Iconology is the Key to Theology
A. Comparative Aspect
It is somewhat difficult to interpret the term “icon,” because it includes various aspects of human creativity, both secular and ecclesiastical. Any kind of art needs some “textual” explanation, while modern religious thinking above all needs a clearly defined teaching in the field of iconography. Without dwelling on the methods of “iconology,” which in the modern sense is almost no different from “art history,” we need to discover the mystical depth of the “icon,” its sacred and symbolic teaching. The fundamentals of “iconology” are not limited to considering only “hand-made” images on the icon wood panel, but include the idea of the “living Icon,” in whose energies Man is revealed in the biblical concept of the “image of God”. Art researchers have long understood that they need a scientific approach to discover and substantiate the symbolism of creativity as such, based on identifying the meaning of works of art. This kind of approach, but from a religious point of view, can be given by “iconology,” a teaching that literally considers the “Image of God in the inner composition of Man” (Genesis 1:26-27). Having the “mystical accent” in mind, we need to consider the meaning of the Icon not only through the sphere of art, but also in the theological perspective of Man belonging to the nature of his biblical origin: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The symbolisms of artistic and religious creativity are close to each other, but they are not identical in the meaning and objectives of creative life construction. For iconography, the term “symbol” lies much deeper than in pictorial art, because it is rooted in the living circulation of energies of Man himself. The symbol of the Icon affects all dimensions of our religious consciousness. The icon surely does not deny artistic expression – it is neither a sign nor a hieroglyph of faith. Icon painting emphasizes “recognition” and involves some kind of anthropomorphism rather than portraitism. Therefore, due to the enormous connection between art and religion, we understand that what art historians say about “picture-painting” will be very useful for “icon-painting” too. Here is what “art philosophers” write about their objectives: “Contemporary art history has reached such a level of accumulation and generalization of historical material that the most successful researchers are those who not only know much, but also think correctly. The basis of scientific thinking is a scientific approach. This approach, in its turn, is based on classification and systematization. The term “system” includes not only the placement, but also the presence of existing direct and reverse links between all its elements.” In this statement, the main thing that will be useful for icon-painting and its interpretation is the need to “systematize and think correctly, i.e., symbolically.” The symbolic structure of thinking is determined not only by the judgment of “sound” logic, but also by the tinge of the “mystical presence” that should always be kept in mind when talking about the icon. It will be even more correct if the thought is symbolically structured, because it will connect the meanings of three inseparable aspects: the fine-art picture, the handmade icon, and the acheiropoietic (non-handmade) Icon of a living person. In this case, iconography—as a teaching of the handmade icon—and iconology—as a teaching of the acheiropoietic Icon—will be created in the unity of two perspectives. Besides, the connection between material-external things and ideal-internal things revolves in the “direct” and “reverse” order of their interactions. However, if the thought is focused only on considering a painting or even a handmade icon, this position of thinking will deal with iconological reasoning, where the icon will be considered primarily as a work of art. Iconological position will always be closer to considering the allegorical subject of “parables,” or to an illustrative approach, while the real symbolic meaning that determines practical faith will be involved to the least extent. As a rule, modern art theorists introduce the term “icon” into their studies, generally understanding and presenting it as “visual image” and considering it outside religious anthropology. However, iconography as such arose much earlier than the Renaissance period on the basis of the Christian faith and church dogmas. To determine the logical scope of the term “icon,” arts historians use various approaches and definitions: iconics, icon history, iconography, iconology, icon philosophy, and icon theology. The icon, as a subject of liturgical substantiations, is rarely considered by art historians in its religious sense; strangely enough, however, they use the term “icon” to explain secular artworks. Their arguments relating to the “symbol” occur in the forms of the same discourse: in linguistic theory, gnoseology, art theory, social theory, cultural science, etc. As a rule, studies pertain to works of art almost without focusing on the specific features of the Christian and theological value of the Icon. For example, famous researcher of Western art Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968) defines iconography as follows: “this is a section of art history that studies the content or meaning