After thinking about the last post for a while I came upon my real critique of contemporary Christianity: it is iconoclastic. The pictorial representations of our faith - the prayers wrought in many different materials - have become wasteful fancies in the post-modern world. Even the most simple and venerable cross has gone missing lately, displaced by the video screen.
In a rare occurrence, I’ll allow Mr. Luther himself to speak to the basic issue here:
“I am not of the opinion” said Luther, “that through the Gospel all the arts should be banished and driven away, as some zealots want to make us believe; but I wish to see them all, especially music, in the service of Him Who gave and created them.” Again he says: “I have myself heard those who oppose pictures, read from my German Bible. … But this contains many pictures of God, of the angels, of men, and of animals, especially in the Revelation of St. John, in the books of Moses, and in the book of Joshua. We therefore kindly beg these fanatics to permit us also to paint these pictures on the wall that they may be remembered and better understood, inasmuch as they can harm as little on the walls as in books. Would to God that I could persuade those who can afford it to paint the whole Bible on their houses, inside and outside, so that all might see; this would indeed be a Christian work. For I am convinced that it is God’s will that we should hear and learn what He has done, especially what Christ suffered. But when I hear these things and meditate upon them, I find it impossible not to picture them in my heart. Whether I want to or not, when I hear, of Christ, a human form hanging upon a cross rises up in my heart: just as I see my natural face reflected when I look into water. Now if it is not sinful for me to have Christ’s picture in my heart, why should it be sinful to have it before my eyes?”
Financial considerations aside, I agree wholeheartedly with Luther that the visual expression of the gospel is vital to the spread of the faith as well as the spiritual nourishment of the faithful. To put faith to image is to paint windows into heaven, just as sacred music accomplishes. Why then would we condemn the building to background when it can just as easily shout praise to God along with the choirs and instruments within? Why has music become the only widely acceptable artistic sacrifice, while sacred art and architecture languish in the realm of the unnecessary?
Even a simple shelter can offer praise to God. Money buys the materials and labor, it is the worshipful designer that arranges them to point to God. The house of the Church should always be a gospel in whatever material it consists of, regardless of the relative cost. This gospel is not ritualistic at heart, but symbolic. It is not a gospel for the rich and it’s not a gospel for the powerful. If I’m building one church for a million dollars or ten churches for a million dollars, I’m going to make sure that they all intrinsically point to God no matter what.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around."
- G.K. Chesterton
- G.K. Chesterton
Who writes this thing?
Blogs of Interest
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(47)
-
▼
October
(12)
- Happy All Hallow's Eve!
- The Catholic Brain
- Politically Incorrect Orthodox Cookbooks
- The New Iconoclasts
- Just a quick note to let you know I'll be back to ...
- Heavenly Worship
- Slow Blogging
- First We Kill the Architects
- Friday Daydreaming
- Who Says Catholics are Superstitious?
- Liturgical Warfare
- Beer Cheese Soup
-
▼
October
(12)
23 comments:
To take cost out of a discussion about construction is an idealist game that is at same time both fun and heart breaking.
The current nature of U.S. construction (right or wrong) is design, bid, and then edit (the all ways fun Value Engineering, or simple VE)
As designers we can do one of two things fight the battle for what we want and in the process offend either the contractor or the client. These offenses will always come back to bite said designer in the rear-end. Or we can understand the process, play ball, work the system, know the cost, and negotiate the things we find most important.
This system exists because you have three entities with three different goals:
The designer who wants St. Patrick’s on 5th avenue; the costs be damned, said design is and probably will be broke for most his life, because he went to a nice design school learned taste and is not in an industry that does not pay enough for him to have the pretty things that he wants.
The owner who wants St. Patrick’s and has the money for a condemned tool shed, which the church members have donated to God’s service let’s not forget.
And the contractor who priced a nice Wal-mart and all that the name entails. His goal is to simple build it safe for much less than the price he stated, and he will be pocketing the cash.
None of these three are good or evil, they merely have different goals.
