Hieromonk Silouan Justiniano

The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon

The Icon’s Materiality and Mechanical Reproduction

UDK: 7.01 Hieromonk Silouan Justiniano

281.9 Holy Cross Monastery (ROCOR), New York USA
hsil2002@gmail.com

The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon addresses the challenges facing the traditional doctrine of the icon in a society subsumed
by a profane attitude towards the image, and the problems raised by the use of icon reproductions within the liturgical
context of the Eastern Orthodox Church. To do so it keeps in mind that in traditional art, “functional and symbolic values
coincide”(Ananda K. Coomaraswamy).1 In other words, the material properties of the traditional icon are not arbitrary, but
based on metaphysical principles, and these properties are essential for the icon to function to its maximum potential as a
“support” of prayer and contemplation. Throughout the paper it is kept in mind that there is an ideal icon, having “fullness of
iconicity.” That is, one that retains not only the canonical pictorial forms, but also, as a concrete object, the material qualities
of its traditional craftsmanship, thereby living up to its anagogic and symbolic function within the liturgical aesthetic experi-
ence. On the other hand, reproductions are drastically impoverished for liturgical use. In their disregard for the symbolic role
of materials, they allow for the encroachment of profane industry into sacred space.

Keywords: anagogic, craftsmanship, deification, Docetism, iconicity, Logos, mysteriological matter, liturgical aesthetics,
simulacra, symbolism, tradition

Introduction

Mechanically reproduced icons are inherently ambiguous. They share certain features with the original icon
but are also radically different from it. The slippery, neither here-nor-there status of these mechanical reproductions
makes them hard to grasp conceptually. They are at once real and somehow less than real icons.2 In a society such
as ours that is constantly immersed in images, the importance of the artistic and material side of the icon tends to
be ignored and even undermined. We usually relate to an image mainly as a representation having an existence
independent of the material medium through which we perceive it. The icon then becomes another image among
thousands. It lacks any need of proper embodiment, a situation that erodes our awareness of it as a sacred object.
During the Iconoclastic debates, it was taken for granted that an icon was a work of craftsmanship, fash-
ioned by human hands and skill. In the midst of doctrinal controversy over the nature or validity of images of
Christ and the saints, there seemed to be no need to dwell too much on the icon’s manufacture.3 It was enough
to know that an icon was, as St Theodore the Studite says, “Perhaps of wood, or paint, or gold, or silver, or some
of the various materials...”4
Though related, there is a difference due to respective historical moments in the way the Fathers took for
granted and we tend to ignore how the icon comes into being, or the process of shaping the icon. Considering
the icon as a completed picture or a finished work of art was only natural in a society where it was a given that most
things were not the result of mass production by machines, but the fruit of long arduous effort in the workshop

