Museikon_1_2017

144 | Cristina Bogdan in dialogue with painter Constantin Cioc
Certain realities cannot be viewed frontally, due to the
fear of being consumed by their ardent power. The creator
cautiously hides his seeing in the spyglass of letters, at
whose’ bright shadow dares to pervade the scenery
of byzantine icons, as witness of the Road of the Cross.
Between Nativity and Resurrection, the steps that Christ
climbed towards Heaven (Meeting of the Lord by Prophet
Simeon, The Theophany, The Transfiguration) or the steps
He descended towards the abyss (Judas’ Kiss, The Descent
to Hell) are crossroads in the middle of which the artist
looks towards the consecrated model of the canons and
creates his own pattern, meant to embrace the biblical
event. There is no trace of iconoclasm in his creative
gesture, despite his semblance of dynamiting the entire
tradition of religious art. On the contrary, we are witnessing
an iconodule recovering of the holy sequences,
capable of receiving and generating a countless range of
interpretations.
Under the sign of identity (signature and seeding – referring
to the seed that dies to germinate under surface), Constantin
Cioc opens the window to a reality sentenced nowadays
not to destruction, but to a symbolic death of ignorance:
the byzantine image. Constantin Cioc’s art represents
his unique manner of meeting the world, of encountering
it and letting himself be encountered by it, while constantly
placing within his mirror of thought-imagery fragments
from the things’ wonderful nature of being, as times before
Petru Creția similarly did with the lights and shadows of
the soul.
interview
cristina bogdan (cb): When painting a canvas, does it feel
different than painting an icon? Is the experience different?
constantin cioc (cc): When I paint an icon, it feels different
than doing a painting, because the relation with the icon
implies much more or, better yet, something else than painting
a canvas. In case of the icon, my reference towards what I
wish to represent demands a different attitude. To an icon
I relate piously, I possess a particular respect towards the
icon, firstly for what it represents as image. An icon is
always more than just a painting – to me. And labouring
on the icon is interesting in itself, because the icon labours
me. Many times, I begin the icon by using all the knowledge
I have, and still things don’t work out, which means that
inside my being there needs to be a... (silence)... in the inner
part of my being there needs to be a... I don’t even know
how to call it... a certain balance to be able to complete
the icon. Painting an icon is like performing a prayer, like
saying a prayer. One needs this attitude to paint an icon.
There is a time of preparation for painting the icon, I’m
referring to the customary iconographer’s prayer; or one
may effectively pray with very personal words which come
from one’s own direct feelings towards the image to be
represented. Unlike the attitude towards the icon, the
painting requires a different kind of work, somehow at the
edge / border of iconography. That is how I work... When
I do a painting, I somehow imply the existence of the icon,
while at the same time I consider those who relate to the
icon, because when I execute a painting, I attempt to communicate
something from the sphere of faith. From the
sphere of faith.
cb: Do you feel constrained by the icon, by the fact that there
is an iconographic canon to be respected?
cc: Obviously, when I begin painting an icon I take into
account the iconographic canons. And I always pose
the problem of the icon’s own renewal. It is given than
when you begin to paint an icon, you can only paint it
in your own way. None of us, as artists, can longer paint
as Rublev did the Christ Pantocrator, which is one of the
unequalled iconic portraits of Byzantine painting. So,
obviously, when I begin to paint an icon, I paint it in my
own way and manner corresponding to my knowledge,
and once again, while keeping in mind the canonicity of
the iconic representations. On the other hand, the icon
may be renewed differently, somehow through an inside
understanding. For that, however, one needs to possess an
iconic thinking. An iconic thinking. It is appropriate to also
refer to the spoken icon of the Church, and of the Holy
Fathers, starting of course with the Scripture. The entire
Scripture is itself a spoken icon. For many (religious?)
words we do not own an iconic image, but when we think
of them, we somehow consider them as icons, as spiritual
representations of the Truth. In the Christian and the
Byzantine culture there are two fundamentals, as precious
as gems: the word and the image. The evolution of the
Christian Byzantine culture could be regarded as standing
under the sign of the Word made flesh and become icon,
following the model that Jesus Christ, Son of God himself
gave us through his coming to the under celestial world.
cb: Can we speak of a difference in craftsmanship when
making an icon and, respectively, a painting? Is there more
craftsmanship involved in the icon – since there are relatively
strict rules, or does it take just as much talent to paint
icons as well?
cc: Talent is obviously needed when painting the icon. I
once again refer to Rublev. Can anyone reach his dimension
anymore? His dimension of personal giftedness, his
talent. Due to every iconographer’s own gift, icons are
different, they may be better or less good. In what concerns
the handicraft, naturally things are being passed
on: icon painting techniques have perpetuated from generation
to generation and are being kept. Also, personal improvements
also occur according to one’s own manner of
painting. If we go over the history of Byzantine painting,
we notice different manners of illustrating the same image
of a saint in accord with the different schools attended by
different iconographers. In what concerns paintings, there
is no doubt that each man’s talent is connected to a
certain sense of objects’ representation. It is worth discussing
the manner in which the artist manages to express
technically what he feels about things. Some artists are
more refined, other subtler, others more direct, more
material - to put it so, when it comes to the colour paste.
Ultimately, the solutions are many and vary from painter
to painter; techniques are adapted, eventually depending
on the project and the pictorial vision. Personally, I try to
pay much attention to how I feel and, in this key, I try to
hear my feelings and to make my eye to connect to these
feelings. My pictorial vision needs to somehow position
itself in the succession of the feeling that leads me to paint
a certain something.
cb: Can the icon be painted on demand or is it necessary for
the artist to have a certain inner state and a certain relation
to what or whom he represents within the icon?
cc: The icon can be made on demand, of course. And, across
time, this is precisely what happened. Various iconographers
painted, on the Church’s demand, on wood or on