rather than the form of artworks.” It seems that this statement is correct, but, while using the term “iconography,” the book discusses paintings rather than icons. The word “iconology” appeared in the 16th century in Iconologia (1593), the treatise of Italian humanist Cesare Ripa. He used this term as an interpretation of works of art in general, defining them in the broad sense of secular “pictorial art.” Since then, especially since the 20th century, the term “iconography” has been periodically used as an equivalent of “icon history” and as related to issues of “philosophy of visuality,” considering it in the context of the general theory of figurative art. The concept “icon” certainly includes the concept “artistic image,” but it has a very deep anthropological range, because it is etymologically connected with the term “person,” “personality” (Greek: prosopon). Speaking of the “icon” and implying the “theology of image,” we rely on the Biblical origin of Man who was created “in the image and likeness of God.” In accordance with his “origin,” Man himself is the “Icon” and the “creator” of handmade images. A work of art should, one way or another, arouse in the beholder a memory of oneself, and in the reverse order it should channel its meaning and beauty into awakening the vital energy of creativity in a person. This religious purpose will correspond directly with the principles of the “icon” as the Image of God in Man himself. Any painting contains the “idea” of the artist himself; the canonical icon embodies the theological “idea” of Theophanies. The Greek word “idea” derives from the verb “to see,” which in religious experience means not just to see, but “to contemplate,” that is, to get to the heart of things. Contemplation of the icon reveals the very “idea” of the origin of the world, because the icon-painting process is a liturgical method and everything in iconography happens and continues to be formed from and on the basis of God’s words “Let there be light!” At the same time, we should bear in mind that “light” arose when there was no cosmic source, and it is worth considering whether Light is identical with the concept of Life. In this case, Life is full of symbolic images of the divine Word. Life originated from Light and must return to its Prototype in accordance with the path of the divine Word. The holy ascetics attributed “contemplation” to “theological” experience and raised it to the highest degree of the Tabor Light prayer. In the creative process, one should always keep in mind the interaction between the author and the work of art. This is the main proof of conscious faith: the Creator never leaves His creation, but always contemplates it. The icon affects the contemplator just as much as the icon-painter affects the icon while working, and this influence must pass over to future generations of world culture, through the centuries reaching the beholder’s impressions. In this world, every idea has a form, because everything inside and outside is filled with life eide (Greek: plural of “eidos”) coming from the Archetype. In the Archetype, or Prototype, the idea-content and the eidos-form are combined in a holistic and harmonious way, manifesting the life-giving dynamism of life. “The contemplated and the contemplator” is a “double” dynamically concentrated state that expresses the highest tension in one’s life and drives one to perfection. Icon-asserting principles give rise to a certain symbolization – a connection producing the idea of the highest conditions of Life coming and dwelling. There occurs a meeting based on the interaction of different natures. The Principalities, also known as “Princedoms” and “Rulers,” are the third order in the Hierarchy of Angels. In their symbolic meaning, they help one understand that Man really is “living iconology” or, speaking more globally, “the Iconology of Life.” Iconology is not a teaching about created “paintings” or even handmade “icons.” Instead, iconology is a teaching about the Archetype of our existence. The symbol is free in any representation, because there is always a certain metaphysical “gap” between the “an image” and its “content.” Evoked from the depth of the “image,” the symbol begins to lose its limits and becomes free. The reality of the symbol is energy (action, movement). Therefore, the symbol is always “alive” as differentiated from a sign. In addition, the symbol can always freely leave conditional figurative forms and be embodied in one person or another. The symbol determines the sharpness of thought embedded in the image. Dialectically, there is no gap between the symbol and the image. This is a strong unity of opposites, which is called an “antinomy of opposites” rather than a contradiction, because their ontology of fullness and unity of relations to the Man-Icon is equal. The essence (idea) of the image follows the movement of the symbol and goes beyond its figurative meaning. Professor Karen A. Svasyan gives an interesting example of the unity of “image” and “content,” saying that the images of Greek gods, compared with those of Egyptian ones, are an example of the unity of image and content. Gods are no longer understood as symbols, but as free and self-sufficient individuals. The process of symbolization of the world is aimed at creating a real Culture that is not made up