visual representation of judaism

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
African Religions
Ancient Religion
Biblical Studies
Biographies and Works
Christianity
Comparative Religions
Global Perspectives on Religion
Indigenous Religions
Islamic Studies
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Literary and Textual Studies
Methodology and Resources
Mysticism and Spirituality
Myth and Legend
New Religions
Religion and Art
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion in America
Rituals, Practices, and Symbolism
Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology of Religion
Theology and Philosophy of Religion
Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Judaism and visual art.

Melissa Raphael Melissa Raphael University of Gloucestershire
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.98
Published online: 05 April 2016

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.

commandment
abstraction
emancipation

Historiography

The Second Commandment, as set out with slight, but not insignificant, variations in Exodus 20:4, 34:17; Leviticus 19:4, 26:1; and Deuteronomy 5:8 and 27:15, is textually and theologically indivisible from the First Commandment. The injunction of Exodus 20:3: “You shall have no other gods besides Me,” declares that God’s pre-eminence as Israel’s sovereign Lord is safeguarded by abstention from making images of foreign gods to whom the people might defect. Moreover, God’s refusal to allow his representation in any image, not least because he unrepresentable—not susceptible to the finition of an image—is a means by which to set him and his people apart from other gods and peoples as holy. The only one permitted to make an image of God is God, who makes humanity in his own image (Gen. 1:26–28). Human beings are not permitted to make an image of God in their own image. The only legitimate image of God, then, is the human, and human flesh is not made of wood, stone, gold, or silver, but dust (Gen. 3:19; Job 10:9).

The contemporary interpretative consensus is that the biblical Second Commandment does not forbid the making of images as such, 1 but rather their worship. After all, in the Hebrew Bible, Bezalel, appointed by God, crafts utensils for the tabernacle in Solomon’s Temple, but there is no suggestion that he is an idol maker. On the contrary, Bezalel is a great craftsman because he is endowed with a divine spirit of knowledge, skill, and the highly developed aesthetic sense of a designer. His creativity, like that of his assistant Oholiab, is dedicated to the service of God, is a function of his purity of heart (Exod. 31:1–6; 35:30–35). The first book of Kings gives a thrilling inventory of the Temple’s decoration: its sculpted palms, lilies, oxen, lions, and other natural phenomena, and the winged, gilded cherubim carved from olive wood that flank the Ark (claimed by some to be an empty throne) in the Holy of Holies.

It was from about the 8th century bce that images came to be understood less as henotheistic representations of gods that are under ban, because their worship rivaled that of the God of the Israelites, and more as the reduction of the supernatural God of spirit into a piece of mere natural or humanly crafted material by which men merely worship themselves. To the prophets, idolatrous images were fetishes whose worship was an error for which the people would be severely punished. The prophetic criticism of idols was not the prohibition of any figurative image but a reminder that its power as image and subject was not superhuman. Idolatrous images are lifeless and heartless pieces of painted or otherwise fashioned matter; they answer to no human appeal. Where the human person created by God is alive and can speak and walk, the idol created by a craftsman is unmoving and unmoved, deaf, dumb, and blind, in short, dead and death-dealing (Isa. 44:9–21; Jer.10:14–15; and elsewhere).

Colonial rule in late Hellenistic or Hasmonean Palestine repeatedly imposed its own sacral images on the Jewish population (sometimes with gross sacrilegious offence) as symbols of its political and cultural power. The desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV in 167 bce was a traumatic case in point. Hellenization, from around 335–65 bce , saw a reactive tendency to restrictive interpretations of the Second Commandment. Yet by the post-biblical period, diaspora Jews of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries knew that the declining Graeco-Roman pagan cults had ceased to pose a threat to their religio-cultural identity. The 3rd century synagogue at Dura-Europos in eastern Syria, replete with images of the binding of Isaac and Moses parting the Red Sea

Figure 1. Jews cross Red Sea pursued by Pharoah. Fresco from Dura Europos Synagogue, 244–256 ce .

, may therefore reflect rabbinic attitudes of the period, as well as the adaptive cultural environment of particular Jewish communities, rather than, as previously thought, representing a para-Christian deviation from Jewish norms. Figurative images on the mosaic floors in the late antique synagogues of Beth Alpha and Sepphoris (now in northern Israel) may indicate that in late antiquity pagan symbols had been subject to a process of Judaization. 2 Such phenomena prompted Erwin Goodenough, in his 1953 Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period , 3 to suggest that rabbinic opposition to the Second Commandment was not as pronounced as might be supposed.

In late antiquity, the rabbis’ rulings on figurative art, usually made with reference to the decoration of the synagogue, were relatively permissive. As rabbinic opinion did not constitute a monolithic institution, a degree of inconsistency and occasional laxity is not surprising. Rabbinic opinion did not entirely reflect or determine the wider community’s attitudes to Jewish art, and the rabbis (a more socially, geographically, historically, and spiritually diverse body of commentators than is sometimes thought) were well aware that not all images are objects of worship. The most famous instance of rabbinic permissiveness is that of Rabban Gamaliel who felt no halakhic compunction about using the Roman baths at Acre, in which stood a statue of the Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite. His common sense told him that the image was decorative in function and an image that is not treated as a god is permitted (BT Avodah Zarah 44b). The Talmudic understanding of idolatry ( avodah zarah , lit. “strange worship”) was more ethically intelligent than a mere religious ban and encapsulated a nuanced criticism of an idolatrous culture and its practices. 4

If Jewish communities went on to produce fewer works of visual art than many Christian ones, this may owe as much to historical and economic factors than to halakhic ones. Jews would not have been oblivious to the cultural upheaval and strife brought about during successive waves of Christian iconoclasm. And in areas of the world dominated by broadly aniconic types of Islam, Jewish art had few opportunities. Sephardi Jews living under early medieval Muslim rule, even with relatively high levels of religious self-government, generally refrained from figurative representation of animals and people in the synagogue. Jewish illuminated manuscripts and decorative textiles were usually decorated with semi-abstract images of flowers, vines, and so forth. Broadly speaking, however, Jewish tradition followed Nahmanides in accepting that there is no injunction against making images that are not objects of worship, albeit with special considerations being applied to images of human beings; but periodic expulsions, cultural isolation, and exclusion from craft guilds all served to elevate the textual competences of medieval Jews and limit the production of visual art.

By the medieval period, idolatry had long been regarded as a metaphysical error or category mistake, not a defection to paganism. Maimonides treated linguistic, especially anthropomorphic, images of God as no more permissible than visual ones. Anything suggesting an analogous relation between God and the human is gravely erroneous. 5 Any who ascribe a corporeal image to God, whether conceptually or materially, forfeit their share in the world-to-come. Although it is recorded that richly decorated synagogues forced Maimonides to shut his eyes in spiritual distaste, he also accepted that legitimate visual arts that refrained from glorification of the human form could refresh the mind, soul, and body.