29
IKON, 9-2016
of a painter, mosaicist, carver, silversmith, weaver, etc.5 Now, however, the advent of the age of mechanical re-
production has brought us to a position where the craftsmanship of the icon can no longer be taken for granted.
Consequently, it has now become necessary to consider the theological implications of this situation and to un-
derline the importance of using real, hand-made icons in the context of Orthodox worship.6
This paper examines how mechanical reproductions lessen the icon’s “iconicity”, that is, its liturgical efficacy,
full iconic potential, and symbolic power. It aims to clarify how the role of materials and craftsmanship affect the
function of the icon as a concrete object within the aesthetic experience of Orthodox Liturgy. As will be demon-
strated, these can either hamper or aid our “uplifting” in the course of worship, enhance or get in the way of the
icon as a symbol of the Incarnation. In other words, we will approach the icon in its ontological status as a painting
or work of art, and not solely as a picture or “image” in the abstract. It is a liturgical object having inherent proper-
ties that make it what it is. We start from the premise that there is an ideal “fullness of iconicity” towards which
all icon painting aspires. The best examples of Russian portable icons from the 14th to 16th centuries embody the
principles of the ideal we have in mind. However, these principles should not be seen as limited to the Russian
styles or the past. Rather, they are to be found in and constitute what unifies all the national schools of traditional
iconography to this day.7 Our method of interpretation will be framed within the principles of patristic hermeneu-
tics, from within the mind of the Eastern Orthodox Church.8 First, let us quickly diagnose some of the symptoms.
Image sensory overload
Ours is the age of the overproduction and saturation of images. Every day we process quantities of im-
ages unimaginable to anyone living in a pre-industrial society. They are everywhere: magazines, newspapers,
billboards, television, smartphones, computers, the silver screen, etc. Virtually all social interaction is mediated by
some kind of image. Taking this scenario for granted, we unknowingly filter everything through appearances and
lose our grasp of that which truly is. Now, even the photographic images, once considered infallible witnesses,
are subject to electronic manipulation. They can no longer claim to be an index of sensible reality. We live as if in
a house of warped mirrors and distorted phantasms. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as hyper-reality,
virtual reality, or the “society of the spectacle.”9 Under these circumstances, as John Berger notes: “For the first
time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free.”10 The image
becomes disposable. The notions of “divine likeness” or the “holy image” become a mere superstition. Metropoli-
tan Nicholas of Mesogaias succinctly captures the symptom: “Our age chiefly dreams up and manufactures simu-
lacra. Shopping malls are adorned with plants and trees that look real but aren’t. Television and movie studios
present us with times, places and environments that don’t exist. Advertisements refer us to worlds that have no
connection with reality. Men and women are painted and dyed, fakes and shams, copies of which no original has
ever existed, not a few of them surgically altered to show the world faces which aren’t true, ages which deceive...
The extravagant (and extravagantly wasteful) hegemony of appearances has destroyed the essence and distinc-
tive presence of that which is”.11
Surrounded by surrogates, detached from nature and organic life, and immersed in techno-dystopia, we
fail to see the Uncreated, the truly Real, in the beauty of creation. All becomes disembodied, flat, cold, mecha-
nized, lifeless repetition, and uniformity. The authenticity and warmth of the one-of-a-kind and humanly crafted
object becomes a blurry memory, a thing of the past. We forget how this craftsmanship expresses the image of
God in man and emulates the divine Craftsman in His fashioning of an infinite variety of unique life forms. Desen-
sitized by mass production, we no longer discern the subtle effects of unique properties of materials and textures.
It becomes very difficult to distinguish diamonds from rhinestones.
30
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
Uplifting materiality and symbol
We might grow dull in discriminating between the subtleties of the materials we use to create our living
environments, but it is evident that they do affect our quality of life and state of mind. It goes without saying
that living in a wooden cabin is not the same as living in a concrete apartment complex. We can speak of materi-
als and objects, with their varied forms and textures, as “bodies” with which we interact. Bodies have a unique
corresponding “glory.” As St Paul says: “There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the
celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.”12 In other words, it can be said that every material’s
manifest glory is an affecting energy that imprints on the soul through the senses. The eye of the heart, the nous
or intellect, assimilates these impressions and is then shaped or colored by them in various ways. However, the
person is not just a passive receptor, but, as an agent of sense perception or aesthetic experience, he will be
shaped according to what he desires or wants. As St Peter of Damascus says: “The human intellect is shaped by
what it wants and is coloured by the forms of the things that it perceives.”13
Depending on how the person participates in, interacts with, or assimilates these affecting energies, he
either can be aided and uplifted through them to contemplate spiritual realities or he can be dragged down,
deluded by the euphoria of sensations. The “society of the spectacle” just described and the “bodies” of its en-
vironment have a corresponding “glory”, while the Church’s liturgical worship has another glory. Having a mind
surrounded by appearances and wanting the artificial, we ourselves can become artificial if we are not watchful.
We will be satisfied with facades, surrogates, and deceit.14 Conversely, the more we desire and love the Truth (i.e.,
Christ) and participate in the mysteries and Liturgy through their symbols, the more He is “shaped” or “formed”
in us. Thus, being conformed to His likeness, we become icons of He who is. As St Paul says: “My little children, for
whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you...”15
We can now extend these observations and talk about liturgical aesthetics. In liturgical worship, through
participation in the “forms” of grace bearing matter, we ascend from the phenomenal to spiritual reality where
we contemplate formless and uncreated Beauty. An example of this is found in the account of the conversion of
the Slavs. Upon entering Hagia Sophia, the emissaries of St Vladimir were struck by the splendor of its unearthly
beauty, and could only say: “We did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth...”16 The orchestrated glory
of the materials they perceived led them to faith. They wanted the Truth and, finding the Unseen in the seen,
they believed. The beauty they saw was a manifestation of the Truth and the Good, the splendor and glory of
the Divine. Beauty became a vehicle of ascent towards God. Herein we find an abbreviated theology of the ana-
gogic potential of materials in the liturgical context, their capability to spiritually uplift the soul and nous beyond
the senses.17 As St John of Damascus says, the anagogic potential of materials and images “to reveal and make
perceptible those things which are hidden” is indispensable since our “soul is veiled by the body.”18 This is further
described by St Dionysius the Areopagite, who says “we lack the ability to be directly raised up to conceptual
contemplation. We need our own uplifting that comes naturally to us and which can raise before us the permit-
ted forms of the marvelous unformed sights...”19 Therefore, “ecclesiastical traditions... explain spiritual truths with
terms drawn from the sensual world, and super- essential truths in terms drawn from nature, clothing with shapes
and forms the shapeless and formless, and by a variety of different symbols fashioning manifold attributes of im-
material and supernatural simplicity…”20
This anagogic dynamic unfolds not only through images, but also through the unique qualities of the
materials used to depict them and that make up the objects that we encounter in the various rites, blessings,
and services of liturgical worship. These speak a precise symbolic language that is not merely conventional in
meaning, but providentially arranged. This meaning is based on the materials’ inner logoi (reason principles) that
reside in Christ, the Logos.21 These provide the fixed nature and purpose of each being. Hence, from them arises
31
IKON, 9-2016
of a painter, mosaicist, carver, silversmith, weaver, etc.5 Now, however, the advent of the age of mechanical re-
production has brought us to a position where the craftsmanship of the icon can no longer be taken for granted.
Consequently, it has now become necessary to consider the theological implications of this situation and to un-
derline the importance of using real, hand-made icons in the context of Orthodox worship.6
This paper examines how mechanical reproductions lessen the icon’s “iconicity”, that is, its liturgical efficacy,
full iconic potential, and symbolic power. It aims to clarify how the role of materials and craftsmanship affect the
function of the icon as a concrete object within the aesthetic experience of Orthodox Liturgy. As will be demon-
strated, these can either hamper or aid our “uplifting” in the course of worship, enhance or get in the way of the
icon as a symbol of the Incarnation. In other words, we will approach the icon in its ontological status as a painting
or work of art, and not solely as a picture or “image” in the abstract. It is a liturgical object having inherent proper-
ties that make it what it is. We start from the premise that there is an ideal “fullness of iconicity” towards which
all icon painting aspires. The best examples of Russian portable icons from the 14th to 16th centuries embody the
principles of the ideal we have in mind. However, these principles should not be seen as limited to the Russian
styles or the past. Rather, they are to be found in and constitute what unifies all the national schools of traditional
iconography to this day.7 Our method of interpretation will be framed within the principles of patristic hermeneu-
tics, from within the mind of the Eastern Orthodox Church.8 First, let us quickly diagnose some of the symptoms.
Image sensory overload
Ours is the age of the overproduction and saturation of images. Every day we process quantities of im-
ages unimaginable to anyone living in a pre-industrial society. They are everywhere: magazines, newspapers,
billboards, television, smartphones, computers, the silver screen, etc. Virtually all social interaction is mediated by
some kind of image. Taking this scenario for granted, we unknowingly filter everything through appearances and
lose our grasp of that which truly is. Now, even the photographic images, once considered infallible witnesses,
are subject to electronic manipulation. They can no longer claim to be an index of sensible reality. We live as if in
a house of warped mirrors and distorted phantasms. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as hyper-reality,
virtual reality, or the “society of the spectacle.”9 Under these circumstances, as John Berger notes: “For the first
time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free.”10 The image
becomes disposable. The notions of “divine likeness” or the “holy image” become a mere superstition. Metropoli-
tan Nicholas of Mesogaias succinctly captures the symptom: “Our age chiefly dreams up and manufactures simu-
lacra. Shopping malls are adorned with plants and trees that look real but aren’t. Television and movie studios
present us with times, places and environments that don’t exist. Advertisements refer us to worlds that have no
connection with reality. Men and women are painted and dyed, fakes and shams, copies of which no original has
ever existed, not a few of them surgically altered to show the world faces which aren’t true, ages which deceive...
The extravagant (and extravagantly wasteful) hegemony of appearances has destroyed the essence and distinc-
tive presence of that which is”.11
Surrounded by surrogates, detached from nature and organic life, and immersed in techno-dystopia, we
fail to see the Uncreated, the truly Real, in the beauty of creation. All becomes disembodied, flat, cold, mecha-
nized, lifeless repetition, and uniformity. The authenticity and warmth of the one-of-a-kind and humanly crafted
object becomes a blurry memory, a thing of the past. We forget how this craftsmanship expresses the image of
God in man and emulates the divine Craftsman in His fashioning of an infinite variety of unique life forms. Desen-
sitized by mass production, we no longer discern the subtle effects of unique properties of materials and textures.
It becomes very difficult to distinguish diamonds from rhinestones.
30
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
Uplifting materiality and symbol
We might grow dull in discriminating between the subtleties of the materials we use to create our living
environments, but it is evident that they do affect our quality of life and state of mind. It goes without saying
that living in a wooden cabin is not the same as living in a concrete apartment complex. We can speak of materi-
als and objects, with their varied forms and textures, as “bodies” with which we interact. Bodies have a unique
corresponding “glory.” As St Paul says: “There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the
celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.”12 In other words, it can be said that every material’s
manifest glory is an affecting energy that imprints on the soul through the senses. The eye of the heart, the nous
or intellect, assimilates these impressions and is then shaped or colored by them in various ways. However, the
person is not just a passive receptor, but, as an agent of sense perception or aesthetic experience, he will be
shaped according to what he desires or wants. As St Peter of Damascus says: “The human intellect is shaped by
what it wants and is coloured by the forms of the things that it perceives.”13
Depending on how the person participates in, interacts with, or assimilates these affecting energies, he
either can be aided and uplifted through them to contemplate spiritual realities or he can be dragged down,
deluded by the euphoria of sensations. The “society of the spectacle” just described and the “bodies” of its en-
vironment have a corresponding “glory”, while the Church’s liturgical worship has another glory. Having a mind
surrounded by appearances and wanting the artificial, we ourselves can become artificial if we are not watchful.
