The Saint Euphrosynos Cafe

Moderator Note:

• Since the above posts were off-topic, they have been split out into a new thread.
  
  I apologize for my off-topic post which detoured the original thread.

Iconographers: Please feel free to explain the differences between Byzantine Iconography and Western Religious Art.

http://www.traditionaliconography.com/

jgress wrote:

I doubt that the intention of the first painting was to scandalize. Her bare breast no doubts alludes to her role as nurse. Whether showing a bare breast in a religious painting indicates a more general depravity in the society of the time (15th century France) is another question: I would need to know more about the history of such depictions in Western religious art.

I see it as the product of a genuine devotional feeling towards the Virgin Mary, even if expressed in a way that is inappropriate from the point of view of traditional (Orthodox) Christian iconography.

I know we can make a reasonable argument to explain this kind of thing. I am unconvinced by logic on this score. I compare the spiritual feelings and response of Holy Orthodox icons with the response elicited by the above and I know, with no need for deliberation, which is of God and which is of the flesh and merely the mind of men. Though I must acknowledge your thoughts on the matter which are reasonable and point out some good things.

Maria wrote:

There are Byzantine Icons that depict the Virgin Theotokos breastfeeding. These show the Virgin fully clothed with the Infant Christ fully swaddled and not naked.

Agreed! Good point, Maria. This proves that there is absolutely no need to expose the Holy Theotokos' private body. The only reason that an artist would "feel the need" to depict her thus, is lust.

Maria wrote:

Here is a Byzantine icon for comparison

Excellent icon, Maria!

jgress wrote:

... I'm not sure I would want to call it "porn". ... To me, for something to be pornographic the intent behind it must be to excite, and I have a hard time believing that was Fouquet's intent.

You make a good case, Jonathan. However, I think that you need to be in greater consideration of the fact that not long ago, maybe 100 years ago and not much more, it was considered in our society lewd for a woman to show her ankles! Even seeing a woman's ankles was a turn on to a society greatly unaccustomed to seeing the flesh of women directly other than the hands and face. What constitutes a turn on sexually differs among men of different culture and exposure to viewing the female form. Men are much less stimulated by women in shorts and a tee-shirt now than the men of 140 years ago would be were they to behold what we do on a daily basis on a trip to the mall on a hot sunny summer day.

So, if it is wrong for a woman to entice a man with a mere showing of the ankles, I fairly wonder, is it not an evil to expose the breast of the Theotokos? Is it not to press her Holy Image into serving base appetites, and worse, to do so in the name of serving to edify the needs of the "religious spirit" of man?

Maria wrote:

jgress wrote:

I think it shows a worldly approach to religious painting (the model was supposed to be the mistress of King Charles XII, chosen simply because she was beautiful), and so indicates in some way the fall from grace of the Papal Church.

A Catholic traditionalist would agree that the modern sculptures are in bad taste, but he would feel uncomfortable attacking something from the 15th century, which would be an "age of piety" for him.

Those Catholic traditionalists who are part of the Eastern Catholic Church do indeed shutter when they view Renaissance Art that depicts Christ as man, but denies His Divinity.

Yes, that is because they still have the Orthodox spirit that permeates their religious art, and worship. They are properly acclimatised to what is good and right, and so they sense the horror of the aberrations of Western religious art errors.