An iconographer friend has kindly sent me a link to the site of an "iconographer" holding classes in Southern California (PM me for the link).
This woman claims to have studied "the Byzantine Greek (Cretan, Cypriot and Macedonian) and Byzantine Russian (Yaroslavl, Moscow and Prosopon) Iconography schools."
There is no such iconographic style as "Byzantine Russian", and the labels she gives on her work which claim to be in this or that style are patently wrong. For instance, those she's labeled as "Cretan School" bear no resemblance at all with it, either in form, coloration, or facial and garment modeling. She also paints in a style she calls "Sentimental", which is rightly named - rarely have I seen more sickly-sweet imagery masquerading as iconography.
Iconographers have long used browns, umbers, and bronze tones for facial and skin tones, but the figure still looks warm and alive.
There seems to be an attempt to replicate the "softer" look of the icons of Simon Ushakov, a 17th century iconographer, but her version of the Mandylion makes Christ look stoned. Or in dire need of some sleep.
If I had ever done drugs this would have sent me into a flashback-fueled tailspin for sure.
There is no such iconographic style as "Byzantine Russian", and the labels she gives on her work which claim to be in this or that style are patently wrong.
Ersaia, the first iconographers in Russia were Greek, who taught Russians how to paint icons. The Greek character of these early icons is clearly visible, including in the Mandylion you posted.
Before long, Russian iconography began to take on its own character, and distinctive regional styles soon developed, such as Novgorod, Pskov, Moscow, etc. The work of one of the early iconographers to paint in Russia, Theophanes the Greek (Feofan Grek, as the Russians called him) is particularly useful in tracing the transition from Greek style to Russian style. His early work was typically Greek, his later work is identifiably Russian.
The above post by LBK is interesting to see the contrast in styles with commentary on the chosen colors. If I were looking to buy an icon, those wouldn't have interested me, but I couldn't have explained why.
What is this style of icon?
Something has always bothered me about the eyes, He doesn't look like a Lightgiver. Otherwise, it seems correct, but just cheap.
Is there another thread that deals with primarily style?
The icon posted by Velsigne would not look like that in real life. The clue is the color of the gold leaf in the background, which can be difficult to properly photograph. It looks a dull brown color, not golden. I have seen actual prints from this series, and they look quite different, and much better, than this.
This icon is certainly not cartoonish in style, there are others in this thread which are definitely so. give me time, and I'll post some examples. The style in the posted icon is close to that used by Photios Kontoglou, who was influenced by mainly the Cretan School.
The expression in Christ's eyes is on a par with many icons - a subtle blend of stern and serious (as the Righteous Judge), and warm and compassionate (as merciful and loving Lord).
Yes, it does look better in person. It was my first icon. I just randomly grabbed two that matched.
I know what you mean Ersaia, sometimes it's hard for me to understand different icons. What type are you accustomed to?
Both of these are by Simon Ushakov. His Mother of God of Kykkos (the original is from Cyprus) which you've posted never did much for me, either.
What do you think of the Christ icon by Ushakov?
I can quite understand someone finding different historic iconographic styles confronting or difficult to accept. It's even more difficult to become accustomed to the non-realistic styles if all you've been surrounded by is naturalistic religious art. Yet, it's possible, with time and knowledge, to change your view. If anyone asked me what I thought of traditional icons 40 or more years ago, I would have said "I prefer the realistic ones". At the time, I just couldn't understand why traditional icons looked the way they did, and found them strange and forbidding. Not long afterwards, I began to change my view, once I made the effort to learn more. And here I am.
This reminds me of the non-Christians, and even Christians, that simply can't get past the art style of more traditional icons. To some of them, the symbolism etc. is completely foreign and lost on them, and rather find traditional style icons to be primitive or silly/childish, looking either like poorly done art or cartoonish.
It seems rather bland and anodyne. Most Russian styles are "warmer" and less formal than the hieratic Greek styles, but this does not mean they lack the ability to portray Christ as He is: God Almighty and compassionate Lord. The Savior of Zvenigorod, painted as part of a supplicatory series by St Andrei of Radonezh (Andrei Rublyev), is an outstanding example. Sadly, only three, all badly damaged, panels from this series have survived, the others being of the Archangel Michael and of Apostle Paul, yet their spiritual power is undiminished. Many have tried to copy it, and none come close to capturing the utter sublimity, subtlety and power of the original.
No reproduction can capture these qualities, nor could any copy. When you see the original, you are overwhelmed by it. You look at it trying to figure out how the effect has been achieved but in the end you just give up. The important thing is that despite being in a gallery, you can pray in front of it. Thoughtfully, they have put benches in front of it so you can sit and contemplate it. Unlike some icons, or singing, which are beautiful and brilliantly done, you don't admire its aesthetic beauty. Rather, its beauty serves and is subordinate to its spiritual beauty and power to work on the soul.
A lovely Odighitria, and a beautiful story behind your copy of it!
That would be wonderful to see something like that!
I like this one of the Theotokos, and keep it on my desk at work, but have never seen anything but a copy.
I have some photos of an icon that is self restoring. It was all black, but know an image is slowly coming through.
Indeed. I am rather jealous of my friend.
Ah, the incomparable Vladimirskaya, painted in the early 12th century in Constantinople, a gift for a grand prince of Kievan Rus' . It is another historic icon which many have tried to copy, and all unsuccessfully. I have only seen perhaps one or two which are acceptable, but still a far cry from the original.
A notable detail is the fact that, though the icon has suffered much damage, including by fire, over the better part of a thousand years, some original elements remain: the faces of the Virgin and Child, both His hands, her left hand, and part of His foot.
Why make "icons" that cannot be venerated?
Wouldn't you be able to venerate Christ? Although it is more of a "teaching" icon, Christ is there.
He is in my icon corner.
Why in the universe would someone create images of an alien Christ and Satan? Even if we were to meet sentient aliens, that sort of "icon art" would not fly. Aliens might make their version of Christ closer to how their species looks, but this is outside of any conceivable norm. The first "icon" with the eyes, the weird halo, and everything in it, looks especially New Age-y.
No idea. It looks like a generic western European version, possibly Italian or Spanish, and very likely the subject of countless RC holy cards.
" Back to the '60s! There's no place for you here in the future."
That is the predominant, if not the only, depiction of St George I've ever seen in Indian churches: not "St George on the horse" vs "St George standing alone", but that very image.
I used to carry that exact card around for quite a bit.
Metal icon of St. Nicholas by the Bulgarian artist Georgi 'Chapa' Chapkanov.
No problem with commissioning a piece of art with the theme of maritime activity, with a nod to a holy patron and protector of mariners and fishermen. But, please, do not call this schlock an icon!
Blech. But by now, nothing that "St. Gregory's" Episcopal in SF does surprises me anymore.