On the Gift of Art…Part II: The Traditional Doctrine of Art

By Fr. Silouan Justiniano on May 28, 2014
  1. On the Gift of Art… But, What Art?
  2. On the Gift of Art…Part II: The Traditional Doctrine of Art
  3. On the Gift of Art…Part III: Clashing Worldviews
  4. On the Gift of Art…Part IV: Challenges After the Clash
  5. On the Gift of Art…Part V: The Threshold
The whole Logos of God is neither defuse nor prolix but is a unity embracing a diversity of principles, each of which is an aspect of the Logos. Thus he who speaks about the truth, however fully he deals with his subject, speaks always about the one Logos of God. 
St. Maximos the Confessor, Second Century on Theology, Chap. 20.

 

Though not in the same power as in the people of God [the Hebrews], nevertheless the presence of the Spirit of God also acted in the pagans who did not know the true God…both in the holy Hebrew people, a people beloved by God, and in the pagans who did not know God, there was preserved a knowledge of God…
-St. Seraphim of Sarov, On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit.
 This image from central Syria, although a relief sculpture, is an example of how there are obvious parallels between the sacred art of non-orthodox cultures and the Orthodox icon.Here we find the use of the halo, hieratic frontality, the subduing of naturalism in preference to idealization and simplification of form. All of these pictorial principles are also to be found in the icon, and contribute to give this relief an otherworldly, numinous ambiance. The early date of this work also throws light on how this kind of sacred art would have an impact on the development of the icon.

The Divine Triad, Palmyra, 1st c. Louvre Museum, Paris.  This image from central Syria, although a relief sculpture, is an example of how there are obvious parallels between the sacred art of non-orthodox cultures and the Orthodox icon.Here we find the use of the halo, hieratic frontality, the subduing of naturalism in preference to idealization and simplification of form. All of these pictorial principles are also to be found in the icon, and contribute to give this relief an otherworldly, numinous ambiance. The early date of this work also throws light on how this kind of sacred art would have an impact on the development of the icon.

So far we have looked at the difficulty of finding a balance within Tradition, the challenge of avoiding both meaningless innovation and meaningless copying. As we have said, in icon painting we find timeless pictorial principles that are for the most part unalterable, since they efficiently manifest Tradition. Nevertheless, all the local schools or styles show that these principles are very flexible, lending themselves to interpretation according to temperament, although not in the sense of willful “self-expression.” But let us now look at the confluence of tradition, art and culture, from a more panoramic perspective. A question arises, can it be said that there is a “traditional doctrine of art” that encompasses both the Orthodox icon and the sacred art of other world civilizations?

The pictorial features found in the relief from Syria are also evident here within the context of Byzantine art. The emperor is represented not as an ordinary man but rather in the majesty of his office, which iconizes within the civil sphere the cosmic ruling authority of the Pantocrator. Here the language of sacred art serves both a religious and political function in the integrated society of Byzantium.

John II Komnenos in full imperial regalia. Byzantine low relief sculpture in marble, Early 12th century. The pictorial features found in the relief from Syria are also evident here within the context of Byzantine art. The emperor is represented not as an ordinary man but rather in the majesty of his office, which iconizes within the civil sphere the cosmic ruling authority of the Pantocrator. Here the language of sacred art serves both a religious and political function in the integrated society of Byzantium.

There is another factor to observe, regarding pictorial principles, that can help answer this question and shed light on the presuppositions we take for granted as to what is generally meant by “art.” That is, it is good to remember that the pictorial principles of icon painting also have parallels in the sacred art of non-Orthodox cultures. For example, the use of the halo, nimbus and gold, as symbols of divine light; the flattening of space, frontal, hieratic and symmetrical composition; the subordination of naturalism to the idea; simplification as a means to arrive at the essence; the use of abstraction and ornament as significant of metaphysical meaning; line as the structuring agent of intellect in composition, etc.

 

Another example of the features found in the Syrian relief, including the military theme.

St. Demetrios, Byzantine Ivory, 950-1000 CE, The Cloisters Collection.. Another example of the features found in the Syrian relief, including the military theme.

There are theological and aesthetic factors that make an image a uniquely Christian image, an icon. Nevertheless, we should not forget the features that, in spite of religious differences, reveal our common humanity, created in the image and likeness of God. In other words, if we look closely, there appears to be a common noetic intuition, a universal agreement among ancient world civilizations, that is, premodern traditional cultures with integrated societies[i], regarding the function of art in society. Especially in regards to its role as a support of contemplation and the pictorial means which most efficiently convey the Sacred. Moreover, this sacred art arises, as with the icon, from revelation or divine intervention. Consequently, it communicates and is grounded on metaphysical first principles. These principles form the given culture’s tradition, thereby giving it its integrated character.

