Paint an icon in the academic style in the icon-painting workshop of Northern Athos. Byzantine icons

Iconography (writing icons) is a Christian, church fine art.

But first, let's talk about what an icon is.

What is an icon

From the ancient Greek language the word “icon” is translated as “image”, “image”. But not every image is an icon, but only an image of persons or events of Sacred or Church history, which is the subject of veneration. Veneration among Orthodox and Catholics is fixed dogma(an immutable truth that is not subject to criticism or doubt) of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787. The Council was held in the city of Nicaea, which is why it is also called the Second Council of Nicaea.

About icon veneration

The Council was convened against iconoclasm, which arose 60 years before the Council under the Byzantine emperor Leo the Isaurian, who considered it necessary to abolish the veneration of icons. The council consisted of 367 bishops, who, based on the results of their work, approved the dogma of icon veneration. This document restored the veneration of icons and allowed the use of icons of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, Angels and Saints in churches and homes, honoring them with “reverent worship”: “... we, walking as if royal way and following the divine teachings of the holy fathers and tradition catholic church and to the Holy Spirit who lives in it, with all care and prudence we determine: like the image of the honest and life-giving Cross, to place in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and garments, on walls and on boards, in houses and on paths, honest and holy icons , painted with paints and made from mosaics and from other suitable substances, icons of the Lord and God and Our Savior Jesus Christ, the immaculate Lady of our Holy Mother of God, also honest angels and all saints and reverend men. For the more often they are visible through images on icons, the more those who look at them are encouraged to remember the prototypes themselves and to love them...”
So, an icon is an image of persons or events of Sacred history. But we often see these images in paintings by artists who are not at all religious. So is any such image an icon? Of course not.

An icon and a painting - what is the difference between them?

And now we will talk about the difference between an icon and an artist’s painting depicting Jesus Christ, the Mother of God and other persons of Sacred history.
Before us is a reproduction of Raphael’s painting “The Sistine Madonna” - one of the masterpieces of world painting.

Raphael "Sistine Madonna" (1512-1513). Canvas, oil. 256 x 196 cm. Gallery of Old Masters (Dresden)
Raphael created this painting for the altar of the church of the monastery of St. Sixtus in Piacenza, commissioned by Pope Julius II.
The painting depicts the Madonna and Child flanked by Pope Sixtus II (Bishop of Rome from August 30, 257 to August 6, 258. He was martyred during the persecution of Christians during the time of Emperor Valerian) and St. Barbara (Christian martyr) on the sides and with two angels. The Madonna is depicted descending from heaven, walking lightly on the clouds. She comes towards the viewer, towards people, and looks us in the eyes.
The image of Mary combines a religious event and universal human feelings: deep maternal tenderness and a glimpse of anxiety for the fate of the baby. Her clothes are simple, she walks on the clouds with bare feet, surrounded by light...
Any painting, including one painted on a religious subject, is an artistic image created by the creative imagination of the artist - it is a transfer of his own worldview.
An icon is a revelation of God, expressed in the language of lines and colors. The icon painter does not express his creative imagination; the worldview of the icon painter is the worldview of the Church. An icon is timeless; it is a reflection of otherness in our world.
The painting is characterized by the expressed individuality of the author: in his unique pictorial manner, specific composition techniques, and color scheme. That is, in the picture we see the author, his worldview, attitude to the problem depicted, etc.
The authorship of the icon painter is deliberately hidden. Icon painting is not self-expression, but service. On the finished painting, the artist puts his signature, and the name of the person whose face is depicted is inscribed on the icon.
Here we have a painting by the Itinerant artist I. Kramskoy.

I. Kramskoy “Christ in the Desert” (1872). Canvas, oil. 180 x 210 cm. State Tretyakov Gallery(Moscow)
The plot of the picture is taken from the New Testament: after baptism in the waters of the Jordan River, Christ withdrew into the desert for a 40-day fast, where He was tempted by the devil (Gospel of Matthew, 4:1-11).
In the painting, Christ is depicted sitting on a gray stone in a rocky desert. The main significance in the picture is given to the face and hands of Christ, which create the psychological persuasiveness and humanity of his image. The tightly clenched hands and face of Christ represent the semantic and emotional center of the picture; they attract the viewer’s attention.
The work of Christ’s thought and the strength of his spirit do not allow us to call this picture static, although there is no physical action not shown on it.
According to the artist, he wanted to capture the dramatic situation of moral choice, inevitable in the life of every person. Each of us has probably had a situation when life puts you in front of a tough choice, or you yourself comprehend some of your actions, looking for the right path.
I. Kramskoy examines the religious plot from a moral and philosophical point of view and offers it to the audience. “Here is the painful effort of Christ to realize in himself the unity of the Divine and Human” (G. Wagner).
The picture should be emotional, since art is a form of cognition and reflection of the surrounding world through feelings. The picture belongs to the spiritual world.

Icon of the Savior Pantocrator (Pantocrator)
The icon painter, unlike the artist, is dispassionate: personal emotions should not take place. The icon is deliberately devoid of external emotions; empathy and perception of iconographic symbols occur on a spiritual level. An icon is a means of communication with God and His saints.

The main differences between an icon and a painting

The visual language of the icon evolved and was formed gradually over the centuries, and received its complete expression in the rules and guidelines of the icon painting canon. An icon is not an illustration of Holy Scripture and church history, or a portrait of a saint. For an Orthodox Christian, an icon serves as a mediator between the sensory world and the world inaccessible to everyday perception, a world that is cognizable only by faith. And the canon does not allow the icon to descend to the level of secular painting.

1. The icon is characterized by a conventional image. It is not so much the object itself that is depicted as the idea of ​​the object. Hence the “deformed”, usually elongated proportions of the figures - the idea of ​​​​transformed flesh living in the heavenly world. The icon does not have that triumph of physicality that can be seen in the paintings of many artists, for example, Rubens.

2. The picture is constructed according to the laws of direct perspective. This is easy to understand if you imagine a drawing or photograph of a railroad track: the rails converge at one point located on the horizon line. The icon is characterized by a reverse perspective, where the vanishing point is located not in the depths of the picture plane, but in the person standing in front of the icon. And the parallel lines on the icon do not converge, but, on the contrary, expand in the space of the icon. The foreground and background have not pictorial, but semantic meaning. In icons, distant objects are not hidden, as in realistic paintings, but are included in the overall composition.

3. There is no external light source on the icon. Light emanates from faces and figures as a symbol of holiness. (The painting shows a face, and the icon shows a face).

Face and face
The halos on the icon are a symbol of holiness; this is the most important feature of Christian sacred images. On Orthodox icons The halo represents the surroundings that form a single whole with the figure of the saint. In Catholic sacred images and paintings, a halo in the form of a circle hangs above the head of the saint. The Catholic version of the halo is a reward given to the saint from the outside, and the Orthodox version is a crown of holiness, born from within.

4. The color on the icon has a symbolic function. For example, the red color on icons of martyrs can symbolize sacrificing oneself for Christ, while on other icons it is the color of royal dignity. Gold is a symbol of Divine light, and in order to convey the radiance of this uncreated light on icons, not paints were required, but a special material - gold. But not as a symbol of wealth, but as a sign of participation in the Divine by grace. White color is the color of sacrificial animals. Dull black color, through which gesso does not shine through, is used on icons only in cases where it is necessary to show the forces of evil or the underworld.

5. Icons are characterized by the simultaneity of the image: all events occur at once. The icon “Assumption of the Mother of God” simultaneously depicts the apostles being carried by angels to the deathbed of the Mother of God, and the same apostles already standing around the bed. This suggests that the events of Sacred history that took place in our real time and space have a different image in spiritual space.

Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Kievo-Pechersk Icon)
A canonical icon does not have random details or decorations devoid of semantic meaning. Even the frame - the decoration of the front surface of the icon board - has its own justification. This is a kind of veil that protects the shrine, hiding it from unworthy glances.
The main task of the icon is to show the reality of the spiritual world. In contrast to the painting, which conveys the sensual, material side of the world. A painting is a milestone on the path of aesthetic development of a person; an icon is a milestone on the spiritual path.
An icon is always a shrine, no matter in what picturesque manner it is executed. And there are quite a lot of pictorial manners (schools). It should also be understood that the iconographic canon is not a stencil or a standard. You can always feel the “hand” of the author, his special style of writing, some of his spiritual priorities. But icons and paintings have different purposes: an icon is intended for spiritual contemplation and prayer, and a painting educates our state of mind. Although the picture can cause deep spiritual experiences.

Russian icon painting

The art of icon painting came to Rus' from Byzantium after being baptized in 988 under Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich. Prince Vladimir brought a number of icons and shrines from Chersonese to Kyiv, but not a single one of the “Korsun” icons survived. The oldest icons in Rus' have been preserved in Veliky Novgorod.

Apostles Peter and Paul. Icon of the mid-11th century. (Novgorod Museum)
Vladimir-Suzdal school of icon painting. Its heyday is associated with Andrei Bogolyubsky.
In 1155, Andrei Bogolyubsky left Vyshgorod, taking with him the revered icon of the Mother of God, and settled in Vladimir on the Klyazma. The icon he brought, which received the name Vladimir, subsequently became known throughout Russia and served as a kind of measure of artistic quality for the icon painters who worked here.

Vladimir (Vyshgorod) Icon of the Mother of God
In the 13th century large icon-painting workshops were, besides Vladimir, also in Yaroslavl.

Our Lady of Oranta from Yaroslavl (circa 1224). State Tretyakov Gallery (Moscow)
Known Pskov, Novgorod, Moscow, Tver and other schools of icon painting - it is impossible to talk about this in one review article. The most famous and revered master of the Moscow school of icon painting, book and monumental painting of the 15th century. – Andrey Rublev. At the end of the XIV - beginning of the XV centuries. Rublev created his masterpiece - the icon “Holy Trinity” (Tretyakov Gallery). She is one of the most celebrated Russian icons.

The clothes of the middle angel (red tunic, blue himation, sewn stripe (klav)) contain a hint of the iconography of Jesus Christ. In the appearance of the left angel one can feel paternal authority; his gaze is turned to the other angels, and the movements and turns of the other two angels are turned to him. The light purple color of the clothes indicates royal dignity. These are indications of the first person of the Holy Trinity. The angel on the right side is depicted wearing smoky green clothing. This is the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. There are several more symbols on the icon: a tree and a house, a mountain. Tree (Mamvrian oak) is a symbol of life, an indication of the life-giving nature of the Trinity; house – the Economy of the Father; mountain - Holy Spirit.
Rublev's creativity is one of the pinnacles of Russian and world culture. Already during Rublev’s life, his icons were valued and revered as miraculous.
One of the main types of images of the Mother of God in Russian icon painting is Eleusa(from Greek - merciful, merciful, sympathetic), or Tenderness. The Mother of God is depicted with the Child Christ sitting on Her hand and pressing His cheek to Her cheek. On the icons of the Mother of God of Eleusa, there is no distance between Mary (the symbol and ideal of the human race) and God the Son, their love is limitless. The icon prefigures the sacrifice of Christ the Savior on the cross as the highest expression of God’s love for people.
The Eleus type includes the Vladimir, Don, Feodorovskaya, Yaroslavl, Pochaevskaya, Zhirovitskaya, Grebnevskaya, Akhrenskaya, Recovery of the Dead, Degtyarevskaya icon, etc.

Eleusa. Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God (XII century)

Many experts interested in icon painting ask the question - what can be considered an icon in our time? Is it enough to just follow the canons that were laid down several centuries ago? However, there is a point of view, the followers of which argue that it is still necessary to maintain the stylistic direction when creating of this type.

Canons and style

Many people confuse these two concepts: canon and style. They should be separated. Still, the canons, in their original sense, are more of a literary part of the image. For him, the plot of the depicted scene is more important: who is standing where, in what attire, what they are doing and other aspects of fine art. For example, the one depicted on is a prime example of the expression of the canon.

In terms of style, more important role plays the way the artist expresses his thoughts, which influences ours and makes us understand and better realize the purpose of creating an artistic image. It is necessary to understand that each painting’s style combines both the individual characteristics of the artist’s painting method and the shade of the genre, era, nation and even the direction of the chosen school. Thus, these are two different concepts that should be separated if you want to understand icon painting.

Let's highlight two main styles:

• Byzantine.
• Academic.

Byzantine style.

One of the most popular theories about the creation of icons is that which favors only works of art painted in the “Byzantine” style. In Russia, the “Italian” or “academic” shade was more often used. That is why followers of this movement do not recognize icons from many countries.

However, if you ask church ministers, they will answer that these are fully-fledged icons and there is no reason to treat them any differently.

Thus, the exaltation of the “Byzantine” method over the others is false.

Academic style.

However, many continue to rely on the “lack of spirituality” of the “academic” style and do not accept icons with similar shades. But there is a rational grain in these arguments only at first glance, since after looking closely and thinking carefully, it is clear that it is not for nothing that all these names are mentioned in the literature in quotation marks and very carefully. After all, they themselves are a combination of many factors that influenced the artist and his style of self-expression.

Officials completely ignore and do not want to distinguish between such trifles. Therefore, these concepts in most cases are used only in disputes between ardent advocates of one and another style direction.

The word "icon" is of Greek origin.
Greek word eikon means “image”, “portrait”. During the period of the formation of Christian art in Byzantium, this word denoted any image of the Savior, Mother of God, Saint, Angel or event Sacred History, regardless of whether this image was a monumental painting or an easel, and regardless of what technique it was executed with. Now the word “icon” is applied primarily to prayer icons, painted, carved, mosaic, etc. It is in this sense that it is used in archeology and art history.

The Orthodox Church affirms and teaches that the sacred image is a consequence of the Incarnation, is based on it and is therefore inherent in the very essence of Christianity, from which it is inseparable.

Sacred Tradition

The image appeared in Christian art initially. Tradition dates the creation of the first icons to apostolic times and is associated with the name of the Evangelist Luke. According to legend, he depicted not what he saw, but the appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the Child of God.

The roots of the visual techniques of icon painting, on the one hand, are in book miniatures, from which the fine writing, airiness, and sophistication of the palette were borrowed. On the other hand, in the Fayum portrait, from which the iconographic images inherited huge eyes, a stamp of mournful detachment on their faces, and a golden background.

In the Roman catacombs from the 2nd-4th centuries, works of Christian art of a symbolic or narrative nature have been preserved.
The oldest icons that have come down to us date back to the 6th century and were made using the encaustic technique on a wooden base, which makes them similar to Egyptian-Hellenistic art (the so-called “Fayum portraits”).

The Trullo (or Fifth-Sixth) Council prohibits symbolic images of the Savior, ordering that He should be depicted only “according to human nature.”

In the 8th century, the Christian Church was faced with the heresy of iconoclasm, the ideology of which completely prevailed in state, church and cultural life. Icons continued to be created in the provinces, far from imperial and church supervision. The development of an adequate response to the iconoclasts, the adoption of the dogma of icon veneration at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) brought a deeper understanding of the icon, laying down serious theological foundations, connecting the theology of the image with Christological dogmas.

