1

INTRODUCTION
When we look at an icon do we see Christ or an icon of Christ? This
question continuously emerges in modern scholarship. Issues such as
presence and absence, art and worship, image and art, seem to concern
modern scholars who study Byzantine painting.1 What is the Byzantine
interpretation of the above issues and how do modern scholars perceive
them?

PORTRAIT AND PORTRAYED

Hans Belting opens his book Likeness and presence: a history of the
image before the era of art by saying that ʻA history of the image is something
other than a history of artʼ.2 Belting suggests that an image should be
perceived in terms of its cult function because ʻit usually represented a
person, and therefore was treated like a personʼ.3 This fusion between portrait
and portrayed, constructed within cult practice, is a typical characteristic of the
image. However, when is the image separated from the work of art? Belting
believes that the dividing lines between image and work of art were
established in sixteenth century Europe.4 According to Beltingʼs conception of
the difference between work of art and image, Byzantine painting belongs to
the latter, both chronologically and essentially. As Barber, Eastmond and
James underline, the fusion between portrait and portrayed is crucial for
Belting as it is probably one of the stronger indications of the fact that a

1
For example, see: Charles Barber, 'From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship after
Byzantine Iconoclasm', The Art Bulletin, 75.1 (1993), 7-16; Charles Barber, 'Mimesis and
Memory in the Narthex Mosaics at the Nea Moni, Chios', Art History, 24.3 (2001), 323-37;
Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1994); Leslie Brubaker, 'Byzantine Art in the Ninth Century:
Theory, Practice and Culture', Byzantine and modern Greek studies, XIII (1989), 23-93; Icon
and Word: The Power of Images in Byzantium, ed. by A. Eastmond and Liz James (Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2003)
2
Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, p. 9
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., pp. 11-27
 3

picture functions as an image and not as a work of art.5 In fact, what lies at
the heart of the problem of the fusion between portrait and portrayed is the
fundamental Christological distinction between form and essence/nature.
When a fusion between portrait and portrayed is observed, there is an
underlying essentialist notion involved; the icon seems to be a container of
presence as it is believed that there is an identity of essence between portrait
and portrayed.
Demus commenting on the relation between portrait and portrayed
suggests that ʻthe icon is magically identical with the prototype…The picture, if
created in the right manner is a magical counterpart of the prototype, and has
a magical identity with it. To achieve this magical identity with the prototype,
the image must possess similarity… If this was done according to the rules a
magical identity was established, and the beholder found himself face to face
with the holy persons…He was confronted with the prototypesʼ.6 Demus
accepts that there can be a fusion between portrait and portrayed that is
based on the function of certain icons as magical replacements of the
prototypes. For Demus, the portrait under certain circumstances becomes the
equivalent of the portrayed and thus the former possesses the power of the
latter. Demus, interpreting St Basilʼs famous statement that ʻthe honor given to
the image is transferred to its prototypeʼ,7 assumes that a magical link can be
established between the portrait and the portrayed. In fact, St Basilʼs
fundamental statement, found in his work De Spiritu Sancto, refers to the
inter-Triadic relationship of the Son with the Father. However, it was largely
used by the iconophile Fathers of the Orthodox Church of the 7th and 8th
centuries and also by the 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) in order for

5
See: Charles Barber, 'From Image into Art: Art after Byzantine Iconoclasm', Gesta, 34.1
(1995); Charles Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine
Iconoclasm (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); Icon and Word: The Power of
Images in Byzantium, ed. by Eastmond and James
6
Otto Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976), pp. 6-7
7
St. Basil the Great, 'De Spiritu Sancto', in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.-P. Migne (Paris,
1857-1866), vol.32, 149C
 4

the use of icons to be theologically justified and in particular, in order for the
theologians to explain the relation between the icon and its prorotype. Indeed,
as Tselengidis proposes, the core of the teachings of the iconophile Fathers
on icons is clearly based on the Triadology of St Basil.8 In the same way that
the Son is a natural and identical image of the Father, the icon is an identical
image of its prototype. However, a very important distinction has to be made.
The Son is an image of the Father according to essence, while the icon is an
image of its prorotype according to form only.9 There is no link between the
icon and its prototype apart from the similarity of their external form. Demus
recognizes the importance of likeness as the fundamental presupposition for
the existence of the icon but he finally suggests that there is a magical link
between the portrait and the portrayed that gives the portrait the ability to
function as the portrayed, to “contain” the presence of the portrayed.
However, the ʻmagical identityʼ described by Demus, is not, according
to him, a characteristic of every icon. The foundations for the establishment of
such a magical link between portrait and portrayed are, for Demus, primarily
visual and depend on the painterʼs ability to create an icon ʻin the right
mannerʼ and ʻaccording to the rulesʼ. In this way, the fusion between portrait
and portrayed is probably not a conceptual necessity or a characteristic of
certain icons given to them by God but an artistic achievement. The power of
the image lies in the hands of the painter and not on those of God for
Demus.10
The conception that the viewer through the icon is confronted with the
prototypes can be found in James, too. In particular she claims that ʻeveryone
knew that…touching an icon was touching a saint, that the image of Christ

8
Dimitrios Tselengidis, Η Τριαδολογία Του Μεγάλου Βασιλείου Ως Υπόβαθρο Της
Δογματικής Διδασκαλίας Της Εκκλησίας Για Τις Εικόνες (the Triadology of St. Basil as
the Foundation of the Dogmatic Teachings of the Church on Icons)
<http://egolpion.net/triadologia_m_basileiou.el.aspx> [accessed 10/08/2010].
9
Ibid.
10
Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium, pp. 6-13
 5

meant that Christ was thereʼ.11 James, describing practices of the faithful
concerning the icons, comes to the conclusion that for the faithful, portrait and
portrayed were confused as the icons were venerated as if they were
persons. Indeed, there must have been a gap between ʻreligion as prescribedʼ
and ʻreligion as practicedʼ as commented on by Dubisch.12 The official stance
of the Church concerning images must have been different from the way that
laymen regarded icons. Apart from the viewersʼ reactions to icons that
probably indicate that there was a fusion between portrait and portrayed
among laymen, James suggests that there is another reason for which it can
be claimed that portrait and portrayed are confused. In particular, she
mentions that for the faithful, the icon is ʻa means of access to the divineʼ13 or
a ʻgateway to the divineʼ.14 The viewer, according to James, is able to reach or
understand the divine through his contact with the icon, as if the icon was a
means that can lead to a spiritual world.15 Jamesʼs opinion contains an
essentialist notion, even though in a different work she suggests that there is
no fusion between portrait and portrayed,16 here she suggests that there is a
fusion between the two in the icon because in her opinion the icon, the form,
contains information about the essence of the prototype as it can lead to the
understanding of it.
At this point, is crucial to turn to Byzantine views on the subject through
the works of three major iconophile theologians and the Acts of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787), which I believe will help in shedding light
on the relation between portrait and portrayed by revealing a more complex

11
Liz James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', Art History, 27.4 (2004), 522-37 (pp.
532-33)
12
Jill Dubisch, 'In a Different Place', in Religious Orthodoxy and Popular Faith in European
Society, ed. by Ellen Badone (Princeton 1990)
13
Icon and Word: The Power of Images in Byzantium, ed. by Eastmond and James
14
James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', (p. 533)
15
Hereafter each time that I refer to worshipper or viewer I am going to use the male gender
for reasons of convenience.
16
ʻ…a portrait was a memory. It was not the portrayed…ʼ in: Liz James, 'Art and Lies: Text,
Image and Imagination in the Medieval World', in Icon and Word: The Power of Imags in
Byzantium, ed. by A Eastmond and Liz James (Burligton, VT: Ashgate, 2003) (p. 67)
 6

picture and making it easier to evaluate the opinions of modern scholars on

the subject. 17
I begin with St John of Damascus (645/680-749/787) who was one of
the first to defend the icons during Iconoclasm. His lengthy and systematic
work on iconology leads modern scholars to regard him as the icon defender
par excellence. In his three “Apologies against those who attack the divine
images he sets the foundations of the iconology of the Orthodox Church,
contributing greatly to the Iconoclastic controversy.18 In particular, in his third
Oration he writes:
ʻAn image is a likeness, or a model, or a figure of something, showing
in itself what it depicts. An image is not always like its prototype in
every way. For the image is one thing, and the thing depicted is
another; one can always notice differences between them, since one is
not the other, and vice versaʼ. 19
There is probably nothing confusing about St Johnʼs statement.
According to him, the icon is only a likeness of the object. Drawing a clear
dividing line between the object and the depiction of its form, he states that
ʻthe image is one thing, and the thing depicted is anotherʼ. Moreover, and
most importantly, he stresses that, although the relationship between the icon

17
On the theology of the icon see: J Trinick, 'St Gregory of Nyssa and the Doctrine of the
Image', Eastern Churches Quarterly, 9.4 (1951), 175-84; G. B. Ladner, 'The Concept of the
Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy', Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 7 (1953), 1-34; S. Burghadt, Cyril of Alexandria: The Image of God in Man
(Woodstoke, Maryland: Woodstoke College Press, 1957); V. Lossky, 'The Theology of the
Image', Sobornost, 3 (1957-58), 510-20; G Maloney, Man the Divine Icon (Pecos, New
Mexico: Dove Publications, 1973)
18
Tselengidis, Η Τριαδολογία Του Μεγάλου Βασιλείου Ως Υπόβαθρο Της Δογματικής
Διδασκαλίας Της Εκκλησίας Για Τις Εικόνες (the Triadology of St. Basil as the Foundation
of the Dogmatic Teachings of the Church on Icons).
19
Johannes von Damascos, 'Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Tres', in Die Schriften Des
Johannes Von Damaskos, ed. by B. Kotter, 5 vols (Berlin, New York: Walter De Gruyter,
1975), vol.3, III16. Translations of St John of Damascusʼs texts come from: St. John Of
Damascus, On the Divine Images: The Apologies against Those Who Attack the Divine
Images (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Pres, 1980)
 7

and its prototype is interdependent as the former is a likeness of the latter,

ʻthe one is not in the other, and vice versaʼ.20 The distinction between form
and essence, icon and prototype, is thus clearly established in the above
extract.
The Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787), a Council that
dealt with the issues of Iconoclasm, establish the following concerning the
relation between the icon and its prototype:
ʻIf someone draws a man he does not seek his soul in the
icon…[because] the icon is not only deprived of [the prototypeʼs] soul
but also of the essence of his body. If these two could be seen in an
icon then we would call the icon a man and not the image of a manʼ.21
Here, we find the relation between the icon and its prototype explained
in a crystal clear manner, and the distinction between icon and prototype is
obvious. The icon ʻshares with the prototype the same name and external
formʼ but it does not have the same essence with the prototype. In this extract,
the difference between essence and form is described in a more manifest
way. The icon is just a depiction of the objectʼs external form and it does not
contain anything that could be characterized as having to do with the objectʼs
essence. Furthermore, there is no expectation that the icon acts as a
substitute for the object or replaces the objectʼs presence because it is clear
that the icon is only a picture of the prototype and that it should not be
confused with it.
The issue of the relation between portrait and portrayed has also been
commented on by another theologian, St Theodore the Studite (759-826).
Theodore contributed to the iconoclastic controversy by writing three orations

20
For a detailed discussion of Johnʼs contribution to the iconoclastic debate see: J. Pelican,
Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1990); M.
Barasch, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea (New York: New York Univ. Press, 1992);
Ladner, 'The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic
Controversy',
21
Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Et Amplissima Collectio,, ed. by J. D. Mansi (Paris-Leipzig,
1901-1927, XIII, 244BC. Translations of all texts of the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council used in this essay are my own.
 8

against iconoclasts under the title ʻOn the Holy Iconsʼ. His theological
contribution is highly valued as in his work he defended the icons in an
analytic and systematic way, during the second period of Iconoclasm (814-
841). In the following extract that comes from his first oration, he explains the
difference between the icon and its prototype, which essentially is the
difference between form and essence.22
ʻNo one could ever be so insane as to suppose that shadow and truth,
nature and art, original and copy, cause and effect are the same in
essence; or to say that each is in the other, or either one is in the other.
That is what one would have to say if he supposed or asserted that
Christ and his icon are the same in essence. On the contrary, we say
that Christ is one thing and his icon is another thing by nature, although
they have an identical nameʼ. 23
Again, here, icon and prototype are two distinct things. Portrait and
portrayed are not the same in essence and nobody can claim that ʻeach is in
the other, or either one is in the otherʼ. St Theodore abolishes the fusion
between icon and object by stating that the object is something totally different
from its picture; there is nothing that refers to the prototype in an icon except
its external form and its name. It is clear that there is no magical relationship
between icon and prototype and thus there cannot be a magical relationship
between portrait and portrayed expressed in an icon. The icon does not
function as a mediator between the portrait and the one portrayed or as a
magical object connecting these two, as it is a picture depicting the image of
an archetype.
Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople (758-828) is another
theologian to write in favor of icons. His principal works are three writings that
refer to the defense of icons (Apologeticus minor, Apologeticus major with the
three Antirrhetici against Mamonas - Konstantinos Kopronymos and a

