The Problem of Visual Creativity in Jewish Discourse

Introduction. The perception of the value of visual art has varied throughout history and among different Jewish communities, ranging from complete denial to high appreciation. The negative attitude towards the creation of images stemmed from a literal interpretation of the prohibitive commandment: ("You shall not make for yourself any graven image…"), whose obvious meaning was a prohibition against creating idols and worshiping them. This raises the question of whether the cautious attitude towards visual creativity was connected to deeper reasons. Was it conditioned not only by the fear of idolatry but also by the perception of human creativity as encroaching upon the greatness of God the Creator, who possesses the exclusive right to create? Content. An analysis of the texts of the Torah and midrashim shows that the evaluation of visual creativity in them depends on context and the intentions of the creator. Creativity inspired by God and carried out with wisdom and responsibility brings the world closer to God. Sacred scripture points to the boundaries of creativity but does not regard it as inherently sinful: God Himself endows the first and "exemplary" artist (Bezalel) with the ability to create and the wisdom to use it correctly. It is clearly conveyed that activity inspired by human pride and competing with God distances one from Him and is destructive to the world and humanity, as seen in the cases of the Tower of Babel or the Golden Calf. It is noted that contemporary Jewish discourse, considering the problem of creativity within the framework of the doctrine of Tikkun Olam ("repairing the world"), concludes that "positive creativity," which enhances the world, is not only permitted but is a duty imposed on humanity by God. Conclusions. The appeal to sources shows that the idea of the value of world-improving creativity (including visual creativity), advocated by contemporary Jewish authors, has been inherent in Jewish tradition since ancient times. The negative attitude towards visual activity was not based on viewing creativity as sinful in itself but was connected to concerns about its irrational and irresponsible application.