Art and iconography

Christian art constitutes an essential element of the religion. Until the 17th
century the history of Western art was largely identical with the history of
Western ecclesiastical and religious art. During the early history of the
Christian Church, however, there was very little Christian art, and the church
generally resisted it with all its might. Clement of Alexandria, for example,
criticized religious (pagan) art for encouraging people to worship that which is
created rather than the Creator. There was also little need for Christian art,
because monumental churches had yet to be built and there were few wealthy
patrons to commission it. By the late 2nd century an incipient pictorial art had
appeared in the Christian Church, and by the mid-3rd century art inspired by
pagan models as well as Christian themes began to be produced. Pictures
began to be used in the churches when Christianity was legalized and
supported by the Roman emperor Constantine in the early 4th century, and
they soon struck roots in Christian popular religiosity.

The Annunciation, tempera on wood by Simone Martini, 1333 (saints on either side of the central panel by
Lippo Memmi); in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence.SCALA/Art Resource/EB Inc

A number of factors explain the slow development of Christian art in the early
centuries of the church. Christianity received from its Jewish origins a
prohibition against the use of images to depict the sacred or holy, including
humans, who were created in “the image of God.” The early church was also
deeply involved in a struggle against paganism—which, to the Christian
observer, was idolatry in that its many gods were represented in various
pictorial and statuary forms. In early Christian missionary preaching, the Old
Testament attacks upon pagan veneration of images were transferred directly
to pagan image veneration of the first three centuries AD. The struggle against
images was conducted as a battle against “idols” with all the intensity
of faith in the oneness and exclusiveness of the imageless biblical God. The
abhorrence of images was strengthened further by the emperor’s cult, which
Christians so despised. Christians were compelled to venerate the imperial
images by offering sacrifices to them; refusal to make sacrificewas the chief
cause of martyrdom. Characteristically, then, the church’s reaction to its public
recognition was expressed in the riotous destruction of pagan divine images.
In spite of these very strong religious and emotional restraints, the church
developed a form of art peculiar to its needs. From late antiquity to the time of
the Counter-Reformation, Western art was essentially the art of the church;
both lay and secular patrons commissioned works of art that illustrated
important Christian themes and stood as testimony to their own faith.
Assuming many forms, Christian art could be found in private homes,
churches, and public spaces. Churches, themselves artistic triumphs, were
adorned with a broad range of art, including statuary, paintings, and stained
glass. Another important form was illumination; illuminated manuscripts were
prized possessions and often displayed on high holy days. The attitude
reflected in these practices was expressed in the famous dictum of Pope
Gregory I, that art is the book of the illiterate; art was thus conceived as
having a didactic function.
The starting point for the development of Christian pictorial art lies in the basic
teaching of the Christian revelation itself—namely, the incarnation, the point at
which the Christian proclamation is differentiated from Judaism. The
incarnation of the Son of Man, the Messiah, in the form of a human being—
who was created in the “image of God”—granted theological approval of a sort
to the use of images that symbolized Christian truths. Clement of Alexandria,
at one point, called God “the Great Artist,” who formed humans according to
the image of the Logos, the archetypal light of light. The great theological
struggles over the use of images within the church, particularly in
the Byzantine Empire, during the period of the so-called Iconoclastic
Controversy in the 8th and 9th centuries indicate how a new understanding of
images emerged on the basis of Christian doctrine. This new understanding
was developed into a theology of icons that still prevails in the
Eastern Orthodox Church in the 21st century.
The great significance of images of the saints for the Orthodox faithful is
primarily expressed in the cultic veneration of the images within the worship
service. Second, it is expressed in the dogmatic fixation of the figures,
gestures, and colours in Eastern Church iconic art. In the West, the creative
achievement of the individual artist is admired, but Orthodox painting
dispenses with the predominance of the individual painter’s freely creative
imagination. Throughout the centuries the Eastern Church has been content
