Strange icons

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
rakovsky said:
They (or at least the Trinity one) were considered Masonic ikons and that there was a religious problem with the depiction of the Trinity as a result.
There is no need for the existence of a masonic connection in the origin and painting of these images, There is a multitude of things wrong with all of them, not just the one of the Trinity, to render them completely and utterly unsuitable for veneration as icons.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Iconodule said:
biro said:
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.
Michał said:
Actually, it's masonic: http://goo.gl/vZWb9
Checkerboard floor is a giveaway, FYI. No idea why.

In the movie I mentioned above, it shows Nostradamus' tomb by a checker floor too.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
LBK said:
since acrylic is a synthetic paint that is only 50 or so years old, it is not time tested and moreso, looks rather bright and garish
Do not think that egg tempera is automatically more subdued in tone than acrylics. We are used to seeing old tempera icons under a layer of darkened olifa varnish, and centuries-old frescoes and murals (any painting, not just iconography) under decades or centuries of soot and grime, whether or not a top coat of varnish has been applied. The work of art restorers and conservators constantly proves this.
LBK,

Actually, for the most part, I am used to seeing relatively young (or brand new) egg tempera icons.  Nearly all of the icons in my church that are not the frescoes are painted by either our Matuschka (Mat. Anne Margitich) or Fr. Patrick Doolan, both of whom studied under Leonid Ouspensky in Paris before he reposed.  Nearly every acrylic icon I have seen has looked bright and garish in comparison (most notably those at the Antiochian parish where I grew up).
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,237
Reaction score
27
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
Anybody know who the four figures are who are pouring the water?

This is the ceiling of a baptistry.

 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,237
Reaction score
27
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
I'm not so sure...they don't have halos.

One is pouring water from a pitcher, and the other has water coming from her hands.

At first I thought it was the four corners of the earth?  Four directions?  Four season?  

I have no idea.

Here's another pic, so you can see the baptismal font, below the images.


 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There is little of direct reference to four streams or four sources of water in the hymnography of either the baptismal service, or the feast of Theophany, nor the Great Blessing of Water, nor in St John Chrysostom's homily on the latter feast. In all four texts, the water of the Jordan, and of the baptismal font, is constantly referred to in plural form: waters, streams, etc. On this basis, unless I or others discover anything more concrete, it is safe to say that these four figures are purely decorative.

There is an inscription in white lettering on the right-hand side of the baptistry ceiling. While I think it is most likely a commemoration of patronage and/or of the iconographer, is there any chance, Liza, that you could post an enlargement of this section?  :)
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,237
Reaction score
27
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
There you are!  I was awaiting your input!!!  :)

Yes, I will enlarge that section and post.

However, it's probably a "commemoration", as they were everywhere...."in memory of...., for the health of....."
 

LenInSebastopol

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
^ They're horrible! The holy ones on the iconostasis look ghastly, emaciated, ravaged, with a deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes, bordering on naked terror. Might be OK in a medieval Gothic church, but there is no place for such travesties in an Orthodox church! Whoever painted these images has NO idea of what iconography is. Where is the gravitas, stillness, dignity, reverence and spiritual power that good and proper icons possess and proclaim? What a crying shame that a beautiful iconostasis, made by skilled hands, has been spoiled by these artistic flights of fancy. Shameful.
Look at the outside of the church.
It looks like those people who would live in that kind of place.
Forgive me, but as a catechumen and totally unstudied in iconography, those definitely do not look "ideal" and fulfill your definitions above (thanks, I needed those words, due to my status).
And I do not want those to be my "ideal" of heaven.....but the function they serve is to remind me that getting to look like your ideal, one must look like them here on Earth....or at least the "better" ones probably did.
 

LenInSebastopol

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
BoredMeeting said:
LBK said:
Dominika said:
This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  :mad: :mad: :mad:
Really? Can you document when and where it was first written?
Read post #109. And the image posted here was painted by Christine Uveges, a Byzantine Catholic, and used in Right to Life marches and campaigns. I have also seen the same composition painted by other artists, and used for the same purpose. The artist herself is on public record with this statement:

[size=10pt][size=10pt]Every year we are in Washington D.C. at the ProLife Rally[/size][/size]
And the artist has authorised that copies of this image are handed out during these rallies.

I repeat: the use of iconography to promote sociopolitical causes, even "good" ones, is a shameful debasement of what icons are and stand for.
No doubt, you are right. And it is true, two wrongs do not make a right.
And it is effective.
10,000 words is conveyed in a single pictograph. And for those women who have known Christ and forgotten in their hours of need, pray this reminds them.
We are NOT in heaven yet, Father. Some of us are left here on Earth to fight for what is good, true and beautiful.
There are sheep, there are shepherds and then there are sheep dogs who fight the wolves that will devour your flock. Let those that are sheep dogs fight the ones that do evil. Fast and pray.


Lord, forgive me, a sinner.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,237
Reaction score
27
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
I understand the icon, I've just never seen the Vine sprouting from Christ's side like that.



 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LenInSebastopol said:
10,000 words is conveyed in a single pictograph.


If you are sharing the road with me, I hope you are capable of reading very quickly.
 

DuxI

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Skopje
rakovsky said:
A person interviewed who was close to Vanga claimed that the  (or his backers?) took people's money donations and built the ikons in this way without people or Vanga expecting this. It claims towards the end of the clip (about minute 37) that the clergy were forced to consecrate the chapel/church after refusing to do so.
Vanga knew about the icons and that there was a cannonical problem for the consecration of the church she built. Look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F32vZEzdFLs

From what i know, that Church is not consecrated at all.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
DuxI said:
rakovsky said:
A person interviewed who was close to Vanga claimed that the  (or his backers?) took people's money donations and built the ikons in this way without people or Vanga expecting this. It claims towards the end of the clip (about minute 37) that the clergy were forced to consecrate the chapel/church after refusing to do so.
Vanga knew about the icons and that there was a cannonical problem for the consecration of the church she built. Look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F32vZEzdFLs
From what i know, that Church is not consecrated at all.
DuxI,

Can you summarize what is in the interview? What is Vanga saying, and what is the bishop's response in the movie? Unfortunately I only know Russian, and all I clearly understood was that she said "this church is not good".

By the way, this surprisingly reminds me of a dream I had last night, where another teenager was walled inside a basement with a mural icon across another wall, and my friends and I were going to rescue him.

Vanga's dying wish was for her to be buried in the yard of her little house so that people could draw strength from her grave... The ‘Vanga' charity foundation decided to refuse her request and she was buried near the ‘St. Petka Bulgarian' church.
http://keramatad.com/english/landmarks-predela-hotel/rupite-st-petka-43
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What do you think of these?



I kind of like them.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
^No idea. I copied them from another forum. I'll ask where the poster found them.
 
Top