Pictures vs. Moving Pictures
Middle of the road projecting equipment
Projector = $5000.00
Screen = $3000.00
Total = $ 7000.00
http://www.muralsyourway.com/
Cheap version of Marty’s image on the wall. = $7.95 a square foot
For a 10 foot x 13 foot image (same as the size of the screen) about $1030.00
So for the price of the screen and the projector we can have six of these installed with some change left over.
The screen can be used to show the words to the song being song, so no need to buy hymnals. Also the screen can be used to show upcoming church events, so no need to print a bulletin. The notes on the sermon can be projected with maps and illustrations and bible verses, no need for Bibles in the back of the seats. Teenager’s movie night or Halo tournament on the big screen, Films on the life’s of great believers. And images of Christ crucified can also be projected.
Or six nice appealing static images with nice wall washers.
Put that choice up to the church and guess which goes under the VE knife first.
Now if someone wants to buy the wall art and put it up free of charge to the church, nobody will have a problem with that. Our church probably won’t do it on their own, our contractor might donate, but he’s building a playground because its people want, and our designer is broke so he can’t give anything.
I know this is not a philosophical dialectic on the need for great Christian art in the post modern era, but I think until we can answer these pragmatic questions we are wasting our time worrying about things we have not the power to change.
i had a fever of 101 yesterday, and i think i might not be typing every word that i'm thinking. Sorry, i'm also on alot of meds.
Clark,
I'm certainly not taking cost out of the equation. A $500,000 budget is a $500,00 budget. period. I can do any number of things for that amount of money. My main and only contention is that I think that $500,000 should priduce a building identifiable as "other-worldly" in the Christian sense. I think multi-purpose space is great, but I think sacred space is better.
Even with all of the lovely things a projector and screen can do, I still lament the absence of the physical and hand-made images and symbols of our faith. It is yet another piece of cultural flotsam lost in the river of progress. Why encourage Christian art when you can do everything with Powerpoint and clip art?
I guess I've become way too old fashioned for all of the tech. I like the real - I want to see the sculpture in 3 dimensions, I like the feel of a book in my hand. I'm just a 27 year old geezer.
With a 500K budget you could do a multi function space and a nice small detailed prayer space. For that little money doing anything out of the ordinary, which sadly includes even standard decorative detailing, is out of the question.
I would love there to be other worldly stuff in the church; as long as the church doesn’t pay for it. Art is a great gift. If family such and such wants to give an art piece to the church that is o.k. with me. Sarah and I gave some painting to our church (http://www.gollotte.com/Paint_6.htm) they are hand made, although I’m not going to be so ego driven to call them art (however I am ego driven enough to have it on my website). I bought all the media myself, these took about 2 months, if I had to put a cost value on them just for man hours it would be expensive; and if most people knew what I was willing to charge I doubt they would think it is worth it. Art is subjective. If I think a statue should cost a thousand and I found out my church spent ten thousand on it. I might get upset, and that’s with the understanding of why it cost 10k. I think arts should be supported by families not the church. If a family has tithed and they wish there offering to go to an artist to do Christian art I have very little problem with that.
I also think the NEA should be restructured. A nice simple change; if you get a grant you have to teach 2 days a week in a public school. This will mean artist WILL be engaged in the community and arts funding for schools is not a part of the education budget. So even if the artist presents his new piece “dump I took in a Dixie cup” we can at least rest at ease that he did something useful with his government funding.
I’m all for art patronage by individuals, but when it come to most church buildings I think it may be unethical to spend money on pretty, when there is hardly enough for functional.
I guess my problem is that I see the altar, crucifix, holy water font, and stations of the cross as functional and pretty at the same time. If it was up to me, I would certainly take art over tech. just about every time. It helps that I'm in a church where the technology isn't so integral to the worship, so I'm willing to grant some leeway there.
