The art of writing icons in early Christianity started by giving a visual presentation of Christ. Later other subjects have been included, like Virgin Mary, the Saints and Martyrs. During centuries the techniques for writing have been developed to better express the heavenly light and the symbolism of form, colour and content. The effects of icons range from being windows to the Kingdom of Heaven to miracles of healing and the icons becoming alive in different ways. This paper studies the relationship of icons to Gurdjieff’s concept of Objective Art by describing some of the backgrounds, definitions, concepts and rules and why icons can be seen as a form of Objective Art. Could it be that Objective Art, if indeed icons are such, is still practiced in our time? Icons produce definite effects on the onlooker; how do these relate to Objective Art? To approach an icon requires that the onlooker be tuned to it. This tuning is related to the practise of prayer in front of the icons. The questioning brings us to the general prerequisites of Objective Art and what it demands from the persons wanting to approach it.
The Background And Scope
This study is based on the Eastern Orthodox iconography, which I know something about. I am not a writer of icons; my study is based on looking at them and finding out about them. Limiting this study to the Eastern Orthodox iconography is convenient as there is no need to talk about the clashes within and between the various Christian churches and denominations concerning icons.As we all know art and the symbolic representation are not Christian inventions. The painting of icons is closely related to the origins of Christianity This is clearly presented by Richard Temple, who traces the origins from Pythagoras through the Hellenistic period (325 BC to AD 313) ending with Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists. He writes: ‘The artistic, stylistic and, some would say, the spiritual origins of icons are to be sought in the historical period that goes back several centuries before the lifetime of Christ and which continues until the beginning of the fourth century AD. From the lifetime of Christ up until the latter part of this period Christians stood on the margin of history; they were an obscure minority group whose influence, socially and culturally, was not widely apparent until Christianity became the official religion of the Romans in AD 313’ (Ref. 9).
These influences were important sources not only for the definition Christianity, as it was later done by the church authorities, but also for the painting of icons. In the words of John Anthony West: ‘The symbol, in Egypt, is a scrupulously chosen pictorial device designed to evoke an idea or a concept in its entirety. It is a means of bypassing the intellect and talking straight to the intelligence of the heart, the understanding’ (Ref. 6). Examples of this are the Fayum portraits from the first four centuries AD, which were found in the sarcophagi between the wrapping of mummies in Egypt. They are the first known portraits where the subject looks directly to the onlooker with an intense gaze. This type of painting is typical to icons and indeed can be seen as one of the unique features of the art.
The origins of icons pose a question: can this form of art be restricted to the historic and spiritual images of Christianity? The answer is yes, when the subject is restricted to the Christian icons. The answer is no, when we consider it in the larger context of Objective Art. To give icon painting its due – it is perhaps the best known artform that has found the ways and means of expressing a relationship with a higher level of being.
Gurdjieff: ‘..prehistoric Egypt was Christian many thousands of years before the birth of Christ, that is to say, that its religion was composed of the same principles and ideas that constitute true Christianity. Special schools existed in this prehistoric Egypt which were called ’schools of repetition’ (Ref. 10). This may be true, although there is not any way to verify it. What Gurdjieff said is confirmed by the fact that Orthodox churches have what it takes to be schools, particularly ‘schools of repetition’, and it is obvious that the majority of the teachers and pupils don’t know it. However, everything is repeated daily, weekly, monthly, every year and year after year. The icons and their veneration is part of this Tradition and a way to represent and approach another level of consciousness within us without the use of words. In the Gurdjieff terminology the icons are ‘a reminding factor’. What they remind us of is dependent on what we have in us that can be recalled. To remind and to repeat!
Subjective And Objective Art
Subjective art is based on the interpretation of the artist. In visual arts and in this context in paintings, drawings and frescos, the artist ‘creates’ the work of art with the inspiration, imagination, vision, technique and skill he or she possesses. To be more exact: the subjective artist does not ‘create’, in the words of Gurdjieff, this form of art: ‘… is created’ (Ref.1). Many magnificent works of art have been made over the past 2000 years, also on Christian subjects, including artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and many others. These are works of great beauty and grandeur pleasing to our eye. We have feelings of enjoyment and wonder when looking at this kind of art. Depending on our associations and the subjective state we are in, these feelings can also be very different from each other (Ref 2).
Objective art is a source of knowledge and related to language. Also in visual arts this language is the language of symbols. With the help of the symbolic language the artist expresses the ideas and feelings that he wants to put into his work Gurdjieff said: ‘In objective art there is nothing indefinite’ (Ref 3). Instead of an accidental creation based on chance associations, moods and perceptions, which the ‘artist’ often is not conscious of, the creation of objective art is only possible at a higher level of consciousness when he is not identified with the functioning of his centers. ‘Objective art requires at least flashes of objective consciousness; in order to understand these flashes properly and to make proper use of them a great inner unity is necessary and a great control of oneself.’ (Ref 4).