Indeed, all over medieval Europe, according to Kalman Bland, Jewish regard for the visual intensified. Jewish pilgrims were impressed by the world’s great architectural monuments, and Jewish artisans produced ever more elaborate ritual objects, embroideries, jewelry, ceramics, boxes, amulets, and tombstones. 6 Before modernity, religion and culture were not separable. The visuality of Jewish material culture was theologically determined. Elliot Wolfson has rejected any account of Judaism as comprehensively aniconic as “a gross oversimplification” of the tradition. Despite the inevitable tensions between visionary, theophanic, and aniconic texts in the biblical and rabbinic literature, Wolfson finds that, between Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Jewish mysticism was “overwhelmingly visual” and that sight enjoyed an “epistemic priority” over the other senses. Jewish mystics, he notes, used visionary techniques in order to “see” the imaginal body of God. 7

The ruling of the early modern biblical commentator Rabbi Obadiah Sforno is a notable exception to the relative permissiveness of the rabbinic aesthetic. Regardless of the artist’s intention, Sforno judges the making of any image to be an act of “rebellion” against God. But more commonly, it was only images of people that presented halakhic problems. The three-dimensional representation of a whole person in the form of a statue, even if only for commemorative purposes, and even if not in certain violation of halakhah, continued to particularly offend the rabbinic aesthetic. The image of a face in profile was widely regarded as less problematic than a frontal portrait, where the relationship between the human and the divine is most directly manifest.

Otherwise, with the glories of the two Jerusalem Temples in mind, Jewish communities took pleasure in hiddur mitzvah : the principle that Jews should aesthetically enhance the performance of a mitzvah (commandment) with the use of ritual objects that are as beautiful as the community can afford. The aesthetic worth of such objects glorifies God and celebrates the love of God and his gift of the Torah (BT Shabbat 133b; Bava Kama 9b).

During the 16th century, Rabbi Joseph Caro, in his codification of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch , adheres to the principle of hiddur mitzvah; but in Chapter 141, “Laws about Images and Forms,” he echoed the aesthetic of incompletion found in rulings such as that of the 12th-century Rabbi Ephraim of Regensburg, in which two-dimensional paintings of human figures were permissible as long as they were not depicted with human faces and complied with the aesthetic of distortion commonly found in illuminated medieval Ashkenazi manuscripts that used birds’ heads, blank faces, veils, helmets, crowns, or rear views to portray the human face. 8

Figure 2. The Birds’ Head Haggadah, c. 1300 . Israel Musuem, Jerusalem.

Caro expressed the view that representations of divine, natural, and mythic entities can only be made on condition that the images are incomplete. Images of faces, where the image of God is made manifest, must be partial, defaced, or broken—given, say, only one eye or a broken nose—if they are to be a halakhically legitimate representation. If, by the end of the 17th century, rabbinical portraiture—rarely depicting more than the head and shoulders—had become widespread, 9 the incompletion of images reminded the Jewish people that its joys, indeed its very being, is incomplete until Jerusalem is rebuilt in messianic glory.

After Jewish emancipation, the gradual weakening of halakhic control over western and central European Jewish culture allowed the greater integration of Jews into gentile culture as patrons, painters, collectors, critics, and dealers. 10 The development of Jewish art for art’s own sake during the 19th century belied Hegel’s opinion that Jews despise images because they have no culture and derive no aesthetic pleasure from beauty. Depictions of traditional Jewish scenes and characters by artists, such as those by Moritz Daniel Oppenheim ( 1800–1882 ), arguably the first Jewish artist, and later, Isidor Kaufmann ( 1853–1921 ), appealed to an increasingly acculturated Jewish bourgeoisie as reminders of a lost world of simple piety and spiritual authenticity. Jewish painters’ images of congregational ritual and family portraits were popular commissions from Jews who wished to share the cultural dignities of civic life with their gentile neighbors while maintaining their emotional commitments to Jewish particularity. 11 As Nicholas Mirzoeff has pointed out, “Jewish art exploded in the era of emancipation, not because the age-old prohibitions of the Second Commandment were all of a sudden ignored, but because the question of appearances had now become paramount.” 12

Isidor Kaufmann, whose most famous works are ceremonious portraits of Orthodox Jews (or possibly locals dressed as Orthodox Jews) in Austria and Alsace, painted in the first years of the 20th century, was from a relatively assimilated Jewish background; other artists had had Orthodox upbringings.

Figure 3. Isidor Kaufmann, Man with Fur Hat, c . 1910 . Oil on panel, height: 410 mm (16.14 in), width: 310 mm (12.2 in). The Jewish Museum, New York.

But almost all were trained by non-Jewish teachers and were moderns in so far as they asserted the right to self-representation as rational civic Jewish subjects in a Christian culture that originated in a Jewish one. Subjects that had previously been confined to Christian art were now accessible to Jewish interpretation. The Galician artist Maurycy Gottlieb’s Christ Teaching at Capernaum ( 1878–1879 ), for example, set aside older Jewish prejudices against referring to Christ (let alone depicting him in images) and painted him as a preacher garbed in Jewish religious dress in an unambiguously synagogal setting. In reclaiming the Jewishness of Jesus, he could downplay the otherness of the Jew.

However, by the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, nationalistic anti-Semitism was gaining ever more political traction. In a period blighted, in Eastern Europe particularly, by pogroms, the former optimism of Jewish art gradually drained away. Polish-Jewish artists such as Szmul Hirszenberg and Maurycy Minkowski laid greater emphasis on the pathos of the Jewish condition as one of economic hardship and persecution. Hirszenberg’s Exile ( 1904 ) was a much-reproduced exemplar of this sombre European artistic turn.

By contrast, Jewish artists who had settled in the Ottoman Palestine of the Second Aliyah were producing art that was suffused with light and hope, 13 The rise of Zionism in the late 19th and early 20th century had lent visual art a central role in the construction of a new national identity. At the Fifth Zionist Conference in Basel, in 1901 , Martin Buber mounted a historic exhibition intended to define Jewish art and call for its development in Palestine as an expression of the collective Jewish soul that could now express itself in a national idiom. Buber and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook were key figures in the promotion of a nascent Zionist visual art typified by the printmaker Ephraim Moses Lilien.

Figure 4. Ephraim Moses Lilien, woodcut, Looking to the East 1901 .

In 1906 , under the leadership of its founder, Boris Schatz, the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design was established in Jerusalem (where it remains as a center and symbol of artistic excellence in 21st century Israel).

By now, Jewish art had become an object of secular Jewish study and curation in its own right, most notably in the 1907 exhibition of around two hundred works of Jewish art in Berlin. Jewish artists were participating in a range of modern artistic movements including Impressionism (Camille Pissarro), Constructivism and Suprematism (El Lissitsky), and the Berlin Secession (Max Liebermann). The Jewish Museum in Oranienburger Strasse, Berlin, opened in January 1933 , just six days before the Nazis came to power. The museum’s art exhibitions provided a cultural focus and refuge for a mere five years before its closure in 1938 , after the 1937 Munich exhibition “Degenerate Art,” which had condemned distortion in modern art as being degenerate, that is, “Jewish.”

One might expect Jewish art to have all but ceased during the Holocaust. In fact, a body of work was produced and survived whose significance, as more than merely illustrative documentation of atrocity, makes a significant, often expressionist, contribution to the history of 20th-century drawing. 14 After the Holocaust, when Jewish life began to revive outside Europe, in the newly founded State of Israel and in the United States, a revival of synagogue life necessitated the commission of Jewish artworks and buildings being designed and built at this time. Visual art was, once again, being used to reconstruct a new Jewish identity.

