WHY SO LITTLE ART IN THE CHURCHES?

Of course, there are churches that are quite aware of the arts, and they are very active in numerous levels and expressions of art, but there are many more that aren't and don't. This is not an exaggeration, it is pretty much true across the board, regardless of denom.

Arts and culture are popular buzz-words in the many churches today, but there is really not much of either art or culture going on. Again, this is not a criticism as much as it is an simple observation.

To prove the point, just ask the average church leader how much of their budget is dedicated to the purchasing of art, and how many artists are on their staff. You are likely to get some answer that says they encourage the artists in their congregations to "volunteer" for things, but less often will one find churches hiring artists to place on their leadership staff. Most churches simply do not put their money where their mouth is. Many say they value the arts, but do nothing to promote them within their congregations. Often they discourage artists from being taken seriously, relegating the artist's works to "special-moments" of expression, but not to share in the accepted and regular forms of ministry.

Some churches do, however, hire artists, and commission them for various tasks - but these are often punctiliar tasks, works for the moment; irregular. The visual arts is one area that needs to see growth in all churches. It actually is growing in some spots, but in others it is little more than a fuzzy noise in the background.

But in all fairness, how is the church to think of the arts today? For nearly a hundred years the visual arts were almost completely absent from the church, and any one who got involved in the performing arts was suspect. Their faith was very often questioned. The arts were often seen as a backdoor to worldliness and sin. Only ministries of music have grown with any regularity in the Protestant churches during this past century. Music is truly wonderful, but it is not enough if it is the only art form in the church. Though music is essential and necessary, it is too narrow a focus all by itself. It will never be enough until all the arts are seen to be just as necessary for worship as is music.

What is needed to bring the visual arts up to snuff in the church? Several things. First, knowledgeable people in art ministries; people who are not afraid of the visual arts. Second, regular education in the arts for the church, so that congregations can know what is "good" and what is "better." Third, visual artists with education and existing ministries need to be ordained to positions of leadership that carry as much weight as does every other leadership ministry in the church. Fourth, resources. That is as plain and simple as it gets. The arts need money and space. A place for the arts must be created and regularly supported. It may not be that great to begin with, but it's creation and growth must be committed to, or nothing will change.

In short, the arts must cease to be marginalized and take a place at the center of church culture, alongside the rest of the regular ministries of Word and Spirit. Until the visual arts cease being a quaint novelty, or an occasional luxury, and are seen as the essential ministry of communication and worship that they are, not much will change in the church. Without all the arts functioning fully in the church, it will remain impoverished in many ways. It will lack the fullest expressions of God's interaction with humankind.

Church history has shown us over and over that when the arts are at the center of worship and spiritual education, the church grows, thrives and benefits -- not only in the immediate sense, but across time as well.

When the church takes the long view, and invests in the arts as a means of communicating God's presence over time and space (rather than merely a pop expression for the moment), then great things are possible and Spirit-filled artists will emerge from within the church itself . . . but what church leaders have either the vision or the courage for such a commitment as that?

Something to think about. :-)

(NOTE: Painting at top by Scott Erickson - See more of Scott's work at http://thetranspireproject.com/)

WHY HAS ART CHANGED SO MUCH?

Why is the art of today so different than the art of yester-year?

To answer that question adequately, one would have to know something of the philosophy and culture of previous ages. Art both leads and follows the path of a culture's development. It is probably true and most accurate to say that philosophy drives art.

In the west, say, in the Middle Ages, the artist was a crafts person and most art was utilitarian - functional in nature. It was decorative and filled the ordinary lives of people. In the Renaissance the status of the artist changed and they moved from being a servant of the patron to acquire celebrity status. This was a significant change.

In addition to the celebrity status of the Renaissance artist, the artist was called upon to invent all sorts of things -- from the composition of the subject to the ways in which the art would be used, or seen.

As the merchant class grew, more people could afford art, and the Catholic church was no longer the primary patron of the arts. Now, the church, the wealthy, the merchant class and the average person could afford art. In Italy, the Medici family spent fortunes on art, not only buying it, but in creating a market for it. They were shrewd enough to realize that there was real money to be made from the production and purchase of art.

In the twentieth century, some artists think of themselves as as much more than celebrities. They think of themselves as autonomous from the culture, doing what they want and serving nothing other than their own sensibilities.

The old patrons of the arts have all but disappeared - though new ones have emerged. Rather than making art to beautify the world, many artists of today express only themselves for themselves. They say they are making "art for art's sake," but we see that the result of some of their work is not as beneficial for culture as one might think it could be. Much are has become pathologically narcissistic.

Finally, there are so many more areas of the arts than before. Now there is everything from fashion to animation, from computer images to installation art, from painting to hip-hop. Art spans not just the visual arts but performing arts and music as well. The boundaries have been blended and blurred, not accidentally but deliberately under the banner of creative freedom as well as necessity.

Art in the west has evolved and continues to evolve.

What do you think art will become in the future?

Where do you think all this "creativity" is going?

Do you think it is good for the art world to be where it is, or is it not so good, and why?

What are your thoughts on the evolution of the arts in our own culture, or even cross culturally?

(Photo at the top is Raphael's depiction of removing the dead Christ from the cross.)