The theology of the icon had a huge influence on the development of iconography and the formation of iconographic canons. Moving away from the naturalistic rendering of the sensory world, icon painting becomes more conventional, gravitating towards flatness, the image of faces is replaced by the image of faces, which reflect the physical and spiritual, the sensual and the supersensible. Hellenistic traditions are gradually being reworked and adapted to Christian concepts.

The tasks of icon painting are the embodiment of the deity in a bodily image. The word “icon” itself means “image” or “image” in Greek. It was supposed to remind of the image that flashes in the mind of the person praying. It is a "bridge" between a person and divine world, sacred object. Christian icon painters managed to accomplish a difficult task: to convey through pictorial, material means the intangible, spiritual, and ethereal. Therefore, iconographic images are characterized by extreme dematerialization of figures reduced to two-dimensional shadows of the smooth surface of a board, a golden background, a mystical environment, non-flatness and non-space, but something unsteady, flickering in the light of lamps. The golden color was perceived as divine not only by the eye, but also by the mind. Believers call it “Tabor”, because, according to the biblical legend, the transfiguration of Christ took place on Mount Tabor, where his image appeared in a blinding golden radiance. At the same time, Christ, the Virgin Mary, the apostles, and saints were really living people who had earthly features.

To convey the spirituality and divinity of earthly images, a special, strictly defined type of depiction of a particular subject, called the iconographic canon, has developed in Christian art. Canonicity, like a number of other characteristics of Byzantine culture, was closely connected with the system of worldview of the Byzantines. The underlying idea of ​​the image, the sign of essence and the principle of hierarchy required constant contemplative deepening into the same phenomena (images, signs, texts, etc.). which led to the organization of culture along stereotypical principles. The canon of fine art most fully reflects the aesthetic essence of Byzantine culture. The iconographic canon was carried out by rad essential functions. First of all, it carried information of a utilitarian, historical and narrative nature, i.e. took on the entire burden of descriptive religious text. The iconographic scheme in this regard was practically identical to the literal meaning of the text. The canon was also recorded in special descriptions appearance Saint, physiognomic instructions had to be followed strictly.

There is a Christian symbolism of color, the foundations of which were developed by the Byzantine writer Dionysius the Areopagite in the 4th century. According to it, the cherry color, which combines red and violet, the beginning and end of the spectrum, means Christ himself, who is the beginning and end of all things. Blue sky, purity. Red is divine fire, the color of the blood of Christ, in Byzantium it is the color of royalty. Green is the color of youth, freshness, renewal. Yellow is identical to gold. White is a symbol of God, similar to Light and combines all the colors of the rainbow. Black is the innermost secrets of God. Christ is invariably depicted in a cherry tunic and a blue cloak - himation, and the Mother of God - in a dark blue tunic and cherry veil - maphoria. The canons of the image also include reverse perspective, which has vanishing points not behind, inside the image, but in the person’s eye, i.e. in front of the image. Each object, therefore, expands as it moves away, as if “unfolding” towards the viewer. The image “moves” towards the person,
and not from him. Iconography is as informative as possible; it reproduces a complete world.

The architectural structure of the icon and the technology of icon painting developed in line with ideas about its purpose: to bear a sacred image. Icons were and are written on boards, most often cypress. Several boards are held together with dowels. The top of the boards is covered with gesso, a primer made with fish glue. The gesso is polished until smooth, and then an image is applied: first a drawing, and then a painting layer. In the icon there are fields, a middle-central image and an ark - a narrow strip along the perimeter of the icon. Iconographic images, developed in Byzantium, also strictly correspond to the canon.

For the first time in three centuries of Christianity, symbolic and allegorical images were common. Christ was depicted as a lamb, an anchor, a ship, a fish, a vine, and a good shepherd. Only in the IV-VI centuries. Illustrative and symbolic iconography began to take shape, which became the structural basis of all Eastern Christian art.

Different understandings of icons in Western and Eastern tradition ultimately led to different directions in the development of art in general: having had a tremendous influence on the art of Western Europe (especially Italy), icon painting during the Renaissance was supplanted by painting and sculpture. Icon painting developed mainly on the territory of the Byzantine Empire and countries that adopted the eastern branch of Christianity-Orthodoxy.

Byzantium

The iconography of the Byzantine Empire was the largest artistic phenomenon in the Eastern Christian world. Byzantine artistic culture not only became the ancestor of some national cultures (for example, Old Russian), but throughout its entire existence it influenced the iconography of other Orthodox countries: Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Rus', Georgia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. Also influenced by Byzantium was the culture of Italy, especially Venice. Essential For these countries there were Byzantine iconographies and new stylistic trends that arose in Byzantium.

Pre-Iconoclastic era

Apostle Peter. Encaustic icon. VI century. Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai.

The oldest icons that have survived to our time date back to the 6th century. Early icons of the 6th-7th centuries preserve the ancient painting technique - encaustic. Some works retain certain features of ancient naturalism and pictorial illusionism (for example, the icons “Christ Pantocrator” and “Apostle Peter” from the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai), while others are prone to conventionality and schematic representation (for example, the icon “Bishop Abraham” from the Dahlem Museum , Berlin, icon “Christ and Saint Mina” from the Louvre). Different, not antique, artistic language was characteristic of the eastern regions of Byzantium - Egypt, Syria, Palestine. In their icon painting, expressiveness was initially more important than knowledge of anatomy and the ability to convey volume.

The Virgin and Child. Encaustic icon. VI century. Kyiv. Museum of Art. Bogdan and Varvara Khanenko.

Martyrs Sergius and Bacchus. Encaustic icon. 6th or 7th century. Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai.

For Ravenna - the largest ensemble of early Christian and early Byzantine mosaics surviving to the present day and mosaics of the 5th century (Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, Orthodox Baptistery) are characterized by lively angles of figures, naturalistic modeling of volume, and picturesque mosaic masonry. In mosaics from the late 5th century (Arian Baptistery) and 6th century (basilicasSant'Apollinare Nuovo And Sant'Apollinare in Classe, Church of San Vitale ) the figures become flat, the lines of the folds of clothes are rigid, sketchy. Poses and gestures freeze, the depth of space almost disappears. The faces lose their sharp individuality, the mosaic laying becomes strictly ordered. The reason for these changes was a targeted search for a special figurative language capable of expressing Christian teaching.

Iconoclastic period

The development of Christian art was interrupted by iconoclasm, which established itself as the official ideology

empire since 730. This caused the destruction of icons and paintings in churches. Persecution of icon worshipers. Many icon painters emigrated to the distant ends of the Empire and neighboring countries - to Cappadocia, Crimea, Italy, and partly to the Middle East, where they continued to create icons.

This struggle lasted a total of more than 100 years and is divided into two periods. The first was from 730 to 787, when the Seventh Ecumenical Council took place under Empress Irina, which restored the veneration of icons and revealed the dogma of this veneration. Although in 787, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, iconoclasm was condemned as a heresy and the theological justification for icon veneration was formulated, the final restoration of icon veneration came only in 843. During the period of iconoclasm, instead of icons in churches, only images of the cross were used, instead of old paintings, decorative images of plants and animals were made, secular scenes were depicted, in particular, horse racing, beloved by Emperor Constantine V.

Macedonian period

After the final victory over the heresy of iconoclasm in 843, the creation of paintings and icons for the temples of Constantinople and other cities began again. From 867 to 1056, Byzantium was ruled by the Macedonian dynasty, which gave its name
the entire period, which is divided into two stages:

Macedonian "Renaissance"

Apostle Thaddeus presents King Abgar with the Image of Christ not made by hands. Folding sash. 10th century

King Abgar receives the Image of Christ Not Made by Hands. Folding sash. 10th century

The first half of the Macedonian period was characterized by increased interest in the classical ancient heritage. The works of this time are distinguished by their naturalness in the depiction of the human body, softness in the depiction of draperies, and liveliness in the faces. Vivid examples of classical art are: the mosaic of Sophia of Constantinople with the image of the Mother of God on the throne (mid-9th century), a folding icon from the monastery of St. Catherine on Sinai with the image of the Apostle Thaddeus and King Abgar receiving a plate with A miraculous image Savior (mid-10th century).