Despite unabated Jewish participation in all the major movements of modern art, the popular assumption that the Second Commandment entailed a blanket ban on art survived well into the second half of the 20th century. Despite the existence of a well-known and loved Jewish visual canon, and despite nearly a century of evidence to the contrary provided by archaeology, the history of art, and scholarly studies of the Hebrew Bible, mysticism, and philosophy, under-examined convictions about the un-Jewishness of art were difficult to dispel. In many respects, a residual logocentrism, as well as biblical and rabbinic suspicion of the deceptiveness of the eye as against the moral and epistemic reliability of the ear, continued to contribute to the relegation of Judaism’s material culture to a realm of negligible, or at least minor, religious significance well into the 21st century. 15 But, at the same time, by the late 1990s, across almost the entire denominational spectrum, traditional Jewish suspicions about visual art as a violation of the Second Commandment were beginning to have an antiquated ring. By then, there were artists in some of the Haredi communities such as the Hasidic Natan Dov Stein, 16 who, following the precedent set by 20th-century Hasidic artists Chenoch Handel Lieberman and Zalman Kleinman, 17 was working in the conviction that both figurative and abstract art can be used in the service of God. Painting can be an expression of spiritual joy in color and form, and creativity itself.

Approaches to Visual Art in Modern Jewish Thought

The medieval view of idolatry as a conceptual error, rather than an act of rebellion against the sovereignty of the God of Israel, persists in modern Jewish thought. For the neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen, to worship God is to devote oneself to the truth of the mind alone, which requires the repudiation of mere mimesis, seeming, and desire. Cohen felt that the Second Commandment’s suppression of the plastic arts had not only prevented Jews from self-idolization, its mandate for a literary tradition had also nurtured analytical thinking and poesis in the Jewish soul. 18

Cohen’s pupil, Franz Rosenzweig, diverged from Cohen (and Maimonides) in his theological willingness to utilize his visual, figurative imagination. He did not regard the Second Commandment as a comprehensive ban on images and understood idolatry not so much as an erroneous conception of God but as the wrong kind of worship or relationship with God. In his most famous work, The Star of Redemption ( 1921 ), Rosenzweig is concerned with the visuality of revelation, as much as or more than he is the hearing of God’s truth as word. 19 The very spectacle of the Jew, in his self-contained isolation and homelessness, induces a feeling of the uncanny that is instrumental to the Jewish mission to the gentiles as a sign of the messianic Other. Being revelation, Israel is itself the true image of God’s revelation to the world. The Star—as both figure and book 20 —ends in a cosmic explosion of light. From the center of the Star of David, with Judaism as its fiery core, and Christianity its rays, God’s countenance shines forth: “The Star of Redemption is become countenance which glances at me and out of which I glance.” 21

Revelation ultimately takes a visual form, but the practice of visual art can be, in Rosenzweig’s opinion, both limited and limiting. Visual art, while not impermissible (original, non-mimetic art can awaken the feeling of eternity) becomes idolatrous when its static nature blunts religious sensibilities and stultifies the free, dynamic, redemptive will of God. The truth, not yet, is always on its way. In contrast to the art of liturgical poetry, whose language is at once its idea, form, medium, content, and truth, the plastic arts cannot participate fully in the relational, dialogical encounter between the human and the divine, as they belong to a self-contained, unreal world in which the original vision is detached from its object. 22 Visual art, unlike the participative, petitionary arts of communal speech, is introverted into the silent realm of the enclosed self. 23

Emmanuel Levinas’ philosophical theology is markedly less aesthetic in character than Rosenzweig’s, where God’s truth is at last seen, not merely heard. As had Kant and Hermann Cohen, Levinas regarded the proscription of images as Judaism’s supreme ethical commandment. 24 Levinas’ God is a God who hides his face; there is no palpable presence. 25 In being addressed by the word alone, we are brought to maturity by our obligation to a present absence or an averted face. 26 Levinas’ ethical critique of visual art is stated with particular vehemence in early texts, such as the essay “Reality and Its Shadow,” written in the late 1940s, but rehearsed again in his 1961 , Totality and Infinity and other essays.

Levinas did, in fact, occasionally express admiration for certain pictures and artists. He particularly appreciated the 20th-century French-Jewish sculptor Sacha Sosno’s “art of obliteration,” where the viewer, not the artist, was compelled to finish creating the incomplete pieces by the exercise of their imagination alone. 27 But generally speaking, Levinas makes a clear distinction between ethics and aesthetics, insisting that, in contrast to an image of a face, the actual face is a revelation whose “nudity” (especially poignant in the post-Holocaust context), is a moral summons commanding absolute responsibility for its care. The infinity of the face cannot be reified into an image to be merely enjoyed. What is required is not a contemplative, “beautific” vision of the other, but a donation of the self to the other. 28 Art, by contrast, is founded on a procedural substitution of the object and its concept for its image. An image of a face is a substitute for a face; one flattened and closed up into a mask, or counterfeit, or caricature that cheats a subject of his or her reality. 29 An image of a person is a subtraction of a person from her own life. “Eternally, the smile of the Mona Lisa about to broaden will not broaden. An eternally suspended future floats around the congealed position of a statue like a future forever to come.” 30 The artistic gaze, in effect, silences and freezes its human object. Art, he says, proceeds “as if death were never dead enough.” 31 It is an eerily becalming disengagement from life that lulls us to ethical sleep; it is a carrier of death.

For most of the history of modern Jewish theology, the experience of revelation and its ethical consequence have not, then, been considered a primarily visual event. A. J. Heschel’s view that Torah is an exposition of an originally wordless or metalinguistic revelation that it would be an act of idolatry to represent or even imagine by visual means, 32 is most typical of the view that revelation is mediated through language, not images. Even where revelation is an affective, meta-rational event, it not through the making of art, but through Jewish observance and ethical activism, that knowledge of God and the institution of his will to justice will be achieved.

By the end of the 20th century, Lionel Kochan had similarly refused to assimilate Jewish holiness into a general hierophany. The Torah’s statutes must not be deprived of their force by the aesthetic so that, finally, it “calls for nothing more than admiration and lacks all power to address any capacity for volition.” Like Levinas, Kochan cast the appeal of the aesthetic as passive and disarming: an emasculation of the ethical imperative by feeling alone. For the visual to become pre-eminent is eventually to degrade Torah “to a spectacle and thus mute its summons to action and thought. Whereas the visual is the media of illusion, seduction, and deception (Num. 15:39; TB Sotah 8a) that lends itself to “the aesthetico-idolatrous impulse,” the aural remains the medium of instruction, understanding, and transmissibility. 33

To that extent German criticism, voiced by Kant, Hegel, Wagner, and Heidegger (among many others), that Judaism is artistically uncreative and lacks culture and may be anti-Semitic, but is not entirely wide of the mark. Although the charge that Jews, theologically blind and thereby lacking in aesthetic appreciation of natural phenomena, are too preoccupied with the calculation of commercial gain to notice beauty, or lack artistic skill because art is forbidden to them, is patently false, Judaism is indeed a practical religion with little interest in mere spectation. We have seen that non-Orthodox modern Jewish ethico-relational theology situates the encounter of divine and human in language, not the plastic arts, and Orthodox Judaism does not experience nature romantically as an aesthetic experience that is an end in itself, but as an occasion for fulfilling a given commandment. Aesthetic appreciation is inseparable from a sanctification of the world that is achieved not by art, but by the observance of revealed law and ethics.

Key Theorizations of the Role of Visual Art in Recent Jewish Studies

Perhaps the 20th century’s most important scholar of Jewish art, Joseph Gutmann, following David Kaufmann’s late 20th and early 20th-century lead, challenged iconophobic interpretations of the Second Commandment in an essay that first appeared in Hebrew as early as 1961 . 34 However, it was not until the late 1990s, reflecting a wider surge of scholarly interest in the world’s religious art and aesthetics, that pioneering Jewish cultural studies began to synthesize the visual and the verbal in order to move beyond a narrow 19th-century conception of Jewish culture. Richard Cohen’s insistence that throughout their history Jews have used images, among other means, to emotionally respond to and construe the world and generate its meanings was to inform numerous studies of Jewish visual art. 35 Although, in my own view, it is important not to overstate the historical role of visual art, especially in the religious tradition, there is no doubt that the dichotomous opposition between an aural Judaism and a visual Hellenism was breaking down.

