Excerpted from Lesson 5 of THE TECHNIQUE OF ICONOGRAPHY: Method and Teachings of Xenia Pokrovskaya and the IZOGRAPH SCHOOL OF ICONOGRAPHY. Text written by Marek Czarnecki, copyright 2003 held by Izograph.
Drawing, designing and composing an icon is the subject for an entire book. As we begin to learn to write icons, paint icons if you will, the best way is to copy good, solid, classical, fundamental prototypes. How do we determine which are the best to use? For the outsider or beginner, all icons look the same ― whether Greek, Russian, classical Byzantine, Old Believer style, folk types, icons influenced by western naturalism and icons mass-produced in artistic workshops for tourism revenue.
Before we discuss technique, we need to establish some criteria.
What kind of icons will we write?
Today, iconography is at the stage of archaeology; we are rediscovering a phenomenon that for the most part remains hidden, remote and unpracticed. As you write icons, you will see the puzzled astonishment of family and friends who will say to you: “You mean people still make icons? I thought they were only in museums and old churches!” Here in the United States where the tradition is very new, we know icons only from reproductions in books. We cannot venture off to St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai desert, the Benaki Museum in Athens, the Tretkyov in Moscow or even our parish church to examine prototypes first hand. As an iconographer, one of your most important resources is your own library of books on iconography, which contain good clear, color reproductions of prototypes.
Nothing substitutes for seeing actual icons. If you are able, make every effort to travel to where you can observe the great icons masterpieces first hand. Reproductions in books never accurately convey the living presence, the human touch, material construction, texture and subtlety of the colors in the real icon. Books are a pragmatic, and for most of us, necessary tool, but they can only be trusted up to a point. Try finding the same icon reproduced in different books and you will see this is not an argument about nuance or taste —the differences are radical.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 25, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Daniel Werner
If an experienced iconographer happens to read this blog post, could you please list as many good icon books as you can. Preferably ones with good reproductions and is still in print.
February 28, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Marek Czarnecki
In her upcoming book “Hidden and Triumphant” (I can’t say enough good things about this book), Irina Yazikova writes that in some ways, circumstances for iconographers in the 21st century have never been better . We have unprecedented access to a huge body of icons, through books and the internet. But there is no substitute for seeing real icons, or working with a teacher. We are writing a book on iconography, and I promise you that the first sentence will be “It is impossible to learn iconography from a book”.
I built my own library from browsing and borrowing books from my teacher’s library. The icon museum in Clinton MA also has a good library of books to browse; a visit to any iconographer-friend’s home means spending some time looking through their bookshelves. I have dozens of books on iconography, and I still feel that none of them are adequate, or that I have enough. I am always looking for more, and better books.
The technical process of printing has improved so much over the past 25 years. What’s difficult, is getting books from the countries, like Greece and Russia, where the best icon collections are kept (they have poor publicity and distribution). When you can get them, they can be expensive.
I looked on my bookshelf, and these are some of the books I reference most often, and are the core of my own library. I hope this helps, I encourage other readers of this blog to add their own essential titles :
“Modern Orthodox Icon- St. Petersburg” Troitsa Publishers, Moscow 5-85482-115-x- fantastic reproductions, of contemporary iconographers’ work.
“Contemporary Icon Painting, Moscow” 5-88149-256-0, Kameron Publishers, Moscow. Great survey of many different historical styles being used by contemporary iconographers. Very clear prototypes.
“Novgorod Icons, 12th-17th century” by D. Likhachov. Aurora Publishers, Leningrad. Out of print. Important survey of one of the most important schools of iconography. No isbn.
The Novgorod Tabletki icons from St. Sophia church are an important foundation for any iconographer interested in learning the visual grammar of iconography. There are 2 books, “The Double Faced Tablets from St. Sophia Cathedral” by V.N. Lasarev, Iskusstvo Publishers, 1983 (no isbn) and “The Two Sided tablets from St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod” isbn 5-7235-03-18-9, Eurocrom Publishers, Moscow, 2007. The 2007 edition is the better of the two, the reproductions are so good you can see the individual grains of paint on the icons.
“The Cretan Painter Theophanis” by M. Chatzidakis, Stavronikita Monastery, Athos, 1986 (no isbn) and “Icons of Dionysius Monastery” (isbn 960-85894-8-7) are both good compendiums of many diverse subjects and saints. This late Greek style can be stiff, but the icons are clear.