by discourse. Humankind should come to a worldview where physical images of things will simultaneously manifest a natural feeling of the presence of God. The Image (Prosopon) of the Creator will be seen and heard with a purified sight and hearing of even our material existence. Symbolization should completely translate human consciousness from symbolic and allegorical associations to a state of the energetic ability to spontaneously comprehend one’s own Icon of the Spirit. Iconologically, art will be postulated not only by the requirement of “holiness”; in addition, art will be determined by the “value” of belonging to spiritual culture in accordance with axiology, because the dignity acquired in this case brings art closer to the energies of divine Light. In the same sense, individual creativity standards are raised; in fact, the artist’s creativity can only be axiological. In other words, creativity should be sufficiently pronounced, vital, and healthy. Axiology removes the contraposition between the material and the noetic. Each thing has its own dignity at its own place, some things safely live in other things, and each thing has its own order of value. Being determined, things are transformed into a new mystical quality and come into contact with the uncreated energies of Theophanies. This kind of art, as a special phenomenon of human activity, will be a “theophanic” expression of inseparability in the unity and harmony of the three worlds: the physical, the noetic, and the mystical (divine). God is not knowable until one has the opportunity to think creatively. In fact, the basis of creative thinking lies in the Iconology of manifestations raised to the heights of the minds of the angelic Hierarchy. While straining our capacity for the art of knowing God, the civilization of iconological Culture will also comprehend its own essence of human “image and likeness.” Iconological Culture is an upward movement, in which one comes to realize one’s true purpose and one’s direct connection with the revelations of divine Life that are related to Eternity. The term “culture” itself implies a complex understanding of a certain process involving the cultivation, observation, and taking care of the quality of growth, development, and enhancement of the survivability of rational beings. The term “culture,” for example as translated from the ancient Sanskrit language, literally means “veneration of Light” and expresses the idea of cognition. According to painter and theosophist Nicholas Roerich, “The root cult has a deep spiritual meaning and means veneration of the good principle, while ur is an ancient oriental root denoting light, fire. Therefore, culture (be it spiritual culture, physical culture, or relationship culture) is veneration of Light.” Adam and Eve were commanded to “cultivate” the Garden. “What kind of garden”? The Bible does not suggest agricultural development. In this case, the form of image is meant: both the “garden of the body” and the “garden of the soul” are prepared for the ripening of the “fruits of the Spirit” in the “image” of the Tree of Life. The body lives through communication with the outside world, and the soul lives inside; therefore, the concept “cultivation culture” has a double meaning of reconciling the opposites – the synergy of the material and the spiritual. Culture implies a religious and creative attitude to the “cultivation” of our world and ourselves. This can be done in the iconologically developed metanoia-conversion. Man is renewed in a constant dynamism of turning toward a new realization of life around us. Iconography can be considered as a method of incarnation of “religion,” while iconology can be considered as a tropos-mode of a steady and direct “path” to God. The light of life-giving energies is not an abstraction of imagination, but a practical disposition of human nature to holiness: “Ye shall be holy; for I am holy,” said the Lord (cf. St. Mt. 5:48).
B. Iconological Style
Being a major area of creative search, iconology represents a unity of the artistic, religious, and mystical style of creative prospects. In Rhetoric, Aristotle expressed approximately the same idea: “A style will have proper qualities if it is filled with feeling and if it corresponds to the true state of things” (Metaphysics). Iconographic style is not only a technique, but also a special category of iconological thinking. The closer an icon painter’s thought is to the Archetype, the more expressive and newer in form his icon’s style will be. Art critics say that “style is an image minus an object.” In iconology, just the opposite is true: “image plus object,” because the icon represents an unmerged and inseparable combination of appearance (prosopon) and essence (hypostasis). So, if we bring the concept “image” closer to the concept “energy,” style will be expressed quite credibly in terms of religious impression both in art and in Man. The image’s energy has a certain “minus” related to the object’s materiality, but it makes the object vibrate too. The essence of iconographic style as a phenomenon lies in a definitely symbolic construction of the painting, light, and color connected in the realities of “spirit” and “matter.” “Style is not just a mode of expression, but also a substance, i.e., a kind of invariant yet invariably moving artistic essence