At the beginning of the new millennium, the cultural historian Kalman Bland observed that, historically, Jewish tradition has been permeable and adaptable to other traditions; its culture has not, in fact, been uniformly indifferent or hostile to the visual, and Jews have produced an artistic heritage. Scripture, he claimed, “is not an iconoclast’s manifesto.” Biblical and rabbinic sources are more accurately understood to have been spiritual and intellectual frameworks, not absolute proscriptions. The Bible forbids idolatry, but knows full well that not all statues, paintings, and architectural structures are idolatrous. On the basis of his study of the vibrancy of medieval Jewish aesthetics, Bland, like others, concludes that Jewish aniconism is an “unmistakably modern idea.” The Jewish (and Christian) assumption of Jewish aniconism is conditioned by factors such as Protestantism’s own iconophobias, Jews’ rebuttal of antisemitic charges of Jewish materialism, and Jewish apologetics, in which abstraction in art was to be credited to the genius of Jewish aniconism before it was to be credited to the avant garde. 36

Recognition of the place of Jewish art within the wider gentile history of art was furthered by Aaron Rosen in his 2009 book, Imagining Jewish Art : Encounters with the Masters in Chagall, Guston, and Kitaj , which (not wholly dissimilarly to David Kaufmann’s late 19th-century insistence on the continuity of Jewish with Christian art) demonstrates that whatever their Jewish contextual particularities, modern artists such as Amedeo Modigliani, Chaim Soutine, Jacques Lipchitz, Marc Chagall, Mark Rothko, and Barnett Newman did not paint outside the general history of western art—including Christian art and iconography—but engaged and utilized it with few genuinely exclusive claims to ethnically or spiritually particular characteristics. Mark Rothko’s paintings are a good example of the open boundaries of the category of Jewish visual art. Rothko’s experiences in Russia and New York inevitably conditioned his post-Holocaust perspective but did not entail the inclusion of explicitly Jewish symbols and references in his work. 37 For reasons such as these, Rosen has argued that definitions of Jewish art are doomed to failure or over-qualification, though Jewish art’s Abrahamic context offers it a particular vantage point from which to contribute to inter-religious dialogue.

Rosen is not alone in rejecting any unifying theory of Jewish visual art. Margaret Olin has spoken for many in proposing that there is no intrinsically Jewish style, but that Jewish art can “speak Jewish” in certain contexts and to certain interpreters. 38 Few commentators would now give an essentialist or normative account of Jewish visual art as, for example, non-figurative. Notwithstanding the over-representation of Jews as leading exponents of post-war American abstract expressionism (Mark Rothko, Adolph Gottlieb, and Barnett Newman were leaders in the movement), recent commentators have rejected the thesis, voguish in 1960s New York, that abstract expressionism is the fulfillment of an aesthetic founded in adherence to the Second Commandment. Harold Rosenberg, in his 1966 lecture at the Jewish Museum in New York, “Is There a Jewish Art?” claimed that, from the first, Judaism has practiced a form of anti-art whose Jewishness consisted in its resistance to existing at all. 39 However, some of those who were claimed as quintessentially Jewish artists resisted any such categorization. Mark Rothko disliked being called a Jewish artist, as did Barnett Newman, who strongly objected to his work being marginalized and pigeonholed as Jewish art. (Newman’s dislike of the label “Jewish artist” did not, however, deter Avram Kampf from claiming Newman’s contemplative, aniconic “colour field” paintings not only for the canon of Jewish art, but as its paradigm. 40 Others might claim micrographic images, composed of letters and words, to be quintessentially Jewish.

Steven Schwarzschild makes the historical claim, though not one many have considered persuasive, that the Jewish requirement of deliberate mis-drawing—a rejection of the Greek principle of art as mimesis or imitation—is one of the earliest and originary principles of modernist art, so that “in modernism, art is assimilating Judaism.” 41 For Schwarzschild, modern distortive art of the kind for which Picasso and Modigliani are most well known, is an assimilation of Judaism; the mark of a “quintessential and aboriginal” Jewish aesthetic. 42 In fact, just as little of modern Jewish art is abstract at all, so too one might observe that not all of it is distortive or deliberately mis-drawn. Rather, as Elaine Strosberg argues, modern Jewish art more often comprises a movement of predominantly secular figurative artists (Minkowski, Chagall, Lucien Freud, Philip Pearlstein, and numerous others) many of who came from Jewish backgrounds that, observant or otherwise, inculcated in them humanistic, justice-orientated values that actively countered avant-garde nihilism’s abstraction from life by the compassionate figuration and narration of the stories of ordinary, embodied, people. 43

However to deny Jewish visual art a monopoly on any one style or theme is not to deny Jewish art any characteristic preoccupations and avoidances. In his 2000 book, Idolizing Pictures , 44 Anthony Julius observed that the Second Commandment does not just prohibit idol making, but it actively encourages figurative art that mobilizes idol breaking. So, for Julius, iconoclastic art—whether that of, say, Jack Levine, Maryan S. Maryan, Vitaly Komar, or Alexander Melamid—is characteristically Jewish by virtue of its fidelity to the Second Commandment. Although not exclusively practiced by Jewish artists, their own iconoclastic art is a legacy of the rabbinic aesthetic of distortion and the rabbinic permission to mock idols, and thereby render the political cults for which they are powerful visual propaganda merely laughable or absurd.

In modernity, it becomes possible for Jewish arts to paint and draw images that are more or less separable from the religious beliefs and observances of Judaism. But while secular culture may operate without conscious reference to theology, most modern theologians have little choice but to consciously and positively engage secular culture in ways that do not cede to its reductionism. By the end of the 20th century and in the early years of the 21st, a number of Jewish commentators sought to apply theology to an image-orientated culture by taking a more visual approach than any ever taken before.

On the grounds that the vocation of Israel is holiness, my 2009 book Judaism and the Visual Image suggests that the politics of a Jewish image drive beyond humanism towards the theologically separative task of bearing witness to the sanctity or integrity of the human. A “maximally” Jewish image is a prophetic image calling for the redemption and resurrection of the human from all that diminishes, exploits, abuses, or erases it. Clearly, not all visual art produced by Jews is intentionally prophetic, and non-Jewish artists are also committed to prophetic art. But a Jewish image is not one that is merely permissible. It should participate in the process of revelation as a raised sign or standard of God’s judgment on history’s violation of the human and made in messianic anticipation of its restoration. Jewish visual art should operate under the aesthetic judgment, repeated six times over in the first chapter of Genesis, that the world is itself a spectacle or created image that is good to look upon. 45

In Judaism and the Visual Image , I argue that art is integral to the transmissibility of the Judaism. Following Rosenzweig, I affirm that Israel instates God’s presence through its own image or spectacle. As a collective image of God, Israel becomes, itself, a redemptive image or work of art. Jewish visual art is therefore more than the sum of its decorative traditions, paintings, and drawings. It is, theologically speaking, the visual configuration of the Jewish people as an object of God’s aesthetic as well as moral judgment and as a figure whose living, “dancing” form is created in the responsive mediation of revelation. It is the revelatory process(ion) of the figure of Israel as a collective body moving through time and space that draws an image of how to live—a visual Torah. Jewish migration is therefore no mere historical contingency but part of the very mode and process of God’s self-revelation to the world. As a different kind of scripture, each Jewish life follows the path or way of the tradition to make a figurative drawing of truth onto and into the material world. The dispersal of tradition through diasporic time and space produces a unitary moving spectacle or image, to its human and divine beholders, that thereby defines Jewish visual art theologically as the figurative image traced by the sanctificatory passage of a messianic dance towards divine presence. The figure of Israel is a causal metonymic representation of God’s presence; not a resemblance to God, but a dynamic representation inscribed upon the whole earth as a visual revelation of the self-revealing will, energy, and pathos of God. 46

Idoloclasm and the Jewishness of Jewish Visual Art

The historical facticity of Jewish art and the likelihood that the biblical Second Commandment is only precautionary does not, by itself, establish what is, in a religious sense, Jewish about Jewish art. Various subjects, techniques, and styles have been proposed as being characteristically Jewish. The attempt to elucidate a single “national” Jewish artistic style has proved futile. It seems clear that, even after 1948 , Jewish art is not and never has been a national art in the sense of its style or content being rooted in the history of one land. Jewish art might only be termed a national art in so far as it is understood as a collective enterprise of the Jews as a single people.