In the second half of the 10th century, icon painting retained classical features, but icon painters were looking for ways to give the images greater spirituality.

Ascetic style

In the first half of the 11th century, the style of Byzantine icon painting changed sharply in the direction opposite to the ancient classics. From this time, several large ensembles of monumental painting have been preserved: frescoes of the church of Panagia ton Chalkeon in Thessaloniki from 1028, mosaics of the katholikon of the monastery of Hosios Loukas in Phokis 30-40. XI century, mosaics and frescoes of Sophia of Kyiv of the same time, frescoes of Sophia of Ohrid from the middle - 3 quarters of the 11th century, mosaics of Nea Moni on the island of Chios 1042-56. and others.

Archdeacon Lavrenty. Mosaic of St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. XI century.

All of the listed monuments are characterized by an extreme degree of asceticism of images. The images are completely devoid of anything temporary and changeable. The faces are devoid of any feelings or emotions; they are extremely frozen, conveying the inner composure of those depicted. For this reason, huge symmetrical eyes with a detached, motionless gaze are emphasized. The figures freeze in strictly defined poses and often acquire squat, heavy proportions. Hands and feet become heavy and rough. The modeling of clothing folds is stylized, becoming very graphic, only conditionally conveying natural forms. The light in the modeling acquires supernatural brightness, bearing the symbolic meaning of Divine Light.

This stylistic trend includes a double-sided icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria with a perfectly preserved image of the Great Martyr George on the reverse (XI century, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin), as well as many book miniatures. The ascetic trend in icon painting continued to exist later, appearing in the 12th century. An example is the two icons of Our Lady Hodegetria in the Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos and in the Greek Patriarchate in Istanbul.

Komnenian period

Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. Beginning of the 12th century. Constantinople.

The next period in the history of Byzantine icon painting falls on the reign of the dynasties of Douk, Comneni and Angels (1059-1204). In general it is called Komninian. In the second half of the 11th century, asceticism was again replaced by
classic shape and harmonious image. Works of this time (for example, the mosaics of Daphne around 1100) achieve a balance between classical form and spirituality of the image, they are elegant and poetic.

The creation of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God (TG) dates back to the end of the 11th century or the beginning of the 12th century. This is one of the best images of the Comnenian era, undoubtedly from Constantinople. In 1131-32 the icon was brought to Rus', where
became especially revered. From the original painting, only the faces of the Mother of God and the Child have been preserved. Beautiful, filled with subtle sorrow for the suffering of the Son, the face of the Mother of God is a characteristic example of the more open and humane art of the Comnenian era. At the same time, in his example one can see the characteristic physiognomic features of Komninian painting: an elongated face, narrow eyes, a thin nose with a triangular pit on the bridge of the nose.

Saint Gregory the Wonderworker. Icon. XII century. Hermitage Museum.

Christ Pantocrator the Merciful. Mosaic icon. XII century.

The mosaic icon “Christ Pantocrator the Merciful” from the State Museums Dahlem in Berlin dates back to the first half of the 12th century. It expresses the internal and external harmony of the image, concentration and contemplation, the Divine and human in the Savior.

Annunciation. Icon. End of the 12th century Sinai.

In the second half of the 12th century, the icon “Gregory the Wonderworker” was created from the State. Hermitage. The icon is distinguished by its magnificent Constantinople script. In the image of the saint, the individual principle is especially strongly emphasized; before us is, as it were, a portrait of a philosopher.

Comnenian mannerism

Crucifixion of Christ with images of saints in the margins. Icon of the second half of the 12th century.

In addition to the classical direction, other trends appeared in the icon painting of the 12th century, tending to disrupt balance and harmony in the direction of greater spiritualization of the image. In some cases, this was achieved by increased expression of painting (the earliest example is the frescoes of the Church of St. Panteleimon in Nerezi from 1164, the icons “Descent into Hell” and “Assumption” of the late 12th century from the monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai).

In the latest works of the 12th century, the linear stylization of the image is extremely enhanced. And the draperies of clothes and even faces are covered with a network of bright whitewash lines, which play a decisive role in constructing the form. Here, as before, light has the most important symbolic meaning. The proportions of the figures are also stylized, becoming overly elongated and thin. Stylization reaches its maximum manifestation in the so-called late Comnenian mannerism. This term primarily refers to the frescoes of the Church of St. George in Kurbinovo, as well as a number of icons, for example, the “Annunciation” of the late 12th century from the collection in Sinai. In these paintings and icons, the figures are endowed with sharp and rapid movements, the folds of clothing curl intricately, and the faces have distorted, specifically expressive features.

In Russia there are also examples of this style, for example, the frescoes of the Church of St. George in Staraya Ladoga and the reverse of the icon “Savior Not Made by Hands,” which depicts the veneration of angels to the Cross (Tretyakov Gallery).

XIII century

The flourishing of icon painting and other arts was interrupted by the terrible tragedy of 1204. This year, the knights of the Fourth Crusade captured and terribly sacked Constantinople. For more than half a century, the Byzantine Empire existed only in as three separate states with centers in Nicaea, Trebizond and Epirus. The Latin Crusader Empire was formed around Constantinople. Despite this, icon painting continued to develop. The 13th century was marked by several important stylistic phenomena.

Saint Panteleimon in his life. Icon. XIII century. Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai.

Christ Pantocrator. Icon from the Hilandar monastery. 1260s

At the turn of the 12th-13th centuries, a significant change in style occurred in the art of the entire Byzantine world. Conventionally, this phenomenon is called “art around 1200.” Linear stylization and expression in icon painting are replaced by calm and monumentalism. The images become large, static, with a clear silhouette and a sculptural, plastic form. A very characteristic example of this style are the frescoes in the monastery of St. John the Evangelist on the island of Patmos. TO beginning of XIII century there are a number of icons from the monastery of St. Catherine on Sinai: “Christ Pantocrator”, mosaic “Our Lady Hodegetria”, “Archangel Michael” from the Deesis, “St. Theodore Stratilates and Demetrius of Thessalonica." All of them exhibit features of a new direction, making them different from the images of the Comnenian style.

At the same time, a new type of iconography arose. If earlier scenes of the life of a particular saint could be depicted in illustrated Minologies, on epistyles (long horizontal icons for altar barriers), on the doors of folding triptychs, now scenes of life (“stamps”) began to be placed along the perimeter of the middle of the icon, in which
the saint himself is depicted. The hagiographic icons of St. Catherine (full-length) and St. Nicholas (half-length) have been preserved in the collection at Sinai.

In the second half of the 13th century, classical ideals predominated in icon painting. In the icons of Christ and the Mother of God from the Hilandar monastery on Mount Athos (1260s) there is a regular, classical form, the painting is complex, nuanced and harmonious. There is no tension in the images. On the contrary, the living and concrete gaze of Christ is calm and welcoming. In these icons, Byzantine art approached the highest possible degree of proximity of the Divine to the human. In 1280-90 art continued to follow the classical orientation, but at the same time, a special monumentality, power and emphasis of techniques appeared in it. The images showed heroic pathos. However, due to excessive intensity, the harmony decreased somewhat. A striking example of icon painting from the late 13th century is “Matthew the Evangelist” from the icon gallery in Ohrid.

