Just a thought from an art-historical angle ...
It would indeed be interesting to know what sources were claimed as
evidence for St Luke as a painter. However, I personally do not
think that one should speculate too much about whether he actually
did paint or not. It is rather the belief that he actually saw
Christ and the Virgin that would make his presumed portraits of them
'authentic', and therefore also other paintings of the Holy Family
based on portraits attributed to St Luke, etc. 'Authentic' portraits
would thus be all the more miraculous. If, therefore, St Luke stands
for authenticity, it would make portraits of (even later) saints
attributed to him also more authentic and miraculous to a medieval
audience, even if it defies modern belief.
One can see the same phenomenon with Veronica's cloth: 'vera icon'
actually means the 'true image' and this was as important in
Byzantine art as it was in, for example, Netherlandish art where
artists like Dieric Bouts would paint small portrait panels of
Christ's face as a 'vera icon' to aid private devotion.
Sophie Oosterwijk
History of Art
University of Leicester
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|