22
Translation of this extract comes from St. Theodore Studite, On the Holy Icons (New York:
St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1981)
23
Theodori Studitae, 'Antirrheticus Primus Adversus Iconomachus', in Patrologia Graeca, ed.
by J.-P. Migne (Paris 1857-1866), 99, I 341BC
 9

refutation of the iconoclastic Council of 815). In his works he discusses in a

comprehensive manner and refutes all objections proposed in the writings of
iconoclasts.24 In particular, in his first Antirrheticus, he clarifies what it is that
is depicted in icons. In particular, he states:
ʻIn fact it is in his circumscription that he is of necessity present. In his
painting he is not at all present…for while a man is certainly inscribed
in his icon, he is not circumscribed here, only in the place proper for
circumscription. And the means for these are clearly distinct. For one
inscribes a man through pigments and mosaics, as the situation
demands, so producing his figure with varied and many means, and
differing in brilliances. Never but never is it a question of circumscribing
by these means, since it has been said that circumscription is
something else again. Moreover, painting makes present the corporeal
form of the one depicted, imprinting its contour and its sensible form
and its likeness. Whereas circumscription, having nothing in common
with these three models of which we have spoken, delimits boundaries.
Hence the inscription has a relation in terms of likeness to the
archetype and is an inscription of the archetypeʼ.25
Nikephoros here claims that there is an essential difference between
the portrait and the object that it depicts as it is clearly stated that the icon
does not circumscribe the one it depicts. Barber argues that Nikephoros
introduces a new conception concerning the relation between portrait and
portrayed, as he claims that this relation is a formalist one and not an
essentialist one.26 In essence, it probably cannot be claimed that Nikephorosʼs
conception adds something clearly new to existing scholarship. In fact, he
suggests that the depiction of the object cannot be conceived as the object

24
P. J Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and
Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958)
25
Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople, 'Antirrheticus', in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.-P.
Migne (Paris, 1857-1866), vol.100, I 357BC. Translation of this text comes from: Barber,
'From Image into Art: Art after Byzantine Iconoclasm', (p. 8)
26
Barber, 'From Image into Art: Art after Byzantine Iconoclasm', (p. 8)
 10

itself, it can only look like it. This happens because they do not share the
same essence, a distinction that has already been made previously.27
Moreover, Nikephoros also claims that the depiction of an object does not
participate in the essence of the object. This fact has also been clarified by
earlier theologians; for example St John of Damascus clearly states that ʻthe
image is one thing, and the thing depicted is another; one can always notice
differences between them, since one is not the other, and vice versaʼ. Also, St
Theodore the Studite clarifies that ʻNo one could ever be so insane as to
suppose that shadow and truth, nature and art, original and copy, cause and
effect are the same in essence; or to say that each is in the other, or either
one is in the otherʼ. It is not possible to find elements of an essentialist notion
in the relation between image and prototype in the writings of St John of
Damascus and St Theodore the Studite, unlike what Barber suggests.28
Instead, it is obvious that the relation between portrait and portrayed is clearly
set and there is no solid evidence that there was a fusion between the two
before Nikephoros.29
The distinction between portrait and portrayed expressed by
theologians, has important implications, concerning the use of icons. It is
important to underline that the icon is only a depiction of the external form of
the portrayed. In this way, it only shows that the Imaged once existed and
consequently it cannot “reveal” anything about its essence or function as a
testimony for the truth. Therefore, it is probably difficult to agree with James
who claims that the icon can function as a ʻgateway to the divineʼ because the
fact of understanding, of knowing what the external form of the Imaged is
does not mean that it is possible to understand, to know its essence. The way

27
For a more detailed analysis of Nikephorosʼ s ideas see K Parry, 'Theodore Studites and the
Patriarch Nikephoros on Image Making as a Christian Imperative', Byzantion, 59.1989 (1989),
164-83; J Travis, In Defense of Faith: The Theology of Partiarch Nikephoros of Constantinople
(Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, 1984); Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus of
Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire
28
Barber, 'From Image into Art: Art after Byzantine Iconoclasm', (p. 8)
29
It is important to underline that my conclusion is based on the official position of the Church
concerning icons and not on popular beliefs.
 11

to the divine cannot “pass through” the icon, as the viewing of the icon cannot
lead to the understanding of what the essence of the divine is.

ICON AND PRESENCE

According to Barber, Nikephoros is the first to distinguish between the
icon-as-image and the work of art.30 He suggests that for most theologians
before Nikephoros, the icon as an object of worship, functions mostly as a cult
image, in Beltingʼs sense of the term. His argument is based on the idea that
in worship ʻwhether it is the consuming of the Eucharistic gifts or a prayer to
the saints, there is an expectation of presenceʼ.31 In other words, according to
Barber, before Nikephorosʼs intervention, the worshipper, integrated in cult
practice, expects the image to re-present the one depicted, in order for him to
communicate with the prototype effectively. Barber claims that the fusion
between portrait and portrayed, constructed within cult practice, gives the icon
its great power and offers the viewer the opportunity to experience the
presence of the prototype through the icon. In this way, according to Barber,
the image functions as a magical object, connecting the prototype, the image
and the viewer by blurring the boundaries between essence and form. The
concept of ʻpresenceʼ is crucial for Barber as it is this ʻexpectation of
presenceʼ that separates the image from the work of art. According to him,
Nikephoros was the first to clearly comment on the element of presence in the
icon when he said: ʻin painting there is nothing of presenceʼ.32 However, even
before Nikephoros, presence or substitution of presence was not the aim of
the icon. The Byzantine theologians of the 7th and 8th centuries distinguished
clearly between form and essence and there was no confusion between
image and prototype. In this way, they did not expect Christ to be present in
his icon because an icon is only an image of Christ and not Christ himself.
However, if according to the official position of the Church the icon was not
the signifier of a presence then, what was it?

30
Barber, 'From Image into Art: Art after Byzantine Iconoclasm', (p. 7)
31
Barber, 'From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship after Byzantine Iconoclasm', (p.
15)
32
Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople, 'Antirrheticus', I 357B
 12

Barber claims that the icon is the ʻsignifier of absenceʼ or works to

ʻdeny presenceʼ. According to his conception, the image, for the reason that it
cannot make the one represented present, ʻbecomes the point of departure for
the contemplation of that personʼ.33
However, I would suggest that none of the above definitions is
appropriate. Of course, I cannot claim that the prototype is present in the icon
or that there is essential presence in the icon. On the contrary, it can be
claimed, based on the teachings of the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council of Nicaea (787), that the icon exists in order for the viewer to
remember the presence the prototype and contemplate the represented
person, in other words the icon could be characterized as functioning not as
presence nor as absence but as remembrance of presence. Under this
supposition, Barberʼs conception can be characterized as partly appropriate,
because he recognizes that the icon is ʻthe point of departure for the
contemplationʼ of the one depicted. The aim of the icon, as described in the
Seventh Ecumenical Council, is to help the viewers remember, love and relate
to the prototypes. This conception is clearly described in the following extract
that comes from the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787):
ʻFor by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic
representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the
memory and desire of their prototypesʼ. 34
In this extract the reason for the existence of the icon is clearly defined.
The icon exists in order to move the spectator to ʻremember and desireʼ the
ones depicted. Here, it becomes obvious that the goal of the icon is not that of
making the Imaged present nor that of signifying its absence. The icon serves
as a medium in order for the spectator to be able to keep the once present
prototypes in his memory and desire them, in other words love them and
relate to them by keeping their image in his mind. Commenting on the issue of
memory of the ones depicted in the icon, James states that the icon is indeed
a memory. In particular, she claims that the portrait ʻwas not the portrayed but

33
Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm, p.
121
34
Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Et Amplissima Collectio,, ed. by Mansi, 244BC
 13

a recollection and a means of recollection of themʼ.35 James, understanding

very well the Byzantine conception about the role of the icon, underlines that
the icon serves as a memory for the viewer although the Imaged is not
present in the icon. Since ʻmemoryʼ or ʻremembranceʼ is mentioned in the Acts
of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I would claim that there was awareness of
the lack of presence, of the absence of the Imaged in a painting. The fusion
between portrait and portrayed is therefore abolished.
Belting suggests that images ʻlive from the bodyʼs absenceʼ, either
temporary or permanent.36 Indeed, in the case of Byzantine painting it could
be claimed that absence is the reason for which icons are created, the ʻsource
of their lifeʼ. However, it could also be claimed that the source of an iconʼs life
is the potential relationship between it and the spectator. In other words, the
icon is indeed created in order to function as a proof that the Imaged once
existed but, essentially, it fulfills the purpose of its existence by functioning
communicatively, contributing actively to the establishment of a relationship
between the Imaged and the viewer.
Beltingʼs statement can be interpreted as meaning that the image is a
substitute for absence. However, if we accept that there is no element of
presence in the icon, we cannot talk about absence in the icon either. In the
discussion that follows, accepting the statement that the icon is a
ʻremembrance of presenceʼ, I will try to counter the arguments of modern
scholars concerning the iconʼs function as absence, or as remembrance of
absence or as a substitute for absence.
Firstly, from a communicative point of view, if we accepted that the icon
functions as absence or as remembrance of absence then its communicative
function is almost erased as there is no possibility for the spectator to
establish a relationship with an icon that signifies absence or even the
remembrance of it. For the faithful, it would probably be weird to accept the
fact that they venerate nothing but absence as the icon-viewer communication
is expected to be bilateral. The icon is created due to absence, but it should

35
James, 'Art and Lies: Text, Image and Imagination in the Medieval World' (p. 67)
36
Hans Belting, 'Image, Medium, Body: A New Approach to Iconology', Critical Inquiry,
31.Winter 2005 (2005), 302-19 (p. 312)
 14

not signify it. However, if the spectator cannot communicate with an icon that
signifies absence then it may be reasonable to conclude that the icon has to
signify presence in order for the spectator to be able to communicate with the
Imaged. Orthodox Byzantine iconology makes clear that the icon does not
signify presence. As Patriarch Nikephoros states: ʻin painting there is nothing
of presenceʼ.37 Communication between the Imaged and the viewer can be
performed not because the Imaged is essentially present in the icon but
because the form of the Imaged is depicted in a way that facilitates
communication between the two parts. In other words, since there is no
essential presence of the Imaged in the icon, communication between Imaged
and viewer is made possible through art, through painting principles, as the
Byzantine painter uses certain techniques in order to create a ʻcommunicativeʼ
icon, an icon that facilitates communication between the Imaged and the
viewer.
Secondly, from a theological point of view, the function of the icon as a
substitute for absence is an interesting issue. According to Orthodox
iconology, it has to be underlined that the icon cannot function as a
replacement for absence as this would mean that the icon replaces absence
with a type of presence, a fact that is clearly rejected by Byzantine thinkers.
There is no presence in the icon. The icon cannot replace anything; it can
function neither as presence nor absence nor as a substitute for presence or
for absence because in both cases there is an element of essence involved.
In other words, either there is presence in the icon and, in this case, icon and
Imaged share the same essence, as the icon depicts the essence, or the icon
signifies absence and, in that case, the icon depicts the absence of the
essence. Neither of the above can be performed according to Orthodox
iconology, as the essence cannot be depicted in any way.
In conclusion, it would be wise to claim that the icon is a remembrance
of presence of the prototype. It is not presence but it is not absence either. It
is not a substitute for presence but it is not a substitute for absence either. As
it is clearly described in the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea

37
Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople, 'Antirrheticus', I 357B
 15

(787) that I quoted above, the role of the icon is to ʻliftʼ the spectator ʻto the
memory and desireʼ of the Imaged; as Barber puts it, to function as ʻthe point
of departure for the contemplation of the Imagedʼ. Finally, it is clear that on the
one hand the essentialist element is abolished and on the other hand,
communication between the spectator and the Imaged is made possible
through art, even though there is not an element of presence in the icon.

IMAGE AND WORK OF ART

Up to this point I have tried to explore the way that the Byzantines
perceived issues concerning the relation between image and prototype. It is
clear that in the post-Iconoclasm era, boundaries between image and
prototype were well established. Byzantine iconology distinguishes between
portrait and portrayed in a manifest way in order to avoid confusion and
declares the reason for which icons are needed and what their function is.
According to the brief analysis that has been done above, I would claim that it
is doubtful that in post-Iconoclasm Byzantium the icon functioned as an
image, a cult object, according to Beltingʼs definition. A kind of distinction
between image and work of art had been established in post-Iconoclasm
Byzantium, a fact that raises questions about Beltingʼs generalized definition
of the medieval image.38
In order to support the claim that the Byzantines distinguished between
image and work of art in the post-Iconoclasm era, it is useful to introduce
another extract from the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council because it
shows that the Byzantines not only did not consider their icons to be images,
in Beltingʼs sense of the term, but they considered them to be works of art:
ʻThe making of icons is not an innovation of painters but [it is] a
tradition of the Church…It is a notion and tradition of the Fathers and not of
the painter. The art alone is the painterʼsʼ.39
This extract clarifies that the image belongs to tradition and it is
certainly not a creation of the painter, to whom only the art belongs. It

38
Based on the iconology of the Church and not on popular beliefs.
39
Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Et Amplissima Collectio,, ed. by Mansi, 252BC
 16

introduces a very important distinction. The image, as an ʻautonomous visual

discourseʼ precedes art, and in this case painting.40 The painter by using
painting attempts to present the image, the given form, in a pictorial way.41
Image and art are clearly distinguished. As Barber puts it ʻthe concern of the
artist was with the art alone, while the content conveyed by the work of art
was prior to the artist and not subject to an intervention by the artistʼ.42 The
image is a sign, a given form that cannot be changed as it is formed by a set
of physical characteristics of the one depicted. Art then follows and attempts
to help this given form achieve its role and function. Consequently, it has to be
emphasized that there is a growing realization that art is the one that ʻchargesʼ
the image, the given form, the sign, in a communicative way; art gives the
image the power to function communicatively by using a specific perspective
system, colors, etc. Eastmond and James are correct when they say that
ʻ…icons are images. Yet they are also art. What they looked like mattered.
Aesthetics influenced both form and functionʼ.43 It can thus be claimed that
clear boundaries are set by the Byzantines between the icon-as-image and
the icon as work of art, indicating that the conception of the image as work of
art may not be a theoretical conception of the Renaissance as Belting states.
Icons are both images and works of art for the Byzantines. Barberʼs
rephrasing of Beltingʼs distinction, ʻa history of images is sometimes other
than a history of artʼ appears to be correct.44

40
Barber, 'From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship after Byzantine Iconoclasm', p.15
41
Γ Κόρδης, Ιεροτύπως: Η Εικονολογία Του Ι. Φωτίου Και Η Τέχνη Της
Μετεικονομαχικής Περιόδου (the Iconology of St. Photios and Post-Iconoclam Art)
(Αθήνα: Αρμός, 2002) p.32
42
Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm, p.
112
43
Icon and Word: The Power of Images in Byzantium, ed. by Eastmond and James, p. xxx
44
Barber, 'From Image into Art: Art after Byzantine Iconoclasm', (p. 8); Beltingʼs original
statement is the following: “A history of the image is something other than a history of art”.
See Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art .
 17

ICON AND VIEWER

The communicative function of the icon is indeed of significant
importance to the Byzantine painter. In particular, Demus suggests that the
Byzantine painter seems to believe that the aim of the painting is to establish
a relationship between the ʻworld of the beholder and the world of the
imageʼ.45 Demus states: ʻthe image is not a world by itselfʼ. On the contrary,
he continues, the image should be related to the beholder in order for it to be
functional and to achieve this the picture must be ʻvisible, comprehensible,
easy to recognize and to interpretʼ. Moreover, Demus points out that in
Byzantine painting ʻeverything must be clear for the beholder to perceiveʼ.46
Clearly, the viewer and his needs seem to be a major concern for the
Byzantine painter.
In order for the viewer to become able to relate to the Imaged, a
communicative process between him and the icon needs to take place. The
icon-viewer communication is a quite complex process. As modern scholars
such as Barber and James point out, the icon-viewer relation is a
communicative process that has many aspects and needs to be studied in
depth.47 As a communicative process, the icon-viewer relation certainly has a
bilateral character or at least this is the expectation of the faithful. In this
essay, I am going to focus on certain characteristics of the icon-viewer
communication that will reveal the complexity of worship as a communicative
process, such as interactivity and bodily communication.

