The concept of icon

We publish a transcript of the program “Science 2.0”-a joint project of the information and analytical channel “Polit.ru” and the Vesti FM radio station. Guest of the program - deputy. Director for Science of the Institute of World Culture of Moscow State University, founder and director of the scientific center of Eastern Christian culture, art historian and Byzantologist Alexei Mikhailovich Lidov . You can hear us every Saturday after 23:00 on the wave of 97.6 FM.

Anatoly Kuzichev: So, the program “News 2.0” is in full force again. From Polit.ru this is the scientific editor Boris Dolgin and Dmitry Iskovich, chairman of the innovative council; From the Vesti FM radio - I, Anatoly Kuzichev.

Today-and I hope that not only today-we are talking with Alexei Mikhailovich Lidov, art historian and Byzantologist, founder and director of the scientific center of Eastern Christian culture, and in addition, deputy. Director for Science of the Institute of World Culture of Moscow State University.

Since we have already agreed that we will have two programs, let's immediately denote two topics. The first theme sounds simple - the icon. But the second sounds difficult and I hope you explain to me in a week the meaning of this word - hierotopia. I love such words, and exactly in a week we will take care of this word. In the meantime, the icon. Let's so: we will immediately agree on the terms. My everyday idea of ​​the icon and what is it, the set of associations differs from your as a scientist? Or is it the same thing?

Alexey Lidov: I do not know your performance, so it is very difficult for me to evaluate [smiles].

A.K.: Such a wooden thing with the face of a saint.

A.L.: I think that it is significantly different. And what do you mean by the plain?

Dmitry Iskovich: And why wooden?

A.K.: For some reason, I'm used to the wooden ones. Well, good, a piece of wood, not a thing. Wooden with the face of the saint.

D.I.: Oh, only, you were somehow carried away by the interviewing of yourself. You know very well what an icon is, you were still in churches and museums.

A.K.: We are now checking the everyday, completely unknown look and the view of the scientist.

D.I.: Household, disinterested gaze, I would say, it looks like this: this is some image that they pray for. So?

AK: So, although they are not necessarily praying.

D.I.: But they can pray.

Boris Dolgin: That is, in one case we have an attempt to describe, and in the other - the functional of the description.

A.K.: In a large number of city apartments of completely advanced people, icons hang, and no one thinks to think to pray.

D.I.: How do you know?

AK: I know, I saw.

D.I.: Why do you know that they are not praying?

AK: Because I have a hang.

A.L.: I see. I think that “this is the image that they pray for” is a good definition for a household idea of ​​the icon. Although really very often do not pray, but nevertheless ...

D.I.: They can pray.

B.D.: That is, such the initial functionality.

A.K.: Initial functionality, I agree.

A.L.: I think that if you try to formulate somehow scientific, then this is a kind of religious image on the plane. If we take in the most general form.

D.I.: Well, why? In our tradition, although there are few sculptural icons, they are. There are voluminous icons, Perm at least.

A.L.: But we are now talking about mass perception. It does not perceive this Perm sculpture as an icon. Still, the icon is flat. Here, perhaps, the most interesting point, associated precisely with perception: how much the unprepared viewer distinguishes the icon and religious picture. In my opinion, he still distinguishes her. But how this distinction happens is a very interesting question.

D.I.: A religious picture is an “phenomenon of Christ the people” Ivanov, for example?

A.L.: Yes, for example, "the phenomenon of Christ the people." Visitors to the Tretyakov Gallery understand that this is not an icon.

AK: There are simply a lot of people there.

A.L.: The leadership of the Tretyakov Gallery in Soviet times also understood, when all the time this picture hung in the Tretyakov Gallery. Maybe not all Soviet times, but a significant part of it. As I remember myself, the picture was there.

B.D.: The difference in functionality?

A.L.: Again, what we are talking about. The difference is huge, fundamental for me as a researcher. But it is curious that there is a difference in perception and mass, unprepared. And this, by the way, has always been.

A.K.: Sorry, Alexey Mikhailovich. Let's get back a little ago. Did you define the icon as a “religious image on the plane”?

A.L.: I would say this is the wrong definition.

D.I.: This is a definition characteristic of mass consciousness.

A.K.: Yes, yes, yes.

D.I.: Can you tell the story, very briefly: about the plane and not the plane? To me, in some way, it doesn’t matter now how, the Perm sculpture “Christ in the Truck”-the most common canon came. For a long time, she traveled with me, then lived with my uncle, cracked a little, and was with a rather strong paint. But at the same time very well preserved, very good quality. As a result, I gave it to the priest in Ardatov, Father Mikhail rubber. We brought her with Ilya Mikhailov, installed in the temple. In the morning people came, believers-no one had a doubt that this is an icon, no one had a perplexity of some kind of perplexity-what to do with it, how to read it. And these are Ardatov, there was never a Perm sculpture. But everything was as it should.