However, this essay has emphasized that it is not so much a question of how and why Jewish artists have circumvented the Second Commandment, but how they have used it in their art, consciously or otherwise, to express their identity as Jews. 47 It is possible to define the Jewishness of Jewish art as its will to make images, not in spite of the Second Commandment’s prohibition of idolatry, but because of it. This observance of a commandment that is practically indistinguishable from Judaism’s first might constitute a common religious denominator uniting Jewish approaches to visual art, even if there is no defining theme or style owned by Jewish art alone.

The criticism of idolatry is widely considered to be Judaism’s defining moment. The rabbinic literature regards the repudiation of idolatry as encapsulating the whole Torah (e.g., BT Kiddushin 40a; Megillah 13a; Sifre Deuteronomy 28), and modern Judaism celebrates the criticism of idolatry as its most important contribution to world culture, liberating consciousness from the tyranny and alienation of oppressive ideologies and their corruption of the collective will and imagination. If a Jew is defined, as in the rabbinic midrash, as one who testifies against idols, and if “the litmus test for being a Jew is seeing things in the created order for what they are: natural objects of finite value and duration,” 48 then the Second Commandment must be central to defining what is Jewish about Jewish art. The Second Commandment is a central negative prohibition that founds a prophetic aesthetic, ever more relevant to a contemporary image-saturated culture, which may be invoked to warn the world not to worship the images it makes but rather to make images that are witnesses to both the degradation of the human and the possibility of its mending. The Second Commandment urges us not to make facsimile images that lead us to mistake the idea or ideology for the reality; to be very careful that a created replicant image not be granted the power to substitute its creator with itself.

Jewish art should be a medium of witness and a challenge to dominant ideologies that belongs to Judaism’s greater monotheistic commission. The Jewishness of Jewish art is thereby constituted by the Second Commandment as a prohibition of idolatrous images. Steven Schwarzschild attributed the relative poverty of visual arts in Jewish history to the prohibition of idolatry and, in doing so, developed a distinctively Jewish theological approach to the production of images. Schwartzschild, a German-Jewish thinker of his time and deeply indebted to Hermann Cohen, may have under-estimated the extent of the Jewish visual heritage, but he was no less justified in referring us to Cohen’s Kantian reading of the Second Commandment as “Thou shalt not make an image of the moral subject.” Undistorted, perfect and complete images of ensouled bodies, made in the image of God, are sinful. 49 Rabbi Joseph Caro’s ruling, Schwarzschild writes, leaves us “only one legitimate way of depicting the human: to indicate in some physical way that the physis is only an inadequate manifestation of real nature; and since spirit cannot be pictorially added to the body image, something must be taken away from that appearance.” Paradoxically, in doing so, Jewish art effects “not a reduction but an expansion of the human form. The negative commandment prohibiting the depiction of the complete human person is in substance a positive commandment to introduce the human spirit into the human form. In short, the slashed nose is the symbol of the soul.” 50 Defaced images of human beings signal their spiritual imperfection and finite power and are therefore in no danger of being worshipped as gods. The only fully permissible image of spirit is the actual presence of a person, not his or her re-presentation in art. Because art cannot represent spirit, the Shulkan Arukh permits only the representation of the absence of spirit when depicting human beings. The aesthetic of distortion knows that the world, as it ought to be, is not yet. 51

Many would reject as dogmatic and outmoded any claim that a single art form ranks as more authentically Jewish than any other. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to offer a halakhically restrictive but still inclusive account of Jewish approaches to visual art that encompasses abstraction, trace, distortion, and irony as all being characteristically Jewish ways of making counter-idolatrous images or anti-images that are messianically open to the world’s own transformation; its own futurity. 52 In other words, the Second Commandment, as a prohibition of idolatry is the foundational possibility of Jewish art. In honoring the Second Commandment, Jewish art destroys destructive, bad, or false art. The Second Commandment mandates the breaking of idolatrous images—whether by an abstraction of their content or damaging, erasing, subverting, or laughing at them. More constructively, Jewish images are, thereby, also a summons to love, truth, and justice. For God’s arch-commandment is, as it is often expressed, “love me; love one another!,” and images fulfilling that commandment are images that indict history’s violation and erasure of the image of God in the human and that initiate its resurrection as the ontological glory and social dignity of the human that all images must respect. (In Hebrew, glory, honor, dignity, and respect are all indicated by the same word, kavod .)

Such an approach to visual art is exemplified by Aharon Gluska’s resurrective, post-Holocaust series of paintings, Reframing and Reclaiming ( 1996 ), which resurrect and restore erased Jewish names and identities by a process that painstakingly removes layers of obliterative dark paint from blown-up “mug-shot” images of Auschwitz inmates. 53 Other examples of characteristically Jewish art (whatever other qualities and preoccupations such might share with non-Jewish art), might include the work of Laurie Simmons and Gustav Metzger. Gustav Metzger’s auto-destructive, disintegrative art typifies this prophetic aesthetic. In common with other 20th century conceptual artists, he believes that art exists only in the mind. His work, made from valueless materials such as old newspaper or the application of hydrochloric acid on nylon, mounts an attack on capitalist, commercial, and militaristic values that idolize assets, while at the same time they assent to military technologies that would permit their nuclear annihilation. His are paintings that cannot be finished, bought, owned, or even destroyed. 54 Just as God, always both with us and going on before, is an unbounded but situated presence, not a finished thing: the One called “I will be as I will be” (Exod. 3:12), so too, counter-idolatrous images like Metzger’s are unfinished and unfinishable images. In an interview in 2009 , Metzger said: “It could be that I saw so much power that I needed to get rid of it in myself. That’s one way to understand the origins of auto-destructive art. In Judaism there is a tradition of rejecting power: the Prophets rejected power. That was part of my childhood [in Nazi Germany as the son of Polish-German Jewish parents], giving up rather than acquiring.” 55

Observance of the Second Commandment is profoundly gendered (I have previously argued that images of women are doubly restricted under the fear of idolatry). 56 Nonetheless, over the last several decades of the 20th century and well into the 21st, Jewish feminist artists have joined a long tradition of Jewish counter-idolatrous visual art by exploring their embodied identities as lovers, daughters, and mothers. Critiquing literally captivating, lifeless ideologies of female beauty that arrest women’s spirit and agency in an amortal youth, Laurie Simmons, for example, in her series The Love Doll 2009–2011 , makes and photographs mannequin-like three-dimensional figures that critique the commodification of the female as a male/mail-order servant of masculine desire. 57 Simmons breaks the Second Commandment in order to reinforce it. Similarly, Joan Semmel’s feminist paintings draw on a Jewish prophetic, political, interpretation of Judaism that was carried from Eastern Europe to early 20th-century America. 58 Her work, as a self-apprehended representation of female sexual subjectivity, refuses its idolization and/or idealization as a mere image of the patriarchal gaze. As did Hannah Wilke, in her long series of photographic self-portraits, Joan Semmel’s nude self-portraits present an unflinching rendition of her own ageing body, often from oblique angles, its nakedness exposed not as its humiliation but its truth. 59 In her 2013 show, “The Lucid Eye,” Semmel showed twenty-seven paintings of her own body, now in its eighties, some in visual counter-position to a background of plastic idols of the feminine.

