Coptic Icons

[Michael the Iconographer]

http://www.theotokos.org/CopticIcons/
http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/gallery/
http://www.firstimageicons.com/
http://go.to/coptic

[Wiffey]

Just gorgeous icons!

[Topaz]

I'm an artist, and those are so fine! Thanks for the link, and I will be appreciating these. ;)

[Michael the Iconographer]

I'm an artist, and those are so fine! Thanks for the link, and I will be appreciating these. ;)

The theology of the Orthodox Church (both Eastern Orthodox and Coptic/Oriental Orthodox) teaches that icons are much more than just pretty art. There is a link to my essay on the meaning of icons on my page.

Michael the Iconographer's page on Come And See Icons (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/goltz.htm)

[Topaz]

The theology of the Orthodox Church (both Eastern Orthodox and Coptic/Oriental Orthodox) teaches that icons are much more than just pretty art. There is a link to my essay on the meaning of icons on my page.

Michael the Iconographer's page on Come And See Icons (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/goltz.htm)

Oh this is wonderful! Thank you so much! :)

[Michael the Iconographer]

Oh this is wonderful! Thank you so much! :)

You are welcome, feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

[Colabomb]

You are welcome, feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
Is there a difference between Coptic Icons and the classical kind?

[Michael the Iconographer]

Is there a difference between Coptic Icons and the classical kind?

There is a stylistic difference between the Byzantine style, the Russian style and the Coptic style. Compare the coptic icons listed above with classical Russian style icons.

Russian Icon of the Face of Christ not Made by Hands (http://www.pallasweb.com:16080/ikons/images/2003c2a.jpg)

My work is also in a Russian Style.

Michael's Iconography Page (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/goltz.htm)

[Organist]

Interesting to see these icons.

[Irish Melkite]

Is there a difference between Coptic Icons and the classical kind?

Actually, there are almost as many styles of iconography as there are Churches and ethnicities within the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Catholic communities and within some of the styles there are schools of iconography reflective of particular stylistic idiosyncrisies employed by various masters in writing icons.

I'm at a disadvantage in being unable to provide urls to illustrate my descriptive points since, as I understand it, one has to have a minimum number of posts here before links can be posted, but ...

Arabic icons are frequently mosaic-based.

Armenian iconography also frequently makes use of mosaics.

Bulgarian icons use gilt more generously, are unusually busy in detail, and are somewhat less stylized - more humanized - than others.

Byzantine iconographic style is probably the one most familiar to the Western eye. It portrays figures ascetically and with characteristics suggesting the grandeur of royalty.

Coptic iconography has a "new" and "old" style. The new style is not so "gentle" (for lack of a better word) as the old.

Crete icons are subdued in coloration and figures tend to be elongated. There was also a mosaic icon tradition on the island.

Czech icons tend to a folk art style, somewhat reminiscent of what is referred to as "primitive" art.

Ethiopian icons are frequently painted on diptychs or triptychs, rather than single panels. They tend to use perhaps the most brilliant color palette found among any of the styles and many have a folk art style to them.

Georgian iconography tends to a softness, with older examples being best described as primitive art. This Church also has a strong history of enameled icons.

Greek iconographic figures have a distance about the face that emphasizes the other-worldliness of the one pictured. There is little or no background generally. It is perhaps the style most concerned with symbolism.

Italo-Greeks make significant use of mosaics in their iconography.

Macedonian icons portray figures in a rounder form than most others.

Maronite iconography was pretty much lost in the extreme latinization of that Church by French missioners and you're more likely to find statues than icons in Maronite churches. Efforts to revive a style have produced what always appears to be a somewhat bland facial display. There has also been some departure from traditional subject matter.

Melkite iconography is characterized by a somewhat stylized innocence and more realistic details than some other styles.

Russian iconography often uses brighter colors than other styles, although antique icons themselves are often considerably darkened by centuries of candle smoke and incense. They also have a tradition of embroidered icons.

Serbian iconography has a particularity in the look of the eyes and noses that lets one identify it from other styles

Slav icons (principally, but not exclusively Carpatho-Rusyn) usually portray the face of the subject in a softer, fuller styling and the coloring is frequently "warmer".

Slovakian icons are of a folk art style, but less "primitive" than those of their Czech neighbors.

Syriac iconography portrays some subject matter more graphically or starkly than would typically be acceptable in many other styles.

Ukrainians have a tradition of embroidered iconography, as well as more traditional iconography that is not markedly distinct from that of other Slav cultures and Churches.

Western icons have become increasingly popular. The iconographers tend not to be bound by rules of subject matter and figures and faces are less stylistic than the average iconophile would prefer, although there are occasionally well-done pieces.

Interestingly, although the Mandellion, the first Icon-Not-By-Human-Hands, is attributed to Assyria, there is no real history of iconography among the Assyrians or Chaldeans.