We will be satisfied with facades, surrogates, and deceit.14 Conversely, the more we desire and love the Truth (i.e.,
Christ) and participate in the mysteries and Liturgy through their symbols, the more He is “shaped” or “formed”
in us. Thus, being conformed to His likeness, we become icons of He who is. As St Paul says: “My little children, for
whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you...”15
We can now extend these observations and talk about liturgical aesthetics. In liturgical worship, through
participation in the “forms” of grace bearing matter, we ascend from the phenomenal to spiritual reality where
we contemplate formless and uncreated Beauty. An example of this is found in the account of the conversion of
the Slavs. Upon entering Hagia Sophia, the emissaries of St Vladimir were struck by the splendor of its unearthly
beauty, and could only say: “We did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth...”16 The orchestrated glory
of the materials they perceived led them to faith. They wanted the Truth and, finding the Unseen in the seen,
they believed. The beauty they saw was a manifestation of the Truth and the Good, the splendor and glory of
the Divine. Beauty became a vehicle of ascent towards God. Herein we find an abbreviated theology of the ana-
gogic potential of materials in the liturgical context, their capability to spiritually uplift the soul and nous beyond
the senses.17 As St John of Damascus says, the anagogic potential of materials and images “to reveal and make
perceptible those things which are hidden” is indispensable since our “soul is veiled by the body.”18 This is further
described by St Dionysius the Areopagite, who says “we lack the ability to be directly raised up to conceptual
contemplation. We need our own uplifting that comes naturally to us and which can raise before us the permit-
ted forms of the marvelous unformed sights...”19 Therefore, “ecclesiastical traditions... explain spiritual truths with
terms drawn from the sensual world, and super- essential truths in terms drawn from nature, clothing with shapes
and forms the shapeless and formless, and by a variety of different symbols fashioning manifold attributes of im-
material and supernatural simplicity…”20
This anagogic dynamic unfolds not only through images, but also through the unique qualities of the
materials used to depict them and that make up the objects that we encounter in the various rites, blessings,
and services of liturgical worship. These speak a precise symbolic language that is not merely conventional in
meaning, but providentially arranged. This meaning is based on the materials’ inner logoi (reason principles) that
reside in Christ, the Logos.21 These provide the fixed nature and purpose of each being. Hence, from them arises
31
IKON, 9-2016
the objective spiritual significance, or symbolism, of the inherent properties of the materials, which reflect Christ
as their Source, for all creation declares the glory of God. As St Maximos the Confessor says: “The mystery of the
incarnation of the Logos is the key to all arcane symbolism... and... gives us knowledge of created things, both vis-
ible and invisible.”22 Therefore, symbolic substances such as water in Baptism, olive oil in the Chrism, and wine and
bread in the Holy Eucharist are not arbitrarily chosen, nor are they alterable, since they reveal and speak precisely
of the mystery of which they are conveyers.
There are other substances and materials that play a symbolic role, such as pigments, wood, wax, wool,
silk, frankincense, fire, silver, gold, precious stones, etc. These can be seen in the realm of visible creation as basic
symbols. When through craftsmanship these are combined in the making of objects and images, such as icons,
they can then be called compound symbols. Basic symbols can be seen as letters from the book of creation that
are combined in various ways to form, through compound symbols, the grammar of an anagogic, liturgical lan-
guage. Compound symbols can be either “opaque” or “translucent” in degrees, depending on how clearly they
communicate (or reflect) the mystery of the Logos. Consequently, man can create monstrous combinations of ba-
sic symbols and thereby bemire, soil, and obscure the reflective potential, or iconicity, of compound symbols. By
obscuring their iconicity, man deprives them of anagogic efficacy. Consequently, man can create monstrous com-
binations of basic symbols and thereby bemire, soil, and obscure the reflective potential of compound symbols.
By obscuring their iconicity, man deprives them of anagogic efficacy. The use of material qualities as a means of
expressing spiritual realities is clearly seen in Scripture, as St Dionysius explains: “The Word of God furthermore at-
tributes to the heavenly beings the form of bronze, electrum, multicolored stones, and if it does so the reason lies
in the fact that electrum, which contains gold and silver, symbolizes both the incorruptible, priceless, unfailing,
and unpolluted radiance of gold as well as the gleam, the gloss, the splendor, and the heavenly glow of silver. As
for bronze, it recalls either fire or gold, for the reasons given. With regard to the multicolored stones, these must
be taken to work symbolically as follows: white for light, red for fire, yellow for gold, green for youthful vitality.
Indeed you will find each form carries an uplifting explanation of the representational images”.23
The materials that St Dionysius mentions here remain in the level of mental “representational images.” The
focus is on the interpretation of Scriptural passages. Nevertheless, these representations derive from sense per-
ception. Therefore, the same principles of interpretation can be applied to materials physically seen or encoun-
tered in worship. Perhaps we can speak of two levels in anagogic ascent. The first pertains to the aesthetic expe-
rience. There is an immediate perceptual impact of the “glory” (energy) of “bodies” (materials or objects) on the
person. The inherent properties of these materials and objects color or shape us. This can have such a powerful
effect, as seen in the account of the conversion of the Slavs, that part of their inner meaning is grasped intuitively,
moving or uplifting the person to a sense of awe, admiration, devotion, prayer, and faith. Second, these proper-
ties can then be “read” and their symbolic meaning or spiritual content contemplated, what St Dionysius calls
“conceptual contemplation” or “uplifting explanation.” The challenge is to learn how to “read”, not to solely gaze
and stop on the “letter” of the aesthetic experience, but to move on to the “spirit” and arrive at a noetic appre-
hension of the inner meaning of basic or compound symbols. As St Nikolai says: “Therefore, it may be said that
nature worshipers are analphabetic, and spirit worshipers only are alphabetic. To the mind of the former, things
and creatures in the natural world represent an ultimate reality, expressed in their forms, colors, functions and
relations. While to the mind of the latter things and creatures are only the symbols of a spiritual reality which is
the actual meaning and life and justification of those symbols.”24 St Symeon the New Theologian clearly expresses
the same idea and calls “bodies” symbols. He says: “The man who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, the Revealer
of all things, acquires new eyes and new ears, and sees no more as a natural man, namely by natural sight with
natural sensation, but standing as it were beyond himself contemplates spiritually visible things and bodies as the
symbols of the things invisible.”25
An example that touches on the “reading” or contemplation of material symbols, is seen in the commentary
of Abbot Suger regarding the treasures of the Abbey Church of St Denis. In describing the gemstones of the altar
32
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
in the cathedral, which brought to mind the precious stones of Paradise, Abbot Suger says: “To those who know
the properties of precious stones, it becomes evident to their astonishment, that none is absent from the number
of these... (except carbuncle)... the loveliness of the many coloured gems has called me away from external cares,
and worthy meditation has induced me to reflect, transferring that which is material to that which is immaterial,
on the diversity of the sacred virtues: then it seems to me that I see myself dwelling, as it were, in some strange
region of the universe which neither exists entirely in the slime of earth nor entirely in the purity of Heaven; and
that, by the grace of God, I can be transported from this inferior to that higher world in an anagogical manner”.26
Mysteriological matter
Let us now consider some aspects of the icon as symbol and mysteriological object, for these will further
elucidate the materiality of the icon and how it bears on mechanical reproductions. St Theodore reminds us
that, though not becoming mixed or one in nature,27 “The prototype and the image have their being, as it were,
in each other...”28 The icon is not merely a sign that points to the idea of Christ. Rather, it is, as a mysteriological
reality, a symbol linked to Him, a true manifestation, or ekphansis (out-appearing), of the Prototype. Through
material depiction we encounter the true presence of Christ. Since in the incarnate Person of the Logos there is a
“union without division or confusion” of divinity and humanity, in venerating His material icon we paradoxically
kiss and handle divinity. As St John of Damascus says: “God’s body is God because it is joined to His person by a
union which shall never pass away. The divine nature remains the same; the flesh created in time is quickened
by a reason-endowed soul. Because of this I salute all remaining matter with reverence, because God has filled it
with His grace and power.”29
The icon is a border between the created and Uncreated. As symbol it functions as a veil, simultaneously
concealing and manifesting the divine mystery.30 A veil is pressed upon, moved, and unfurls in multifarious ways
by the energy of a gust of wind. Through it we see the unseen. Take the veil of matter in creation away and the
divine is no longer perceived; we no longer have a theophany. The cosmos is an icon, an incarnation in a lower
level, before the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, we find the deification of matter, the transfiguration of the fallen
cosmos, and the re-attainment of its incorrupt primal beauty. In a variety of ways and levels, matter thus becomes
grace bearing in the life of the Church. It becomes a foretaste of the restitution of all things in the Eschaton when
God will be “all in all.”31 As a mysteriological object, the importance of the material side of the icon should not be
underestimated or undermined by considering as inconsequential the materials we employ in their fashioning,
since they will become vessels of divinity. The paradoxical interdependence of the material icon and Prototype is
to be maintained. As St Theodore stresses, “With the removal of one the other is removed, just as when the double
is removed the half is removed along with it. If, therefore, Christ cannot exist unless His image exists in potential,
and if, before the image is produced artistically, it subsists always in the prototype: then the veneration of Christ
is destroyed by anyone who does not admit that His image is also venerated in Him.”32 Remove the material icon
and we no longer see, kiss, or touch God. It then starts to become clear that not just any kind of material suffices
to carry out the icon’s most sacred function of this “paradoxical interdependence.”
Icon as symbolic craftsmanship
As with other objects we encounter in worship, traditionally hand-painted icons speak a symbolic language
in which we can find “uplifting explanations” not only in the images, but also through the unique property of the
materials and methods used to depict them.33 This is clearly evident in the use of gold, a symbol of the Uncreated
Light, but also in the traditional egg tempera medium itself, which in its translucent nature is a symbol of matter
33
IKON, 9-2016
the objective spiritual significance, or symbolism, of the inherent properties of the materials, which reflect Christ
as their Source, for all creation declares the glory of God. As St Maximos the Confessor says: “The mystery of the
incarnation of the Logos is the key to all arcane symbolism... and... gives us knowledge of created things, both vis-
ible and invisible.”22 Therefore, symbolic substances such as water in Baptism, olive oil in the Chrism, and wine and
bread in the Holy Eucharist are not arbitrarily chosen, nor are they alterable, since they reveal and speak precisely
of the mystery of which they are conveyers.
There are other substances and materials that play a symbolic role, such as pigments, wood, wax, wool,
silk, frankincense, fire, silver, gold, precious stones, etc. These can be seen in the realm of visible creation as basic
symbols. When through craftsmanship these are combined in the making of objects and images, such as icons,
they can then be called compound symbols. Basic symbols can be seen as letters from the book of creation that
are combined in various ways to form, through compound symbols, the grammar of an anagogic, liturgical lan-
guage. Compound symbols can be either “opaque” or “translucent” in degrees, depending on how clearly they
communicate (or reflect) the mystery of the Logos. Consequently, man can create monstrous combinations of ba-
sic symbols and thereby bemire, soil, and obscure the reflective potential, or iconicity, of compound symbols. By
obscuring their iconicity, man deprives them of anagogic efficacy. Consequently, man can create monstrous com-
binations of basic symbols and thereby bemire, soil, and obscure the reflective potential of compound symbols.
By obscuring their iconicity, man deprives them of anagogic efficacy. The use of material qualities as a means of
expressing spiritual realities is clearly seen in Scripture, as St Dionysius explains: “The Word of God furthermore at-
tributes to the heavenly beings the form of bronze, electrum, multicolored stones, and if it does so the reason lies
in the fact that electrum, which contains gold and silver, symbolizes both the incorruptible, priceless, unfailing,
and unpolluted radiance of gold as well as the gleam, the gloss, the splendor, and the heavenly glow of silver. As
for bronze, it recalls either fire or gold, for the reasons given. With regard to the multicolored stones, these must
be taken to work symbolically as follows: white for light, red for fire, yellow for gold, green for youthful vitality.
Indeed you will find each form carries an uplifting explanation of the representational images”.23
The materials that St Dionysius mentions here remain in the level of mental “representational images.” The
focus is on the interpretation of Scriptural passages. Nevertheless, these representations derive from sense per-