To conclude this article on a theological note, permission to create visual art is cosmologically inscribed in the first chapter of the Hebrew Bible. Even as God begins to create heaven and earth, he creates the possibility of the visual image in the first command of all: “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3). The creation of light, and then the lighting of the sun, moon, and stars, to shine as lamps from the “expanse of the sky” upon the earth (Gen. 1:14–17), enables first God, and then all created things, to see the world as a phenomenal entity that is a pleasure to behold: a composition or visual image. God creates not a primeval sound or other impression on the senses, but a world that is, from its first moment, an image or appearance—something for God to see. Revelation is mediated, therefore, not only through words, but also through images, not least the primary image in the world—the image of God in and on the human. Artistic creativity is the first known attribute of God. So too, human creativity, in imitation of God’s, is a primary attribute of the human. A human being is a divinely created entity that itself, an image of its creator, creates images that create its own world.

Links to Online and Digital Materials

Ben Uri Gallery: The London Jewish Museum of Art .

Images: A Journal of Jewish Art and Visual Culture . A scholarly journal of Jewish art and visual culture. Edited by Steven Fine, Vivian Mann, Margaret Olin, and Maya Balakirsky Katz

The Israel Museum , and its Information Center for Israeli Art, Jerusalem

The Jewish Museum , New York

Tel Aviv Museum of Art , Tel Aviv

Virtual Museum of Artistic Responses to the Holocaust , at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota

Yad Vashem , Jerusalem

Overview: History & Theory of Jewish Art

By My Jewish Learning

When many people think of the arts as connected to Judaism, they may first think of the literary arts –and rightly so. Known as the “people of the book,” part of Judaism’s great contribution to humanity has been its outpouring of texts. But Judaism also has produced a tradition of fine arts and handicrafts throughout Jewish history. While a prohibition against creating “ graven images ” goes back to Biblical days, there is nothing in Jewish law that prevents creativity as it relates to hiddur mitzvah –literally translated as “making a mitzvah , or commandment, beautiful”–a concept that has led to a rich heritage of Jewish ceremonial and ritual art. Dating back to ancient times , artifacts such as tombstones were engraved with Jewish symbols–stars, lions, shields–that were clearly created for adornment and beauty. From the Middle Ages on, the elaborate traditions of Jewish art included illuminated ketubot (wedding certificates), ornate silver Torah crowns and breastplates, and other such items.

Besides hiddur mitzvah, art also has a place in Jewish tradition as a teaching tool. With the discovery of ancient Jewish archeological sites, such as the synagogue located in the city of Dura Europus–which is now part of modern-day Syria–we learn that a narrative form of art also existed, which depicted the figures from Bible stories as a way of sharing and teaching Torah. Whether it was narrative or ceremonial, Jewish art was, for centuries, deeply intertwined with religious life.

In addition, Jews have had a presence in the world of “art for art’s sake”; in fact, for centuries, there have been great works of fine art created by Jewish painters and sculptures. With the European Enlightenment came a change in all of Jewish life–as young Jews were able to leave their closed communities of the ghettos to study in secular environments, some of them were drawn to the world of secular arts. Jewish artists studied the works of the great European masters and began experimenting with a range of styles and forms. While some artists, like Moritz Daniel Oppenheim, painted work with clearly Jewish themes, many artists who followed him considered themselves “emancipated” from their Jewish roots and did not make connections between their backgrounds and their art.

Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.

Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.

By the 20th century, Jewish artists lived and flourished in four different art worlds–Russia, Paris, the United States, and the land of Israel. Jewish artists of the Diaspora –those living outside of Israel–faced competing pressures: They were pulled to be part of a renaissance of Jewish cultural life and also to move further away from Judaism in order to seek total artistic liberation. For example, the well-known painter Marc Chagall was able to incorporate the Jewish world of his childhood into his unique style of modern art, while other well-known Jewish artists of the time, such as Amedeo Modigliani, rarely expressed Jewish content in their work.

The major events of the 20th-century for the Jewish people–World War II and the Holocaust and the birth of the modern State of Israel –had lasting effects on Jewish art in the Diaspora. Numerous works, such as Chagall’s “White Crucifixion,” attempt to deal with the pain and devastation of the Holocaust. Many Jewish-American artists–such as Ben Shahn and Leonard Baskin–created an art intended for a general audience with clear Jewish content.

Among contemporary Jewish artists , there exists a wide spectrum of ways in which they may express their Jewishness in their art. Judy Chicago, for example, has created bold Jewish feminist statements with her installation-style art, while Tobi Kahn has used found objects to create magnificent ritual objects. In fact, the proliferation of Jewish artists specializing in making fine Judaica–from magnificent ketubot and huppot ( marriage canopies ) to seder plates and Kiddush cups made of every material and style–returns us, in a circle, to our heritage of honoring hiddur mitzvah.

Pronounced: KID-ush, Origin: Hebrew, literally holiness, the blessing said over wine or grape juice to sanctify Shabbat and holiday.

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Get Jewish wisdom & discovery in your inbox

By submitting I agree to the privacy policy .

Discover More

The 11 Best Ladino Expressions and Phrases To Know

Learn some choice phrases, including the most epic sneeze response ever, in this Sephardic language also known as Judeo-Spanish.

Seven Holocaust Films You Should See

These under-the-radar movies about the Shoah are affecting, powerful and nuanced.

The Sephardic Experience During the Holocaust

The Nazis wiped out several major Sephardic population centers and caused the almost complete demise of Ladino culture.

Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History Essays

Jewish art in late antiquity and early byzantium.

Bowl Fragments with Menorah, Shofar, and Torah Ark

Bowl Base with Miracle Scenes

Lamp with Jewish Symbols

Bowl Base with Saints Peter and Paul Flanking a Column with the Christogram of Christ

Hexagonal Pilgrim's Jar with Jewish Symbol

Barbara Drake Boehm Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Melanie Holcomb Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

In the first centuries C.E., Jewish communities could be found in every corner of the Roman empire , from Sardis (Turkey) to Ostia (Italy), from Hamman Lif (Tunisia) to Intercisa (Hungary). The archaeological remnants and literary attestations of more than 150 synagogues throughout the empire make clear that Jews were integral to the urban landscape of late antiquity, well beyond the borders of Roman Palestine.

Asia Minor , in particular, boasted numerous, and often prosperous, Jewish communities. The third-century synagogue in the Roman garrison town of Dura-Europos, like the Christian meeting house and the shrine devoted to the Persian god Mithras that stood just yards away, was adorned with sumptuous painting . Splendid murals with narrative scenes from the Bible covered the synagogue’s walls; painted tiles of zodiacal symbols ornamented its ceiling. Plaques with dedicatory inscriptions give some indication of the individuals and families who funded the building of such synagogues.

