Jewish National Art
Two Views of the Jewish Problem of Expression in Art Form
We give herewith two views of Jewish national art, the one by the eminent Russian art critic, the late Vladimir Stassov, and the other by Mr. Leo Mielziner, the noted American Jewish artist. Mr. Mielziner's article is taken from an address recently delivered by him in Cincinnati, which has evoked a diversified comment, a few
partisans maintaining that he meant to say that Jewish art is possible in Goluth, and the others interpreting his remarks to mean that genuine Jewish national art is possible only on a Jewish territory. Our readers may judge as to the correctness of these views. M. Stassov's article is taken, in part, from the "Yevreskaya Zhizn," a Russian magazine now defunct.
The Point of View of Leo Mielziner, American Artist
The art history of Ancient Israel may be said to begin with the Ark of the Covenant and to end with the destruction of the Temple under Titus, a period of about 1,400 years, a long period in which one might look for the very highest development in art. But Greek art only reached its climax under Pericles after 1,100 years of growth on a soil that was blessed with every requisite ın the glare of an intensive national spirit in which culture vitalized every fibre in the body politic.
How different the condition prevailing with the Jews. Wanderings and wars, sieges and sackings; persecuted, banished, exiled; and when the trıbes were not spilling each others’ blood, they were put to the sword or held ın subjection in turn by the Persians, Macedonians, Egyptians, Syrians and Romans......
The Egyptians and Babylonians and Greeks and the succeeding nations who in turn trod the children of Israel under foot, knew also wars and defeats and captivity and dispersion, and yet developed generally well defined national arts. But their several national ideals, fostered by intense religious cults, were ideals which lent themselves readily to graphic and plastic expression.
The Greek ideal of perfect poise and re-
serve found complete expression in Hellenıc sculpture and architecture just as Egypt’s ideal of Immortality, was significantly symbolized in its pyramids and decorative art.
A school of Art rises in the wake of an ideal, ıf that ideal be representable; but Isreal’s ideal, a lofty conception of monotheism, was diametrically opposed to representation. Israel’s ideal of the absolute: unity and incorporeality of God could brook no sacred images, and so she became the: first great Iconoclast. When Moses caused: the Ark of the Covenant to be made surmounted with the winged cherubim, it was: not the art-impulse of a people, giving visible form to its God, but a concession: rather to a weak people’s cravings for: the concrete symbols of alien gods. When King Solomon in the pride of his established power discarded the tent- like tabernacle of his nomadic forbears for the sumptuous, sacerdotal splendor of the Temple, the Art therein embodied again absolutely ignored the spirituality of the Incarnate Ideal, for which Israel stood.
Wherefore I hold that Israel did not and could not, in view of the lofty conception of the Deity she stood for, in view of the period of history in which she had to create and embrace this ideal, while still struggling