ception. Therefore, the same principles of interpretation can be applied to materials physically seen or encoun-
tered in worship. Perhaps we can speak of two levels in anagogic ascent. The first pertains to the aesthetic expe-
rience. There is an immediate perceptual impact of the “glory” (energy) of “bodies” (materials or objects) on the
person. The inherent properties of these materials and objects color or shape us. This can have such a powerful
effect, as seen in the account of the conversion of the Slavs, that part of their inner meaning is grasped intuitively,
moving or uplifting the person to a sense of awe, admiration, devotion, prayer, and faith. Second, these proper-
ties can then be “read” and their symbolic meaning or spiritual content contemplated, what St Dionysius calls
“conceptual contemplation” or “uplifting explanation.” The challenge is to learn how to “read”, not to solely gaze
and stop on the “letter” of the aesthetic experience, but to move on to the “spirit” and arrive at a noetic appre-
hension of the inner meaning of basic or compound symbols. As St Nikolai says: “Therefore, it may be said that
nature worshipers are analphabetic, and spirit worshipers only are alphabetic. To the mind of the former, things
and creatures in the natural world represent an ultimate reality, expressed in their forms, colors, functions and
relations. While to the mind of the latter things and creatures are only the symbols of a spiritual reality which is
the actual meaning and life and justification of those symbols.”24 St Symeon the New Theologian clearly expresses
the same idea and calls “bodies” symbols. He says: “The man who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, the Revealer
of all things, acquires new eyes and new ears, and sees no more as a natural man, namely by natural sight with
natural sensation, but standing as it were beyond himself contemplates spiritually visible things and bodies as the
symbols of the things invisible.”25
An example that touches on the “reading” or contemplation of material symbols, is seen in the commentary
of Abbot Suger regarding the treasures of the Abbey Church of St Denis. In describing the gemstones of the altar
32
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
in the cathedral, which brought to mind the precious stones of Paradise, Abbot Suger says: “To those who know
the properties of precious stones, it becomes evident to their astonishment, that none is absent from the number
of these... (except carbuncle)... the loveliness of the many coloured gems has called me away from external cares,
and worthy meditation has induced me to reflect, transferring that which is material to that which is immaterial,
on the diversity of the sacred virtues: then it seems to me that I see myself dwelling, as it were, in some strange
region of the universe which neither exists entirely in the slime of earth nor entirely in the purity of Heaven; and
that, by the grace of God, I can be transported from this inferior to that higher world in an anagogical manner”.26
Mysteriological matter
Let us now consider some aspects of the icon as symbol and mysteriological object, for these will further
elucidate the materiality of the icon and how it bears on mechanical reproductions. St Theodore reminds us
that, though not becoming mixed or one in nature,27 “The prototype and the image have their being, as it were,
in each other...”28 The icon is not merely a sign that points to the idea of Christ. Rather, it is, as a mysteriological
reality, a symbol linked to Him, a true manifestation, or ekphansis (out-appearing), of the Prototype. Through
material depiction we encounter the true presence of Christ. Since in the incarnate Person of the Logos there is a
“union without division or confusion” of divinity and humanity, in venerating His material icon we paradoxically
kiss and handle divinity. As St John of Damascus says: “God’s body is God because it is joined to His person by a
union which shall never pass away. The divine nature remains the same; the flesh created in time is quickened
by a reason-endowed soul. Because of this I salute all remaining matter with reverence, because God has filled it
with His grace and power.”29
The icon is a border between the created and Uncreated. As symbol it functions as a veil, simultaneously
concealing and manifesting the divine mystery.30 A veil is pressed upon, moved, and unfurls in multifarious ways
by the energy of a gust of wind. Through it we see the unseen. Take the veil of matter in creation away and the
divine is no longer perceived; we no longer have a theophany. The cosmos is an icon, an incarnation in a lower
level, before the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, we find the deification of matter, the transfiguration of the fallen
cosmos, and the re-attainment of its incorrupt primal beauty. In a variety of ways and levels, matter thus becomes
grace bearing in the life of the Church. It becomes a foretaste of the restitution of all things in the Eschaton when
God will be “all in all.”31 As a mysteriological object, the importance of the material side of the icon should not be
underestimated or undermined by considering as inconsequential the materials we employ in their fashioning,
since they will become vessels of divinity. The paradoxical interdependence of the material icon and Prototype is
to be maintained. As St Theodore stresses, “With the removal of one the other is removed, just as when the double
is removed the half is removed along with it. If, therefore, Christ cannot exist unless His image exists in potential,
and if, before the image is produced artistically, it subsists always in the prototype: then the veneration of Christ
is destroyed by anyone who does not admit that His image is also venerated in Him.”32 Remove the material icon
and we no longer see, kiss, or touch God. It then starts to become clear that not just any kind of material suffices
to carry out the icon’s most sacred function of this “paradoxical interdependence.”
Icon as symbolic craftsmanship
As with other objects we encounter in worship, traditionally hand-painted icons speak a symbolic language
in which we can find “uplifting explanations” not only in the images, but also through the unique property of the
materials and methods used to depict them.33 This is clearly evident in the use of gold, a symbol of the Uncreated
Light, but also in the traditional egg tempera medium itself, which in its translucent nature is a symbol of matter
33
IKON, 9-2016
as theophanic - not purely dense or opaque, but shining forth the glory of God. Thus it adequately conveys the
transfiguration and deification of nature, making the icon, as compound symbol, a most lucid mirror of the mys-
tery of the Incarnation. So how are we to “read” the icon’s method of craftsmanship?
Just as Bezalel was given wisdom to fashion the objects of the tabernacle, the icon painter is given skill for
the edification of the Body of Christ.34 For this task ingredients given by the Creator best communicate the icon’s
symbolic message. They confer a beauty hardly attainable through synthetics: “For from the greatness and beauty
of created things the Creator is seen by analogy.”35 In a priestly fashion the iconographer takes the most precious
metals, minerals, and organic matter from nature and, participating in divine energy, transfigures and offers them
back to God in thanksgiving (eucharistia), thereby aiding the faithful to become habitations of the Spirit.36
The guiding principle of this priestly craftsmanship is Christ’s proclamation: “I am the Light of the world.”37
The act of painting reenacts Creation,38 represents levels of being, and depicts man’s return to his divine likeness.39
The pure white gesso designates the mystery of the divine Mind (Nous) in which archetypes (logoi) are inscribed by
His will. The divine inscription is the drawing. The application of red clay (bole) for gilding represents Adam’s cor-
poreality and the gold halo represents his nous, the divine image in him and his participation in the divine nature.
The first layer of paint is the formlessness before the fiat lux. The paint is made by mixing egg emulsion with dry
powder pigments. The egg is symbolic of immortality, generative power, and the Giver of Life, “Who is everywhere
present and fills all things.”40 As pigments are mixed into the emulsion, light is reflected, absorbed, or refracted, be-
ing embodied and becoming color. This is symbolic of the paradoxical “union without confusion”41 of the Transcen-
dent becoming immanent; the Incorporeal becoming flesh. Through the translucent layering of color, subjects are
purged of dense corporeality. They become vessels of light. The image is built from dark to light, calling to mind the
coming into being ex-nihilo and the process of sanctification from the passions to deification. Passing through the
layers, light is reflected from the gesso, bouncing back to the eyes, providing optical richness, depth, and a glow
like stained-glass, which is symbolic of the glorified body in the Resurrection and the Eschaton.
But this cursory reading only scratches the surface and does not exhaust the multivalent symbolism. How-
ever, it could be said that these “uplifting explanations” have been arrived at after centuries and were not neces-
sarily themselves the motivating factors in all the choices of materials, because these were primarily practical.
Nevertheless, they attest to the fact that the traditional medium has been preserved since its inherent properties
do not hinder iconicity or the anagogic function of the icon, but rather facilitate them. Both practical and theo-
logical concerns harmonize, as they do in all aspects of traditional liturgical aesthetics. Or as Ananda K. Cooma-
raswamy puts it, “Functional and symbolic values coincide”,42 when it comes to all traditional art. Therefore, there
is a providential dimension to this choice of medium that cannot be seen as purely arbitrary, thereby rendering
the traditional medium unalterable by willful or random choice. Let us now look at the reproduction and see if we
can distinguish rhinestones from diamonds.
Degraded iconicity: disappointing duplicates
Given the profusion of icon reproductions, we might be tempted to think that they are “just as good”,
even though they are “cheaper than the real thing.”43 Even so, we remain unsatisfied before them, knowing that
we venerate a simulation disconnected from the original. The image is there, but something essential seems
to be lacking. It is an icon and yet somehow not fully an icon.44 We betray our dissatisfaction by creating mock
antiques, attempting to make reproductions look “more real.” We mount them on wood, add red borders, and
apply cracked varnish with distressed gilding to conjure an ancient icon. Tempera layering is duplicated with silk-
screening and mural reproductions are applied like wallpaper for those wanting instant “frescoes.” Fast and cheap
solutions seeking to satiate consumer demand for holy images. While we might try to suspend our disbelief, we
34
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
cannot escape our awareness that such images remain unconvincing shadows of the original, that we encounter
a kind of ruse. Yet another symptom of the hegemony of appearances in our age.
The amorphous printed inks of a reproduction merely imitate the hues of the original, giving us only half
of its color complexity.45 The color’s materiality is absent as it relates to pigment character and paint texture. The
unique property of each pigment given by its particles, its “body”, which affects us with its inherent energy is lost.
The print sacrifices the tactile for the ocular, which causes it to literally lack depth. The dead, so called “perfection”,
of synthetic uniformity prevails. However, the real colors of the hand painted icon encompass both the tactile and
the ocular to their maximum effect. Moreover, Nature’s unmatched beauty is in its imperfection, while the ugli-
ness of manufactured materials is in its monotonous uniformity.
But we often hear that only the image matters since veneration of the image ascends to the prototype. How-
ever, this considers only half the icon. Abstracting the icon as a purely visual or ocular “image” disembodies and
truncates its theological implications and overlooks the crucial role of matter in the Incarnation. We risk sounding
like those who said, “It is sufficient that He should remain in mental contemplation.”46 Would this not then lead to
a form of subtle Docetism? Indeed, therefore St Theodore says it is crucial that: “… We depict His human image with
material pigments. If merely mental contemplation were sufficient, it would have been sufficient for Him to come to us
in a merely mental way; and consequently we would have been cheated by the appearance both of His deeds, if
He did not come in the body, and of His sufferings, which were undeniably like ours. But enough of this! As flesh
He suffered in the flesh, He ate and drank likewise, and did all other things which everyman does, except for sin”.47
If regarded as a mere “picture”, an “image” in the abstract, the icon becomes disconnected from the sig-
nificance of the process and stuff of its making. It then matters little whether the iconographer or the machine
does the job, or if reproductions render inaccessible the traces and indications of the living, creative energy of
the painter’s hand. Consequently, mechanically reproduced icons cease to be adequate expressions of liturgical
service since Liturgy (leitourgía) presupposes the mysteriological role of matter and the “work of the people”, that
is, the cooperation of created, human, and divine energy.
More could be said, but this suffices to show how reproductions are drastically impoverished for liturgical
use, being impaired in their anagogic function. They introduce falsehood, disregard the symbolic role of matter,
and no longer serve as an index of the energy of the painter. In their material make up, they ignore the func-
tion of the icon as a vessel or mirror of divinity. They are different “bodies” with quite a different “glory” - opaque
compound symbols that communicate a different message. They speak of the “society of the spectacle” and the
“hegemony of appearances”, thereby degrading the icons iconicity. Instead of serving to reflect the Heavenly
Jerusalem, they reflect the encroachment of profane industry onto sacred space. Meant to beautify the temple
of God, they often call to mind the bleak, desacralized world of machines. Who would ever replace the liturgical
chanter by a recording? Is not the human voice God’s fitting instrument? Likewise, can reproductions ever replace
the icon painter’s priestly craftsmanship?
The more we take the copy for granted, the more we begin to judge the original by its vague semblance.
The icon is then swallowed up in simulacra and becomes one more exotic consumer image among thousands.
Meant to communicate Truth, it is muddled by deceit. Is not beauty, after all, the splendor of the Truth?
Conclusion: towards fullness of iconicity