Here we are brought from the relief to the painted icon, but the features seen in the examples shown above are present here as well. Also notice the similarity in facial features between the flanking figures in the Syrian relief and St. George in the icon. They all seem to embody the image of ideal youth. The central figure in the relief also resembles the bearded St. Theodore on the right of the icon.

Three Worrior Saints: George, Dimitri and Theodore. Byzantine, unknown date. Here we are brought from the relief to the painted icon, but the features seen in the examples shown above are present here as well. Also notice the similarity in facial features between the flanking figures in the Syrian relief and St. George in the icon. They all seem to embody the image of ideal youth. The central figure in the relief also resembles the bearded St. Theodore on the right of the icon.

Therefore, it can be said that in traditional societies, often referred to as “primitive,” we have an understanding of art as the mirror of noetic apprehension, rather than the mere reproduction of surface appearances.[ii] In other words, art (techne or manufacturing skill), guided by nous, functions as the demiurgic ordering, reshaping and transfiguring of nature, whereby the Unseen is unveiled in the seen and man encounters the Sacred.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Today, in most cases, “art” is a term designating the concept of “fine art,” as distinct from, what we have been taught to consider to be, mere utilitarian craftsmanship. But, in a traditional society this distinction does not exist[iii], it makes no stark differentiation between artist and artisan.[iv] Moreover, this art has nothing to do with our ideas of “self-expression,” “originality,” the autonomous art object, or aesthetic pleasure for its own sake. Nor do we find in it the stark separation of the sacred and profane planes of existence, the religious and the secular, the metaphysical and practical, or symbolic and functional.

It then starts to become clear how the traditional or normal philosophy of art[v], as it has been called, is in contradistinction to the secular worldview, which only regards the horizontal (temporal, empirical, historical) at the expense of the vertical (immutable, supra-human, noetic) ontological spheres. Consequently, the cruciform and incarnational balance is shattered and the Sacred is forgotten. We are left instead with all the symptoms of a mechanistic, materialistic and dehumanizing civilization, lacking in spiritual values and aspirations, all of which is clearly reflected in most of its art. And this, of course, is not a blatant denial of all the obvious problems and injustices that have arisen within the traditional context. Even so, for us Orthodox, it would be a sign of our succumbing to secularization not to uphold the noetic intuitions of Truth found in traditional societies, which in many respects far outstrip the twilight of our postmodernity.

This philosophy of art is the fruit of societies that seem lost to the ancient past, nevertheless, vestiges of them are still here with us today. In fact, in many ways this understanding of art is what we find in the Orthodox Church. After all, let us not forget, the Church, although threatened by the waves of secularism, is still a witness to living Tradition, and therefore, in many respects a traditional integrated society, akin to what we have described.

So, for the sake of clarity, let us pause for a moment and summarize some of the main features of the function of art within a traditional society, most of which we have already mentioned. They have been described as follows:

-The end of art is the “good of man.” This good consists in his spiritual as well as material well-being. Art without use is luxury, and utility without art is subhuman.

– Art is not for mere delectation or pleasurable sensation or feelings. There is no essential difference between the fine arts and the useful arts, or between an artist and a craftsman. Nor is there any basic distinction between classical and popular art.

– Self-expression is not the main aim of art in traditional societies. What the artist expresses is not that which is “characteristic” but that which is universal and imperishable. Glorification of, or obsession with, one’s own personality is a sign of superficiality in art.

– Artistic “freedom” does not mean absence of responsibility or commitment. The true artist reflects and strengthens the harmony between the different sides of human life and between man and nature. Unbridled “freedom” interrupts this harmony.

– The value attached to genius, inspiration or originality is in inverse proportion to the true understanding of the purpose and function of art. The artist is not a special kind of man, nor is he entitled to a privileged position superior to that of the workman.

-There is no absolute distinction between religious and the secular in art. Everything in nature and human life is pervaded by the Divine Ground, and all art is religious to some extent. The final goal of art is to reach Divinity. God is the Supreme Artist.

-Through contemplation, the artist can visualize Perfection…[vi]

-Art in a traditional sense is symbolic, not illustrative or [merely] historical. Symbols constitute the language of art. Realism or “likeness” is not the primary concern of art. True representation is that of the idea, the form, not the substance [matter or outward appearance] of the perceived object.