INTERACTIVITY: THE ACTIVE IMAGED

The communicative process that takes place between the Imaged and
the viewer can be characterized as interactive, and Kordis suggests that
neither the viewer nor the Imaged have a passive role in this communicative
process. In particular, he states that the viewer does not just ʻacceptʼ the

45
Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium p.4
46
Ibid. p.7
47
In particular see: Barber, 'From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship after Byzantine
Iconoclasm', ; James, 'Art and Lies: Text, Image and Imagination in the Medieval World'
 18

energy of the Imaged and act accordingly but in fact he interacts with the
Imaged through a two-way communicative procedure.48 In other words, in this
mediated communicative procedure the roles of the transmitter and of the
receiver are interchangeable in a way that means that neither of the two parts
is dominant. As Antonova suggests, in Byzantine painting the distinction
between the subject and the object is blurred as the roles of the ʻviewing
subjectʼ and the ʻviewed objectʼ are ʻradically transformedʼ.49 This is also made
clear in the Byzantine sources, which provide evidence that both the Imaged
and the viewer are considered as having an active role in the communicative
process. First I will examine the role of the Imaged in the communicative
process. It is very important to clarify here that when I talk about the active
role of the Imaged I do not refer to the Imaged as being present in the icon
essentially. I refer to the pictorial form of the Imaged and not to his or her
essence. The following analysis of the role of the Imaged in the
communicative process should be understood only according to pictorial
terms. The pictorial way through which the Byzantine painter manages to give
the Imaged an active role in the communicative process will be discussed
later.
I begin with St. John of Damascus who highlights the active role of the
Imaged in his third Antirrheticus:
ʻThe icon was invented in order for hidden ones (i.e. the Imaged) to
become known…and to reveal themselves in order for them to become
perceptible by the senses [of the viewer]ʼ.50
In this extract the use of the phrase ʻto reveal themselvesʼ instead of
the phrase ʻto be revealedʼ is crucial. John of Damascus makes it clear that
the Imaged has an active role in the communicative process, as it seems to
ʻenterʼ the world of the viewer in order to communicate with and relate to him.

48
Γ Κόρδης, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη Βυζαντινή
Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting) (Αθήνα: Αρμός, 2010), p. 20
49
Clemena Antonova, Space, Time and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World with the
Eyes of God (Burlington Ashgate, 2010), p. 154
50
Johannes von Damascos, 'Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Tres' III17
 19

Moreover, in this extract the use of the term ʻhiddenʼ is interesting. The hidden
ones, the Imaged, reveal themselves to the viewer. Here John refers to
revelation of and not to the discovery of the Imaged. The Imaged, having an
active role, reveals itself in order for the viewer to perceive it and become able
to relate to it. In this way, the viewer does not have to enter the space of the
Imaged and discover it because the Imaged is active. This idea is taken up by
Kordis, who writes that it is not the viewer that enters an autonomous pictorial
virtual reality, through his contact with the icon, in order to come closer to the
Imaged; rather, it is the Imaged that ʻmovesʼ towards the viewer and ʻenters
his spaceʼ.51
However art historians often interpret the relationship between Imaged
and viewer in a different way. The example of James is a characteristic one.
In particular, she states that Byzantine paintings can function as ʻgateways to
the divineʼ.52 In this way the icon probably functions as a passive means of
access to the divine, as a gate through which the viewer has to pass in order
to access the spiritual world. Although James recognizes that the icon, the
visual representation of a holy person, is the only way through which the
viewer can relate to the one depicted, she seems to take away from the
Imaged the possibility of being an organic part of the communicative process
by characterizing the icon a ʻgatewayʼ, a means of access to the divine. The
characterization of the icon as a ʻmeansʼ, a channel of communication, clearly
underestimates its importance in the communicative process as it denies the
icon the possibility of functioning as an autonomous part of the communicative
process, equal to the viewer and is in opposition to the Byzantine conception
about the active role of the Imaged, as described by John in the passage
quoted above.

51
Κόρδης, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη Βυζαντινή
Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting), p. 15
52
James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', (p. 533)
 20

THE VIEWER AS INDIVIDUAL

Before proceeding to an exploration of the role of the viewer in
Byzantine painting, the theoretical approach to the potential relationship
between image and viewer needs to be considered. The Byzantine viewer and
the image-viewer relationship often seem to be perceived in a generalizing
manner. As Brubaker points out, the fact that a viewer is a person who
undergoes constant changes, a person who is not the same every time that
he participates in a communicative process is often disregarded.53 Moreover,
it is important to keep in mind that different viewers have different degrees of
spiritual capability and emotional availability at a given time and for this
reason the outcome of the contact between the viewer and the Imaged can
neither be predetermined nor fit in a norm.

INTERACTIVITY: THE ACTIVE VIEWER

Through Byzantine sources, it is revealed that the active viewer is the
one who can choose whether to be active or not, as far as he is given this
opportunity. In particular, this is made clear in the writings of St Photios of
Constantinople (810-893).
St. Photios was a Patriarch of Constantinople (858-867 and 877-886)
and is recognized by many theologians as the most important intellectual of
his time, ʻthe leading light of the ninth-century renaissanceʼ.54 In his 43rd
Epistle, he suggests that the viewer has an active role indeed when it comes
to his interaction with the Imaged. In particular he says: ʻwe [the viewers] lift
ourselves to reach a degree of knowledge of the Imaged and honor itʼ.55 It has
to be mentioned that the use of the active verb in the phrase ʻlift ourselves upʼ
is very important because it indicates the viewerʼs active role. Here, the viewer

53
The Sacred Image East and West, ed. by Robert Ousterhout and Leslie Brubaker
(Urbana&Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), p. 5
54
Andrew Louth, Renaissance of Learning: East and West. Greek East and Latin West: The
Church Ad 681-1071 (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2007), p. 159
55
Βασίλειος Λαούρδας, Φωτίου Του Σοφωτάτου Και Αγιωτάτου Πατριάρχου
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Επιστολαί (the Epistles of St. Photios) (Λονδίνο, 1864). Translations
of all extracts by St Photios used in this essay are my own.
 21

chooses whether to relate and honor the prototype or not, as there is no

indication that the image ʻcompelsʼ the viewer in order for him to relate to it.
The term ʻlift our selvesʼ does not suggest that the image dictates anything to
the viewer. Instead, the viewer, depending on his capability and on his
spiritual availability at the moment, comes to a level of understanding of and
relating to the Imaged.
It is really interesting that this basic principle of Byzantine theories of
visual communication survives in a painterʼs manual by Dionysius of Fourna,
which is an 18th century book. Dionysius of Fourna (1670-after 1744) was an
iconographer himself and he is the writer of Hermeneia of Byzantine Painting
(1730-1734), a very detailed iconographerʼs manual that is in use by
iconographers even today. The way that Dionysius perceives the icon-viewer
relation is really interesting as it is very similar to the way that this relation is
perceived by the theologians of the eighth and ninth century. In this way, it
can be proved that the Byzantine theories of visual communication survive in
the post-Byzantine era and are still in effect. Dionysius, commenting on the
communicative process between icon and viewer, writes:
ʻ[The viewer], when he sees an icon of a saint he immediately
remembers the acts of the saint and honors him and raises his thought
to the Imagedʼ.56
In other words, the viewer is active and can decide to take action after
viewing an icon, a fact that implies that the viewer does not just ʻacceptʼ the
energy of the Imaged and act as he is supposed to. Instead, in order for the
viewer to be able to relate to the Imaged, he has to act, to ʻraise his thought to
the Imagedʼ. Brubaker, too, comments on the ʻresponsibility of the viewerʼ, his
responsibility to move from the veneration of matter to the contemplation of
the Imaged.57 The establishment of a relationship with the Imaged is therefore
a conscious and deliberate decision and not something that can happen to
anyone without effort being put into it.

56
Διονυσίου του εκ Φουρνά, Ερμηνεία Της Ζωγραφικής Τέχνης (Hermeneia of
Byzantine Art) (Άγιον Όρος: Ερμηνεία, 2007) p.212. Translation of this text is my own.
57
The Sacred Image East and West, ed. by Ousterhout and Brubaker, p. 5
 22

James, also mentions that ʻcorrect sight allowed one to see with
spiritual visionʼ, that is to say to come to a level of understanding of and
relating to the Imaged.58 From a theological point of view this could be
questioned; however, from a communicative point of view, using terms such
as correct or incorrect to describe and understand a communicative process
and/or a relationship is problematic. It would thus be better to interpret
Jamesʼs statement in a different way. In order to avoid the danger of repealing
the viewerʼs active role in the communicative process and regarding his
relationship with the Imaged as being predetermined, a fact that cannot be
supported by primary sources, it would be better to perceive the term ʻcorrect
sightʼ as ʻeffective sightʼ, the one possessed by a person with the highest
possible level of spiritual availability. James mentions an interesting anecdote
from the life of St Theodore of Sykeon. St Theodore was bishop of
Anastasiopolis in Galatia, Asia Minor and one day he sent an archdeacon to
buy a vessel for communion from Constantinople. When the archdeacon
returned and showed the vessel he had bought to the Saint, it is said that he,
ʻunlike those around him, was able to see that the silver of the vessel bought
for communion was in reality blackened and tarnished, thanks to the metal
having previously been used as a prostituteʼs chamber potʼ.59 This incident of
the Life of St Theodore of Sykeon, attests to the conception of the individuality
of the viewer described before and indicates that the viewerʼs spiritual
capability is crucial for the establishment of a relationship with the holy
persons.60
For Barber, on the other hand, the icon is a ʻsite of desireʼ.61 Barberʼs
conception of the icon is based on a phrase that comes from the Acts of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council already cited, which reads ʻthe icons of the
saints are said to move their spectators to remember and desire the ones

58
James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', p.528
59
'Life of Saint Theodore of Sykeon', in Three Byzantine Saints, trans. by trans. Dawes and
Baynes, chap. 42
60
James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', (p. 528)
61
Barber, 'From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship after Byzantine Iconoclasm', p.11
 23

depictedʼ. Based on this extract, Barber develops his theory of the icon as a
site of desire, attempting to regard the relationship between the Imaged and
the viewer and, consequently the communicative process in which they are
involved, as a fluid situation, in which each viewerʼs particularity is taken into
account. According to Barber ʻdesire is the first condition of the icon itself. It
marks an absence into which spectators could project their own desires. As a
site of desire the icon is not marked by fixed meanings or readingsʼ.62 This
conception of the icon attempts to offer the viewer a greater degree of
autonomy or freedom, and manages to abolish the possibility of the icon
functioning as an autonomous visual discourse by relativizing its context.
However, this position ignores a very important fact: the icon itself, its context,
is not negotiable, it cannot ʻhappenʼ or ʻtake placeʼ in Beltingʼs sense of the
term because if this was possible, then the icon would lose its power as a
testimonial.63 Barber unfortunately fails to cite evidence in order to support his
position and he ends up disregarding that the icon functions as a testimony
that the persons and the events depicted are historical and not products of the
Churchʼs or the painterʼs imagination. For this reason, each and every icon, at
least after Iconoclasm, is defined accurately, as Maguire insists.64 Each
painting has its own name that is written on it and there is no space for
misunderstandings or interpretations. Besides, the likeness to the prototype is
the fundamental presupposition for the existence of the Byzantine icon. The
viewerʼs freedom and active role in Byzantine visual communication theory
should not be connected with any kind of process that leads to the production
of meaning because in this way the function of the icon, as described by the
Byzantine theologians, is radically transformed. As Patriarch Nikephoros
states in his Antirrheticus: ʻ…But [painting] directly and immediately leads the
minds of the viewers to the facts themselves…and from the first sight and

62
Ibid.
63
Belting, 'Image, Medium, Body: A New Approach to Iconology', p.302
64
Henry Maguire, The Icons of Their Bodies : Saints and Their Images in Byzantium
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996)
 24

encounter, a clear and perfect knowledge of these is gainedʼ.65 Byzantine

painting is about the presentation of facts and the painter aims at the
immediacy of the transmission of information, just like Nikephoros stresses.
Even though the viewer is not conceived as a predetermined entity who
deduces the same conclusion after seeing each image every time, at the
same time he is not given the opportunity to re-interpret the content of the
image. Then how can the viewer maintain his active role? What Barber
probably fails to grasp is that the freedom given to the viewer refers to the
opportunity he is offered to establish and develop a multi-leveled relationship
with the Imaged. In Byzantine painting that which is negotiable, that which
ʻhappensʼ or ʻtakes placeʼ in Beltingʼs sense of the term, is the relationship
between Imaged and viewer. In this way, the icon on the one hand maintains
its active role and its role as an autonomous visual discourse and, on the
other hand the viewer maintains his active role and his individuality is taken
into account.

