Byzantine Iconoclasm

Iconoclasm involves a complex series of evolving debates set in train by a problematic piece of canonical legislation. Debates were narrowly focused upon the question of the icon’s truthfulness of visual representation and ultimately led to the period of breaking images. Charles Barber states in Figure and Likeness on the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm that it is wrong to treat iconoclasm or its adherents as a single entity. He argues that the iconoclastic dispute concerned the definition of the icon itself as an appropriate medium for theology. Thus, according to the Charles, the icon must defend itself by resolving its status as a work of art, a necessary artifact. The necessity of this status is done in evolving debates
The focus is now on the possibility of visual knowledge through the use of icons. The iconoclastic cases are examined in depth, instead of such a heavy emphasis on the iconophiles. He shows how they were able to build an alternate model for Christian representation out of existing traditions within Christian thought. The term figure and sign are used in looking at the accepted representation: the cross. The cross became the exclusive icon of the Christian faith and the use of it to represent the Godhead was widely accepted. Any other icon was against tradition and a dishonor to Christ. “The Lord does not tolerate that Christ be depicted as a form voiceless and bereft of breath in earthy matter, which is condemned by the scriptures” (pg. 92). This leads to the debate that while the figure of the cross is accepted, honored, and venerated, the icon of Christ is more deserving of honor and veneration because it is the figure of the sanctifying
The status of the work of art was questioned to that of theology. The iconophiles needed to successfully confront various issues in regard to the icon such as the question of its truthfulness in visual representation. This required Aristotelian concepts and the analysis of the term likeness. In the introduction, the author questioned if icons were truthful and in the conclusion two statements answered it. First, it’s truthful in relation to the person within its borders. Second, it’s truthful in terms of its own conditions as a medium that shows without representing (pg. 139). An icon is complete in itself yet partial in relation to the one represented therein. John of Damascus spoke of participation and commentated Basil the Great’s On the Holy Spirit by saying, “it is the same with material things which by themselves are not to be venerated, but if the one depicted is full of grace, they [the material things] become participants in grace in proportion to faith” (pg.121). Holiness is not present in icons by nature but can be thought of as being present because the holy persons participate in grace and honor. The icon is worthy by the person represented and it benefits viewers by providing a good and holy model to strive to be like. Overall, the author brought up the point that an icon