In conclusion we can clarify the meaning of “iconicity” by comparing the icon to a mirror. The optimum level of
iconicity of a mirror, which is its capacity to reflect an image the most clearly, takes place when its surface is seamless
and cleanest. Any crack or build-up of dust will reduce visibility or blur the reflection, thereby degrading its iconicity.
Likewise, the icon “reflects” the incarnational mystery - its theological foundation - most clearly when it avails itself
of the methods and materials that have been tried and tested for centuries and handed down to us by Tradition.
35
IKON, 9-2016
as theophanic - not purely dense or opaque, but shining forth the glory of God. Thus it adequately conveys the
transfiguration and deification of nature, making the icon, as compound symbol, a most lucid mirror of the mys-
tery of the Incarnation. So how are we to “read” the icon’s method of craftsmanship?
Just as Bezalel was given wisdom to fashion the objects of the tabernacle, the icon painter is given skill for
the edification of the Body of Christ.34 For this task ingredients given by the Creator best communicate the icon’s
symbolic message. They confer a beauty hardly attainable through synthetics: “For from the greatness and beauty
of created things the Creator is seen by analogy.”35 In a priestly fashion the iconographer takes the most precious
metals, minerals, and organic matter from nature and, participating in divine energy, transfigures and offers them
back to God in thanksgiving (eucharistia), thereby aiding the faithful to become habitations of the Spirit.36
The guiding principle of this priestly craftsmanship is Christ’s proclamation: “I am the Light of the world.”37
The act of painting reenacts Creation,38 represents levels of being, and depicts man’s return to his divine likeness.39
The pure white gesso designates the mystery of the divine Mind (Nous) in which archetypes (logoi) are inscribed by
His will. The divine inscription is the drawing. The application of red clay (bole) for gilding represents Adam’s cor-
poreality and the gold halo represents his nous, the divine image in him and his participation in the divine nature.
The first layer of paint is the formlessness before the fiat lux. The paint is made by mixing egg emulsion with dry
powder pigments. The egg is symbolic of immortality, generative power, and the Giver of Life, “Who is everywhere
present and fills all things.”40 As pigments are mixed into the emulsion, light is reflected, absorbed, or refracted, be-
ing embodied and becoming color. This is symbolic of the paradoxical “union without confusion”41 of the Transcen-
dent becoming immanent; the Incorporeal becoming flesh. Through the translucent layering of color, subjects are
purged of dense corporeality. They become vessels of light. The image is built from dark to light, calling to mind the
coming into being ex-nihilo and the process of sanctification from the passions to deification. Passing through the
layers, light is reflected from the gesso, bouncing back to the eyes, providing optical richness, depth, and a glow
like stained-glass, which is symbolic of the glorified body in the Resurrection and the Eschaton.
But this cursory reading only scratches the surface and does not exhaust the multivalent symbolism. How-
ever, it could be said that these “uplifting explanations” have been arrived at after centuries and were not neces-
sarily themselves the motivating factors in all the choices of materials, because these were primarily practical.
Nevertheless, they attest to the fact that the traditional medium has been preserved since its inherent properties
do not hinder iconicity or the anagogic function of the icon, but rather facilitate them. Both practical and theo-
logical concerns harmonize, as they do in all aspects of traditional liturgical aesthetics. Or as Ananda K. Cooma-
raswamy puts it, “Functional and symbolic values coincide”,42 when it comes to all traditional art. Therefore, there
is a providential dimension to this choice of medium that cannot be seen as purely arbitrary, thereby rendering
the traditional medium unalterable by willful or random choice. Let us now look at the reproduction and see if we
can distinguish rhinestones from diamonds.
Degraded iconicity: disappointing duplicates
Given the profusion of icon reproductions, we might be tempted to think that they are “just as good”,
even though they are “cheaper than the real thing.”43 Even so, we remain unsatisfied before them, knowing that
we venerate a simulation disconnected from the original. The image is there, but something essential seems
to be lacking. It is an icon and yet somehow not fully an icon.44 We betray our dissatisfaction by creating mock
antiques, attempting to make reproductions look “more real.” We mount them on wood, add red borders, and
apply cracked varnish with distressed gilding to conjure an ancient icon. Tempera layering is duplicated with silk-
screening and mural reproductions are applied like wallpaper for those wanting instant “frescoes.” Fast and cheap
solutions seeking to satiate consumer demand for holy images. While we might try to suspend our disbelief, we
34
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
cannot escape our awareness that such images remain unconvincing shadows of the original, that we encounter
a kind of ruse. Yet another symptom of the hegemony of appearances in our age.
The amorphous printed inks of a reproduction merely imitate the hues of the original, giving us only half
of its color complexity.45 The color’s materiality is absent as it relates to pigment character and paint texture. The
unique property of each pigment given by its particles, its “body”, which affects us with its inherent energy is lost.
The print sacrifices the tactile for the ocular, which causes it to literally lack depth. The dead, so called “perfection”,
of synthetic uniformity prevails. However, the real colors of the hand painted icon encompass both the tactile and
the ocular to their maximum effect. Moreover, Nature’s unmatched beauty is in its imperfection, while the ugli-
ness of manufactured materials is in its monotonous uniformity.
But we often hear that only the image matters since veneration of the image ascends to the prototype. How-
ever, this considers only half the icon. Abstracting the icon as a purely visual or ocular “image” disembodies and
truncates its theological implications and overlooks the crucial role of matter in the Incarnation. We risk sounding
like those who said, “It is sufficient that He should remain in mental contemplation.”46 Would this not then lead to
a form of subtle Docetism? Indeed, therefore St Theodore says it is crucial that: “… We depict His human image with
material pigments. If merely mental contemplation were sufficient, it would have been sufficient for Him to come to us
in a merely mental way; and consequently we would have been cheated by the appearance both of His deeds, if
He did not come in the body, and of His sufferings, which were undeniably like ours. But enough of this! As flesh
He suffered in the flesh, He ate and drank likewise, and did all other things which everyman does, except for sin”.47
If regarded as a mere “picture”, an “image” in the abstract, the icon becomes disconnected from the sig-
nificance of the process and stuff of its making. It then matters little whether the iconographer or the machine
does the job, or if reproductions render inaccessible the traces and indications of the living, creative energy of
the painter’s hand. Consequently, mechanically reproduced icons cease to be adequate expressions of liturgical
service since Liturgy (leitourgía) presupposes the mysteriological role of matter and the “work of the people”, that
is, the cooperation of created, human, and divine energy.
More could be said, but this suffices to show how reproductions are drastically impoverished for liturgical
use, being impaired in their anagogic function. They introduce falsehood, disregard the symbolic role of matter,
and no longer serve as an index of the energy of the painter. In their material make up, they ignore the func-
tion of the icon as a vessel or mirror of divinity. They are different “bodies” with quite a different “glory” - opaque
compound symbols that communicate a different message. They speak of the “society of the spectacle” and the
“hegemony of appearances”, thereby degrading the icons iconicity. Instead of serving to reflect the Heavenly
Jerusalem, they reflect the encroachment of profane industry onto sacred space. Meant to beautify the temple
of God, they often call to mind the bleak, desacralized world of machines. Who would ever replace the liturgical
chanter by a recording? Is not the human voice God’s fitting instrument? Likewise, can reproductions ever replace
the icon painter’s priestly craftsmanship?
The more we take the copy for granted, the more we begin to judge the original by its vague semblance.
The icon is then swallowed up in simulacra and becomes one more exotic consumer image among thousands.
Meant to communicate Truth, it is muddled by deceit. Is not beauty, after all, the splendor of the Truth?
Conclusion: towards fullness of iconicity
In conclusion we can clarify the meaning of “iconicity” by comparing the icon to a mirror. The optimum level of
iconicity of a mirror, which is its capacity to reflect an image the most clearly, takes place when its surface is seamless
and cleanest. Any crack or build-up of dust will reduce visibility or blur the reflection, thereby degrading its iconicity.
Likewise, the icon “reflects” the incarnational mystery - its theological foundation - most clearly when it avails itself
of the methods and materials that have been tried and tested for centuries and handed down to us by Tradition.
35
IKON, 9-2016
Thus, in order to realize the ideal of “fullness of iconicity” both the canonical image and the properties of
the traditional medium are essential. Both are necessary and depend on each other. Their interdependence must
be maintained. Otherwise we end up with only half the icon, a truncated concept - an abstract disembodied im-
age - a subtle Docetism that overlooks the transfiguration and deification of matter arising from the Incarnation.
As Victor Bychkov puts it, the icon as symbol is an “energetico-material bearer”,48 manifesting the energies
of both the prototype and the materials that embody it. Paradoxically, the ontological status of the icon is both
transparent and opaque. It is transparent in that, like a glass, we look beyond its matter and encounter the pro-
totype. It is opaque in that the energies of its material properties are unavoidable and essential, subtly affecting
and aiding our ascent to spiritual vision. This is the fullness of the icon that reproductions simulate. Insofar as a
reproduction is matter imprinted with the prototype, it is an icon, albeit inferior. Since its material components
are symbolically inadequate. The discerning heart, encountering the simulacrum, remains malnourished, spiritu-
ally unsatisfied, and hindered in its ascent towards uncreated Beauty.49
Emphasizing the importance of hand-made icons is not a matter of disdaining technology per se, but rath-
er about how to discriminate among technologies and discern their appropriate use within the liturgical context.
Some might point out that many saints have prayed before reproductions. This, of course, does not make their
prayers less authentic and acceptable to God, but conversely, nor does their holiness make the reproduction
“more real” or liturgically efficient. Reproductions remain surrogate icons, lacking iconicity. Then again, many mi-
raculous and weeping icons happen to be reproductions, which only attest to the fact that God is not confined.
Nevertheless, neither subjective feeling, nor experience, nor miracles change the ontological status of the icon.
While icon reproductions have advantages, we should not forget their deficiency as liturgical objects. They distort
the theology of the icon and end up compromising Tradition.
* This paper is a revised version of the one with the same title which appeared in: Sacred Web: A Journal of Tradition and
Modernity, vol. 31, summer 2013, pp. 77-104.
1 A.K. COMMARASWAMY, “Is Art a Superstition, or a way of Life?”, in: The Essential Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, R.P. COOMA-
RASWAMY (ed.), Bloomington, World Wisdom, Inc., 2004, p. 166.
2 W. Benjamin notes, “The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch
the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated [...] One might subsume the eliminated ele-
ment in the term ‘aura’ and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the
work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize
by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the produced object from the domain of tradition.” W. BENJAMIN,
Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, New York, Schocken Books, 1968, p. 232. See the section below, “Uplifting Mate-
riality and Symbol”, in which the idea of the “glory” of “bodies” is discussed. This, I believe, parallels Benjamin’s idea of
“aura”.
3 M. BARASCH, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea, New York, New York University Press, 1995, p. 6.
4 ST THEODORE THE STUDITE, On the Holy Icons, C.P. ROTH (trans.), Crestwood, SVS Press, 1981, p. 32.
5 Concerning the history of “reproductions” prior to modernity see W. BENJAMIN, op. cit., 1968, pp. 220-221.
6 In recent history there have only been a couple of instances in which the Orthodox Church hierarchy has directly
addressed the problem of “reproductions”, or things artificial, in the context of liturgical worship. In 1949 His Holi-
ness Patriarch Alexis addressed the pastors of the Churches of Moscow on the problem of artificial flowers as follows:
“Artificial flowers, because they are artificial, must not be allowed in churches. The celebrated Moscow Metropolitan
Philaret, of blessed memory, spoke about artificial flowers, imitation jeweled stones, and other similar embellish-
ments, and said these are reprehensible in church practice not because they have little value, but because they are
artificial and they thus contain within themselves falsehood.” ALEXIS PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW, “From the Paschal
36
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
Message of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis to the Pastors of the Churches Of Moscow”, in: Abridged Typicon, F.S. KOVAL-
CHUK (ed.), Youngstown, Education and Publications Commission of the Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox
Church, 1974, p. 9. More recently in November 6, 2012, the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece came to the following
decisions: “a) The avoidance of the use of goods of low quality for the ornamentation of Holy Temples. b) The For-
bidding of the use of color copies for the iconography of holy temples for reason of the outcome of poor aesthetic
results, and for the danger of entanglement in legal complications, because of the theft of intellectual property of
