r/OrthodoxChristianity Reddit 4 days ago

Should an icon be timeless or speak to our time?

Nearly a year has passed since I last posted here. At that time I received a range of responses to my work, both positive and critical, and I am thankful for all of them; several of those comments have stayed with me and prompted further reflection.

I continue to ask myself whether a contemporary icon can serve as a bridge to an ancient tradition while also addressing people today, and whether it can inspire or touch someone personally.

Or should an icon stand apart from time altogether? I would value your thoughts, and I am sharing a few of my recent pieces.

Main points

Can a contemporary icon bridge ancient tradition and speak to people today?
Can it inspire or touch someone personally?
Should an icon remain outside of time?

12 opinions in the discussion 12 participants The opinion with the most support Nothing exists outside of time. The style we see in Orthodox iconography is just the style that developed in a particular time and place, the late antique eastern Mediterranean, with some changes over the following centuries. You can trace parts of it back to… Read the discussion

33 comments at the source Original on Reddit

Discussion · 12

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

opinion#3366 1 likes at the source

Nothing exists outside of time. The style we see in Orthodox iconography is just the style that developed in a particular time and place, the late antique eastern Mediterranean, with some changes over the following centuries. You can trace parts of it back to Hellenistic and Greco-Roman art, like the Fayum mummy portraits. That art stressed introspection, solemnity, divine grandeur, lack of individuality, and turning away from the material world, so it fit Christianity well, but that doesn't make it eternal or culturally neutral. Same goes for vestments, church architecture, even the philosophical terms the Fathers and councils used in dogmatic definitions. Should we change all that? No, it would cause needless strife and signal a break with tradition and continuity, which matter a lot to the Church. But personally I see nothing wrong with images like the ones you posted. They keep the conventions that highlight personhood (the face fully visible, both eyes showing), halos, etc. EDIT: In short: replacing or abolishing things would be risky and disrespectful, but we can always add new ones as long as they stay faithful to the spirit of the Church.
opinion#3367 1 likes at the source

There are theological reasons icons are painted the way they are (golden background, no shadows = God as Light). I have no problem with someone using an iconographic style in their own art, mixed with other styles. But my personal opinion is that traditional iconography is what belongs in worship.
opinion#3368 1 likes at the source

We need to keep continuity with the iconographic vocabulary, not just follow our own whims. Colors mean things, for instance (especially blue, red, and gold). Figures need to stay recognizably human (icons affirm the incarnation; the only banned icons I know of were non-human depictions of Jesus and St. Christopher). They also have to be beautiful enough that people want to venerate them. So some of what you posted is fine and some isn't. A different style is fine. Distorting people, especially faces, is not.
opinion#3369 1 likes at the source

Art reflects the person making it. That's part of its beauty, seeing something through another human being's eyes. In iconography the iconographer should disappear. Nothing in an icon should point back to whoever wrote it, that's not its purpose. I took an intensive course at a monastery, about 10 hours a day of iconography plus prayer and services. Ironically the best artists in the class struggled the most; their own interpretations and flourishes kept creeping in and had to be redone. I didn't expect that. It was eye-opening and humbling.
opinion#3370 1 likes at the source

In short: icons made for liturgical and devotional use should follow the formulas and only very very rarely deviate. Icon-adjacent styles are perfectly fine as inspiring art if they're respectful to the subject matter. I love Nikola Saric's work a lot, I just wouldn't want it in church.
opinion#3371 1 likes at the source

The people in icons, and God Himself, are eternal. They are not of this world, so they aren't subject to fashion. Those who fear God properly, a holy fear that gives reverence and honor as due, won't treat icons as an artistic playground. Christianity means holding what is God's in honor, including His image in which we are made. Iconography is not art in any modern sense and isn't subject to modern critique. It's not fair game for one's own will or a playful subject to experiment with. That's why we can definitively call a painting an icon or not. Your paintings take iconographic motifs and subjects but ignore convention and tradition in favor of personal interpretation. That's the spirit of the New Age, the spirit of the world: make your mark, take something known and try something new, gain recognition, express freedom through your own lens. That's worldly because it's based on self, not selflessness. Christ is true Freedom, inexpressible. An iconographer strives to become invisible, making the image as passionless as possible within the tradition of the chosen style. In the Renaissance the West did away with iconography in religious art; the earliest masters are its last traces. Abandoning holy tradition in church fresco is literally the dividing line marking the start of Renaissance art. Every later abandonment of iconographic tradition, including yours, is a spiritual…
opinion#3372 1 likes at the source

Oh nah man they done put the Savior in da cube. Jokes aside, I think icons can and should be adapted and explored, within the traditional rules. If it conveys the theological truth, I'm inclined to say it's good and can be made as an icon.
opinion#3373 1 likes at the source

We have to be able to see and feel, and experience from the heart, a Living Reality, the Living Reality that is the Truth above all things, Jesus the Word of God Incarnate. But ultimately an icon must transcend all these things and make the Truth and the Divine Word present to us.
opinion#3374 1 likes at the source

I mean it speaks to me now, and I'm from the future. That's my answer: it can be done with Christ's help and still be relevant 1000 years from now. Otherwise I think there's room for pedagogical art bridging ancient art and post-post modernism.
opinion#3375 1 likes at the source

I think all of these are beautiful. Keep doing what you're doing. Keep praying that God helps you remove yourself from the making of these icons. That you seek His glory and not your own. Work toward prayerfully depicting the incarnation. You can't decide what people venerate. If God wants to use your work in people's lives, He will.
opinion#3376 1 likes at the source

The cubes and the cross are my favorite! For me an icon feels like home if the Byzantine style is kept, but whether it's 3D or not I personally don't care. If you had this at home I'd be fine with it.
opinion#3377 1 likes at the source

Does contemporary art really speak the language of our time? Most people I know can't stand contemporary art or contemporary literary fiction and poetry. The general feeling is that art and literary publishers have become completely out of touch. "Americans overwhelmingly like classic art: in one YouGov survey, 87% of people familiar with art styles said they liked or loved it. Abstract art was the most disliked style in that survey. In a 2025 British survey, only 21% said they liked or loved 'modern art,' while 25% disliked or hated it." I do like the nativity painting, though!