The story of Christian art video

[GoodShepherd]

A very important video on art, specifically Christian art, this will help you get an understanding in Orthodox iconography, it will also show you the great difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic artwork, after this video you will be able to tell the difference.

 

[Northumber]

^ Fantastic presentation. My summary for thoughts and discussion:

33 min in: I had no idea the markings in the icons with Jesus are essentially a transliteration of "I am who I am". Or that it can be translated as "being" and that the word "ontology" comes from the same meaning.

I also didn't realize Pantokrator was used about 40 times in the OT.

And once again, I don't think any other Christian tradition is this solid on who Christ is in the OT.

It reminds me if how most of us Christians often unconsciously cede our positions to accommodate an unbeliever in order to seem "reasonable" to them. It's not a good move.

It is an incredibly significant thing to say that every time someone saw a physical manifestation of God in the OT they were seeing the second person of the Trinity. Moses saw the preincarnate Christ. I've heard otherwise solid RC apologists flub around on this topic and it's strange to hear them do this.

48 min in: He starts talking about how icons are mystical and that they are windows to heaven and that they are theological statements. I think a completely different mindset about art may be helpful here too. I don't think we modern people realize what is going on around us in terms of "art" because:
1) we are so inundated with images now and don't realize the real significance they have on our perception and spiritual being. and...
2) we think of art wrongly - art is not the object but rather describes the skill in putting something together for a purpose.

And so it completely makes sense how an icon has a sanctifying effect on the beholder. All of it is imbued with layers of meaning and purpose and symbolism. All while the iconographer has prayerfully put it together.

And what an excellent contrast between the caricature style and icon style. The icon does the opposite of a caricature and smooths the face out. But, at the same time, the eyes are depicted bigger - seeing the kingdom. ears are bigger - hearing the heavenly hosts.

On the gold background - where are the saints? They are in the kingdom of God, surrounded by light! Beautiful.

at 1:38 he gets into what happened at the renaissance - humanism, rationalism, realism.

Although I'd argue that it's not really realism but more like materialism. And I think all our modern minds are geared towards it. Even when we fancy ourselves as being classical for appreciating "realistic" paintings. It's only "realistic" in the most materialistic way. An icon is truly depicting something more real.

He gives a formal definition of paganism as ‘an orientation towards the immanent’. Again our modern minds are geared towards that. Us being from the culture we are, we just think that way.

at 1:40 - the icon of the descent into hades: Christ grabs adam by the wrist and pulls him out. This versus the gesticulating triumphant Jesus found in the West at the Vatican with a crusader flag behind Him. Very different.

Next, Michelangelo and the naked bodies. Such a massive shift from icons which purposely reduces the sensual aspect to point a person higher.

It's pretty bad Michelangelo explicitly used the form of pagan gods for Christ the judge and his rendition of Saint Catherine completely nude and in that position is beyond irreverent. And religious people still pride themselves that "our culture" accomplished this? This is what attracts droves of people to the sistine chapel? We followers of Christ have real soul searching to do. I'm saying this for myself as I admire his work.

His last example showing the ads with Cindy
Crawford and comparing them to an icon of a woman martyr illustrates how all the images we are surrounded with today are a direct inversion. Everything around us is designed to inflame the passions.

The icon focuses us on the face...
and we become full persons as we face God face to face.

 

[Northumber]

More on the renaissance Christian art and how it led to the breakdown we see now in modern culture. They start by going back even further and talking about the iconoclastic controversy and how it relates to Western characters like Charlemagne. The West first tries at that time to define itself apart from the East.

At 24 min in they start getting into the renaissance movement and the nakedness and the sensual pagan aesthetic in the renaissance movement.

30 min in some very interesting discussion on the origin of purgatory. Essentially the West lost its incarnational view of Christ in the world and instead became very negative.

The pieta, the sistine chapel, are all mentioned here:

 

[GoodShepherd]

^ Fantastic presentation. My summary for thoughts and discussion:

33 min in: I had no idea the markings in the icons with Jesus are essentially a transliteration of "I am who I am". Or that it can be translated as "being" and that the word "ontology" comes from the same meaning.

I also didn't realize Pantokrator was used about 40 times in the OT.

And once again, I don't think any other Christian tradition is this solid on who Christ is in the OT.

It reminds me if how most of us Christians often unconsciously cede our positions to accommodate an unbeliever in order to seem "reasonable" to them. It's not a good move.

It is an incredibly significant thing to say that every time someone saw a physical manifestation of God in the OT they were seeing the second person of the Trinity. Moses saw the preincarnate Christ. I've heard otherwise solid RC apologists flub around on this topic and it's strange to hear them do this.

