The history of Christianity is ridden by controversies related to the use of religious images. Indeed, the concept of invisible God undermines the very possibility of representation. Why, then, religious imagery keeps resurfacing with such tenacity? What are they: these mysterious "faces of God"? And what is their role in our contemporary secularized world? These are the questions addressed by the course.

Just as visual imagery and other art forms accompanied Christianity from the very beginning, so did the basic tension between artistic and strict doctrinal attitudes. It is useful to start with examining the two basic questions: why visual and other art forms resurface in any religious tradition and what are the main objections against art in religion?

The issue of representation that is most basic to art is problematized in the Christian tradition from the very beginning. The prohibition of representations in the Hebrew scriptures created a long tradition of iconoclasm in the East. It is necessary to start with the issue of representation / presentation and the way God appears in the Hebrew scriptures.

In the East, the dispute over the use of imagery (icons) for religious purposes escalated to the proportions of violent physical confrontation. What was at the core of this phenomenon? Starting with the analysis of the scriptural tradition, this section goes on to discuss the doctrinal essence of iconoclastic disputes within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Over the millennia, a complex theology of the icon was formed within the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The icon is not just a picture, but carries many important theological and religious functions and requires a particular attitude.

Many pictorial qualities of icons baffle the Western (or even contemporary Eastern) observer: lack of realism and linear perspective, distorted and broken proportions, unusual colors — all these features are diligently preserved over the centuries. What is their purpose and meaning?

One thing is very clear: the Eastern Orthodox icon is not a "religious picture" like the works of Western "religious art." How is it different? Some comparisons are very telling.

Over the millennia, many canonical types of icons were formed. This section discusses the major types of icons.

Is there anything in the phenomenon of the icon — either theologically or visually — that is relevant to the contemporary audience that is not part of the Eastern Orthodox tradition?

Religious feeling and spirituality in general are not restricted to liturgical arts: this is clearly shown by a striving to express the infinite in Romantic and nineteenth-century art. Religious feelings of Romantic artists found their utmost expression in painting "spiritual" landscapes that attempt to present the infinite principle through finite nature. Thus the icon is not alone in its theological function.

The revolutionary shift in pictorial techniques in the nineteenth century leads to abandoning all classical canons of representation: realism, linear perspective, "natural" color, etc. — which makes one wonder whether the pictorial qualities of icons are all that unusual.

Finally, the idea of representation itself is abandoned by the twentieth-century avant-garde artists in favor of non-representational forms, such as abstract art. Some abstract artists thought of their non-representational art as a drive for "pure" spirituality (Kandinsky). Some non-representational art (Malevich) is considered to be the utmost expression of negative theology: the rejection of representation brings such art close to the idea of the non-representable nature of God. All this takes us back to the disputes about the nature of representation in the icon.