Some more icons?
Chapel icons depict mysteries of salvation history By Roxanne King
Some claim that he is orthodox, despite the group's liturgical practices, but is this the case?
Part of a comment by Matthew Alderman:
If a western painter is going to do something Byzantine an artist ought to look at 'our' own equivalent--Cimabue, the early Italians, etc., which are both iconic and liturgically western. (I'd also prefer they remembered Van Eyck and van der Weyden as well, of course.) The appeal of modern Byzantine iconography for many in the west is I think they assume it is 'primitive' and somehow 'better' or 'more authentic' than 'decadent' Renaissance or Medieval art. The reasoning behind this is a little insulting or patronizing to the Byzantines--Byzantine art, properly understood, is anything but crude and primitive and is the result of centuries of refinement; it has never been as static as people assume. Indeed, some of the earliest versions of it are rather more 'realistic' than its modern form. Let us appreciate Byzantine art for what it is, for the right reasons--and also not forget our own tradition, which has room for both Byzantine equivalents, and also our own more uniquely western productions.
Latin iconographers could return to the examples given by earlier Latin artists. But why can't there be some measure of enrichment from the East as well?