Object Annotation 4

Both Barber and Pentcheva speak about the icon as a representation of absence. Barber characterizes the icon as the signifier of the absence of presence, and non-representational in this sense; however, this is where the power of the icon lies. As pure signifier, the icon “maintains absence and maintains desire” (15). The encounter with the holy remains unfulfilled, however, there is a “formal language with which the viewer can comply” (15). Similarly, Pentcheva describes the role of icon in Byzantine image theory as an “imprint” of Christ's visible characteristics on matter (631). The absence of the signified itself means that true fulfillment is always out of reach, and this tension is never resolved on the part of the viewer. This theory of the image can be interpreted to transfer the “action” of the icon from the image to the observer. In order words, in regards to the icon, the viewer does the heavy lifting, and not the depiction itself. Barber describes how the image itself is not intended to represent a physical identification of Christ, but rather invite a sense of active desire, something that is described by Pentcheva’s tactile theory of the eye. Instead of deriving its significance from capturing presence within the object, the icon derives its power by inviting and maintaining the sense of unfulfillment felt by the viewer. This sense of active participation, and the “touch” of the viewer’s eye, is further emphasized by the form of this particular piece, which employs many of the sensory techniques described by Pentcheva (described in another point).

In “From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship after Byzantine Iconoclasm,” Barber argues for the necessity to separate art and worship after iconoclasm, and to acknowledge the subsequent conception of the “Byzantine image as art object.” By removing the icon from its role solely as a liturgical object, we can see how the function of the object is then expanded to then be able to symbolically serve the cult of the emperor. By the reinstitution of orthodoxy, the cult of the Empress is given power by the image, which becomes a grounds for representing imperial power.

In “The Performative Icon,” Pentcheva describes how the sensory experience of the icon invites active, tactile engagement with the image in which the eye seems to reach out and “touch” the image. The Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, through its form, illustrates many of these principles. First, the materiality of the image, with its gold leaf and vibrant hues, invites active participation of the senses. This, in turn, produces the effect of “pikilia”---in which shifting movement, changing light, and other evolving sensory dimensions cause the viewer's experience to be altered with each encounter with the image. According to Pentcheva, this produces a sort of “synesthetic vision” which in turn enacts presence through the icon (644). The “Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy,” with its shimmering gold, lustrous surface, brilliantly detailed patterns, and finely rendered textures, produces a rich visual experience that heightens the sense of presence conveyed by the image. These lustrous effects not only evoke the ephemeral quality of the divine, but also invite the eye of the viewer to “reach out and touch.”

I was reminded of discussion about sacrilege/blasphemy while I was reading this argument. Could the separation of worship and art be interpreted as blasphemous, since the icon thus serves a political purpose rather than a solely liturgical one? This theme seems to have recurred throughout our class’ explorations—that holy images are not solely liturgical, but also serve a practical purpose as a stand-in for the Emperor/Empress. How does this align with/diverge from the use of Christianity to reinforce the power of the ruler in subsequent regimes (as in "endorsement" vs. acting as a stand-in for imperial power)? Is the Icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy really a testament to a definitive answer to the question of iconography? To what extent is this a product of top-down influence (Emperors/Empresses attempting to reinforce their own authority), and to what extent is it a natural product of the conceptions of image/icon that had been possessed by Byzantine worshippers?