What do you think?
Rate this book
On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art
Can contemporary art say anything about spirituality? John Updike calls modern art "a religion assembled from the fragments of our daily life," but does that mean that contemporary art is spiritual? What might it mean to say that the art you make expresses your spiritual belief? On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art explores the curious disconnection between spirituality and current art. This book will enable you to walk into a museum and talk about the spirituality that is or is not visible in the art you see.
148 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
4 people are currently reading
182 people want to read
About the author
James Elkins
101 books218 followersJames Elkins (1955 – present) is an art historian and art critic. He is E.C. Chadbourne Chair of art history, theory, and criticism at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He also coordinates the Stone Summer Theory Institute, a short term school on contemporary art history based at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 30, 2021
Really interesting essay/book. Elkins is just amazing in the way he can communicate often difficult ideas in very playful and though provoking way. Using a stories for explaining complicated ideas is as old as humanity, although we don't see it that often in scientific or academic writing.
February 12, 2023
This books examines one of the many paradoxes of modern/contemporary art. Why is art in our day allergic to religion? Why does the language of art exclude religious language. It is telling that even this art historian does not have an answer or even possible ways forward for those seeking to connect these two aspects of life together. One is left with just as paradoxical possibilities. Worth the read if one care about either.
April 27, 2023
Really stinking important book, but I do wonder if the state of religion in art is a bit different 20 years later. Anywhoodle–this is the guy and this is the book that started this whole conversation, so read it for that alone.
October 8, 2023
Lots to consider here. An interesting approach by way of five students. Lots of quotable bits. But I was unsatisfied.
Not like other Elkins works I have loved,
I did buy this in Basel, at the contemporary annex of the museum, though, and I will always remember it for that.
Not like other Elkins works I have loved,
I did buy this in Basel, at the contemporary annex of the museum, though, and I will always remember it for that.
September 9, 2019
Not a definitive overview of the place of religion in contemporary art, but an intelligent (and entertaining!) starting point for further thought.
June 30, 2023
I was quite disappointed by this book. The author sadly does not challenge our assumptions about the traditional divide between religion and contemporary art.
He relates the WHOLE history of religious art in one chapter, stating in vague terms that "something changed during the Renaissance" and affirming that by the 20th century "religion had sunk out of sight." (Even though many avant-gardes were deeply religious, such as the Blaue Reiter, de Stijl, Russian constructivism, Abstract Expressionism, etc.).
While citing modern artists who dealt with religious christian motifs, such as Emil Nolde, Dali, Rouault, Chagall, and Francis Bacon, the author dismisses these examples as not being truly religious, since Nolde was “in a state of ecstatic trance” at the time (p. 13), Dali was only applying his “paranoiac-critical” surrealist method (p. 14), and as for Bacon, his painting is “gruesome” and is “hardly the kind of religious image that could be placed in a church.” Therefore, these artworks are apparently not taken into consideration.
"When religion does come up in the art world, it is because there has been a scandal: someone has painted a Madonna using elephant dung, or put a statuette of Jesus into a jar of urine.” While he does have a point, this does not prove that serious religious art isn't being created, it simply doesn't receive as much attention as the "scandalous" work, PRECISELY because serious work isn't interesting for reporters.
Also, Elkins affirms that "fine art" is the source of all other forms of art, which also deserves to be questioned. Or not, apparently: "If you find yourself at variance with these definitions or the assumptions that lead me to them, then this book may pose a problem that isn’t a problem for you. In which case I would only say that your sense of fine art might have been compromised (simplified, reduced) by the need to imagine that it is different from and equal to other kinds of art-making." So apparently I was just wrong, sorry!
Religious art is often bad and "kitsch" and simply has "no place" in the art world. "Modernism is just like that." (But WHY though?) The way he disses his own Korean art student is pretty hilarious- because her English isn't so good he assumes she isn't able to follow his classes and he concludes to himself that she could probably produce religious commercial posters or something but definitely not "fine art." I can't tell to what degree he's being serious or if it's meant to be ironic so I won't insist on that one.
That being said, if you want to read this book go ahead, it's far from a waste of time and quite entertaining, I just had a few issues with it.
He relates the WHOLE history of religious art in one chapter, stating in vague terms that "something changed during the Renaissance" and affirming that by the 20th century "religion had sunk out of sight." (Even though many avant-gardes were deeply religious, such as the Blaue Reiter, de Stijl, Russian constructivism, Abstract Expressionism, etc.).
