Abbey-Roads2

Detail, St. Joseph, Nativity icon.

Don Marco has a wonderful post on St. Joseph for his feast today, using an “icon” of Br. Claude Lane, a Benedictine from Mt. Angel Abbey, Oregon.  It is one of my favorite contemporary images of St. Joseph, and Br. Claude is a very fine painter. His work is deeply spiritual and moves one properly to devotion, which is the function of good religious art.  Br. Claude is a master of his craft.

Fr. Gregory, friend of Don Marco’s left a comment discussing the image Father used in the post, pointing out that it is not really an icon as it stands outside the canonical prototype for Orthodox icons.  And that is true.  However, the prototypical icon for the Orthodox Church has always been the icon I have pictured above, of St. Joseph in a “supernatural sleep”, while the Virgin Birth takes place.  Although this is a modern icon, most likely painted by a non-Orthodox, it has long been the prototype of icons depicting St. Joseph, although traditionally he would never be depicted outside of the narrative context, as he is here.

A modern Greek icon of St. Joseph - more or less a copy of Mother of God icons, as well as typical Western-style images of St. Joseph.

It was not until the late 19th and 20th centuries that St. Joseph appeared in Orthodox iconography as a Saint depicted alone, or holding the Child Jesus, unless it happened to be from one of the Eastern Rite Churches in union with Rome.  (Although I believe the Copts may have icons dating back earlier.)  Otherwise the saint would only have been pictured in festal icons, or the cyclical icons depicting the life of The Lord.  Never alone.

Iconography of the Saint in the West did not really flourish until the 16th century.  Before that time, the Saint normally only appeared with the Madonna and the Child Jesus in forms similar to the established Natvity narratives.

My point here is this, icons of St. Joseph depicting him in much the same manner as the Mother of God are a relatively recent development in an Orthodox Church not known for espousing anything modern, much less inspired by the Roman Church.  Yet I’m convinced that is what has occurred.  The depiction of St. Joseph in modern iconography developed, I venture to guess, as a result of the influence of Latin Rite Catholics.  I think his popularity was gradually assimilated into the personal piety of the faithful in the Eastern Rite.  (I’m not saying St. Joseph did not enjoy any cult or devotion before this in the East, yet popular piety surely influenced his representation in the iconography of the East, just as it developed in the art of the West.  Only it took the Orthodox awhile longer to express it.)

As for Roman Catholic, or non-Orthodox iconographers, the Orthodox do not accept that an outsider is either worthy or able to paint an icon suitable for liturgical use, much less private devotion.  Such contentions are the result of the centuries old schism which has divided the two Churches, tendensiously upheld by the Orthodox.

Icons are considered to be “written” in that they strictly accord with the canonical prototype, as well as literally represent the mystery depicted, or the scripture being illustrated.  Nevertheless, they are painted, and as such, they are paintings.  To say otherwise seems to me to be rather pretentious - especially when non-Orthodox apply the term to their own work.

Canonical icons are traditionally either encaustic paintings, that is, pigments mixed with wax, or more commonly, egg tempera paintings upon gesso covered wood.  It is the exact same technique employed by the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Romans.  Imagine going back in time and asking a painter, “What is that you are writing?”  He was painting - and Byzantine iconographers adopted this profane, pagan style of painting.  So much could be said on this point, including much of the hieratic positioning of subjects, as well as manipulation in overall composition and symbology - all derived from pagan culture.   (Fresco, mosaic, bas-relief sculpture all can be employed in iconography, and has been, no writing involved.)

Though Anglo-modern, this composition would be more suitable for the Orthodox.   

Icons were codified by the Orthodox Councils, and have set canonical regulations detailing everything down to the colors used, as well as the pose of the personages.  Out of respect for the Orthodox Church I stopped painting icons quite awhile ago, as well as referring to my work as icons - which has liberated my art in no small way.  

While I appreciate icons, especially some inovative modern Western examples, I understand the insult to Orthodox sensibilities when non-Orthodox pretend their work is authenticly Byzantine iconography.  It subsists only in style, much as the Greco-Romano style of the Sienese School, along with Cimabue, and Giotto.  A greater insult to the Orthodox is the painting of Western saints, or other devotional images in the Byzantine style and calling the work an icon.

I think the more recent predelection for Eastern/Byzantine style iconography in the Western Church is the direct result of the iconoclast culture which developed after Vatican II, along with the absence of good representional art in Western culture at large, so officiously enamored with abstract expressionism, as well as the nihilist influence of 20th century architecture. 

Many progressivist Catholics have embraced icons for the spirituality they embody, and not a few have taken up the art form to make their own icons.  It strikes me as somewhat ironic that the more liberal minded, if not downright dissenting types, embrace such a strictly codified, disciplined style of religious painting, especially when they are not even bound by the Canons of the Orthodox Church.  That being said, they easily justify their picking and choosing which doctrinal truths, Church teachings and liturgical rubrics to observe at will in their own Church.  Go figure.