Zoetmulder challenged

In 1998 there was a Christmas exhibition at Gallery De Vleugel in Slot Zeist, in which I participated, which connected to an icon exhibition by Ingrid Zoetmulder. The Utrechts Nieuwsblad sent Thea Figee, to review both exhibitions in one swoop. Ingrid Zoetmulder was later, in 2009, criticized in the icon bulletin Eikonikon by Wim van Loon for statements in a Teleac broadcast such as: “For the believer, an icon is real when it is consecrated. But for me, of course, then it is not a real icon. For me, an icon is a real icon if it comes from the time it shows, and if it is made for religious use. Huh so an icon made on an old board in the twentieth century, very beautiful, that is a forgery actually.” In short, for her, then, all icons made after 1917 are fakes.

Now art historian Dr. Eddy van den Brink lives in Leersum, went to look in Zeist and read the article. And he wrote to the newspaper, and I publish this with his permission:

Utrechts Nieuwsblad,

Attn: Mrs. Figee

Madam Editor,

If at a car show with the pre-1998 models an oldtimer enthusiast shouts, that no real cars are made after 1950, or if an antique enthusiast claims that you can't sit on a post-1900 chair at all, nonsense is said.

You have taken that kind of nonsense from Mrs. Zoetmulder's mouth, not recognized it as nonsense, and made it your article on the icon exhibition in Zeist in the January 28 newspaper. I don't think, that an editor should be knowledgeable about everything he writes about; after all, then every editor would soon be written out or bore his/her readers. I thought an editor's skill was in knowing how to quickly find spokespeople or other sources to get informed enough to write something sensible. With Mrs. Zoetmulder you have misjudged, and you could have noticed that, because in your article you do not have a expert, but a shopkeeper speaking, touting her wares, Russian old icons.

That no real icons could be painted after 1917 is simply nonsense, because icons will always be painted as long as and wherever there are orthodox believers. For an orthodox, an icon is not a work of art, but a necessary religious utensil; if he wants to invoke St. Nicholas, that requires an icon of St. Nicholas, and if he does not have that and can afford it, he must have that icon made. The icon painter who takes on that job has no artistic freedom, because a St. Nicholas icon is only good if it depicts the real St. Nicholas, i.e. a previous St. Nicholas icon. And that in turn means that an icon painter stands in a tradition, innate or learned. All Nicholases, Byzantine, Cretan, Russian or Romanian are similar, because it is always about the same Nicholas. But a connoisseur can tell immediately, whether a Byzantine or a Russian painted here.

When icons become fashionable with us in the West, something completely different happens: then they are no longer religious utensils, but we start to find them “beautiful,” call them “works of art,” and some people fall for the patina of really old. There is nothing wrong with that and Ms. Zoetmulder owes her trade to that.

The quality of an icon has nothing to do with old or new, because every new icon has to imitate an old one. All of Mrs. Zoetmulder's old icons were once just as new, just as shiny as what now hangs in Zeist. That they would be animated by their age, that is, by cracks, dust and candle wax of centuries is sentimental prattle, not even proper advertising for her store. It is the taste (and purchasing power, since antiques do cost much more than new) of any buyers in Zeist who will decide for themselves whether they prefer an old or a new icon. To disqualify new as a false imitation is ignorance or bread envy.

Finally. I don't know the gallery in Zeist, I don't know the icon painters hanging there, and I don't know Ms. Zoetmulder. I am an ordinary art historian who happens to know about icons by virtue of his specialization. And who gets annoyed when stupid slander in your newspaper is passed off as statements by a connoisseur. And who thinks that you should do something about it in your newspaper. If you think you need me to do this, please let me know; I am not waiting for this.

With kind regards,

Eddy van den Brink

Back to articles

Are you allowed to sign icons?

We live in a strange country. Some icon painters think they should design their own icons, while the painting book of Dionysius of Fourna, whose icon prayer everyone uses, describes tracing old icons. I think designing icons myself is like trying to draw a circle freehand.

Also strange is that painters in the Russian style take Greek icons as examples and execute them in the Russian technique. So what kind of style do you get? Fusion of Russian and Greek?

