cathqat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 How many different ways are there to say "I never said that Augustine could be reconciled with Eastern thought"? But I am not convinced, from my studies of Augustine, that I agree with James K. A. Smith's understanding of Augustine either. I don't see it as giving full credit to Augustine's realism. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:15 PM']I disagee, an icon is not art, it is intended for a sacred purpose[/quote] Again, false dichotomy. They [i]are[/i] art, products of human skill as well as humble prayer and the blessing of God. And they are aesthetically pleasing. But they are much, [i]much[/i] more than that. [quote]it is not meant to be in a museum. It is meant for veneration.[/quote] On this point we completely agree. [quote]I will not accept a Western understanding of icons as works of art.[/quote] From what I can tell, this disagreement comes down to your misunderstanding of what the word "art" means and setting up a false dichotomy. And I am not saying the Eastern and Western understandings of icons are the same. Never have, never will. I believe the West is ignorant about the true nature of icons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 02:17 PM'] How many different ways are there to say "I never said that Augustine could be reconciled with Eastern thought"? But I am not convinced, from my studies of Augustine, that I agree with James K. A. Smith's understanding of Augustine either. I don't see it as giving full credit to Augustine's realism. *shrug* [/quote] Dr. Kari Kloos, in her dissertation "Preparing for the Vision of God: Augustine's Interpretation of the Biblical Theophany Narratives" presented at Notre Dame University, argues, in a stronger way, that for Augustine there is a connection between a sign and the thing it signifies, but she does not disagree with the over all position of Barnes or Smith. Augustine's theory of signs is connected to his view of language and that is what leads him in the wrong direction. By the way, I am not accusing you of anything, nor am I saying that you think that you can somehow reconcile Augustine to the Byzantine theology of icons. I'm simply talking with you about the issues involved. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 02:22 PM'] Again, false dichotomy. They [i]are[/i] art, products of human skill as well as humble prayer and the blessing of God. And they are aesthetically pleasing. But they are much, [i]much[/i] more than that. From what I can tell, this disagreement comes down to your misunderstanding of what the word "art" means and setting up a false dichotomy. And I am not saying the Eastern and Western understandings of icons are the same. Never have, never will. I believe the West is ignorant about the true nature of icons. [/quote] You see it as a false dichotomy, and that is your prerogative, but I see it as the intrusion of a modern Western notion of art into a theological matter. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:29 PM'] By the way, I am not accusing you of anything, nor am I saying that you think that you can somehow reconcile Augustine to the Byzantine theology of icons. I'm simply talking with you about the issues involved. [/quote] Good. As long as that's clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:35 PM'] You see it as a false dichotomy, and that is your prerogative, but I see it as the intrusion of a modern Western notion of art into a theological matter. [/quote] I am not promoting "a modern Western notion of art" at all! I am saying that the word "art" [i]means[/i] a product of human skill, and icons [i]are[/i] that (with the exception of icons not made by hands), despite being much, [i]much[/i] more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 03:25 PM'] I am not promoting "a modern Western notion of art" at all! I am saying that the word "art" [i]means[/i] a product of human skill, and icons [i]are[/i] that (with the exception of icons not made by hands), despite being much, [i]much[/i] more. [/quote] I understand your position on this, and I would have agreed with you about it two years ago, but my theological perspective has changed since that time and so I refrain from calling icons art (because of the modern notions that go along with that term). Just as icons are not painted, but written, so I distinguish between art, which has a certain aesthetic value, and sacred icons, which are intended for the worship of veneration and the bestowing of God's uncreated energies. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:33 PM']so I refrain from calling icons art, because of the modern notions that go along with that term.[/quote] That's just semantics, then, because I do not mean the term in that sense. [quote]I distinguish between art, which has a certain aesthetic value, and sacred icons, which are intended for the worship of veneration and the bestowing of God's uncreated energies.[/quote] Icons have aesthetic value [i]and[/i] bestow God's uncreated energies. I still maintain that it's a false dichotomy. It's like saying "God's glory isn't beautiful." Nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 03:46 PM']That's just semantics, then, because I do not mean the term in that sense. Icons have aesthetic value [i]and[/i] bestow God's uncreated energies. I still maintain that it's a false dichotomy. It's like saying "God's glory isn't beautiful." Nonsense [/quote] Again, we aren't going to agree on this topic. To you it is a just an issue of semantics, but to me it is a theological issue. The importance of an icon has nothing to do with its perceived beauty, or lack thereof, and in fact some icons are rather ugly, but that is not really a problem, because the purpose of the icon is to sanctify, illuminate, and purify the one who venerates it. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 03:46 PM'] It's like saying "God's glory isn't beautiful." Nonsense [/quote] Not at all. Rather, I simply do not gaze upon an icon for earthly aesthetic pleasure. I don't just look at icons, I venerate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:53 PM']The importance of an icon has nothing to do with its perceived beauty, or lack thereof, and in fact some icons are rather ugly, but that is not really a problem, because the purpose of the icon is to sanctify, illuminate, and purify the one who venerates it. [/quote] I have yet to see an ugnly icon, and I've seen and venerated many in my life. And yes, I guess we are going to have to disagree, because I think that claiming icons have "no aesthetic value" [i]is[/i] just as unreasonable and wrong as claiming that God's glory is separable from beauty or that God's power can be divided from his love. Icons [i]could not[/i] bestow God's uncreated energy and be not beautiful. Nonsensical, impossible. [quote]I simply do not gaze upon an icon for earthly aesthetic pleasure. [/quote] And I would [i]never[/i] say that you should gaze on them for that reason alone! But if you gain no aesthetic pleasure from gazing upon and venerating the sacred icons, I think there is something profoundly wrong with your aesthetic sense. The glory of God is beautiful. The Lord and his saints are beautiful. I would say that nothing [i]could be[/i] more beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:36 PM'] I have yet to see an ugnly icon, and I've seen and venerated many in my life. And yes, I guess we are going to have to disagree, because I think that claiming icons have "no aesthetic value" [i]is[/i] just as unreasonable and wrong as claiming that God's glory is separable from beauty or that God's power can be divided from his love. Icons [i]could not[/i] bestow God's uncreated energy and be not beautiful. Nonsensical, impossible. And I would [i]never[/i] say that you should gaze on them for that reason alone! But if you gain no aesthetic pleasure from gazing upon and venerating the sacred icons, I think there is something profoundly wrong with your aesthetic sense. The glory of God is beautiful. The Lord and his saints are beautiful. I would say that nothing [i]could be[/i] more beautiful. [/quote] Go to the Russian Orthodox Church in San Francisco, because several icons there would not be thought of as "beautiful" by Western aesthetic standards, and some are scratched and dented and covered in soot from the smoke of candles. The point of an icon is not to be "pretty" in an earthly sense; instead, it is meant to manifest the presence of the person depict, and to bestow God's uncreated energies. As I have said before, on this topic we will have to agree to disagree. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 "We knew not whether we were in Heaven or on earth. [i]For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty[/i]." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Who cares about [i]Western[/i] aesthetic standards?! I've seen and venerated many icons which are scratched, dented, covered with soot, and much worse. I have never seen one that was ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:50 PM'] "We knew not whether we were in Heaven or on earth. [i]For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty[/i]." [/quote] It is not the perception of any earthly beauty that is central to an icon; rather, it is the energy of God present within the icon that is the cause of all veneration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now