In building their monuments, Jews often embraced the Greco-Roman practice of paving the floor with elaborate mosaics , many of which demonstrate an understanding of the second commandment injunction against image making that may surprise today’s viewer. In early Byzantine synagogues such as Hamman Lif in North Africa and Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias, and Sepphoris in Israel, specifically Jewish symbols—shofarot (ram’s horns), menorot (branched lamps), and Torah shrines—might appear alongside pomegranates, birds, lions , and fountains. Zodiac wheels with human figures also find a prominent place in the pavements of several synagogues, dated from the fourth to the sixth centuries, as do scenes drawn from the Bible or allegorized images of the River Nile .

After the destruction of the Second Temple by Roman emperor Titus in 70 C.E—an event commemorated on the Arch of Titus in Rome and in Jewish liturgy—images of the Temple’s furnishings, especially the celebrated gold menorah , or seven-branched lamp, became emblematic of Jewish religion. Marble sarcophagi favored by wealthy Romans were adapted for Jewish use by incorporating a stylized relief image of a menorah. In the catacombs of Rome , Jews placed gold glass disks representing the menorah and Torah arks at their tombs, as well as symbols of the festival of Sukkot ( 18.145.1a,b ), just as Christians placed glass disks showing saints ( 16.174.3 ). All these images reference the destroyed Temple and invoke a hoped-for messianic age when the Temple would be restored. So wide-ranging are the contexts for the menorot that it is clear the symbol frequently served merely to distinguish a Jewish monument or a Jewish patron. Seven-branched candlesticks appear in Roman and Byzantine art : in graffiti in the catacombs, inscribed on plaques, as a motif on seals , as decoration on glass bottles ( 1972.118.180 ) and on clay lamps ( 91.1.1621 ), all further testimony to the integration of Jews into late Roman and early Byzantine society.

Boehm, Barbara Drake, and Melanie Holcomb. “Jewish Art in Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History . New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/jewa/hd_jewa.htm (June 2008)

Additional Essays by Barbara Drake Boehm

Boehm, Barbara Drake. “ The Age of Saint Louis (1226–1270) .” (October 2001)
Boehm, Barbara Drake. “ Animals in Medieval Art .” (originally published October 2001, last revised January 2012)
Boehm, Barbara Drake. “ Prague, 1347–1437 .” (February 2014)
Boehm, Barbara Drake. “ Jews and the Arts in Medieval Europe .” (originally published June 2008, last revised August 2010)
Boehm, Barbara Drake. “ Relics and Reliquaries in Medieval Christianity .” (originally published October 2001, last revised April 2011)
Boehm, Barbara Drake. “ Painting in Italian Choir Books, 1300–1500 .” (March 2009)

Additional Essays by Melanie Holcomb

Holcomb, Melanie. “ Medieval European Sculpture for Buildings .” (October 2001)
Holcomb, Melanie. “ Barbarians and Romans .” (October 2002)
Holcomb, Melanie. “ Animals in Medieval Art .” (originally published October 2001, last revised January 2012)
Holcomb, Melanie. “ Jews and the Arts in Medieval Europe .” (originally published June 2008, last revised August 2010)
Holcomb, Melanie. “ Drawing in the Middle Ages .” (June 2009)

Related Essays

Jews and the Arts in Medieval Europe
The Julio-Claudian Dynasty (27 B.C.–68 A.D.)
Medicine in the Middle Ages
The Roman Empire (27 B.C.–393 A.D.)
The Year One
Animals in Medieval Art
Art and Death in Medieval Byzantium
Astronomy and Astrology in the Medieval Islamic World
Byzantine Art under Islam
The Byzantine City of Amorium
Egyptian Tombs: Life Along the Nile
Ethiopian Healing Scrolls
The Flavian Dynasty (69–96 A.D.)
Folios from the Jami‘ al-tavarikh (Compendium of Chronicles)
Frescoes and Wall Painting in Late Byzantine Art
Life of Jesus of Nazareth
Painting the Life of Christ in Medieval and Renaissance Italy
The Religious Arts under the Ilkhanids
Roman Inscriptions
Roman Mosaic and Network Glass
Roman Sarcophagi
Saints and Other Sacred Byzantine Figures
Trade between Arabia and the Empires of Rome and Asia

List of Rulers

List of Rulers of Byzantium
Ancient Greece, 1–500 A.D.
Arabian Peninsula, 1–500 A.D.
Arabian Peninsula, 500–1000 A.D.
Asia Minor (Anatolia and the Caucasus), 1–500 A.D.
Balkan Peninsula, 500–1000 A.D.
Central Europe (including Germany), 500–1000 A.D.
The Eastern Mediterranean and Syria, 1–500 A.D.
Egypt, 1–500 A.D.
Iraq (Mesopotamia), 500–1000 A.D.
Italian Peninsula, 1–500 A.D.
1st Century A.D.
2nd Century A.D.
3rd Century A.D.
4th Century A.D.
5th Century A.D.
6th Century A.D.
Central Europe
Incense Burner

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation

Art History

Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Jewish Art, Medieval to Early Modern

Introduction, general overviews and historiography.

General Surveys
Northern Africa and the Middle East
Central Europe
The Netherlands
Poland and Ukraine
General Interest
Interaction and Collaboration with the Non-Jewish Environment
Iconographic Themes
Hebrew Manuscripts from the Early Modern Period
A Revival of Manuscript Culture in 18th-Century Central Europe
Decorated Marriage Contracts
Early Printing

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Artists in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Brazil
Color in European Art and Architecture
European Art and Diplomacy in the Global Early Modern Period
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Jewish Art, Medieval to Early Modern by Katrin Kogman-Appel LAST REVIEWED: 26 September 2022 LAST MODIFIED: 26 September 2022 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199920105-0105

The first work of Jewish art to attract scholarly attention toward the end of the nineteenth century was the “Sarajevo Haggadah,” a medieval illuminated manuscript from Iberia. It was eventually published in Vienna in 1898. A few years earlier, one of the few surviving synagogues in Spain, a building commissioned by Samuel Halevi Abulafia in Toledo (1356), had been declared a national monument, and since 1910 the site has functioned as a museum. A dramatic turning point in the historiography of Jewish art occurred in 1932, with the discovery of the 3rd-century synagogue at Dura Europos in modern Syria. In the years to follow, numerous other synagogues and illuminated manuscripts were first documented and were later analyzed and contextualized. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also saw the establishment of several collections of Jewish ritual objects. Whereas medieval finds in this field are extremely rare, such collections are relatively rich in early modern objects. Illuminated manuscripts began to appear in Jewish societies in the tenth century in the Middle East and around the 1230s in Iberia, France, the German lands, and Italy. Although numerous ancient synagogues have been unearthed by modern archaeologists, architectural remains from the Middle Ages are extremely sparse. The earliest structure that was still standing in 1938 was a Romanesque synagogue in Worms. Having been destroyed in November 1938 by the Nazis, it was reconstructed by the German authorities in 1961. Other structures were to follow, and the oldest continuously functioning synagogue (from c . 1280) is found in Prague. By the late nineteenth century, few medieval synagogues in Iberia that had passed into Christian hands in the course of the fifteenth century and after the expulsions of the Jews from Iberia in the 1490s were still standing. Several archaeological campaigns since the late twentieth century have revealed further remains. Significantly, more structures survive at various locations in Europe from the Early Modern period. What is described here as works of Jewish art were not always produced by Jews. Hence, the definition of “Jewish art” in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period does not necessarily or solely depend on any artists’ identities. For the purpose of this survey, Jewish art will thus not be defined by means of its makers, but rather by means of its users. It refers to art not necessarily made by but for Jews, art that thus functioned as a fermenter in the formation of Jewish cultures. In many fields of Jewish art, the role played by preferences of Jewish patrons is still in need of serious attention in modern scholarship.

