Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Jewish Rebuttal to Belief that Institutions Determine Value of Religious Art

JEWISH ART NOW
By Ben Schachter
I recently read "On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art" by James Elkins. In it he defines Art using the institutional theory of art made famous by Dickie.  Art is defined by the institutions that support it. Those institutions reject religious art because they do not need it. By their rejection religious art partially, or totally, loses its art status. Is there an alternative to the Institutional theory? Some people, particularly in contemporary Jewish Art, support something else. They are looking for ways in which religious content is shared, taught, interpreted, expressed, lived and communicated within contemporary society. And perhaps most importantly they are looking to see what connections emerge between religion and art today. [link]

1 comment:

Disney-Britton said...

I am really intrigued by this debate, and while I am not even sure Elkins consider it his point, it is still worth discussing. Who determines the value of religious art? Individuals, artists, or institutions? This could be the news of week.