Crusader workshops

A special phenomenon in icon painting are the workshops created in the east by the crusaders. They combined the features of European (Romanesque) and Byzantine art. Here, Western artists adopted the techniques of Byzantine writing, and the Byzantines executed icons close to the tastes of the crusaders who ordered them. As a result
the result was an interesting fusion of two different traditions, intertwined in various ways in each individual work (for example, the frescoes of the Cypriot Church of Antiphonitis). Crusader workshops existed in Jerusalem, Acre,
in Cyprus and Sinai.

Palaiologan period

The founder of the last dynasty of the Byzantine Empire, Michael VIII Palaiologos, returned Constantinople to the hands of the Greeks in 1261. His successor on the throne was Andronikos II (reigned 1282-1328). At the court of Andronikos II, exquisite art flourished magnificently, corresponding to the chamber court culture, which was characterized by excellent education and an increased interest in ancient literature and art.

Palaiologan Renaissance- this is what is commonly called a phenomenon in Byzantine art in the first quarter of the 14th century.

Theodore Stratilates» in the State Assembly meeting. The images on such icons are unusually beautiful and amaze with the miniature nature of the work. The images are either calm,
without psychological or spiritual depth, or, on the contrary, sharply characteristic, as if portraiture. These are the images on the icon with the four saints, also located in the Hermitage.

Many icons painted in the usual tempera technique have also survived. They are all different, the images are never repeated, reflecting different qualities and states. So in the icon “Our Lady of Psychosostria (Soul Savior)” from Ohridhardness and strength are expressed in the icon “Our Lady Hodegetria” from the Byzantine Museum in Thessalonica on the contrary, lyricism and tenderness are conveyed. On the back of “Our Lady of Psychosostria” the “Annunciation” is depicted, and on the paired icon of the Savior on the back is written “The Crucifixion of Christ”, which poignantly conveys pain and sorrow overcome by the power of the spirit. Another masterpiece of the era is the icon “The Twelve Apostles” from the collectionMuseum of Fine Arts. Pushkin. In it, the images of the apostles are endowed with such a bright individuality that it seems that we are looking at a portrait of scientists, philosophers, historians, poets, philologists, and humanists who lived in those years at the imperial court.

All of these icons are characterized by impeccable proportions, flexible movements, imposing poses of figures, stable poses and easy-to-read, precise compositions. There is a moment of entertainment, concreteness of the situation and the presence of the characters in space, their communication.

Similar features were also clearly manifested in monumental painting. But here the Paleologian era brought especially
many innovations in the field of iconography. Many new plots and expanded narrative cycles appeared, and programs became rich in complex symbolism associated with the interpretation of Holy Scripture and liturgical texts. Complex symbols and even allegories began to be used. In Constantinople, two ensembles of mosaics and frescoes from the first decades of the 14th century have been preserved - in the monastery of Pommakarystos (Fitie-jami) and the monastery of Chora (Kahrie-jami). In the depiction of various scenes from the life of the Mother of God and from the Gospel, previously unknown theatricality appeared,
narrative details, literary quality.

Varlaam, who came to Constantinople from Calabria in Italy, and Gregory Palama- scientist-monk with Athos . Varlaam was raised in a European environment and differed significantly from Gregory Palamas and the Athonite monks in matters of spiritual life and prayer. They fundamentally differently understood the tasks and capabilities of man in communication with God. Varlaam adhered to the side of humanism and denied the possibility of any mystical connection between man and God . Therefore, he denied the practice that existed on Athos hesychasm - the ancient Eastern Christian tradition of prayer. Athonite monks believed that when they prayed, they saw the Divine light - that
the most you've ever seen the apostles on Mount Tabor at the moment Transfiguration of the Lord. This light (called Favorian) was understood as a visible manifestation of uncreated Divine energy, permeating the whole world, transforming a person and allowing him to communicate with God. For Varlaam, this light could have an exclusively created character, and no
There could be no direct communication with God and no transformation of man by Divine energies. Gregory Palamas defended hesychasm as originally Orthodox teaching about the salvation of man. The dispute ended with the victory of Gregory Palamas. At the cathedral in
Constantinople in 1352, hesychasm was recognized as true, and Divine energies as uncreated, that is, manifestations of God himself in the created world.
The icons of the time of controversy are characterized by tension in the image, and in artistic terms, a lack of harmony, which only recently became so popular in exquisite court art. An example of an icon from this period is the half-length Deesis image of John the Baptist from the Hermitage collection.

(Despite the fact that they continue to comment on the sixth chapter, and comment well, I am starting to post the seventh).

Style in icon painting

So, is it enough to follow - even if undisputedly, flawlessly - the iconographic canon for an image to be an icon? Or are there other criteria? For some rigorists, with the light hand of famous authors of the twentieth century, style is such a criterion.

In everyday, philistine understanding, style is simply confused with canon. In order not to return to this issue again, we repeat once again that the iconographic canon is the purely literary, nominal side of the image : who, in what clothing, setting, action should be represented in the icon - so, theoretically, even a photograph of costumed extras in famous settings can be flawless from the point of view of iconography. Style is a system of artistic vision of the world that is completely independent of the subject of the image. , internally harmonious and unified, that prism through which the artist - and after him the viewer - looks at everything - be it a grandiose picture of the Last Judgment or the smallest stalk of grass, a house, a rock, a person and every hair on the head of this person. Distinguish individual style the artist (there are infinitely many such styles, or manners, and each of them is unique, being an expression of a unique human soul) - and style in a broader sense, expressing the spirit of an era, nation, school. In this chapter we will use the term “style” only in the second meaning.

So, there is an opinion

as if only those painted in the so-called “Byzantine style” are a real icon. The “academic” or “Italian” style, which in Russia was called “Fryazhsky” in the transitional era, is supposedly a rotten product of the false theology of the Western Church, and a work written in this style is supposedly not a real icon, simply not an icon at all .

Dome of the Cathedral of St. Sofia in Kyiv, 1046

V.A. Vasnetsov. Sketch of the painting of the dome of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv. 1896.

This point of view is false already because the icon as a phenomenon belongs primarily to the Church, while the Church unconditionally recognizes the icon in the academic style. And it recognizes not only at the level of everyday practice, the tastes and preferences of ordinary parishioners (here, as is known, misconceptions, ingrained bad habits, and superstitions can take place). Great saints prayed in front of icons painted in the “academic” style. VIII - XX centuries, monastic workshops worked in this style, including workshops of outstanding spiritual centers such as Valaam or the monasteries of Athos. The highest hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church ordered icons from academic artists. Some of these icons, for example, the works of Viktor Vasnetsov, remain known and loved by the people for several generations, without coming into conflict with the growing Lately the popularity of the “Byzantine” style. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky in the 30s. called V. Vasnetsov and M. Nesterov national geniuses of icon painting, exponents of the cathedral, folk art, an outstanding phenomenon among all Christian peoples who, in his opinion, at that time had no iconography at all in the true sense of the word.