Are Icons A Form Of Objective Art?
Here are some details about icons. Some of them indicate their relationship to Objective Art:
- it is said that icons are not painted, they are written (that they are written has its origin in the similarity of icon painting process to the writing and copying of old manuscripts – the painter painted the ‘original’ again and again and was also considered to be more a craftsman than an artist)
- the writer ‘prepares himself’ before starting to work, with going within and staying within, fasting, prayer and with the way he lives his life
- icons are not naturalistic and do not represent the world we sense, imagine and usually live in
- the use of a special language of the Christian Tradition in all the elements of the icon (colours, images, shapes, forms, layout and techniques)
- icons are windows, gates and mirrors to ourselves showing us ‘something’ of who and what we are
- icons communicate an unseen divine reality, beyond logic and thinking
- icons teach the Tradition using pictures and colours
- icons form a part of Liturgy, which means ‘the work of the people’
- it is important to learn to read the icons, to tune into them; without contact within icons look like primitive representations of historic events
- icons are venerated for what they represent, not as objects as such
- an icon is an embodiment of prayer; it is made with prayer and for prayer
- painting icons is also called Work
Some arguments against:
- most icons are not Objective Art: for example in the 19th century Russia the production of the icon workshops was enormous: ‘…five or six painters could make 100-300 icons a day.’ (Ref. 5) If only the faces of the persons were painted in detail the production was even bigger. It is clear that these were not Objective works of Art and that there are very few that are
- Objective Art can only be produced in what the Orthodox would call ‘illuminated’ or ‘enlightened’ states in what Gurdjieff says ‘at least flashes of objective consciousness’ (Ref 4), therefore the number of icons that represent real Objective Art is very small
The word “icon” comes from the Greek eikon, which means “image” and “to represent”. Icon images, called ‘prototypes’, are of Christ, Virgin Mary, the saints and martyrs and important events from the Bible and the tradition of the Church. Icons represent the qualities in sacrifice, humility, devotion, faith, hope and love – and, not to forget, consciousness. Iconography is ‘visual Theology’, which thousands of years ago was also important, as not all people were able to read. The first icons of Christ and His Mother are said to be painted by St. Luke. Some of the first ‘icons’ were painted on the walls of the catacombs – link to pictures in the catacombs. Icons are called “windows to the kingdom of heaven” because they represent the spiritual world and the Kingdom of God that is within us. Icons are one of the ways God is revealed to us. Through icons, the Orthodox Christian receives a vision of the spiritual world. For the image of God the human image of Christ is used. In this way it is possible to have images of God himself in icons. Since the 9th Century, the Orthodox Church has established a set of technical rules, canons, for the artistic form of icons. Apart from veneration the icon is for meditation and revelation. An icon communicates visually the unseen divine reality that comes under the perception of the senses. It suggests the light of another state of being, the state of deification.In icons the person dominates the whole surface of the icon. The figure is brought in front to represent better the desire to establish a direct relation, intimate, with he who looks. If there are two or three persons, the picture must restore the communion of love that exists between them.The predominant feature ascribed to saints is light. If the icon is to make this visible, it must have its own language. Forms and colours show the metaphysical luminosity of the represented. They manifest what the eye has not seen, but without suppressing all that is human. Everything is represented in its relation to the Divine. Naturalism is put aside and man and landscape are shown in a transfigured state.The iconostasis is a wall of icons that separates the people from the servants, a symbol of a temporary separation. The iconostasis plays an important role in the Liturgy. The priests recite prayers and cense the icons, especially those left and right of the royal doors, making the presence and participation of the Holy person real, so that as the liturgy develops, the function and the symbolism of the iconostasis becomes clear. The person participates in a very tangible way in the communion of saints and the glory of the kingdom, when he kisses and venerates the icons of the lower row. The iconostasis is not a ‘symbol’ or an ‘object of devotion;’ it is the gate through which this world is bound to the other. The icons cannot be represented according to the imagination of the artist or a living model. The relationship between the ‘prototype’ and the image would be lost. The icon writers use manuals, which describe the iconography scenes and colours to be used. However, the use of manuals alone is no guarantee for the painting of the sacred image. The painter must be ‘illuminated’, in contact with the ‘prototype’.
The Rules For Writing Icons
- before starting to work, make the sign of the Cross; pray, and forgive your enemies
- work with care on every detail of your icon, as if you were working in front of God
- during work, pray in order to strengthen yourself and keep silence
- pray in particular to the Saint whose face you are painting and avoid distractions, establish a relationship to the Saint
- first pray before the icon you have made yourself, before giving it to others
It should be born in mind that making the sign of the Cross, praying etc. can be done automatically, like most often is the case. These rules have an entirely different meaning when they are done with presence.