that not only underlies some specific esthetic category, but also defines the living process of art.” The most complex and perfect style of iconological culture is formed by combining the figurative possibilities of secular painting and symbolic icon-painting. The vitality of artworks arises and operates in the structure of all dimensions (floors) of the Universe rather than in partial, i.e., random patterns. This creative credo embraces and corrects the cosmic orientation of contraposing “spirit and matter” and guides the artist to the origins of creativity, returning consciousness to the iconological Archetype of existence. In the culture of portraying “life,” spiritual content is constantly transformed into the material form of bodies, i.e., undergoing a kind of embodiment. Meanwhile, the “body” becomes spiritualized during this embodiment, and the law of its materialization is facilitated. The art of multi-stage icon-painting is an “organism” that most of all interacts with life rather than a system of mechanical constructions. Each organ (and every stage) operates in its place and the body is spiritualized, while the spirit, being embodied, takes on a separate and independent form of “personal” life. Ethnogenesis is a natural process of discrete development not only of culture, but also of creative tension itself. It depends on passionary impulses, which are the fluctuations not only of the biochemical energies of the Earth, but also of the Revelations of uncreated Light, whose dynamism increases from time to time in accordance with humankind’s attention to the spiritual and cultural sphere. The unmistakable method that is triggered in humankind is that of “diagonal anagogy,” i.e., harmonious (golden) movement between the material (horizontal) and noetic (vertical) worlds. The energies of physical and mystical disciplines interact while being embodied in visible cultural monuments. It is the responsibility of artists and icon painters to always preserve this unity in any kind of creativity. “Classical art has ended, as evidenced by the ‘zero’ results of the development of postmodernist culture. Nature does not repeat itself, and the new age of information technologies is already creating a different culture embodied in universal methods of designing virtual reality rather than in ‘object forms.’ When one epoch changes into another, integrative tendencies of thinking become more noticeable than isolated experiments and deviations from the norm.” It is said very specifically, and the idea sounds ambiguous for a creative approach, even in icon-painting. And yet, the above-mentioned “virtual reality” is not quite the same as what we mean by the “symbolic realism” of the icon. One of the meaning of the Latin term “virtualis” is “possible,” i.e., related to artificially created reality, or the world of illusions. All this becomes familiar and understandable for secular artists and philosophers, but iconological reality stops logical concepts and calls on the icon painter to enter the noetic sphere of “Principalities” and come into contact with the Archetype of symbolic creativity. Symbolic reality, or what we mean by the term “archetype,” directly refers to the concept of the “Image of God” in Man, who in turn is revealed through the cognition of Theophanies. To be manifested to the world, the iconological Archetype passes through various stages of natural symbolizations and only in Man becomes the “image and likeness” of God’s Light, Wisdom, and Love. In this sense, art becomes sacred, and its theme will always sound like “The Iconology of Manifestations.” Even though cyclical development is spiraliform, its “thread” is not interrupted. However, the potential of passionarity periodically decreases, because the development reaches a certain “zero” point before a new impetus to development arises. This is a “breathing rhythm” having a fading point. This “zero point” defines the concept of conditional “discontinuity” in the “theory of progressive cyclic development of art.” The theory of “discontinuity” (arrhythmology), determining the state of space, indicates a fundamental disconnectedness of iconological phenomena. Their origin depends on the “flashes” of theophanic Revelations rather than on the gradual evolutionary rhythms of logical sequence. Indeed, the power of Life’s “impulse” is precisely manifested in this “point of silence.” It is in mysterious Theophanies that mysterious changes take place. The arrhythmology of iconological thinking determines changes in the types of culture for future artistic and religious symbolizations. Culture is maintained by the rhythmic unity of all elements, while expressiveness is determined by the knowledge accumulated by peoples in the experience of previous centuries. Epochs change, and so do styles: they acquire greater dynamism both intellectually and in terms of emotionally sensitive intensity, expanding in the interest of religious appeal to itself. Static iconography of the icon of past symbolizations, in the process of comprehending creative symbolism, comes close to the dynamic expressiveness of centuries-long artistic experience. The time is coming to reconnect “form” and “content” into a holistic perception of life, without losing the meanings of both “artistic” and “religious” symbols. In this kind of “deconstruction,” the “one” and the “other” are not selective as in previous cultures, where art divided into “secular” and “ecclesiastical” ones, with their mutual influence retaining in terms of power and beauty. Pictorial art must have spiritual strength, and icon-painting must be characterized by the esthetics of beauty. The unique combination of “creativity and life” does not stop at “creaturely,” let alone material, self-sufficiency, but constitutes the essence of discovering of the deep layers of development of the “image and likeness of God” in the axiology of human existence. In these two concepts, we find a difference, because the “image” is connected more with material phenomena, while the “likeness” is connected more with mystical ones. The method of symbolic realism harmoniously opens approaches to the formation of such a concept as “personality,” in which two types of energies operate. Compositional thinking, which is implies by iconology, “is primarily a coherent and holistic perception in the system of relations created by the artist. Composition is a conceptual integrity in which every element changes its meaning depending on its connections and relations with other elements.” The problem of the concepts of “composition,” and therefore its instability in terms of expressive content, lies in the insufficient connection between secular art and the religious dogma of Trinitarian theology. In the compositional system of iconological creativity, the gap between the “artist” and the “icon painter” disappears. The reconciliation of the artist’s own worldview with the iconographer’s traditional worldview can raise awareness and result in the unity of the two sides of creativity. Iconology is not about describing particular pictures. Instead, iconology is a dynamic process of interaction among the worlds that control the unfolding of theological “ideas” ranging from artworks to Man. The whole life is a process of “icon painting,” because Man is an Icon produced by God, and God is both a Theologian and an Iconologist. In iconology, Man forms a correspondence with God; in theology, Man meets with Him; and in art, Man seeks and forms the language of physical and mystical methods of cognizing oneself and God. Iconological thinking implies a preliminary combination of historical, mythological, noetic (intuitive), scientific, and metaphysical approaches. The integrity of this kind of thinking results in a certain new physical and noetic sphere of expressiveness, an intention of mystical reality, which is no longer contemplated only as an object of creativity, but comes alive in Man. A person, as a personality, becomes a “living museum,” a carrier of the Creator’s physical and mystical potentialities. To create a composition of elements of artistic and religious symbols means to establish a new convincing icon-painting canon, where theological ideas will be mainly expressed by energies of things rather than things themselves. In this sense, iconography should depict not only “portraits” of saints or angels, but also focus on “theophanic ideas” revealed from Above.
C. The Symbolic Realism of Icon-Painting
Realism affirms existence as the reality of our consciousness and of things that are outside our consciousness. We supplement the term “realism” with the attribute “symbolic,” because the reality outside our earthly consciousness can be portrayed only symbolically rather than directly; in this connection, we understand “symbol” as part of “realism” and as the operating, connecting, and living energy of interactions between “the Creator and His creation.” Symbolic realism is basically relative. However, it is required in the figurative method of icon-painting. The quality of iconological consciousness will be perfect when the things visible through mental notions and those visible through faith-based revelations are combined in the icon as a “binary opposition,” or rather as an antinomic position that does not infringe on the dignity of form and content. Artistic and symbolic “images” are created using “tropos” – a technique or method of transferring meanings from one element to another. There arise new relations; in this process, the content, beauty, and meaning change not only locally, but also at different levels of consciousness. Iconological thinking makes the icon painter use iconographic techniques in the right (Greek: ὀρθο) way. In addition, iconological thinking enables the icon painter to understand and be able, for example, to transfer the symbolism of meanings of the “handmade icon” to the acheiropoetic “Living Icon.” This kind of “incarnation” results in a reverse “conversion,” in which the handmade image comes to life with the energies of additional vitality and its conscious expressiveness. The iconological perspective in fine art opens the way to a holistic and inseparable perception of the visible and invisible worlds, because “iconology” is a doctrine of Archetypes, or more precisely, a doctrine of the perfect divine Prototype of all the forms that came into existence in the Universe. In this sense, creativity should be based on the principles of the “iconology of manifestations,” because all energies “flow” from the Archetype. They are God’s messages and actions, and therefore they are “iconographic.” The concept “icon” in the meaning of symbolic realism becomes