Iconostasis

by Pavel Florensky, Olga Andrejev (Translator), Donald Sheehan (Translator)

Born in 1882, Fr Pavel Florensky was a brilliant philosopher, theologian, scientist, and art historian who, in 1911, became an Orthodox priest. By the time of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, Fr Pavel had become a leading voice in Russia's great movement in religious philosophy, a movement whose roots lay in the rich ground of nineteenth-century Russian monasticism and whose branches included the work of Bulgakov, Berdiaev, and Solovyev. In the 1920s and 1930s the Soviets violently destroyed this splendor of Russian religious thought. In 1922, Fr Pavel was silenced, and, after a decade of forced scientific work for the regime, he was arrested on false charges, tried, imprisoned, and, in 1937, murdered by KGB directive. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn honored Fr Pavel in The Gulag Archipelago. Iconostasis is Fr Pavel's final theological work. Composed in 1922, it explores in highly original terms the significance of the icon: its philosophic depth, its spiritual history, its empirical technique. In doing so, Fr Pavel also sketched a new history of both Western religious art and the Orthodox icon: a history under the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. The work is original, challenging and profoundly articulate. This translation is the first complete English version.

Genres: Art, Theology, Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, History, Russia

170 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1922

About the author

Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky (also P.A. Florenskiĭ, Florenskii, Florenskij, Russian: Па́вел Алекса́ндрович Флоре́нский) was a Russian Orthodox theologian, philosopher, mathematician, electrical engineer, inventor and Neomartyr, sometimes compared by his followers to Leonardo da Vinci.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Fl...

Reviews

[M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pavel Florensky states why icons are singular and vital to the life of the Church. They preserve the Tradition and the authentic zeal for Truth of the Church. I don't agree that all post-Reinassance art is vain and more interested in lies, but he has a point: when canons are broken out of rebellion, the result can't be any good. He also shows how painting icons has metaphyiscal and spiritual implications and responsibilities. Many of the things he says will be very fruitful for those interested in neoplatonism, philosophy in general, the arts, and even for Catholics, such as myself.

[Kay · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an intensely interesting little book! An intersection of art, history, theology, and metaphysics centered on the icon and its significance to the Orthodox Church.

The author himself is just as fascinating as the book; Fr. Florensky was a Russian priest living in the turbulent years just prior to the Bolshevik revolution. When the old Russia collapsed, he was able to survive for a time because he was also a physicist and scientist. Florensky was a rare sight in the early days of the USSR--he would give lectures and conduct research for the state while wearing his clerical robes. It didn't last, unfortunately, and he was finally purged in 1937 after spending several years in a labor camp.

Florensky wrote this book in 1922. It's short at only about 165 pages, but dense. I found myself re-reading many passages while trying to work out Florensky's train of thought, often mystical and esoteric. Having some basic knowledge of Orthodox theology is a plus as preparation (not that I am any expert).

I once saw a documentary in which an Orthodox priest, speaking of the collection stored at Mt. Athos, said that icons are "not art." I only vaguely understood what he meant at the time in the sense that icons are venerated by the Orthodox. Florensky fleshes the concept out by explaining the spiritual theory behind icons, how they are created, and what they symbolize in the Orthodox mind. The result is something very foreign to western minds, especially if you grew up in a protestant tradition.

He begins with a meditation on dreams. In dreams, time and space are blurred--events happen out of order, the fantastic merges with the realistic, etc. Perhaps most intriguingly, dreams and the waking world intersect. An event that wakes you up often manifests within the dream as something the dream events were leading to--such as a bell you are looking for becoming your alarm clock once you find it!

In the same way that reality and dreams cross, Florensky argues that icons are an intersection between the reality we live in and the spiritual realm. Icons are "windows" into the true nature of the saints they portray. He borrows heavily from classical Greek philosophy (and admits to doing so) when describing this "countenance" or "appearance" aspect of the icon, a kind of parallel to Plato's Image.

Everything about the icon, he continues, is part of this metaphysical purpose. This is where it can become hard to track with him. Florensky starts diving into concepts that would be better understood by an art history major specializing in Renaissance era painting, as well as Orthodox theology. He continually returns to the role of light in art, juxtaposing its use in western art and in icons. His conclusion is that while western art often masterfully depicts light playing on objects, icons _themselves_ are light-giving. Not in the sense that they glow or anything, of course, but in that they are a truer representation of reality; he goes so far as to say that "the icon is executed upon light." As an example he notes the frequent use of gold (assyst) in icons, often in places no western artist would use, such as for the sky. By departing from realism, the icon strives toward making the invisible world manifest, the "real" reality. Gold is not a color here, but a tone--its use allows the iconographer to break free of simple duplication and into the "supersensuous."