-Beauty is the “attractive power of perfection.” It is objective. It is analogous to truth. It is Reality perceived by the artist.[vii]

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Here we see how the “biographical icon” is also to be found in the sacred art of Tibet.  
Both in the icon of St. Theodore and the Thangka  of the Buddha, the main personage occupies the central fields, which is then bordered by the various scenes of their life.
These  two works show how there is a noetic intuition in man that has lead different cultures to parallel each other, in spite of obvious religious differences, as to the pictorial 

This cursory list gives us a sense of how our ideas of “art” differ greatly from those of art in a traditional society ordered according to metaphysical principles. It is not difficult to see how these features might relate closely to an Orthodox understanding of the liturgical arts. Herein we also find an abbreviation of what has also been called “The Christian and Oriental, or True, Philosophy of Art.”[viii] Although the Orient and Orthodoxy might not meet eye to eye in all details when it comes to this philosophy, especially in regards to obvious and irreconcilable religious differences, nevertheless, there are enough parallels worth considering. These show that in traditional cultures, prior to the rampant secularization of postmodernity, there is a universal agreement as to what constitutes art and its social function. Considering these features can help us wake up to, and shake off, our predominantly secular presuppositions.

Ironically, in this regard, some Orthodox,  if I can be so bold to say so, claiming to be “traditional,” are in fact the most secular, whereas the “pagans” appear to be more Orthodox. And it makes me wonder, who is worse off? The secularist or pagan? Perhaps the former, since he has lost all sense of the vertical dimension and awareness of the Sacred.

 

To be continued…

___________________________________________

Notes:

[i] As Eliade notes: “The premodern or “traditional” societies include both the world usually known as “primitive” and the ancient cultures of Asia, Europe, and America. Obviously, the metaphysical concepts of the archaic world were not always formulated in theoretical language; but the symbol, the myth, the rite, express, on different planes and through the means proper to them, a complex system of coherent affirmation about the ultimate reality of things, a system that can be regarded as constituting a metaphysics.” Micea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History, Princeton University Press/Bollingen,  Princeton, N.J., 1974, p.3.

[ii] Art, in so far as it is not the thing that it re-presents, will always be “abstract.” That is to say, it is a visual articulation that, to one degree or another, seeks to “draw from,” hence “abstract,” an interpretation from Reality. The articulation can mainly rely, focus, and be a reflection, of revelation, noetic intuition, psychic feeling, or sense perception. Perfect mimesis, or assimilation of representation and model is untenable, since in this case the image would completely disappear in becoming one with its prototype. This, of course, is obviously absurd. Therefore, all periods of art that subordinate the intelligible to the sensible or psychic, fixating mainly on naturalism or subjective feeling, can be said to be “decadent.” Nevertheless, this does not in any way mean that all forms of naturalism and suggestions of emotion should be disdained. It is a matter of degree and approach. Both, positivism in science and slavish mimesis in art, amount to a looking-without-seeing of the One at play in the phenomenal. Yet, even “illusionism” or “naturalism” have a place in the pictorial symbolism of sacred art, as they paradoxically point to the Unseen when used judiciously. That is, as long as a sense of the essential or “inward,” and meditative restraint, are maintained. An outright denial of the phenomenal in  pursuit of the Real, can only lead to a negation of the Incarnation and its bearing on art. The illusion lies not in what is seen but on the way of seeing, the filter through which we see.

[iii] Regarding the art versus craft dichotomy we have created and the modern use of the word “art,” Larry Shiner says, “What has been effaced in ordinary usage [of the word “art”] is not only the fracturing of the older idea of art/craft into art versus craft, but a parallel division that separated the artist from the craftsperson and aesthetic concerns from utility and ordinary pleasures. Before the eighteenth century, the terms “artist” and “artisan” were used interchangeably, and the word “artist” could be applied not only to painters and composers but also to shoemakers and wheelwrights, to alchemists and liberal arts students. There were neither artists nor artisans, in the modern meaning of those terms, but only the artist/artisan who constructed…according to techne or ars, an art/craft.” See how this is confirmed by Coomaraswamy below. Larry Shiner, The Invention of Art: A Cultural History,The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 2001, p.5.