a theophanic art, and no other kind of visual art (for example, a religious painting) can be fully attributed to the term “icon” in a mystical, biblical, or anthropological meaning. To understand the essence of icon-painting, one should enter into the reality of energy relations among the material, noetic, and divine worlds, primarily discovering their “origin” in the human Spirit. For this differentiation, it is necessary to keep in mind that icon-painting arose in Byzantium in the first centuries of Christianity and that the iconographic canon is based on the principles of faith in accordance with which the art of theological thinking was formed. The esthetic aspect, which is a mandatory attribute of paintings, is not the first priority for the icon. The icon is practical, and it is quite appropriate to put a utilitarian “craft” emphasis on it. However, this should be a special craft of “symbolic wisdom” that is necessary to reveal dogmatic and mystical theology. The icon’s practicality is manifested not in its belonging to fine arts, but in its belonging to the teaching of the Christian Church, to the teaching of God’s Logos, Wisdom, and Love. Fayum mummy portraits are stylistically close to the icon, but they are “portraits,” not icons, because too much emphasis is placed on characteristic human features. The archetype of artistic and symbolic thinking in the artist fluctuates between two poles: on the one hand, the rational and reasonable attributed to “picture-painting” and, on the other hand, the intuitive and noetic attributed to the “icon-painting” of the exact historical perspective of the Christian faith. A certain passionarity point between them will not be in the middle, but in segments of the golden ratio (“the whole is to the longer part as the longer part is to the shorter part”). In this connection, noetic thinking in iconography must certainly be in the “longer” segment of the whole. On the other hand, purely artistic thinking should resign itself to the position of the “shorter” segment in the icon-painter’s mystical intuitions. Therefore, iconology is not an interpretation of some iconographic image or other. Instead, iconology is a doctrine of “the living Icon,” a doctrine of the methods of uniting this Icon with the Creator of “all kinds of images.” The handmade icon is just a tool for showing and testing the creative level and the height of not only personal, but also synergistic religious and secular thinking. At the level of iconological thinking, “tropoi” (turns) serve as the main means of transferring the meaning and beauty from a handmade artwork to a living form of the “art of the Soul.” This interaction of compositional positions gives rise to secondary figurative meanings, connections, and relations that are absent in the artist’s usual craft. The icon painter strains to “see” and “hear” not his own thoughts, but the subtle “voice” that in hesychia comes from the intracardial Logos Emmanuel.
D. Final Conclusions
To get a basic understanding of the sacred symbolic meaning of the Icon, which we are discussing, it is necessary above all to accurately distinguish between the concepts “picture” (picture-painting) and “icon” (icon-painting). Undoubtedly, any art is always symbolic. In the art of icon-painting, however, we can observe two main areas that intersect, but never merge into one principle: the “artistic” symbol and the “religious” one. If philosopher Ernst Cassirer is right in defining art as “thinking in images and one of the symbolic forms of knowing and understanding the world,” we should clarify that the Icon is not only a religion-based art, but also an absolutely verified kind of “religious thinking in images” that corresponds to the confession of faith and the Old Church tradition. The word “religion” (Latin: religio) has a certain connection with the term “symbol” and signifies a mystical path that, like a medium, connects the two antinomic “banks,” for example, “flesh and spirit.” While secular, especially contemporary, art (i.e., “picture-painting”) can sometimes do without literary content at all yet retaining an expressive form and allegorical meaning, icon-painting is thoroughly permeated with the symbolism of verbal interpretation (theologoumenon) and theological substantiation (dogma). In this double sense, the icon represents the esthetics and ethics of the Christian faith. The interpretation of the icon’s meaning is determined by the iconological attitude to cognition. “The Way” is one of the names of Christ. The meaning of the way passes into its content, connecting the “icon” of the beholder and the handmade icon, regardless of the time and place of its origin. In the process of contemplation, the icon’s symbolism goes beyond the limits of “image” and is revealed in the mind and heart of its contemplator. However, one can speak about the symbol with confidence only when the idea of the theophanic Archetype is clearly embodied and vividly expressed in a work of art, especially in an icon. This “idea of Sophia” and the “beauty of Agapia” determine the content of iconology, expanding one’s consciousness from “handmade” creativity to the art of controlling one’s inner creative energies. In this case, the iconological principles form a meeting with the Creator: a meeting of “an image with the Image” and of “a likeness