Religious Art - sacradness, just art or ...

IMO, art is the primary value. Unless the work was commissioned for a particular house of worship, and therefore belongs in that facility, it is simply another piece of art.

I am not a believer, yet I am fascinated by religious art as part of our culture, the culture that belongs to all people, not just those with a particular religious persuasion.

This could be a religious art because it is a biblical figure.

Re: Religious Art - sacradness, just art or ...


Walter, What an interesting question. If the art is primarily an object of religious adoration, I can see it being removed to a church. But there are many religious people who might see spiritual significance in the picture but who would prefer to view it in a non-church setting. Then, there are those who see the picture only as art or as a part of the history of art. I think the judge has a tough call.

Interesting Walter and I have to think about what I think on this topic before posting.

I don't think that a biblical figure is religious art per se.

I'm quite your opinion, Hazlitt.

Lot of relgious art had once been an object of religious adoration, later lost it's 'religious significance.
An excellent example in a doubled sense is to be seen here:
Schnüttgen Museum Cologne
a medieval ecclesiastical building with lots of religious art inside - a museum since nearly 50 years.

Art is not politics. The separation of art from religion hardly has a sense.
There have been some in the profession of art that served to politics, and those artists who made religious arts. The difference is clear.
(I do not think this politically minded question, rather than art oriented, is very interesting.)

satt

I wonder, why you think this could be a "political" question.

It's a legal -in this case especially- okay.

I strongly believe it's an art orientated - at least here in Europe.
(You may not be aware of it, but it already had been an academic discussion among art historians for some hundred years here.)


Besides, art has always been politics.

Walter Hinteler..
Academic discussion usually cannot find the court for its disputes. If it becomes a legal issue, it is already a political question.
Clear your mind and rephrase the question if you are to provoke a fruitful discussion.

I beg your pardon?

Could I understand that the point of your question was the part I quoted above? Or must I think that your interest is in the legal issue?

Actually I didn't pose the above quoted text as a question but copied it from the link I gave.

My interest just is to 'publish' this newspaper article in the "Art category" of A2K. And I'd really like to hear (different) opinion about it.

Artistic vs. Religious value


Walter, here is what seems obvious to me. For the deeply religious person, the picture may be a sacred object and only a sacred object, and that person may believe that the only rightful place for the object is in a church or other religious setting. Apparently, there must be some people who feel that way about this picture.

Others who are not religious may recognize its historical religious significance, but believe that its true value in our times lay in its artistic merits.

Between these extremes there will be other shades of opinion (Hardly two people think alike on any one subject, it seems).

Personally, I do not see that any one of these opinions has any more validity than any of the others, so I'd vote to leave it where it is on the theory that possession is nine tenths of the law. If the church can show that the picture once belonged to the particular building where it now wants it placed, then I'd consider their case.


Frankly, I am surprised that the Church of Santa Maria di Monentaua, from which the picture was originally removed, does not put in a claim. That church, in my opinion, is the rightful owner. Perhaps that church was never rebuilt after the war and is no more.

On the basis of the facts in the article, I'd leave it where it is.

On the question of whether the item should be considered a sacred object or simply as art, I see no way to to reach an opinion upon which all people will agree. That's why this has to come down to a question of ownership.

: o