Many years,

Neil

[Michael the Iconographer]

As I said, there are 3 general recongnized genere of iconography, maybe 4. Within those schools there are sub-divisions or schools. All of the various sub-divisions which you have listed can fall under one of the 3 major genere of Iconography: Byzantine, Russian and Coptic. A 4th Genere of Iconography may be recognized in the Syriac tradition. For example: within Coptic Iconography there is a clear differentiation between Coptic, Ethiopian and Celtic work. Celtic work is included in this genere because of the clear influence the Coptic Churches had on the Iconography of the Celts. Likewise, within Russian Iconography there are many major divisions, namely: 14th C Novgorod, 15th C Moscow, Yaroslavl, Pskov, etc. Most of the other styles which you mention are forms of Byzantine style work, with the exception of Armenian, Maronite, Georgian and Syriac work which tends to fall under the Syriac Genere. As for "western iconography" that was a most regrettable phase during 18th & 19th C Russia and I thank God it has pretty much died out among serious iconographers.

Actually, there are almost as many styles of iconography as there are Churches and ethnicities within the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Catholic communities and within some of the styles there are schools of iconography reflective of particular stylistic idiosyncrisies employed by various masters in writing icons.

I'm at a disadvantage in being unable to provide urls to illustrate my descriptive points since, as I understand it, one has to have a minimum number of posts here before links can be posted, but ...

Arabic icons are frequently mosaic-based.

Armenian iconography also frequently makes use of mosaics.

Bulgarian icons use gilt more generously, are unusually busy in detail, and are somewhat less stylized - more humanized - than others.

Byzantine iconographic style is probably the one most familiar to the Western eye. It portrays figures ascetically and with characteristics suggesting the grandeur of royalty.

Coptic iconography has a "new" and "old" style. The new style is not so "gentle" (for lack of a better word) as the old.

Crete icons are subdued in coloration and figures tend to be elongated. There was also a mosaic icon tradition on the island.

Czech icons tend to a folk art style, somewhat reminiscent of what is referred to as "primitive" art.

Ethiopian icons are frequently painted on diptychs or triptychs, rather than single panels. They tend to use perhaps the most brilliant color palette found among any of the styles and many have a folk art style to them.

Georgian iconography tends to a softness, with older examples being best described as primitive art. This Church also has a strong history of enameled icons.

Greek iconographic figures have a distance about the face that emphasizes the other-worldliness of the one pictured. There is little or no background generally. It is perhaps the style most concerned with symbolism.

Italo-Greeks make significant use of mosaics in their iconography.

Macedonian icons portray figures in a rounder form than most others.

Maronite iconography was pretty much lost in the extreme latinization of that Church by French missioners and you're more likely to find statues than icons in Maronite churches. Efforts to revive a style have produced what always appears to be a somewhat bland facial display. There has also been some departure from traditional subject matter.

Melkite iconography is characterized by a somewhat stylized innocence and more realistic details than some other styles.

Russian iconography often uses brighter colors than other styles, although antique icons themselves are often considerably darkened by centuries of candle smoke and incense. They also have a tradition of embroidered icons.

Serbian iconography has a particularity in the look of the eyes and noses that lets one identify it from other styles

Slav icons (principally, but not exclusively Carpatho-Rusyn) usually portray the face of the subject in a softer, fuller styling and the coloring is frequently "warmer".

Slovakian icons are of a folk art style, but less "primitive" than those of their Czech neighbors.

Syriac iconography portrays some subject matter more graphically or starkly than would typically be acceptable in many other styles.

Ukrainians have a tradition of embroidered iconography, as well as more traditional iconography that is not markedly distinct from that of other Slav cultures and Churches.

Western icons have become increasingly popular. The iconographers tend not to be bound by rules of subject matter and figures and faces are less stylistic than the average iconophile would prefer, although there are occasionally well-done pieces.

Interestingly, although the Mandellion, the first Icon-Not-By-Human-Hands, is attributed to Assyria, there is no real history of iconography among the Assyrians or Chaldeans.

Many years,

Neil

[Irish Melkite]

As for "western iconography" that was a most regrettable phase during 18th & 19th C Russia and I thank God it has pretty much died out among serious iconographers.

Michael,

Although you and I may not be fans of Western iconography, and I am generally not, I was referencing the modern day employment of iconography in a mode and style that is distinctly Western, often using as the subject a person whose cultus is purely Western or depicting Christ, the Theotokos, or early Saints in a thematic presentation that involves a peculiarly Western depiction. While appreciation for this particular mode may not be universal, it would be both a mistake and, I suspect, uncharitable, to dismiss its practitioners as not serious iconographers. I believe that many of them approach their craft as a blessing and practice it in a manner that fully appreciates the God-blessed nature of the work, albeit not to the taste of traditionalists.

As I said, there are 3 general recongnized genere of iconography, maybe 4. Within those schools there are sub-divisions or schools. All of the various sub-divisions which you have listed can fall under one of the 3 major genere of Iconography: Byzantine, Russian and Coptic. A 4th Genere of Iconography may be recognized in the Syriac tradition.

While I am not disputing the major genres of which you speak, it was my intent to add to the discussion the fact that, within each of those, there are particularities of style, motif, palette, and medium that afford recognizable distinction to the iconographic artistry of the multiplicity of ethno-cultural expressions found among the peoples of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. For example, Czech iconography may technically be of the Russian genre but one would be hard-pressed, without specific knowledge of that fact, to identify a not untypical Czech icon, written in what can only be described as a folk-art style, as having anything in common with the beautiful visual prayers of Vladimir Blagonadezhdin or those of the Rostov-Suzdal school, although one might stretch and find some vague commonality of it with certain icons of the school of Pskov, "little brother" to Novgorod.

Many years,

Neil