The Institutional Theory of Religious Art

By Ben Schachter

I recently read On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art by James Elkins. In it he defines Art using the institutional theory of art made famous by Dickie. The Institutional Theory of art holds that the art market contributes not only to the notion of what is good or valuable art but also to what art is. Those who buy it, sell it, advocate for it, invest in it, admire it, study it and promote it comprise the body of people who influence what it is.

There are several limitations and objections to this theory. I’ll only mention a few that are related to my main idea. First, artists bristle at the idea that someone else encroaches on their sensibilities and vision. Second, the theory delimits a certain kind of art. Other forms of art such as outsider art, ethnic arts, etc. sometimes garner the attention of institutions but they are not the primary form of art circulated within the system otherwise known as high art. That’s fine, and in fact, the institutional theory purports to define art but it also defines a particular audience.

And that audience, in this case, rejects religious art. And therefore it is not surprising that Elkins writes:

As a rule: ambitious, successful contemporary fine art is thoroughly non-religious. Most religious art – I’m saying this bluntly here, because it needs to be said – is just bad art.

So here we are. Art is defined by the institutions that support it. Those institutions reject religious art because they do not need it. By their rejection religious art partially, or totally, loses its art status. I don’t suppose that Elkins could summarily reject religious art, he is an art historian after all, so perhaps that influenced how he wrote his blunt assessment . It is preposterous to say that religious paintings, sculptures, etc. are not art, isn’t it? Instead these objects become kitsch, visual culture and “just bad art.”

Is there an alternative to the Institutional theory? And if so, what are its benefits? Can we formulate another theory that includes religious art?

Imagine this: a religious art market filled with people who buy it, sell it, advocate for it, invest in it, admire it, study it and promote it. Sounds a bit like the Renaissance where art served as a way to broadcast power, communicate religious belief, demonstrate synthetic thinking, explore philosophical and scientific developments, etc. Religious iconography communicated faith but often intersected with other themes.

Today, a religious art market would be entirely different. Temples, churches, mosques in America are in much closer proximity to each other than in other countries or at other times. Christianity in particular has gone through numerable changes that have greatly altered the visual experience of prayer. Donations to religious causes do not take the form of commissions as they once did but rather support social services, outreach, etc. More importantly, morality and ethics are communicated for reasons beyond edification. Commercials often suggest that by buying a product or service one is becoming a better person.

Some people, particularly in contemporary Jewish Art, support something else. They are looking for ways in which religious content is shared, taught, interpreted, expressed, lived and communicated within contemporary society. And perhaps most importantly they are looking to see what connections emerge between religion and art today. Jewish Art is not devotional in the sense that it is used as a visual focus. And for that reason it is perhaps the best test case to actually see what contemporary Jewish Art does to and with Art.

The market for religious art or art with religious subject matter will never displace the institutions that support high art as it is often called. Nor will such a market truly compete with it either. But what such a market will do is inform religious art in ways similar to the ways the Institutional theory influences the art it accepts. How its market would influence religious art is the topic for another post.