48 min in: He starts talking about how icons are mystical and that they are windows to heaven and that they are theological statements. I think a completely different mindset about art may be helpful here too. I don't think we modern people realize what is going on around us in terms of "art" because:
1) we are so inundated with images now and don't realize the real significance they have on our perception and spiritual being. and...
2) we think of art wrongly - art is not the object but rather describes the skill in putting something together for a purpose.

And so it completely makes sense how an icon has a sanctifying effect on the beholder. All of it is imbued with layers of meaning and purpose and symbolism. All while the iconographer has prayerfully put it together.

And what an excellent contrast between the caricature style and icon style. The icon does the opposite of a caricature and smooths the face out. But, at the same time, the eyes are depicted bigger - seeing the kingdom. ears are bigger - hearing the heavenly hosts.

On the gold background - where are the saints? They are in the kingdom of God, surrounded by light! Beautiful.

at 1:38 he gets into what happened at the renaissance - humanism, rationalism, realism.

Although I'd argue that it's not really realism but more like materialism. And I think all our modern minds are geared towards it. Even when we fancy ourselves as being classical for appreciating "realistic" paintings. It's only "realistic" in the most materialistic way. An icon is truly depicting something more real.

He gives a formal definition of paganism as ‘an orientation towards the immanent’. Again our modern minds are geared towards that. Us being from the culture we are, we just think that way.

at 1:40 - the icon of the descent into hades: Christ grabs adam by the wrist and pulls him out. This versus the gesticulating triumphant Jesus found in the West at the Vatican with a crusader flag behind Him. Very different.

Next, Michelangelo and the naked bodies. Such a massive shift from icons which purposely reduces the sensual aspect to point a person higher.

It's pretty bad Michelangelo explicitly used the form of pagan gods for Christ the judge and his rendition of Saint Catherine completely nude and in that position is beyond irreverent. And religious people still pride themselves that "our culture" accomplished this? This is what attracts droves of people to the sistine chapel? We followers of Christ have real soul searching to do. I'm saying this for myself as I admire his work.

His last example showing the ads with Cindy
Crawford and comparing them to an icon of a woman martyr illustrates how all the images we are surrounded with today are a direct inversion. Everything around us is designed to inflame the passions.

The icon focuses us on the face...
and we become full persons as we face God face to face.

Thanks for the great response to this presentation, it makes me want to go back and watch this video again as I watched it like 2 years ago, to refresh my memory of it.

I also like all the symbolism in the iconography, the colours Christ wears and how it shows His divinity, or any garment that someone is wearing shows what they were, some priests some monks, John the baptist you can see he was a man of the dessert and if someone is holding something in their hands it shows what they were or even how they died, a cross in their hands for example means they were a martyr.

The importance of having the icons around us at church and in our prayer corners, it touches our 5 sense to have the holy images in view, now compare how some other churches worship with disco lights or other religions like Islam where there have no holy images at all.

 

[GoodShepherd]

Regarding art there is an interview I enjoyed with brother Augustine and Bradley Burris, the most banned artist on the internet and former proud boys member, who at the time was also very interested in Orthodox Christianity.

 

[GoodShepherd]

More on the renaissance Christian art and how it led to the breakdown we see now in modern culture. They start by going back even further and talking about the iconoclastic controversy and how it relates to Western characters like Charlemagne. The West first tries at that time to define itself apart from the East.

At 24 min in they start getting into the renaissance movement and the nakedness and the sensual pagan aesthetic in the renaissance movement.

30 min in some very interesting discussion on the origin of purgatory. Essentially the West lost its incarnational view of Christ in the world and instead became very negative.

The pieta, the sistine chapel, are all mentioned here:

I will have to watch this one, Johnathan Pageau is good on these topics, thanks.

 

[Northumber]

Regarding art there is an interview I enjoyed with brother Augustine and Bradley Burris, the most banned artist on the internet and former proud boys member, who at the time was also very interested in Orthodox Christianity.

Interesting. Thank you, I'll check it out.

Yeah, icons have been rattling around in my head for over a decade now. There has always been something about them that intrigued me. The style has almost become modern looking again. That played a part in what initially made them interesting to me. (and maybe they've become modern again because of this thing we are experiencing moving back to the symbolic with memes, emojis, etc.)

 

[Northumber]

I'm just following up on the video I posted because sometimes these guys say profound things so quickly it's difficult to focus on what they said.

Being from the West and a Western heritage I really want to understand why things got so wonky. I'm convinced it's from fundamental stuff that we just take for granted and never really think about because everyone thinks the same way. We are all modern now. The West is essentially everywhere.

There was a brief exchange about 20 min in that got my attention:

Pageau: The west never really developed a clear coherent understanding of the image.

Fr. Strickland: The fathers of the church articulated what the image is. The image is grounded in the incarnation. It's grounded in the understanding that the world is not disconnected from heaven, from God, from Paradise, but the world is filled with presence sacramentally.

