Interview - Ivana Bucurecki for the blog "Božidar Vasiljević"

As a respected Belgrade artist and icon painter, you carry with you a huge treasure of creation and inspiration. What is your first thought when you encounter the endless creativity that surrounds you every day?

My first thought is not related to creation in the artistic sense, but to the gift. Everything that surrounds us already bears the stamp of the Creator, so I perceive human creativity as a participation in that gift, not as its possession. Perhaps it is interesting that I did not deal with icon painting because I planned to be an icon painter from the beginning. My original desire was restoration and conservation, and icon painting somehow gradually entered my life through studies, and later also through people who started contacting me with the desire to paint an icon for them. Over time, I realized that the talent we have been given is not only a privilege, but also a responsibility, and that it is up to us to use it to the best of our ability. That's why the encounter with beauty, whether in nature, art or people, first of all reminds me of gratitude. I think the greatest danger for an artist is to believe that he is the source of what he creates. Much closer to me is the thought that we are called to be collaborators, not owners of beauty. This is precisely why I try to approach my work with care and responsibility. In icon painting, I am not attracted by the idea of ​​originality at any cost, but by the possibility of testifying through what I do to something that goes beyond myself. When man puts things in this way, creation ceases to be a matter of personal affirmation and becomes a service to the gift entrusted to him.

What is the main credo of icon theology?

I would say that this is the truth of the Incarnation. The icon exists because God became man. If Christ had not taken on human nature, it would not have been possible to depict His image. That is why the icon is not just an art object or an illustration of a religious theme, but a testimony that God entered history and became visible to man. the icon always speaks of the relationship between God and man and the possibility of union between them. In one word, does the theology of the icon depict epochal events or is it real, real, existential, vital? If I had to choose one word, I would say: encounter. Icon theology is not primarily focused on the past, nor is its goal to preserve the memory of a historical event. Although she is deeply rooted in specific personalities and events, she does not see them as belonging to only one era. On the contrary, the icon reveals their permanent and eternal meaning. That is why I would say that icon theology is both real and eschatological. It starts from the reality of this world, from the concrete man, his personality, body, history and relationships, but he perceives all this in the light of the Kingdom of God. The icon does not depict man as we see him in everyday experience, but as he is called to be in communion with God. In this sense, icon theology is profoundly existential. It talks about the most important questions of human existence; about meaning, freedom, love, community and transformation. In front of the icon, man is invited not only to observe, but also to question himself, to recognize his own vocation and responsibility. That is why the icon is not a memory of something that was, but a testimony of what is and what will be. It is the meeting place between history and eternity, between man and God, between the present moment and the future age.

Who is the main frame and pattern of an icon? Are they, for example tropar and icon different or synonym and bond of relationship and community in One?

The basic pattern of the icon is Christ. When I say Christ, I mean the Church. It determines not only the way of presentation, but also the way of understanding what is shown. The icon does not arise from the personal inspiration of the artist in the modern sense of the word, but from the experience of the Church, which has been shaped for centuries through the Holy Scriptures, worship, hymnography and the life of saints. When we talk about tropar and icon, I would say that they belong to the same experience, just in different languages. The troparion sings what the icon shows, and the icon shows what the troparion confesses. One appeals to hearing, the other to sight, but both have the same goal; to introduce man into the mystery of persons and events that the Church celebrates. Therefore, the icon cannot be fully understood outside the liturgical life of the Church. It is not an independent work of art that exists only for the sake of aesthetic experience, but part of a broader worship experience. When we look at the icon of the saint, we are not only looking at his image, but we are coming into contact with the entire testimony of his life, which the Church preserves through the Holy Scriptures, life, services and hymns. That is why I often like to read the hymnography of the saint I am painting before starting work on the icon. They often contain accents that are not immediately visible in the historical data, but reveal the way in which the Church recognizes and remembers him. This helps me to better understand the personality I represent and to approach the work itself with more attention and responsibility. That is why I would not consider the troparion and the icon as separate realities, but as different aspects of the same testimony. They speak together about the same truth, each in their own language, and invite people to the same meeting.

The icon brings with it Byzantine, Renaissance, but also avant-garde exegesis of personality and change. It testifies to us about the Primordial and the secret of the Body, the Logos. In your opinion, is an icon, (Saint figure in general) just hagiology and travelogue, a depiction of a scene or something more?

An icon is not a biography of a saint or an illustration of an event from his life. She is not trying to tell us his entire history or my work on the icon painting, but to show us the man in the light of the Kingdom of God. That's why on the icon we see not only what the saint was, but what he became in communion with Christ. The icon bears witness to the transformed human nature and reminds us of the call given to every human being.

Does the icon a priori present the Eschaton or does it need to be 'strengthened'?

I believe that the icon by its very nature already presents the eschatological reality. Her role is not to prove the Kingdom of God, but to foreshadow and testify to it. This is precisely why the space, light, perspective and the very way of presentation on the icon are not the same as in everyday experience. They point to the world to come and to man as he is called to be. The eschaton is not something that the iconographer adds to the icon. It is contained in its very existence.

The painter Joel Christian painted the walls of the hospital in Copenhagen with suitable frescoes. Do you have the feeling that your calling is similar to Joel's project of depicting the gray reality, often sad, in the lives of the people you meet?

I think that each of us brings something that was given to us into the lives of others. Some through medicine, some through education, some through science, some through craft, and some through art. My field is icon painting and I try to use that gift to the best of my ability. The icon should remain recognizable as a testimony of the Church, but also alive enough to invite modern people to encounter, question and pray. It does not carry value in itself because someone painted it, but because of what it points to. If my work helps someone to stop prayerfully in front of the icon, to look at it a little more carefully, to ask themselves a question or to find a prototype of themselves in it, then I consider that it has fulfilled its purpose. The artist should remind people that there is a very fragile but also deep dimension of human existence, which cannot be reduced to benefit, productivity and daily obligations. Not because it is separate from life, but because it gives it meaning. The style of icon painting has changed over the centuries, just as the person to whom it is addressed changes. The style of icon painting today is not the same as in the 13th or 16th century, but the essence remains the same. I try to find a way to bring the icon closer to the modern man within the limits of the iconographic tradition, to encourage him to stay in front of it a little longer and not experience it only as a well-known religious image. On the other hand, if my icons awaken in someone a moment of peace and deeper reflection, then I am grateful that I could be a part of that encounter.