CORPOREAL COMMUNICATION
As I have tried to show up to this point, the communicative process that
takes place between the Imaged and the viewer is quite complex. However,
apart from it being interactive, it can also be characterized as primarily
corporeal. The Byzantine theologians, whose works I cite in order to explore
the characteristics and the implications of the icon-viewer communication,
even though they agree that intellectual activity is required for a relationship to
be established between the two, they do not underestimate the importance of
the senses in this process. James suggests that inside the Byzantine church,
the body and ʻthe bodyʼs relation to the spiritualʼ are placed ʻat the centre of
religious experienceʼ.66 This is supported by the primary sources, which
demonstrate the importance of the senses in the spectatorʼs efforts to
ʻapproachʼ and to relate to the Imaged. In particular, St John of Damascus

65
Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople, 'Antirrheticus' III380D-381A. Translation of this
text by Nikephoros is my own
66
James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', p.525
 25

states: ʻwe use all our senses to produce worthy images of Him, and we
sanctify the noblest of the senses which is that of sightʼ.67 Although all the
bodily senses could be used in communication with the icon, it should be
underlined that sight was always the most important of the five senses. For
John, sight is ʻthe noblest of the sensesʼ a conception probably affected by
Aristotelian ideas, and in his writings, and in the writings of other theologians,
the notion of its domination of the senses is obvious. 68
For St John of Damascus, the role of sight in the communicative

67
Johannes von Damascos, 'Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Tres' I17
68
It is quite clear that John, although he has been affected by Aristotelian ideas on the
domination of sight, basically follows his own path. The following extract from Aristotleʼs
Metaphysics is revealing: All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight
we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and
above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are
not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is
that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between
things. Aristotle, Metaphysics, I, 1, 980a 21-26. McKeon, R. (Ed.). The Basic Works of
Aristotle, Translation by W. D. Ross, ed. by R. McKeon (New York: Random House, p.689,
1941). The Basic Works of Aristotle, translation by W. D. Ross. New York: Random House,
p.689.
Aristotle here compares the desire for knowledge with the delight we take in our
senses, a conception which is obviously different to that of Plato. As Cassirer points out “in
Plato the life of the senses is separated from the life of the intellect by a broad and
insurmountable gulf. Knowledge and truth belong to a transcendental order – to the realm of
pure and eternal ideas”. Although even Aristotle denies the possibility of reaching scientific
knowledge through the act of perception alone, at the same time he denies the Platonic
division between the intellectual and the empirical world and introduces the idea of explaining
the world of knowledge in terms of life, by using the senses. E. Cassirer, An Essay on Man: An
Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture (Hamburg: Meiner, 1995). Byzantine
theologians suggest something even more revolutionary as they abolish the division between
the world of the ideal and the world of the empirical not only by recognizing the important role
that sight plays in the process of attaining knowledge but by admitting that the only way to
knowledge “passes” through the corporeal senses. In other words, knowledge is primarily an
experience, corporeal and intellectual. For a detailed analysis of Aristotleʼs work see: Cassirer,
E. Cassirer, An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture . An essay
on man: an introduction to a philosophy of human culture. Hamburg: Meiner.
 26

process was clearly of great importance. In his First Antirrheticus he describes

the way that the viewer uses sight to perceive what he sees in a manifest
way.
ʻA certain perception takes place in the brain, prompted by the sense,
which is then transmitted to the faculties of discernment, and adds to
the treasury of knowledge something that was not there beforeʼ.69
Even though John does not mention sight here, based on his conception that
sight is ʻthe noblest of the sensesʼ, it is probably wise to assume that in this
passage he talks about sight and not about any other inferior sense.
A similar idea about the role of sight in the communicative process is
found in the Homilies of St Photios. In his 17th Homily that he recited during
the unveiling of a mosaic of the Virgin in Hagia Sophia, he claims:
ʻ…It is through sight that the image is imprinted in the soulʼs canvasʼ.70
Interestingly, even though Johnʼs words imply an active viewer and Photiosʼs
words imply an active image, they both stress the power of sight during the
communicative process.
A similar notion can be found in the writings of Eustratios of Nicaea
(1050-1120). Eustratios, Metropolitan of Nicaea was an important intellectual
figure in the court of Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118). Anna Komnena in
Alexiad, describes him as: ʻskilled in the sacred and the profane sciences,
more confident in dialectics than those who frequent the Stoa and the
Academyʼ.71 Eustratios wrote two treatises (Dialogue and Demonstration) in
the early 1090s on the use of icons directed against Leon, bishop of
Chalcedon. In his Demonstration he states:
ʻThose that have been revealed, that is to say, those that [the
spectator] has perceived through his corporeal sense, are imprinted in our

69
Johannes von Damascos, 'Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Tres' I11
70
Κόρδης, Ιεροτύπως: Η Εικονολογία Του Ι. Φωτίου Και Η Τέχνη Της
Μετεικονομαχικής Περιόδου (the Iconology of St. Photios and Post-Iconoclam Art) p.37
71
Anna Comnena, Alexiad. trans. by E. A. S. Dawes (London: Legan Paul, 1928)
 27

minds and they are transferred to the faculties of discernment from where
memories are createdʼ.72
In the above extracts, all three thinkers underline that it is through
sense -sight- that the viewer perceives the image. In particular, a mental
image of the stimulus perceived through sight is created in the viewerʼs mind.
Then, according to St John and Eustratios of Nicaea, through this process,
this mental image is transmitted to the faculties of discernment, and finally,
according to John, it becomes a remembrance in the spectatorʼs mind. As
described in the above extracts, it is through sight that the viewer has his first
contact with the Imaged. It is clear that all three thinkers highlight the
importance of sight during the communicative process, as sight, according to
them is the bodyʼs primary receptor of the stimulus. However, even though
sight seems to function as a receptor only, its role is far more important than
that of being just a channel of communication. According to the Damascene,
Photios and Eustratios, it is through what the viewer sees that he can attain
knowledge of the form of the Imaged, as the creation of the mental image of
what he has seen is based on the act of perception through corporeal sight.
No intellectual activity is required for the viewer to perceive an image and
create a mental image of it in his mind. Intellectual activity is required when
the mental image is sent to the ʻfaculties of discernmentʼ.
For all three thinkers, perception begins with sight. However, what is
more important is that John and Photios suggest that the viewer relies on
sight in order not only to perceive but also to understand the transmitted
message. In other words, both perception and understanding of the
transmitted message ʻpassʼ through sight. St. John of Damascus makes this
clear when he writes in his third Antirrheticus:
ʻIf we sometimes understand forms by using our minds, but other times
from what we see, then it is through these two ways that we are
brought to understandingʼ.73

72
Andronikos Demetrakopoulos, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965),
pp. 151-60. Translation of Eustratios of Nicaea text is my own.
73
Johannes von Damascos, 'Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Tres' III24
 28

This is echoed by Nikephoros of Constantinople, who states in his third

Antirrheticus:
ʻ…But [painting] directly and immediately leads the minds of the
viewers to the facts themselves…and from the first sight and
encounter, a clear and perfect knowledge of these is gainedʼ.74
St Photios also believed that:
ʻ…Sight touches what is visible…and transfers this image to the
faculties of discernment. From there a memory is produced in order [for
the spectator] to attain knowledgeʼ.75
It is clear that all three writers agree that it is not only through
intellectual activity that we can attain knowledge, but through sight too, which
is a corporeal sense. It becomes clear that sight does not function only as a
channel of communication between the image and the viewerʼs mind, in other
words as a mechanistic part of the communicative process. Bodily sight in the
above extracts is identified as being a way to knowledge. For St John and St
Photios the image is projected and imprinted into the viewerʼs memory
through sight and, from there, it provides knowledge. It should be underlined
however, that Nikephorosʼs conception could probably be characterized as
the most revolutionary, as he underlines the immediacy of the process by
stating that ʻfrom the first sight and encounter, a clear and perfect knowledge
of these [the facts] is gainedʼ. The conception of the corporeality of knowledge
is indeed a very important element of Byzantine culture. In fact, St John
underlines that if something cannot be perceived through sight then it cannot
be understood at all and this is the exact reason for which, according to him,
icons are created. He states:
ʻGod wills that we should not be totally ignorant of bodiless creatures,
and so He clothed them with forms and shapes, and used images

74
Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople, 'Antirrheticus' III380D-381A. Translation of this
text by Nikephoros is my own
75
Κόρδης, Ιεροτύπως: Η Εικονολογία Του Ι. Φωτίου Και Η Τέχνη Της Μετεικονομαχικής
Περιόδου (the Iconology of St. Photios and Post-Iconoclam Art) p.37
 29

comprehensible to our nature, material forms which could be seen by

the spiritual vision of the mindʼ.76
In this extract St John explains that the viewerʼs access to the
knowledge of the form of each bodiless, divine creature, can only be
performed through images, only through forms that correspond to the
spectatorʼs nature and that he consequently can perceive and understand. In
this extract, the importance of the role of icons is clearly revealed. For the
viewer, according to the Damascene, there is no possibility of access to
knowledge by using only his reasoning. Instead, it is only through images and
the use of sight that the viewer can be led to knowledge because in this way
theoretical and transcendent images are transformed into forms perceptible
by the viewerʼs corporeal sense, in correspondence to his nature. By studying
the above extract we can assume that access to knowledge through images is
thought by the Byzantines to be an aesthetic ʻexperienceʼ (aesthesis=sense),
an experience for the viewerʼs sense of sight. Consequently, knowledge is
primarily a bodily experience, as ʻaccessʼ to the intellectual realm ʻpassesʼ
through bodily forms, through aesthetic ʻexperiencesʼ experienced through
bodily senses.
It is clear that in Byzantine visual communication theory each person
constitutes an inseparable entity and in this way there is nothing that is not
related in some way to the body, even intellectual activity. The body is the first
receptor of every stimulus and it cannot be diverted for any reason because
without the information that bodily experience offers, the person cannot reach
knowledge. Body and mind together form a united entity, an organic unity that
cannot be separated. It is important to underline again that for the Byzantines,
knowledge of the form (and not of the essence) is accessed only through the
icon, through a form that corresponds to the viewerʼs nature. For this reason,
the icon is created in a way that every form presented corresponds to the
viewerʼs nature, is ʻappropriate for manʼs material natureʼ as Barber puts it, in

76
Johannes von Damascos, 'Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Tres' III24
 30

order for it to be easily perceptible by him.77 In other words, the icon, in order
to be functional, has to facilitate the communication of the Imaged with the
viewer and consequently to facilitate the viewerʼs access to knowledge of the
form, always through corporeal experience.
However, is it possible to claim that the viewerʼs body as a whole is
involved in the communicative process? James, in her article entitled ʻSenses
and Sensibility in Byzantiumʼ suggests that it is through all five senses that the
viewer participates in the communicative process that takes place between
him and the Imaged.78 Although this point of view is quite interesting, there is
probably not enough evidence to prove that there was a similar conception in
Byzantium, concerning the use of senses and the body. Even though St John
of Damascus states that ʻwe use all our senses to produce worthy images of
Himʼ, no attention is given to any other sense but sight in his writings and the
same happens with all other theologians, such as Nikephoros, Photios and
Eustratios. James claims that sight for the Byzantines was a ʻtactile senseʼ. In
particular she suggests, ʻvision was believed to work through intromission or
extramission, but both involved contact between the eye and the thing seen.
One touches the world, grasps it carries it back to the mind. Touching an icon
becomes a form of seeing and vice versaʼ.79 It is true that St Photios, when
describing the way that sight is involved in the communicative process, seems
to perceive it as a tactile sense. In particular he states that ʻsight, through
intromission and extramission touches what is visibleʼ.80 However, there is still
not enough evidence in Byzantine sources to allow us to claim that the

77
Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm, p.
19
78
James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', p.525. For a detailed analysis on art and
the senses see: J Ree, 'The Aestetic Theory of the Arts', in From an Aesthetic Point of View.
Philosophy, Art and the Senses, ed. by P Osborne (London: Serpent's Tail, 2000), esp. pp.60-
65; B Raczka, More Than Meets the Eye: Seeing Art with All Five Senses (Brookfield,
Connecticut: The Millbrook Press, Inc., 2003).
79
James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', p.525
80
Κόρδης, Ιεροτύπως: Η Εικονολογία Του Ι. Φωτίου Και Η Τέχνη Της
Μετεικονομαχικής Περιόδου (the Iconology of St. Photios and Post-Iconoclam Art) p.38
 31

communicative process between the Imaged and the viewer involved the
viewerʼs body as a whole, at least based on the writings of the iconologists.
Sight is always dominant amongst the senses. However, it could be claimed,
that through sight the Byzantine writers probably refer to the body as a whole,
in the sense that sight is a corporeal sense that cannot be conceived as
disembodied. However, the exact involvement of the other four senses is not
elaborated on in Byzantine sources.

ICON-VIEWER APPLIED COMMUNICATION

At this point it is important to apply Byzantine theories of visual
communication to practice. In the discussion that follows, I will try to
demonstrate the way in which both the icon and the viewer become active
participants in the communicative process.
The icon that I am going to use as an example is one of St John the
Theologian dictating to his student, Prochoros. A painter called Manouil
Panselinos created this particular icon around 1290 in Karyes Monastery of
Athos. This particular icon was chosen because it offers a clear demonstration
of the basic principles of the Byzantine pictorial system.