I think it would be a shame for Christianity as an institution to stop its patronage of the arts - it has always been an integral part of the evangelization process. The images and music have always gone with the gospel and have succesfully illustrated it whenever language failed. While I would certainly welcome families earmarking contributions for the arts, it's a difficult process to manage when you're trying to build a new church and need to have some sort of coherence and flow to the liturgical art. There needs to be coordination and design of the elements to present a beautiful, unified whole. If I see to it that the art is beautiful and properly dedicated to its use I'm reasonably sure any complaints of taste will be limited. You write as though visual art is this great divisive entity that you'll judge subjectively no matter what, though it would seem that you view the music of your church differently. Is it not divisive to focus on one type of worship music that may not appeal to the whole audience? I don't tend to think so because it is the dedication of the music for worship that has the ability to elevate it above matters of taste. The same could be said for the visual as well.
Do you view music in church the same way you view art in church? I only ask because I know that music is a huge part of your worship, and it doesn't seem to recieve the same type of criticism that visual art does. If they are treted differently, why?
I frankly view music to be a bit superfluous. If I had my choice I don’t particular need it as a part of church. I understand that many people due, and that’s fine; just as long as too much money isn’t wasted on it.
Music vs. Visual Art
The problem I have is again cost; visual art is more costly than music. Music can be stripped down to a guy with a lute and a dude with a triangle, if they have talent it could be O.K. That cost what, 250 bucks. Now go buy any piece of visual art for 250 bucks; it is going to be ugly, I can almost bet. With art, typically you get what you pay for, if you go cheap you get cheap; and cheap is U G L Y you ain’t got no alibi. Let’s say the song sucks, and many do. The longest it can last is 20 minutes per song or how ever long inagaddeveda is. So at the worst it’s done in under half an hour. But if you buy a piece of art and it sucks, well that turd sits out front for a long time. If you mess up a song you can do it again, mess up a sculpture and you’re stuck with it.
I think the church is a great training center for Christians to get instruction, pray, then go forth and do. The goal is to serve others, by serving others we serve Christ. So it’s kind of like the greatest non-profit charity in the world. Let say I give money to NPR (they have been begging on my drive home recently), let’s say I give to them because I approve of the work they do. Then I go the local NPR station and standing in the lobby is a great sculpture dedicated to: educating through non-bias reporting; that probably retails for 20 thousand bucks. I agree with the idea the sculpture put forward, as someone with a creative background I can appreciate the form and workmanship of the statue. If I find out my pledge money went to buy that thing I’m not going to be a happy camper. I gave to support reports in the field and buy mixing equipment. I didn’t give my hard earned money for the organization’s hood ornament.
Visual art, music, church buildings, and waffle houses are not asked for by Christ. People like those things so they say it’s for God, because what they like is important to them. I’m trying to figure out what is important to God. From my best understanding of the text faith and service is what is asked for. I think those outside the church might view us with more respect if we all majored in faith and service and didn’t worry so much about which color table cloth the season called for.
Well, while I worry about which color table cloth to use next week you can worry about which version of "I am a Friend of God" you'll do next week - reggae or rock...
If you want to reduce our differences to petty cliche or hyperbolic simplification then perhaps it's best to move on to other topics. You know darn well I don't "worry" about litugical colors just as I know darn well you don't "worry" about the relative theological merit of various praise chorus versions.
You and I are in absolute agreement about faith and service, I just happen to feel that art and architecture are perfectly capable of acting in the service of the faith. If anyone else (meaning the other 2 or 3 readers) would like to jump in here and see if this little debate can be moved to a more productive pasture by all means jump in and move away...
That is kind of my point; if the version or color don’t matter; then it isn’t necessary. If we can get rid of the table cloth maybe the table can go. If we can get rid of the Rasta version maybe the whole band can go. This is the type of thinking I like. Let us remove everything that is nonessential. Let’s remove all the ritual, all the processes, all the steps in the program, then we get it as stripped as possible and we are sitting on the ground in nice weather, under a roof in rain; let’s start to talk about God.
Let’s read together, let’s pray together, you tell me you sins, I’ll tell you mine, you and me are the church just the two of us and God will be there.