My First Encounter With An Icon
The deeper meaning represented by the icon requires from its writer an inner enlightenment, a higher level of consciousness. For the icon to talk to its observer a similar higher level of consciousness is required. The icon itself provides this as a possibility and allows us to penetrate its hidden meaning.
The Orthodox Church Museum of Finland in Kuopio has many fine quality icons, mainly original Russian icons that have found their way there from the Valaam Monastery. Some thirty years ago when I visited the museum. I tried to remember myself when looking at the icons. Nothing noteworthy was taking place until I came to an icon representing Staretz Macarius, who was one of the Elders of the Optina Monastery in Russia. He was a Staretz for nineteen years until his death in 1861. I had recently read a book about him and for some reason he appeared to me to be just the Optina Elder who expressed himself in a way that talked to me more than the others did, although Elders Anthony and Leonid, who I also read, were much more ‘popular’ and better known.
Suddenly he was looking at me! There was an eye contact between us that felt very real and made cold shivers run down my spine. This seemed to take quite a long time – I have no idea exactly how long, perhaps one minute – and I felt it strange. I was standing some seven feet from the icon and his gaze was constant and intense. I then moved to another position sideways his eyes following me. I went 10 yards further and he was still watching. When I some minutes later left the building he was still looking.
In Finnish I would express this look from the icon with the words ‘the icon is addressing me’. This ‘addressing’ was a piercing look that went directly into my marrow. It is unique to the icons. I have not acquired the habit of kissing the icons and cannot even recall if I made the sign of the Cross, most likely I did. The point is that the icon had spoken! The Orthodox interpretation of this in the words of a Russian theologist called Jevgeni Trubetskoi is: “we do not look at the icons, the icons look at us” (Ref 8). It was not ‘I’ who was looking, but it was Staretz Macarius who looked at me.
The ‘shock of the encounter’ (Ref. 11), as it is called by Richard Temple, does seem to be related to ‘being’, to ‘I am’. In the icons representing Christ the text often used in the nimbus around His head is based on Hebrew, Greek or Slavic words that are often translated as ‘I Am That I Am’.
Are The Icons Of To-Day Related To Objective Art?
This depends on the way they are made, quite apart from the technique. During the 2000 years the techniques have changed, but the reality of our inner world and the unchanging God are still the same as it was then. If the icon painter is able to tune into his subject then he can produce an icon. It then remains for each of us to tune ourselves and to let is speak!
What It Takes To See Objective Art?
When I first read of the concept Objective Art (In Search) I had no idea of the demands it makes on the person who is confronted with such a work. I thought that if I see one then it will ‘do’ something and do it without any particular action on my part.
Since then, besides icons, I have come across another work of Objective Art, Beelzebub’s Tales, that has shown that just reading is not enough. It is important to learn how to read and then The Tales tell another story.
What we need to appreciate these works is perhaps best, apart from learning, expressed by the word ‘experience’; not just any experience, but experience of the subjects that are being presented in these works. If what we have in our ‘bag’ in connection with icons is the ritual, the history it tells and only the outer form, then that is what we get out of it.
We can be reminded of (and as to repetition we can repeat) only those things that we have experienced. The illustration of this is the story of Captain Cook and how the aborigines in Tasmania could not see his ship, because it was far away and they had never seen one before. The same applies to the sense of hearing when we listen to music – as a Westerner I do not hear all the sounds in Chinese music. All the Asians do not hear the difference between the consonants ‘l’ and ‘r’ etc.
This inability to see or hear is because these have not been experienced; a blindness and deafness inside. This is just as much true about the artist; without the experience of a higher state of consciousness there is no way it can be expressed.
Yet experience alone is not enough, Objective Art can’t be created and it does not open in our normal waking state; it can only be created and fully appreciated when we are awake.
Ref. 1 – P. D. Ouspensky: In Search of the Miraculous, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957, p. 296
Ref . 2 – Ibid., p. 296
Ref . 3 – Ibid., p. 296
Ref . 4 – Ibid., p. 298
Ref . 5 – Archmandrate Arseni: Ikonikirja (This book is in Finnish, the name traslated is: Icon Book), 2001, Otava, Finland, p. 68
Ref . 6 – John Anthony West: Serpent in the Sky, Quest Books, 1993, p. 129
Ref . 8 – Archmandrate Arseni: Ikonikirja (This book is in Finnish, the name translated is: Icon Book), 2001, Otava, Finland, p. 92
Ref. 9 – Richard Temple, Icons and the Mystical Origins of Christianity, Luzac Oriental Limited, 2001, p. 16
Ref. 10 – P. D. Ouspensky: In Search of the Miraculous, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957, p. 302
Ref. 11 – Richard Temple, Icons and the Mystical Origins of Christianity, Luzac Oriental Limited, 2001, p. 94
from web-site http://www.gurdjieff-internet.com/