As many of you know, I am an artist, and have been selling my art for several years now. I have recently decided to get into icon painting - or "writing", as it is called. Many people have suggested that I get into this, because my art is pretty geometric and abtract, and that is basically the way icons are. It seems like it would be a good fit, and a good way to combine my various interests and skills. As an aside, I have never been able to figure out why many Christians do not like abstract, or non-realistic art (especially in churches) when so much Christian art, from all over the world, and going back centuries, was that way. It really makes you wonder if these people have ever actually looked at medieval art. Most have not. But that gripe is for another post! Suffice it to say that most Christian art is more abstract than realistic. Anyone who disagrees needs to just visit a few more museums, read a few more books, and study art history. (And please note that "abstract" is different from "non-representational". Van Gogh and Picasso are "abstract"; Pollock and Rothko are "non-representational".)
Okay, so back to icons...
Living, as I do, near Washington D.C., I went to the Icon and Book Service recently to buy a book on the subject of icon writing. And now that I have several boards primed and ready to go, I will soon begin my first two icons. Once they are done I will post pictures of them. A lot of people think that icons do not belong in an Anglican parish, because they are so "eastern". But I have actually seen them in many ECUSA and continuing parishes. Transfiguration, in Manhattan, has them, as does my home parish, and our diocesan pro-cathedral (St. Alban's, Oviedo, FL). I think they fit in just fine as long as they are put in the right place and the church isn't covered with them. An Anglican church should not be covered with icons. They should be taastefully used here and there, keeping with that English spirit of moderation in all things.
Icon writing originally did not appeal to me as an artist because the aim is to copy exisiting icons as closely as possible (in style and manner of painting/priming). This goes against every canon taught in contemporary art academies (except a few). In most art schools today, individualism is held in the highest esteem. But when you think about it, there is nothing wrong with following traditions. Tradition is something that is living. And frankly, even postmodern , secularist artists follow "traditions". The postmodern, secularist artistic tradition usually has something to do with chain smoking (Lucky Strikes, or rolling your own), sleeping with your model and also some of her friends, hating organized religion (read: Christianity), drinking a lot, and wearing black all the time. Oh, and you have to eventually make your way to the holy Mt. Zion of the art world - NYC - to visit the haunts of Warhol, DeKooning, Rothenburg, and the other secular "artist-saints". So, everyone has traditions that they follow. The question is: which tradition will one follow? And even when one follows a tradition there is always a unique style that emerges, because each person is unique. Icon writing may be thought of like regular writing: two people will write the same word, with the same pen in cursive script, but it will look very different, because everyone's handwriting is different. The same with painting. Even with specific instructions, and following the same model, slight (or sometimes very great) differences will appear in two artists' works. So once I thought about all of that, I overcame my aversion to painting traditional icons.
Lord willing, this is just the beginning of my artistic/theological masterplan, which I hope to make my life's work, and about which I will reflect on (here) from time to time.