While citing modern artists who dealt with religious christian motifs, such as Emil Nolde, Dali, Rouault, Chagall, and Francis Bacon, the author dismisses these examples as not being truly religious, since Nolde was “in a state of ecstatic trance” at the time (p. 13), Dali was only applying his “paranoiac-critical” surrealist method (p. 14), and as for Bacon, his painting is “gruesome” and is “hardly the kind of religious image that could be placed in a church.” Therefore, these artworks are apparently not taken into consideration.
"When religion does come up in the art world, it is because there has been a scandal: someone has painted a Madonna using elephant dung, or put a statuette of Jesus into a jar of urine.” While he does have a point, this does not prove that serious religious art isn't being created, it simply doesn't receive as much attention as the "scandalous" work, PRECISELY because serious work isn't interesting for reporters.
Also, Elkins affirms that "fine art" is the source of all other forms of art, which also deserves to be questioned. Or not, apparently: "If you find yourself at variance with these definitions or the assumptions that lead me to them, then this book may pose a problem that isn’t a problem for you. In which case I would only say that your sense of fine art might have been compromised (simplified, reduced) by the need to imagine that it is different from and equal to other kinds of art-making." So apparently I was just wrong, sorry!
Religious art is often bad and "kitsch" and simply has "no place" in the art world. "Modernism is just like that." (But WHY though?) The way he disses his own Korean art student is pretty hilarious- because her English isn't so good he assumes she isn't able to follow his classes and he concludes to himself that she could probably produce religious commercial posters or something but definitely not "fine art." I can't tell to what degree he's being serious or if it's meant to be ironic so I won't insist on that one.
That being said, if you want to read this book go ahead, it's far from a waste of time and quite entertaining, I just had a few issues with it.
December 17, 2009
While this short book is mildly dissatisfying in some respects, I have still come away from the experience with a brimming handful of fresh leads/citations to follow and with a newfound perspective on my own work, which does engage with religion, albeit indirectly. For sparking off a dozen internal conversations and explicitly defining the source and quality of the deep squeamishness I have felt concerning the religious and contemporary art, I give this book an overall positive rating, even though I tend to disagree with a great deal of the conclusions the author draws and find his easy camaraderie with Art World ideas provocative and vaguely unpleasant.
If you are interested in the relationship of art and religion, or if you make art and your work takes religion as its subject matter or influence in any way, shape, or form, I recommend reading this book. It may be mildly infuriating at times (depending on your position on Art World definitions of art), but then again it is always good to know what the opponent's argument may be.
Bottom line: B+. A quick read about postmodern art and religion with lots of loose ends to follow to one's own conclusion(s).
If you are interested in the relationship of art and religion, or if you make art and your work takes religion as its subject matter or influence in any way, shape, or form, I recommend reading this book. It may be mildly infuriating at times (depending on your position on Art World definitions of art), but then again it is always good to know what the opponent's argument may be.
Bottom line: B+. A quick read about postmodern art and religion with lots of loose ends to follow to one's own conclusion(s).
June 6, 2007
Artists who are also religiously minded live in two, often competing, worlds. The art world does not understand nor trust religion (see Postmodern Heretics). Religious communities do not trust nor understand the art world (see State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe). James Elkins has now done justice to both worlds with intellectual curiously and respect.
The book offers a handful of scenerios of how fine artists, including art students, have treated religion in their works from the ironic and condemning to the naive and sentimental. Also addressed is the general art communities posture towards the subject, which is often hostile or at least critically skeptical. This is the finest book on religion and the arts I have read, which is many. I recommend it.
The book offers a handful of scenerios of how fine artists, including art students, have treated religion in their works from the ironic and condemning to the naive and sentimental. Also addressed is the general art communities posture towards the subject, which is often hostile or at least critically skeptical. This is the finest book on religion and the arts I have read, which is many. I recommend it.
December 4, 2012
Nice and concise, Elkins discusses one of the white elephants of the art world, religion, in a way that is thought provoking. I enjoy how he points out that most art that is considered religious today is either critical or ironic, with very little "serious" devotional work created or perhaps accepted in the art world today.
November 12, 2012
perfectly reasoned, well organized, etc. Deviates occasionally (and usefully) into pretty amusing art-school ethnography. Maybe no real strong conclusions are reached but definitely gave me a lot to think about.
May 30, 2008
the title and expectations weren't fulfilled in the book. i expected something more than what it is...a bit more shallow than i wished. i was originally fascinated by the title.
February 6, 2017
Если закрыть глаза на косяк с именем Тимура Новикова книга блестящая работа по важной теме религиозного в современном искусстве.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews