[st01en_lox]

Please could others comment on the appropriateness of icon painters (I'm reliably told that talk of icon 'writing' is a western pretension) signing their creations on the front within the border of the image itself.

I have come across the work of an artist online and found the presence of a signature on every icon very distracting and faintly inappropriate. Had it been on the back I would have had no objection but I really couldn't feel it was quite right that the artist wanted to advertise their work in this way. It certainly detracted from the work's spiritual authenticity for me. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive.

What feel you?

[kjanyeaz1]

I agree. I've been told by a couple of master iconographers that signing an icon one painted is both innovative and arrogant. They even took a dim view of signing it on the back.

Out of curiosity, any links to the icons in question?

[timmybrown]

It is my understanding that an icon should never be signed as a painting or sketch would be.

Icons are not art in the secular sense: they do not exist for the ultimate purpose of aesthetic pleasure. Rather, icons are windows into heaven: holy objects that are intregal to worship and worthy of veneration. Icons are not simply "pictures" but are portals that mystically display great spiritual Truth.

[SueveDobe]

It certainly detracted from the work's spiritual authenticity for me. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive. Not at all! You've hit the nail on the head.

Iconographers are not artists giving free rein to their creativity, but work as instruments in service to the Church and her teachings. They are the visual equivalent of the hymnographers - a hymnographer uses his musical and literary talent to produce works which express and proclaim what the Church teaches. A finished icon does not "belong" to the iconographer in the sense of "intellectual property", nor to the patron who commissioned it. Some try to argue that the inscriptions "by the hand of (name of iconographer)" is not a true signature, and therefore permissible. I, and many others, find this quite unacceptable, as it still speaks of individuality and drawing attention to oneself, rather than the humility of anonymity and the corporate nature of Orthodox worship and devotional practice.

Just as an iconographer should not sign his work, there should also be no reference to the patron who commissions an icon (including those painted on the walls of churches) painted on the icon itself. Anonymity cuts both ways - the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. If the iconographer is prevailed upon to inscribe such an acknowledgement, this should be as limited and discreet as possible: the inscription should be in a bottom corner, the lettering small enough that it is not legible from the distance the icon is normally viewed from, and the wording should be limited to "Offering of (name of patron)" or "In memory of (name)", nothing more. No prominent panels surrounded by a fancy border, no grand language extolling the munificence of the patron. This grumpy old woman cringes every time she sees such a thing ....

Crispin, I, too, would be interested in seeing the work you found distracting. Any chance of providing the link?

[Rabbahpuptiopp]

I think to publish the link would be uncharitable and inappropriate. Suffice it to say that the iconographer in question is a lady living in the US.

The icons were beautiful in themselves but this rather blatant claiming of a personal right over them felt all wrong and definitely spoiled what I take to be the purpose of an icon - to transport the viewer to another place i.e. the kingdom of Christ and all the saints in light, not the website of the artist, however wonderful her work may be.

[irridgita]

I wonder how we all feel about an artist or icon-store putting their name on a removable sticker on the back of an icon. My icons are all prints on wood, and many of them have a sticker with the name of the monastery that they were purchased at on the back. Is this practice acceptable? If the icon has already been blessed, can the stickers be removed or should they be left on?

Relatedly, how do we feel about patrons of icons being named on a plaque underneath the icon, rather than on the icon itself?

[kictainiSot]

Those who are "rewarded" on Earth miss out on reward in Heaven. Our Lord talks extensively about this in Matthew's Gospel, chapter 6.

"Stickers" and labels can certainly be removed. If someone pays for an icon and wants a loved one remembered for it, I don't see the harm. If I pay for an icon and demand a plaque acknowledging the fact, I suspect I negate any heavenly "reward" for my actions.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[68AttendGem]

I think to publish the link would be uncharitable and inappropriate.

Good point! I hadn't thought it through, and merely asked out of curiosity. Upon reflection, I'd rather not have the links. Thank you!

[effenseshoora]

I, for one, have no objection to an iconographer writing his name on the back of an icon he has painted, or putting his name on a label which is stuck to the back of the icon. If the name is not visible while the icon is hung or placed on an analogion, then I can't see the harm in it.

Relatedly, how do we feel about patrons of icons being named on a plaque underneath the icon, rather than on the icon itself? See my post #4, and Herman's post #7: I would treat a patronal or memorial plaque on a portable icon the same way as an inscription of same painted within a mural icon. If on the front, as small and discreet as possible, with in memoriam inscriptions being quite acceptable; patronal acknowledgements best avoided, or placed on the back of the icon.

[Usogwdkb]

As a practising iconographer, I believe that putting 'written by the hand of ...." does highlight the truth that the iconographer's hand was guided by the Holy Spirit... and Icons do reveal the truth.

However, I do like to write it as subtle as possible by selecting a colour just slightly lighter than the colour underneath. Thus it is only visible to someone looking for it.

My guide for things like this is to look at the masters like Photios Kontoglou - an iconographer who was greatly responsible for the resurgence of Byzantine Iconography in the last century.

As for putting the names of the Icon donor on the icons, I'm not a big fan. Personally I like to think the person will get the reward from God.

However, to put the name on the rear, for 'In Memory' or for the 'Donor' seems more humble. I saw an instance where a parish priest approached the 'son' of a donor (as labelled on the icon) to update an icon.

Peter