We are the product of our choices. The organizers of the symposium chose to have presentations on quite a number of PoMo favorites, as well as minor artists of whom no one outside of the hothouse world of modern art has ever heard–all with the kind of pretentious, deconstructionist themes I have come to expect from such gatherings. Yet a form of modern art–and icons, being produced today in both the West and the East do qualify–seen by and accessible to the “masses” is not considered worthy of discussion.

“In fact, it looks very much like Western art before it developed over the last eight hundred years. That could make for an interesting discussion, but hardly a natural or necessary one.”

That might hold water if these same art critics were not falling all over themselves to say how much modern artists from Chagall to Picasso to Warhol were influenced by iconography. Apparently, it’s OK to discuss artists who are influenced by it, but not OK to discuss those who produce the real thing.

Iconography lies somewhat outside of Western art as it developed over the last eight hundred years. In fact, it looks very much like Western art before it developed over the last eight hundred years. That could make for an interesting discussion, but hardly a natural or necessary one.

My problem is a seminar that is willing to discuss “modern artists” influenced by iconography, but is unwilling to discuss iconography at all. And I believe that has to do with fundamental way in which the artistic establishment views the role of the artist. In that paradigm, the artist uses his medium to express his view of the world. A artist who produces religious art, therefore, is making paintings, sculptures, collages, mobiles, or multi-media productions that express his view of religion or religious subjects. In the end, it’s about the artist.

The iconographer, on the other hand, is not interested in expressing his vision of Christianity or events within Christianity–he’s concerned with expressing the truth as contained within the Tradition of the Church, by working within a defined canon of materials, composition and style.

That does not mean the iconographer is a mere copyist–though I have run into that perception among artists and art critics (and to be frank, it’s largely true about the majority of iconographers–but then, it’s true about the majority of secular artists, as well). The great iconographers, while subsuming themselves within the canon, also have the ability, through subtle variations or alterations of color, composition or expression, to reveal entirely unexpected truths within their icons–witness, e.g., the famous Rublev “Old Testament Trinity” as compared to more mundane renderings of the same subject.

As I noted, there are many extraordinary iconographers at work today–the renaissance in the field is unparalleled since the 15th century. They are legitimate artists, working in a legitimate medium that deserves to be placed on the same plane as more widely accepted modern artists, many of whom are decidedly mediocre or whose work is so academic and opaque as to be accessible only to fellow academics.

And there, I suppose, is another source of difficulty: the Academy is hostile to the spirit that motivates and inspires the iconographer, because it presents an insurmountable challenge to academic art.

But, in any case, the conference would be discussing art, not displaying it.

I also like the religious art of Gerhard Richter, especially his window at Cologne Cathedral.

I think that Vincent van Gogh said it was easier for a nonbeliever to produce religious art in a religious society than for a believer to produce religious art in a secular society. I think it had to do with the lack of self-consciousness (and flak, probably).

Another permanently aggrieved member of a minority whose only real politics are identity politics. The kind who scans a conference program only to find out whether one of his own kind is included. The subject itself doesn’t matter, just the identity group.