other iconographers,” (our translation of the encyclical dated Nov 14, 2012). This statement, however, bypasses the
theological implications of the issue of reproductions. See A. TRIANTAFYLLOU, “The Holy Synod Puts an Obstacle to
‘kitsch’ Painting”, in: Amen: Gate Ecclesiastical News, http://www.amen.gr/article/i-iera-sunodos-bazei-fragmo-sto-kits-
twn-agiografisewn, 2012 (accessed 16 October 2015). For an assessment on how chromolithographic reproductions
and the crisis of handicraft production of icons in the 19th century gave rise to “The Most Highly Bestowed Committee
for the Guardianship of Russian Icon Painting”, see K. KOTKAVAARA, “On Antiquarians and the Promotion of Icon Paint-
ing”, in: Progeny of the Icon: Émigré Russian Revivalism and the Vicissitudes of the Eastern Orthodox Russian Image, Åbo,
Åbo Academy University Press, 1999, pp. 124-155.
7 A. HART, Techniques of Icon and Wall Painting: Egg Tempera, Fresco and Secco, Leominster, Gracewing, 2011, pp. 29-31.
8 For the application of the principles of patristic hermeneutics as a heuristic device in the interpretation of icons see:
Fr.M. CONSTAS, The Art of Seeing: Paradox and Perception in Orthodox Iconography, Alhambra, Sebastian Press, 2014,
pp. 15-35.
9 See G. DEBORD, The Society of the Spectacle, Detroit, Black & Red, 2000.
10 J. BERGER, Ways of Seeing, London, Penguin Books, 1972, pp. 32-34.
11 A private translation of a section on Christian authenticity found in Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaia’s, Anthropos
Metheoros, Athens, 2005.
12 1 Cor. 15:40.
13 ST PETER OF DAMASCUS, The Philokalia, Vol. Three, London-Boston, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1984, p. 236.
14 McLuhan says: “Media, by altering the environment, evoke in us unique ratios of sense perceptions. The extension of
any one sense alters the way we think and act-the way we perceive the world. When these ratios change, men change.”
M. MCLUHAN-Q. FIORE, The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects, San Francisco, Hardwire, 1996, p. 41.
15 Gal. 4:19
16 M. QUENOT, The Icon: Window on the Kingdom, Crestwood, SVS Press, 1991, p. 46.
17 As P. Kontoglou says: “Byzantine art seeks to uplift us from the sensible to the intelligible, from what we see with our
physical eyes to what is seen by him who has spiritual eyes - that is, from the ephemeral to the eternal. This lifting
is called anagoge. It uses natural forms and colors, but spiritualizes these elements, changes them from material to
spiritual. Forms and colors in Byzantine art become mystical, in order to express the mystical realm of the spirit.” P.
KONTOGLOU, Byzantine Sacred Art, C. CAVARNOS (ed.), Belmont, Institute of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies,
1992, p. 97
18 ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, On the Divine Images: Three Apologies against Those Who Attack the Divine Images, D. ANDER-
SON (trans.), Crestwood, SVS Press, 1980, p. 74.
19 As quoted by F. IVANOVIC in Symbol and Icon: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Iconoclastic Crisis, Eugene, Pickwick
Pub., 2010, pp. 76-77.
20 As quoted by ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, op. cit., 1980, p. 34.
21 In the glossary of The Philokalia we read: “Logos: the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, or the Intellect, Wisdom and
Providence of God in whom and through whom all things are created. As the unitary cosmic principle, the Logos con-
tains in Himself the multiple logoi (inner principles or inner essences, thoughts of God) in accordance with which all
things come into existence at the times and places, and in the forms, appointed for them, each single thing thereby
containing in itself the principle of its own development...” ST PETER OF DAMASCUS, op. cit., 1984, p. 361.
22 In full context St Maximos says: “The mystery of the incarnation of the Logos is the key to all the arcane symbolism and
typology in the Scriptures, and in addition gives us knowledge of created things, both visible and intelligible. He who
apprehends the mystery of the cross and the burial apprehends the inward essences of created things; while he who
37
IKON, 9-2016
Thus, in order to realize the ideal of “fullness of iconicity” both the canonical image and the properties of
the traditional medium are essential. Both are necessary and depend on each other. Their interdependence must
be maintained. Otherwise we end up with only half the icon, a truncated concept - an abstract disembodied im-
age - a subtle Docetism that overlooks the transfiguration and deification of matter arising from the Incarnation.
As Victor Bychkov puts it, the icon as symbol is an “energetico-material bearer”,48 manifesting the energies
of both the prototype and the materials that embody it. Paradoxically, the ontological status of the icon is both
transparent and opaque. It is transparent in that, like a glass, we look beyond its matter and encounter the pro-
totype. It is opaque in that the energies of its material properties are unavoidable and essential, subtly affecting
and aiding our ascent to spiritual vision. This is the fullness of the icon that reproductions simulate. Insofar as a
reproduction is matter imprinted with the prototype, it is an icon, albeit inferior. Since its material components
are symbolically inadequate. The discerning heart, encountering the simulacrum, remains malnourished, spiritu-
ally unsatisfied, and hindered in its ascent towards uncreated Beauty.49
Emphasizing the importance of hand-made icons is not a matter of disdaining technology per se, but rath-
er about how to discriminate among technologies and discern their appropriate use within the liturgical context.
Some might point out that many saints have prayed before reproductions. This, of course, does not make their
prayers less authentic and acceptable to God, but conversely, nor does their holiness make the reproduction
“more real” or liturgically efficient. Reproductions remain surrogate icons, lacking iconicity. Then again, many mi-
raculous and weeping icons happen to be reproductions, which only attest to the fact that God is not confined.
Nevertheless, neither subjective feeling, nor experience, nor miracles change the ontological status of the icon.
While icon reproductions have advantages, we should not forget their deficiency as liturgical objects. They distort
the theology of the icon and end up compromising Tradition.
* This paper is a revised version of the one with the same title which appeared in: Sacred Web: A Journal of Tradition and
Modernity, vol. 31, summer 2013, pp. 77-104.
1 A.K. COMMARASWAMY, “Is Art a Superstition, or a way of Life?”, in: The Essential Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, R.P. COOMA-
RASWAMY (ed.), Bloomington, World Wisdom, Inc., 2004, p. 166.
2 W. Benjamin notes, “The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch
the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated [...] One might subsume the eliminated ele-
ment in the term ‘aura’ and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the
work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize
by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the produced object from the domain of tradition.” W. BENJAMIN,
Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, New York, Schocken Books, 1968, p. 232. See the section below, “Uplifting Mate-
riality and Symbol”, in which the idea of the “glory” of “bodies” is discussed. This, I believe, parallels Benjamin’s idea of
“aura”.
3 M. BARASCH, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea, New York, New York University Press, 1995, p. 6.
4 ST THEODORE THE STUDITE, On the Holy Icons, C.P. ROTH (trans.), Crestwood, SVS Press, 1981, p. 32.
5 Concerning the history of “reproductions” prior to modernity see W. BENJAMIN, op. cit., 1968, pp. 220-221.
6 In recent history there have only been a couple of instances in which the Orthodox Church hierarchy has directly
addressed the problem of “reproductions”, or things artificial, in the context of liturgical worship. In 1949 His Holi-
ness Patriarch Alexis addressed the pastors of the Churches of Moscow on the problem of artificial flowers as follows:
“Artificial flowers, because they are artificial, must not be allowed in churches. The celebrated Moscow Metropolitan
Philaret, of blessed memory, spoke about artificial flowers, imitation jeweled stones, and other similar embellish-
ments, and said these are reprehensible in church practice not because they have little value, but because they are
artificial and they thus contain within themselves falsehood.” ALEXIS PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW, “From the Paschal
36
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
Message of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis to the Pastors of the Churches Of Moscow”, in: Abridged Typicon, F.S. KOVAL-
CHUK (ed.), Youngstown, Education and Publications Commission of the Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox
Church, 1974, p. 9. More recently in November 6, 2012, the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece came to the following
decisions: “a) The avoidance of the use of goods of low quality for the ornamentation of Holy Temples. b) The For-
bidding of the use of color copies for the iconography of holy temples for reason of the outcome of poor aesthetic
results, and for the danger of entanglement in legal complications, because of the theft of intellectual property of
other iconographers,” (our translation of the encyclical dated Nov 14, 2012). This statement, however, bypasses the
theological implications of the issue of reproductions. See A. TRIANTAFYLLOU, “The Holy Synod Puts an Obstacle to
‘kitsch’ Painting”, in: Amen: Gate Ecclesiastical News, http://www.amen.gr/article/i-iera-sunodos-bazei-fragmo-sto-kits-
twn-agiografisewn, 2012 (accessed 16 October 2015). For an assessment on how chromolithographic reproductions
and the crisis of handicraft production of icons in the 19th century gave rise to “The Most Highly Bestowed Committee
for the Guardianship of Russian Icon Painting”, see K. KOTKAVAARA, “On Antiquarians and the Promotion of Icon Paint-
ing”, in: Progeny of the Icon: Émigré Russian Revivalism and the Vicissitudes of the Eastern Orthodox Russian Image, Åbo,
Åbo Academy University Press, 1999, pp. 124-155.
7 A. HART, Techniques of Icon and Wall Painting: Egg Tempera, Fresco and Secco, Leominster, Gracewing, 2011, pp. 29-31.
8 For the application of the principles of patristic hermeneutics as a heuristic device in the interpretation of icons see:
Fr.M. CONSTAS, The Art of Seeing: Paradox and Perception in Orthodox Iconography, Alhambra, Sebastian Press, 2014,
pp. 15-35.
9 See G. DEBORD, The Society of the Spectacle, Detroit, Black & Red, 2000.
10 J. BERGER, Ways of Seeing, London, Penguin Books, 1972, pp. 32-34.
11 A private translation of a section on Christian authenticity found in Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaia’s, Anthropos
Metheoros, Athens, 2005.
12 1 Cor. 15:40.
13 ST PETER OF DAMASCUS, The Philokalia, Vol. Three, London-Boston, Faber and Faber, Inc., 1984, p. 236.
14 McLuhan says: “Media, by altering the environment, evoke in us unique ratios of sense perceptions. The extension of
any one sense alters the way we think and act-the way we perceive the world. When these ratios change, men change.”
M. MCLUHAN-Q. FIORE, The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects, San Francisco, Hardwire, 1996, p. 41.
15 Gal. 4:19
16 M. QUENOT, The Icon: Window on the Kingdom, Crestwood, SVS Press, 1991, p. 46.
17 As P. Kontoglou says: “Byzantine art seeks to uplift us from the sensible to the intelligible, from what we see with our
physical eyes to what is seen by him who has spiritual eyes - that is, from the ephemeral to the eternal. This lifting
is called anagoge. It uses natural forms and colors, but spiritualizes these elements, changes them from material to
spiritual. Forms and colors in Byzantine art become mystical, in order to express the mystical realm of the spirit.” P.
KONTOGLOU, Byzantine Sacred Art, C. CAVARNOS (ed.), Belmont, Institute of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies,
1992, p. 97
18 ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, On the Divine Images: Three Apologies against Those Who Attack the Divine Images, D. ANDER-
SON (trans.), Crestwood, SVS Press, 1980, p. 74.
19 As quoted by F. IVANOVIC in Symbol and Icon: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Iconoclastic Crisis, Eugene, Pickwick
Pub., 2010, pp. 76-77.
20 As quoted by ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, op. cit., 1980, p. 34.
21 In the glossary of The Philokalia we read: “Logos: the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, or the Intellect, Wisdom and
Providence of God in whom and through whom all things are created. As the unitary cosmic principle, the Logos con-
tains in Himself the multiple logoi (inner principles or inner essences, thoughts of God) in accordance with which all
things come into existence at the times and places, and in the forms, appointed for them, each single thing thereby
containing in itself the principle of its own development...” ST PETER OF DAMASCUS, op. cit., 1984, p. 361.
22 In full context St Maximos says: “The mystery of the incarnation of the Logos is the key to all the arcane symbolism and
typology in the Scriptures, and in addition gives us knowledge of created things, both visible and intelligible. He who
apprehends the mystery of the cross and the burial apprehends the inward essences of created things; while he who
37
IKON, 9-2016
is initiated into the inexpressible power of the resurrection apprehends the purpose for which God first established
everything.” ST MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR, The Philokalia Vol. Two, London-Boston, Faber and Faber, 1981, p. 127.
23 As quoted by F. IVANOVIC, op. cit., 2010, p. 59.
24 ST NIKOLAI VELIMEROVICH, The Universe as Symbols & Signs: An Essay on Mysticism in the Eastern Church, South Canaan-
Waymart, St Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2010, p. 10.
25 St Symeon the New Theologian, as quoted by St Nikolai Velimerovich, Ibid.
26 As quoted by S. BUCKLOW in The Alchemy of Paint: Art, Science and Secrets from the Middle Ages, London, Marion Boyars,
2009, pp. 211-212.
27 St Theodore maintains the “difference in essence” between the prototype and icon saying, “We speak of relation in-
asmuch as the copy is in the prototype; one is not separated from the other because of this, except by difference of
essence. Therefore, since the image of Christ is said to have Christ’s form in its delineation, it will have one veneration
with Christ, and not a different veneration.” ST THEODORE THE STUDITE, op. cit., 1981, p. 106.
28 Ibid., p. 110.
29 ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, op. cit., 1980, p. 23.
30 “In early Christian language, sacramentum or mysterium was applied to any sacred action or object, in fact to anything
which as mirror or form of the Divine was regarded as revealing the Divine. The number of ‘mysteries’ is therefore
