in monasteries by monks who are under the supervision of bishops.
Something sort of off topic (it does display the beauty of coptic icons, though. There are 559 icons in the first link): http://saint-mary.net/mm/icons/Icons%20Archival/
http://saint-mary.net/mm/icons/stmarys_icons/
The beauty of Orthodox icons in general is that they tell a story. They can be read. We say in the Coptic Church that an icon is written. In fact there are books written about specific icons to explain the symbolism. Even before writing an icon, the person writing it must be theologically trained and should be fasting (if I'm recalling this correctly). Actually one of the beauty of icons was that they allowed the illiterate (of which there is many back then) to "read" the life of a saint.
HG Bishop Daniel wrote an amazing book about the subject which can be found here
Thanks, that's beautiful.
Gb
Father Peter
Those "natural" icons are never painted in the monastery and they are not supervised by any monks or bishops.
They are manifestations of an artist not a theological expression.