oy_kto_eto: (естьженщиныврусскихселеньях)

Два слова о надолго накрывшей всю Европу махровой глупости о том, что якобы «в иконописи ему (понятию тени) нет места: иконописец этим тёмным делом не занимается и теней, конечно, не пишет» ( Павел Флоренский. Иконостас. Избранные труды по искусству. СПб, 1993. С.145 – 168). Напоминаю на всякий случай, что иконописцами Флоренский и его последователи по умолчанию именуют только авторов, работавших в средневековой стилистике.

 

Глупость махровая насквозь, в основе своей: Флоренский по понятным причинам не знал того, что знает любой, даже самый начинающий, художник – что контурная линия уже есть тень. В природе контура как феномена нет, контур – это условный изобразительный прием, позволяющий вырезать (обрезая по краю) образы – из окружающей их среды. Прием основывается на выборе условного источника света – перед плоскостью картинки, со стороны зрителя, так что выступающие формы освещены сильнее, а отступающие вглубь – слабее. Вот наружные контуры всякого предмета и всякой части этого предмета как раз и суть такие оказавшиеся в тени участки его поверхности, расположенные перпендикулярно плоскости картинки. Видимая площадь этих участков минимальна, но зато и тень на них концентрируется даже до черноты.

 

И вот эта тоненькая (впрочем, иногда и толстенькая) черная тень присутствует практически во всех произведениях средневековых художников – даже в тех, где художник не пишет... светОв.  

Да-с. Такие иконы – существуют.

сплошное темное дело )

 

oy_kto_eto: (гертруда)

An iconographer expresses him self naturally in images, and the reader will have noticed how many times that author has used stories and anecdote to make her point.  We shall do the same in this chapter.

(картинка для привлечения внимания отсюда:
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/~/media/system/e/8/e/5/e8e5a2174f06374448abc7bde9347f0f/jwm_1970jpg.jpg,
как нашла красоту? а погуглила волшебное выражение "icon writing").

 

 

 

oy_kto_eto: (софонисба)

On the veneration of icons  and the assessment of their artistic level

In this chapter we discuss a matter that lies outside the field of art history, but concerns rather the life and use of the icon within the Church, the people of God. 


The fundamental issues related to the veneration of icons were settled and regulated by the Church already more than a thousand years ago by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787) following the iconoclast controversies. This is not the place to rehearse the history of this process, even briefly, or to quote the Acts of this council. All this is very well known and needs explaining only to those far from the Church.

 

 

oy_kto_eto: (гертруда)

In order to study the Russian iconographic tradition outside Russia, it is worth making the effort to define who it was that transmitted this tradition, what structures served as the link in the chain, and what part of the Russian iconographic treasury was known in Europe at the time. Who then, on leaving Russia, brought the ecclesiastic cultural tradition to the west?

 

 

oy_kto_eto: (гертруда)
This chapter will examine a unique situation in the transmission of icon painting. It is a known fact that Russian icon painting, on both sides of the iron curtain, found itself in a difficult situation after 1917.  More exactly, there were two situations, neither of them normal.

 

But first of all, let us remind ourselves of the situation of Russian devotional art in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, up to the 1917 Revolution. We knowingly use the term “devotional art” because it would be incorrect, in respect of this period, to speak of icon painting in isolation.

 

картинок за сто лет с хвостиком )

[2] Vestnik RKhD no. 136, Paris, New York, Moscow, 1982, p. 242-244

oy_kto_eto: (гертруда)
Let us start by stating that in the visual arts all schools not just those of icon painting, are also schools of spirituality, because by channeling a student in a certain stylistic direction you imprint on him or her ipso facto a particular spiritual direction, in the broader sense of the term. By adopting one or the another recipe for transcribing the three-dimensional world into two dimensions, the student adopts at the same time the viewpoint on this world of his period, his school and his personal master. Indeed, he will learn to transfigure the world in the master’s direction, taking on all the corresponding aesthetic, moral, and spiritual values.



In the world history of art education, there has been only one attempt to preserve the student from any "spiritual pressure". This is the late secular Academic system, appearing only in the late nineteenth century, where the student throughout his school career worked only from nature. But even that experience was not free of interference, because anyone setting out to paint has, nolens volens, already undergone certain stylistic influences and already has certain preferences. Of course, in this system, the apprentice himself chooses his masters, and alone decides how far and for how long he will remain faithful to them, but there is no denying, however, that an artistic school cannot truly exist in a spiritual vacuum, that is to say, the transmission (traditio) of spiritual experience is an essential component of it.    


oy_kto_eto: (гертруда)

Spiritual canonicity of the icon, spiritual physiognomy of  the iconographer

Not all images created and presented by an artist are accepted by the Church. Indeed it even happens that among icons already blessed and exhibited in a church, some are so disturbing that they are rapidly adjusted or repainted, and even destroyed, even if the iconographic canon has been adhered to without reproach. And was we have seen in the previous paragraph, style in the meaning of the style of a particular era or geographic area, is no bar per se to canonicity.

 

What can be the cause of this censorship, if this is not the iconography or the style? So what is the additional criterion that determines the trueness or canonicity of the icon? What have we omitted? What can otherwise be found in icon to be incorrect, contrary to the Spirit that irrigates the Church?