potentially limitless, for everything in the cosmos in some manner mirrors or enforms the Divine, and is thus a myste-
rium.” P. SHERRARD, The Sacred in Life and Art, Evia, Denise Harvey (Publisher), 2004, p. 22.
31 As Metropolitan Kallistos explains: “God has ‘deified’ matter, making it ‘spirit-bearing’; and if flesh has become a vehicle
of the Spirit, then so - though in a different way - can wood and paint.” He further clarifies: “... when we talk of ‘seven
sacraments’, we must never isolate these seven from the many other actions in the Church which also possess a sac-
ramental character, and which are conveniently termed sacramental... Between the wider and the narrower sense of
the term ‘sacrament’ there is no rigid division: the whole Christian life must be seen as a unity, as a single mystery or
one great sacrament, whose different aspects are expressed in a great variety of acts, some performed but once in our
life, others perhaps daily.” T. WARE, The Orthodox Church, London, Penguin Books, 1997, pp. 33, 276.
32 ST THEODORE THE STUDITE, op. cit., 1981, p. 110.
33 P. FLORENSKY, Iconostasis, Crestwood, SVS Press, 1996, pp. 59-69, 98-160; L. OUSPENSKY, “The Meaning and Content of
the Icon”, in: Theology of the Icon, Crestwood, SVS Press, 1978, pp. 179-229.
34 Exodus 31:1.
35 Wisdom of Solomon 13:5.
36 As L. Ouspensky explains: “A significant feature of the technique of iconography is the selection of basic materials
which enter into it. In their totality, they represent the fullest participation of the visible world in the creation of an
icon… The most fundamental of materials (water, chalk, pigments, egg…) are taken in their natural form, merely puri-
fied and prepared, and by the work of his hands man brings them to serve God… Thus matter too, offered in the icon
as a gift to God by man, in its turn emphasizes the liturgical meaning of the icon.” L. OUSPENSKY, “The Technique of
Iconography”, in: L. OUSPENSKY-V. LOSSKY, The Meaning of Icons, Crestwood, SVS Press, 1989, p. 55.
37 John 8:12.
38 In other words, the icon “imitates” nature. Coomaraswamy explains this traditional understanding: “Art has also been
defined as ‘the imitation of nature in her manner of operation’: that is to say, an imitation of nature, not as effect, but
as cause. Nature is here, of course, ‘Natura naturans, Creatrix, Deus’ and by no means our own already natured environ-
ment. All traditions lay a great stress on the analogy of the human and divine artificers, both alike being ‘makers of
art’, or ‘by a word conceived in intellect’. ... All this is only to say again in other words that ‘similitude is with respect to
form.’‘Imitation’ is the embodiment in matter of a preconceived form; and that is precisely what we mean by ‘creation.’
The artist is the providence of the work to be done.” A.K. COOMARASWAMY, op. cit., 2004, pp. 161-162.
39 Concerning the symbolism of the Russian icon B. Uspenky says: “Finally, the inner symbolism of the work has a funda-
mental significance for the icon, a symbolism relevant not so much in respect to the result, as in respect to the actual
process of icon painting, although to a certain extent it may be reflected in the representation itself. Thus, a fixed
symbolic meaning already characterizes the very material of the painter: colors of the icon are supposed to represent
the animal, vegetable and mineral world. Even the concept of measurement (of the modules used in the formal con-
38
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
struction) could assume a particular significance. According to some testimonies, Old Believers… used the technique
of ‘building-up’ the representation that symbolically represented the process of the re-creation of the figure being
depicted… On the other hand if one turns to the terminology of the icon painters, the process of icon-painting ap-
pears to be a symbolic process of a gradual revealing of the representation.” B. USPENSKY, The Semiotics of the Russian
Icon, S. RUDY (ed.), Lisse, The Peter De Ridder Press, 1976, pp. 16-17.
40 From the introductory prayer to the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox services.
41 This is a reference to the Definition of Chalcedon. See T. WARE, op. cit., 1997, p. 26.
42 A.K. COOMARASWAMY, op. cit., 2004, p. 166.
43 See M. LOWELL, “MUCH Cheaper Than Real”: Confronting the New Iconoclasm, Hexaemeron.org, http://hexaemeron.
wordpress.com/2012/04/09/much-cheaper-than-real-2/, 2012 (accessed 1 December 2012).
44 Walter Benjamin says: “One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the object from the
domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in
permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object
reproduced. These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition...” W. BENJAMIN, op. cit., 1968, p. 223.
He looks at the problem of mechanical reproductions as the “detaching of the object from the domain of tradition.”
In other words, removing the object of religious devotion from its formerly static cult context is a movement from
the sacred to the profane. In the case of icon reproductions the reverse also happens. They bring elements of the
profane into sacred space. Through the reproduction there is also, as Benjamin notes, a “reactivation” of the original
from its cult context into multiple places. This constant “reactivation” process degrades iconicity, as when an image
loses definition when repeatedly passed through a copy machine. In the end there is no question that a “tremendous
shattering of tradition” takes place.
45 M. LOWELL, op cit., 2012.
46 ST THEODORE THE STUDITE, op cit., 1981, pp. 26-27.
47 Ibid.
48 A term used by Victor Bychkov to describe Fr. Pavel Florensky’s understanding of symbol, which “has ‘two thresholds
of receptivity’, an upper and lower, within which it still remains a symbol. The upper threshold preserves the symbol
from ‘the exaggeration of the natural mysticism of matter’, from ‘naturalism’, in which the symbol is wholly identi-
fied with the archetype. This extremity was characteristic of ancient times. The Modern Age tends to go beyond the
lower limit, in which case the material connection between symbol and archetype is broken, their common matter
is ignored, and energy and symbol perceived only as signs of the archetype, not as its energetico-material bearer.” V.
BYCHKOV, The Aesthetic Face of Being: Art in the Theology of Pavel Florensky, Crestwood, SVS Press, NY, 1993, p. 71.
49 “The soul seeks not only what is beautiful, being guided by the spirit, but also the expression of the beautiful in beau-
tiful forms of the invisible world, to where the spirit by its action beckons.” ST THEOPHAN THE RECLUSE, The Spiritual
Life and How to be Attuned to It, Safford, St Paisius Serbian Orthodox Monastery, 2003, pp. 55-56.
39
IKON, 9-2016
is initiated into the inexpressible power of the resurrection apprehends the purpose for which God first established
everything.” ST MAXIMOS THE CONFESSOR, The Philokalia Vol. Two, London-Boston, Faber and Faber, 1981, p. 127.
23 As quoted by F. IVANOVIC, op. cit., 2010, p. 59.
24 ST NIKOLAI VELIMEROVICH, The Universe as Symbols & Signs: An Essay on Mysticism in the Eastern Church, South Canaan-
Waymart, St Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2010, p. 10.
25 St Symeon the New Theologian, as quoted by St Nikolai Velimerovich, Ibid.
26 As quoted by S. BUCKLOW in The Alchemy of Paint: Art, Science and Secrets from the Middle Ages, London, Marion Boyars,
2009, pp. 211-212.
27 St Theodore maintains the “difference in essence” between the prototype and icon saying, “We speak of relation in-
asmuch as the copy is in the prototype; one is not separated from the other because of this, except by difference of
essence. Therefore, since the image of Christ is said to have Christ’s form in its delineation, it will have one veneration
with Christ, and not a different veneration.” ST THEODORE THE STUDITE, op. cit., 1981, p. 106.
28 Ibid., p. 110.
29 ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, op. cit., 1980, p. 23.
30 “In early Christian language, sacramentum or mysterium was applied to any sacred action or object, in fact to anything
which as mirror or form of the Divine was regarded as revealing the Divine. The number of ‘mysteries’ is therefore
potentially limitless, for everything in the cosmos in some manner mirrors or enforms the Divine, and is thus a myste-
rium.” P. SHERRARD, The Sacred in Life and Art, Evia, Denise Harvey (Publisher), 2004, p. 22.
31 As Metropolitan Kallistos explains: “God has ‘deified’ matter, making it ‘spirit-bearing’; and if flesh has become a vehicle
of the Spirit, then so - though in a different way - can wood and paint.” He further clarifies: “... when we talk of ‘seven
sacraments’, we must never isolate these seven from the many other actions in the Church which also possess a sac-
ramental character, and which are conveniently termed sacramental... Between the wider and the narrower sense of
the term ‘sacrament’ there is no rigid division: the whole Christian life must be seen as a unity, as a single mystery or
one great sacrament, whose different aspects are expressed in a great variety of acts, some performed but once in our
life, others perhaps daily.” T. WARE, The Orthodox Church, London, Penguin Books, 1997, pp. 33, 276.
32 ST THEODORE THE STUDITE, op. cit., 1981, p. 110.
33 P. FLORENSKY, Iconostasis, Crestwood, SVS Press, 1996, pp. 59-69, 98-160; L. OUSPENSKY, “The Meaning and Content of
the Icon”, in: Theology of the Icon, Crestwood, SVS Press, 1978, pp. 179-229.
34 Exodus 31:1.
35 Wisdom of Solomon 13:5.
36 As L. Ouspensky explains: “A significant feature of the technique of iconography is the selection of basic materials
which enter into it. In their totality, they represent the fullest participation of the visible world in the creation of an
icon… The most fundamental of materials (water, chalk, pigments, egg…) are taken in their natural form, merely puri-
fied and prepared, and by the work of his hands man brings them to serve God… Thus matter too, offered in the icon
as a gift to God by man, in its turn emphasizes the liturgical meaning of the icon.” L. OUSPENSKY, “The Technique of
Iconography”, in: L. OUSPENSKY-V. LOSSKY, The Meaning of Icons, Crestwood, SVS Press, 1989, p. 55.
37 John 8:12.
38 In other words, the icon “imitates” nature. Coomaraswamy explains this traditional understanding: “Art has also been
defined as ‘the imitation of nature in her manner of operation’: that is to say, an imitation of nature, not as effect, but
as cause. Nature is here, of course, ‘Natura naturans, Creatrix, Deus’ and by no means our own already natured environ-
ment. All traditions lay a great stress on the analogy of the human and divine artificers, both alike being ‘makers of
art’, or ‘by a word conceived in intellect’. ... All this is only to say again in other words that ‘similitude is with respect to
form.’‘Imitation’ is the embodiment in matter of a preconceived form; and that is precisely what we mean by ‘creation.’
The artist is the providence of the work to be done.” A.K. COOMARASWAMY, op. cit., 2004, pp. 161-162.
39 Concerning the symbolism of the Russian icon B. Uspenky says: “Finally, the inner symbolism of the work has a funda-
mental significance for the icon, a symbolism relevant not so much in respect to the result, as in respect to the actual
process of icon painting, although to a certain extent it may be reflected in the representation itself. Thus, a fixed
symbolic meaning already characterizes the very material of the painter: colors of the icon are supposed to represent
the animal, vegetable and mineral world. Even the concept of measurement (of the modules used in the formal con-
38
Justiniano, The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon
struction) could assume a particular significance. According to some testimonies, Old Believers… used the technique
of ‘building-up’ the representation that symbolically represented the process of the re-creation of the figure being
depicted… On the other hand if one turns to the terminology of the icon painters, the process of icon-painting ap-
pears to be a symbolic process of a gradual revealing of the representation.” B. USPENSKY, The Semiotics of the Russian
Icon, S. RUDY (ed.), Lisse, The Peter De Ridder Press, 1976, pp. 16-17.
40 From the introductory prayer to the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox services.
41 This is a reference to the Definition of Chalcedon. See T. WARE, op. cit., 1997, p. 26.
42 A.K. COOMARASWAMY, op. cit., 2004, p. 166.
43 See M. LOWELL, “MUCH Cheaper Than Real”: Confronting the New Iconoclasm, Hexaemeron.org, http://hexaemeron.
wordpress.com/2012/04/09/much-cheaper-than-real-2/, 2012 (accessed 1 December 2012).
44 Walter Benjamin says: “One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the object from the
domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in
permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object
reproduced. These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition...” W. BENJAMIN, op. cit., 1968, p. 223.
He looks at the problem of mechanical reproductions as the “detaching of the object from the domain of tradition.”
In other words, removing the object of religious devotion from its formerly static cult context is a movement from
the sacred to the profane. In the case of icon reproductions the reverse also happens. They bring elements of the
profane into sacred space. Through the reproduction there is also, as Benjamin notes, a “reactivation” of the original
from its cult context into multiple places. This constant “reactivation” process degrades iconicity, as when an image
loses definition when repeatedly passed through a copy machine. In the end there is no question that a “tremendous
shattering of tradition” takes place.
45 M. LOWELL, op cit., 2012.
46 ST THEODORE THE STUDITE, op cit., 1981, pp. 26-27.
47 Ibid.
48 A term used by Victor Bychkov to describe Fr. Pavel Florensky’s understanding of symbol, which “has ‘two thresholds
of receptivity’, an upper and lower, within which it still remains a symbol. The upper threshold preserves the symbol
from ‘the exaggeration of the natural mysticism of matter’, from ‘naturalism’, in which the symbol is wholly identi-
fied with the archetype. This extremity was characteristic of ancient times. The Modern Age tends to go beyond the
lower limit, in which case the material connection between symbol and archetype is broken, their common matter
is ignored, and energy and symbol perceived only as signs of the archetype, not as its energetico-material bearer.” V.
BYCHKOV, The Aesthetic Face of Being: Art in the Theology of Pavel Florensky, Crestwood, SVS Press, NY, 1993, p. 71.
49 “The soul seeks not only what is beautiful, being guided by the spirit, but also the expression of the beautiful in beau-
tiful forms of the invisible world, to where the spirit by its action beckons.” ST THEOPHAN THE RECLUSE, The Spiritual
Life and How to be Attuned to It, Safford, St Paisius Serbian Orthodox Monastery, 2003, pp. 55-56.
39
IKON, 9-2016