My comment: today we are far far far from that understanding. We freely use images all over the place and we think that because it's not churchy it has nothing to do with anything. It's just an image. We believe there is this separate neutral secular space they can exist. We do not realize that all of these images connect us with the heavens, the spiritual world. And, now, at this modern point in history, almost all of them do this for ill. They affect us spiritually.

more:

Fr. Strickland: Frankish theologians (The West) didn't get that (incarnational understanding) at all. They saw the image as being useful for teaching only.

Fr. Strickland: The fathers of the seventh ecumenical council had said it's good for teaching, but primarily it (the image) bears witness to the fact that God became human in the incarnation.

My comment again: Pause here and think about this. Could you imagine if we all still treated images like this today? Could you imagine making a movie or tv show while keeping that fact in mind? With that kind of prayerful reverence in mind?

Fr. Strickland: The world is not on it's own living out its life for it's own sake. It is now joined to heaven and to eternity.

Fr. Strickland: And that really is the break. I think that's it. ...

Fr. Strickland: What the Renaissance did with art ... I mean our culture celebrates Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, and all these famous artists but if you look at these from a historically deep point of view, it's just an aberration. It's so weird to see what they were doing with their art.


Edit: I just realized maybe I shouldn't be using this section as a sounding board and should stick to inquiring here. Feel free to move this if need be.

 

[GoodShepherd]

I'm just following up on the video I posted because sometimes these guys say profound things so quickly it's difficult to focus on what they said.

Being from the West and a Western heritage I really want to understand why things got so wonky. I'm convinced it's from fundamental stuff that we just take for granted and never really think about because everyone thinks the same way. We are all modern now. The West is essentially everywhere.

There was a brief exchange about 20 min in that got my attention:

Pageau: The west never really developed a clear coherent understanding of the image.

Fr. Strickland: The fathers of the church articulated what the image is. The image is grounded in the incarnation. It's grounded in the understanding that the world is not disconnected from heaven, from God, from Paradise, but the world is filled with presence sacramentally.

My comment: today we are far far far from that understanding. We freely use images all over the place and we think that because it's not churchy it has nothing to do with anything. It's just an image. We believe there is this separate neutral secular space they can exist. We do not realize that all of these images connect us with the heavens, the spiritual world. And, now, at this modern point in history, almost all of them do this for ill. They affect us spiritually.

more:

Fr. Strickland: Frankish theologians (The West) didn't get that (incarnational understanding) at all. They saw the image as being useful for teaching only.

Fr. Strickland: The fathers of the seventh ecumenical council had said it's good for teaching, but primarily it (the image) bears witness to the fact that God became human in the incarnation.

My comment again: Pause here and think about this. Could you imagine if we all still treated images like this today? Could you imagine making a movie or tv show while keeping that fact in mind? With that kind of prayerful reverence in mind?

Fr. Strickland: The world is not on it's own living out its life for it's own sake. It is now joined to heaven and to eternity.

Fr. Strickland: And that really is the break. I think that's it. ...

Fr. Strickland: What the Renaissance did with art ... I mean our culture celebrates Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, and all these famous artists but if you look at these from a historically deep point of view, it's just an aberration. It's so weird to see what they were doing with their art.


Edit: I just realized maybe I shouldn't be using this section as a sounding board and should stick to inquiring here. Feel free to move this if need be.

I havent had a chance to watch your video yet but I think that other series I shared finding the church that Jesus built and the book the Orthodox survival coarse might shed some more light on these questions you having.

When the west broke away from the church they no longer held onto tradition like before but started innovating and changing things, not only with the art work but even the liturgy, for example in the Orthodox church the table and the direction the priests stands in is in the same direction that we the laity faces but the Roman Catholics turned the table around and the priest faces the laity, the creed was also changed and the words "and the Son" were added, the sign of the cross went from left to right instead of the usualy right to left, all this little subtle changes that really make a difference.

 

[Northumber]

the Orthodox survival coarse might shed some more light on these questions you having.

I'll certainly check it out.

I write these things for myself as well. It challenges me. I'm actually a painter. It's not my current profession but I used to support myself somewhat with what I did. And so I am definitely used to seeing the world in a certain way. People in the renaissance were (ok, probably still are) my heroes. So, this topic really challenges me. I basically realize I'm worldly.

 

[Northumber]

You go into wonderful cathedrals in Italy and France and you see the magnitude of the artwork... and it's life changing when you see it.

And not always for the right reasons, I fear. Because we've made it so beautiful we actually miss the beauty and the simplicity of the person who is the main reason for it all.

I also enjoy his description of how the materials used even connect us to creation, to the real: mineral and animal - mineral in pigments and the egg tempura.

 

[Northumber]

Not directly on the topic of icons, but related: