Byzantine Iconoclasm and Islamic Aniconism: A Comparison
The paper will discuss the conceptual and cultural difference between Byzantine iconoclasm and Islamic aniconism.
During the image controversy of the eighth and ninth centuries, known as eikonomachia among the Byzantines, iconoclasts and iconodules employed diverse theories of imagery to challenge or confirm the acceptability of figurative art within the sacred sphere. This RT seeks to explore and assess the scholarly advancements made in recent decades regarding these theories. It will delve into the iconoclastic controversy, examining it from historical-political, historical-religious, historical-artistic, theological, and philosophical perspectives. Two crucial initial discussions are essential: firstly, an exploration of the distinctions and commonalities between Byzantine iconoclasm and Islamic aniconism, which gained renewed attention due to the rise of jihadist fundamentalism in the Near East in the initial two decades of this century. Secondly, an examination of the theological re-use of classical philosophical foundations such as Aristotelian logic, Platonic suspicion towards images, and the Plotinian theory of artistic representation, by both iconoclasts and iconodules. In an effort to provide a comprehensive understanding of the diverse scholarly perspectives over time, the central question guiding this reflection is: what new possibilities of “the image” emerged in Byzantium following this intricate and prolonged controversy? As a matter of fact, the Triumph of Orthodoxy did not actually mark the defeat of iconoclasm; instead, it ushered in the incorporation of iconoclastic arguments into the theology of the icon. This, in turn, paved the way for the philosophical exploration of the image by Russian theologians in the early twentieth century, emerging from the Byzantine past after a prolonged period of dormancy. This influence went on to inspire the avant-gardes of the twentieth century, where the development of abstract art was shaped by a deliberate affirmation of the icon’s legacy.
The paper will discuss the conceptual and cultural difference between Byzantine iconoclasm and Islamic aniconism.
John the Grammarian, the last iconoclast patriarch of Constantinople (837–843), exerted a considerable influence over the so-called “second phase of iconoclasm” (from 815 to 843). Above all, he transformed the terms of the debate on images by challenging the nature and limitations of pictorial representation of a given person and by questioning the very concept…
Between 817 and 819, Pope Paschal I wrote a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Leo V the Armenian on the cult of sacred images. Responding to the pleas of the Eastern iconodule party – and in particular of Theodore the Studite – the pope rejected the basileus’ iconoclastic policy. Although Rome was no longer part…
Iconoclasm constitutes a theoretical nexus of extraordinary significance within aesthetic and philosophical thought. It is not confined to a historical or religious episode, but rather emerges as a structural tension between visibility and transcendence, between the representative power of the image and the ontological interdiction of figuration. The theory of images interprets iconoclasm as an…