Strange icons

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
LizaSymonenko said:
LBK said:
LizaSymonenko said:
...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.



I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  :D

LBK said:
The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...
Ah, yes, another product of the fevered imaginations of Russian ultranationalist ultramonarchist brigade, who regard the assassination of Tsar Nicholas as a "redeeming sacrifice", in the same way Christ's sacrifice redeems mankind. Vile, heretical rubbish. Schlock of the worst kind.
Thank you.  I had thought the same thing....but, wanted to make sure it wasn't the Ukrainian in me imagining things.  :D
I've posted another image in similar vein in the "Schlock icons" thread, as is more appropriate  ;) :

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.msg896367.html#msg896367
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,534
Reaction score
92
Points
48
Age
29
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
From the website of the Finnish Orthodox Church. I have no idea who is depicted here.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
LizaSymonenko said:
....so, what about this one?




....and is it okay for the Theotokos to wear the "crown"?  I've heard that is a RC invention, and that the Orthodox shun away from placing a crown on her head?

Is that true?
Wow! That's beautiful.

We have Icons portraying St. Mary with a crown in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.






Selam

 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Dominika said:
From the website of the Finnish Orthodox Church. I have no idea who is depicted here.
http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo! :D
 

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
LBK said:
http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo! :D
Saint Sarah, also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]
This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,534
Reaction score
92
Points
48
Age
29
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
Nephi said:
LBK said:
http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo! :D
Saint Sarah, also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]
This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.
Thank you for these quotations.

So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ???), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Dominika said:
So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ???), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.
St Mary of Egypt is one.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dominika said:
Nephi said:
LBK said:
http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo! :D
Saint Sarah, also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]
This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.
Thank you for these quotations.

So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ???), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.
I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Antonis said:
I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

Quite true. Many ancient icons and mosaics of St Catherine (and other female saints of noble birth or regal rank) show her wearing earrings, though they are far less obvious and distracting than those in the icon you posted. A famous one is from St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, from the 13th century:

 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
Antonis said:
I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

Quite true. Many ancient icons and mosaics of St Catherine (and other female saints of noble birth or regal rank) show her wearing earrings, though they are far less obvious and distracting than those in the icon you posted. A famous one is from St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, from the 13th century:

Yea, most of the ones I have seen (such as the one on my church's iconostasis) show the earrings as smaller and more akin to the one you posted.
 

yeshuaisiam

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
4,695
Reaction score
0
Points
0
biro said:
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

I know it was an old post but -
Is this actually even an EO icon?

It looks COMPLETLY masonic.... Never seen one like this in an EO church or elsewhere...
Just curious.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
yeshuaisiam said:
biro said:
This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

I know it was an old post but -
Is this actually even an EO icon?

It looks COMPLETLY masonic.... Never seen one like this in an EO church or elsewhere...
Just curious.
Not an icon at all, and has never been considered as one. It's a masonic painting.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Michał Kalina said:


Another one hypercolor.

The Restoration of the Icons
, the festal icon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Nothing at all strange about it.

Hypercolor? What do you mean?  ???
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Michał Kalina said:
LBK said:
Hypercolor? What do you mean?  ???
Sweet pastel infantile coloristics. I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't like it.
The icon you posted has been painted on a church wall. How an icon shows up on a computer screen is often not how it looks in its actual surroundings. Image processing, the settings on one's computer screen, and even the type of computer monitor can affect color perception. CRTs (picture tubes) are superior to flat screens in reproducing accuracy of color, shade, saturation, etc.

A good iconographer will examine the size of a church and the light which enters it, how much light, and where it falls, and select his palette (range of colors) accordingly. A large church which is well-lit by natural light can accept a bolder, stronger intensity of colors; a smaller church with diffuse lighting would be better served with a softer, warmer color range.

EDIT: The icon posted is probably also very large in real life, very likely several yards/meters across. What makes its way onto a computer monitor is a more highly-saturated version of the actual icon, due to the much smaller size of the digital image relative to the original.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
LBK said:
Michał Kalina said:
LBK said:
Hypercolor? What do you mean?  ???
Sweet pastel infantile coloristics. I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't like it.
The icon you posted has been painted on a church wall. How an icon shows up on a computer screen is often not how it looks in its actual surroundings. Image processing, the settings on one's computer screen, and even the type of computer monitor can affect color perception. CRTs (picture tubes) are superior to flat screens in reproducing accuracy of color, shade, saturation, etc.

A good iconographer will examine the size of a church and the light which enters it, how much light, and where it falls, and select his palette (range of colors) accordingly. A large church which is well-lit by natural light can accept a bolder, stronger intensity of colors; a smaller church with diffuse lighting would be better served with a softer, warmer color range.

EDIT: The icon posted is probably also very large in real life, very likely several yards/meters across. What makes its way onto a computer monitor is a more highly-saturated version of the actual icon, due to the much smaller size of the digital image relative to the original.
I would venture to guess that this acrylic painted either on canvass and glued onto the wall or possibly acrylic painted directly on the wall.  While I'm not an artist and don't really know jack, my parish is in the process (a long at that - pay as you go and I hope the iconographer is healthy enough in his life to finish the church) of real frescoes on the walls.  Real frescoes (if it is not the following, then it is just a mural) have the base painting done in about a 12-hour window directly on wet plaster.  The plaster itself is the binder for the pigment and when totally dry becomes chemically the same as marble.  The details are added in the following days, where the initial period (12-24 hours approx after the 12-hour window) can be in between fresco and secco, while afterwards is secco I think using egg tempera.  This is the time-tested method for painting churches that are hundreds of years old with enduring frescoes.  At least currently in America, most "frescoes" and even panel icons are done in acrylic, with the wall panels usually done on canvas in a studio then glued onto the walls.  From what I have been told, painting in acrylic can be done much faster than traditional methods like fresco and egg tempera, allowing the iconographer to "produce" a lot more work.  Unfortunately, as Michal says, 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 (although I'm told it can be made more subdued if intended) in comparison to traditional methods.  There is a beautiful Serbian church in the Sacramento area that I have sung a couple of concerts at.  It appears they did acrylic directly on dry-plastered walls and there is damage, I believe from water/rain leaks, in the pendentives.  Frescoes would be resistant from this type of water leaks for the most part.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
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.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,025
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Alveus Lacuna said:
ag_vn said:
I wish I could see the outside of the building better. This looks super occult from a distance. What is it depicting?
I was watching a Russian show this evening called Battle of the Prophets (Around minute 30 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK2iK-hFD6Q), which compares various modern day prophets.
It compared/contrasted the canonized Matrona of Moscow with Vanga of Bulgaria, noting that they were both blind. It said that Vanga had a large following, was treated very well by the government even during the era promoting scientific materialism. Patriarch Alexei II presided at her funeral and a little body part(?) from her that was specially kept did not decay.

It adds that she was not canonized due to the issue with the ikons that you and others posted on page two of this thread. 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. 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.

MK was here
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
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
12,025
Reaction score
10
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
16,279
Reaction score
72
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
16,279
Reaction score
72
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
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
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
16,279
Reaction score
72
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
16,279
Reaction score
72
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
12,025
Reaction score
10
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
1
Points
0
What do you think of these?



I kind of like them.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
1
Points
0
^No idea. I copied them from another forum. I'll ask where the poster found them.
 
Top