Editor’s Note: This open letter was written in response to Philip Davydov’s call for master iconographers to address some fundamental questions about their art and its relationship to the Church. 

Dear Philip, thank you for the interesting article.

It seems to me that the questions you have presented to us are not that difficult to answer: every iconographer who practiced our art long enough has had to answer them at least once. I would try to offer my perspective.

Every time people talk about canonicity, asking “Is this style canonical? What is the canon?” and the like, what they are actually trying to ask is this: Is this icon acceptable for church use? Can it be blessed? Does this image correctly express our faith?

These inquiries should lead us to two most important questions which are truly worth asking:

1. What is an icon?
2. Why do we need it?

There are different answers to these questions, which subsequently define the appearance of icons.

I believe that: 1. Iconography is an Art, not a pious craft and 2. This art offers itself into the service of the Church. Ergo, all discussions about “canonicity” that ignore ecclesiology as an essential part of this art are fruitless.

Interestingly enough, Dn. Alexey Trunin made an important statement during the presentation, answering the question “Who can be a judge for your icons? Me and me alone!” It is this attitude, which coincidentally no longer works, even in secular art, that led to the destruction of three of his projects – all of which were quite well done artistically, in my opinion.

For example, his last mural project in St. Nicholas Church (SPB), which was destroyed most recently:

• Was paid for by a large corporation outside of the parish.
• Had the iconographer chosen by the architect (who himself was selected by the same corporation), and
• Had the final order for destruction issued by the metropolitan.

All decisionmakers were outside of the parish! I doubt that the parishioners had any input in the selection process (or in the decision to destroy the murals) at all. Most of those who were trying to protect murals were also not members of the parish.

In order to place the situation in the proper context for American readers: in most Russian churches (except a few rare cases), people do not form close-knit communities at all – the very same communities which should support parish activities and have an opinion about church matters.

From my experience, this situation would never arise in an American church, mostly because the Church here is organized in a different way – and I know many examples to support this claim. When members of the local church community delegate representatives into their Building Committee, they normally trust the decision of these representatives, and share responsibility for the success of the project. Obviously, such an approach would not permit a radical project to be started, but if some parish appreciated the work of Dn. Alexey Trunin and chose him as their iconographer – this project would never be destroyed.

Another thing that caught my attention – in the beginning of his presentation, Dn. Alexey Trunin claims that his approach is “to depict the world through a pure child’s gaze”- as you present it in one of your questions, and in the following discussion he indicated that “only those who have professional education could appreciate this work”.

Frankly, I see this as problematic. Look at all these carefully crafted compositions, reflexes, complimentary colors – they reveal years of hard work and study to refine artistic skills. There is nothing truly “naïve” in his painting. I can only wish that my children would be able to see a world in this way without any education. While I personally can enjoy this kind of painting, the question still remains: will this work help people in that particular parish become closer to God?

And the answer to this would bring us to subsequent questions: Why do we need icons? Does an icon tell us something which cannot be expressed in any other way? Should an icon express the knowledge about God, which Church as whole possesses, or be only an expression of the artist’s inner self?

Mind you, I’m not saying that artistic expression in iconography should be limited by rigid sets of rules, but only that artistic personality should not be in first place. In addition, such an approach should give a clear purpose to our effort to become better.

You are absolutely right – there is no “iconographic canon” if it is comprehended as a codex of rules to follow – Glory be to God! Some people may try to re-define canons in terms of a “precedent” or “following a prototype” – this approach is better, since we have about 2,000 years of tradition, but it is still not enough.

I would offer a broader definition: the icon can be called canonical, if it is accepted by the Church, represented by the local community, sacramentally expressing such acceptance in the act of blessing of the icon.

Now, to your other questions: Yes, the icon is created for prayer, but one should not limit the meaning of prayer by the “request” only. The prayer is communion: being in presence of God is a prayer too. I think we all agree that if the icon “speaks” to you, it works.

Icons could be different for different people – and yes, the icon in academic style is definitely an icon. Look, for example, at the Our Lady of Sitka icon, painted by famous Russian court painter Borovikovsky. The same is true for “contemporary elements in icon”- as long as it speaks to you and does not obscure correct teaching of the Church. At the same time, the image of the Holy Trinity created in the style (and composition) of Rublev, but with FOUR figures is not.

For me, representation of our time is never the main goal.  Our time will inevitably reveal itself in my work if I try to be obedient to God, honest with myself, and involved with the local community for which I create the work.

And finally, I agree with you that the moderator of your presentation was correct: the book of Ouspensky seems totally outdated (and not only for a younger generation – the late Ksenia Pokrovskaya and I discussed this in 2001 at her seminar in Boston), and today there is a need for a New Theology of iconography. I would hope it includes an ecclesiological dimension of icons – and I don’t think it would limit creativity in any way, as you, perhaps, are afraid.

Another topic we had discussed at that seminar in Boston is, surprisingly, related to the questions presented today. Is iconography an Art or a pious (sacred) craft? The craft was described as a process of following a set of rules, which, if followed correctly, will, automatically, lead to a successful result. Since this approach is easy to replicate, this, of course, becomes the curriculum in both advanced schools of iconography and “6-days-learn-all” type of travelling classes.

If such teaching is used only as a tool to learn how to organize the process of painting in a more effective way, I have nothing against it. However, if these sets of rules are proclaimed as “The Only Canonical Way to create icons”, or even worse, when a deep spiritual meaning is assigned (always post-factum) to every technical step, this becomes a problem. This, and various “symbolic explanations of colors”, along with unceasing attempts to copy historical monuments in contemporary buildings without taking architectural context into consideration, can create an issue.

In our time, when even artistic production in contemporary art becomes conceptualization, it is understandable. I, once again, completely agree with you – it denigrates the art of iconography to only a pious craft – with signs or symbols which are so fun to de-code.

There is only one remedy for that – the education of people, iconographers, and hierarchy.

And I think that your seminar and our discussions of these questions is a small step in the right direction.

Vladimir Grygorenko

If you enjoyed this article, please use the PayPal button below to donate to support the work of the Orthodox Arts Journal. The costs to maintain the website are considerable.