Everything that is added on top of that experience is just so much frosting. It’s only my opinion but I think the frosting is a waste of money, and that it keeps people from God. It doesn’t keep Christians from God; it keeps the lost from God.
You can walk up into a conversation; it’s hard to walk up to the clubhouse.
Simplistic can be good.
And then our tithe can build more roofs, pay for more missionaries, buy boat loads of drugs, find homes for orphans; and the symbol for Christianity becomes people being helped and not a font, building, tablecloth, or song.
Can you honestly hold a hundred dollar bill in your hand. Look at a artist rendering of the great building to be on your right and the face of a starving child on the left and pick with a clear conscience to hand the money to the artist.
I could very easily, and with a crystal clear conscience, choose to give a portion of that money to the poor and a portion to the church for a new building. They are both glorifying God and they are both advancing the gospel.
Simplistic can be good. Complex can be good. Surprisingly, there are people drawn to the church because of its richness as opposed to its austerity. Your assertion that tradition keeps the lost from God would seem to be contradictory to the continued growth of orthodox faiths around the globe. For some people, tradition brings them closer to God.
All of your stripping of the altars and church buildings sounds great, but it has never been as you assert. From the very earliest records of Christianity there has been tradition and the handing down of the faith from generation to generation through apostolic succession. Where do you draw the line between the deposit of the faith and corrupt religion? At scripture alone? Did God only empower the early church to produce scripture and nothing else of worth? If we accept the authority of a carefully defined biblical canon, why do we deny the authority of anything else the early church defined?
By the way, didn't one of the dudes from The Village People play a triangle in some video? I was thinking about your lute and triangle worship and I couldn't get the image of Sting and the dude from The Village People leading worship out of my mind. It made me smile this afternoon. That would be a service worth attending. The only way you could improve it would be to have Chuck Norris do pre-worship calisthenics and preach the sermon. Total awesomeness...
Just thought I'd lighten the mood, too much seriousness happening in here.
The lute and triangle were part of Monty Python skit that exists only in my head. I guess in truth the Python Players are always tooling about in my sub-conscience. In Fight Club whenever the narrator is busy reading Tyler Durden rides by on a banana seat bike. He’s doing laps in the house. You find out latter that Tyler is of course the narrator repressed super ego. The Python guys in my head are kind of like that. Although the vision of the jerk that finally killed the Police and the cop from the Village People singin’ and a dancin’ for the Church of Chuck is a better visual and has replaced the tiny Brits in my head.
Speaking of Tyler Durden, our buddy Dave post a great Chucky P. lecture on his bloggo site.
http://www.xanga.com/thepipesthepipesarecalling/607939280/makes-a-lot-of-sense.html
I read the new book it is great, dystopian future where all undesirables have been relegate to the night by the power that be. Super cool, as Nihilist go; this guy is our generation’s Nietzsche.
Clarky pooh,
God gave me certain gifts, one of which is the ability to create art - to paint and draw things that people actually will pay to see or use. I am better at this, by far, than anything else that I do. I'm not an organizer, or a leader, or an entrepeneur... I am called to make images.
I just want to point out that if everyone thought as you do, and found art unworthy of monetary support as long as there are poor people in the world, then the starving children you are talking about would be MY kids.
The real value of art to a civilization can't be expressed in dollars and cents. Mother Theresa was of the opinion that "the poor" encompassed many of us in the moneyed West. She saw us as spiritually poor, poor in our relationships, etc... I think that is reflected in the poverty of our culture, in the paucity of beauty and the glut of ugly, cheap, disposable artifacts that clutter our daily lives.
People need beauty, and the creation of beautiful things needs no justification. In doing so, I am just behaving as the child of my Father. Through the beauty of His creation, He has drawn many to Himself. In His creation, He has expressed things beyond words.
Well said Tim, I heartily agree.
