Integrity

You are blessed to have such a man as your godfather!

Very humbling. Thanks for telling his story.

Thanks Rod. I have watched Vladimir's work at the Cathedral progress for more than four years now. Each brush stroke is laid with a prayer, and the iconography becomes both a visual and spiritual expression of that prayer over time. You did not mention that icons are not signed or marked for identification by their makers. That is the selfless nature of the believers who only seek to create a bridge or window to the eternal, with God's help. We are blessed to have faithful witnesses, like Vladimir and others, among us.

Maybe Br. Robert Lentz would have been up for the job.

For those of us who read this blog, um, religiously, but are not Catholic or Orthodox (just plain old Presbyterian, in my case), could someone explain the significance of a "godfather"? I assume it's not the same thing as the godparents we Protestants have, who are normally close friends or relatives of our parents that pledge to care for us should something happen to our parents, and help guide us in our faith. Since Vladimir is only a couple of years older than Rod, I assume this is something else...?

It's more or less the same thing with adults as infants. Your Godparent as an adult convert is someone who can vouch for the serious of your faith and who pledges to help guide you along the same path.

Margaret asked about Orthodox Godfathers. We also have Godmothers. Right before conversion and Baptism, we are given and help select a person who is active in the church: Godmother if we are female, or a Godfather if we are male, to stand with us through the Baptism ceremony, sponsor the post Baptism celebration, present the Baptism gift such as Cross necklace, Bible, Baptism candle, or prayer rope, etc. More than a sorority big sister or fraternity big brother, that person supports spiritually the new convert or child born into Orthodoxy his/her entire life. Will help celebrate the person's names day every year, or day of celebration of that person's chosen Patron Saint. I converted to Orthodoxy last spring, and have the privilege to become a Godmother this coming Sunday. If you are interested in attending an Orthodox baptism, come to St. Sava Orthodox Church on 15th street in Plano at 8 a.m. this Sunday.

TIME attempts to stick a thumb in the eye of Christians AGAIN...

I don't think so. I think it was cultural ignorance, nothing more.

I'm a little confused. Iconography itself is just a style of artistic expression, right? I understand that it is a popular form of artwork in many branches of Christianity, but isn't it also is used in Judiasm and Hinduism? Hasn't iconography been used to depict secular images as well?

I mean, was Time asking him to place a halo around Putin, or depict him as a saint? Or did they simply want an eye-catching portrait, and decided to use this particular artform?

I'm not criticizing his decision. It's just that Rod's post seems to suggest that the inquiry was met with a direct "no." Did Vladimir ask the editor why Time wanted to use this particular artform?

Matt:

IMO (but I could be wrong), you may have a valid point. E.g., if Time Magazine wanted to portray Putin in a manner that includes "Russian" elements and that also depicts the apparent reverence or adoration or adulation apparently many Russians have for him, portraying him in the style of an icon (sans halo, hopefully!) would probably be an artsy and eye-catching way of doing so. After all, Putin claims to be Orthodox.

But to ask an Orthodox iconographer to create such an image is, IMO, in very, very poor taste. It would be like asking an artist or photographer who was known for his reverent and modest and artistic depictions of the nude to paint or photograph pornography. Not only would it demean his craft, it would demean him and what he holds to be dear and meant to be treated with reverence. IMO, of course.

Am I the only one to see this but doesn't Vladimir in the photo have himself a face like that often seen in icons? One doesn't normally see in America human faces which might have been models for icons but occasionally. Is there an ethnic source/model for the icon face, particularly the long thin nose and the rather close set eyes?

What I like best about icon faces, particularly Mary's, is that while they don't look realistic they never, ever look silly or simpering as do so many western images.

In some San Francisco religious art shop, maybe that of Grace Cathedral, I once saw an icon of Harvey Milk who was assassinated with our former mayor Moscone. Perhaps Time just contacted the wrong iconist.

Eric and Will-

Thanks for the explanations. I can see from the iconographer's perspective how this commission would be seen as offensive.

"What I like best about icon faces, particularly Mary's, is that while they don't look realistic they never, ever look silly or simpering as do so many western images."

Caroline, I'm going to have to take exception to this. Just because some lesser artists have occasionally created images of the Blessed Mother that are more kitsch than art does not mean that "many" western images of Our Lady suffer from this defect. And it would be false to say that icons can never be kitschy, as there are plenty of badly-painted and inferior icons out there.

And I can't help but find this sort of thing very ugly, even if it is an icon: franciscandiary.blogspot.com/2007/04/ugly-side-of-orthodoxy.html (add the http://). Granted, as some of the commenters on that site point out, many Orthodox would also find this to be a theologically-deficient icon, but the point is that just because something is painted in the style of an icon doesn't automatically elevate it above all other forms of religious art.

I'm glad "Time" rethought the idea of painting Putin as a saint, and that Rod's godfather turned them down in the first place; but Rod, don't sell yourself short. You would have done exactly the same thing as a writer, if anyone had ever tried to induce you to write something that violated your own moral principles.

"And it would be false to say that icons can never be kitschy, as there are plenty of badly-painted and inferior icons out there."

But badly-painted icons and inferior icons aren't necessarily kitschy. Icons painted by students or novices, for instance, may not be up to that of the quality of accomplished iconographers; they may be crude, primitive or simplistic, yet not be kitsch. In fact, I'd say that if the canons of iconography, both artistic and spiritual, are followed when painting an icon, the result will never be kitschy. Those canons seem to me to preclude the possibility of kitsch.

Kitschy and "bad" icons seem to occur primarily when the canons aren't followed.

Rod,

When you have a chance will you ask your friend what he does think of V. Putin? It would be a very interesting discussion chock full of crunchy matter. Freedom vs stability, liberty vs duty, the individual vs a curbing authority.

Your Vladimir is an example and a reproach to all of us busy self-promoters.

In the early days of glasnost and perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev was placed on the cover of a travel magazine to which I used to subscribe, in a portrait that was painted to look like an icon. I immediately cancelled my subscription.

Friends told me that the outcry from the subscribers was in print the next month, and the print was nearly audible when you read it. People were appalled.

But after that, a firm whose name I forget began producing "icons to order" from which you could order by phone, by mail or online, an icon of anyone at all. People of my acquaintance, some of them, suddenly were in the market for icons of their favourite political heroes.

I guess it was the start of the fad of calling celebrities "icons".

But besides being profane and wicked, it was all in very bad taste. Mostly, people tired of it very quickly. I'm surprised that it's surfaced again.

Mary H.