Iconography: Textual or Visual?

I'm reading a book on biblical literalism which reminded me of a question I thought up a few years ago. Which books, literally which versions of the Bible, were artists consulting when creating works of religious art?

This might as first seem like a trivial query since you would expect all Bibles to generally say the same thing, but historically that's not completely true. The Holy Book developed over several centuries and has been inadvertently and deliberate changed up until very modern times. (Thomas Jefferson in fact wrote his own version of the Bible in the early 19th century, radically removing all miracles from Jesus' history and privileging only his spiritual teachings.) Also, the text of the Bible can significantly affect art; Moses' horns in Michelangelo's famed

statue of the Old Testament father are a result of a translation error meant to describe rays of light emanating from Moses rather than actual horns coming out of his head. Nonetheless, the biblical text said horns and so began a recurrent art historical motif.

Dependence on biblical text (or lack thereof) can most easily be seen in early Christian art when iconographic stereotypes nor the Bible itself were completely established. Typical Christian stories hadn't yet emerged so the iconography is infinitely more difficult to read. In fact, scholars have already noted that early Christian art was more influenced by the visual culture of the Roman world rather than upon source material from any common book. In this case it's because the common book itself which could have provided more homogeneous iconographic programs was fragmented and not yet fully canonized.

But even in later eras, I wonder which sources artists referenced to guide their work. Each Bible, especially before the advent of the printing press, was a highly individual, unique object which had been copied (always with a handful of errors) by a monk or scribe. When do errors like these affect the art? And during the Reformation when the Protestants opted to toss out an entire section of the Old Testament (now referred to as the Apocrypha), how did that affect the imagery of religious Protestant art? Albrecht Durer was born and died as a Roman Catholic, though he has been suspected of sympathizing with Martin Luther. Close examination and research into his iconography as it relates to biblical texts, I think could shed some light on his personal preferences.

And then there's the last question which is equally significant and dismantling to this idea; how much have artists relied on Bibles versus simply looking at iconographic tradition for their motifs? Any six year-old today who's been to three days worth of Sunday school could probably draw a decent creation scene without checking the Bible first, so naturally the greatest artists in history could do the same. Textual significance of religious iconography actually opens up a larger question of what most significantly influences artistic development: literary source and critique or inspiration from visual data?


For more on biblical literalism (not related to art history), read A Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs.

There's a Fight Going on in D.C.

Which isn't really a surprise, but this particular fight piqued my interest. Certain groups from all sides of the metaphorical fence including the Catholic League, the Republican party, representatives from the GLBT community, and leaders in the art world have been offended concerning a four minute surrealist video installation which had been showing in the current exhibition of the Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery until it was pulled due to controversy.

The exhibition, called "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," is about the development of sexual difference in America and how artists have dealt with it during its changing status since "before difference" which the exhibit marks with Walt Whitman and Thomas Eakins in the 1880s. The controversy centers upon the aforementioned video piece by the late David Wojnarowicz which features an eleven second scene of ants crawling upon a toppled crucifix. The video itself is about Wojnarowicz's turmoil as he watched his partner die of AIDS, followed by Wojnarowicz's own death from the same disease. Evidently, about a month after the exhibition went up, cries of disapproval - sparked mostly by CNSnews - claimed that the video was anti-Christian and offensive after which the Smithsonian removed the piece from view. However, not knowing when to leave well-enough alone, Bill Donohue from the Catholic League decided to go one further and state that the Smithsonian doesn't deserve its federal funding since "I don't go to museums any more than any Americans do." Apparently he believes that since many Americans like him are too ignorant and lazy to seek cultural experiences, our government should be prevented from providing this service to anyone at all.

From there, the fight becomes significantly more complicated and petty (as D.C. politics tend to be) so I'll spare you the details. In essence, the Bill Donohue and his Catholic League are angry about the alleged anti-Christian sentiment, the Republicans (Boehner and friends) are bothered that the Smithsonian used federal funding for the project, the gay community is upset that they haven't been properly supported throughout the venture, and the art world is pissed that the Smithsonian gave in to censorship. In short, it's a mess. And aside from their initial move, the Smithsonian has tried to limit its further commentary on the entire fiasco.

But here's the deal, my opinion at least. Criticisms from the Catholic League, CNS, and the Republicans are just thinly veiled anti-homosexual bigotry. Attacking the use of battered Christian imagery or homo-erotic presentations in modern art is merely an uneducated and biased perspective on a ground-breaking exhibition. Both Christian imagery and homo-eroticism have been staples of Western art since Western art was born. Sure, there is a way to take it too far by exploiting either theme for the sake of shock value or mere mockery, but these images have a purpose and a message. The Republicans are just as bad if not worse by targeting the funds for this and all future projects, clearly looking for a way to get at those they marginalize without outright announcing their homophobia. It's pathetic, disgusting, and unfounded. The Smithsonian Institute needs not be named as an outstanding public organization which has served the public well and faithfully for more than 150 years. The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community which can be rightfully offended, as we all should be by this nation's persistent refusal to accept them, also needs to understand that sometimes small sacrifices are necessary for a greater good. This exhibit is important; it is new; it is pushing the envelope for recognizing homosexuality as a natural, significant part of life in America. The four minute video sparking religious controversy should not take away focus from the rest of the works, and it was perhaps best to let that argument go in favor of protecting the larger message of Hide/Seek. Lastly, the art community also has the right to be aggravated by censorship, but the safest move in the end is to pull together with the museum rather than threaten to cut external support. The arts go through enough trauma already from our detractors, and we won't stand up much longer if we start dissention within ourselves.

To put the still image in context with the video here's the link. You must be at least 18 or older to watch due to some graphic images and sexual content. This YouTube edit is slightly different than the museum cut most significantly in that it doesn't use the original audio.

ArtNews article reference (with more detail and many excellent embedded links)
NYTimes (focusing more on the gay rights issues at stake)