Figure 1
 32

At the left side of the icon we see St John sitting and on the right side
there is Prochoros who writes down the words of St John while in the
background there are mountains. It is impossible to identify a single point
where all pictorial forces meet and it is obvious that there is a lack of depth in
the icon. The painter instead, chooses to develop every pictorial form towards
the space of the viewer. The way in which the painter develops the imageʼs
pictorial forms has been characterized as ʻinvertedʼ or ʻreverseʼ perspectiveʼ.81
It is important to mention that these two words seem to have the same
meaning, concerning the way that they were used by art historians.
According to Mathewʼs definition, the ʻvanishing point in reverse perspective is
not behind but in front of the pictureʼ.82 This definition is probably the most
widely accepted definition of Byzantine perspective by modern scholars.
Mathewʼs definition is clearly an important one as it abolishes the conception
that the Byzantine painter lacks the skills to create a picture using linear
perspective as it indicates that in Byzantine painting there is a well organized
system of developing the pictorial image. Although Mathew recognizes that
the painter makes a definitely conscious attempt to develop the picture
towards the space of the viewer, his definition seems to be rather problematic
as in most icons there is not a single point where all pictorial forces meet.
A great amount of work has been done by certain scholars in order for
them to tackle this problem and redefine ʻreverse perspectiveʼ more efficiently.
Bunim for example, defines ʻreverse perspectiveʼ as a type of ʻhierarchic
scalingʼ where ʻthe figures are smaller the nearer they are to the spectator
rather than larger as in normal perspective visionʼ.83 This definition is probably
closer to the Byzantine pictorial reality in comparison to Mathewʼs definition.
However, Bunimʼs definition, due to the fact that it is based on sporadic
observations, it cannot be applied to every icon as the rule of ʻhierarchic
scalingʼ is not observed in every icon. In fact, some figures are large even

81
Gervase Mathew, Byzantine Aesthetics (London: John Murray, 1963) p.32.
82
Ibid., p. 33
83
Miriam Bunim, Space in Medieval Painting and the Forerunners of Perspective (New York,
1940)
 33

when they are put close to the spectator, as the painter often wants to
ʻhighlightʼ the importance of the figure in the icon, probably wanting to make it
function in a more communicative way. Again though, this cannot be
characterized as a ʻruleʼ either as it cannot be applied universally.
Antonova offers an interesting discussion on ʻreverse perspectiveʼ in
her book Space, Time and Presence in the Icon: seeing the world with the
eyes of God. Her main suggestion is that the Byzantine system of perspective
should not be interpreted through the principles of linear perspective, a really
interesting conception. Having the linear perspective as a ʻmodelʼ or as a
ʻstarting pointʼ modern scholars tend to perceive Byzantine perspective as
being the opposite of linear perspective and this fact probably leads to
misinterpretations. Byzantine perspective should be analyzed and interpreted
in its own terms and not as being the opposite of something else. This fact
leads Antonova to claim that the Byzantine painter uses a type of ʻinverted
perspectiveʼ but she insists that ʻinverted perspectiveʼ should not be defined
as the opposite of linear perspective. Antonova correctly insists that ʻinverted
perspectiveʼ should not be hetero-defined and in an attempt to define it in its
own terms, she suggests that ʻinverted perspectiveʼ is ʻthe simultaneous
representation of different planes of the same image on the picture surface,
regardless of whether the corresponding planes in the represented objects
could be seen from a single viewpointʼ.84 Antonovaʼs definition is interesting
as it indicates that in Byzantine painting there is not a single viewpoint, a
claim that seems to be correct after studying various iconographic samples.
However, this definition is probably too generalizing. Antonovaʼs theory of
ʻsimultaneous planesʼ can partly be applied to architectural objects in icons
but it certainly cannot be applied to human figures, while even Antonova does
not manage to provide enough visual evidence for her position concerning
human figures. The way that human figures are developed in Byzantine
painting cannot be explained through Antonovaʼs theory.

84
Antonova, Space, Time and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World with the Eyes of God
p. 105
 34

Concerning the theoretical part of Antonovaʼs definition, she suggests

that the Byzantine perspective system should not be hetero-defined but
described through its own principles. However, even though Antonova does
not want to define the Byzantine system of perspective in a hetero-defining
way, she does make use of the term ʻinverted perspectiveʼ. This is probably a
paradox as the term ʻinverted perspectiveʼ itself signifies a hetero-definition -
inverted of what? - and this is exactly what Antonova wants to avoid.
Apart from the issues mentioned above however, it has to be undelined
that Antonova makes a significant effort not only to describe the Byzantine
system of perspective but also to explore the reason for which the painter
creates images in this way. This fact is really important as modern scholars
often seem to focus only on the description of this system and not on the
reason that created it. According to Antonova, the painter creates an icon
using the ʻsimultaneous planesʼ technique as he wants to paint objects the
way that God sees them, being a ʻtimelessʼ, ʻnot subject to spatial locationʼ
and ʻubiquitousʼ being.85 Although this interpretation is interesting, it seems to
have problems. The fact that God is a timeless being, and also not subject to
spatial location and ubiquitous does not mean that the painter or even a
theologian could know how does he sees and perceives things. As there is no
way of knowing how God perceives things, then there is no way to create
things the way he sees them. Of course, it can be claimed that each person
can perceive Godʼs vision in a different way but this fact complicates things
more as it cannot explain the persistence of the Byzantine painter to follow
certain principles in icon painting throughout the centuries. Moreover, it has to
be underlined that if icon painting had such a strong bond with Godʼs vision
and it was perceived as the way that God sees things in Byzantium then this
fact would had probably been commented on and analyzed by theologians of
the time, as issues that concern the theology of the image have been
extensively analyzed by Byzantine theologians.
It is obvious that defining Byzantine perspective is a difficult problem as
most definitions cannot be applied in Byzantine icons universally. Indeed, the

85
Ibid., p. 103
 35

possibility of the universal application of a definition is crucial for Byzantine

painting as it is an art that seems to follow certain principles throughout the
centuries. Apart from the stylistic changes and developments, there are
indications that in Byzantine painting some basic elements remain
unchanged. For this reason, I strongly believe that there is a need for a
definition of the Byzantine perspective that can be applied to every icon and
reveal the painterʼs intentions to the researcher.
Kordis, suggesting probably the most radical theory on Byzantine
perspective, introduces the theory of ʻrhythmʼ in order to define the Byzantine
perspective system. He too recognizes the need for defining the Byzantine
perspective in its own terms and for this reason he abolishes the term
ʻinverted perspectiveʼ as being hetero defining and unable to describe the
Byzantine perspective system effectively. On the contrary, he suggests that
the element of ʻrhythmʼ is the foundation of the Byzantine pictorial system and
that the design of each icon is based on this exact element. Kordisʼs theory of
ʻrhythmʼ is probably the most effective in terms of universality and thus it
fulfills this important requirement. ʻRhythmʼ theory is certainly a powerful tool
for the researcher of Byzantine art as it can be applied to every icon and to
every object of the icon (architecture and figures) and, focusing on the icon-
viewer relation is also ideal for a communicative analysis of an icon, such as
the one that I attempt. Moreover and most importantly, ʻrhythmʼ theory, apart
from describing the Byzantine pictorial system effectively, it can help the
researcher understand the underlying reason for which every object is created
in a specific way in Byzantine painting. Kordisʼs theory attempts to reveal the
reasoning behind the Byzantine pictorial system, focusing exclusively on
pictorial terms and not on theological or transcendent meanings.
At this point, I will attempt to ʻreadʼ the Karyes Monastery icon
presented above by applying ʻrhythmʼ theory. The main reason for which I
choose to use this specific theory, apart from the reasons listed above, will
become clear at the end of the sample analysis.
Kordis suggests that the key to understanding the Byzantine system of
perspective is to understand the sense of the term ʻrhythmʼ. As Kordis
 36

explains, ʻrhythm is a condition during which the pictorial form stands in

dynamic balance. It is a situation of being where movement and immobility
exist together without deleting each otherʼ.86 According to Kordis there are two
types or two levels of rhythm. The first is called ʻinternal rhythmʼ and refers to
what happens on the painting surface. The second is called ʻexternal rhythmʼ
and refers to what happens in the relation between the Imaged and the
viewer.87
The element of internal rhythm is highly important to the
communicative process according to Kordis. Internal rhythm in Byzantine
painting is created by the use of axes that cross each other in an X form. The
painter develops every part of the image in this exact way. In the Karyes
Monastery icon these axes are easily identified (see fig. 2). The use of internal
rhythm is very important as it assures that the relation between the elements
of the painting is characterized by harmony, a harmony that can be called
dynamic and not static, based on rhythmʼs definition.88 Movement and
immobility exist together in order for the pictorial form to appear well balanced
and internally harmonious. In creating this balance, Kordis suggests, the
painter creates the visual foundations that are needed in order for the painting
to function properly, that is to say to be more ʻcommunicativeʼ and easily
perceptible by the viewer.

86
Κόρδης, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη Βυζαντινή
Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting) p.11. Translations of texts by Kordis used
in this essay are my own.
87
Ibid. p.11
88
Ibid., p. 12
 37

Figure 2

Although not all the iconʼs pictorial forces are marked in figure 2,
almost every single form in the painting is developed in a way that the pictorial
forces in the form of axes cross each other in an X shape. The use of X is
seen as highly important by Kordis, as it is exactly this shape that marks the
co-existence of movement and immobility. The shape of a cross would be
balanced in a static way for example, as the relation between vertical and
horizontal lines is characterized by continuous immobility and stability;
horizontal and vertical lines do not indicate movement. In contrast, the X
shape marks a dynamic balance, as the relation between lines that cross
each other in an X shape is characterized by continuous mobility and stability
at the same time; each one of these lines indicates movement and their
combination in an X shape offers the form the required balance.89 In this way
the painter manages to create a balanced, harmonious image without internal
conflicts. In this way, the viewer is offered an image that is functional in a
communicative way.
The painting is imbued with external rhythm as long as it is developed
in a way that facilitates its movement towards the viewer. External rhythm, as

89
Ibid. p.17
 38

explained above, refers to what happens in the relation between the Imaged
and the viewer. External rhythm is a purely communicative feature of
Byzantine art and for this reason it needs to be analyzed in depth. Kordis,
describing the way that the Byzantine picture ʻmovesʼ towards the viewer,
explains that the elements of the picture that are closer to the viewer are put
in a lower level and the elements of the picture that are further from the viewer
are put in a higher level (this rule applies for every element of the picture:
background, figures, buildings, etc), this can also be observed in the Karyes
Monastery icon. Moreover, the elements that are closer to the viewer are
brighter and those that are further away are darker. In this way all the
elements of the picture ʻlean towards the viewerʼ as they seem to lean
towards the direction of the light. Kordis points out that the aim is that ʻthe
movement of the element should be opposite to the direction towards which
the element leansʼ, i.e. if a figure seems to move towards the right, then it
would lean towards the left.90 In this way Kordis claims ʻtwo, opposite
direction, forces, vertical to the picture surface, come out of the picture and
cross each other in front of the picture spaceʼ.91 Kordis suggests that these
two ʻpictorial forcesʼ create a virtual cone in front of the picture space that
ʻincludesʼ the viewer who stands in front of the painting.92

90
Ibid. p.17
91
Ibid., p. 18
92
Ibid.
 39

Figure 3

Applying this theory to the Karyes Monastery icon we can observe that
there is no single source of light. Moreover, through the aid of the axes (blue
for the direction of the light and red for the direction of the figuresʼ movement),
we can see that the movement of each element is indeed opposite to the
direction of the light.
It is not difficult to observe that the two vertical forces are formed on the
one hand by the figuresʼ movement and on the other hand by light. Light in
Byzantine painting is used in a way that facilitates the creation of rhythm in
the icon and thus the movement of the form towards the viewer. Light seems
to be a ray that comes from the painting surface and heads outside of it,
towards the space of the viewer. If the axes that mark the movement and the
light get extended then we can indeed see a virtual cone developing towards
the space of the viewer and including him. In this way the viewer and the
Imaged connect to each other and form an organic unity as the one
presupposes the other. In order to understand how Imaged and viewer can
form a unity we have to analyze an important feature of Byzantine painting
that derives from the use of external rhythm. The Byzantine painter creates
the impression of a ʻhetero-moving imageʼ (an icon that seems to follow the
viewerʼs gaze, an icon that stares back) by applying a specific technique. In
 40

particular, as we can observe in the icon by Panselinos, the face of the

Imaged (here the face of John) slightly turns towards the left while the eyes of
the Imaged (here the eyes of John) look towards the opposite direction, the
right. This leads to the creation of a virtual cone (made of two, opposing,
crossing forces that come out of the painting) to ʻincludeʼ the viewer who
stands in front of the picture.93 This facilitates the establishment of a
relationship between the Imaged and the viewer because it creates the
impression of a ʻhetero-moving imageʼ. In this way, the painter creates one-
person icons that seem to ʻfollowʼ the viewerʼs gaze.94 In this way, the Imaged
becomes sort of ʻaliveʼ as the still, two-dimensional image ʻmovesʼ through the
movement of the viewer. It is this feature of Byzantine painting that makes it
so powerfully communicative, as the viewer, being the centre of attention, is
offered the possibility of relating to the Imaged and interacting with it in his
own space and time frame.
The ʻhetero-moving imageʼ, as Kordis suggests, is probably the reason
that in Byzantium the icons are often characterized as ʻlifelikeʼ. Although such
characterization might seem quite paradoxical to the contemporary spectator,
there is clear evidence that in Byzantium art was often regarded as highly
naturalistic.95
St Asterius of Amaseia makes this notion explicit when he talks about a
painting of St Euphemiaʼs martyrdom:
ʻ…You would think that [the picture] was the work of Euphranor, or
another of the ancients who raised painting to such a high level and made
pictures that were almost animatedʼ.96
While in his 17th homily commenting on a newly designed mosaic of the
Virgin in Hagia Sophia, St Photios describes the mosaic as a ʻlifelike imitationʼ.