I must confess something. I like pretty things. I like pretty churches. I love paintings, I even own a couple. I like classic modern furniture, also I have a few good pieces. Since I was 18 I have wanted an Eames Lounge Chair; I think it is functional, comfortable, and beautiful. I wrote my interiors thesis using it as a case study. My wife and I joke when we watch Frasier, that he never uses my chair. I want that chair. Instead the chair I recline in was given to me from buddy of mine: his parents gave it to him, and then he upgraded and I got; thanks again by the way Matt, it’s so cozy. The Chair I want could be mine for like $3500.00 not bad for the materials used and the cache’ of the dynamic duo that drew it up. But it is more important that my wife stay at home with our child, it’s more important that I save for his college, and save for an adoption some day, and never go into debt. I appreciate the finer things in life, but I care for the important things in life. One day I may get my chair, but if I don’t, my life won’t be any less full.
Pretty things are great but they are NOT a necessary part of life. It can be argued that they improve life, but I can’t prove it. And from these discussions you two have not been able to prove it to me either. I mean I like the stuff and I can’t agree with the argument. So how are we the creative types ever gonna prove it to the hyper rational people out there. I mean the “you dig man the beauty is like life man, and like God you dig. And when I see it I can like touch him, you feel me.” Line is not working. If you had to choose between the pretty picture and feeding your kids, you gotta drop the cash on the mac and cheese.
Art has always been the gift the upper class gives the lower classes. They give it because they like it. But in the shadow of the scaffolding people are starving and could give to shakes about the edifice that is blotting out the sun.
I do agree we should get rid of all the crappy consumer goods we have been inundated with since the 1920’s. To quote Tyler again “We work jobs we hate so we can buy $hit we don’t need”; and on that Tyler, Tim, and I are in complete agreement.
On second reading that came out a bit rude. So I need to be transparent. In theory I agree with most of what you two gentleman are saying. We are all on the same team. I am giving the arguments that are used against our side. I can’t wait to go to the Chapel Fay Jones built in Arkansas the next time I go to the family farm in Oklahoma. I think Buildings and art can glorify God. I am trying to pull a good argument for art in the face of an endless ocean of need. Art in true service of other is a start but as I thumb through my beloved copy of “Design Like You Give A Damn” (a nice Christmas present from the wife last year) I see pretty answers and practical answers, and the ones I like the most are high on solution with a touch of flare. So just to say I’m on the team, I’m just running the opposition’s playbook. And I future I promise no sports analogies, since I find them distasteful.
At least you stuck to single-sport analogies. It's when you start mixing sports that it gets ugly. There happens to be a great Frasier about that one as well.
I understand the devil's advocate position - it's really hard to make the rational appeal on this issue. I think I'll make that a new priority for my thinking because any argument worth being made is worth being made rationally. I think all of the data is there in some form or another with various quality of life studies based on environmental differences, etc.
"Pretty things are great but they are NOT a necessary part of life"
Beauty is not pretty. Pretty is often the enemy of beauty. The Pieta is not "pretty". St. Therese in Ecstasy is not "pretty". Grunewald's Crucifixion of Christ is not "pretty"...
So I will infer that these things are necessary. The provide food, clothing, or shelter on the level of need. They may improve one’s life; but to what quantifiable amount. If you build a playpump ( http://www.playpumps.org/site/c.hqLNIXOEKrF/b.2589561/k.C08/The_PlayPump_System__The_Water_Problem.htm )for example there is a quantifiable effect. If place near schools even more so; since girls routinely get the water and if the pump is placed near a school they might get to go in a learn to read. Clean water is a need a crucifix is a luxury. Maybe if the cross was integrated in the structural framing of the roof and because of it wood could be remove from somewhere else, then maybe. It was a need for Christ to have his cross that the Romans provided, you and I need a figurative cross in our live, but if we have a talisman of that cross it fulfill no need in our lives. I was using pretty as a backhanded comment it is true. Pretty is the enemy of beauty, but I think the fattened west and or love of beauty might be seen as a detriment to the third world.
