In the News: Religious Art in Public Spaces

Stacy's presentation today addresses the recurrent issue of the relationship betwen church and state. In this case, the question is whether the government should allow or fund religious-themed art in public spaces. In this case, an Oklahoma city wants to place a statue of Jesus downtown during Christmas and have taxpayers pay for the statue. The only real defense that the proponents of the statue seem to have is to claim that the statue isn't necessarily Jesus.

This raises an interesting question. Art is often ambiguous in its meaning, and its methods of representation are not always to replicate images exactly. What is considered religious art? Would Thomas Kinkade's work be considered relgious art, since the artist claims it is inspired by Jesus, even if it doesn't depict any specific religious iconography? Could a Kinkade painting be bought by a government and displayed in a public space? What if a piece of religious-themed art was created that was intentionally ambiguous in its form? A rainbow , for instance, is part of the biblical narrative about the great flodo and God's promise to Noah to never flood the world again. So, could a rainbow be displayed in public?

Perhaps what is really most offensive about religious art is it's kitchiness. Perhaps it's just too realistic or straightforward or representational. If religious artists could express their religious views throughthe iconogrpahy of the doughnut, or inflatable rabbits, maybe they could get the public to support their work.