A collection of chapters by different authors, edited by Cecil Roth, was the first general survey of Jewish art published after World War II ( Roth 1961 ). It was followed in the 1990s by Sed-Rajna 1997 , which considers more-recent discoveries. Both books cover Israelite and Jewish art, from prehistoric finds in the Land of Israel to the modern (postwar) period. There is no more recent survey on medieval and early modern Jewish art that considers the postmodern discourse that developed in the humanities since the 1990s. An essay by Eva Frojmovic offers an interesting appraisal of early-20th-century scholarship ( Frojmovic 2002 ).

Frojmovic, Eva. “Buber in Basle, Schlosser in Sarajevo, Wischnitzer in Weimar: The Politics of Writing about Medieval Jewish Art.” In Imagining the Self, Imagining the Other: Visual Representation and Jewish-Christian Dynamics in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period . Edited by Eva Frojmovic, 1–32. Cultures, Beliefs, and Traditions 15. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002.

A critical analysis of late-19th- and early-20th-century historiography, focusing on works by Martin Buber, Julius von Schlosser, and Rachel Wischnitzer, shedding light on the nationalistic approaches of the authors that parallel in many senses the approaches of art historical schools in general that in fact excluded Jewish art from the discourse.

Roth, Cecil, ed. Jewish Art: An Illustrated History . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

A general descriptive survey that covers Israelite and Jewish art from Antiquity to the postwar period, this book was the first monumental work to put the major archaeological findings of the twentieth century into one context with the scholarship about Hebrew manuscript painting, synagogue art and architecture, and modern art.

Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle, ed. Jewish Art . Translated by Sara Friedman and Mira Reich. New York: Harry Abrams, 1997.

Following up on Roth’s earlier work, this book surveys Jewish art in a similar descriptive approach, also covering discoveries that had been made since the publication of Roth 1961 .

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Art History »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Activist and Socially Engaged Art
Adornment, Dress, and African Arts of the Body
Alessandro Algardi
Ancient Egyptian Art
Ancient Pueblo (Anasazi) Art
Angkor and Environs
Art and Archaeology of the Bronze Age in China
Art and Architecture in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary
Art and Propaganda
Art of Medieval Iberia
Art of the Crusader Period in the Levant
Art of the Dogon
Art of the Mamluks
Art of the Plains Peoples
Art Restitution
Artemisia Gentileschi
Arts of Senegambia
Arts of the Pacific Islands
Assyrian Art and Architecture
Australian Aboriginal Art
Aztec Empire, Art of the
Babylonian Art and Architecture
Bamana Arts and Mande Traditions
Barbizon Painting
Bartolomeo Ammannati
Bernini, Gian Lorenzo
Bohemia and Moravia, Renaissance and Rudolphine Art of
Borromini, Francesco
Brazilian Art and Architecture, Post-independence
Burkina Art and Performance
Byzantine Art and Architecture
Caravaggio, Michelangelo Merisi da
Carracci, Annibale
Ceremonial Entries in Early Modern Europe
Chaco Canyon and Other Early Art in the North American Sou...
Chicana/o Art
Chimú Art and Architecture
Colonial Art of New Granada (Colombia)
Conceptual Art and Conceptualism
Contemporary Art
Courbet, Gustave
Czech Modern and Contemporary Art
Daumier, Honoré
David, Jacques-Louis
Delacroix, Eugène
Design, Garden and Landscape
Destruction in Art
Destruction in Art Symposium (DIAS)
Dürer, Albrecht
Early Medieval Architecture in Western Europe
Early Modern European Engravings and Etchings, 1400–1700
Eighteenth-Century Europe
Ephemeral Art and Performance in Africa
Ethiopia, Art History of
European Art, Historiography of
European Medieval Art, Otherness in
Expressionism
Eyck, Jan van
Feminism and 19th-century Art History
Festivals in West Africa
Francisco de Zurbarán
French Impressionism
Gender and Art in the Middle Ages
Gender and Art in the Renaissance
Gender and Art in the 17th Century
Giotto di Bondone
Gothic Architecture
Gothic Art in Italy
Goya y Lucientes, Francisco José
Great Zimbabwe and its Legacy
Greek Art and Architecture
Greenberg, Clement
Géricault, Théodore
Iconography in the Western World
Installation Art
Islamic Art and Architecture in North Africa and the Iberi...
Japanese Architecture
Japanese Buddhist Painting
Japanese Buddhist Sculpture
Japanese Ceramics
Japanese Literati Painting and Calligraphy
Jewish Art, Medieval to Early Modern
Jones, Inigo
Josefa de Óbidos
Jusepe de Ribera
Kahlo, Frida
Katsushika Hokusai
Lastman, Pieter
Leonardo da Vinci
Luca della Robbia (or the Della Robbia Family)
Luisa Roldán
Markets and Auctions, Art
Marxism and Art
Medieval Art and Liturgy (recent approaches)
Medieval Art and the Cult of Saints
Medieval Art in Scandinavia, 400-800
Medieval Textiles
Meiji Painting
Merovingian Period Art
Modern Sculpture
Monet, Claude
Māori Art and Architecture
Museums in Australia
Museums of Art in the West
Native North American Art, Pre-Contact
Nazi Looting of Art
New Media Art
New Spain, Art and Architecture
Pacific Art, Contemporary
Palladio, Andrea
Parthenon, The
Paul Gauguin
Performance Art
Perspective from the Renaissance to Post-Modernism, Histor...
Peter Paul Rubens
Philip II and El Escorial
Photography, History of
Pollock, Jackson
Polychrome Sculpture in Early Modern Spain
Postmodern Architecture
Pre-Hispanic Art of Columbia
Psychoanalysis, Art and
Qing Dynasty Painting
Rembrandt van Rijn
Renaissance and Renascences
Renaissance Art and Architecture in Spain
Rimpa School
Rivera, Diego
Rodin, Auguste
Romanticism
Science and Conteporary Art
Sculpture: Method, Practice, Theory
South Asia and Allied Textile Traditions, Wall Painting of
South Asia, Modern and Contemporary Art of
South Asia, Photography in
South Asian Architecture and Sculpture, 13th to 18th Centu...
South Asian Art, Historiography of
The Art of Medieval Sicily and Southern Italy through the ...
The Art of Southern Italy and Sicily under Angevin and Cat...
Theory in Europe to 1800, Art
Timurid Art and Architecture
Turner, Joseph Mallord William
van Gogh, Vincent
Warburg, Aby
Warhol, Andy
Wari (Huari) Art and Architecture
Wittelsbach Patronage from the late Middle Ages to the Thi...
Women, Art, and Art History: Gender and Feminist Analyses
Yuan Dynasty Art
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|185.148.24.167]
185.148.24.167

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Transformative Agreements

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Imagining the Self, Imagining the Other

Visual representation and jewish-christian dynamics in the middle ages and early modern period, series: cultures, beliefs and traditions: medieval and early modern peoples , volume: 15.

Prices from (excl. shipping):

Hardback: €129.00
E-Book (PDF): €129.00
View PDF Flyer

Biographical Note

Review quotes, table of contents, share link with colleague or librarian, product details.

Jewish History & Culture

Collection Information

Brill Book Archive Part 1
European History and Culture - Book Archive 2000-2006