 

oy_kto_eto: (гертруда)

This unconditional enthusiasm for the “old” style is characteristic of individuals or groups (through ignorance or out of totally "earthly" interests), but the Church has never made any decision concerning style, prescribing one or proscribing another. The canonicity of and the admissibility of a particular style are evaluated by the Church on a case-by-case basis, without any pre-established rule, by direct examination of particular icons.  And if, when it comes to the iconographic canon, the number of historical precedents is limited for each subject, in the field of style no specific limit can be established. For this reason alone, an icon that has slipped from the Greek style to the Latin style or one that has been painted in a purely Academic style may not be excluded from the ranks of icons. Similarly, the "Byzantine" style does not automatically make holy an image, any more today than in past centuries.

 

 

oy_kto_eto: (гертруда)
So, is it sufficient for the iconographic canon to have been observed impeccably and unquestionably, for a painted wood panel on a religious them to be an icon? Are there other criteria? For some rigorous spirits and with the blessing of well-known twentieth century authors, style has also become a criterion, and indeed an essential element of canonicity.



The public generally confuses style and canon. Without wanting to insist further, we would remind the reader that the iconographic canon determines the subject of the image in its narrative aspects: Who is this? What is he or she doing? In what context? How is he or she dressed? Seen from this angle, even a photograph of theatrical actors dressed in the right costumes and placed in the correct setting would be irreproachably canonical. Style is something very different.  


oy_kto_eto: (софонисба)

And now, finally, we can pass from what is unimportant and secondary and even non-existent and invented — but still considered by certain persons to be of primary importance — in the artistic language of icons to that which is characteristic and important, and certainly needs to be included in the definition of icons.First of all, any icon needs to be canonical. So what does "being canonical" really mean?



The simple translation of the Greek does not help: "canonical" describes something that is regular, according to the rule. And indeed, how do we establish which icons are regular or "true" according all their different characteristics? In current practice, the term "canonical icon" has a very specific meaning: it is an icon that conforms with the iconographic canon, a concept not to be confused with the style, as poorly instructed people often do.

Canon and style - these concepts are so different

that )

 

oy_kto_eto: (софонисба)

Spiritual vision is considered, and not without reason, as a fundamental element of this phenomenon that we call the icon. Let us take a closer look at what this vision consists of, so as to avoid confusion and misunderstandings.

 

I would start with a series of quotations from the well-known work of Father Pavel Florensky (1882 - 1943): Iconostasis. A gifted Russian scientist, Florensky was ordained priest shortly before the Russian Revolution. During the ‘30s he was interned in the gulags, where he died. He belonged to that exclusive circle of educated believers whose theological and philosophical thought greatly influenced the Russian emigration, including in the area of ​​the icon. Iconostasis was written in 1922 but was published only in 1970. Although the author himself visibly abandoned it and never intended to publish it, it is considered a classic in its field. Anyway, Florensky's emigrant friends have kept and developed, often uncritically, certain ideas that continue to be promoted to this day.

 

oy_kto_eto: (софонисба)

The idea that icon painting shows us the world according to a system of reverse perspective is a relatively innocent mistake. Innocent because it has less influence on the way we represent God and the saints than the ideology which declares inadmissible any resemblance to nature. On the other hand, the absurdity of this idea, and blind belief that many people have in it are really amazing.

 

Let us remind ourselves of what reverse perspective is. Unlike normal or optical perspective, where the vanishing point is in the imaginary depth of the painting, in reverse perspective this vanishing point is in front of the painting, on the viewer's side, in such a way that the space appears to expand with the growing distance from the viewer. In normal perspective, parallel lines converge to a single point and objects become smaller with distance. In reverse perspective, it is the opposite that happens.

 

We are offered very scholarly and highly spiritual explanations of the use of reverse perspective. Leonid Uspensky said that it helped maintain the two-dimensionality of the icon.[1] It also brought the viewer into a special world, which opens out in the depths of the icon.

 

 

oy_kto_eto: (софонисба)

The absence of the painter’s name or signature on the icon is still widely viewed as a very important element of the iconographic tradition. A mystical meaning is attributed to this anonymity, which supposedly underscores the impersonal nature of icon painting and the painter's total submission to the Church.

 

 

тыц )

 

oy_kto_eto: (гертруда)

We have already mentioned the Fayum Portraits, painted during the lives of those portrayed and transformed into cult objects after their deaths. But then a new question arises: is it acceptable to paint an icon 'from nature', more specifically from a live model?



At the beginning of the rediscovery of ancient icons, Prince Yevgueni Trubetskoy expressed in 1915 his ideas on this issue with his trademark emotionality: "He (man) cannot enter God's temple in his present condition: there is no place in this temple for uncircumcised hearts, for fat, self-sufficient bodies. This is why icons cannot be painted from live models."[1]

 

 

oy_kto_eto: (софонисба)
(картинка для привлечения внимания)


 

 

oy_kto_eto: (софонисба)

Сдавшись на пинки дорогих друзей и френдов, начинаю вывешивать сюда английский перевод сваво бестселлера. Иногда - с картинками. Просьба считать эту антрепризу постовой епитимьей.
И завожу особый тэг даже, чтоб не было ходу назад.


Foreword )

Profile

oy_kto_eto: (Default)
oy_kto_eto

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     1 2
3 456 7 8 9
10 111213 1415 16
17 18 1920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 10:24 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios