Never as Gods-lessons From Icons

7/28/2019 Never as Gods-lessons From Icons

1/17

108

Religious Education Vol. 98 No. 1 Winter 2003

DOI: 10.1080/00344080390176357

NEVER AS GODS: LESSONS FROMA MILLENNIUM OF ICONS

Anton C. VramePatriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute

Abstract

The Orthodox Christian experience with sacred articonsservesas a guide to the present consideration of the potential and chal-lenges of the icon and iconic in our visual age. This article considerscontemporary understandings of the icon in light of a millennium ofliving with icons in the Orthodox tradition. Three basic questionsare asked and discussed: 1) What does an icon depict? 2) How do

icons form us? 3) What are the dangers of icons?

Icons and the iconic seem to have filled our vocabulary, espe-cially in popular culture. Through the growth of virtual reality, whichcombines the visual with audio via the power of a computer, we havethe possibility of entering new worlds and engaging new possibilitiesfor ourselves, even as we are entertained in the process. Proving thatthis is no fad, even the U.S. military has begun thinking iconically.The March 31, 1997 issue of Time included a story about how theU.S. Army is experimenting with computers in the battlefield(Thompson 1997, 7272). To convince soldiers and commanders toaccept the pictorial information on their monitors, the Army intro-

duced a slogan: Trust the icon. This visual age already has a mottofor the future.

While icons seem to be relatively recent phenomena, they havebeen around for centuries, shaping the life and thought of the East-ern Church. Orthodox Christians have trusted icons for over one thou-sand years as the visible presence of the invisible God in their midst.The Byzantine conflict over icons also led to a great deal of reflectionupon their potential as well as limitations. While icons are a powerfulsource of divine inspiration, commanding veneration and honor, thereis a limit placed upon them: They are not gods. Constantine Scouteriscites the Seventh Ecumenical Council (AD 787), the Christians re-


2/17

109ANTON C. VRAME

spect one God praised in Trinity, and him alone do they

worship. . . And thus, in approaching the icons, they venerate themrelatively. . . and indeed never as gods. (15).The Orthodox experience with and reflection upon the visual might

serve to guide our modern consideration of the power and potentiallimits of the icon and the iconic in our visual age. This article willconsider our present understanding of the icon in light of a millen-nium of living with icons in the Orthodox tradition in order to drawsome lessons for the present age. Three basic questions will be askedand discussed: 1) What does an icon depict? We will examine the iconicdepiction of the person in order to challenge our practice of labelingsomeone or something an icon. 2) How do icons form us? We willconsider the parallels of the ancient and the modern understanding of

the influence of the iconic. 3) What are the dangers of icons? We willexplore examples of the limitations of icons from the past and thepresent. This paper, in many respects, is still very much a work inprogress, reflecting an initial sketch on a visual culture, the place ofreligious imagery in a faith community (and here I will strive to re-main safely within the confines of my own), and the need for bettertools for visual understanding, especially when the twothe visualculture and visual in churchesbegin to overlap.

WHAT DOES AN ICON DEPICT?

Not too long ago, an article in The Boston Globe called local tele-vision anchor Natalie Jacobson an icon. Admired for her longevityand her multi-faceted ability, Natalie has survived. She is woman hearher roar. She reads the news, interviews the odd celebrity, whips upMartha Stewart-style food specials, sells videos of same, grants self-promoting interviews, makes public appearances, raises funds for char-ity, and above all, is wife and mother (White 1998, C6). The reasonfor the accolade and the story was not Jacobsons stellar and admi-rable career, although it was mentioned. The story was about her newhairstyle. The real purpose of the story, buried deep in it, was theprice of celebrity, of icon status (especially for a woman) in that theviewing public makes a big deal of an anchor womans new hair style,

but pays no attention to a male reporter having gained a few pounds.While this example raises many issues about journalism and the treat-ment of women, I bring it to your attention for its assumption or defi-nition of icon and what one depicts.


3/17

110 NEVER AS GODS

In the above case, the icon is a person who does it all in just the

right proportions. Jacobson is an icon of the ideal career-minded, fam-ily-minded, civic-minded woman of the day. That she achieves thiswhile appearing on television would appear to be a decisive factor forher status given that many women today manage to successfully per-form a similar juggling act. The popular definition of an icon wouldseem to be high visibility, usually a presence on television. Obscurityfrom view does not lead one to being named an icon. Wealth andpower frequently confer or determine icon status, sometimes devo-tion to meaningful causes. Rock stars, politicians, and sports figuresare given iconic status: Madonna, Bill Clinton, Mark McGwire, andSammy Sosa, to name a few in these categories. Occasionally a busi-ness leader is called an icon, for example, Bill Gates; less often a reli-

gious leader reaches that position, such as Mother Theresa or PopeJohn Paul II. Despite the plethora of icons in our society, a clearand meaningful definition of icon seems to have eluded us, excepthigh visibility or celebrity.

Without appearing to be hand wringing over our impoverishedstate and looking nostalgically for a better era in the past, the Byzan-tine Orthodox experience with icons would seem to offer guidance tochallenge our present situation. In the Orthodox ecclesiastical tradi-tion, icon statusby this I mean whose icon was paintedwas con-ferred sometime after the death of the person, usually long after. Theicon status was given upon the proclamation of sainthood. Sainthoodhad nothing to do with visibility but had everything to do with holi-ness or quality of life. Sainthood recognized a number of characteris-tics in those persons, including excellence in teaching as exemplifiedby John Chrysostom (4th c.) or John Damascene (8th c); significantpolitical leadership such as that of Vladimir and Olga in Kievan Rus(10th c.); wonder working capabilities such as that of Nektarios ofAegina (20th c.); monastic and ascetic superiority such as the Antonythe Great or Mary of Egypt (4th c); willingness to suffer physical tor-ture or martyrdom such as Maximos the Confessor (7th c.) or Katherinethe Great (4th c.).

Philip Sherrard has offered a most compelling definition of theartistic icon that points to the distinction that I seek to make between

our present understanding of icon versus the Byzantine Orthodox con-cept. He writes, the icon testifies to the basic realities of the Chris-tian faithto the reality of the divine penetration of the human andnatural world, and to the reality of that sanctification which results


4/17

111ANTON C. VRAME

from this (1990, 74). In his writing he consistently seeks to empha-

size the interpenetration of the divine into the human that came aboutas the result of the incarnation and the implications that this has uponhuman life if it is taken seriously. In Christian terms, this implicationis the kingdom of God. For example, Sherrard was noted for hisstrong opposition to the modern scientific paradigm and its destruc-tive posture toward the natural environment. However, rather thanmerely focus on the external causes, Sherrard draws our attention tothe underlying root of the problemour loss of a sacred worldviewthat includes a loss of the sacred dimension of human life. He writes,We are treating our planet in an inhuman god-forsaken manner be-cause we see things in an inhuman god-forsaken way. And we seethings this way because that basically is how we see ourselves (1992,

2).In keeping with his line of thought, the problem with our present

conferral of iconic status has less to do with external realities of themedia, journalistic standards than it does with our self-image as com-munities and cultures. What we name an icon tells as much aboutourselves as what the icon tells us. Our present definition of icon gen-erally seems to be limited to one who can gain our attention withoutany criteria for the quality of life that this person lead or inspire thosewho gaze at them to do likewise for the transformation of the world.An icon, based upon the Byzantine understanding, would be an im-age that reflects the most inspirational qualities and achievements ofour present situation and draws us more deeply into our personal ap-propriation of those qualities.

This two-fold definition is drawn from the Orthodox experiencethat considers icons both as mirrors and windows. So far, my lamenthas been on what present icons mirror to those who gaze upon them.Our present day icons reflect celebrity, wealth, and power seeminglyin and for their own sake. I believe that the Orthodox theological termtheosis (divinization, deification) offers an alternative. As PaulEvdokimov points out, The doctrine oftheosis . . . is not a logicaldoctrine, not a concept, but rather a vision of life and grace (1990,50). In the Byzantine understanding, icons serve to reflect a vision ofa life that has come into fellowship with the divine and thus radiate

the presence of God in that life in all its ways of being and knowing.Icons also serve as windows, that is they seek to open up to aworld of the divine and draw viewers into a deeper relationship withthe sanctifying power of God. They become a media, a means, for


5/17

112 NEVER AS GODS

communicating with the divine by offering a connection between what

is transcendent within our humanity and the transcendent one, whobecame human. Jean-Luc Marion (1991) challenges our conceptionof icon on this point by opposing icons and idols. An icon draws thegaze toward infinity while an idol fixes the gaze on itself. He writes,When the idol appears, the gaze has just stopped, the idol concret-izes that stop (11). The window that opens toward the infinite king-dom is shut by an idol. The icon summons sight in letting the visiblebe saturated little by little with the invisible (17). As a window inviteslooking out, the icon engages the vision toward a vision of life andgrace, a la Evdokimov. A window permits light to enter illuminatingones existence and the icon radiates light for the same purpose. Inthe idol, the gaze of man is frozen in its mirror; in the icon, the gaze of

man is lost in the invisible gaze that visibly envisages him (20). I daresay that contemporary icons do not draw those who gaze upon theminto a connection with anything higher or transcendent. In fact, theymerely draw attention toward themselves.

HOW ARE WE FORMED BY ICONS?

The popular film, The Truman Show, provides an interesting casestudy of how an individual can be formed by icons. Without trying tostretch credulity, the Byzantine reflection on icons and the iconic of-fers a historic parallel and interpretive framework of the film. Thus in

this next section, I shall try to move between the film and the Byzan-tine interpretation in order to explain how persons are formed by icons.

The Truman Show is about a television program that broadcastslive, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, following the life anddevelopment of its lead character, Truman Burbank (played by JimCarrey). Millions of viewers have watched the longest running televi-sion program in history live, as it unfolded. Truman has been on cam-era from birth and it is the hope that it will continue until his naturaldeath. The film is about the viewers of the television program and theculture of television as much as it is about the life of the programsmain character.

Brilliantly written and executed, the films plot covers what tran-

spires in the last few days of the television program about Truman,who grew up and lives within a completely iconic environment. Ev-erything in his beautiful hometown of Seahaven has been created for


6/17

113ANTON C. VRAME

the television program, every home, street, neighborhood, business,

restaurant, even the beach, harbor, and outlying forests. Seahaven isthe worlds largest studio.Without the ability to actually show the film, describing a film,

quoting its script with its camera directions, and capturing such a multi-leveled plot (a story about a television program and its viewers that wewatch) is extremely difficult! I apologize in advance for any confusion.Italics have been employed to separate camera instructions from dia-logue. The shooting script and dialogue of the film describe the stu-dio as follows:

Announcer(VO [Voice over]): . . . and Truman Burbank as himself,taped in the worlds largest studio one of only two man-made struc-tures visible from space. . .

The camera rushes towards the outside wall of the gigantic dome bathedin sunlight. When we emerge on the other side, it is night. The cameracranes up from a calm, moonlit ocean to the night sky above. As wenear the crescent-shaped moon, we discover that it is actually a win-dow overlooking Seahaven. Standing in the crater window is the suitedCHRISTOF. . .

Interviewer: Im your host, Mike Michaelson, coming to you live fromthe Lunar Room on the 121st story of the OmniCam Ecosphere, 2800feet about Seahaven Island. . . (Niccol 1998; 712).

The entire environment in which Truman lives has been createdjust for him. Toward the films end, a dialogue between Christof, theshows director, and Truman takes place where this is revealed toTruman.

Christofs voice booms over the now calm ocean.

Christof: Truman! Truman drops the handle as if his hand has beenburned. He looks all about him. (O.C. [off camera])

You can speak. I can hear you. Truman takes a moment to overcomehis fear and astonishment.

Truman: Who are you?

Christof: Im the creator. Truman looks up to the heavens.

Truman: The creator of what?


7/17

114 NEVER AS GODS

Christof (O.C.): A showthat gives hope and joy and inspiration to

millions.Truman: (incredulous) Ashow. Then who am I?

Christof (O.C.): Youre the star. Truman struggles to take it all in.

Truman: Nothing was real.

Christof: You were real. Thats what made you so good to watch (1045).

Christof, the God-like figure in the film (is his name a play on thename Christ?) calls out to Truman is a manner reminiscent of the callof Moses in Exodus (3:615). Truman, in an epiphanic encounter withthe one who has controlled his life and destiny, asks Christof the samequestion as Moses, Who are you? Christof responds with a god-likename, the Creator rather than I am but the parallel is clear enough.Christof has created the worlds largest studio, the television show,and indeed Truman himself to alleviate the suffering of the people(Ex. 3:7) through entertainment. This encounter parallels the role ofthe church and church architecture and its mission.

The studio is our first parallel to the historic understanding of theiconic environment and its formative potential. In the film the studiois a microcosm of the much larger world, incorporating all of its as-pects and dimensions. We see in the film a technologically sophisti-cated microcosm that has the perfectly maintained environment,

controlling the rising and the setting of the sun, creating rain and wavesmerely to influence the behavior of one person and all for our enter-tainment.

In the Byzantine world, this microcosm is the church structureitself (McVey 1983). The church embraces the whole created or-der and integrates it within its walls. For example, in some churchesin Ravenna, Italy, the ceilings are decorated with stars, becoming avisual reminder of the integration of the cosmos. A sixth centuryhymn to the newly constructed Cathedral of St. Sophia in Edessastates:

Clearly portrayed in it are the mysteries of both Your Essence and YourDispensation.He who looks closely will be filled with wonder.For it truly is a wonder that its smallness is like the wide world,Not in size but in type; like the sea, waters surround it. (McVey 1983, 95)


8/17

115ANTON C. VRAME

God fills the architectural space, as he fills the cosmos and makes

his presence known. Also during the sixth century, the historianProcopius wrote about a church (possibly Hagia Sophia inConstantinople):

And whenever anyone enters this church to pray, he understands at oncethat it is not by any human power or skill, but by the influence of God thatthis work has been so finely tuned. And so his mind is lifted up toward Godand exalted, feeling that He cannot be far away, but must especially love todwell in this place which He has chosen. (98)

The church and the space it encloses recalls Paradisethe Gar-den of Edenthe place where humanity, creation, and God first livedin harmony and communion (Gen. 2:8, 15). In a hymn on paradise,

St. Ephraim the Syrian (4th c.) describes the connection between thechurch and Paradise in this manner: The Creator saw the Churchand was pleased; He resided in that Paradise which she had plantedfor His honor, just as He had planted the Garden for her delight(Ephraim 1990, 112). Paradise, the garden which God planted forhumanity has become the church and the church reconstitutes para-dise. While Ephraim hymns the church as the ecclesial, communal,interrelational place of Gods presence, to think of the church spacethe architecturein the same manner also is plausible.

I am convinced it is no coincidence that both the Byzantine mi-crocosm and Trumans are both domed structures. In the Byzantineunderstanding the dome recalls the immanence of the divine, reach-ing down and embracing all of creation, even as those below reachedup toward the dome to embrace the transcendent. The Byzantineparadise of the church, Paradise created by God for humanity in theprimordial Adam to have fellowship with God, has been recreated bya new creator for Truman Burbank to entertain millions of people.The church that offers a vision of salvation, sanctification, and holi-ness through the interrelatedness of persons gathered in worship hasbeen refashioned into a new community gathered at the television setto encounter a new Adam and his life.

Yet who is this Truman? The films writer, Andrew Niccol (1998),names him the true man. Truman is the only nonactor on the studio

sound stage. Every person he encounters, parents, wife, coworkers,friends are actors. They are there to fill his world with people, natu-rally enough, and move the action along. However, Truman does not


9/17

116 NEVER AS GODS

know that he is the only nonactor, nor that everyone else is an actor.

On the television show, the main characters lived on the set, full-time. For them life on the show did become, in a sense, a reality(xvii). Here the key term is in a sense for the actors around Trumanlived, ultimately, in a false or phony relationship to Truman. Whenthe films director, Peter Weir, writes about how he prepared the ac-tors (Jim Carrey et al.), he mentions how ad-libbing helped them keepin touch with the lie that was at the heart of their relationship withTruman (xi). In the film itself, this was revealed to Truman in theexchange:

Truman: Nothing was real.

Christof: You were real. Thats what made you so good to watch. (104

5).In the iconic world that surrounded Truman, he had been formed

to live according to the rhythms and persons he encountered. In thecynical twist of the film, the icons of personsparents, friends,spouseare false icons. True icons would have encouraged Trumanto reach beyond himself, by reflecting the divine and opening up awindow to the divine and its infinity. The actors display their false-hood by encouraging him, not to become his true self, the adventur-ous spirit that was revealed in the film, but to accept his limitations.In a flashback, Truman recalled how his father (the actor) grabbedhim to prevent him from climbing over a sand dune on the beach.The act seems to be saving him from harm, but is in fact, an attempt

to prevent him leaving the scene and the studio. His father tells him,I told you to stay close. Dont ever leave my sight again. (pause) Youvegot to know your limitations. You couldve fallen (Niccol 1998, 4). Asa schoolboy, Trumans teacher said to him that he could not becomean explorer, because, . . . youre too late. Theres really nothing left toexplore (6).

Even Christof displays the false nature of his iconic status inTrumans life. While pretending to care about Trumans well being,he, too, unlike the true Creator, encouraged him to remain as he is inthe following exchange from the end of the film when Truman discov-ers the reality of his microcosm.

Christof: You can leave if you want. I wont try to stop you. But youwont survive out there. You dont know what to do, where to go.Awave of doubt washes over Trumans face.


10/17

117ANTON C. VRAME

Truman: (referring to the photo)1 I have a map.

Christof: Truman, I have watched you your whole life. I saw you takeyour first step, your first word, your first kiss. I know you better thanyou know yourself. Youre not going to walk out that door. . . Int./Ext. Various Locations. Night. The Viewers [of the television show]stare into camera in fascination.

Christof: Truman, theres no more truth out there than in the world Icreated for youthe same lies and deceit. But in my world you havenothing to fear (1056).

The actors/icons of Trumans world are false, but Truman innatelyseeks to reach beyond himself. According to Vrame (1999), Orthodoxtheology interprets this as the move from image to likeness (Gen. 1:26),

the desire of humanity to grow and develop into unique, free, loving,caring, growing, creative, relational persons rather than remain iso-lated alienated individuals. Even Christofs scriptural tone (is he pro-viding a modern paraphrase of Psalm 139?), could not limit the freedomof Truman. Throughout the film, Truman seeks out the one actor/iconSylvia/Lauren who tried to reveal the truth of his world to him. Be-cause of the authenticity of that fleeting relationship, Truman con-tinually strives to return to that relationship. It explains his desire totravel to Fiji and his tearing up of fashion magazines to create a com-posite portrait, the map, of the one true relationship of his life. Thephysical environment provides another indication of how the falseworld formed him, but could not ultimately control his destiny.

Seahaven was real enough, but contrived and controlled. Trumansensed something was wrong when a light from high above falls unex-pectedly near him. He unexpectedly walks into a building, throwingthe entire production off balance, and he catches actors and the pro-duction crew on a break, snacking. Despite Christofs assurances,Truman seeks a true world.

In the film, the answer to the formative power of the true iconicworld is offered by Christof, eerily echoing the Byzantine motif. Wevebecome tired of watching actors give us phony emotions, bored withpyrotechnics and special effects. While the world he inhabits is coun-

1That he constructed from fashion magazines from his memory of a womanSylvia/Lauren he met in his life who tried to tell him the truth of his world, and welearn whom he really loves.


11/17

118 NEVER AS GODS

terfeit, theres nothing fake about Truman himself. No scripts, no cue

cards. Its not always Shakespeare, but its genuine. . . .Interviewer: A window onto the human condition?

Christof: I prefer to think of it as a mirror. . . . Not only does he giveus a glimpse of the truth, he gives us a glimpse of ourselves. (Niccol1998, 74).

In the true iconic world, the human condition is embraced inits ordinariness. It is made present and becomes the means forachieving communion with the divine. Persons reflect the glory ofGod in their lives and become sanctified; bread and winehumanproductsare offered to God and received back in a holy Com-munion; material objects become media for communicating with

the divine. The ordinary become extraordinary for their ability todraw each person into a relationship with God, self, others, andthe world. The Byzantine tradition came to this conclusion in theiconoclastic controversy. Defending the icons, John of Damascus(8th c.), wrote:

But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make animage of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship theCreator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take Hisabode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter. Never willI cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation. (John of Dam-ascus 1980, 23)

In the Byzantine tradition, the icon presents a world of beautythat is truth. Truman lives in a microcosm of false icons, yet seekstruth in the face of the beautiful woman he met as a college student.Returning to the icon discussion above,theosis is restoring the like-ness of God that was lost in the Fall of humanity. While Truman is nosaint, he is drawn toward the transcendent (as he understands it givenhis circumstances) and seeks to find fulfillment. Given the limitationsof his understanding because of his formative experiences in the falseiconic world of Seahaven, Truman is ultimately on a religious quest.As Evdokimov writes,

Religious truth conditions and reunites in itself ethical and aesthetical val-

ues: If we could deprive people of the infinitely great, they would notwant to live any more and would die of despair. A sense of infinity andmeasurelessness is as necessary for man as the little planet he lives on.


12/17

119ANTON C. VRAME

The search for Beauty coincides with the search for the Absolute and the

Infinite. The fact that artists today still use terms liketransfiguration,in-carnation,image, and light testify to the secret unity between art and reli-gion. Despite the dead ends, the dominant force that inspires peoples allover the world is the unquenchable desire to attain fullness. . . (40).

While we may question the films motives for providing Trumanwith a beautiful woman to seek, we can appreciate the charactersyearning for the fullness that can emerge from living in a true andbeautiful relationship. While religious or pious individuals may seekto direct Truman to a church to seek fullness, something that couldhopefully be achieved in a religious community, imagine the despairif the film had provided Truman with a religious community that wasnothing more than actors.

A final question then becomes, even though Truman consistentlyhas challenged his world, why did he accept it at all and how did itform him? Christof is asked that question and provides the answer.

Interviewer: Why do you feel that Trumans never come close to dis-covering the true nature of his world?

Christof: We accept the reality of the world with which were pre-sented. As the show expanded, naturally we were forced to manufac-ture ways to keep Truman in Seahavendemonstrating that everyventure is accompanied by a risk. (Niccol, 79)

None of us doubt the world of the visual. We trust our eyes. Be-fore we have time to rationally analyze our environment, our mindshave already taken in its entirety through the act of vision. Our intel-lectual knowledge and experience can merely process the visual per-ceptions that have already reached our minds. As Rudolf Arnheimputs it, echoing Christof, We open our eyes and find the world al-ready given (1095,81).

The Byzantine tradition read two scriptural passages to con-clude that seeing could lead to belief and that the visual encounterwith Christ in the icon was justi fied. The first sanctified sightBlessed are your eyes. . . (Mt. 13:16). The second emphasizedthat one can encounter the divine through the visual: That whichwas from the beginning, which we have heard,which we have seen

with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with ourhands, concerning the word of life. . .that which we have seen andheard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowshipwith us. . . (1 Jn 1:13).


13/17

120 NEVER AS GODS

WHAT ARE THE DANGERS OF ICONS?

The Byzantine tradition with its century long experience oficonoclasm wrestled with the power and potential of the visual.From that process we can discern three dangers or potential abusesof icons: 1) icons must be tied to another source for effectiveness;2) icons can become fetishes; 3) icons cannot be eliminated. Eachof these are potential issues for the contemporary fascination withicons as well.

Icons must be tied to another source for effectiveness challengesthe free-floating icon without any basis in reality or source of infor-mation. In the Orthodox tradition, icons refer to Scripture just as Scrip-ture refers to icons. They depict the same content and are thus worthy

of the same respect. This relationship was made clear in the icono-clastic controversy by Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus.Jaroslav Pelikan (1974) provides two expressions of their thought.Theodore, citing the passage from 1 John (see above), speaks of theGospel writers as having been able to write in words (logographein)while the icon painters were able to write in gold (chrysographein).In both instances the content of the work is the same and intercon-nected. Nicephorus was far more sharp in his critique of the icono-clasts who only wished to maintain and honor the written word.Nicephorus writes, If the one is worthy of honor, the other is worthyof honor also, because both depict the same history. Then Nicephorusstates to those who wish to keep only the gospels, Either accept these

(icons) or get rid of those (Gospels). In the words of the SeventhEcumenical Council: Icons can be made for the purpose of ascer-taining the incarnation of God the Word, which was real, not imagi-nary, and for being of an equal benefit to us as the gospel narrative.For those which point mutually to each other undoubtedly mutuallysignify each other (Sahas 1986, 1789).

This points to the dependent nature of the visual arts, particularlywhen we apply the term icon to them. The visual and verbal or writ-ten must be interconnected in order for the visual to maintain its in-tegrity. The example of watching television with the sound turned offis a prime example. Without the audio, the visual information couldbe very misleading.

Our present use of the iconic is still connected to another sourceof information and a community of discourse to maintain the integrityof the relationship between them. In computers, icons link us to data


14/17

121ANTON C. VRAME

and code in order to perform functions in the software. Virtual reality

is still linked to the capability of the programmer who developed theprogram. On a CD-ROM we can access more information by connectingto iconic links. On the internet, the visual can link us in a multiplicityof ways, from online film clips, to photos, to live programs. A fewexamples from the internet include, the birth that was broadcast orthe couple that advertised that it would have intercourse. An evenmore potent example is Jenny cam where we can follow the homelife of Jenny on the internet. Although limited to seeing her at home,not yet at work or elsewhere, viewers can watch her dress, clean, andgenerally live her life. The Truman Show is already taking place,albeit in a limited format, on the internet. In each example, there isstill a source of information and a community (whether developers,

programmers, or web masters) that can be found.But, what might happen if the iconic loses its link to a source of

information or a community of discourse? Might the visual becomepurely subjective only, being able to create personal or personalizedicons? Many Orthodox thinkers are outraged by the Bridge build-ers icons of Robert Lentz, who paints beautifully executed Byzan-tine-style icons of Martin Luther King Jr., Oscar Romero, DorothyDay, Harvey Milk, and Gandhi. While there is a source of informationfor each person, has a community conferred iconic status upon them?The issue relates to the continuity of some form of generally agreedupon culture. John Dewey writes, Continuity of culture in passagefrom one civilization to another as well as within the culture, is condi-tioned by art more than by any other one thing (1934, 195). Lastcentury, Leo Tolstoy wrote, Art, all art, has this one characteristic,that it unites people (1960, 149). The Orthodox experience with theiconic shows that it is a great source of unity as a people, as long as theart is connected to its sources, Scripture, Tradition, and the commu-nity that brought it to life. With the democratization or atomization ofmedia and its sources, might the iconic become so completely priva-tized and jeapordize the future?

Recently, the iconic is everywhere. Even Byzantine icons havecropped up in the most unlikely of places, from wristwatch faces andT-shirts to night lights. Placing an icon in a room or a few in a prayer

corner can be a wonderful expression of piety. In popular culture,everything these days seems to become an icon of something. If ev-erything is an icon, is anything? As a result, can we be placing toomany of our hopes on the visual?


