Russian icons

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Russian icons carry a word inside them that English cannot quite hold. In Russian, the verb pisat means both to paint and to write, and so when an icon is created, it is not painted but written. That single linguistic fact opens a window onto the entire tradition. Icons are considered the Gospel in paint, and the maker who created them was expected to be, as the tradition held, merely a humble servant of God rather than an artist seeking personal recognition.

  This art form took root when Kievan Rus adopted Eastern Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire in AD 988. From that moment, a visual language imported from Constantinople began to transform on Russian soil. The questions that follow are worth holding: how did something originally fixed and canonic become so varied? What happened when a 17th-century church reformer named Patriarch Nikon cracked the tradition in two? And what becomes of a sacred art when the state that once protected it tries to erase it?

• 2. Byzantine Roots and Russian Soil

  ›

  Kievan Rus received its icons from a civilization that had already refined the form across centuries. Byzantine artistic standards governed proportion, color, and symbol, and early Russian icon painters followed those conventions closely. The result was an art tied not to individual expression but to spiritual fidelity.

  Over time, local styles and elements worked their way into the tradition, expanding what could be said and shown. The preeminent figure in this early Russian evolution was Andrei Rublev, who lived from roughly 1360 into the early 15th century. His most famous work, The Old Testament Trinity, became the measure against which later icon painting was judged. In 1988, the Moscow Patriarchate formally glorified Rublev, recognizing him as a saint. That the church waited six centuries to do so says something about how slowly the tradition acknowledges its own masters.

  Because Orthodoxy required icons to follow established standards and to function essentially as copies, individual painters rarely earned the kind of recognition that Western artists did. Names of even the finest icon painters are seldom known outside circles of Orthodox faithful or art historians. An icon was not signed because the painter did not intend it as a personal statement. Later icons were often collaborative, the work of many hands. Where a name and date do appear on a later piece, it stands as a curiosity rather than a standard practice.

• 3. The Nikon Schism

  ›

  In the mid-17th century, Patriarch Nikon restructured liturgy and practice within the Russian Orthodox Church, and those changes split the institution apart. The traditionalists who refused to follow the new rites became known as Old Believers, or Old Ritualists, and they were persecuted for their resistance. Their relationship to icon painting became one of the defining lines between the two camps.

  The Old Believers maintained the older, stylized, deliberately non-realistic mode of painting that had governed the art since its Byzantine origins. The State Church moved in a different direction, absorbing influences from the religious paintings and engravings circulating through Protestant and Catholic Europe. What emerged in the official church's workshops was a mixture of Russian stylization and Western realism, and in some cases a manner that looked very much like Catholic devotional painting of the period. These divergent styles coexisted within Russian Orthodox churches and, in some instances, found their way into various Catholic communities as well.

  The personal and innovative tradition that had long characterized Western religious art had largely been absent from Russia before the 17th century. Its arrival via European influence did not simply add something new; it fractured an existing consensus about what an icon was supposed to be.

• 4. Veneration, Miracle, and Mary

  ›

  Some of the most venerated icons in Russian Orthodoxy carry the names of the towns associated with them: the Vladimir, the Smolensk, the Kazan, and the Częstochowa images are all depictions of the Virgin Mary, and all are described as miraculous. In Orthodox tradition, a true icon is said to have "appeared," meaning its supposedly miraculous discovery is itself part of its identity and power.

  No figure generated more variety in Russian icon painting than Mary, referred to by Orthodox Christians as the Theotokos, meaning Birth-Giver of God. There are more varieties of Marian icons than of any other figure, and the tradition held that icons of Mary were always deemed miraculous while those of her son rarely were. The majority of these images show Mary holding the child Jesus; others depict her alone or portray scenes from her life before the birth, including the Annunciation and her own birth. Named examples within this tradition include the Kaluga, the Fiery-Faced, the Gerondissa, the Bogoliubovo, the Vilna, the Melter of Hard Hearts, and the Seven Swords.

  Icons worked their way into domestic life as well as church practice. Russian homes commonly displayed icons in the krasny ugol, a corner described in Russian as both red and beautiful. Pairs of icons depicting Jesus and Mary were traditional wedding gifts for newly married couples. Commissioned icons for private use often incorporated figures of the saints after whom family members were named, arranged around the icon's central image.

• 5. Materials, Metal, and the Maker's Hand

  ›

  Egg tempera on specially prepared wooden panels is the foundational technique of Russian icon painting. Some painters glued cloth onto wooden panels before applying paint. Gold leaf appears frequently for halos and backgrounds, though silver leaf tinted with shellac to suggest gold was also used, and some icons carry no gilding at all.

  Many icons were covered with metal exteriors called rizas or oklads, fabricated from tin, bronze, or silver and often worked with enamel, filigree, or stones. These covers were sometimes set with artificial stones, semiprecious gems, or pearls. The riza concept acknowledges that the icon was not merely a painting to be viewed but an object to be dressed, literally robed in the same way the word riza implies.

  A technical marker that helps date panels involves what are called back slats: cross members dovetailed into the back of the wood to prevent warping. Panels using this method are generally older than the period around 1880-1890, when advances in materials made the technique unnecessary. After that date, a back-slat panel typically signals either an attempt at deception or a deliberate homage to traditional construction methods. Large newer icons may still use back slats for the same structural reasons that made them necessary before 1900.

• 6. Soviet Era and Survival

  ›

  Agents of the Soviet government destroyed many Russian icons and sold others abroad. Some icons were hidden by their owners to protect them from destruction; others were smuggled out of the country. The tradition did not vanish entirely, but its public practice contracted sharply.

  In Palekh, Mstyora, and Kholuy, former village icon painters found a way to keep their skills alive by redirecting them. They transferred their techniques to lacquerware, decorating boxes and objects with ornate scenes drawn from Russian fairy tales and other non-religious subjects. By the mid-1920s, this adaptation had given rise to a recognized art form: Russian lacquer art on papier-mache. The most distinctive strand within it became the Palekh miniature, known for intricate imagery on a black lacquer background.

  Since the fall of communism, icon painting studios have reopened and produce work for both local and international buyers. Icons that were hidden during the Soviet decades have been retrieved. The return of specific pieces has occasionally taken diplomatic form: Pope John Paul II gave an 18th-century copy of the famous Our Lady of Kazan icon back to the Russian Orthodox Church, a gesture of repatriation conducted in good faith.

• 7. Forgery and the Market

  ›

  Since the 1990s, a class of objects described as semi-forgeries has circulated through the icon market. Master-level painters, highly skilled in both making and aging, have produced late 19th- and early 20th-century icons that were then presented to buyers as significantly older. The craft involved in aging these pieces can be extraordinary; the deception negates their value as icons beyond their decorative qualities, regardless of the skill behind them.

  A second and more complex problem involves the recomposing of legitimately old panels. A folk art icon from the 17th century, for example, might be repainted by a contemporary master and then artificially aged to match its panel, making the result appear to be a masterwork of its period. With the rising market value of authentic icons in recent decades, this practice has extended to lower-quality 19th-century pieces as well, which are repainted and aged to fetch higher prices.

  The forgery problem overlaps with an export restriction that is specific and enforceable. Russian law prohibits the export of any icon more than one hundred years old without a certificate from the Ministry of Culture attesting to the icon's age. Despite the clarity of this law, icons over that age threshold regularly reach international markets through smuggling into neighboring Baltic countries, or through corrupt officials who certify otherwise unexportable pieces as just within the legal limit. The late 19th and early 20th centuries also saw significant forgery of icons painted in the Pre-Nikonian style, and some of those fakes still appear on the market today.