Talk:Aniconism

Byzantine iconoclasm

Why don't we have anything on the iconoclastic movement in Byzantine religious life? That was arguably a more significant aniconic movement than the Protestant Reformation (in terms of how significant its aniconism was, not in terms of the total impact of the movement, obviously). I don't really know enough about the subject to write this myself, but if need be I bet I could synthesize something from other Wikipedia articles. I'm hoping that with the influx of traffic from the Muhammed Cartoons thing, someone better suited to the task will fix this omission for me, though. Zabieru 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can find more information about that at Iconoclasm. Possibly the articles could be merged. Schizombie 02:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that article. I don't think a merge is appropriate in this case, as per my vote below. I'd like to see a 'Byzantine Iconoclasm (main article at)' section... In fact, I'll go work on that right now. If the vote comes out in favor of a merge, it shouldn't be too much work to pull. Zabieru 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no merger. Iconoclasm includes destroying other people's images. That's what the Taliban did to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Aniconism is a regulation imposed by a religion on its followers (or its god(s)) but not necessarily imposed on others. Granted, some groups have done both (such as early biblical Hebrews destroying Canaanite statues or Christian missionaries destroying Native American Indian items) but I think the distinction shoud be retained. Rooster613 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Section's in. If anyone can improve it, I'd love to see that. My sentence structure is a bit turgid, I'll be the first to admit. Also, while I'm opposed to a total merge, I think we should merge the section here on the Reformation, which contains some information not in the one on the Iconoclasm page, with the section on the Reformation at Iconoclasm, and re-do the section here in line with what I just did for Byzantine iconoclasm. I'm reluctant to do any more cross-editing between the two pages while the merge vote is still going on, though. Comments? Zabieru 07:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of our era

"until the begining of our era" - ? When's that then? Whose era? Anyone know, please? 81.151.28.249 20:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's "era" is different (it's 5766 on the Jewish calendar). Relevant to this, I think discussions of #5 ToDo above (changes over time) should be within each religion/culture's section rather than an overview, since it is different for each group, both in terms of dates and historical/religio/cultural contexts. I added a paragraph to the Judaism section on this. The Islam part has a similar section. Should there be one for Christianity also? I'm not an expert of this, but I wonder: Is the fact that Eastern Orthodox Christainity accepted 2-dimensional icons but not statues based on any kind of carryover from Jewish laws about types of prohibited images? (Flat permitted, sculptures not). Anybody know? Rooster613 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Second Commandment

I think I can answer number 5, the second commandment reads "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments." In the NIV, the contemporary english version, and a few others. Some other versions say graven image, like the KJV. But if you look at the Wikipedia definition of "graven", it says graven is literally anything created by man in the image of something. Words are created by man to be in the image of letters that we can understand. Therefore, if it meant that you can't make images of anything at all, then it would seem to me that handwriting would be illegal, and since God himself was telling Moses what to write down for the Torah, you can see how there would be a problem. Most likely, what the KJV and a couple other writers meant was that you shouldn't make special objects in the image of something or things that you worship to, and I get the feeling that the literal definition of that Hebrew meaning isn't exactly meaning the image of anything. The English standard version also renders it as a "carved image", so that might be representing how the definition of that hebrew might not mean exactly "graven". To get this information I used Biblegateway.com, you can look them up yourself if you like, just look for Exodus 20 in the search thing. As for why not making any images probably died out, it's probably because back then it was hard to make things like paintings in the first place, and back then, nobody really needed to see nice renditions of Christ or things to get a better idea of the Lord's sacrifice for us all, but then again, that's just my opinion :/.Homestarmy 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) There's probably some apologetist sites out there who have probably examined this in more detail though.[reply]

The Hebrew root פסל unambiguously means "to carve" or some variant thereof. The NIV translates it as "to chisel" in Exodus 34:1, 4 and Deuteronomy 10:1, 3; I can't find any other uses of the root as a verb in the Hebrew Bible, but all translations that I know of are in agreement on the meaning of the root. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well then, there you have it, it certainly doesn't mean simply to make, you don't have to carve something to make an image, and one would hope then you wouldn't start praying to it or something. Homestarmy 13:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how helpful it is to actually ask an Orthodox Jew. <g> In Jewish law, it applies to sculpture, and to specific sculptures carved in specific positions which are common to idols. It does not apply to secular art, photography, etc. I shall add a summary of this info from the Code of Jewish Law. Rooster613 14:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Rooster613 here again...I made a few changes, saved them, and then when I came back with a lot more info and sources, the page would not let me save my new edits. ??? Has it been frozen temporarily? I have the additional info on my hard drive if and when I can put it up there... Rooster613 15:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613.[reply]

Footnoting in Judaism section

The footnote numbering in the Judaism section is messed up due to new notes being added, resulting in duplicate numbers. In several cases I changed it to using parentheses for this reason. In one case incorrect coding blanked out the quote being quoted -- I fixed that. But I suggest putting refs. in parentheses instead of note links until the edits on this page die down somewhat and we reach some sort of consensus on the text. Then somebody can go through and number the notes consecutively. For Bible refs. and Shulchan Arukh, I think it is easier for people to follow if you just put chapter and verse in parentheses. Opinions? Rooster613 18:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

I thought the <ref> tags auto-numbered? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of material