Having pointed out the undoubted recognition of the non-Byzantine icon painting style by the Orthodox Church, we cannot, however, be satisfied with this. The opinion about the contrast between the “Byzantine” and “Italian” styles, about the spirituality of the first and the lack of spirituality of the second, is too widespread to not be taken into account at all. But let us note that this opinion, at first glance justified, is in fact an arbitrary fabrication. Not only the conclusion itself, but also its premises are highly questionable. These very concepts, which we put in quotation marks here for a reason, “Byzantine” and “Italian”, or academic style, are conventional and artificial concepts. The church ignores them, scientific history and art theory also do not know such a simplified dichotomy (we hope there is no need to explain that these terms do not carry any territorial-historical content). They are used only in the context of polemics between partisans of the first and second. And here we are forced to define concepts that are essentially nonsense for us - but which, unfortunately, are firmly entrenched in the philistine consciousness. Above we have already talked about many “ secondary signs"of what is considered the "Byzantine style", but the real divide between the "styles", of course, lies elsewhere. This fictitious and easily digestible opposition for semi-educated people comes down to the following primitive formula: academic style is when it “looks like” from nature (or rather, the founder of the “theology of the icon” L. Uspensky thinks it looks like), and Byzantine style - when it “does not look like” (according to opinion of the same Uspensky). True, the renowned “theologian of the icon” does not give definitions in such a direct form - as, indeed, in any other form. His book is a wonderful example complete absence methodology and absolute voluntarism in terminology. There is no place at all for definitions and basic provisions in this fundamental work; conclusions are immediately laid out on the table, interspersed with preventive kicks to those who are not used to agreeing with conclusions out of nothing. So the formulas “similar - academic - unspiritual” and “dissimilar - Byzantine - spiritual” are nowhere presented by Uspensky in their charming nakedness, but are gradually presented to the reader in small digestible doses with the appearance that these are axioms signed by the fathers of the seven Ecumenical Councils- It’s not for nothing that the book itself is called - no less than - “Theology of the Icon of the Orthodox Church.” To be fair, we add that the original title of the book was more modest and was translated from French as “Theology of the Icon V Orthodox Church,” this little preposition “in” disappeared somewhere in the Russian edition, gracefully identifying the Orthodox Church with a high school dropout without a theological education.

But let's return to the question of style. We call the opposition between “Byzantine” and “Italian” primitive and vulgar because:

a) The idea of ​​what is similar to nature and what is not similar to it is extremely relative. Even for the same person, it can change quite dramatically over time. To bestow your own ideas about similarities with the nature of another person, and even more so of other eras and nations, is more than naive.

b) In figurative fine art of any style and any era, imitation of nature does not consist in passively copying it, but in the skillful transfer of its deep properties, logic and harmony of the visible world, subtle play and unity of correspondences that we constantly observe in Creation.

c) Therefore, in the psychology of artistic creativity, in the audience’s assessment, resemblance to nature is an undoubtedly positive phenomenon. An artist who is sound in heart and mind strives for it, the viewer expects it and recognizes it in the act of co-creation.

d) An attempt at a serious theological substantiation of the depravity of similarity with nature and the blessing of dissimilarity with it would lead either to a logical dead end or to heresy. Apparently, this is why no one has made such an attempt so far.

But in this work, as mentioned above, we refrain from theological analysis. We will limit ourselves to only showing the incorrectness of the division of sacred art into “fallen academic” and “spiritual Byzantine” from the point of view of history and theory of art.

You don’t need to be a great specialist to notice the following: the sacred images of the first group include not only the icons of Vasnetsov and Nesterov, reviled by Uspensky, but also icons of Russian Baroque and Classicism, completely different in style, not to mention all Western European sacred painting - from the Early Renaissance to Tall, from Giotto to Durer, from Raphael to Murillo, from Rubens to Ingres. Inexpressible richness and breadth, entire eras in the history of the Christian world, rising and falling waves of great styles, national and local schools, names of great masters, about whose life, piety, mystical experience we have documentary data much richer than about “traditional” icon painters . All this endless stylistic diversity cannot be reduced to one all-encompassing and a priori negative term.

And what is unhesitatingly called “Byzantine style”? Here we encounter an even cruder, even more unlawful unification under one term of almost two thousand years of history of church painting, with all the diversity of schools and manners: from the extreme, most primitive generalization of natural forms to an almost naturalistic interpretation of them, from extreme simplicity to extreme, deliberate complexity, from passionate expressiveness to the most tender tenderness, from apostolic directness to manneristic delights, from great masters of epoch-making significance to artisans and even amateurs. Knowing (from documents, and not from anyone’s arbitrary interpretations) all the heterogeneity of this huge layer Christian culture, we have no right to evaluate a priori all phenomena that fit the definition of “Byzantine style” as truly ecclesiastical and highly spiritual.

And, finally, what should we do with the huge number of artistic phenomena that stylistically do not belong to one particular camp, but are located on the border between them, or, rather, at their merging? Where do we place the icons by Simon Ushakov, Kirill Ulanov and other icon painters of their circle? Iconography of the western outskirts of the Russian Empire XVI - XVII centuries?

Hodegetria. Kirill Ulanov, 1721

Our Lady of Korsun. 1708 36.7 x 31.1 cm. Private collection, Moscow. Inscription at the bottom right: “(1708) written by Alexy Kvashnin”

"Joy of all who mourn" Ukraine, 17th century.

St. Great Martyrs Barbara and Catherine. 18th century National Museum of Ukraine

Works of artists of the Cretan school XV - XVII centuries, a world-famous refuge for Orthodox craftsmen fleeing the Turkish conquerors? The phenomenon of the Cretan school alone, by its very existence, refutes all speculations opposing the fallen Western manner to the righteous Eastern one. The Cretans carried out the orders of the Orthodox and Catholics. For both, depending on the condition,in manieragreeca or in maniera latina. Often they had, in addition to a workshop in Candia, another one in Venice; Italian artists came from Venice to Crete - their names can be found in the guild registers of Candia. The same masters mastered both styles and could work alternately in one or the other, like, for example, Andreas Pavias, who painted “Greek” and “Latin” icons with equal success in the same years. It happened that compositions in both styles were placed on the doors of the same fold - this is what Nikolaos Ritsos and the artists of his circle did. It happened that a Greek master developed his own special style, synthesizing “Greek” and “Latin” characteristics, like Nikolaos Zafouris.

Andreas Ritsos. con. 15th century

Leaving Crete for Orthodox monasteries, candiot masters improved themselves in the Greek tradition (Theofanis Strelitsas, author of icons and wall paintings of Meteora and the Great Lavra on Athos). Moving to the countries of Western Europe, they worked with no less success in the Latin tradition, nevertheless continuing to recognize themselves as Orthodox, Greeks, Candiots - and even indicate this in the signatures on their works. The most striking example is Domenikos Theotokopoulos, later called El Greco. His icons, painted in Crete, undeniably satisfy the most stringent requirements of the “Byzantine” style, traditional materials and technology, and iconographic canonicity.

His paintings from the Spanish period are known to everyone, and their stylistic affiliation with the Western European school is also undoubted.

But Master Domenikos himself did not make any essential distinction between the two. He always signed in Greek, he preserved the typically Greek way of working from samples and surprised Spanish customers by presenting them - to simplify negotiations - with a kind of homemade iconographic original, standard compositions of the most common subjects he had developed.

In the special geographical and political conditions of the existence of the Cretan school, it always manifested itself in a particularly bright and concentrated form. the inherent unity of Christian art in the main - and mutual interest, mutual enrichment of schools and cultures . Attempts by obscurantists to interpret such phenomena as theological and moral decadence, as something originally unusual for Russian icon painting, are untenable from either theological or historical-cultural points of view. Russia has never been an exception to this rule, and it was precisely to the abundance and freedom of contacts that it owed the flourishing of national icon painting.

But then what about the famous controversy? XVII V. about icon painting styles? What, then, about the division of Russian church art into two branches: “spirit-bearing traditional” and “fallen Italianizing”? We cannot turn a blind eye to these all-too-famous (and too-well-understood)phenomena. We will talk about them - but, unlike icon theologians popular in Western Europe, we will not attribute to these phenomena a spiritual meaning that they do not have.

