151 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 103.
Problems In The Idea of Beauty
Ouspensky suggests that beauty should be inherent to the icon.152 However, beauty is a difficult thing to determine. There is much discussion of beauty in regard to icons (and to art in general); yet, beauty is usually a cultural thing. What one culture perceives as beautiful, especially when it comes to human form, another finds unbeautiful. It is clear that the idea of beauty in relation to icon focuses more on the transcendent than the visceral. Natural beauty is no longer important in the face on an icon.153 But even this understanding has potential problems. Some find images of nature to contain the transcendent. Yet the icon does not focus on the natural. It seems that beauty in the icon, in spite of historical attempts at standardization, is subject to the ideas of people who live in certain cultures and certain times. This is not inherently problematic, however, it does raise some questions around the idea of what transcendent beauty is. It is truly remarkable that the style and appearance of icons have remained so consistent throughout the history of icon painting.
152 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 346-347.
153 Quenot, 1991, p. 91.
Eliminating the Personality of the Icon Painter
Key to the understanding of the process of painting icons is the idea that the icon painters must eliminate their personality from their work. The basis of this idea is that individual personality in an icon would be distracting.154 Yet, this is inconsistent with much of the communication between God and man. The biblical writers often identified themselves and their personalities were evident in their writings. Ironically, the subjects in the icon itself are identified personally. Maybe if the iconographer considered himself a saint, he would feel it could be appropriate to be identified. In any case, it is considered inappropriate for the iconographer to identify himself in any way, either through technique or by actually signing the project. This seems inconsistent even with the biblical writings where the authors often identified themselves. The necessity of identity is, however, more an emphasis of western individualism and autonomy than a biblical principle. It just seems that enforced anonymity has the tendency to be non-incarnational. This tension exists in almost every area of practices surrounding icons.
Problems Related to the Iconostasis
According to Orthodox teaching, the iconostasis tells the story of how we are able to directly approach the holy of holies. Though it appears as a barrier, the icons are meant to be windows to the truth, more than a wall separating us from this truth. It opens the door to the faithful.155 Yet this seems a possible contradiction in that only the clergy are allowed to enter through the royal door into the sanctuary. This reflects Old Testament restrictions on who may enter the Holy of Holies.
154 Ibid, p. 72-73.
155 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 278ff.
However, through the redeeming work of Christ, these restrictions of access have been removed. Quenot suggests that this is a misunderstanding. The iconostasis is not a barrier but a window – not to block but to bring light to. This reaffirms the idea of mystery perceived not by human eyes.156 The iconostasis certainly creates a sense of mystery. But does it also create a sense of prohibition? The examples mentioned earlier, of a shorter icon wall that a person could look over seem to better convey the ideas of mystery and accessibility. A theology that so emphasizes the incarnation seems at odds with any sense of barrier between the sanctuary and the believer. Again, the physical is downplayed for the sake of the spiritual. While this is a very important emphasis, especially in a culture rooted in modernity, it seems that it may actually be potentially contradictory in light of the physical incarnation of Christ. Reality exists not only in the spiritual but in the physical as well.
