On Deserted Landscapes and Divine Iconography: Iconographic Perspectives on the Origins of YHWH

In light of three important trends and developments within recent research—first, the interpretation, the dating and the literary growth of the second commandment (Exod 20:4 ‖ Deut 5:8); second, the reevaluation of ancient Israel’s origins; and, third, the continuously increasing archaeological and iconographic record—the article surveys potential repre­senta­tions of YHWH from pre-exilic and post-exilic times in order to evaluate them against the background of YHWH’s origins. Without aiming at a clear identification of YHWH imagery, the study analyses a broad range of iconographic material: anthropomorphic and theriomorphic figurines, the motif of “the lord of the ostriches,” a cult stand from Taanach, the Bes-like figurines on the drawings from Kuntillet Ajrud, humanoid figures on a sherd from a strainer jar, the motif of an enthroned deity on a boat, the so-called horse and rider figurines and a famous Yehud coin depicting a deity on a winged wheel. Based on this evidence, it will be argued that the iconographic data can and should be included as a verifying or falsifying per­spec­tive into the discussion about YHWH’s origins. In order to fulfill this function, the iconographic evidence has to be studied without a specific religious-historical reconstruction in mind. Instead, the full range of possible interpretations and the polyvalent character of the imagery in particular should be taken into account.

Cinderella! Cinderella!: A closer look into Dutch seventeenth-century gender roles and genre paintings

This article highlights a time when Northern artists were no longer allowed to paint or carve holy images as they had done during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Catholic Church banned this art form due to the interpretation of the second commandment: ‘Thou shalt make no graven image of thy God’. Genre paintings were the outcome of this banishment and a way to represent and depict an everyday life scene in a Dutch seventeenth-century household. The paintings would show the best of a situation and also its worst counterpart in almost a mocking comical way. By exploring these paintings, we come to understand how women were fed propaganda into becoming a better housewife, mother and bearing the weight of physical nourisher to all. Although amusing, the images have been celebrated and considered legendary during the Golden Age of the Netherlands. While taking a closer look at genre paintings and the everyday practices of the Dutch household, we can connect patterns to how these paintings affected women and influenced their domestic duties in the Golden Age.

Memaknai Iconography Kristen dari Perspektif Keluaran 20:4-6

The presence of statues in the Church has led a debate in various aspects of life, one of the issues raised is related to the commandments in God's ten commandments not to make statues and to worship the statue (Exodus 20: 4-6; Deut. 5: 8-10; Lev. 19: 4). As much as possible, this study wants to see how this statue relates to the second commandment of ten laws. In the hermeneutic approach, the researcher found that the meaning of this command was to clearly reject the establishment of a statue that was used to personalize divinity especially believed to be a manifestation of God himself.Abstraksi: Kehadiran patung dalam Gereja telah menimbulkan pro dan kontra dalam berbagai aspek kehidupan, salah satu isu yang dimunculkan adalah berkaitan dengan salah satu perintah dalam sepuluh perintah Allah untuk tidak membuat patung dan sujud menyembah patung tersebut (Keluaran 20:4-6, bandingkan Ul. 5:8-10; Im.19:4). Penelitian ini sedapat mungkin ingin melihat bagaimana hubungan patung ini dengan perintah kedua dari sepuluh hukum. Dalam pendekatan hermenutik, peneliti menemukan bahwa makna dari perintah ini adalah dengan jelas menolak pendirian patung yang digunakan untuk mempersonafikasikan keillahian apalagi dipercaya sebagai wujud dari Allah itu sendiri

The creation of beauty by its destruction: the idoloclastic aesthetic in modern and contemporary Jewish art

