“When is a painting not a painting? When it is a hot line to God.”
November 8th, 2008 by Menachem Wecker
At least according to David Byrne. The post is a bit tough to decipher, but I don’t like the idea one bit that sacred icons need not be aesthetically sound works of art as well. Byrne writes:
A copy, maybe every copy, maybe even bad copies, of the original icon was believed to somehow partake of the power of the original. This is digital technology from 1000 years ago! … Needless to say, one doesn’t judge these “artworks” in the same way one judges other portraits, just as a splinter allegedly from the cross is no mere chunk of kindling. Art criticism in this case becomes useless, and aesthetics too — it all becomes irrelevant.
The notion that poor art can deliver true religious experience is fascinating, and in theory great saints could surely see God even in kitsch, but art criticism is quite useful in analyzing icons, which in my view double as both religious objects and art.