[iv] About this understanding of art in a traditional society Coomaraswamy notes, “The concept “art” is not in any way limited to the context of making or ordering one kind of thing rather than another: it is only with reference to application that particular names are given to the arts, so that we have an art of architecture, one of agriculture, one of smithing, another of painting, another of poetry and drama, and so forth. It is perhaps with the art of teaching that the mediaeval philosopher is primarily concerned…”Ananda K.Coomaraswamy, ‘Mediaeval and Oriental Art’, in Selected Papers Vol.1: Traditional Art and Symbolism, (ed.) Roger Lipsey, Surrey, Princeton University Press, 1989, p.51.

[v] Coomaraswamy says, “There exist in fact, as has often enough been pointed out, two very different kinds of art, of which one is constant and normal, the other variable and individualistic. The traditional and normal arts are, broadly speaking, those of Asia in general, those of Egypt, those of Greece up to the close of the Archaic period, those of the European Middle Ages [including the Byzantine sphere], and those of the whole world which are collectively referred to as the arts of primitive peoples and as folk-art. The abnormal arts are those of the classical decadence and of post Renaissance Europe.” Ananda K. Coomaraswami, On the Traditional Doctrine of At, Golgonooza Press, Ipswich, U.K., 1977, p. 5.

[vi] This idea pertains to “seeing with the soul’s eye” the perfect and invisible pattern, the imitable prototype, to be followed and given material form in the work of art. We can interpret the reference here to Perfection as meaning that the visualized prototype, or archetype, finds its ground in the Logos. Philo alludes to this visualizing when speaking about the building of the Tabernacle, “the construction of which was clearly set forth to Moses on the Mount by divine pronouncements. He saw with the soul’s eye the immaterial forms (ideai) of the material things that were to be made, and these forms were to be reproduced as sensible imitations, as it were, of the archetypal graph and intelligible patterns…So the type of the pattern was secretly impressed upon the mind of the Prophet as a thing secretly painted and moulded in invisible forms without material; and then the finished work was wrought after that type by the artist’s imposition of the impressions on the severally appropriate material substances.” As quoted by Coomaraswamy, Ibid., pp. 19-20.

[vii] This summary is given by Vishwanath S. Naravane in his overview of Coomaraswamy’s work on the traditional view of art.  Vishwanath S. Naravane, “Ananda K. Coomaraswamy,” Twayne’s World Leaders Series, Vol.75, Twayne Publishers, G.K. Hall & Co., Boston, 1977, p. 98.

[viii] See Annanda K. Coomraswamy, Christian and Oriental Philosophy of Art, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers PVT. LTD., India, 1974.

Posted in ,

8 Comments

  1. jansci8@hotmail.com on June 4, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    There are many fine points in this essay as concerns issues dealing with the creation of art but the verbose indeed prolix approach to obvious cross cultural observations becomes at least to me pointless. To laud praises on non-Christian traditional art and ignore similar trends in modernist art seems insincere yet it depends on which of Father’s essay one is reading it seems the author wants his cake and wants to eat it to. We have a kind of secula beata, how can one deny “noetic intuition “in some modernist painting as certainly it isn’t present in all traditional art. The situation we have here is a romanticizing of a mythical nostalgic better past, that so many thoughtful quotes would be used to gloss so many contradictory tired conclusions is in and of itself an exercise in nostalgia and ultimately unproductive . My question is, after hedging all bets in these essays what point is the author trying to make? I’v never seen a “gift” with so many strings attached.



    • Andrew Gould on June 9, 2014 at 5:55 pm

      Never seen a gift with so many strings attached? How about Christianity?

      Seriously, though, to be fair to Fr. Silouan, please remember that this post is but a single chapter of his multi-part essay. The purpose of this chapter is, according to the first paragraph, to address the question of whether “there is a ‘traditional doctrine of art’ that encompasses both the Orthodox icon and the sacred art of other world civilizations?”

      So let’s not expect this one chapter to address the matter of modern art, since it is outside the author’s stated scope here. I too am rather curious where Fr. Silouan is going with all this. I suppose I shall have to wait until the end of the series to find out.



      • jansci8@hotmail.com on June 10, 2014 at 8:18 am

        Fair enough although it seems conclusions in this article contradict those in the previous article as concerns the modernist tradition.
        These articles and the ones on “degraded iconicity” are a strange amalgam of post-modernist rhetoric, patristics, and aesthetics that oft create a kind of ecclesiastical “art speak” which indeed seem to be hiding a “secula beata”, a good old days mentality. This is a contradiction within Orthodox tradition although very much a part of secular society and it is the former which it seems Fr. ultimately agrees with.