Contemporary commentators are well aware that the Jewish tradition is not an aniconic one. Far from suppressing art, the Second Commandment produces it. And not just abstract art; it also uses halakhically mandated idoloclastic techniques to produce figurative images that at once cancel and restore the glory (kavod) of the human. This article suggests that Jewish art’s observance of the Second Commandment’s proscription of idolatrous images (a commandment that belongs indivisibly with the First) is ever more relevant to a contemporary image-saturated mass culture whose consumption induces feelings of both hubris and self-disgust or shame. The article revisits Steven Schwarzschild’s interpretation of the halakhic requirement that artists should deliberately misdraw or distort the human form and Anthony Julius’s account of Jewish art as one that that mobilizes idol breaking. As an aesthetic consequence of the rabbinic permission to mock idols – and thereby render the ideological cults for which they are visual propaganda merely laughable or absurd – distortive, auto-destructive and other related forms of Jewish art are not intended to alienate the sanctity of the human. On the contrary, by honouring the transcendence of the human, especially the face, idoloclastic art knows the human figure as sublime, always exceeding any representation of its form. Idoloclastic anti-images thereby belong to a messianic aesthetic of incompletion that knows the world as it ought to be but is not yet; that remains open to its own futurity: the restoration of dignity, in love.

Judaism and Visual Art

Until the late 20th century, it was widely assumed that visual art could be of only negligible significance to a Jewish tradition that had been principally mediated through written texts. However, by the closing decades of the 20th century, Jewish cultural historians had demonstrated that, while Jewish worship and study is indubitably logocentric, the Second Commandment’s prohibition of the making and worshipping of graven images has not entailed a blanket ban on visual art. Jews have not been uniformly indifferent or hostile to visual art, a category that includes the architectural design and decoration of synagogues; funerary monuments; illuminated manuscripts; embroidery; liturgical seats, pulpits, and the other fittings and ornaments of religious Jewish life at home and at worship; as well as, since the 19th century, drawing, painting and sculpture. Most interpreters now read the biblical texts as prohibiting only the making and worshipping of images of the divine. The Bible forbids idolatry, but is aware that not all images are idolatrous. By around the 3rd century of the Common Era, rabbinical rulings recognized that the danger of Jews becoming idolaters, as they might have done under formerly pagan dispensations, had passed. In short, although in a number of Jewish historical periods and geographical regions there have been good reasons to be reluctant to accommodate visual art within the tradition, there is also ample evidence of visual art in settings that span the entire geography and history of Judaism. Jewish avoidance or neglect of visual art has usually been more historically contingent than theologically necessary. The religious culture of Jews resident in Islamic lands, for example, tended to conform to their hosts’ prevailing, though not historically or geographically comprehensive, tendency to aniconism. On grounds such as these, it has been argued that the notion of Judaism as an aniconic tradition is a modern one. Kant’s appreciation of the Second Commandment as one of Judaism’s few redeeming features, proscribing any crude urge to see that which exceeds the bounds of sensibility, encouraged western European Jews to advert to Judaism’s lack of art a sign of its pre-eminence as the first enlightened religion. The 19th and early 20th-century claim that Jewish tradition is aural and literary, but not visual, seems to have owed more to the modern German scientific study of Judaism’s use of the Second Commandment to highlight affinities between Jewish and Christian monotheism and to Jews’ desire to integrate into Protestant culture, than to restrictions within their own legal and cultural inheritance. Perceived violations of the Second Commandment no longer provoke much of a reaction in any but the most conservative Jewish communities. And even among the Haredim, artists have begun to paint semi-abstract pictures that are not considered a deviation from halakhic norms. Yet, while many Jews still regard abstraction as a more permissible form of Jewish visual art than others, it is evident that the art tradition that developed after Jewish civil emancipation in Western Europe has actually been predominantly figurative. A number of scholars have therefore proposed that the Second Commandment has not so much prevented figurative visual art as promoted a distinctive set of styles and techniques, especially those that allow Jewish artists to make images that fulfill their quintessentially Jewish obligation to criticize idolatrous images. Jewish art, it has been argued, exists because of the Second Commandment, not in spite of it. This essay does not cover Jewish approaches and contributions to film and architecture. It examines both the history and theorization of Jewish visual art and Jewish religious approaches to visual art. The essay uses the findings of this two-pronged enquiry to suggest that Jewish visual art, which is more than art by artists who happen to be Jews, is properly counter-idolatrous art, art that is far from hindered by the Second Commandment but is actively produced by it. Jewish art does more than build cultural, political, and national Jewish identities; it does more than the commemorative work of visually constructing Jewish memory. Visual art made by Jews becomes Jewish when it serves a constructive theological, prophetic purpose and when it uses idoloclastic techniques to produce images that both cancel and restore the glory of the human. This claim counters the prevailing view that there can be no unified or normative theory of Jewish art.