15/17

122 NEVER AS GODS

The Byzantines just prior to the iconoclastic controversy seemed

to be doing just that. Icons were everywhere and were being used asamulets. The iconoclasts, rightly, wished to prevent paganism, butsought to achieve their aim by eliminating all images. As Pelikan writes,

Pagan temples may have claimed to be holy on account of their imagesmade of wood, metal or stone, but Christian churches were holy on ac-count of the prayer, thanksgiving, and sacrifice that were offered up inthem. The spirituality of this worship had been violated when the paganmaterialism of images was smuggled back into Christian churches. (1123)

The iconophiles argued that the visual was a means toward sanc-tification, that the icons could be venerated, but were not to be wor-

shippedthat was for God alone. By making this distinction a powerfulbalance was struck, wherein the power of the visual was clearly dem-onstrated and honored, but there was ultimately a limit to their devo-tion. Thus, today, while we may have become enthralled by the visualand the iconic, we must recognize and come to grips with their powerand limitations. For example, at the beginning, I referred to the mili-tary using icons on computer screens to direct battles and warfare.Recall our fascination with the visual during the Gulf War? While thismay become the military style of the future, it is still a weapon, andpeopleeven if an enemyare killed through our use of the visual.For the Byzantines, the icons were never to be considered as gods.Our appreciation and utilization of the visual should keep that in mind.

Finally, we have to recognize that the iconic is here to stay andnow that it has become part and parcel of everyday life it cannot beeliminated. Again the iconoclastic conflict points to this lesson. De-spite a century long controversy, with fierce debate, martyrdoms, ex-communications, political intrigues and skullduggery, the iconoclastsultimately failed in the East. There may be some who want to returnto another way of transmitting and appropriating information, for ex-ample, a text-only format. However, the visual relates its message pow-erfully, convincingly, and with more subtlety than textual or linguisticdiscourse. It can display multiple layers of meaning and make nu-anced connections simultaneously, which cannot be achieved easily inwords (note my difficulties with relating the layers in The TrumanShow). Now that the visual has entered our present forms of discourseso thoroughly, to try to eliminate it would be virtually impossible.However, I hope that these lessons from the Byzantine experience


16/17

123ANTON C. VRAME

and reflection on the iconic and the visual can provide us with a frame-

work for their use and development as we continue to live in a visualage.

Anton C. Vrame, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Patriarch AthenagorasOrthodox Institute in Berkeley, California. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Arnheim, Rudolf. 1985. The double-edged mind: Intuition and the intellect inLearning andTeaching the Ways of Knowing, eighty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for theSociety of Education. Elliot Eisner, ed. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Edu-cation.

Dewey, John. 1934.Art as experience. New York: Perigee Books.Ephraim the Syrian. 1990. Hymns on paradise. Sebastian Brock, trans. Crestwood, N.Y.: St.

Vladimirs Seminary Press.Evdokimov, Paul. 1990. The art of the icon: A theology of beauty . S. Bigham, trans. Redondo

Beach, Calif.: Oakwood Publications.John of Damascus, St. 1980. On the divine images: Three apologies against those who attack

the divine images. D. Anderson. trans., Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press.Marion, Jean-Luc. 1991. God without being. T. Carlson, trans. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.McVey, Kathleen. 1983. The domed church as microcosm: Literary roots of an architectural

symbol. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 37:91121.Niccol, Andrew. 1998. The Truman show: The shooting script. New York: New Market Press,

1998.Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1974. The Christian tradition vol. 2 The spirit of eastern Christendom (600

1700). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Sahas, Daniel. 1986. Icon and logos: Sources in eighth century iconoclasm. Toronto: Univer-

sity of Toronto Press.Scouteris, Constantine. 1984. Never as gods: Icons and their veneration. Sobornost/Eastern

Churches Review 6(1):15.Sherrard, Philip. 1990. The sacred in life and in art . Ipswich, UK: Golgonooza Press.Sherrard, Philip. 1992. Human image: World image, the death and resurrection of sacred cos-

mology. Ipswich, UK: Golgonooza Press.Thompson, Mark. 1997. Wired for War. Time, March 31, 1997.Tolstoy, Leo. 1960. What is art? A. Maude, trans. New York: Liberal Arts Press.

Vrame, Anton C. 1999. The educating icon: Teaching wisdom and holiness in the Orthodoxway. Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

White, Diane. 1998. Covering Natalies new do. The Boston Globe, July 27, 1998.


17/17

Documents

Never as Gods-lessons From Icons