A few thoughts on icons

This post is about a simple thought. As blogs are not very conducive to long, footnoted treatises I hope to match the simple thought to simple references.

Iconography and the digital age are strange bedfellows. The experience one had with icons before the advent of the Internet is quite different from the constant embedding of iconographic images on websites we see today. Similarly, the sense of "ownership" a believer who purchases icons or an iconographer who writes them might have for their icons has changed as the icon itself is divorced from its place and time by being published and republished and republished until the original "owner" of the icon and the digital image of the icon are connected so tenuously as to be attached by an invisible thread (as in a watermark) or by no thread at all.

But is this idea of ownership, either as understood by some before the digital revolution or afterward, a reasonable one. Iconographers rightfully scour the Internet for usage of their works being put to use as illustration for profit without their permission, but they also keep a tight rein on usage of pictures of their work not for profit. Some of them might be perturbed by uncredited use, others by not asking for permission, and still others by any use at all separate from their website. I would contend that (separate from ill-gotten profit or digital simony) once an icon is written it belongs to the Church.

We preach by words and by images, the fathers say. Preaching is part of our liturgical services, so “preaching images” obviously would have to be “liturgical images.” In fact, liturgy appears to be the main key to a correct understanding of icons. Liturgy always is prayer, and an icon is a “liturgical image” because it is used in prayer. As we have seen, the task of icons is not mainly to illustrate and certainly not merely to decorate. The essential task of any icon is to function in prayer. Therefore nothing alien to or inconsistent with the spirit of prayer, which is “the peace of God that passes all understanding” (Ph 4:7), may be expressed by an icon. The liturgical function also implies that the icon never exists for its own sake. In a way, it is accepted only in as much as it points and leads to the prototype. While praying, our attention must not be captured by the effigy we see. Consequently, a certain transparency obtained by a clear composition, simple forms and harmonic colors, as well as an accurate faithfulness to the traditional features of the saints are required.

- "Theology in Color"

by Fr. Nicholas Ozolin

Icons function as "theology in color," as a "liturgical image" for prayer, as an expression of “the peace of God that passes all understanding." Once a prayer is written does it belong to the person who wrote it or does it belong to the Body of Christ? Once a hymn is written for liturgical use does it belong to the musician or to all who wish to mystically represent the Cherubim? Should the iconographer "protect" his icon as he would protect any of his other possessions or should he see himself as a custodian, a guardian, for the very theology of the Church expressed in color; victorious over the iconoclasts who sought to deny the "confession and proclamation our salvation in word and images" (Kontakion, Sunday of Orthodoxy)?

"The icon's purpose is liturgical. It is an integral part of liturgical space, which is the church. And an indispensable participant in divine services. The icon is essentially by no means an image intended for private devotional veneration," writes Fr. Gabriel Bunge. "It's theological place is primarily the liturgy in which the message of the word is complemented by the message of the icon. Outside church and liturgy the icon largely loses its meaning. Certainly every Christian has the right to hang an icon at home, but he has this right only in so far as his home is a continuation of the church and his life a continuation of the liturgy. [emphasis added]"

- The Meaning of ‘Icon’ in the Orthodox Church

Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev)

For those iconographers who make their living at writing icons it is eminently reasonable that there be some digital trail connecting their work however it is distributed around the Internet (as every replication of their original image is another calling card for prospective commissions). What I wonder is if that hope for a revenue stream (by referencing the iconographer, asking permission, etc.) is a right or a kindness done by those who saw the image and wanted to make use of it. Separate from the discussion of non-Orthodox using these images, what right does the iconographer have to claim ownership to the theology of the Church and what usufruct privilege should the person who reposts these images enjoy?