Icons versus religious art

[JayP]

I realize this is not a focal point for most of you. I would be interested in comments (for I assume many of you will come at this differently) to compare with a recent group discussion I was part of.

In a mixed setting of some Orthodox, Roman Catholic and evangelicals we got into a discussion of idolatry. I was surprised (not condemning just surprised) by the pose who simply grouped religious art and icons as the same thing. Wondering if many of you make a distinction?

While I can value both, I think there is a significant difference between icons and art. How do you;see it?

[Soloist]

I think for me there is little difference between the two. What makes it an Icon or not in the eyes of Catholics or Orthodox likely has defined parameters.
For me what makes it right or wrong is two fold. 1: does a person view it as an Icon? Then avoid it. 2: is it treated as art? ie story telling or to look at or is it something reverenced or kissed, bowed to…
For example I’d never personally have a picture of any pope living or not but I don’t think any Catholic would revere it? So I wouldn’t look at that as wrong, just weird.

Now when it comes to Jesus, I would view all religious art of Him as wrong personally.

[Valerie]

I’ve been told that Luke was the first to draw the Virgin Mary holding the infant Christ Child. Would that have been considered an icon or religious art?

[Valerie]

I’ve been told that Luke was the first to draw the Virgin Mary holding the infant Christ Child. Would that have been considered an icon or religious art?

[Soloist]

I’ve been told that Luke was the first to draw the Virgin Mary holding the infant Christ Child. Would that have been considered an icon or religious art?

I suppose it depends on the user or belief.

I suppose I don’t view the baby the same as adult Jesus so I’d likely call it religious art but I don’t particularly believe that legend.

[MattY]

I realize this is not a focal point for most of you. I would be interested in comments (for I assume many of you will come at this differently) to compare with a recent group discussion I was part of.

In a mixed setting of some Orthodox, Roman Catholic and evangelicals we got into a discussion of idolatry. I was surprised (not condemning just surprised) by the pose who simply grouped religious art and icons as the same thing. Wondering if many of you make a distinction?

While I can value both, I think there is a significant difference between icons and art. How do you see it?

I would agree there is a significant difference between icons and art. If there weren't, then any photo of any person, any depiction of a nativity scene, any artwork containing a sheep with a bible verse, any books with illustrations or photos, etc., would be under suspicion of idolatry for those of us who reject icons. When I travel, I sometimes enjoy going into old churches and taking in the architecture, art, and general calm ambience inside. They often have illustrations of biblical scenes in the stained glass architecture, which I like to inspect and figure out what they are depicting. My understanding is those are not icons per se but are intended as reminders and appreciation of the stories they depict.

[Valerie]

I’ve been told that Luke was the first to draw the Virgin Mary holding the infant Christ Child. Would that have been considered an icon or religious art?

I suppose it depends on the user or belief.

I suppose I don’t view the baby the same as adult Jesus so I’d likely call it religious art but I don’t particularly believe that legend.

I’m not sure what the difference would be, between drawing the baby and drawing the adult Jesus as far as that goes. And because we know the catacombs were filled with drawings it’s pretty evident that the early church taught nothing against drawings.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

When I travel, I sometimes enjoy going into old churches and taking in the architecture, art, and general calm ambience inside. They often have illustrations of biblical scenes in the stained glass architecture, which I like to inspect and figure out what they are depicting. My understanding is those are not icons per se but are intended as reminders and appreciation of the stories they depict.

This was a central point in a very heated debate during the Reformation. While there was a popular iconoclastic movement, and most reformers agreed that the church sanctioned improper reverence of physical artistic renderings (statues, paintings, stained glass, etc), the debate was torn between
1) those who wanted to do away with all such art from religious settings entirely,
and
2) those who saw the pragmatic nature of religious art.

Icons, it was argued, were "books for laypeople". You see, 500 years ago, there actually WAS a practical divide between "clergy" and "laypeople": the former could read, and thus study, the scriptures and historical church writings, while the latter was largely illiterate. The Reformers valued a religiously educated church, since they saw their theology as "correct" and were baking on "apostolic orthodoxy" being their selling point to pull churches away from Rome's selling point of "apostolic succession". So how to keep a mostly-illiterate church educated on the Biblical stories? With icons!

Although they were all opposed to revering icons, they were split on abolition vs reform of iconography and the practice of icons in the church. It largely revolved around the developing theology of "Regulative Principle of Worship," which would disallow ay religious thing that wasn't explicitly allowed in the New Testament. While Lutherans were softer on these issues, Reformed and Radical groups tended to be strong on them. They did away with religious art, and church meetings did not have musical instruments or hymns - only acapella psalms would be sung during corporate worship (hymns were written, but only for non-religious life, to be sung in the home, etc.)

[JayP]

I regret opening the subject. I think I have expressed it insufficiently such that some of you are focused in the idolatry topic.

My attempt, based on a recent conversation, was to elicit thoughts on if one recognized (and how) a difference literally between religious art and formal icons. I like both. But a painting like Tanner’s Annunciation, while IMHO great art, is NOT an icon. Meanwhile, I have many orthodox icons hanging on the wall. They are not icons BECAUSE they are religious art, they are icons because they follow specific, traditional representations and presentations. For example, icons are never signed, or the consistent use of red slippers for the Theotokos. I suspect this audience may not be aware of the “rules” and the different stages if Iconographt.

Obviously we disagree in that most of you are iconoclasts period. We will not agree on what is a graven image

[JohnH]

Generally speaking, I think Protestants (including Anabaptists) are quite confused about what their actual position on idolatry and art and religious art is... the plainer Anabaptists simply avoid all of it, making an allowance perhaps for wood carvings that are clearly not idolatrous. The more fundamentalist streams who have been influenced by general Protestantism, or worse, Reformed thinking, tend to have a very strong stance against Catholic and Orthodox "icons" yet are completely blind to their own expressions of art and photography that plainer Anabaptists view as violating the 2nd commandment.

There is also, generally speaking, a lot of confusion or outright misinformation with claims that Catholics/Orthodox worship statutes of Mary, Jesus, the saints, or that they worship / pray to icons and pictures of them.