Acheimastou-Potamianou “Icons of the Byzantine Museum of Athens” published by the Archaeological Receipts Fund, Athens, 1998, isbn 960-214-911-6. Good survey of one of the best colelctions.
“Icons of the Cretan School” by M. Chatzidakis et al, no isbn, Crete Ministry of Culture, 1993. An exhibition catalogue of Cretan icons from international collections and museums.
The exhibition catalogue “Byzantium, Faith and Power” from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, N.Y., isbn 1-58839-113-2
When you look for reference books for yourself, make sure that in the reproductions you can see the drawing of the icon clearly, as well as how the icon is modeled. I find the “podliniki” books (collections of drawings and pattern books for icon) are difficult to use, have eclectic drawings, and don’t recommend them. Besides, you should be making your own drawings.
A few good American sources for buying books on iconography are
Iconofile (http://www.iconofile.com/) also has a good selection, they add new titles from time to time, so check them often. George O Hanlon, the director of Iconofile, has also compiled DVD’s with reproductions of hundreds of icons.
St. Nectarios Press; (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/catalog/default2.htm); they have primarily books on Greek iconography.
Light and Life Publishers (http://www.light-n-life.com/), for books on both icons and Orthodox spirituality.
There is also Icon & Book Service in Washington DC- (202)526-6061
Alexandre Press in Montreal has great books on Greek icons- http://www.alexanderpress.com/books.html
Father Ilya Gotlinsky, pastor of Dormition Parish in Binghamton NY (he can be contacted through his website at http://www.orthodoxtours.com.) In addition to leading fantastic tours to Russia, he always comes home with the latest books on Russian iconography.
ABE.com is a great place to find out of print books, even internationally.
March 1, 2010 at 1:51 am
hexaemeron
Excellent article on Again And Again: “In the Church, all is iconic: http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/in-the-church-all-is-iconic/
March 1, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Daniel Werner
Marek,
Thanks for this list. Could you explain to me what you mean by “Besides, you should be making your own drawings.” and how one should go about doing this. You are the third Iconographer who has given me this advice. There seems to be a tension ( and for some people a dichotomy) within Church ‘s thought these days between legal demands of Church cannon and artistic creativity, Traditional vs. Modern, East vs. West, Russian vs. Greek, Formalism vs. Expressionism, Naturalism vs. Symbolism, and on and on. As an Iconographer, could you ( and anyone else who wants to jump in) speak a bit on this confusing subject?
March 1, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Mary Lowell
Daniel,
I will try to get a response from Ksenia on this. This is an important question. It may take a little while. So have patience.
March 6, 2010 at 2:23 am
Marek Czarnecki
Sure. Let me take a stab at this, but what’s hard about replying, is that your question is very broad. The other issues you mention, of ecumenism, creativity, diversity or hierchy of historical and ethnic styles, are separate topics to mull over in themselves.
When I wrote that you should be making your own drawings, I am asking you to get inside the icon as much as possible, and do whatever it takes to put yourself there, artistically and spiritually. You cannot become an iconographer without first copying historical icons; only this way can you absorb the semantic language, aesthetics and theology of the icon.
The iconographer Mother Juliana, (in secular life, Maria Sokolova, b.1899-d.1981) was pivotal in preserving iconography from Soviet obliteration. She said that it was selfish for iconographers to make new prototypes of icons. She felt that what already existed was adequate, and well defined; “the revelation was complete”. She witnessed hundreds of thousands of icons (this number is not a hyperbole, other iconologists write “millions”) were thrown into the bonfires of the Communist liberation of the proletariat. In the context of this irretrievable loss, her opinion is poignantly understandable. She was awestruck by the icons she encountered first hand; her pronouncment is a testament to her modesty. While she was working with scorched earth, here in the USA, we don’t even have a scant foundation to build from. Our work is more formidable than hers.
I would steer you away from using pattern books (called “podliniki” in Russian) that are compendiums of black and white line drawings. Unless you already know how to write an icon, these old patterns are useless. They cripple your own ability to look inside old prototypes (by this, I mean actual icons that can be used as models). They also enforce passivity, and confirm the pervasive prejudice that iconography is simply mechanical copy work, or paint-by-numbers. You also blindly repeat the idiosyncracies of these patterns.
