why is this show at an art museum in one of the least religious states in the union?
One thing that's interesting about this Adam and Eve piece is that they are portrayed as Africans, not as Middle Easterners or Caucasians. It's sexist, obviously, too, but Eve also has a delicious evilness about her that makes her much more appealing and interesting than Adam. Like, way more interesting. I haven't seen the installation for the whole exhibit so I can't comment on the lack of critical eye--though I have no doubt you're right on with that observation.
this is pure kitsch. Portraying the ur-couple as black makes complete sense since the out-of-Africa theory of human origin is widely accepted. Portraying them in this generic "tribal" makeup and costume is ridiculous because prior to their fall they went naked and unadorned in their innocence. I think their post-lapsarian struggles would have put decorative clothing and makeup on the back burner as well.
I don't get the point of your Blog.
Religion has always had a place and influence in art from all cultures.
Weather you like the technique or style is one thing, but to bring your prejudice of christianity in to it is another.. get over it.
The Bible is relevant in art, and to Christians and non. It has has a huge impact (for good and bad) on the formation of our modern society.
I think comment #2 has a great point about Adam & Eve are portrayed as Africans. This shows a keen and open minded take on this story that traditionally most churches tend to avoid. That the first people and probably most of the people in the biblical stories were not white.
You should concentrate more on what the art is about and less on museum politics, you might enjoy it better then.
Jen, I'm tempted to answer that ecclesial art can't be evaluated on the same terms as general art. That isn't an attempt to guard it from criticism, or set up religious art as a protected class, but just an observation; ecclesial art is utilitarian. It has a clear job to do, an agenda of "discipleship". It doesn't have the same level of ambiguity in its relationship to the viewer as most art. Rather, it is explicitly pedagogical, even didactic. Just as you don't read or evaluate a novel the same way you read a book of MLK sermons, it doesn't make sense to evaluate an illustrated bible the same way you evaluate "forty part motet".
I don't know if i'm an average Christian but I'm definitely interested in this bible. If it's a little cheesy and embarassing, that's because Christianity is, at its core, cheesy and embarassing, full of gushy emotions, ugliness, weird history.
I don't know if this sheds any light on what it's doing at the Tacoma Art Museum, but 1) it's no worse than Chiululy, 2) Tacoma does have 2 pretty sizeable mainline protestant liberal arts colleges--pretty much the target audience for this stuff.
kay you oh double you, news and information.
You're trying to make two points here.
First of all, you're right that this piece is pretty ugly and kitschy. That's a fair point to make, since, flipping through the pages of the bible online (you can do so here), most of the illustrations are not even as good as this African one you headlined with.
Secondly, however, your argument about the Bible having no relevance to a secular community is completely off-base. I say this as a former Christian myself, one who's grown out of Biblical literalism, but who still appreciates the Bible as literature and for its immense cultural impact, whether you like it or not.
The piece fails, because it misses the opportunity to re-frame Biblical stories in a new mythic or historic context, instead opting to take a stone-faced naive Biblical literalism approach complete with butterflies and happy thoughts throughout Genesis.
It fails in scope, vision, and ambition, none of which have anything to do with its religious subject matter.
Maybe the fact that Christian art of the past century or so has set the bar pretty low is a factor, but as a practicing graphic artist (if not a practicing Christian) I was pleasantly surprised by the image above. "Terribly ugly" is in the eye of the beholder, but it's certainly not boring.
David, sorry to say, but the piece does re-frame Biblical stories in a modern context. This exhibition visited the Phoenix Art Museum some months past were I stumbled upon it looking for something else. I was very disturbed to see scientific illustrations of the HIV virus representing the ultimate evil from the abyss (Revelations?) in one of the illustrations (and the accompanying text identifies the illustrations as HIV). What the St. John's calligraphers/illustrators meant by this I'd like to know.
Actually, I don't think it's bad. Ugly, sure, but it looks to me like a Vertigo comic book cover. And that may be the point in this case.
@9 - Yes, some of the illustrations update Biblical topics, carefully aimed to be poignant (I recall my fundamentalist mother explaining to me as a child that viruses were Satan's failed attempt to create life), but most of them are just bland, sparkly, decorative filler:
Oops, that didn't work, try this:
Rock Hushka is devastatingly handsome. It more thatn makes up for the ugly art.
..."the kind you saw hanging in the offices of progressive churches in the ’80s."
HAHAHAHAHA, good one, Graves.
I went down to TAM last week to hear Cardiff's piece and LOVED it. Sat through it twice because it was so well done. Then i wandered over to the next gallery, saw these bible thingees and thought "oh, there's supposed to be a dialog going here - too bad it fails."Oddly enough there were twice as many people in the bible gallery than listening to the Cardiff piece. Goes to show what I know...
A contemporary bible could be interesting, and could be art, but this one is not. It is Christian propaganda with churchy illustration. I'm totally shocked that it made its way into TAM.
Comments are closed on this post.