with the Likeness.” Out of the whole set of “ideas” about the handmade icon, two definitions are important for the Orthodox understanding of “image”: iconography and iconology. Both terms stem from the common Greek root “eikon” (image, figure, picture, likeness), with respective additions deriving from the Greek words “graphein” (to scrape, write, draw) and “logos” (thought, word, teaching). However, art historians do not reveal any sufficiently clear distinction or understanding of their meanings as applied to human life, focusing more on studying “picture-painting.” For example, Professor V. Vlasov in his Glossary defines “iconology” as follows: “Iconology is a field and method of knowledge that reveals the semantics and artistic meaning of an image in the context of a certain historical type of art by correlating a theme, plot, and motif with literary and other extra-figurative sources. Iconology uses the data of ICONOGRAPHY, but ‘recreates the scenario’ of a work of art in its entirety and integrity. The expected result of the iconographic method is classification, and expected result of the iconological method is typology.” This sounds correct, but the aspect of this definition is related to painting. The search for “artistic meaning” is only a part of iconological concepts. Literally, however, “iconology” is a method of revealing the inner person; it is the doctrine of “the image and likeness of God” and of the radiance of God’s Wisdom and Love in the inner “chambers” of any earthborn human being. In the canonically correctly painted icon, the method of symbolic realism combines “art and religion,” and one cannot speak only of its figurative value or “typology.” The global content and meaning of icon-painting is “religious,” the inner intensity and tension of the spiritual and human aspect of life. The handmade icon is completely based on the inner meaning of anthropological vision in accordance with the biblical statement: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Therefore, in the figurative elements of icon-creation, we will not find landscape picturesqueness, ordinary household objects, special anthropomorphic portraitism or decorative expressism in colors, naturalistic “folds” in clothing designs, or pronounced recognizable personal characteristics in figures. All things borrowed from the surrounding world are limited by minimum “similarity,” while all things recognizable from our nature are hidden under the “robe” of symbolic reference to a “turn,” a “path to oneself” in revealing the human Soul and its relationship with God. The main aspect in the depiction of the mystical principle is the hesychia of Light. The embodiment of various types of “light” in the icon should be traced as the living “breath” of God’s presence. Iconology is not a “field of knowledge” emanating from discourse, but a theophanic teaching of “enlightments” in Man’s inner system. In this meaning, we can say that iconology is the Light of divine Revelations. In addition, Light helps clarify the doctrine of the “images of action” of God’s Wisdom and Love that continue to create “life” in world culture too. In the iconology of manifestations, Light enters into Man and reveals Man’s “image and likeness” of the Logos. It is the Logos rather than the small everyday “ego” in the flesh that says in Man, “I Am That I Am.” All the divine properties are contained in the Archetype of God’s creative Revelations, because the creation of the world did not stop at “creation.” This process continues, and the discovery of properties of the divine presence in oneself means a restoration of connection with the Archetype. Eventually, every person is meant to become a saint, i.e., to completely connect one’s life with God’s Will, Wisdom, and Love and to enter the Culture of iconological archetypes. The liturgical process of becoming closer to God depends on the comprehension and full awareness of iconological manifestations in our lives. We need human love as a reminder of Divine Love, but while we are in the body, we need the icon of incarnations of Light (idea), Color (eidos), and Design (form) to certify and visually perceive God’s incarnating revelations. In its highest meanings, Iconology is Theophany. Practically, it can be understood as the “key to theology.” The creative path of a believer is determined by an awareness of one’s life and by its belonging to unfading life. The ways of approaching and touching the higher worlds are formed by the “steps” of ascension energies, starting with technique – craft – art – iconography – iconology – prayology. The final step is divine Hesychia in the contemplation of the Logos, the Bridegroom of the human Soul. This is “the way, the truth, and the life” of the creative meeting. The iconology of handmade and acheiropoetic Icons forms a path of the final theophanic meeting with the Logos of the Church, determining the concordance between earthly creativity and the divine Archetype. The second stage is the entry into the “temple of theology,” but, above all, we should keep in mind that “Iconology is the key to theology.”
We are happy to announce the release of a new film about the founder of Prosopon School Vladislav Andreyev. The film is made by the efforts of Lynette Hull and film maker Yevgeniy Vaskevich. To watch the film please follow this link.