93
Ibid., p. 20
94
Ibid.
95
Cyril Mango, 'Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder', Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
17.1963 (1963), 53-75 p.65;C. J. Stallman, 'The Life of St. Pankratios of Taormina', Oxford,
1986).
96
Asterius Bishop of Amaseia, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857-1866:
333F. Translation of this extract is my own
 41

Moreover, he states that the Virginʼs lips are not ʻincapable of speakingʼ.97
It is obvious that the Byzantines believed that their paintings were truly
life-like. However, their conception about life-likeness might still remain an
enigma. James suggests that for the Byzantines life-likeness is not an
aesthetic judgment but a ʻconceptual necessityʼ, but this can be questioned.98
If it is accepted that life-likeness is a ʻconceptual necessityʼ then it probably
has to be admitted that there is a type of presence of the Imaged in the icon, a
fact that is not acceptable in Orthodox iconology. On the contrary, since it is
accepted that there is not any type of presence of the Imaged in the icon, then
life-likeness is indeed an aesthetic judgment, is a quality of the painting that
refers to the pictorial form that the viewer can see. Consequently, life-likeness
refers to the external form of the Imaged, to the portrait and not to the image
itself, to the prototype.
Maguire proposes that in Byzantine art a lifelike image is not one that
can be considered illusionistic but ʻone that is accurately defined in relation to
the portraits of other saintsʼ.99 Kordis, on the other hand, puts the spectator at
the centre of his definition of life-likeness, stating that for the Byzantines, a
life-like image is one that can ʻrefer to and relate to the viewer and give him
the impression that it exists to the extent that it is related to himʼ.100 In this
way, life-likeness becomes a quality of the icon that does not refer only to the
specific internal characteristics of the painting but that also, and most
importantly, refers to its relationship with the viewer. In other words, a ʻhetero-
moving imageʼ, an icon that ʻmovesʼ through the movement of the viewer as it
can follow his gaze can be characterized as lifelike in the Byzantine sense of

97
Cyril Mango, The Homiles of Photios Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge Mass., 1958)
p.290. Ekphrasis in Byzantium have been studied in depth. Indicatively see: Henry Maguire,
'Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art', Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
28 (1974), 111-40; Ruth Webb, 'The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor and
Motion In "Ekpraseis" Of Church Buildings', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 53 (1999), 59-74.
98
James, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', p.532
99
Maguire, The Icons of Their Bodies : Saints and Their Images in Byzantium p.5
100
Κόρδης, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη Βυζαντινή
Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting), p. 22
 42

the term. Most probably, life-likeness refers to corporeal communication and

to the degree of functionality of the icon while it comes to its potential
relationship with the viewer and should not be conceived as a ʻconceptual
necessityʼ. It can be claimed that accuracy of definition, as Maguire suggests,
could probably be only a means through which communication between the
Imaged and the viewer is facilitated and not the only way through which the
painter manages to create a lifelike icon.
A lifelike icon, an icon that enters the space of the viewer and facilitates
the establishment of a relationship between the Imaged and the viewer could
be described as being three-dimensional, as the element of space is involved.
However, Kordis claims that due to the use of rhythm Byzantine painting does
not develop in two dimensions, but not in three dimensions either. Instead, he
proposes that the Byzantine pictorial system is four-dimensional, i.e. it also
includes the dimension of time.101 In this way, the aim of the Byzantine system
of perspective is to ʻmoveʼ the Imaged towards the viewer, to transfer it into
the dimensions of the real space and time in front of the picture, where the
viewer stands. Kordis points out that the Byzantine painter chooses not to
present the Imaged in a naturalistic manner by creating a picture space that
has depth. On the contrary, the picture space in Byzantine painting is without
depth, but by being developed in front of the picture it becomes a part of the
real space. This adds to the painting a dimension of time. Time, at a pictorial
level, becomes perceptible, and thus exists, through movement. The duration
of the movement, in other words, the distance between two elements is what
Kordis calls ʻpictorial timeʼ.102 In this way, space and time are intimately
interwoven and interdependent.103 The Byzantine painter by creating a picture
that shares with the spectator the same space, gives the Imaged the ability to

101
Ibid., p. 23
102
Ibid.
103
Kordisʼs theory of the “pictorial time” is based on Mihail Psellosʼs writings. Mihail Psellos
(1018-1078) was a theologian and philosopher. For more details see PG 122; esp. 733 BCD.
 43

share with the spectator the same time frame, too.104

This exact function of Byzantine painting is perceived by Kordis as
ʻbringing the portrayed to the presentʼ.105 This process is crucial for Kordis as
he believes that it is probably the most important characteristic of Byzantine
painting. Indeed, the ʻtransferʼ of the holy person to the present appears very
often in Eastern Orthodox liturgical texts. The examples are many; here I
mention a few indicative ones: ʻthe Virgin gives birth to him today, to him who
is above beingʼ (Christmas, Matins service, December 25th), ʻtoday he is
hanged on the crossʼ (Holy Thursday service), ʻtoday Judas betrays the
masterʼ (Holy Thursday service), ʻtoday the Jews hang the Lord on the crossʼ
(Holy Thursday service), ʻtoday the whole world is joyful because the Christ is
resurrectedʼ (Easter service).106 This ʻtransferʼ of the holy persons to the
present through liturgical texts is obviously related to the need of the viewer to
be transformed into a participant, to experience the presence of the holy
persons and his contact with them in real time and space. The ʻtransferʼ that is
attempted through liturgical texts is also attempted, according to Kordis,
through painting by the use of the element of rhythm. In this way, the need of
the viewer to confront the holy persons is fulfilled, as a type of iconic presence
(presence of the form) is achieved. Consequently, the way that icons are often
used by laymen, as containing real presence, can probably be justified and
interpreted through the theory of the ʻtransfer to the presentʼ through painting,
as the portrayed seems to ʻmoveʼ in pictorial terms towards the viewer,
becoming ʻpresentʼ in a pictorial way. Kordisʼs theory is thus really important
as, while being a purely pictorial analysis, it finds justification in the way that
the function of the icons was perceived and in the way that the icons were
treated by worshippers.
In conclusion, it is important to point out that Byzantine visual
communication theory finds its expression in painting in a manifest way. At the

104
Κόρδης, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη Βυζαντινή
Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting), p. 24
105
Ibid.
106
Η Αγία Και Μεγάλη Εβδομάς (the Holy Week: Liturgical Texts), (Αθήνα: Αστήρ, 1995).
Translations of liturgical texts are my own.
 44

beginning of this essay I discussed the possibility of the existence of the

presence of the Imaged in the icon. However, I have shown that in the post-
Iconoclasm era the official position of the Church was that the Imaged is
present in the icon essentially. Moreover, my analysis of Panselinosʼs icon
shows that even though presence of the essence of the Imaged cannot be
performed in an icon, presence of the form can be performed through art. The
form, and not the essence, becomes present through art mainly due to the
use of rhythm. In this way the painter manages to move the form towards the
viewer, in order for it to enter his space, share with him the same time frame
and give him the opportunity to establish a relationship with it.
Both Demus and Kordis point out that the aim of Byzantine painting is
probably to offer the viewer the opportunity to communicate bodily and not
only mentally with the Imaged, by sharing with it the same physical space.107
This is made possible to through art, through the use of specific techniques,
as discussed above. Corporeal communication, so highly valued in Byzantine
sources, becomes accomplishable in Byzantine art. The use of the visual
cone is a means of corporeal communication between the Imaged and the
viewer and the ʻhetero-moving imageʼ is a Byzantine creation that facilitates
corporeal contact through the use of sight between the Imaged and the
viewer. It would be reasonable to claim that the Byzantine painter clearly aims
at communicating with the senses of the viewer. Indeed, the fact that the icon
appeals to the senses of the viewer constitutes a basic principle of its
functionality, its use by the viewer. If the icon does not appeal to the senses of
the viewer then it is not functional at all. The icon, as an analysis of Byzantine
sources and paintings demonstrates, was not intended to appeal only to the
mind of the viewer. Besides, the act of entering the space of the viewer,
performed by the external form of the Imaged, is not only a theoretical act

107
Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium
p.13;Κόρδης, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη Βυζαντινή
Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting) p.23;Γ Κόρδης, Ο Χαρακτήρας Και Ο
Λόγος Των Αφαιρετικών Τάσεων Της Βυζαντινής Ζωγραφικής (Abstraction in Byzantine
Painting) (Αθήνα: Αρμός, 2007) p.32
 45

performed in the viewerʼs mind. On the contrary it is an act that is performed

by the form and can be perceived by the viewerʼs senses, as an act of
corporeal contact. As Kordis suggests, in Byzantine painting, ʻpainting does
not seek to make something visible, but to render the already revealed,
perceptible by the viewer, … [it] does not aim at rendering the invisible into
visible, but at bringing the already visible close to the sense of the viewer, to
render it perceptible in order for it to constitute an experience of sensesʼ.108 In
this way, both the viewer and the Imaged have an active role in the
communicative process, as described by John of Damascus, Photios and
Nikephoros of Constantinople. The viewer does not just ʻacceptʼ the energy of
the Imaged and act accordingly but in fact he interacts with the Imaged
through a two-way communicative procedure.109 Byzantine painting can
indeed be characterized as interactive because both the viewer and the

108
Κόρδης, Ο Χαρακτήρας Και Ο Λόγος Των Αφαιρετικών Τάσεων Της Βυζαντινής
Ζωγραφικής (Abstraction in Byzantine Painting) p.32. Revelation is an interesting term used
here by Kordis. When he talks about “the already revealed” he most probably refers to the
human form that Christ obtained when on earth. This external form that he obtained becomes
visible to the spectator through the icon. The term revelation cannot refer to the Incarnation;
the Incarnation, by being a “religious reality”, a theoretical concept that involves the essence
of God, cannot be depicted in the icon. The truth, the divine, the faith that someone is God or
a saint cannot be found in the form, as this means that the form can depict the essence of the
Imaged. Consequently, the icon cannot function as a proof of the Incarnation for two main
reasons. First, the icon cannot depict the essence of God and, second the icon cannot
function as a proof for something that constitutes a “religious reality”, a situation that becomes
acceptable only through faith. If it were possible for the icon to depict the essence and the
reason of the Incarnation then faith would not be necessary, in order for the spectator to
“accept” this “religious reality”. Faith is the only way to accept things such as the Incarnation
or the Resurrection. The icon is a way of depiction of the external form of the Imaged and it
cannot in any way function as proof or as a means of defining and/or accessing the truth. This
brief analysis can be justified by referring to the work of St Theodore the Studite. See St.
Theodore Studite. St. Theodore Studite, On the Holy Icons . On the holy icons. New York: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, (esp. Antirrheticus I and III). Barber also comments on this issue.
See Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm .
109
Κόρδης, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη Βυζαντινή
Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting), p. 33
 46

Imaged play an active role in the communicative process. On the one hand,
the active role of the Imaged is expressed through the artistic elements of the
composition. The Byzantine painter aims at representing the Imaged as
ʻenteringʼ the world of the viewer, by using the specific techniques discussed
above. On the other hand, the viewerʼs active role in the communicative
process is expressed through the fact that only he has the opportunity to take
the initiative in establishing a relationship with the Imaged.
 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, P. J, The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical

Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1958)
Antonova, Clemena, Space, Time and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World
with the Eyes of God (Burlington Ashgate, 2010)
Asterius Bishop of Amaseia, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.-P. Migne (Paris,
1857-1866:
Barasch, M., Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea (New York: New York
Univ. Press, 1992)
Barber, Charles, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in
Byzantine Iconoclasm (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002)
———, 'From Image into Art: Art after Byzantine Iconoclasm', Gesta, 34.1
(1995)
———, 'From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship after Byzantine
Iconoclasm', The Art Bulletin, 75.1 (1993), 7-16
———, 'Mimesis and Memory in the Narthex Mosaics at the Nea Moni,
Chios', Art History, 24.3 (2001), 323-37
Belting, Hans, 'Image, Medium, Body: A New Approach to Iconology', Critical
Inquiry, 31.Winter 2005 (2005), 302-19
———, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)
Brubaker, Leslie, 'Byzantine Art in the Ninth Century: Theory, Practice and
Culture', Byzantine and modern Greek studies, XIII (1989), 23-93
Bunim, Miriam, Space in Medieval Painting and the Forerunners of
Perspective (New York, 1940)
Burghadt, S., Cyril of Alexandria: The Image of God in Man (Woodstoke,
Maryland: Woodstoke College Press, 1957)
Cassirer, E., An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human
Culture (Hamburg: Meiner, 1995)
Comnena, Anna, Alexiad, trans. by E. A. S. Dawes (London: Legan Paul,
1928)
 48

Demetrakopoulos, Andronikos, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica (Hildesheim: Georg

