In what sense can it be said that Russian and Byzantine icons are not merely artistic creations?

Arpeggionist

In fact a lot of them aren't. Many pieces of artwork, mostly book illustrations (or "illuminations" as they called them) were drawn in such a way that they contained codes hinting at politics or religion (or both). These manuscripts are probably the best explanation for the sudden rise of different Protestant movements within very few decades, under the nose of the Catholic Church. Nov 10 05, 3:51 PM

Flem-ish

I am referring to Russian and Byzantine icons as seen by the theologians of the Russian and Byzantine Orthodox theological traditions. Not the quarrels between protestants and catholics are relevant in this context, but the ones between Iconoduli and Iconoclasts. Of course icons could be seen in a wider context, and would then have to be seen as a later development within christianism. The first christians were much closer to the judaic tradition, which if I am not mistaken, strictly avoids "icons" in the sense the Byzantine and Russian Orthodox Churches see them. By the way can you give examples of codes that hinted at politics or religion? They probably did exist, but, as far as I know, they do not belong to the essence of what the term "icon" means within the Christian Orthodox churches. The meaning of images in religion is of course a vast subject, but my question aimed at a particular Christian Orthodox tradition. Nov 10 05, 6:07 PM

peasypod

If we use the term "icon" a bit more liberally (i.e. not just pertaining to religious figures) then there is a direct line between the Roman double-headed eagle representing the eastern and western empires, the same fugure used by the Byzantine (Roman) empire and then again by the Russian empire. An icon is meant to represent the ancient lineage from which it springs, in the case of the Byzantine Empire legitimately, while the Russian empire attempted to claim the headship of orthodoxy and the former imperial territories after the fall of Constantinople. The term "codes" is misleading. We think they are codes because they are not immediately obvious to us. We would probably not expect a pair of bunny ears to mean anything to medieval man, he would think it a strange code indeed... I would suggest that the term "icon" rather than merely "picture" or "sculpture" implies a representation of something. Nov 11 05, 5:52 PM

Flem-ish

What I had in mind is that "icons" are not to be considered primarily as art or illustration. As described at http://www.geocities.com/c_brundage/icon1.htm?200513 they hold a very special place in Eastern spirituality and are objects which focus one's prayers and meditations towards heaven through stylized representations of Christ, saints and events in Scripture. The icon-maker prepares for his work with prayer, fasting and study. Etc. That's what they are in the world of the Russian and Greek Orthodox Church, which probably remains a closed book to the Western world. Just as you could not understand the Soviet Union if you did not take into account "Mother Russia", however mythological "Mother Russia" may be. Anyway icons are not looked at as works of art in the first place, but as objects of devotion, with a role in Eastern Orthodox liturgy. Nov 13 05, 7:17 AM