Hieromonk Silouan Justiniano

Degradirana ikoničnost ikone

Materijalnost ikone i mehanička reprodukcija

Ovaj rad propituje izazove s kojima se suočuje tradicionalno učenje o istočnoj pravoslavnoj ikoni u društvu urenjonome
u simulakre i zavedenome površnošću vanjskog izgleda. Danas ideja o “svetoj slici” izgleda anakrono, a ikona gubi definiciju
konkretnog liturgijskog, simboličkog i misterijskog predmeta u životu pravoslavne crkve. Ona postaje tek još jedna “slika”
među tisućama, bez potrebe za istinskom tjelesnošću. Drugim riječima, mehanička reprodukcija postupno počinje određivati
što trebamo očekivati od ikone, pa simulakrum prijeti zamijeniti stvarnost. Suptilnost tradicionalnih materijala i tehnika
izrade, koji imaju ključnu ulogu u ostvarivanju anagogijske funkcije ikone, u potpunosti su zanemareni čime je dovedeno u
pitanje i njezino teološko značenje kao slikovni izričaj Utjelovljenja. Konačno, kad ikona prestaje biti zrcalo Stvarnog, nastupa
“degradirana ikoničnost”. Kako bismo preokrenuli ovakvu situaciju treba poći od temeljne pretpostavke da simboličnost
materijalnosti ikone nije proizvoljna, već se temelji na metafizičkim načelima. To zahtijeva da razlučimo Logos jer se On
očituje u inherentnim svojstvima materijala u Stvaranju. Besprijekorna ikona, koja ima “puninu ikoničnosti”, zadržava ne
samo kanonsku formu već i materijalne nijanse tradicionalnih tehnika, ispunjavajući anagogijsku i simboličku funkciju
unutar liturgijskog estetskog iskustva. To podrazumijeva korištenje najboljih dostupnih materijala, ponajprije prirodnih ili
organskih, budući da, za razliku od većine sintetičkih proizvoda, u svojim bitnim svojstvima najbolje odražavaju slavu Božju
(ljepota) u stvaranju. Reprodukcije ikona, u onoj mjeri u kojoj poriču simboličku ulogu materijala, bitno su osiromašene za
liturgijsku upotrebu i uglavnom odražavaju zadiranje industrijske proizvodnje u sveti prostor.

Prijevod s engleskoga: Nikolina Belošević

Primljeno/Received: 17.10.2015.
Pregledni rad

40