Download LS12 – The appropriateness of using

LS12 – The Appropriateness of using
Religious Subjects in Art
Where do you stand on the matter? Are you an iconophile or iconoclast?
ICONOPHILES – Religious believers who think that religious subjects should be depicted in art.
ICONOCLASTS – Religious believers who believe that depicting religious subjects is inappropriate.
We looked at many different positive uses of religious art in the first part of the course. However, below are some
issues that raise questions as to the appropriateness of depicting religious subjects in art.
1. Does religious art really capture the holiness of the divine, or does it push human
conceptions onto something that is transcendental?
Consider the following questions: What is the difference between ‘image’ and ‘self’? And can a person’s ‘self’ be
captured in an artwork?
Then consider whether religious art makes the distinction between ‘image’ and ‘self’? Furthermore, should it try to,
and can it be successful in making such a distinction?
Take the example of Michelangelo’s ‘God creates Adam’ (below). Here God is depicted as an old white man. Is
this merely an image that is meant to appeal to the Western European Christians the artwork was created for? Is
there a deeper significance, the attempt to capture the ‘self’ aspect of the divine? For the old man image is surely
one that implies wisdom, the notion of being a father (which, in terms of Adam, he is to all human beings), and with
the symbology of colours (a prominent red for the holy spirit, pink for joy, green for eternal life) is this image not
attempting to capture the deeper significance of God’s nature?
‘God creates Adam’
by Michelangelo
2. Would non-figurative art be a better way to represent the divine?
Non-figurative art: is art that does not include the figures of humans or animals. It is art that is instead based
around shapes (e.g. geometric patterns, foliage borders, paisley), stylised lettering (italics) and colours.
The example of Islamic gardens:
The Islamic garden, based on its Qur’anic archetype, is a place of retreat, shelter, abode, away from the tensions
of everyday existence. The aim is to strive towards spiritual and physical refreshment, to draw closer to God
through quiet contemplation and to echo the Qur’anic phrase ‘gardens underneath which rivers flow’.
There are many references in the Qur’an describing paradise (heaven) as a garden, and in creating gardens on
earth based on heavenly descriptions, man shows his desire to attain the highest state of being, his promise from
God as reward for the righteous struggle of life.
Flowing water, fountains and rivers are the most memorable descriptions one has after reading the Qur’anic
references to paradise.
Q1. What are the pros and cons of using non-figurative art to represent the divine?
Q2. Is non-figurative art better than art that aims to depict religious subjects such as prophets or God itself?
3. The historical conflict over religious art in Christianity
This conflict over whether religious subjects should be represented in art has raged many times before. The
following two periods were the greatest upheavals of religious art in Christianity:
1. Rudimentary iconography shaped the religious (and social) identity of Early Christians, who sought to express
their belief in the genuine historicity and humanity of Christ’s Incarnation through picture or sculpture. These
iconophiles were challenged in the 8th and 9th centuries by the iconoclasts who objected to the portrayal
of Jesus as suggesting he was only a human being, but the practice and the theology behind iconography
triumphed in the debate and continued.
This theology is what we looked at earlier in the course, not only that Jesus was both God and man and so should
be depicted, but that also that one could induce religious experiences, create a deeper understanding and get
closer to God through art (e.g. Christian meditation, illuminated manuscripts, architecture etc.)
2. However, the conflict between the iconoclasts and iconophiles would later arise again with the Protestant
Reformation. If Catholicism had set up images as bridges between God and man, Protestantism burned them
all – choosing scripture and the Word as the linkage between Man and God. For example, in old Protestant
churches around England you will find statues with their faces scratched out, as these churches were
previously built and run by the (at that time) outlawed Catholics. However, even with Protestantism came a
new visual aesthetic of its own, particularly in architecture, for example.
4. The conflict over the depiction of religious subjects today
Today, there are different concerns with the representation of religious subjects. With the end of religion’s cultural
dominance since the beginning of the twentieth century, religious subjects have often been used in artworks to
critique organised religion, to court controversy, or simply for the ironic purposes.
We have looked at some examples with Poston’s ‘Real Thing Cross’, Warhol’s ‘Jesus Christ $9.98’ and Hirst’s
‘New Religion’ exhibition.
However, another major contemporary issue is that of freedom of speech
The most obvious examples in recent times have been the furore caused over the depiction of the Islamic prophet,
Muhammad. In the late eighties, Salman Rushdie had to go into hiding for his novel ‘The Satanic Verses’, which is
said to mock Muhammad. And, more recently, there was the furore over the Danish newspaper cartoons of
Muhammad with a bomb strapped to his head and as part of a criminal line-up.
On a basic level Muslims protest such depictions of Muhammad as they strictly adhere to iconoclastic notion that
religious subjects should not be depicted (remember, Islamic art is non-figurative). The Qur’an (primary scripture),
it can be argued, does not explicitly prohibit Muslims from using visual representation of humans and animals in an
artistic form – though, it forbids believers from worshipping them. However, many hadiths (secondary scripture),
considered to be authentic, explicitly ban the use of images of humans and animal. We find that the prohibition
focuses on a general ban on all figurative art forms rather than a specific one on the depiction of important figures
such as Muhammad or any other prophet of Islam.
In Islam there is a fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creation; this includes the prophets of
Islam being a mere creation. The danger of creating images of the prophet such as Muhammad, Jesus or Moses
is that it may divert the worshippers attention and worship away from the true message of Islam, the message of
Tawhid (the oneness of God).
Q. Considering the political climate of much of this decade, why else might Muslims be against the
depiction of religious subjects relevant to their religion?
Another recent example where freedom of speech has been challenged by religion is that of ‘Zuerst die Füsse’ by
Martin Kippenberger, which is a wooden sculpture of a cartoonish green frog with its tongue hanging out is
wearing a green loin cloth and is nailed through the hands and feet on a brown cross in the manner of Jesus
Christ. Displayed at a museum in Northern Italy, Pope Benedict condemned it as blasphemous.
Franz Pahl, the president of the regional government, was so enraged by the sculpture he went on hunger strike to
demand its removal. ‘Surely this is not a work of art but a blasphemy and a disgusting piece of trash that upsets
many people.’ In a letter of support for Pahl, the Vatican said the sculpture ‘wounds the religious sentiments of so
many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love’. However, Claudio Strinati, a superintendent for
Rome's state museums, told an Italian newspaper today that censoring the work would be wrong. ‘Art must always
be free and the artist should not have any restrictions on freedom of expression,’ he said.
Q. Should religious leaders / believers have the right to limit the freedom of expression in a secular society?