Olms, 1965)
Demus, Otto, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in
Byzantium (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976)
Dubisch, Jill, 'In a Different Place', in Religious Orthodoxy and Popular Faith
in European Society, ed. by Ellen Badone (Princeton 1990)
Eastmond, A. and Liz James, eds, Icon and Word: The Power of Images in
Byzantium (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003)
James, Liz, 'Art and Lies: Text, Image and Imagination in the Medieval World',
in Icon and Word: The Power of Imags in Byzantium, ed. by A Eastmond and
Liz James (Burligton, VT: Ashgate, 2003)
———, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', Art History, 27.4 (2004), 522-
37
Johannes von Damascos, 'Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Tres', in Die
Schriften Des Johannes Von Damaskos, ed. by B. Kotter, 5 vols (Berlin, New
York: Walter De Gruyter, 1975), vol.3
Ladner, G. B., 'The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the
Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 7 (1953), 1-34
'Life of Saint Theodore of Sykeon', in Three Byzantine Saints, trans. by trans.
Dawes and Baynes, chap. 42
Lossky, V., 'The Theology of the Image', Sobornost, 3 (1957-58), 510-20
Louth, Andrew, Renaissance of Learning: East and West. Greek East and
Latin West: The Church Ad 681-1071 (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary
Press, 2007)
Maguire, Henry, The Icons of Their Bodies : Saints and Their Images in
Byzantium (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996)
———, 'Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art',
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 28 (1974), 111-40
Maloney, G, Man the Divine Icon (Pecos, New Mexico: Dove Publications,
1973)
Mango, Cyril, 'Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder', Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 17.1963 (1963), 53-75
 49

———, The Homiles of Photios Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge

Mass., 1958)
Mansi, J. D., ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Et Amplissima Collectio, (Paris-
Leipzig, 1901-1927, XIII
Mathew, Gervase, Byzantine Aesthetics (London: John Murray, 1963)
McKeon, R., ed., The Basic Works of Aristotle, Translation by W. D. Ross
(New York: Random House, p.689, 1941)
Ousterhout, Robert and Leslie Brubaker, eds, The Sacred Image East and
West (Urbana&Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995)
Parry, K, 'Theodore Studites and the Patriarch Nikephoros on Image Making
as a Christian Imperative', Byzantion, 59.1989 (1989), 164-83
Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople, 'Antirrheticus', in Patrologia Graeca,
ed. by J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857-1866), vol.100
Pelican, J., Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons (Princeton: Princeton
Univ. Press, 1990)
Raczka, B, More Than Meets the Eye: Seeing Art with All Five Senses
(Brookfield, Connecticut: The Millbrook Press, Inc., 2003)
Ree, J, 'The Aestetic Theory of the Arts', in From an Aesthetic Point of View.
Philosophy, Art and the Senses, ed. by P Osborne (London: Serpent's Tail,
2000)
St. Basil the Great, 'De Spiritu Sancto', in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.-P.
Migne (Paris, 1857-1866), vol.32
St. John Of Damascus, On the Divine Images: The Apologies against Those
Who Attack the Divine Images (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Pres,
1980)
St. Theodore Studite, On the Holy Icons (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary
Press, 1981)
Stallman, C. J., 'The Life of St. Pankratios of Taormina', Oxford, 1986)
Theodori Studitae, 'Antirrheticus Primus Adversus Iconomachus', in Patrologia
Graeca, ed. by J.-P. Migne (Paris 1857-1866), 99
Travis, J, In Defense of Faith: The Theology of Partiarch Nikephoros of
Constantinople (Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, 1984)
 50

Trinick, J, 'St Gregory of Nyssa and the Doctrine of the Image', Eastern
Churches Quarterly, 9.4 (1951), 175-84
Tselengidis, Dimitrios, Η Τριαδολογία Του Μεγάλου Βασιλείου Ως
Υπόβαθρο Της Δογματικής Διδασκαλίας Της Εκκλησίας Για Τις Εικόνες
(the Triadology of St. Basil as the Foundation of the Dogmatic Teachings of
the Church on Icons) <http://egolpion.net/triadologia_m_basileiou.el.aspx>
[accessed 10/08/2010]
Webb, Ruth, 'The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor and
Motion In "Ekpraseis" Of Church Buildings', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 53
(1999), 59-74
Διονυσίου του εκ Φουρνά, Ερμηνεία Της Ζωγραφικής Τέχνης
(Hermeneia of Byzantine Art) (Άγιον Όρος: Ερμηνεία, 2007)
Η Αγία Και Μεγάλη Εβδομάς (the Holy Week: Liturgical Texts), (Αθήνα:
Αστήρ, 1995)
Κόρδης, Γ, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη
Βυζαντινή Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting) (Αθήνα:
Αρμός, 2010)
———, Ιεροτύπως: Η Εικονολογία Του Ι. Φωτίου Και Η Τέχνη Της
Μετεικονομαχικής Περιόδου (the Iconology of St. Photios and Post-
Iconoclam Art) (Αθήνα: Αρμός, 2002)
———, Ο Χαρακτήρας Και Ο Λόγος Των Αφαιρετικών Τάσεων Της
Βυζαντινής Ζωγραφικής (Abstraction in Byzantine Painting) (Αθήνα:
Αρμός, 2007)
Λαούρδας, Βασίλειος, Φωτίου Του Σοφωτάτου Και Αγιωτάτου
Πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Επιστολαί (the Epistles of St. Photios)
(Λονδίνο, 1864)
 51

APPENDIX
BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE WORK DONE SO FAR

During semester 2 and 3 of the academic year 2009-2010 I have

conducted research on the following topics:

1. Essence and form: theology of the image, essentialist and

formalist notions, portrait and portrayed relation, fusion
between portrait and portrayed.
2. Presence and absence: essential and formal / iconic
presence, presence and substitution for presence, absence
and substitution for absence, presence / absence and the
use of icons, presence / absence and memory.
3. Image and work of art: the image as work of art, the image as
cult object.
4. The Byzantine pictorial system: perspective, defining the
Byzantine pictorial system, space and time in the icon,
communicative techniques in iconic representation.
5. Icon-viewer communication: the active Imaged, the pictorial
system and the active Imaged, the active viewer, degrees of
interactivity, corporeal communication, sight and its role in
the communicative process, sight and perception, sight and
knowledge, sight and memory, sight and aesthetic
experience, the body in the communicative process, the body
as an obstacle towards knowledge, corporeality of
knowledge, function and functionality of the image, beauty of
the image, beautyʼs relation to the imageʼs function and use.
6. Space and icon-viewer communication: architectural
framework and the viewer, the viewer as a participant.
 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY

'Life of Saint Theodore of Sykeon', in Three Byzantine Saints, trans. by trans. Dawes
and Baynes, chap. 42
Η Αγία Και Μεγάλη Εβδομάς (the Holy Week: Liturgical Texts), (Αθήνα: Αστήρ,
1995)
Alexander, P. J, The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy
and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958)
Antonova, Clemena, Space, Time and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World with
the Eyes of God (Burlington Ashgate, 2010)
Asterius Bishop of Amaseia, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857-
1866:
Barasch, M., Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea (New York: New York Univ.
Press, 1992)
Barber, Charles, 'From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship after Byzantine
Iconoclasm', The Art Bulletin, 75.1 (1993), 7-16
———, 'From Image into Art: Art after Byzantine Iconoclasm', Gesta, 34.1 (1995)
———, 'Mimesis and Memory in the Narthex Mosaics at the Nea Moni, Chios', Art
History, 24.3 (2001), 323-37
———, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine
Iconoclasm (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002)
Belting, Hans, 'An Image and Its Function in the Liturgy', Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
34 (1980-1981), 1-16
———, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)
———, 'Image, Medium, Body: A New Approach to Iconology', Critical Inquiry,
31.Winter 2005 (2005), 302-19
Bersani, L. and U. Dutoit, The Forms of Violence. Narrative in Assyrian Art and
Modern Culture (New York: Shocken Books, 1985)
Brubaker, Leslie, 'Byzantine Art in the Ninth Century: Theory, Practice and Culture',
Byzantine and modern Greek studies, XIII (1989), 23-93
 53

———, 'Perception and Conception: Art, Theory and Practice in Ninth-Century

Byzantium', Word&image, V (1989), 19-32
Bunim, Miriam, Space in Medieval Painting and the Forerunners of Perspective (New
York, 1940)
Burghadt, S., Cyril of Alexandria: The Image of God in Man (Woodstoke, Maryland:
Woodstoke College Press, 1957)
Cassirer, E., An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture
(Hamburg: Meiner, 1995)
Chatzidakis, M. and A. Grabar, Byzantine and Early Medieval Painting (London:
Contact Books, 1965)
Comnena, Anna, Alexiad, trans. by E. A. S. Dawes (London: Legan Paul, 1928)
Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed.
by Erich Lamberz (Berolini: Walter De Gruyter, 2008
Cormack, Robin, Byzantine Art (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Cutler, A., Transfigurations: Studies in the Dynamics of Byzantine Iconography
(University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, 1975)
Demetrakopoulos, Andronikos, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica (Hildesheim: Georg Olms,
1965)
Demus, Otto, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in
Byzantium (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976)
Dubisch, Jill, 'In a Different Place', in Religious Orthodoxy and Popular Faith in
European Society, ed. by Ellen Badone (Princeton 1990)
Eastmond, A. and Liz James, eds, Icon and Word: The Power of Images in
Byzantium (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003)
Eustratios of Nicaea, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857-1866),
127
Freedberg, D., The Power of the Images. Studies in the History and Theory of
Response (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989)
Girard, R., Violence and the Sacred (London: The Athlone Press, 1988)
Gombrich, E. H., Art and Illusion. A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial
Representation (Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1960)
Grabar, A., Byzantine Painting. Historical and Critical Study (London: Macmillan,
 54

1979)
Grondijs, L. H. , L' Iconographie Byzantine Du Crucifie Mort Sur La Croix (Bruxelles:
Éditions de Byzantion, Institut de sociologie, 1947)
James, Liz, 'Art and Lies: Text, Image and Imagination in the Medieval World', in
Icon and Word: The Power of Imags in Byzantium, ed. by A Eastmond and Liz
James (Burligton, VT: Ashgate, 2003)
———, 'Senses and Sensibility and Byzantium', Art History, 27.4 (2004), 522-37
Johannes von Damascos, 'Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Tres', in Die Schriften
Des Johannes Von Damaskos, ed. by B. Kotter, 5 vols (Berlin, New York: Walter De
Gruyter, 1975), vol.3
Kalavrezou, I, 'Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became "Meter Theou"',
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 44 (1990), 165-72
Kartsonis, A, 'The Responding Icon', in Heaven on Earth, ed. by L Safran (University
Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, 1998)
Kazhdan, A. and H Maguire, 'Byzantine Hagiographical Texts as Sources on Art',
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 45 (1991), 1-22
Kitzinger, Ernst, 'The Byzantine Contribution to Western Art of the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Centuries', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 20 (1966), 25-47
Ladner, G. B., 'The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine
Iconoclastic Controversy', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 7 (1953), 1-34
Lawson-Tancred, Hugh, Aristotle: The Metaphysics (London: Penguin Books, 1998)
Lossky, V., 'The Theology of the Image', Sobornost, 3 (1957-58), 510-20
Louth, Andrew, Renaissance of Learning: East and West. Greek East and Latin
West: The Church Ad 681-1071 (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2007)
Maguire, Henry, 'Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art',
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 28 (1974), 111-40
———, 'The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine Art', Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
31 (1977), 123-74
———, 'The Art of Comparing in Byzantium', The Art Bulletin, 70.1 (1988), 88-103
———, The Icons of Their Bodies : Saints and Their Images in Byzantium
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996)
———, 'The Profane Aesthetic in Byzantine Art and Literature', Dumbarton Oaks
 55

Papers, 53 (1999), 189-205

Maloney, G, Man the Divine Icon (Pecos, New Mexico: Dove Publications, 1973)
Mango, Cyril, The Homiles of Photios Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge Mass.,
1958)
———, 'Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder', Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
17.1963 (1963), 53-75
Mansi, J. D., ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Et Amplissima Collectio, (Paris-
Leipzig, 1901-1927, XIII
Mathew, Gervase, Byzantine Aesthetics (London: John Murray, 1963)
Mathews, T., The Art of Byzantium (London: The Orion Publishing Group, 1998)
Maynard, P., 'Depiction, Vision and Conversion', American Philosophical Quarterly,
9.3 (1972), 243-50
McKeon, R., ed., The Basic Works of Aristotle, Translation by W. D. Ross (New
York: Random House, p.689, 1941)
Miles, Margaret R., Image as Insight : Visual Understanding in Western Christianity
and Secular Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985)
———, The Word Made Flesh : A History of Christian Thought (Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub., 2005)
Mills, Robert, Suspended Animation : Pain, Pleasure and Punishment in Medieval
Culture (London: Reaktion, 2005)
MItchell, W. J. T., (ed), Art and the Public Sphere (Chicago ; London: University of
Chicago Press, 1992)
Morgan, David, The Sacred Gaze : Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice
(Berkeley, CA; London: University of California Press, 2005)
Nelson, S. R, 'Taxation with Representation. Visual Narrative and the Political Field
of the Kariye Camii', Art History, 22.1 (1999), 56-82
Ousterhout, Robert and Leslie Brubaker, eds, The Sacred Image East and West
(Urbana&Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995)
Parry, K, 'Theodore Studites and the Patriarch Nikephoros on Image Making as a
Christian Imperative', Byzantion, 59.1989 (1989), 164-83
Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople, 'Antirrheticus', in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by
J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857-1866), vol.100
 56

