Richard Powers Iconoclasm

We are also shown how these different forms of art change over time and how different cultures have adopted them and used them as their own form of art to express emotion, love, creativity, and passion. This book teaches us how art is viewed in different ways by the church and was very informative for me to obtain a better and deeper understanding of art and how the churches valued it.

The ideas, beliefs and values we hold so strong to ourselves dictate the way we see art, literature and the world. The way we see history and

George Orwell famously declared »all art is propaganda.« Great works of art, in other words, have a very particular message for an intended audience. This function of art transcends historical periods, as is evident if one takes a closer look at the art of specific eras, such as Ancient Egyptian art. Ancient Egyptian art possessed a very specific propaganda function: to promote the divine origins and authority of the Pharaoh and thus a hierarchical social system.

Throughout history The Church and a number of Christians including myself have found themselves defending their use of icons against the views of individuals who felt that the icons were a form of idolatry. These individuals also know as Iconoclasts have a staunch position against the use of icons. Their position is based on interpretation of the Old Testament law stated in Exodus 20:4 “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea”. Is this truly contrary to the Old Testament law or is it simply preserving through time the incarnation of Christ, the Gospels and the history of the Christian church? I will give you a brief history, and then offer my personal opinion to the subject.

At the council, 338 members met to rule on the use of images to depict religious figures and ideas. This assembly, including Emperor Constantine and Leo, rules that “the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation—namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods” (Iconoclastic Council, 1). The Iconoclastic Council bans the use of images and pictures to depict religious ideologies and figures because they feared that worshippers honored the image over the actual person, place, or thing represented. To support their argument, the council recalls the Holy Book in which God states, “Thou shall not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath…They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,…and served the creature more than the Creator” (2). Unlike John, this council uses stronger textual evidence from the Holy Book in order to validate their argument against icons. Furthermore, they argued that “folly” painter constructed the icons to undermine the icons. Council members aimed to demonstrate the icons as evil creations because religious affiliates did not construct them. Nevertheless, the council banned all images, relics, and other representations of

Piece displayed at museums, sold on streets, etc. are art. Society controls what is art. Offensive, destructive, or vandalized pieces are often not referred to as art. Art is often associated with an object that was created by a person. Pieces can be displayed in many places to convey a message. Pieces displayed in museums are seen as good, famous, and valuable. These pieces are displayed because they often do not create conflict between people.

The iconoclast controversy, initiated by Leo III and solidified by decree by Emperor Constantine V and his allies through the Council of Hiereia, was a violent and theologically divisive struggle which transcended dispute over the material with a Christological partition. The controversy between iconoclast and iconophile lasted for some time, and was a matter that consisted both of physical violence and persecution of the iconophiles and physical destruction of icons, the immediate and primary source of the issue. The veneration of icons, to the iconoclasts, signified worshipping an idol; therefore, the idolatry of venerating icons was a violation of past ecumenical dogma, a violation of Biblical decrees, and a denial of the hypostatic union of Jesus, as a material object

When you go to an art show do you understand the symbolic interpretation of the pieces? Don’t feel bad, most people don’t. What’s so upsetting about that is that you really miss out on the experience. When I think about interpretation of art I think of Andy Warhol. Andy Warhol’s use of iconography changed not only the art world but the people who came into contact with his art. Once you understand his life and art, you will understand his art as a symbolic representation.

Throughout history, the issue of appropriation in art has become a heated debate on whether it is good or whether it is bad. Appropriation is fundamentally the act of taking something from somewhere else and placing it into a new context. In art, appropriation is seen as using (or taking) someone else's artwork, manipulating it and ultimately changing the whole meaning behind the work. It is seen as a significant issue as many people (including art critics, art historians and art enthusiasts) see appropriation as whilst, others see it as being inappropriate and immoral, and see the growth in appropriation as being a destroyer of art. It is of the opinion that art indeed "feeds off itself" and every artwork, art movement, and art period is

I agree with James Baldwin’s idea because if a person painted, scripture, calligraphy and any artwork, then the art work can be creative by reflecting the society but it does not belong to you.

Sontag says that throughout history, things focused on in art and history tend to be the "product of wrath, divine or human." There is much art showing the

Who is to say a work of art is good or bad? But the underlying issue is whether or not the government funding should be restricted. One of the most thought-provoking concepts and quite possibly the answer to the problem is the idea supported by Douglas's statement: "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions" (14).

Throughout the vast history of art, historians can find connections throughout the centuries. Artists from the beginning of humankind have been inspired by the world around them. From the Apollo 11 stones to present day, history and culture have provided inspiration and have been the focus of various pieces. Examining artwork from the 15th-18th century, viewers can be shown a whole world that would be unknown to us without these artist’s contributions. History, religion, and cultural events have sculpted the art world, and we can observe this through many pieces during the 15th-18th centuries.

The history of art dates back to ancient times. Artwork can be, and was, found around the world. What makes art interesting is that it can be created in any way, shape or form with any materials. It seems that the artwork can also tell us a lot about the artist. Art seems to be simply, a direct, visual reflection of the artist’s life. Therefore, one can assume that an artist’s life experiences and beliefs directly influence their art. If we look at examples from different periods of art we will be able to see the connection between the artist and the art.

For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and