      • jansci8@hotmail.com on June 18, 2014 at 7:42 am

        “How about Christianity?”

        Matthew 11:30 😉



  2. Baker Galloway on June 11, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Dear Father Silouan,

    I always have to look up a lot of words when I read your articles! But I end up learning a lot. Nice article.

    I would like to point out that the examples of art you’re focusing on are all examples of art of essence, not art of compassion. Are you familiar with this distinction that Aidan Hart made in his article ” Christianity and Sacred Art Today”? Here’s a link:
    http://aidanharticons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CHRISTIANITY-AND-SACRED-ART-TODAY.pdf

    Anyway, there are some contemporary secular artists who are very inspiring and whom I do not consider to be preoccupied with self-expression. Though they do not point me to God in name, they can point me to wonder at the beauty in this world. Or alternatively they can point me to disgust at the evil in myself or compassion for others.

    Also, I am dissatisfied with your definition of Beauty as briefly cited. Please read my friend David Taylor’s definition in his article “On Beauty and the Art of Schooling” and see whether you might have a more nuanced version to share in your bullet-point list? Here is a link:
    http://artspastor.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-beauty-and-art-of-schooling-part-i.html

    As always, hubristically yours,
    baker



    • Fr. Silouan Justiniano on June 13, 2014 at 1:32 pm

      Dear Baker,

      I’m glad to hear that the articles have been helpful to you in one way or another.

      Yes, I’m familiar with Aidan Hart’s article “Christianity and Sacred Art Today”. He makes good points there worth considering.
      In fact, later on, towards the end of the current article, we might touch on some of his observations.

      I agree with the point you’re making about contemporary art. Although, nowadays what you are describing is more an exception than the rule.
      The artists you mention might not be solely concerned with a crass form of self-expression or self-indulgent exhibitionism, nevertheless, they still function within a paradigm of art that values individualism, among other things, as of primary importance.

      Your dissatisfaction,as it pertains to Beauty, doesn’t surprise me. Bear in mind exactly what you say, that is, we are dealing with “a brief definition” that only scratches the surface of a highly complex and challenging subject. We don’t have the time to elaborate in depth on the subject right now. Anyhow, what I wanted to emphasize was that, according to the Traditional Doctrine of Art, Beauty is not merely “in the [physical] eye of the beholder”, solely a subjective category, based on likes and dislikes, a matter of sensual self gratification. Rather it is the splendor of Truth or a name of God, and therefore objective Reality, apprehended both with the physical and spiritual eye, the nous. The beauty of Nature is nothing but the manifestation of God, a theophany, the radiance of the Logos in beings, since they are rooted in Him who is uncreated Beauty. Subjectivity is not completely ousted since, as someone once said, “…nothing can be known or stated except in some way, the way of the individual knower. Whatever may be known to you and me in common can only be stated by either of us each in his own way.” However, subjectivism takes second place of importance in the articulation of artistic forms of a traditional society. Although there will always be variation of styles they will always be grounded in the metaphysical principles that tie them all together, giving them unified continuity throughout the centuries. The metaphysical principles are based on the apprehension of Reality, a revelation, that transcends the limitations of individualism and shapes society. Hence, what matters the most in the art of a traditional society, is what is seen in common, Reality, the objectivity and truth of God/Beauty, the Sacred, in Nature. For an introduction into the patristic understanding of Beauty I recommend you read The Divine Names, Chapter 4:7, by St. Dionysius the Areopagite. I’ll take a look into the article by your friend as you suggested.

      Thank you once again for you comments and suggested articles.

      In Christ,
      Fr. Silouan



      • Baker Galloway on June 13, 2014 at 3:44 pm

        Sweet. Thank you, Fr. Silouan.

        I really like that idea in your quote of shared knowledge, or perhaps Truth, always being know and expressed in particulars, by specific persons who cannot help but be subjective. Well said.

        with your prayers,
        baker



  3. Hierodeacon Parthenios on June 17, 2014 at 10:05 am

    “Chronological Snobbery” [whether Ancient or Modern] vs The Timeless “Principles of Tradition”?

    We clearly side with the latter, as Fr Silouan has described, for Tradition is Christ the Logos, and His principles are not governed by their manifestation within any or all chronologies, ancient or modern, but by the Truth, which He Himself is.

    The Tradition is not defined, as Fr Silouan has expressed, by its external “chronology” [or one’s passing likes or dislikes], but rather by its abiding “principles”.

    And upon those grounds, we indeed may critique all ages, appreciating them accordingly.



Our Sponsors