What the Book Arts Can Teach Us About Sacred Texts
The Aesthetic Dimension of Scripture
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/post.32516Keywords:
aesthetics, book art, sacred texts, sensation, reading, ritual, artists booksAbstract
Religion and art became separated in the modern age, or so the secularized story goes. But looking at a history of books, including their artistic creation, we find interesting ongoing parallels occurring between religious and artistic texts. Illustrations and scripts, bindings and papers, printmaking and performance, all serve artistic and religious ends. The artistic and the religious are tied together, ultimately, by appealing to the senses, bringing texts and reading into the realm of the aesthetic (Gk. aesthetikos: pertaining to sense perception). Books are powerful and enjoyable as well as dangerous and condemned, because they are felt, seen, tasted, heard, and touched. By looking at contemporary “book arts” and noting their sensual affects, we can understand “sacred texts” in better ways. Ultimately we find modern secular arts are not so far from religious experiences. Examples come from modern book artists such as John Latham, Brian Dettmer, Luigi Serafini, Meg Hitchcock, and Guy Laramée.
References
Blanchot, Maurice. 1995. The Work of Fire. Translated by Charlotte Mandell. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bowker, John. 2014. The Message and the Book: Sacred Texts of the World’s Religions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, Ellen Firsching. 2008. “The Cut-up Artist.” Fine Books & Collections, 33 (May/June): 48.
Brown, Michelle. 2007. “Introduction to The Holkham Bible Picture Book. A Facsimile.” London: British Library.
Camille, Michael. 1998. “Sensations of the page: Imaging technologies and Medieval illuminated manuscripts.” In The Iconic Page in Manuscript, Print, and Digital Culture, edited by George Bornstein and Theresa Tinkle, 33–53. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Drucker, Johanna. 2004. The Century of Artists’ Books. New York: Granary.
Dubansky, Mindell. 2016. Blooks: The Art of Books that Aren’t. New York: Mindell Dubansky.
Howes, David. 2003. “Coming to our senses: The sensual turn in anthropological understanding.” In Sensual Relations: Engaging the Senses in Culture and Social Theory, edited by David Howes, 29–59. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11852
Jansen, Thomas. 2012. “Sacred Text.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Chinese Religions, edited by Randall L. Nadeau. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361995.ch13
Kirschbaum, Robert. 2009. “The 42-Letter Name.” Artist’s limited edition.
Levering, Miriam. 1989. Rethinking Scripture. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Martin, Nicholas. n.d. “From front to back: Art and design under the influence of books.” In Charisma of the Book, Exhibition catalog. Abu Dhabi: New York University Art Gallery.
Myrvold, Kristina. 2010. “Introduction.” In The Death of Sacred Texts: Ritual Disposal and Renovation of Texts in World Religions, edited by Kristina Myrvold, 1–10. Abingdon: Routledge.
Partington, Gill. 2014. “From books to skoob; Or, media theory with a circular saw.” In Book Destruction from the Medieval to the Contemporary, edited by Gill Partington and Adam Smyth, 57–73. New York: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137367662_4
Pentchava, Bissera. 2010. The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium. University Park: Penn State University Press.
Phillpot, Clive. 2013. Booktrek: Selected Essays on Artists’ Books since 1972. Zurich: J.R.P. Ringier.
Plate, S. Brent. 2011. “The skin of religion: Aesthetic mediations of the sacred.” CrossCurrents. 62(2): 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-3881.2012.00228.x
Stewart, Garrett. 2011. Bookwork: Medium to Object to Concept to Art. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226773933.001.0001
Taylor, Justin. 2007. “The Codex Seraphinianus.” The Believer. (May): http://www.believermag.com/issues/200705/?read=article_taylor
Watts, James. 2006. “The Three Dimensions of Scripture.” Postscripts 2(2–3): 135–159.