with reproducing certain types of holy images, and only seldom does an
individual artist play a predominant role within the history of Orthodox Church
painting. Most Orthodox ecclesiastical artists have remained
anonymous. Icon painting is viewed as a holy skill that is practiced in cloisters
in which definite schools of painting have developed. In the schools, traditional
principles prevail so much that different artist-monks generally perform only
certain functions in the production of a single icon. Style motifs—
e.g., composition, impartation of colour, hair and beard fashions, and gestures
of the figures—are fixed in painting books that contain the canons of the
different monastic schools of icon painters.
The significance of the image of the saint in the theology, piety, and liturgy of
the Eastern Orthodox Church can be judged historically from the fact that the
struggle over holy images within Orthodox Church history brought about a
movement whose scope and meaning can be compared only with
the Reformation of Luther and Calvin. In the 7th century a tendency hostile to
images and fostered by both theological and political figures gained ground
within the Byzantine Church and upset Orthodox Christendom to its very
depths; known as the Iconoclastic Controversy, it was supported by some
reform-minded emperors. Although opponents of icons had all the political
means of power at their disposal, they were not able to succeed in
overthrowing the use of icons. The conclusion of this struggle with the victory
of the supporters of the use of icons is celebrated in the entire Orthodox
Church on the first Sunday of Lent as the Feast of Orthodoxy.
Orthodox icon painting is not to be separated from its ecclesiastical and
liturgical function. The painting of the image is, in fact, a liturgical act in which
the artist-monks prepare themselves by fasting, doing penance,
and consecrating the materials necessary for the painting. Before the finished
icon is used, it likewise is consecrated. Not viewed as a human work, an icon
(according to 8th- and 9th-century literature) was understood instead as
a manifestation of a heavenly archetype. A golden background is used on
icons to indicate a heavenly perspective. The icon is always painted two-
dimensionally because it is viewed as a window through which worshipers can
view the heavenly archetype from their earthly position. A figure in the three-
dimensionality of the plastic arts, such as sculpture, would thus be an
abandonment of the character of epiphany (appearance).
Ideas of the iconic liturgy dominate the manuals of the Orthodox icon painters.
The model of the Christ figure for icon painters was found in
an apocryphal writing of the early church—the Letter of Lentulus, supposedly
written by a certain Lentulus, who was named consul in the 12th year of the
emperor Tiberius. As the superior of Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judaea,
he by chance was staying in Palestine at the time of the trial of Jesus. In an
official report to the emperor about the trial of Jesus, Lentulus included an
official warrant for Jesus with a description of the Christ. This apocryphal
description furnished the basic model for the Byzantine Christ type.
The Trinity also may not be represented, except in those forms in which,
according to the view of Orthodox church doctrine, the Trinity showed itself in
the divine Word of the Old and New Testaments. Early church theology
interpreted an Old Testament passage (Genesis 18:1 ff.) as an appearance of
the divine Trinity—namely, the visit of the three men with
the patriarch Abraham at Mamre in Palestine. Also included in icons of the
Trinity are the appearance of the three divine persons—symbolized as a
hand, a man, and a dove—at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16 ff.) and the
Pentecostal scene, in which the Lord, ascended to heaven, sits at the right
hand of God and the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) is sent down to the Apostles
in the form of fiery tongues (Acts 2). Another Trinitarian iconic scene is the
Transfiguration of Jesus at Mount Tabor (Matthew 17:2).
Icons of Mary were probably first created because of the development of
Marian doctrines in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The lack of New Testament
descriptions of Mary was compensated by numerous legendsof Mary that
concerned themselves especially with wondrous appearances of miraculous
icons of the mother of God. In Russian and many other Orthodox churches,
including the monasteries at Mount Athos, such miraculous mother of God
icons, “not made by hands,” have been placed where the appearances of the
mother of God took place.
The consecration liturgy of the icons of saints expresses the fact that the
saints themselves, for their part, are viewed as likenesses of Christ. In them,
the image of God has been renewed again through the working of salvation of
the incarnate Son of God.