A.L.: In response to your history, I will give my own - the history of the 16th century, when two wooden carved sculptures of Nikola and Paraskeva brought in Pskov. Maybe it was not even a round sculpture, but reliefs. The first reaction of the Pskovites of the middle of the 16th century was such - these images should be destroyed as heretical. Only at the last moment this act of vandalism was stopped. The Pskovs turned to the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius, and he issued a special decree, a decree that you can read and pray for such images. But the first reaction was - immediately destroy.

A.K.: People that you, Dima, tell, in theory, too, should have grabbed and pound them. They are simply poisoned, as it were to say more likely ...

D.I.: No, this was another situation: there was something that was inside the temple, in the presence of their priest, and was already accepted in the temple.

AL: Still, in my experience, if we talk about the consciousness of an Orthodox person, it is difficult for me to imagine that a conditional Orthodox believer will pray for the round sculpture “Christ in the dungeon” as naturally as He prays to the usual icon.

A.K.: Colleagues, tell me this. There are three different views on the icon. The one I tried to imagine is a household look. There is a scientific view, and there is the view that we have now found out.

B.D.: What science? There is a view of art history, but there is theology.

A.K.: Historical and art. We are now talking with Alexei Mikhailovich, his eyes are clear as a scientist. And there is also the view of a believer. I'm afraid to get confused because the topic is interesting, but I'm afraid to get lost.

A.L.: We are talking about everything at once, and, probably, you are right in that you need to focus. If we talk about the meanings that were embedded in the concept of icons in Byzantium, then this refers to the image, image, at the same time vision. If we generalize what the Byzantine theologians wrote to the Church Fathers, then we are talking about an interior image. And this is the fundamental difference between the icon and the religious picture. Because an icon is always a mediator. This is a kind of image that stands on the border of the worlds. It provides the connection of the space of the believer, that is, the earth's space with the space of other realities, right?

B.D.: That is, with sacred space.

A.L.: That is, with the space of heaven. It is such a mediative function of the icon that is the most important. And this is what distinguishes it from a religious picture that illustrates the gospel events, biblical events, instructs, teaches, but it is not an intermediary way.

BD: She is entirely in the world.

A.L.: Yes. Therefore, if you can pray for it, then it will be a completely different prayer. I must say that this fundamental difference between the icon and a religious picture at the level of a living feeling was recognized very early. I really love an example associated with Italy of the 15th century. This is a quatrocento, the heyday of new painting, mainly religious, by the way, in Florence and in other Italian cities. This is a little -known fact. At that time, Italians buy thousands of Greek icons. That is, in Italy of the Cvatrocento era there is a huge market on, as we would say now, Byzantine icons. We know this for sure, since contracts have reached us. This business, as we would say now, were engaged in the Venetians. And contracts have been preserved in the Venetian archives. For example, the one that I read is that in the icon -painting workshop alone in Crete, the Venetians ordered 700 icons, which were supposed to be made in 40 days.

D.I.: And how many icon painters were there?

A.L.: How many icon painters in the workshop were, we do not know, but no matter how much, the scale is clear. This is one of many contracts. That is, already in the 15th century in the West, in the era of such a blooming Renaissance. I repeat, in the 15th century it was mainly religious painting. The Italians by that time had already realized that this is Bella Arte, that is, the excellent art that they admire, which they discuss. And this art was the subject of social life, it was discussed by everyone, including both merchants and artisans, in market squares. That is, in Florence of the 15th century, it was an integral part of social life - great masters, glorified, legendary and so on. But at the same time they understood that there are images that have to pray for.

B.D.: And this is completely different.

AL: And this is completely different, because one is art, and the other is an intermediary image.

A.K.: We continue the conversation with Alexei Mikhailovich Lidov, art historian, Byzantologist, founder and director of the scientific center of East Christian culture and deputy. Director for Science of the Institute of World Culture of Moscow State University. And we talk about the icon, about what it is.

So, everyone intuitively understands how the religious picture differs from the icon. One is a kind of image, possibly instructive and with religious meaning. Another is the mediator, as you put it. But what allows the icon to be or to be considered a mediator? Is this some ritual accompanying its spelling or some formal signs in the composition itself?

B.D.: Either the author and his some kind of internal attitude. Hence the next question: could the status change?