I have a problem with defining physical needs as the only rational defense for the existence of something. Objects that fulfill spiritual needs are just as needed, especially in our culture which is absolutely materialistic. The problem I have with your reasoning is that it accepts materialism as a perfectly valid value system that says unless something fulfills a physical need and does so in the cheapest way possible it is a completely irrational fancy. I however think that beautiful (not pretty) things are enriching for the soul and elevate thinking above the base condition of man. I believe it's possible to be an enormously charitable person with absolutely no love of money and yet still maintain the materialist mindset that says the only valid needs are material and that monetary cost is the only arbiter of value. I'd like to caution against that line of thinking.
I believe that materialism is the problem. There are needs and then there are indeed follies.
A person needs to get to work. They can walk to work in 40 minutes. They can drive in 30 minutes. They can take the train in 28 minutes. If time was the only factor the car could be a valid option. If just cost was the only factor (which has never been the full nature of my argument) it is easy to make a decision. Back to the how the get to work problem; the train takes a little less time. But time is not the only factor that needs to be brought into question. The amount of fossil fuel used to make the train go per person as opposed to the single driver makes the train the best option. If global warming is a fact, then why do so many who could ride choose to drive. Greed; it can be call comfort or lifestyle or what ever, but at root it is that spoiled child that wants what it wants.
In the economics of life we have to take in to consideration the entire cost of the decisions we make. Our materialist culture means that if I buy my kid a toy I need to ask myself some questions. Does he need a toy, most toys provide very little intellectual stimulation, for centuries children had like 2 play things if that, and the human race has trucked along just fine. So if my child does need said toy, where do I buy it? If I go to a large chain no one in my local community really makes anything off the purchase. My money goes somewhere else and supports a system that I don’t really believe adds value to human life. Who made the toy? Most likely a modern day slave. Who could have made his toy, oh yeah that guy that lives two doors down that cuts grass now because his job was exported to another country because his cost of health care was to expensive for his employer who care more about his bottom line. And for the price of this thing, what could we do in the third world; maybe I could feed a kid for a month. This is a lot to fathom about a single purchase, but since most westerners don’t, the problems subsist. We are marketed to all the time that these things will improve life. And we strive to attain and we still feel empty. I think the church (Christ’s family of believers) should be thinking these processes and not being materialistic. Those of us with the powers to make should be about the work of fixing problems and not polishing the brass on the Titanic.
"I believe that materialism is the problem. There are needs and then there are indeed follies. "
This illustrates Matt's point. You define "needs" in strictly material terms. How can this be reconciled with the Christian faith?
So there are physical needs, and there is folly, and nothing in between. That is undiluted Puritanism. They, in some cases, followed this logic to its conclusion and outlawed music, even in the privacy of the home.
Man's spiritual needs are even greater than his physical needs. We in the West are doing alright for the basics, but Jesus says we are "poor, blind and naked".
The catacombs were filled with art, it was all over the walls. THESE Christians knew what was important, don't you think? This art inspired and comforted them. It was not a waste, it was the natural human response to faith.
Once again you have taken a response dealing with the spiritual value of things and turned it into something about secular materialism. I'm not talking about toys or cars, I'm talking about spiritual art and architecture. This is about culture, not vanity or excess. A Lexus is vanity, an exquisite hand-carved crucifix made by a devout artist is beautful. Sure it is monetarily expensive, but it is also spiritually significant for many who will see it and be reminded of the sacrifice of Christ for them. Sure you can buy the chinese made mass produced crucifix with all of the attendant moral problems associated with it, or you could choose to do without a crucifix entirely. I fault the first option and I support the second option for those called to asceticism - I can't however find fault with fairly compensating the artist for his life's work which is the noble endeavor of offering windows into the truth of Christ and the gospel. If that is vanity or just prettiness or polishing the brass on the Titanic then I'll check out of the faith right now. It is just that kind of beauty that spits at the plastic and faddish luxury of our time.
Another point Clark, you mentioned that love of beauty might be seen as a detriment by the third world. Any serious inquiry into that question will certainly show you that most in the third world, especially in Africa, place a much higher value on spiritual art as an important aspect of the faith. They are way ahead of us on this issue and they do it well and within their modest budgets. They most certainly find it important and worth effort - not a detriment to their faith.
Post a Comment