Byzantine Icons vs. Western Religious Art

[Lydia]

Fouquet's painting is deeply disturbing for many reasons. It is hard to believe it was painted in the 15th century.
Many years ago Father Panteleimon gave a talk wherein he stated that HTM had an icon of The Theotokos breastfeeding. He said that the icon was not in the open lest it be a temptation to the monks.I never gave it much thought and I have never seen it, but I can't believe it is as scandalous as those western paintings.

[Maria]

Fouquet's painting is deeply disturbing for many reasons. It is hard to believe it was painted in the 15th century.
Many years ago Father Panteleimon gave a talk wherein he stated that HTM had an icon of The Theotokos breastfeeding. He said that the icon was not in the open lest it be a temptation to the monks.I never gave it much thought and I have never seen it, but I can't believe it is as scandalous as those western paintings.

A while back when I saw some TV news clips from around the world discussing Madonna's controversial concerts, I thought I saw her dressed in underwear similar to Fouquet's painting. At any rate, the people who make Madonna's costumes might have been influenced by Fouquet.

By the way, was Fouquet a devout Catholic?

Some differences between Byzantine Icons and Western Religious Art:

• Byzantine Iconographers fast and pray while writing their Icons.
  It is considered to be a calling from the Lord, a vocation.

  Catholic Artists do not have to fast and pray while painting their religious or not-so religious art.
  Artists consider this a career, a livelihood.

[jgress]

We can all agree Fouquet's painting is not a product of traditional iconography. So on those grounds it does not serve the spiritual purpose of the icon. Beyond that I shouldn't speculate. Do any of us actually know what traditionalist Catholics think of this painting?

There may be good reason to think even a traditionalist would blush at this:

http://www.artbible.info/art/large/601.html

The prominent Dutch historian Johan Huizinga wrote about this panel in his Waning of the Middle Ages. He considered it a fine example of decadence in the late Middle Ages, when religious feelings came close to erotic ones. A few quotes:

"No instance of this dangerous association of religious with amatory sentiments could be more striking than the Madonna ascribed to Foucquet, [..]"

"The bizarre inscrutable expression of the Madonna's face, the red and blue cherubim surrounding her, all contribute to give this painting an air of decadent impiety in spite of the stalwart figure of the donor."

"There is a flavour of blasphemous boldness about the whole, unsurpassed by any artist of the Renaissance."

[Maria]

Fouquet's naturalistic rendering of Mary and the Christ Child is similar to that of his peers.

In Iconographer Paul Azkoul's essay, Mr. Azhoul writes:

• These secular works of such men as the German artist, Mathias Grunewald [1475-1528], depicted images of Jesus Christ, and the Theotokos, in such a naturalistic manner that they suffer having no spirituality whatsoever, [I use "spiritual" in the Orthodox sense of the word], no sanctity, and no grace.

  There [sic] bodies are not transfigured as they are in Orthodox iconography, but they are simply painted in purely human and aesthetically pleasing form, often to the point of revulsion, [figure 1], by Grunewald, for example, while, as Kontoglou says,

  "Liturgical art, on the other hand, has a spiritual, symbolic and supernatural character."

Reference: http://www.traditionaliconography.com/
Look on the left of this site and click: On the Differences of Western Religious Art and Orthodox Iconography

[Matthew]

Father Michel Azkhoul does very nice work and the article on art was execellent.

[Maria]

Father Michel Azkhoul does very nice work and the article on art was execellent.

Father Michel Azkoul is Paul's dad.

[Matthew]

Oh, Im confused. I did not think there were two Azkhouls. So Fr Michael is not an Iconographer, Paul is?