I once studied with an iconographer that only let us work with his drawings. They were his personal interpretations; we were being indoctrinated into his particular, eccentric vision (and it was very eccentric). We were never told to open a book and look at old icons; we were taught to always look at him as the primary source of authenticity. When we asked “Why is it what you teach us is not in churches, books, or museums?” he told us, “because they did not know then what I know now.”
We train our students by first, tracing stable prototypes. By stable, I mean prototypes that are semantically correct, aesthetically adequate, and theologically sound. The consensus is that the height of the historical tradition was in all Byzantine icons (from the founding of Constantinople to its fall), and icons from all different Orthodox countries (Russia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc) from the 13th to the 16th centuries. These three qualities (semantics, aesthetics, and theology) are what define icons and make them distinctive among all other types of religious art, and are particularly clear in this body of iconography.
I will never forget the first time I studied with Ksenia Pokrovsky; she handed me a prototype,-a simple face of an angel- and said “Trace it and find every line.” I looked at her puzzled, and thought… this woman thinks I’m an idiot…she thinks I can‘t even trace a picture. I said to her, “But every line is already here!”. She replied, “Show me you know where they are” and then as she left me to work alone, giggled “Good luck!”. After a frustrating hour and a half, I showed her my drawing, and she showed me how I had missed half of it. She very patiently retraced every missing line, and explained its function in the icon, and its relationship to every other line in the icon, as well as its context within the wholeness of the composition.
I found that if I immediately let students copy icons by making freehand drawings, they will inadvertently distort and not understand the wholeness of what they are copying. These are mistakes made absolutely unconsciously. So I start everyone with tracing. In time, we make our drawings free hand, from models and from memory, but only once a lot of the icon’s content has been absorbed, and is second nature.
We often compare learning iconography to learning classical music; first we have to learn fingering, then scales and chords. Our work is not necessarily to make new music, but to first find ourselves playing the repertoire of compositions that already exist. Musicians can make whole careers from playing one specific composer’s music (think of Glen Gould and Bach) and they are completely satisfied.
Or better, the performer feels awestruck in some infinite space of genius where they will never find the basement, or ceiling. The most successful performer is the one that comes as close as possible to the composer’s intent, filtered through the inevitability of individual expression, which can add or subtract to the result; it depends. Even if a musician decides to move on and become a composer, this is a separate vocation. Regardless, they must first feel themselves alive inside of what already exists, and become a living medium.
Maria Callas never complained of singing Verdi, she just felt herself discovering more and more, deeper and deeper, as she sang the same aria, performance after performance, night after night, until her voice gave out.
Out of awe, we try to understand what the iconographers who came before us did so naturally. It is hubris to think we can start from nothing., or from ourselves.
March 8, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Daniel Werner
Marek,
Your comparison of studying Iconography to studying classical music is very helpful. My diffuculty in studying has been between 1.) The icons I make from tracings having a stuffyness or rigidity and my feeling spiritually distant from the work. vs. 2.) When I make my own drawing I feel a greater spiritual kind of connection to it but it lacks the external qualities of “tradition”.
Thank you. You took a very good stab at my very broad all encompasing question. I have several years worth of complicated thinking poured into these subjects. I work in a quiet underground storage facility and have a lot of time to think and very little time to paint
I could draw an analogy from prayer. One duitifully recite prayers from a prayer book without being spiritually “engaged” as it were. the prayer might be theologically profound, but there is no heart in it. on the other hand one may write their own prayers which may or may not be stupid sounding in comparsion to the prayer book but it rises to heaven like flame, because the heart is sincerly united with the mind.
The broadness of my question stems from not knowing how to ask precisly whats in my heart. I suppose my fear is that history will repeat itself in a slightly different way by people in the church taking a view that one period or region in history is spiritually superior to all others and get all teary eyed and nostalgic, then start a movement to “get back” to the good old days. Then they demonize all deviations they consider “impure”. While I agree my whole heart that the Byzantine tradition attianed the highest cooperative achievement with the Holy Spirit in the human endeavors of art and theology, I don’t understand why art standing outside that tradition is not Iconic for example the Book of Kells, or maybe the Romanesque stone carvings and murals like those at Berze la Ville. The Renaisssance and Baroque movments are a little more easy for me to mentally part with, but the Italian trencento and some quattrocento painters I am quite fond of especially Duccio and Martini. Martini’s Annunciation…. what can I say? Yes, it is definitly not byzantine, but is it really not an icon?