Comments on: Icons Are Not “Written”

By: Icons are Painted, Not Written « Lyon Iconography

Icons are Painted, Not Written « Lyon Iconography — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:20:58 +0000

[...] an interesting article about the terminology of icon creation, see THIS [...]

By: For Icon Writers - Christian Forums

For Icon Writers - Christian Forums — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:59:07 +0000

[...] icons is an Americanism. This article explains why Icons are not "written" Otherwise as Nutroll says, your question makes no sense whatsoever. The Word didn't become [...]

By: orrologion

orrologion — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:25:44 +0000

Our Deacon, who is also the head of the political science department at a local university, tells the story of a parish argument. One group says the tradition is to bow at a certain point in the service, the other says a full prostration is the tradition. They almost come to blows, but agree to take the matter to the Old Man of the parish (or a local monk, I can’t remember). They go, he greets them, they ask him the quetion, “We say this, they say that. What is the tradition? We are almost coming to blows over this.” “Ah, my children, that is the tradition!” This may have been a joke Abp Peter used to tell – I’ve been told he had two.

My favorite follow-up is the Orthodox man discovered after many years on a desert island. He’d made a good life for himself. He had even built two churches. His rescuers asked why there were two church, was anyone else on the island – had there been? “No”, he said, “it’s just that this is the church I go to, and this is the church I don’t go to”.

By: Fr. Andrew S. Damick

Fr. Andrew S. Damick — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:05:47 +0000

One man’s “organic piety” is the know-it-all “piety police” of another!

By: orrologion

orrologion — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:45:17 +0000

Is it improper to admit the providence behind the fact that the Greek words for oil and mercy sound alike? The Fathers did not think so and used this ‘unrelated coincidence’ as a springboard for theological reflection. That is, they saw the hand of the Holy Spirit in what are otherwise unrelated terms, from a purely historical and linguistic standpoint. I see no great damage in seeing ‘blessed coincidences’ like the double meaning allowed by the terms ‘graphí’ and ‘pisánie’ to be translated as ‘writing’ and ‘painting’ in English as may be fitting. The same argument is often used against the ‘late’ development of a mystagogical understanding of the Liturgy, but, again, this is simply the organic piety of the Church that sees the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ and the world – “there are no such things as coincidences”, as a Greek nun once told me.

By: orrologion

orrologion — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:13:58 +0000

I tend to default to simply referring to ‘iconography’ and ‘creating icons’. ‘Painting’ doesn’t sound right because there is little freedom of expression; it’s more like paint by numbers, in some ways, it’s a craft that is an end in itself and not a means to some other end (self-expression, commentary, portraiture, decoration, etc.) Than again, ‘writing’ just seems unduly pretentious.

However, I can go either way and see value in both understandings. Correcting a mistaken or overly literal translation is important, as is a brake on excessive exoticisms (orientalism?), but so, too, is the impulse to delineate the difference between Orthodox iconography and ‘religious painting’ of other kinds. A better argument for the use of ‘writing’ in English is that the anglophone world is a mission field, and primarily (historically) a Protestant mission field at that. ‘Writing’ connects better with the at least general tendency in Protestantism toward artistic minimalism if not outright iconoclasm Thus anything that can explain “that icons are to be understood in a manner similar to Holy Scripture—that is, they are not simply artistic compositions but rather are witnesses to the truth the way Scripture is” is helpful. Since veneration of icons looks like an christianized paganism to most modern anglophones, these “creations of the iconographer…are more like scribal copies of the Bible.” A ‘writing’ context also tends to ease the conversation toward the doctrinal bases of iconography and the veneration of icons since Theology = Books is a dominant assumption in the Western Christian mind.

Like I said, I find ways around choosing either form, but I think it ‘writing’ is too often, unfairly used as a cudgel against know-nothing-traditionalists-and-converts. In some ways, it’s an example of the sort of grass-roots, organic development of a uniquely local perspective on Orthodoxy guided by the Holy Spirit as cultures interact.

By: Matthew Namee

Matthew Namee — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:05:30 +0000

Well, I suppose this is a matter of taste, as much as it is a matter of linguistic accuracy. There is nothing inherent in writing that makes it superior to painting, or any less arbitrary. One can write heretical doctrines, or sinful stories, or slanderous accusations. I do appreciate that people have projected onto this artificial writing/painting distinction some genuine deeper meaning — that icons visually teach, that they are inherently theological, and that they are created in a manner different from secular art. Still, the fact remans that

1) “Iconography” is a Greek word.

2) The suffix “-ography” most certainly does not always mean “writing.”

3) Both “writing” and “painting” are neutral activities that can be used for good or evil.

4) The term “icon writing” is historically very new and appears to be an American innovation (although I am open to correction on this point).

I personally prefer “icon painting,” because the word “painting” simply means to create an image using paint. I find “icon writing” to be inaccurate because “writing” means to create letters and words. But, at the end of the day, this is a rather small issue.

By: Fr Finbar

Fr Finbar — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:39:33 +0000

With respect to the honored professor, I disagree. The phrase ‘to write an icon” is seredipitously excellent at the very least, does no violence to the English tongue and is not in the least silly. Speaking to an English language culture generally unfamiliar with Orthodox iconography the phrase aptly captures the tradition regarding iconography, that is, to paint an icon is not an arbitrary task acoomplished according to the whim of the painter. This connotation is beneficial in a culture that experiences a limited self discipline and minimal respect for tradition. I do not know when, where or from whom this phrase originated in English, whether intentional or otherwise, but praise God it is most apt. We should rejoice and retain the writing of icons!