But most disturbing of all, everyone, painters, experts, laymen and icon traders think that you should not sign icons. It is taboo in these circles. Have these people ever been to Greece? Do they ever look at a Greek icon in a book or in real life? Then they will see that their power does not reach Greece. Then shouldn't these Greeks listen to the Morsinks and the Krikhaars? Greeks are pious, venerate icons and are careful in matters of faith, and also orthodox I must say, Morsink and Krikhaar are not.

Greek painters do not listen, no. Anyone who looks around Greece must find that icon painters sign their icons. Usually it then reads “By the hand of ...” (dia cheiros) with sometimes by ancient custom “by the servant of the Lord” (tou doulou tou Theou if it is a man) and first and last name . Or it says “monk/nun” (monachos/monachi) or just the place as “Holy Mountain” (Agion Oros) (image) or “Holy Monastery ...” (I.M. ...) and the adopted name. The adopted name begins with a syllable of the old one, but is given a different ending. Theophanes could become Theophylaktos or Theodoros. The principal may also be named, and then it reads “Prayer of ...” (deësis tou/tis) and then a person or family follows. And there is always to mention a year in ancient Byzantine or New Greek numerals on the icon. Of these we recognize above the beta, which is 2000. The cluster above the figures, by the way, incorporates tou doulou and Vatopedi (monastery). The most famous painters Vranos and Bamboulis sign, as well as priests and the monks of the monasteries.

This is custom in Greece. It is not common practice, as there are more unsigned than signed icons. There are reasons for this. But signed ones hang in stores, homes and churches. It is allowed.

Sometimes modesty gets out of sight. In the chapel of St. George on Lipsos (Dodecanese) hangs an icon with “Prayer of Konstantinos Gryllis” (fictitious name) followed by “from the motorboat Paradisos.” So Konstantinos thinks everyone is now running to the harbor looking for his boat to book an excursion.

Back to Articles

Is the consecration of icons necessary?

Those who ponder the question of what exactly icons are automatically arrive at the question of whether icons must be consecrated before they may be called icons. Many would not want to hang an unconsecrated icon in their homes; they consider it sacrilege. It is felt that by being consecrated, a profane image becomes a sacred icon. Or at least it becomes a better icon. Few question what they see as the legitimate, traditional and totally orthodox practice of icon consecration.

But then do you speak of a non-icon before consecration? That is impossible, I always think. Ordination is not essential to the icon, strange as it may seem.

Father Steven Bigham of the Carpathian diocese in Montreal researched icon consecration and came to surprising conclusions.

In the records of the seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea (787), you can read that the iconoclasts, claimed that the icon was not sacred. According to them, it was an ordinary object without value as the painter made it, because no consecration prayer was said over it.

A dedicatory prayer (and as many as five) is recorded for the first time in 1649 in the Ukrainian prayer book of Peter Moghila of Kiev and in the great Greek prayer book, the Euchologion, in 1730. The tradition then has not had ordination for 1,500 years! So it will come down to how the fathers of 787 refuted the iconoclasts at the council, and that will explain everything. It proves that my feeling was correct.

In a nutshell, the Council Fathers of 787 said: An icon becomes, if it has the likeness of the heavenly prototype, from the moment the icon bears the name of the saint. An icon is then of itself holy and full of grace.

The Orthodox prayer books mentioned seem to have wanted to bid against the customs in the Roman Catholic Church. A 1730 footnote from the editor of the Euchologion points to the Roman Catholic, especially the Episcopal prayer books already containing icon prayers.

The central text of the Euchologion reads, “Therefore we pray to You, our God, to send down the grace of Your Holy Spirit, together with Your angel, on this icon, so that every prayer addressed to You through this icon may be received by the grace of Your only begotten Son ...” The Russian version speaks of the icon being “sanctified” by this prayer.

The situation of counter-traditional icon consecration is tragic but not surprising, Bigham says. From the seventeenth century onward, icon painting degenerated, so why not the church's theology and prayer practice as well? He proposes that icon consecration be replaced by a ceremony of approval and acceptance of a newly painted icon by clergy and faithful, without the iconoclastic notion expressed in the prayers of current consecrations.