>I also notice (correct me if I'm wrong) that the icons attributed to Luke all
>seem to have the Holy Family as their subject, as in van der Weyden's Saint
>Luke Painting the Virgin. This isn't consistent with the studio practice of
>an actual artist, who might be asked to paint other subjects, such as saints.
> Is there some medieval assumption here that the highest purpose of art is to
>paint Jesus and Mary, and therefore Luke, the Evangelist-artist, would not
>have been interested in other subjects? I could see this as part of the
>Christian impulse to distance the faith from Judaism, where the godhead was
>the thing one certainly did <not> portray in paintings.
Most of icons attributed to Luke are actually ideal portraits of the Virgin
and Child, but other schemes are also witnessed by images and texts. The
first Roman icons by the Evangelist were in fact Our Lady of San Sisto, an
image of the Virgin 'advocata', i. e. alone, stretching up Her arms in an
intercessory pose, and the Lateran Christ, i.e. a 'Pantokrator' image. One
may quote also later examples displaying similar features. Images of saints
are also witnessed: in the coptic church of St. March in Alexandria (Egypt)
an icon portraying the archangel Michael was venerated as a miraculous work
by the Evangelist in the 17th century.
Michele Bacci
Scuola Normale Superiore
Pisa (Italy)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|