We often hear talk of Western style religious paintings and how
they’re inappropriate for Orthodox liturgical worship because they depart from
the strict principles of Orthodox iconography. Icons are not mere religious
art, but Scripture in picture form (for which reason many prefer to speak of
icons being ‘written’ rather than painted, although the linguistic basis for
this isn’t quite correct). As such, the painting icons should not be subject to
personal tastes but must be undertaken with great attention to these principles
in order for them to faithfully express the Holy Tradition of the Church. While
styles develop with time, and are often shaped by local cultural elements, the
basic principles remain the same. Byzantine, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian,
Ethiopian and early Western styles vary greatly in their details, yet it
doesn’t take an expert to notice that all are two-dimensional, all use light in
a similar way, all are stylised rather than naturalistic [small mouths and
large eyes, for example], and all attempt to portray the person depicted in a
glorified state rather than their earthly one. But while there is pretty much a
consensus among Orthodox about the impropriety of post-renaissance Western
iconography, liturgical music, which permeates almost every single part of our
divine services, has become a virtual free-for-all outside of the ‘Greek
tradition’ [I don’t include here the Greek churches in America, where modern
polyphonic compositions and organ accompaniment have become the norm, since
this is something of an anomaly] and nobody seems to mind.
Yet the development of sacred music was also subject to
regulations equally stringent as those followed by iconographers. Indeed,
because music can so easily affect human emotion and rouse the passions of the
soul, the holy Fathers showed particularly great concern whenever they
discussed music, and many even questioned the use of music in the services
altogether. Again, although the styles are many and varied – Gregorian,
Byzantine, Russian Znamenny, Mozarabic, and Syriac to name but a few – they
share a common character: simplicity [ostentatious or overly passionate music
is to be avoided, a rule often broken even by those skilled in traditional
chant], monophony [that all may offer up the same prayer "as with one voice"], and the absence of musical instruments. While Western
iconography is now considered inappropriate by most, the Western four-part
harmony that made its way into Russia via Ukraine around the time of Peter the
Great is simply accepted as part of the Russian Orthodox tradition, without
anyone stopping to consider whether such music, however beautiful it may be to
listen to, is appropriate for worship. The problem is furthered by the fact
that many modern Russian compositions, from which the choir master/mistress is
often free to pick and chose at his/her leisure, pay little or no heed to the
modal system around which so much of the Byzantine Rite (which, with the
exception of the rather controversial attempts by ROCOR and the Antiochians to revive
certain Western rites, has been the only surviving rite within the Eastern
Orthodox Church since the 12th century) is based.
Local deviations from the norm always occur and generally
speaking this is not a serious problem. The problem is that, when these are
accepted as legitimate expressions of Orthodoxy rather than simply local
aberrations, there is little preventing them from being adopted elsewhere.
While the introduction of four-part harmony to many local churches throughout
Eastern Europe was perhaps a consequence of a rather aggressive programme of
russification, it has now become widespread elsewhere on the basis that it is
easier to learn than traditional chant forms or simply “easier on the Western
ear”. This I consider a great problem, and I see no reason for such a double
standard around adherence to traditional forms.
Of interest:
Great to see this post! Nice one!
ReplyDelete