Elkins, James. London: Routledge, 2004. 136 pp., $24.95 (USD). ISBN: 0415969891.
[1] Thankfully, James Elkins’s On
the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art begins an investigation that it does not conclude. The topic of the work has been so
little discussed in art history and criticism that a hasty explication and
solution would be a great disservice to the nascent discussion. Elkins begins with a definition of his
primary terms (art, religion, and spirituality), moves to a short history of
religion and contemporary art, then gives an overview of the ways that art
historians deal with the question of art and religion (or, as is often the
case, don’t deal with the
question). He then shifts to five
stories that function as case studies for some possible modes of relating art
and religion, and concludes with a chapter that comes closest to offering a
solution to some of the dilemmas presented by the case studies.
[2] Like Elkins’s other works this
book is comprehensive for its short length, and his insight enables him to
cover a lot of theoretical and historical ground; these traits alone make it
highly recommendable. Elkins
pushes for a dialogue between art and religion so that it will be possible “to
talk sensibly about religion and at the same time address art in an informed
and intelligent” manner (116); he believes that such talk is currently
impossible. The audience for his
book seems to be art historians who approach art as art critics. In this way Elkins may be conceptually
foreign, or even retrograde, to many in the field of popular culture studies,
where the sociological model of engagement—rather than the art critical
model of evaluation—is a foundational assumption. Besides the religiously inquisitive art
historian, Elkins’s book should be of interest to anyone concerned with
questions of why religiosity seems not to have engaged the art world when so
many people remain religious in the 21st century.
[3] Elkins’s work demonstrates that
theological engagement with art objects has been alive and well in much of the
Modernism/Postmodernism of the 20th century, extending even to the
self-descriptions of some of the most important Modernist artist, and remains
alive and robust in various forms in the current crop of art students that
Elkins teaches. The stories of
five of his students orders the basic structure of the book while they
“represent the five main approaches to the problem of making religious art” and
as such Elkins suggests that “each one goes to prove my pessimistic point that
it is nearly impossible to mix art and religion” (37). The five types are “conventional
religious art,” “art that is critical of religion,” “art that sets out to
create a new faith,” “art that burns away what is false in religion,” and “art
that creates a new faith, but unconsciously” (37).
[4] The book’s argument turns on
some very unambiguous—but perhaps arguable—definitions of his
primary terms, art, religion, and spirituality. Thus his definition of art,
what he calls the “institutional definition,” includes only works that are
“exhibited in galleries in major cities, bought by museums of contemporary art,
shown in biennales and the Documenta and written about in periodicals such as Artforum, October, Flash Art, Parkett, or Tema Celeste” (1). Given this institutional definition, Elkins is freed from questions
about what art should be and can accept that religious ideas in art are simply
unacceptable without asking whether they in fact should be, whether it is a
prejudicial rejection that leaves religion out of contemporary art. Elkins’s
definitions of religion and spirituality may be less contentious.
[5] In these definitions, as in
other places in the book, Elkins’s analytical style is something of the
no-nonsense, just-the-facts-ma’am variety that is at times quite refreshing to
read in an environment of academic books that so often try to deal with six or
seven counterarguments while delineating their own position. However, there are times that this same
style makes his judgments seem underwhelming because they are not supported by
much evidence and come across as mere stipulation as when, for example, he
dismisses a work of art by Han Fronius simply asserting that it “is haggard and
heartfelt and not a very good painting by fine-art standards” (41). Why so? Such unsubstantiated evaluations are strewn throughout the
book and will not bother those who are used to art critical discourse à la Clement Greenberg, but the suggestion that there is
a consensus among art world people about what constitutes the “standards” of
“good painting” is debatable.
[6] Summarizing his goals for the
book, Elkins explains that he wants “to see if it is possible to adjust the
existing discourses enough to make it possible to address both secular
theorists and religionists who would normally consider themselves outside the
art world” (xi). While I support
this project, I think that demonstrating the ideological assumptions of secular
anti-religionists is paramount to its success. Thus when Elkins explains that
“the art world can accept a wide range of ‘religious’ art by people who hate
religion, by people who are deeply uncertain about it, by the disgruntled and
the disaffected and the skeptical, but there is no place for artists who
express straightforward, ordinarily religious faith” (47), he should critically
consider the ideological basis of such a conceptualization and doesn’t. Why should the artist need to appear “meditative and uncertain
about both art and religion” and why must “ambiguity and self-critique” be
“integral to the work” (47)? More
fundamentally, why should such considerations be the basis for quality in art,
or conditions of its ontology, as none of these concepts seem integral to art
as such, but are rather the vestiges of the philosophical history of the
Enlightenment? Elkins’ work seems
to exist in a world in which the assumptions of the Enlightenment have not been
challenged, but that world doesn’t exist any more, as everyone working in the shadow
of poststructuralism knows.
[7] All criticisms aside, Elkins’s
book remains an invaluable contribution to a discussion that has been largely
ignored by art historians for too long, and he deserves to be praised for
intelligently returning to a subject that has been taboo for too long.
Caleb D. Spencer
The School of the Art
Institute of Chicago
cspenc1@artic.edu