These are only a few of the tantalizing ideas presented in the book. There are plenty of others I won't have time to get into--such as his comparison of Egyptian sarcophagus masks with icons (and how they are more closely related than icons and western religious art) as well as his use of the term "time-space" to describe the "ascetic exercise of authentic self-organization." I have no idea what he meant by that, but since he was a physicist I really wish I could have asked him. I'll have to settle for endlessly pondering it by myself.

I have been engrossed by all things Orthodox and Byzantine lately, icons in particular. While I don't share Florensky's religious beliefs, this book is a great way to better understand just how important icons are to the Orthodox: "what the words of the sermon are for the ear, so the icons are for the eye."

[MountainPoet · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book and the translator is the man who drew me into Orthodoxy. It is a tough read if you lack grounding in Orthodox ideas, but well worth the investment of time. Donald Sheehan, who translated this work, was my thesis adviser at Dartmouth College where I studied Florensky and Dostoevsky together and in great depth. Look on the web for Sheehan's lecture on Memory Eternal and The Brothers Karamazov. At the end of that lecture is Sheehan's moving and mystical conversion story to Orthodoxy.

[Paolo Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

"A dirla in breve, la pittura d'icone è una metafisica dell'essere - non una metafisica astratta ma concreta. Mentre la pittura ad olio è più adatta a riprodurre la presenza sensibile del mondo [l'arte del Rinascimento e del mondo cattolico] e l'incisione il suo schema razionalistico [l'arte del mondo nordico e del protestantesimo], la pittura d'icone sente ciò che raffigura come manifestazione sensibile dell'essenza metafisica. E se i mezzi grafici della pittura e dell'incisione si sviluppano infatti in funzione di particolari esigenze della cultura e rappresentano le cristallizzazioni di ricerche corrispettive, generate dallo spirito della cultura del loro tempo, i mezzi tecnici della pittura d'icone sono determinati dal bisogno di esprimere in concreto la metafisicità del mondo."
E poi chiedono Come mai i russi....

[Penny Mcdonnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was totally revelatory. Coming from such a different mindset, but from undoubtedly a very brilliant, and also pious mind, it was a delight to be exposed to some totally new thoughts and ideas. I particularly liked the one where he asserted that dreams are constructed backwards in an instant and then subjectively experienced forwards, also the idea that it was all downhill when the renaissance started- those flimsy canvases, that slimey, oily paint, that mechanical sound of the organ instead of good old wood with egg-tempera and choirs! The icon, made properly, by a person with the right motives and in a prayerful way is not art but something nearer a window to God. I would mock, but I have seen icons with just that sense of presence about them. Not descriptors, but the things themselves. You should read this book if only for the dramatic life story of Florensky himself.

[Capítulo IV]

"Pável Florenski –pensador ruso, sacerdote de la Iglesia ortodoxa– escribió El iconostasio en los años posteriores a la Revolución bolchevique; un tiempo en el que el culto cristiano parecía condenado a desaparecer de Rusia. Este ensayo sobre la pintura de iconos respondía al deseo del autor por preservar el sentido profundo de un arte orientado a ser un puente entre el mundo visible y el invisible". Más en https://capitulocuarto.com/2018/09/19...

[Beatrice]

Mia onesta reazione: AAAAAA

[Garnik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Պավել Ֆլորենսկին իմ կարծիքով 20-րդ դարի մեծագույն և դեռևս ոչ ամբողջովին բացահայտված դեմքերից է (մայրը, ի դեպ, հայ է, ասում են՝ սերում էր արցախի հին տոհմերից մեկից), ու դժվար է ասել՝ ինչ ճանաչում նա կունենար, եթե չլինեին ստալինյան բռնաճնշումները, ապա և գնադակահարությունը: Ու խոսքը միայն Ֆլորենսկի հոգևորականի, աստվածաբանի մասին չէ, այլ նաև իրական գիտնականի. օրինակ, քաղ. պաշտպանության դասերին էր կարծես, որ պարզեցի՝ ինքն է բացահայտել յոդի՝ կաթի հետ խառնելով ճառագայթման ազդեցության նվազումը (կարծեմ հենց աքսորի տարիներին). այսինքն նաև տաղանդավոր քիմիկոս է եղել: Բայց առաջին հերթին ինքը ուղղափառ խոշոր աստվածաբան, կրոնագետ է: Կոնկրետ այս գործն ավելի շատ կհետաքրքրի աստվածաբաններին, կրոնագետներին, արվեստաբաններին, հատկապես՝ սրբապատկերով (իկոնայով) հետաքրքրվողներին, թեև Ֆլորենսկին հետաքրքիր զուգահեռներ է անցկացնում նաև այլ բնագավառների հետ, էքսկուրսներ է կատարում դեպի տարբեր դարաշրջաններ: Ընթերցանությունը կարող է և հեշտ չլինել: Հա, ժամանակին էլ սկսել էի իր նամակները հայերեն թարգմանել. https://arshendpir.wordpress.com/cate...

[Karlyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

All the interesting parts of Tolstoy's "What Is Art?" are based on this book. It's more meaningful than sensical, but sensical too, and details the aesthetic approach of icon painters in eastern orthodox Christianity. Florensky was a philosopher/priest/theologian/scientist/etc and was exiled to prison camps for ten years and then murdered for agitation against the Soviet system.

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

"the saints, in and through ascetic 'podvigs,' actually generate in their physical bodies new tissues of lightbearing organs so that their bodies may be brought closer to the great sphere of spiritual energies..." -- "whatsoever doth make manifest is light"

[Micah · Rating 5 out of 5]

“There exists the icon of the Holy Trinity by St. Andrei Rublev; therefore, God exists.”

[dddddddddddd dddddd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Подобает быти живописцу смирену кротку благоговейну непразднословцу несмехотворцу несварливу независтливу непьяницы неграбежнику неубиицы.


страсть есть отсутствие в душе объективного бытия

Апостол увещевает римских христиан представить или поставить свои тела в жертву Богу; предоставление в жертву тела есть словесное служение, т. е. служение, обладающее даром слова или способное свидетельствовать истину. Христианин говорит телом своим 

Самая консистенция масляной краски имеет внутреннее сродство с масляно-густым звуком органа (у них один метафизический корень)



Недвижная, твердая, неподатливая поверхность стены или доски слишком строга, слишком обязательна, слишком онтологична для ручного разума

гравюрная линия хочет начисто освободиться от привкуса чувственной данности. (« характер штрихов противоречит свойствам поверхности, на которую они нанесены )


Культурно-исторически икона именно унаследовала задачу ритуальной маски, возведя эту задачу — являть упокоившийся в вечности и обожествленный дух усопшего — на высочайшую ступень.

[Paolo Bagnato · Rating 5 out of 5]

Florenskij è immenso. Devo dire però che mi è piaciuto e mi ha incuriosito più l’inizio, rispetto al resto, in cui parla del tempo alla rovescia del sogno e mi dispiace che non abbia approfondito di più il tema in questo libro. Il resto è comunque molto bello, fa capire il valore sacro e mistico dell’iconografia nella Chiesa Ortodossa sottolineando le differenze tra l’arte degli altri cristiani. Occhi a cuoricino quando parla della metafisica della luce

[настя]

моя домашка в универе

[Elena Galea]

Espaguetis flotando

[Jesus M. Hernandez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Permite conocer más de cerca en alma rusa a través de la comprensión de los iconos. Muy interesantes reflexiones sobre la estética según las perspectivas ortodoxa, católica y protestante, que liga con distintas concepciones filosóficas. A veces, demasiado detalle técnico pictórico para un lector no especializado. Muy buena introducción.

[Dustin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pavel Florensky, Iconostasis, trans. Donald Sheehan and Olga Andrejev (Crestwood: SVS Press, 1996). Pp. 170. Paperback $17.00.

Two weeks ago I participated in an egg tempera icon-painting workshop led by an instructor from the Prosopon School of Iconology in New York. The workshop lasted 6 days, and each day started with a lecture by the instructor. The lectures were outstanding. I learned how the process of writing an icon loosely follows a lectio divina model: meditation, practice, and contemplation. This process, however, is not just a teaching method to instruct students how to paint. That is to say, painting (or writing) an icon is to be a form of prayer. Each layer of paint represents the process of human transfiguration. One ascends from body, to soul, to spirit, drawing closer to God with each step. This process is to be a model for our lives so that we too become an icon of the living God.

This school is very steeped in the mystical tradition of the Orthodox Church. One of the most influential theologians in this tradition happens to be Pavel Florensky and his book, Iconostasis. Though I had read this book several years ago, I thought in light of my recent experience, I should pick it up again and give it a second read.

Florensky starts by describing dreams, and how, when we dream, we are caught between two different worlds: that of reality, and another dream-like world. He goes on to write, “A dream, then, is a sign of movement between two realms – and also a symbol: of what? From the heavenly view, the dream symbolizes earth; from the heavenly perspective, it symbolizes heaven” (pg. 43). He starts with dreams because that’s an experience we all have; it’s an experience to which we can all relate. He then says that icons function in the same way: “Art is thus materialized dream, separated from the ordinary consciousness of waking life” (pg. 44). In other words, the icon acts as the movement of ascent into the spiritual world, which is just as real – if not more – than our own.

This leads him into a discussion of how we, as human beings, are made in the image of God, but we are to ascend into the likeness of God (spiritual perfection). This is a mystical experience when “…the soul is raised up from the visible realm to where visibility itself vanishes and the field of the invisible opens…” (pg. 45). For Florensky the services of the Orthodox Church are the way to this sort of mystical ascent. It is here that Florensky starts to talk about icons.

He begins with a discussion of the iconostasis – the wall of icons that separates the altar from the nave in an Orthodox Church. For him, this wall of icons is not a barrier but an opening up. “But this spiritual prop, this material iconostasis, does not conceal from the believer some sharp mystery; on the contrary, the iconostasis points out to the half-blind the Mysteries of the altar, opens for them an entrance into a world closed to them…But the material iconostasis does not, in itself, take the place of the living witnesses, existing instead of them; rather, it points toward them, concentrating the attention of those who pray upon them – a concentration of attention that is essential to the developing of spiritual sight.” (pg. 62-3). It’s like those dreams he explained: an entrance into a spiritual reality.

He then goes on to discuss the history of the icon and the theology of the icon. Finally, he ends with a discussion of the process of writing and icon, and the meaning behind this process.

Some are very uncomfortable with this mystical explanation of icons. In fact, they believe that Florensky is saying that icons are, in their essence, something other than paint and wood. However, I think this is resolved by what the translator says in the preface, “Through the medium of the believer’s faith, the icon becomes an opening through which God can act directly in the believer as the cause of his or her comprehension of the icon: such is the ground” (pg. 3). In other words, understanding iconography, as Florensky explains it, is like learning to read. If you don’t know your ABCs, then words are just black lines on a page. If, however, you do know how to read, those black lines open up a whole new world.

[Lorenzo De Ossibus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Di conseguenza, proprio la maschera egizia – la decorazione interna del sarcofago di legno dell’antico Egitto, questo involucro attorno alla mummia, che doveva rappresentare il corpo fasciato col volto scoperto -, è la prima primordiale pittura d’icone […] Il morto era assopito, aveva accolto in sé il dio, tuttavia serbava la sua individualità, diventava immagine divina, nimbo ideale della propria umanità, idea di se stesso, della sua personale essenza spirituale. Era compito della pittura di mummie configurare appunto questa essenza ideale del defunto, il quale diventava da allora in poi un dio e un oggetto di venerazione cultuale. […] Mi viene da pensare che i metodi della pittura d’icone originarono dalla necessità or ora esaminata per la pittura della mummia, e cioè di dare un rilievo luminoso possente al volto, che con la sua potenza contrasti con la casualità di un’illuminazione mutevole e che perciò al disopra del fondamento empirico, riveli visivamente qualcosa di metafisico […] Sicuramente indicando questa pittura, questa maschera sepolcrale, il familiare o l’amico diceva (e diceva bene): “Ecco mio padre, fratello, amico” e non “Ecco i colori sul volto di mio padre” o “Ecco la maschera dell’amico”, ecc. senza dubbio, per la coscienza religiosa la pittura o la maschera non si distingueva dal volto e non gli si contrapponeva, essa si pensava con ed in rapporto ad esso, come avente senso e valore attraverso la sua connessione con esso. […] E l’uomo antico sapeva: in questa maschera mi si rivela l’energia spirituale del morto stesso, che è in essa e sotto di essa. La maschera del morto -era il morto stesso, non soltanto in senso metafisico, ma anche in senso fisico; egli è qui, egli stesso ci mostra il suo sguardo.

[Steve]

I think I've tried reading this about half a dozen times now, but I've always flamed out. And that's frustrating, since it's a short book. Perhaps it's because I'm not Eastern Orthodox (the editors say something about this being a possible problem in the Introduction). My latest attempt was due to the recent death of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. A.S. wrote about Florensky in the Gulag Archipelago. Florensky is a fascinating figure, since he was a scientist -- and an expert on the meaning of Icons. (He was murdered by the KGB in 1937.) The opening section -- "The Spiritual Structure of Dreams" -- is very mystical, and in a good way. I kept rereading this part, and it sunk in -- to some extent. This section reminded me a great deal of the films of Andrei Tarkovsky. So much so, that I'm certain that Tarkovsky read this book. Tarkovsky does a lot with dreams, mirrors, and Time in his films, and when you consider that his greatest film is about the Russian Icon painter, Andrei Rublev, you begin to see the connection. Still, getting reading traction has proved difficult with every attempt. One of the few moments I did get some traction was when Florensky discussed a vision of the Mother of God that the Renaissance painter, Raphael, had recounted to a friend. Evidently this experience was a recurring one for Raphael, and operated as a muse -- for which he would only catch (or be permitted?) a glimpse. Florensky saw this story as a true one, and similar to that of a proper and grounded Icon painter.

Anyway, maybe one of these days I'll finish this one. I hope so, because I sense a great deal of wisdom in this book. But like Raphael's muse, so far I'm only getting glimpses of the Truth as Florensky knew and understood it.