Art and Religion: Friends or Enemies?

Both art and religion are in a way fundamental to being human; both take root from meaning and deal with the concept (in some form) of universal human values. Both disciplines are expressions of or searches for beauty. The path of each is similar as well-told through stories, images, symbols, and performance-making a connection between the two easy to pinpoint. Yet at the turn of the century art was considered a substitute for religion, perhaps due to its similarity. Both exhibit a sense of consciousness about their subjects, perhaps some religious experts were threatened by the idea of criticism. There is a long history behind the ideas of turning art into religion and conversely that of turning religion into art.

Or maybe it was the movement that art should be taken seriously on its own. Taking art seriously meant more than using art as a means to express adoration. Instead it opened the world of art to criticism; at face value it was no longer accepted as merely historical social documentation. This blurs the line between metaphor and representative expression. Is it to be taken as literal or is there some bigger, deeper meaning intended behind the text?

So what room is there for art within the world of religion? When the language of both is based on symbols - both religious and aesthetic-aspects of reality are then available for examination that weren't previously open. Both art and religion allow us to delve further into ourselves, unlocking deeper dimensions of our individual realities. But that also means more than the artistically religious, or religiously artistic, texts could be means to explain reality; the non-religious art gained validity as possible explanations of truth. Can the nonreligious be a representation of meaning?

Conversely, it also means there is validity to religion being expressed and experienced through the aesthetic and allowed for art to hold religious connotations. But again, that could be taken as problematic, what with art's recent stance as something to be taken seriously. The door to artistic idolatry was thrown wide open making the subject of art something of a fetish if you will. And with something to be taken seriously and with expressive symbolism, religion was then thrown wide open to the academically critical. Are religious texts merely historical social documents, or are they too open to the creative interpretation of what might be behind a possible metaphor?

Naturally, that opens the door to yet another question: Is meaning static? Is the meaning in a text universal or is it in the process of interpretation that we glean a text's meaning? Perhaps there is an intended meaning supplemented by additional interpreted meanings.

Then there is the question of art that seems to directly contradict or oppose the stance of religion-that which is considered low art or controversial. What place in religion does such art hold, if any at all? Does only iconoclastic art have a home in the world of religion? Or is it the other art that has an even bigger place within religion? The art that offends often does so because of one's religion and that can be a much bigger statement about meaning and relationships between religion and art than merely religious icons. The art and religion that exist beyond being art for art's sake or religion for religion's sake speaks volumes more about both art and religion. Is all art a medium of theological expression, or is that a meaning that can only be attributed through the dialogue of interpretation? Or is art a representation of the Holy because it speaks to our reality about meaning? I'd claim all art is religious in that it asks the viewer to develop their own reaction from their own experience, and that includes their religious background.

Within the world's treasures of art is the principle subject matter of religion, so both are deeply involved with the other. The native dances calling upon the gods or a decorative stick possessing magical powers were all mutually religious and artistic. The emotional factor in the primitive rituals that doubled as primitive drama results in the beginnings of religion and art to be interconnected and largely indistinguishable. But in the modern world, a rift has developed between the two leaving one last question: Is art a construct that threatens to dissolve or is it the promise of rebirth?