A.K.: Both in the other direction.

AL: Status in the sense that the icon became a religious picture ...

A.K.: Or a religious picture became an icon.

AL: The fact that the religious picture often began to be perceived as an icon, such cases are known. I had to face it, for example, in the eastern churches. In the Coptic church, there are sometimes images, as we would say, such a realistic Western European painting ...

B.D.: I'll explain. Copts are the Egyptians-Christian.

A.L.: The descendants of the ancient Egyptians who profess Christianity.

D.I.: One of the oldest Christian eastern churches.

A.L.: Yes, there are now about 10 million in modern Egypt. There are known cases when paintings began to be revered as icons. In addition, because the border is really very blurry here, because if we recall the art, painting and icons of the XIX century, and earlier, starting from the 17th century, we will see that active penetration into icon painting of various motives of Western religious art and traditional-religious, including oil painting begins. In particular, one of the most famous miraculous icons of the late XIX century, associated with the name of Ambrose of Optinsky, the so -called “Theotokos of the Sporage of bread” is just a picture painted by an academic painter, depicting the Mother of God over the collapse of the field. Due to various reasons and thanks to, of course, the authority of Ambrose of the Optinsky and Optina Desert, this image at the end of the 19th century became incredibly widespread and revered. So to this question: what makes the icon an icon ...

There were such transitions that the icon ceased to be an icon. That is, written as an icon began to be perceived simply as a religious picture. This also happened, but it is in a completely profane environment.

D.I.: Was there a whole era?

AL: If we recall the time of the opening of the icon in our country, the 1960s, then, of course, the collectors of the icons began to collect them by no means like icons, not like images for prayer, but as special religious paintings. Moreover, I would put the “religious” in second place: some beautiful art, forgotten, unknown.

A.K.: Actually, your Florentines, they probably also bought for this purpose.

B.D.: No, it seems not.

D.I.: They bought for prayer, because you will not pray for your own, which is already painting.

A.L.: Yes. They really felt the difference between Bella Arte, that is, with this wonderful, wonderful art that they admired, and images that you can pray for.

D.I.: Here we must explain the environment. Here is the XII-XIII century, when the western icon is still blooming, and new art. They saw all this. They have an icon. They feel that there is an icon, thank God. Because everything was before our eyes.

A.L.: No, they had a special situation there, if we take the West. There were icon images, but there were a minimum amount. Usually, if we take Italy, there were more common than anywhere else, the closest Byzantium icon images. What, for example, in the XIII century could an Italian see? He could see the crucifix hanging over the altar hanging in the air. And such crucifixions were preserved, among other things, made by Chemabue Duccio and Giotto, the largest masters of the late XIII - early XIV centuries. And altar images, the so -called retakes, are such paintings that stood behind the altar. There were no other images. The frescoes sometimes were, sometimes they were not. That is, the general interior was completely different in relation to the Orthodox temple.

There is an interesting document that belongs to Sylvester Syrupulu, a participant in the embassy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who came to Italy in 1438 to participate in the Ferraro-Florentine Cathedral. The cathedral that was supposed to conclude a union. On the eve of the fall of Constantinople, it was a huge political project that ended in collapse, because although the union was concluded, signed with Rome, that is, between the Roman church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, they refused to fulfill it. Because most of the Orthodox clergy said that it is better to be under a Muslim turban than under the papal Tiara. This is a historical background. So, this Byzantine comes to Florence of 1438-1439. And he describes his feelings. He comes to the temple where the cathedral passes is the Church of Santa Maria Novella, such an ancient monastery. And he says: “I wanted to pray and did not recognize anyone. I looked at these images and did not recognize anyone. ” He says: "I seem to have recognized Christ, but was not absolutely sure." This Byzantine, configured to the West, is sympathetic to the West, he came to conclude, continues: “Therefore, I painted a cross on earth and prayed on this cross.” This is amazing: he does not perceive these images, which seem to us much more natural than images of the icon, they are completely alien to him. And he does not perceive sincerely, because it is not some kind of obscure, but a person who came to negotiate is to be friends.

And, returning to the icon itself, what makes the icon an icon? You can answer briefly and incomprehensible, because there are too many different points here. Because, for example, how I try to show in my different works, the icon does not at all come down to a figurative image on a plane. The icon as an intermediary image in Byzantine representations is fundamentally spatial, that is, space can be an icon. In particular, the entire Byzantine or Orthodox temple is perceived as a single icon ...

B.D.: We will talk more about this next time.

D.I.: Wait, it is necessary that Alexei Mikhailovich now replied that he was making an icon icon.

