Elena Neigum is an established iconographer and educator who is focused on the analysis of contemporary threats to the Byzantine iconography, advocating for the reaffirmation of the icon as a sacred and theological act within the life of the Church. -- LAJ
Guest article by Elena Neigum
Byzantine iconography is not merely a decorative tradition—it is a form of visual theology, conveying doctrinal truth through sacred form. As Eastern Christian theologians Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky assert, the icon is “theology in color, a continuation of the Word in line and form.” This conception differentiates the icon from narrative religious painting: it does not aim to depict emotional or historical scenes, but rather it aims to reveal the transfigured and eschatological presence of Christ. In Byzantine theology, the icon functions as a liturgical witness, not a personal artistic invention. The abstract geometry, inverse perspective and stillness are not stylistic choices, they are rather theological statements about divine presence, sacred time, and the ontological truth of sanctity.
Theological and Canonical Foundations
These principles undergird the strict canons of Byzantine iconography which remain normative in traditional practice today.
Technique as Theology
The physical process of creating an icon is itself an act of ascetic theology. Traditional icons are painted with egg tempera on levkas (a gesso ground made from chalk and glue) that is applied to seasoned wooden panels. The process is slow and layered and each stage -- from the dark base (proplasmos) to the lighter highlights (zlat) -- is undertaken in an attitude of prayer and silence.
The pigments used in iconography are natural minerals and earths; gold leaf is not ornament but rather a symbol representing the uncreated light of God. The technique also teaches spiritual humility for the icon is not invented but rather something received; it is not a product of imagination but rather one of faithful transmission. As Pavel Florensky writes: “The icon is not painted but written in prayer.”
 |
| Icon by Elena Neigum |
Pedagogy: Transmitting the Canon
In my own iconography studio in Philadelphia, instruction is based on canonical tradition, theological grounding and prayerful formation. Students study ancient prototypes, practice traditional techniques, and learn the theological meaning embedded in every compositional decision. This pedagogical approach directly counters secular interpretations of iconography as a folk art or minimalism. A properly trained iconographer is not an innovator but rather a transmitter -- one who embodies the tradition and passes it forward intact.
 |
| Icon by Elena Neigum |
Unfortunately, Byzantine iconography today faces two major issues, the first being the matter of aesthetic hybridization. Specifically, Western naturalism and romanticism have entered into some Byzantine iconographic studios, the end result being the dilution of Byzantine theological content as well as its canonical form. The second is the challenge of commercialization. Mass-produced printed icons and kits have served to undermine the sacramental role of the icon as a liturgical act. These reproductions, while certainly devotional, often lack in both theological structure and canonical symbolism. To protect the integrity of iconography as visual theology then, I would advocate for the peer-reviewed oversight of iconography programs, the theological training of iconographers, advocacy to the clergy that they commission authentic, hand-written icons and, finally, the continued scholarly publication on the theology of sacred form.
Conclusion
We live in an age of visual excess and spiritual distraction and the Byzantine icon can offer a counter-image; an invitation to silence, contemplation, and eternal presence. It is a theology rendered, not in words, but rather in light, color, and sacred geometry. To uphold the Byzantine canon is not to reject creativity, but rather to redeem it through liturgical obedience. By preserving this sacred craft in its fullness, we not only resist aesthetic distortion, we re-anchor the life of the Church within the mystery of the Incarnation.
Bibliography:
Ouspensky, Leonid, and Lossky, Vladimir. The Meaning of Icons. SVS Press, 1982.
Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 CE), in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14.
John of Damascus. On the Divine Images. SVS Press, 1980.
Quenot, Michel. The Icon: Window on the Kingdom. SVS Press, 1991.
Florensky, Pavel. Iconostasis. SVS Press, 1996.
Evdokimov, Paul. The Art of the Icon: A Theology of Beauty. Oakwood Publications, 1990.
Yannaras, Christos. Orthodoxy and the West. Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006.
-------
Do you like Liturgical Arts Journal's original content? You can help support LAJ in its mission and vision to promote beauty in Catholic worship either by:
You choose the amount! Your support makes all the difference.