There are other similar or overlapping articles, Iconoclasm for example, and also Islamic art, Jewish art, Christian art etc. Aniconism as defined by the article "is the conviction that artists should not depict human beings" Thus, describing how certain religions find ways to depict human beings is not relevant, as far as I can tell; AFAIK that would be better suited for one of the art articles. Also not relevant IMO is how people of certain faiths describe human beings. It may be interesting, but it would seem to belong elsewhere. A lot of what Abjad wrote in the Islam section is interesting (although the grammar needs work), but not terribly on topic. Schizombie 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section "Figurative expressions": The article on aniconism is probably richer if discussing both the discourse interpreting religions and the real acts of those living in those religions. Else it would be looking at just one side of the coin. However there is an unbalance between the volume of the first and second section in the "Islam" part. The first section is still too weak. Abjad 01:12 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Is it undue weight if sections for some religions in this article become much larger than sections for other religions in this article? I'm not sure that's the right interpretation of how undue weight is supposed to be avoided. However, if one section does become much more sizeable, should a separate article be created for it, e.g. Aniconism in Islam? Schizombie 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no warning at the top about being over 20 Kb in size or something, so I dunno if there's even enough information yet to split anything :/. Homestarmy 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism section will grow larger when I add the material that, for some reason, the system would not let me save today. (Yes, I was logged in.) I imagine other sections will also grow as people visit the page. I came here off the Muhammed cartoons page and I think others might also. The religions are in alphabetical order and i think that says we are not favoring ome over the other. But let's face it -- some do have more rules than others. Rooster613 15:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

proposed merge with iconoclasm

It has been proposed that this article be merged with iconoclasm. I disagree because the two articles are similar yet distinct. As I see it, Aniconism would be the philosophical opposition to icons, while Iconoclasm would be the active opposition to icons; it literally means "icon smashing" or something similar. Perhaps some material from each can be moved to the other with this in mind, thus avoiding some duplication, but the articles themselves should remain distinct. Wesley 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree because iconoclasm is a specific term used to describe some aniconists. We definitely need a section here about the Byzantine iconoclastic movements, I would suggest a short paragraph with a link. However, even if we interpret 'iconoclast' to refer to anyone who destroys a religious image rather than only within the Byzantine context, it still doesn't cover all aniconists. The Baha'i, for instance, don't seem interested in destroying icons, only in restricting the context in which they are viewed. Zabieru 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved Baha'i discussion here to separate section below)

I had proposed the merger based on the large overlap, though I also can see how they can be distinct. Not all aniconists (if there is such a word) are iconoclasts, and not all iconoclasts are necessarily aniconists. But I don't know if they are so distinct as to require separate articles. If the articles remain separate, I think more work needs to be done differentiating them? Schizombie 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we could do a better job of differentiating the two, starting with the differences being discussed here. Wesley 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote no -- they are two distinct things. Jews were iconoclasts in the far distant past (destroying biblical idols, etc.) but nowadays we are aniconists. We refrain from making certain types of images ourselves, but we do not, as a rule, go around smashing other people's icons. Rooster613 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Disagree Although the topics are related, prohibiting the creation of icons is clearly different from the intentional destruction of icons. --Theodore Kloba 17:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree They are seperate distinct topics. Iconoclasm is more burning and pillaging. There is only a cause and effect relationship in some situations.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it looks like we all agree not to merge them, I'm removing the merge proposal tags from the page. Wesley 17:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i section

Since you mentioned it, the Baha'i section could use some further clarification I think. From what is written they don't seem to have a belief in aniconism - restricting who can see certain depictions of specific human beings is not prohibiting depictions of human beings. Schizombie 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they do have a prohibition against depicting the Bab and Bah'u'llah (in addition to restricting who sees the actual portraits) but I'm not a Baha'i so somerbody else should verify this. Rooster613 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Rooster613 here again -- I did a quick Google for more info on the Baha'ullah pic and guess what? I was led right back to the Baha'u'llah page on Wikipedia where there is a photo of him. Interestingly, it is at the very bottom of the page, and there is a statement to that effect at the top of the page. The reason for this statement appears to be to warn Baha'is that the pic is there. (Suggestive of the current debate about the placement of Muhammad cartoons?) Now I'm not even sure it this qualifies as aniconism, because, according to the Wiki article, Baha'is do not find the photo offensive and they do view the photo, but only on very special occasions such as on a pilgrimage. So it is more like an icon than a forbidden image. See the Baha'u'llah article for more on this. So should the Baha'i section even be here at all? Or should it be on the icon page? Rooster613 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

Rooster613, it's not exactly Aniconism, but is kind of related. For example, Baha'is can view the image, but only with respect (and putting the image up is not considered respectful). I've updated the section that deals more with it. However, Baha'is are asked not to draw or act as any of the Manifestations of God which include the Bab, and Baha'u'llah as well as Jesus, Muhammad, Moses and others since it would be lowering the station of those propehets; I would classify this as Aniconism, if I understand the term correctly. Thanks for looking into this, and trying to understand it. --Jeff3000 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded definition

The previous definition was found too restrictive, concerning only artists as image producers and human beings as the only subject of aniconism: Aniconism is the conviction that artists should not depict human beings. This conviction can be found in several religions and cultures. / Abjad 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention rather than expansion

I've switched the request for expansion to a request for attention as the article is already nearly 32kb. Hope that's okay. David Kernow 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Wikipedia problem: After the changes of Abjad we now have a request for clean-up, which is pretty far from the initial intention: the need to expand some sections as detailed above in Todo. Unless we find something better, 'expandarticle' seems a good compromise. When in the future the other sections will grow bigger we could split the article. For now, waiting for suggestions, I rolled back. / Abjad 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; I've just tweaked the {{expand}} redirect so the article rather than talk-page boilerplate is shown. I think this article could become very good, but rather than expanding it I would restrict Aniconism to a general introduction to the topic with links to (say) "Aniconism (X)" articles, where X is each faith. I would create these new articles now and add the {{expand}} boilerplates there. Best wishes, David Kernow 11:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! / Abjad 12:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]