An image of the Moscow Patriarch Kirill, placed in the reception hall in the patriarchal residence in the Danilovsky Monastery, outraged readers on social networks. It became known about the picture after yesterday, in its background, the spokesman of the Russian Orthodox Church, Vladimir Legoida, announced the results of the meeting of Holy Synod.
At first, social media users thought it was a collage and a malicious attempt to compromise the Russian patriarch. Subsequently, it became clear that the painting was an original, and it was given a place of honor in the patriarchal residence, so that it could be seen by all.
In the painting, Patriarch Kirill is depicted full-length against the background of the three angels from the icon “Holy Trinity” by Andrei Rublev. At the foot of the patriarch’s feet is depicted the Holy Rus, and he is represented as a pillar that connects the earth and the sky, at the same time, according to the artist, on the same level as the three Persons of the Holy Trinity.
The picture has all the features of religious kitsch and is obviously conjunctural. However, it sends an unequivocal message about the official ideology in the Russian Church at the moment. It is startling that the megalomania of the image, bordering on blasphemy, was not recognized as problematic and the painting was placed in a prominent place so that all visitors to the patriarchal residence would possibly perceive it with awe and with an awareness of Patriarch Kirill’s metaphysical place in history .
The picture gave rise to thousands of comments on social networks, including satirical ones: “The patriarch already deified and became the fourth person of the Trinity during his lifetime. It is clear that the original Trinity is now obsolete and unnecessary.”
According to more serious comments, the idea was to present a patron saint. Cyril in the likeness of Abraham as the “father of nations”:
In traditional iconography, however, Abraham is never emphasized in the same way as Cyril: neither compositionally (Abraham is almost never depicted in the center of the composition, but only at the end and most often in the background); neither in terms of content (he serves, entertains and does not “reveal” himself against the background of the angels), nor in terms of color (no color accent is placed on his figure). Here, Cyril turns out to be “equal” to the Holy Trinity and even visually “exceeds” it, significantly interceding (darkening) the central angel, and compositionally even “replacing” it.
For the author of the portrait, the Old Testament theophany (appearance of God, note ed.) as such has no particular significance. The artist is not interested in God. For him, it is more important to “reveal” the greatness of Cyril. And the result is nonsense – from a semantic point of view, the image of Cyril is primary, and the image of the Trinity is secondary. The fact that the patriarch gave his blessing to hang this talentless “art product” in his residence shows that he likes this image…
