Byzantine Blog

Sometimes, however, it also helps to re-iterate what icon is not, in order to better understand its meaning and function. Out of many ways to discredit iconography and put it down, these few are probably most wrong and malicious.
Icon is not:

• An Idol

  Icon is not an idol - we do not worship icons. The worship is only extended to God, not to His Saints, and not to icons. If Make yourself no graven images commandment would apply to Orthodox icons, it would also have to apply to the Lord's instruction for building the Arc of the Covenant: "And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover." (Exodus, 25:18-20)
  
  These cherubim that God commanded through Moses to be made are, in fact, the very first icons mankind knows of. They are most certainly the very first icons of incorporeal heavenly powers to which angels, archangels, seraphim and cherubim all belong.
  
  Make yourself no graven images applies to the golden-calf type of idolatry and worshiping anything other then God, since "no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew, 6:24; Luke 16:13) That's idolatry.

• Blasphemous

  The long ago dealt with iconoclastic accusation influenced primarily by Islam, that making images of God and His Prophets is a blasphemy, unfortunately, can still be heard even among some Christians today. It is a shameful thing for a Christian to say, because it boils down to a form of denial of Christ's Incarnation.
  
  If Christ was not born to a Woman, if He did not choose to "come down to earth and become a Man" for our salvation, if He did not walk among us, if He did not suffer for our sins, if He was not crucified, if He did not resurrect... we would not have the right to write His icons. At the same time, there would be no Christianity and no Christians. Icon is a form of perpetual, ceaseless testimony of God-Man Christ, the Incarnate Lord Who "became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory" (John, 1:14). Icon exists ever since "God is revealed in the flesh" (I Tim. 3:16), it is repeating the same good news that "a Savior has been born to you, He is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11) and it is a part of the Church He built. Furthermore, each icon of Mother of God, Lord's Prophets, Saints and Martyrs we write is a confirmation of Christ's Glory and of His immeasurable love for mankind.

• Merely Another Art-form

  Icon is born in the Church, it is of the Church and it belongs to Church. Without Orthodox Church which incorporated icons into the Holy Liturgy, iconography as we know it today would not be preserved - it would cease to exist long time ago. Iconography is not an expression of one's creativity, since it has nothing to do with imagination and individualism. Icon is a mirror of the Gospels and Holy Tradition to such an extent that even the colors that are mentioned in the Gospels are exclusively used on certain icons, without exception (for example, Christ's robes in the scene of Transfiguration).
  
  At the same time, paintings on religious themes are not icons. Many artists throughout the history have offered their vision of Bible events and their versions of Holy Personages. Some were unsuccessful, some have earned the worldwide praise and fame, but what they created, however beautiful, are not icons.

• Naive or Primitive Art

  People who don't know enough about iconography, the rules it follows and icon's function and place in Church tend to pass condescending remarks leading to conclusion iconography is a "primitive" form of art. I have even heard a non-Orthodox Christian say Byzantine masters "didn't know how to paint", so that's why we have inverted perspective, elongated figures and hieratic, austere compositions. This is pure nonsense and reflection of ignorance.
  
  One only needs to visit few churches in Greece or Serbia (apart from glorious Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and churches in Ravenna, Italy, with mosaics made by Byzantine iconographers Emperor Justinian brought along with him from Constantinople in 6th and 7th century), built and fresco painted before Renaissance, to understand a number of renowned art historians world-wide in their unreserved admiration and appreciation of the Byzantine iconography. Byzantine icon is guided by Church canons and rules that exclude everything profane, sensual, material and naturalistic. Icon has to draw our souls and minds upwards, to spiritual, holy, transcendent, mystical and eternal. And that is precisely what it does.