Paul, C., Digital Art (New York: Thames & Hudson Inc., 2003)
Pelican, J., Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons (Princeton: Princeton Univ.
Press, 1990)
Puppi, Lionello, Torment in Art : Pain, Violence and Martyrdom (New York: Rizzoli,
1991)
Raczka, B, More Than Meets the Eye: Seeing Art with All Five Senses (Brookfield,
Connecticut: The Millbrook Press, Inc., 2003)
Ree, J, 'The Aestetic Theory of the Arts', in From an Aesthetic Point of View.
Philosophy, Art and the Senses, ed. by P Osborne (London: Serpent's Tail, 2000)
Rice, D. Talbot, 'El Greco and Byzantium', The Burlington Magazine for
Connoisseurs, 70.406 (1937), 34-39
———, The Appreciation of Byzantine Art (London: Oxford University Press, 1972)
———, Art of the Byzantine Era (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977)
Safran, Linda, ed., Heaven on Earth. Art and the Church in Byzantium (University
Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, 1998)
St. Basil the Great, 'De Spiritu Sancto', in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.-P. Migne
(Paris, 1857-1866), vol.32
St. John Of Damascus, On the Divine Images: The Apologies against Those Who
Attack the Divine Images (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Pres, 1980)
St. Theodore Studite, On the Holy Icons (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press,
1981)
Stallman, C. J., 'The Life of St. Pankratios of Taormina', Oxford, 1986)
Theodori Studitae, 'Antirrheticus Primus Adversus Iconomachus', in Patrologia
Graeca, ed. by J.-P. Migne (Paris 1857-1866), 99
Travis, J, In Defense of Faith: The Theology of Partiarch Nikephoros of
Constantinople (Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, 1984)
Trinick, J, 'St Gregory of Nyssa and the Doctrine of the Image', Eastern Churches
Quarterly, 9.4 (1951), 175-84
Tselengidis, Dimitrios, Η Τριαδολογία Του Μεγάλου Βασιλείου Ως Υπόβαθρο
Της Δογματικής Διδασκαλίας Της Εκκλησίας Για Τις Εικόνες (the Triadology of
St. Basil as the Foundation of the Dogmatic Teachings of the Church on Icons)
<http://egolpion.net/triadologia_m_basileiou.el.aspx> [accessed 10/08/2010]
 57

Waddell, J. and F. W. Dillistone, eds, Art and Religion as Communication (Altanta,

GA: John Knox Press, 1974)
Webb, Ruth, 'The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor and Motion In
"Ekpraseis" Of Church Buildings', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 53 (1999), 59-74
Willats, J, Art and Representation. New Principles in the Analysis of Pictures
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997)
Διονυσίου του εκ Φουρνά, Ερμηνεία Της Ζωγραφικής Τέχνης (Hermeneia of
Byzantine Art) (Άγιον Όρος: Ερμηνεία, 2007)
Ευστρατίου Νικαίας, in Patrologia Graeca (Αθήνα: Κέντρον Πατερικών
Σπουδών, 127
Κόρδης, Γ, Ιεροτύπως: Η Εικονολογία Του Ι. Φωτίου Και Η Τέχνη Της
Μετεικονομαχικής Περιόδου (the Iconology of St. Photios and Post-Iconoclam Art)
(Αθήνα: Αρμός, 2002)
———, Ο Χαρακτήρας Και Ο Λόγος Των Αφαιρετικών Τάσεων Της Βυζαντινής
Ζωγραφικής (Abstraction in Byzantine Painting) (Αθήνα: Αρμός, 2007)
———, Αυγοτέμπερα Με Υποζωγράφιση: Το Χρώμα Ως Φως Στη Βυζαντινή
Ζωγραφική (Colour as Light in Byzantine Painting) (Αθήνα: Αρμός, 2010)
Λαούρδας, Βασίλειος, Φωτίου Του Σοφωτάτου Και Αγιωτάτου Πατριάρχου
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Επιστολαί (the Epistles of St. Photios) (Λονδίνο, 1864)
 58

PhD PROJECT OUTLINE

PROVISIONAL TITLE

Byzantine monumental painting as public art: A communicative analysis

PROVISIONAL CHAPTERS

Chapter 1: The icon as an object of worship

1.1 Portrait and portrayed

1.2 Icon and presence
1.3 Image and work of art

Chapter 2: Icon and viewer

2.1 Interactivity: the active Imaged

2.2 Interactivity: the active viewer
2.3 Icon-viewer corporeal communication
2.4 Icon and gender
2.5 Symbols and signs: function and functionality of the image
2.6 Space and time in the icon: icon-viewer applied communication

Chapter 3: The church building as an artistic installation

3.1 Spatial setting of images: causes and effects

3.2 Space and time in the church building
3.2 The viewer as a participant

Chapter 4: Byzantine monumental painting as public art

4.1 Redefining public art: the Byzantine point of view

4.2 The icon-viewer communication as the foundation of Byzantine public art
4.2 Byzantine public art: communicating a visual culture
 59

RESEARCH PLAN

ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-2011

SEMESTER 1:
1. Research on:
a. primary sources on icon-viewer communication
b. the icon as an object of worship
c. space in the icon
2. Essays on:
a. icon-viewer communication: primary sources
b. the icon as an object of worship
c. space in the icon

SEMESTER 2:
1. Research on:
a. pictorial time in the icon
b. pictorial time and liturgical time
c. icon and gender: primary sources and secondary sources
2. Essays on:
a. pictorial time and liturgical time
b. gender issues in icon-viewer communication

SEMESTER 3:
1. Research on:
a. spatial setting of images in church buildings
b. spatial setting of images and the dimension of time
2. Essays on:
a. spatial setting of images in church buildings
b. space and time in the church building
c. sample analysis

ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012

SEMESTER 1:
1. Research on:
a. contemporary theories of space and affect
b. spatial setting of images in the church building: affect on viewers
2. Essays on:
a. space and affect on the church building
b. time and affect in the church building
c. the viewer as a participant
 60

SEMESTER 2:
1. Research on:
a. public art: definition and function
b. Byzantine monumental painting as public art
2. Essays on:
a. Byzantine monumental painting as public art
b. icon-viewer communication and public art in Byzantium

SEMESTER 3:
1. Research on:
a. defining Byzantine visual culture
b. communicating Byzantine visual culture through public art
2. Essays on:
a. Byzantine public art: communicating a visual culture

ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-2013

Writing up time
 61

STUDENT TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT RECORD

1. "Networking" Arts/PVAC only

2. "Finding and managing information for your PhD: searching the literature"

3. "Intelligent web searching"

4. "Using endnote"

5. "Presentation Practice and feedback"

6. "Preparing for your transfer"

7. "Giving effective seminar and conference presentations"

 62

SUPERVISION MEETING REPORTS

SUPERVISION MEETING

NAME OF STUDENT Sotiria Kordi

NAME OF C. Karkov/ K. Sarikakis

SUPERVISOR(S)

DATE AND TIME OF October 27h 2009

MEETING

NOTES AND ACTIONS

Topics discussed:
a. meaning and definition of violence (media studies, medieval studies)
b. violence in the name of religion
c. transmission of meaning-transmission of information
d. violence, religion and female body

Readings for the next meeting: Chronicles of the Crusades, The forms of
violence: narrative in Assyrian art and modern culture, Carnal knowing,
Broken bodies and singing tongues: gender and voice in Cambridge, Corpus
Christ College 23 Psychomachia.

Project for the next meeting: a 5000 word paper

 63

SUPERVISION MEETING

NAME OF STUDENT Sotiria Kordi

NAME OF Dr C. Karkov
SUPERVISOR(S)

DATE AND TIME OF November 19th 2009, 15:00

MEETING

NOTES AND ACTIONS

1. possibility of switching schools

2. taught modules- semester 2
3. upgrade process
4. date and time of next meeting
 64

SUPERVISION MEETING

NAME OF STUDENT Sotiria Kordi

NAME OF K. Sarikakis/ C. Karkov

SUPERVISOR(S)

DATE AND TIME OF Friday November 27th 2009, 09:15

MEETING

NOTES AND ACTIONS

1. Possibility of switching schools

2. Comments on draft
3. On the project: depiction and representation, work on violence definitions
4. Proposed structure of next draft: violence and communication, violence and
media, violence and art, violence and religion, synthesis
5. Work for next time: a draft 5000 words
 65

SUMMARY SHEET FOR USE BY RESEARCH STUDENTS AND SUPERVISORS AT EACH

FORMAL MEETING

Studentʼs Name Date Supervisor

Sotiria Kordi 21.01.2010 C. Karkov

Staff Present
C. Karkov

Project Title
Violence in the name of religion: Byzantine art and contemporary media

Summary of Points Discussed

1. Training plan options

2. Discussion on the project: problems with handling the material, dividing of the project
in parts in order for the student to handle it easier
3. Discussion on the project topic, it needs to be redefined

Action by Student

Think about the project outline and try to redefine the topic.
Research on image and affect in Byzantine art.
Talk about public images more.

Action by Supervisor(s)

Date of Next Meeting

Early March
 66

SUMMARY SHEET FOR USE BY RESEARCH STUDENTS AND SUPERVISORS AT EACH

FORMAL MEETING

Studentʼs Name Date 11/03/2010 Supervisor Catherine

Sotiria Kordi Karkov / Katharine
Sarikakis

Staff Present

Catherine Karkov

Project Title

Image and Viewer: interactivity in the communicative process in Byzantine art

Summary of Points Discussed
Sotiria injured her knee, but does not feel it will require any extension to or suspension of
studies. She also wishes to try for a June upgrade, despite changing schools and thesis topics,
but is aware that we can delay this if needs be.

As regards the paper that Sotiria submitted, we discussed the fact that she needs to back up
the ideas it contains with primary sources. She has been reading these but has not yet
incorporated them into her writing. We also discussed the need for more clarification and
precision in her writing. Meaning, especially when it comes to critique of her secondary
sources, was not always apparent in her writing, though it was in her discussion of the material
during her supervision. In fact, in general her discussion of the material in this supervision
should a much more sophisticated understanding of the art and theory than has been the case
thus far.

We established that for the thesis she wants to stick with monumental painting and wants to
read the space of the church as an installation space. She is not interested in religious content,
function or iconography. She is interested in the relationship between an active viewer and an
active image, and we agreed that she should read up on Warburg as his theories are important
to this relationship.

Action by Student
Sotiria will send me a complete bibliography of her research to date as well as a record
of her SDDU training. She is going to spend part of her time in Greece reading primary
sources as the Greek vocabulary is important to her understanding of Byzantine art. In
addition she will 1) identify a body of images/spaces that interest her and keep notes on
what it exactly it is about these images/spaces that interests her, 2) apply the ideas she
sketched out in her draft paper to 2 or 3 of her chosen images.

Action by Supervisor(s)
Catherine will send Sotiria the bibliography from the new Warburg module, and check
on the word limit for upgrade.
Date of Next Meeting
April, with a definite date to be set when Sotiria returns from Greece.
 67

SUMMARY SHEET FOR USE BY RESEARCH STUDENTS AND SUPERVISORS AT EACH

FORMAL MEETING

Studentʼs Name Date 29/04/2010 Supervisor Catherine

Sotiria Kordi Karkov

Staff Present
Catherine Karkov

Project Title
Byzantine Monumental Painting as Public Art

Summary of Points Discussed

We discussed Sotiriaʼs desire to focus her work on Byzantine Monumental Painting as Public
Art. She is interested in looking at issues of space and the interactivi of viewer and artwork.
She is interested in analysing the works through modern theories of space (and she should
read Henri Lefebvreʼs The Production of Space as part of this work). She is particularly
interested in the way in which space is manipulated to create a cone uniting the viewer with
the work, and in the paintings as works within an installation. She could possibly devote a
chapter to an analysis of the ways in which a set of paintings create those cones, and a
chapter to the interaction of the paintings with each other.
Her verbal explanations of the formal qualities of Byzantine art (light, colour, planes) is quite
good, but this needs to come across with more clarity and depth in her writing.
Formal space is not enough to make a dissertation. She will have to think about different
forms of public space, and she should also think more about the issues of gender and affect
discussed at our last meeting. For example, if she is dealing with the way in which the
paintings create cones that envelope the viewer in the viewing experience, she could also
consider the ways in which the messages of the paintings are internalized by the viewer in
the process of viewing. This is an aspect of the viewing of art that is brought out particularly
clearly in the primary sources, and could be developed more fully with reference to
contemporary theories of gender, gendered viewing, and, for example, Warburgʼs and
Beltingʼs work on the space between the viewer and the work (as discussed at our last
meeting). It might be easier not to begin with Warburg himself, but with some secondary
sources: Griselda Pollockʼs Encounters in the Virtual Feminist Museum: Time, Space and the
Archive, Philippe-Alain Michaudʼs Aby Warburg and the Image in Motion. See also Hans
Belting. ʻImage, Medium, Body: A New Approach to Iconologyʼ. Critical Inquiry 31.2 (2005),
302–19.

Acti o n by St u de nt
Sotiria will rewrite her work on primary sources to try and expand her analysis of the
texts in relation to the artwork, and to try to clarify her points for the reader.
Action by Supervisor(s)
Check delaying upgrade viva until September. This has been done.
Find reference to Lefebvreʼs book on Space (see above)
Date of Next Meeting
To be confirmed.
 68

SUMMARY SHEET FOR USE BY RESEARCH STUDENTS AND SUPERVISORS AT EACH

FORMAL MEETING

Studentʼs Name Date 20/05/2010 Supervisor Catherine

Sotiria Kordi Karkov

Staff Present

Catherine Karkov

Project Title
Byzantine Monumental Painting as Public Art

Summary of Points Discussed

Sotiria submitted a revised and expanded version of her previous paper, and her work is
developing nicely. There are many areas in which she needs to expand here discussion of
the sources and/or issues, and these were indicated on the draft handed back to her. Most
importantly, she needs to think through, and be more precise in her discussion of, the issue
of presence vs. absence in Byzantine art. There are also some problems with English, but
these are minor and can be dealt with after we get the ideas worked through sufficiently.

I suggested that Sotiria needed to think about the ways in which icons would be viewed in
their architectural/spatial settings in addition to the ways in which they are understood in
the written sources. She is also thinking about the energy of the icon.

Sotiriaʼs written work is on track for upgrade in Sep.

Action by Student

Sotiria will revise the paper, expanding and elaborating where necessary. She will also
begin to think about issues of space, and the outline of the larger dissertation in
preparation for upgrade.

Action by Supervisor(s)

Check Architecture as Icon book.

Date of Next Meeting

July, precise date to be confirmed.