A brief history of religion in art TEDEd

It’s only been the last few hundreds years or so

that Western civilization has been putting art in museums,

at least museums resembling

the public institutions we know today.

Before this, for most, art served other purposes.

What we call fine art today

was, in fact, primarily how people experienced

an aesthetic dimension of religion.

Paintings, sculpture, textiles and illuminations

were the media of their time,

supplying vivid imagery

to accompany the stories of the day.

In this sense, Western art

shared a utilitarian purpose

with other cultures around the world,

some of whose languages incidentally have no word for art.

So how do we define what we call art?

Generally speaking, what we’re talking about here

is work that visually communicates

meaning beyond language,

either through representation

or the arrangement of visual elements in space.

Evidence of this power of iconography,

or ability of images to convey meaning,

can be found in abundance

if we look at art from

the histories of our major world religions.

Almost all have, at one time or another in their history,

gone through some sort of aniconic phase.

Aniconism prohibits any visual depiction of the divine.

This is done in order to avoid idolatry,

or confusion between the representation of divinity and divinity itself.

Keeping it real, so to speak,

in the relationship between the individual and the divine.

However, this can be a challenge to maintain,

given that the urge to visually represent and interpret

the world around us

is a compulsion difficult to suppress.

For example, even today,

where the depiction of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad is prohibited,

an abstract celebration of the divine

can still be found in arabesque patterns of Islamic textile design,

with masterful flourishes of brushwork

and Arabic calligraphy,

where the words of the prophet

assume a dual role as both literature and visual art.

Likewise, in art from the early periods

of Christianity and Buddhism,

the divine presence of the Christ and the Buddha

do not appear in human form

but are represented by symbols.

In each case,

iconographic reference is employed

as a form of reverence.

Anthropomorphic representation,

or depiction in human form,

eventually became widespread in these religions

only centuries later,

under the influence of the cultural traditions surrounding them.

Historically speaking,

the public appreciation of visual art

in terms other than traditional, religious or social function

is a relatively new concept.

Today, we fetishize the fetish, so to speak.

We go to museums to see art from the ages,

but our experience of it there

is drastically removed from the context

in which it was originally intended to be seen.

It might be said that the modern viewer

lacks the richness of engagement

that she has with contemporary art,

which has been created relevant to her time

and speaks her cultural language.

It might also be said that the history of what we call art

is a conversation that continues on,

as our contemporary present passes into what will be

some future generation’s classical past.

It’s a conversation that reflects

the ideologies, mythologies, belief systems and taboos

and so much more of the world in which it was made.

But this is not to say that work from another age

made to serve a particular function in that time

is dead or has nothing to offer the modern viewer.

Even though in a museum setting

works of art from different places and times

are presented alongside each other,

isolated from their original settings,

their juxtaposition has benefits.

Exhibits are organized by curators,

or people who’ve made a career

out of their ability to recontextualize or remix

cultural artifacts in a collective presentation.

As viewers, we’re then able to consider the art

in terms of a common theme that might not be apparent

in a particular work

until you see it alongside another,

and new meanings can be derived and reflected upon.

If we’re so inclined,

we might even start to see every work of art

as a complementary part of some undefined, unified whole

of past human experience,

a trail that leads right to our doorstep

and continues on with us,

open to anyone who wants to explore it.

直到最近几百年左右

,西方文明才将艺术放入博物馆,

至少是类似于

我们今天所知道的公共机构的博物馆。

在此之前,对大多数人来说,艺术服务于其他目的。

事实上,我们今天所说的美术主要是人们如何体验

宗教的审美维度。

绘画、雕塑、纺织品和灯饰

是他们那个时代的媒介,为当时的故事

提供了生动的图像

从这个意义上说,西方艺术

与世界各地的其他文化有着共同的功利目的,

其中一些语言偶然没有艺术一词。

那么我们如何定义我们所谓的艺术呢?

一般来说,我们在这里谈论的

是通过

视觉表现或空间中视觉元素的排列来传达超越语言的意义的作品。 如果我们从世界主要宗教的历史中审视艺术,就可以大量发现

这种图像学力量

或图像传达意义的能力的证据

几乎所有人都曾在他们的历史上的某个时候或另一个时候

经历过某种非典型的阶段。

Aniconism 禁止对神的任何视觉描绘。

这样做是为了避免偶像崇拜,

或混淆神性的表征和神性本身。

可以说,

在个人与神的关系中保持真实。

然而,这可能是一个挑战,

因为视觉表现和

解释我们周围世界的

冲动是一种难以抑制的冲动。

例如,即使

在禁止描绘真主或先知穆罕默德的今天,

仍然可以在伊斯兰纺织品设计的蔓藤花纹图案中找到对神圣的抽象庆祝,

以及精湛的笔法

和阿拉伯书法,

其中 先知

承担着文学和视觉艺术的双重角色。

同样,在

基督教和佛教早期的艺术

中,基督和佛陀的神圣存在

不是以人的形式出现的,

而是以符号的形式表现出来的。

在每种情况下,

图像参考都被

用作一种崇敬的形式。 几个世纪后,受周围文化传统的影响,

人化的表现形式或人类形式的描绘

最终在这些宗教中广泛传播

从历史上看,

除传统、宗教或社会功能之外的公众对视觉艺术的欣赏

是一个相对较新的概念。

今天,可以这么说,我们对恋物情有独钟。

我们去博物馆是为了看各个时代的艺术,

但我们在那里的体验与最初

打算被看到的背景

完全不同。

可以说,现代观众

缺乏

她对当代艺术所拥有的丰富参与度,而当代艺术

的创作与她的时代相关,

并说着她的文化语言。

也可以说,我们称之为艺术的历史

是一场持续的对话,

因为我们的当代现在进入

了未来一代的经典过去。

这是一个

反映意识形态、神话、信仰体系和禁忌的对话,

以及更多它所在的世界。

但这并不是说

为那个时代的特定功能而制作的另一个时代的作品

已经死了,或者没有任何东西可以提供给现代观众。

即使在博物馆环境中

,来自不同地点和时代的艺术品

并排展示,

与它们的原始环境隔离开来,

它们的并置也有好处。

展览是由策展人组织的,

或者

是那些凭借在集体展示中重新定位或重新混合文化文物的能力而成为职业的人

作为观众,我们可以

根据一个共同的主题来考虑艺术,这个主题可能

在一个特定的作品中并不明显,

直到你将它与另一个作品一起看到,

并且可以衍生和反映新的意义。

如果我们如此倾向于,

我们甚至可能开始将每件艺术品

视为过去人类经验的某种未定义的、统一的整体的补充部分

一条通往我们家门口

并继续与我们同在的小径,

对任何人开放 想探索它。