31.10.07

Archangels Michael by Dan Nichols




Daniel asked me to post these for him since he wasn't sure if he could from his computer. Daniel, I look to you to explain these images in the comments boxes, and I'm sorry it took me so long to post them: Tuesday and Wednesday are my "insane" days.

9 comments:

Daniel Nichols said...

Thanks Regina. I actually only wanted the one on the left posted. The other was very early, in my first year of writing icons, and my technique has evolved.
I post this image to illustrate the translucence possible acrylics. Note that this image is a scan of a color copy, twice removed from the original icon. A lot is lost with each step, but I think you can see what I mean.

Love2Learn Mom said...

Beautiful! I'm glad to get a look at both. Seeing the evolution of technique is interesting and encouraging.

Love2Learn Mom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theodore said...

Lovely Daniel.
As I mentioned I took a workshop 6 years ago and soon after did my best to start a second icon. The first was of St. Michael this one is Archangel Gabriel. It didn't go so well...

Happily I now have a local teacher and am back at it. here is a progress shot of Archangel Gabriel. You can see I'm in the "first highlights stage" a layer of trasparent color will go over this when I'm done and knock it back almost to where I was before I started the highights.

ben hatke said...

Ah. Both are beautiful and your progression is evident. So I'm glad to have seen both images. Thanks for having Regina post these, Daniel.

I like the image Ted linked to because it shows the icon as a real 3 dimensional object. I think it helps to view these in that light. The screen is already a step removed (at least) from the genuine article.

Ben Hatke said...

I do have one question, since icons are the current hot topic. What is the reasoning behind saying that one "writes" an icon? I've always wondered about that but never asked.

And it had better be good.

Jef Murray said...

Ben,

I've heard two theories. One states that it's a reflection of the fact that the icon is more a "word" than an image...and that one is not supposed to impose oneself into the process, but to reproduce that image faithfully. Thus, "writing down" the image rather than "dreaming it up."

The other, of which I've been assured by an iconographer I know who also knows the original Greek, is that the Greek word used for the creation of an icon was somewhat ambiguous and was mistranslated as "write" rather than "paint". And, that mistranslation seems to have "stuck". I am not sure which of these is more accurate, but I've heard both.

Lawrence Klimecki said...

One way to think of it is that a proper icon is analogous to scripture. So you could think of an iconographer as analogous to the monk copying scripture in a scriptorium. Icons are considered to be a visual representation of the word.
Of course then there is the byzantine catholic iconographer I know who thinks the distinction is somewhat silly, he says of course he "paints" icons.
I am reminded of an explanation as to why we add water to wine during mass. Originally the wine could not be drunk unless it was diluted with water, after that was no longer necessary a theological reason developed as to why we mingle water with wine. So it could also be simply that "icon writer" is a more literal translation and the theological reason came afterwards.
Daniel?........

Daniel Nichols said...

I don't get all pointy-headed and insist that I "write" icons (sniff). After all, you are "writing" with paint. Either term will do.
I have heard the same thing that Jef did; that the word is ambivalent, or has the same root.
Sort of like "calligraphy" and "photography", but it would be odd to insist that one "writes" his photos.