 |
| Quod Est Veritas?, Nikolai Ge, Russian realist |
In Part V, Chapter 9 of Anna Karenina Anna and Vronsky are living together in an "old neglected palazzo" in Italy. It is morning and they have received a visitor. It is Vronsky's friend, Golenishchev.
"Here we live and know nothing of what's going on," Vronsky said to Golenishchev as he came to see him one morning.
"Have you seen Mikhailov's picture?" he said, handing him a Russian paper he had received that morning . . .
"I've seen it," answered Golenishchev. "Of course, he's not without talent, but it's all in a wrong direction. It's all the Ivanov-Strauss-Renan attitude of Christ and to religious painting."
"What is the subject of the picture?" asked Anna.
"Christ before Pilate. Christ is represented as a Jew with all the realism of the new school."
And the question of the subject of the picture having brought him to one of his favorite theories, Golenishchev launched forth into a disquisition on it.
"I can't understand how they can fall into such a gross mistake. Christ always has his definite embodiment in the art of the great masters. And therefore, if they want to depict not God but a revolutionist or a sage, let them take from history a Socrates, a Franklin, a Charlotte Corday, but not Christ. They take the very figure which cannot be taken for their art . . ."******************************************************************************
Christ before PilateThis refers to when Christ stood before Pontius Pilate the Roman Prefect who sentenced Him to execution by crucifixion.
When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
Matthew 27:1-2The story of the crucifixion of Jesus is found in all four Gospels:
Matthew 27
Mark 15
Luke 23
John 18-19
 |
| Head of a Man, Aleksandr, Ivanov, realist painter mentioned in Anna Karenina |
They take the very figure which cannot be taken for their art.
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
I Corinthians 10:14
This part of the passage was confusing to me. I did not understand what was behind Golenishchev's argument. Orthodox Christians use icons, so why would one be offended by a realistic painting of Jesus? I tried to search this online from multiple angles. Sometimes, friends, the search engines fail me and there is no book on my shelf to meet the need.
Last night I thought of my friend Will, who is an Orthodox Christian. He lives several states away. I sent him a private message via Facebook. He replied within minutes. I asked him if he understood what this quote implied. He very kindly took the time to type out the following message from his phone:
Will's insight has whetted my appetite to learn more about the difference between these two views. He wrapped up our conversation with this blessing:
Last night I thought of my friend Will, who is an Orthodox Christian. He lives several states away. I sent him a private message via Facebook. He replied within minutes. I asked him if he understood what this quote implied. He very kindly took the time to type out the following message from his phone:
I think this is the difference between the "iconic" view and the "artistic" view, in which icons intentionally try to allow the viewer to see the reflective and unreal nature of art...
Icons show the reality of the persons themselves, "circumscribing" and commemorating the incarnation, but, by their "unrealism", they point away from themselves and try to maintain the role given to them by the Church - a language for communicating the Gospel, and not as a "real representation", which might lead the viewer to idolatry.
If someone looks at an icon and thinks, "That is Christ", then it is very easy to think that "The Icon is Christ." Icons are nothing on their own, only significant because of the reality they point toward.
In this quote [from Anna Karenina], I think you see the strong Eastern dislike for the "Idolization" of Western art, which necessarily leads to a reaction, iconoclasm, which is the realization that the art is not what it represents.
After the representation has been taken to be "the thing in itself", it leads to a hatred of that deceitful "thing". This is the opposite of what icons are supposed to do!
Will's insight has whetted my appetite to learn more about the difference between these two views. He wrapped up our conversation with this blessing:
God bless as you wrap your brain around the 7th Council and a very "Unwestern" way of looking at images!
Blessings to all! Have a great Sunday!
*All Scripture quotes are from the King James Version unless otherwise stated.
(Source: BibleGateway. Image Source: WikiPaintings)
