|
The
Savior of Zvenigorod originally
painted by Andrei Rublev in Russia
at the beginning of the 15th Century
The 5th
Grade Icon is based on The Savior of
Zvenigorod originally painted by
Andrei Rublev in Russia at the
beginning of the 15th Century. He
painted during an unusually
turbulent and violent time in
Russian history. Rublev’s best known
icon, The Trinity, might be Russia’s
most important work of art. In the
Eastern Orthodox tradition, Rublev’s
image still represents the doctrine
of the Trinity (in Eastern
Christianity, the image has equal
stature with the word). You can view
a reproduction of the Trinity icon
in Father George’s office.
Rublev’s Zvenigorod icon is a
miracle in and of itself. It
survived. Many of Rublev’s greatest
works were destroyed by invaders and
rival fiefdoms. Zvenigorod is a town
near Moscow; its name means: “town
where they ring bells.” Rublev
presumably painted the icon for the
Cathedral of the Assumption. In
1918, it was found under a barn
floor near the cathedral, which is
why it looks so damaged. Henri
Nouwen, in his meditation on the
icon, suggests the damage was
meaningful: “When I first saw the
icon, I had the distinct sense that
the face of Christ appears in the
midst of great chaos. A sad but
beautiful face looks at us through
the ruins of the world.”
Nouwen
continues: “To me, this holy face
expresses the depth of God’s immense
compassion in the midst of our
increasingly violent world. Through
centuries of destruction and war,
the face of the incarnate word has
spoken of God’s mercy, reminded us
of the image in which we were
created, and called us to
conversion. Indeed, it is the face
of the Peacemaker.”
It is
remarkable that Rublev’s icon is as
traditional as it is original. Icon
painters were not inventors or
artists as much as they were
copyists. The prototypes they copied
from changed ever so slowly over
centuries. In fact, there still are
painters in the Russian tradition
that paint from the same prototype.
In this way, the evolution of the
image comes from a spiritual
transformation rather than from
human inventiveness. The 5th Grade
Icon might be seen in this light.
The students were each given
five-inch squares to copy the image
as faithfully and as well as they
could. No person’s work could stand
on its own, but the final image is
dependent on each and every square.
The image they made is traditional
because they copied it from a
traditional prototype. It is also
original because the students used
non-traditional materials within a
process that was communal, rather
than that of a solitary individual.
I believe this process is relevant
because the image you behold when
you view the 5th Grade Icon is the
face of Christ interpreted and
internalized by our children. It
represents an unintentional
consensus. The icon is also a
congregational consensus insofar as
it represents the face of Christ,
the imago dei: an aspect of the
image of God that we have extended
to them. So this face represents us
as a community; so many of us have
shaped each of those who made it. I
find that pretty compelling in light
of Nouwen’s meditation.
Moreover, with a little imagination,
I can see the icon beholding and
blessing us as a congregation. The
icon sees us. Like Andrei Rublev,
who painted a prototype of Jesus,
the “image of the invisible God,”
hundreds of years old in the 15th
century, we are being seen and
beheld by the face of Christ,
staring back at us through history,
hundreds of years later, coming to
us through our children.
Greg Halvorsen Schreck
. |