A.L.: It seems to me that the most important is precisely this mediative beginning.

BD: And in order for it to be possible, the ability to recognize, recognize the one who is actually depicted there. What we see on the example of this participant in the embassy.

A.L.: Yes. Further, a tradition, canon is already connected to this process.

A.K.: Wait, Borya, you are very simplifying. If there is a specific character, roughly speaking, is this an icon? Of course not, because in the religious picture ....

D.I.: Wait, let me do it. We focused on the fact that the canons, traditions, and so on, to which I understand, are added to this, and the role of the author of the icon that disappears.

AL: At some point, the idea of ​​the inscription arises-that the image should be signed. But this is not an absolutely ancient tradition, because there are unsigned ancient images, in particular wonderful, brilliant ancient icons preserved in the Sinai, belonging to the era of Justinian, that is, to the VI century. I had to deal with them, at one time I published a album dedicated to the Byzantine icons of Sinai. These ancient icons are not signed, however, there is no doubt that this is the icon.

According to the condition that these images are still made in the technique of ennuastics, that is, such wax painting, when the wax was mixed with pigments, and it was necessary to write at the moment, while the paints mixed with wax were still hot. Therefore, the effect is the impression of these ancient icons - as if they were written in oil. Nevertheless, we look at the ingenious image of the Sinai Christ of the Pantocrator of the VI century, and there is no doubt that we have a great icon, and by no means a religious picture. To be honest, you can install some formal codification, but it will be largely conditional. Главное, возникает – я не хотел сказать мистическое ощущение, но, наверное, это будет правильно. То есть интенция художника. Что он делает иллюстрирующие изображения …

А.К.: Или зрителя.

А.Л.: Да, или это интенция создателя, которую воспринимает зритель.

А.К: Я понял. В итоге вышли на то, что вы не называете ни одного формального признака, кроме интенции художника, которую воспринимает зритель.

А.Л.: Формальных признаков множество, их легко перечислять. Но я пытался отвечать честно, да?

Б.Д.: Кстати, в приведённом вами примере видно, что ещё одним – не то чтобы признаком, а формирующим фактором может быть авторитет того, кто признаёт данное изображение иконой.

А.Л.: Да, несомненно. Это очень древняя византийская практика. То есть вот оптинские старцы освятили эту масляную живопись академического художника своим почитанием и признанием – и это становится иконой, начинает почитаться по всей России как один из самых популярных иконных образов. Я говорю, что реальность – она очень сложная. Более того, с XVI века иконописцы пользуются иконописными подлинниками, то есть набором схем. В том числе и для того, чтобы не нарушить какие-то запреты и не уйти куда-то очень далеко. Вот им дают специально для них созданные наборы схем, которые они должны были воспроизводить. Если они их воспроизводят, то есть некое согласие церковной среды, что если эти схемы воспроизведены, то это уже иконно. Как уж там – хорошо, плохо, желательно хорошо, иногда не очень хорошо, но это икона.

Это неправильно с точки зрения византийского отношения к иконе, византийского понимания образа, потому что византийский иконописец не работал со схемой. Вообще это появление схемы, на мой взгляд, появление схемы иконописного подлинника в XVI веке было одним из ярчайших проявлений начавшегося глубочайшего кризиса иконы. Икона – принципиально не раскрашенная прорись, как как её представляют сейчас.

Вот если мы задумаемся о том, что такое современный иконописец. Это человек, который переносит из определённых книг или образцов, с этих иконописных подлинников некую схему на доску. А дальше эту схему, этот рисунок, перенесённый на доску, раскрашивает. Я упрощаю, естественно, процесс, но принцип именно такой. Это принцип сугубо не византийский. Икона де-факто превращается в плоскую декоративную картинку, как её и воспринимает большинство людей.

А.К.: То, что вы описали, – это конвейер такой современный.

Б.Д.: Это работа с трафаретом.

А.Л.: Это ремесло, да.

А.К.: А византийский подход?

А.Л.: Вы знаете, среди людей, которые занимаются этим ремеслом, есть большие художники. Может быть, с большими художниками я немножко преувеличил, но есть люди, которые способны сделать это на очень высоком профессиональном уровне.

А.К.: Но высокий профессиональный уровень – это же к иконе никакого отношения не имеет.

А.Л.: Имеет, потому что такое количество иконных изображений самого низкого качества, просто мутный поток халтуры…

Б.Д.: С какими-то такими аляповатыми цветами.