The “style debate” took place in difficult political conditions and against the background church schism. The clear contrast between the refined works of centuries-old polished national style and the first awkward attempts to master the “Italian” style gave the ideologists of “holy antiquity” a powerful weapon, which they were not slow to use. The fact that traditional icon painting XVII V. no longer possessed strength and vitality XV century, and, becoming more and more frozen, deviating into detail and embellishment, marched towards the Baroque in its own way, they preferred not to notice. All their arrows are directed against “lifelikeness” - this term, coined by Archpriest Avvakum, is, by the way, extremely inconvenient for its opponents, suggesting as the opposite a kind of “deathlikeness”.

St. Righteous Grand Duke George
1645, Vladimir, Assumption Cathedral.

Solovki, second quarter of the 17th century.

Nevyansk, beginning 18th century

St. Venerable Nifont
turn of the 17th-18th centuries Permian,
Art Gallery

Shuya Icon of the Mother of God
Fyodor Fedotov 1764
Isakovo, Museum of Icons of the Mother of God

We will not quote in our summary the arguments of both sides, not always logical and theologically justified. We will not subject it to analysis - especially since such works already exist. But we should still remember that since we do not take the theology of the Russian schism seriously, we are in no way obliged to see the indisputable truth in the schismatic “theology of the icon.” And even more so, we are not obliged to see the indisputable truth in the superficial, biased and divorced from Russian cultural fabrications about the icon, which are still widespread in Western Europe. Those who like to repeat easily digestible incantations about the “spiritual Byzantine” and “fallen academic” styles would do well to read the works of true professionals who lived their entire lives in Russia, through whose hands thousands of ancient icons passed - F. I. Buslaev, N. V. Pokrovsky, N. P. Kondakova. All of them saw the conflict between the “old manner” and “livelikeness” much more deeply and soberly, and were not at all partisans of Avvakum and Ivan Pleshkovich, with their “gross split and ignorant Old Belief”. All of them stood for artistry, professionalism and beauty in icon painting and denounced carrion, cheap handicrafts, stupidity and obscurantism, even if in the purest “Byzantine style”.

The objectives of our research do not allow us to dwell on the controversy for long XVII V. between representatives and ideologists of two directions in Russian church art. Let us turn rather to the fruits of these directions. One of them did not impose any stylistic restrictions on artists and self-regulated through orders and subsequent recognition or non-recognition of icons by clergy and laity, the other, conservative, for the first time in history tried to prescribe to icon painters art style, the subtlest, deeply personal instrument of knowledge of God and the created world.

The sacred art of the first, main direction, being closely connected with the life and culture of the Orthodox people, underwent a certain period of reorientation and, having somewhat changed technical techniques, ideas about convention and realism, the system of spatial constructions, continued in its best representatives the sacred mission of knowledge of God in images. The knowledge of God is truly honest and responsible, not allowing the artist’s personality to hide under the mask of an external style.

And what happened at this time, from the end XVII to XX c., with “traditional” icon painting? We put this word in quotation marks because in reality this phenomenon not at all traditional, but unprecedented: until now icon painting style was at the same time a historical style, a living expression of the spiritual essence of the era and nation, and only now one of these styles froze in immobility and declared itself the only true one.

St. Reverend Evdokia
Nevyansk, Ivan Chernobrovin, 1858

Nevyansk, 1894
(all Old Believer icons for this posting are taken )

This replacement of a living effort to communicate with God by an irresponsible repetition of well-known formulas significantly lowered the level of icon painting in the “traditional manner.” The average “traditional” icon of this period, in its artistic and spiritual-expressive qualities, is significantly lower not only than icons of earlier eras, but also contemporary icons painted in an academic manner - due to the fact that any even talented artist sought to master the academic manner , seeing in it a perfect instrument for understanding the visible and invisible world, and in Byzantine techniques - only boredom and barbarism. And we cannot but recognize this understanding of things as healthy and correct, since this boredom and barbarism were indeed inherent in the “Byzantine style”, which had degenerated in the hands of artisans, and were its late, shameful contribution to the church treasury. It is very significant that those very few high-class masters who were able to “find themselves” in this historically dead style did not work for the Church. The clients of such icon painters (usually Old Believers) were for the most part not monasteries or parish churches, but individual amateur collectors. Thus, the very purpose of the icon for communication with God and knowledge of God became secondary: at best, such a masterfully painted icon became an object of admiration, at worst, an object of investment and acquisition. This blasphemous substitution distorted the meaning and specificity of the work of the “old-fashioned” icon painters. Let us note this significant term with a clear flavor of artificiality and counterfeit. Creative work, which was once a deeply personal service to the Lord in the Church and for the Church, has undergone degeneration, even to the point of outright sinfulness: from a talented imitator to a talented forger is one step.

Let us recall the classic story by N. A. Leskov “The Sealed Angel.” A famous master, at the cost of so much effort and sacrifice, found by the Old Believer community, who values ​​his sacred art so highly. who flatly refuses to dirty his hands with a secular order turns out to be, in essence, a virtuoso master of forgery. He paints an icon with a light heart, not in order to consecrate it and place it in a church for prayer, but then, by using cunning techniques to cover the painting with cracks, wiping it with oily mud, to turn it into an object for substitution. Even if Leskov’s heroes were not ordinary swindlers, they only wanted to return the image unjustly seized by the police - is it possible to assume that the virtuoso dexterity of this imitator of antiquity was acquired by him exclusively in the sphere of such “righteous fraud”? And what about the Moscow masters from the same story, selling icons of marvelous “antique” work to gullible provincials? Under the layer of the most delicate colors of these icons, demons are discovered drawn on gesso, and cynically deceived provincials throw away the “hell-like” image in tears... The next day the scammers will restore it and sell it again to another victim who is ready to pay any money for the “true” one, i.e. -an ancient written icon...

This is the sad but inevitable fate of a style that is not connected with the personal spiritual and creative experience of the icon painter, a style divorced from the aesthetics and culture of its time. Due to cultural tradition, we call icons not only the works of medieval masters, for whom their style was not stylization, but a worldview. We call icons both cheap images thoughtlessly stamped by mediocre artisans (monks and laymen), and the works of “old-timers” that are brilliant in their performing technique. XVIII - XX centuries, sometimes originally intended by the authors as fakes. But this product has no preemptive right to the title of icon in the church sense of the word. Neither in relation to contemporary icons of the academic style, nor in relation to any stylistically intermediate phenomena, nor in relation to the icon painting of our days. Any attempts to dictate the artist's style for reasons extraneous to art, intellectual and theoretical considerations, are doomed to failure. Even if the sophisticated icon painters are not isolated from the medieval heritage (as was the case with the first Russian emigration), but have access to it (as, for example, in Greece). It is not enough to “discuss and decide” that the “Byzantine” icon is much holier than the non-Byzantine one or even has a monopoly on holiness - one must also be able to reproduce the style declared to be the only sacred one, but no theory will provide this. Let us give the floor to Archimandrite Cyprian (Pyzhov), an icon painter and the author of a number of unfairly forgotten articles on icon painting:

“Currently in Greece there is an artificial revival of the Byzantine style, which is expressed in the mutilation of beautiful forms and lines and, in general, the stylistically developed, spiritually sublime creativity of the ancient artists of Byzantium. The modern Greek icon painter Kondoglu, with the assistance of the Synod of the Greek Church, released a number of reproductions of his production, which cannot but be recognized as mediocre imitations of the famous Greek artist Panselin... Admirers of Kondoglu and his disciples say that saints “should not look like real people” - like who are they supposed to look like?! The primitiveness of such an interpretation is very harmful to those who see and superficially understand the spiritual and aesthetic beauty of ancient icon painting and reject its surrogates, offered as examples of the supposedly restored Byzantine style. Often the manifestation of enthusiasm for the “ancient style” is insincere, revealing only in its supporters pretentiousness and the inability to distinguish between genuine art and crude imitation.”

