C.S. Lewis commented on objects of worship in a fascinating way when he compared icons with teddy bears. Consider:
A particular toy or a particular icon may be itself a work of art, but that is logically accidental; its artistic merits will not make it a better toy or a better icon. They may make it a worse one. For its purpose is, not to fix attention upon itself, but to stimulate and liberate certain activities in the child or the worshipper. The teddy bear exists in order that the child may endow it with imaginary life and personality and enter into a quasi-social relationship with it. That is what ‘playing with it’ means. The better this activity succeeds the less the actual appearance of the object will matter. Too close or prolonged attention to its changeless and expressionless face impedes the play. A crucifix exists in order to direct the worshipper’s thought and affections to the Passion. It had better not have any excellencies, subtleties, or originalities which will fix attention upon itself. Hence devout people may, for this purpose, prefer the crudest and empties icon. The emptier, the more permeable; and they want, as it were, to pass through the material image and go beyond.
I might add, for a minor modification that while the image ought “not have any excellencies, subtleties, or originalities which will fix attention upon itself,” it is certainly not wrong, but very possibly beneficial that the image have “excellencies, subtleties, or originalities” which will highlight nuances and perspectives of the event or person it is depicting.