А.Л.: Да, аляповатыми, где много дешёвого золота, какие-то розовощёкие лица, гипертрофированные, глаза немножко ненормальные, или какое-то такое умиление, передающееся очень грубыми, схематичными…

Д.И.: …кичевыми средствами.

A.L.: Yes. Это, к сожалению, составляет основную часть современной иконной продукции. Это очень большая проблема, и мне кажется, что возвращение к иконе как к искусству лежит именно через восстановление – это я уже вот свои идеи излагаю. Через восстановление византийского понимания иконы как пространственного образа.

А.К.: А какой был профессиональный подход? Вы говорите, что у византийцев он совершенно другой был, а какой? Профессиональный подход, я имею в виду.

А.Л.: Это очень интересный вопрос. Профессиональный – как они работали. Вы знаете, как примерно работал византийский художник, я увидел относительно недавно, когда был в миссии ЮНЕСКО в Косово в 2004 году – в Монастыре Дечани, это в центре Косово. Этот монастырь был чудесным образом спасён охраняющим его итальянским батальоном. Там появилась поразительная группа монахов, которых я могу сравнить только с раннехристианскими мучениками. Они появились там, когда стало невероятно опасно, появилась реальная угроза уничтожения монастыря и их собственных жизней. Это высокодуховные люди, которые занимаются в монастыре древней духовной работой Византийского монастыря. Они восстанавливают древние византийские песнопения, у них потрясающий хор, и они восстановили иконописную мастерскую. И вот там я воочию увидел…

Д.И.: Прошу прощения. Они пришли в монастырь или они были в монастыре?

А.Л.: Нет, их там не было. Когда я там был в 1980-е годы, там был один священник. Они пришли из разных других мест Сербии в тот момент, когда возникла угроза жизни.

Д.И.: Это такие подвижники, которые пришли спасать монастырь.

А.Л.: Да, они пришли спасать монастырь, и они пришли совершать духовный подвиг, потому что угроза их физического уничтожения на протяжении всех этих лет была абсолютно реальной. И несколько раз их спасало чудо. То есть это особые люди совершенно. В 2004 году их было 22 человека, не мало. По сравнению с одним, который был там в благополучные времена посттитовской Югославии, это некий поступок.

Там я видел, как эти иконописцы работают. Перед ними стоит мольберт с образом. Иконописец пишет икону Христа. И рядом с ним стенд, на котором выложены самые разные образы Христа, начиная с VI века (там был знаменитый Синайский Пантократор), по конец Византии, то есть по XV век. Порядка 10 разных образов Христа. Он смотрел на эти образы за 1000 лет и писал свой.

Б.Д.: Не воспроизводя какой-то один конкретный, а вдохновляясь.

А.Л.: Да, вдохновляясь, как бы мы сейчас сказали, синтезируя и отбирая то, что ему наиболее близко и то, что ему кажется самым точным, глубоким и органичным. А были мастера, у которых эти образы вообще были в уме. Например, есть знаменитый документ о том, как работал Феофан Грек, великий, гениальный, мы можем без всякого преувеличения употребить это слово, византийский мастер, который в конце XIV века пришёл на Русь. Есть письмо монаха Епифания Премудрого своему другу, Кириллу Тверскому, где он описывает, как работает Феофан Грек. Он говорит о том, что он пишет образы, не глядя на образцы, а в процессе работы рассуждает на философско-богословские темы. Образ, который у нас плохо ассоциируется с традиционным иконописцем, а скорее с каким-то маэстро эпохи Возрождения. Великие художники византийские работали так. Потому что все эти образцы за тысячу лет были у них в головах.

Д.И.: Или не в головах, а перед ними.

А.Л.: Или перед ними. Они создавали своё искусство, и мы знаем искусство Феофана Грека по росписям Троицкого придела церкви Спаса на Ильине в Новгороде. Это действительно гениальное искусство, причем гениальное по любым критериям, а отнюдь не только иконописным. Я думаю, любой актуальный художник, хоть что-то понимающий в искусстве, когда он видит эти фрески, понимает, что он имеет дело с гением. А не просто с человеком, который представляет некую древнюю традицию. Я не знаю, мы ответили на вопрос, который был задан?

А.К.: Да, конечно. Даже чуть шире, чем я ожидал. Поэтому мне придётся формулировать новый, чтобы втиснуть его в ответ, который вы дали. Спасибо в любом случае.

Мы прощаемся на неделю, когда с нами вновь будет Алексей Михайлович Лидов, историк искусства, византолог, основатель и директор Научного центра восточно-христианской культуры, зам. директора по науке Института мировой культуры МГУ.

See you.