Eleusa.
Fotis Kondoglu, 1960s, below - the same brushes of Hodegetria and Self-Portrait.

The Athos style of icon painting was formed by the mid-19th century. At this time, Russia, the largest and richest Orthodox power, is experiencing unprecedented prosperity. A huge number of temples and monasteries are being built around the world. Icon-painting workshops are being created in large monasteries, including Athos and Valaam. It is in these icon painting workshops that a unique style of icon painting is created, called “Athos”. His distinctive features- golden, embossed backgrounds, the finest painting of faces, the use of oil paints instead of egg tempera.

Iveron Icon of the Mother of God, fragment, Athos, 19th century.

St. Sergius and Herman, fragment, Valaam, 19th century.

We must understand that the creation of an icon is a living process, directly related to prayer practice. Many monks on Mount Athos, under the guidance of experienced elders, practiced the Jesus Prayer and remained in contemplation and vision of the Tabor Light. The Mother of God and the saints appeared to many of them. I think it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that they lived surrounded by saints and angels. And at some point, they were no longer satisfied with the abstract Byzantine style, which by that time had turned into an endless repetition of the same conventional, schematic images. The fathers began to paint more vivid images, trying to make the “invisible” “visible,” but without crossing the line that turns a face into a face, and an icon into a portrait. It happened that way character traits Athonite style - golden, shimmering, embossed backgrounds - a symbol of the Light of Tabor, transparent layers of paint, subtle transitions of light and shadow giving the icon an internal glow, and realistic writing of the faces. Icons began to be painted in a similar manner in Russia, including on Valaam.

At this time, Byzantine and Greek icon painting was in decline. Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, which of course did not contribute to the flourishing of icon painting. The faces on the icons became more and more sketchy, the images more and more superficial and primitive. Things were no better in Russia. Numerous icon painting artels in Moscow, Yaroslavl, Nizhny Novgorod, Palekh, customer-oriented, most which, the merchant class, turned the icon into an interior decoration item, a kind of Palekh box. Usually the faces on such icons become something secondary, lost in numerous ornaments and decorative curls.

Icon painting workshop on Mount Athos. 19th century

Russian and Athonite masters are moving away from the schematic nature of late Byzantine designs and the decorative overload of Russians; return the icon to its original, spiritual meaning.

Our workshop, to the best of its modest strength, and with God’s help, hopes to revive this wonderful tradition of icon painting, and with all our hearts hopes that our icons will help everyone striving for perfection in Christ, purification of the heart, and the acquisition of Divine Love.

Academic style

Icons in the academic style can be seen in almost every church. And if the temple is from the 18th or 19th centuries, then icons in the academic style, as a rule, make up the majority of the temple icons. And at the same time, the academic style of icon painting causes heated controversy both among icon painters and connoisseurs of icon painting. The essence of the controversy is as follows. Supporters of the Byzantine style, who create icons “in the canon,” accuse icons in the academic style of lacking spirituality and a departure from the traditions of icon painting.

Will try to understand these accusations. First about spirituality. Let's start with the fact that spirituality is a rather subtle and elusive matter; there are no tools for determining spirituality, and everything in this area is extremely subjective. And if someone claims that miraculous image The Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, painted in the academic style, and, according to legend, saved St. Petersburg during the war, is less spiritual than a similar icon in the Byzantine style... let this statement remain on his conscience.

Usually, as an argument, you can hear such statements. They say that icons in the academic style have physicality, rosy cheeks, sensual lips, etc. In fact, the predominance of the sensual, carnal principle in the icon is not a problem of style, but of low professional level individual icon painters. One can cite many examples of icons painted in the “canon” itself, where the “cardboard” inexpressive face is lost in numerous curls of extremely sensual decorations, ornaments, etc.

Now about the departure of the academic style from the traditions of icon painting. The history of icon painting goes back more than one thousand five hundred years. And now in Athonite monasteries you can see blackened, ancient icons dating from the 7th to 10th centuries. But the heyday of icon painting in Byzantium occurred at the end of the 13th century, and is associated with the name of Panselin, the Greek Andrei Rublev. Panselin's paintings in Karey have reached us. Another outstanding Greek icon painter, Theophanes of Crete, worked on Mount Athos at the beginning of the 16th century. He created paintings in the Stavronikita monastery and in the refectory of the Great Lavra. In Rus', the icons of Andrei Rublev are rightly recognized as the pinnacle of icon painting.

If we take a closer look at this entire almost two-thousand-year history of icon painting, we will discover its amazing diversity. The first icons were painted using the encaustic technique (paints based on hot wax). This fact alone refutes the popular belief that a “real” icon must necessarily be painted in egg tempera. Moreover, the style of these early icons is much closer to icons in the academic style than to the “canon”. This is not surprising. To paint icons, the first icon painters took as a basis Fayum portraits, images of real people that were created using the encaustic technique.

Christ Pantocrator. Sinai.
7th century
encaustic

Savior. Andrey Rublev.
15th century
tempera

Lord Almighty. V. Vasnetsov
19th century
oil

Look at the examples above. After this, it is hardly possible to say with confidence that the icons in the academic style of V. Vasnetsov were a departure from the icon-painting tradition.

In fact, the tradition of icon painting, like everything in this world, develops cyclically. By the 18th century, the so-called "canonical" style had declined everywhere. In Greece and the Balkan countries this is partly due to the Turkish conquest, in Russia with Peter’s reforms. But this is not the main reason. Man’s perception of the world and his attitude towards the world around him, including the spiritual world, is changing. 19th century man perceived the world differently than a person of the 13th century. And icon painting is not an endless repetition of the same patterns according to the drawings, but a living process based both on the religious experience of the icon painter himself and on the perception of the spiritual world by the entire generation.

Icon painting workshop Northern Athos. 2013
Icon in academic style.

Valaam Icon of the Mother of God
(fragment, face)
Icon painting workshop Northern Athos. 2010
Icon in Athonite style

The birth of a new icon-painting tradition is associated with the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon, and the organization of icon-painting workshops at the monastery. The so-called “Athos style” originated there. Russian icon painters made some changes to the traditional technique of painting icons.

First of all, they abandoned egg tempera. Despite the strong opinion that tempera paints are highly durable, reality spoke otherwise. In a damp climate, tempera paints quickly became moldy and became covered with a cloudy, white coating. The situation was complicated by sea air. The salt settled on the icons and corroded the paint layer. I had occasion to see modern icons painted in egg tempera on Mount Athos. After 3-4 years they already required serious restoration. Therefore, Athonite masters abandoned tempera and switched to oil paints.

Another feature of Athonite Russian icons was the gold chased backgrounds. Theologically, the golden background in the icon symbolized the Light of Tabor. The doctrine of the Light of Tabor, first formulated by St. Dionysius the Areopagite was very popular on Mount Athos. To this was added the practice of the Jesus Prayer, which made it possible to purify the soul to such an extent that the Light of Tabor became visible and bodily vision. In addition to theological considerations, the use of a gold chased background also had its own aesthetics. The candlelight reflected in the numerous facets of the coinage, creating a golden shimmer effect.

Over time, in addition to the workshop in the monastery of St. Panteleimon, icon painting workshops were opened in Ilyinsky, Andreevsky and other large Russian monasteries. Almost simultaneously, in Russia, icon painting workshops opened on Valaam.

Also in Moscow and St. Petersburg, graduates of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts are beginning to engage in icon painting. The most talented of them, K. Bryullov, N. Bruni, V. Vereshchagin, V. Vasnetsov, created icons, which later became known as icons in the academic style.