The comments for the [Insert Site Here] is the New MySpace post got a tad derailed into the beginnings of some fantastic discussions on Christian art, media, etc. and I wanted us to talk about it more.Here are a few choice thoughts I culled from those comments to get us started:
“Why must Christians desperately try to keep up with their secular peers?” — Noah Stokes
“You would think with God on their side Christian artists would produce amazingly kick-ass media. Sadly, that’s hardly ever the case (minus, of course, the High Renaissance era).” — M.A. Turner
“Don’t just imitate, innovate.” — Charlie Stout
“One of the problems I see is the lack of willingness and ability to engage melancholy, depression or just generally the darker side of things to generate artistic output.” — Benjamin Young
Full disclosure: I worked for a church for almost two years as a designer, art director, and sometimes creative director. The majority of my best friends still work there. I love that church and I love The Church. I love Jesus. I love art and the people who make it.Point 1: I think Ben hits on something profound here. Most of what is deemed “Christian art” (I hate the term, but it serves the discussion so we’ll keep it) focuses on the top 99.9% of positive human experience - happiness, rampant selflessness, divine ecstasy, etc. - and completely ignores the bulk of life on Earth. Read the Book of Ecclesiastes; life under the sun is often not pleasant.That exclusion, in and of itself, makes Christian art irrelevant and dishonest to all but a few (delusional) people. Most people do things like get depressed, have family and friends die, fight with their spouse, screw up their finances, have their cars break down, and so on and so forth. We don’t live in the 99.9% and we don’t know anyone else who does either, so why would we engage in art born out of a worldview we don’t connect with in the least bit?Point 2: Christians have not been at the forefront of art and creativity since the Protestant Reformation which, if my time as an academic serves me correctly, started in 1517. We have neglected artistic expression, and demonized any art that isn’t expressly, explicitly about Caucasian Jesus™.Point 3: Right now, in America, there are a number of churches who have made cultural relevancy and creativity a huge part of their planning and programming. That desire, in and of itself, is wonderful, welcomed, and certainly in keeping with the early church leaders (namely Jesus) who used cultural queues to discuss spiritual matters. The desire to be culturally relevant and create is GOOD; the way it plays out more often than not infuriates me. I’m going to paint with a big brush to make my point, so please forgive the generalizations. It typically plays out like this:1. Determine a sermon topic or passage of scripture or t-shirt idea or product or website.2. Parody an existing TV show, movie, cultural trend, brand name, etc.3. Call it creativity.First of all, it doesn’t take a creative genius to parody the Home Depot logo and make it say Home Work on a bunch of print materials. (That particular sin I was completely guilty of early on in my tenure at NewSpring Church.) Secondly, and probably more overlooked and vastly more important, it minimizes and makes light of the hundreds (thousands?) of hours artists and craftsmen in the real world put into creating recognizable and excellent TV shows, movies, cultural trends, brand names, etc. We don’t care about their work, we simply USE their work. Their artistic expression and craftsmanship is reduced to commodity.When a church (or Christian organization, or Christian designer) takes existing art and media, makes poor parodies of it (that they probably made in a few days because refuse to plan well), and then distributes it under the guise of creativity it completely devalues the work and skills of the artists and craftsmen responsible for the inspiration. Worse, it just makes followers of Christ look BAD, which in turn makes Christ look bad, uncreative, and irrelevant. And then we wonder why there aren’t more artists in the church.Point 4: If Christians are really smoking what they’re selling, shouldn’t the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (who offers divine understanding, guidance, inspiration, gifts, help) enable them to be as creative, if not more creative, than artists who don’t have a direct connection?I hate to be all negativity and no solution, so what are some solutions? How can we educate the church? What resources exist to do so?
Interestingly enough, I think Christians were generally relevant in the global ‘art scene’ for longer than most give them credit. In my opinion, the disconnect between the Church and Art didn’t fully manifest itself until the early part of the 20th century with the trans-Atlantic movement of Dada-ism, particularly the work and world view of Marcel Duchamp. At that point, combined with a sharp swing in American Evangelical Christianity towards a move fundamentalist bent, the Church, and Christians, stopped engaging art and started railing against it. To be sure, the relationship between Christians and Art has been tense. But when artists were still searching for that sort of romantic connection of the Universal (the romantics in literature, Gauguin in high art) there was still a middle ground on which Christianity and Art could meet: that is, the appeal to higher meaning. With the nothingness and destructivism that Dada brought to the scene, rather than constructively combating it, Christians turned tail and ran away. And with that retreat in the face of its most primarily opposed ‘other’, Christians lost their place in the world of art.
To your question: yes, if indeed the Holy Spirit is indeed an indwelling being, than ‘Christian’ art should be nothing short of magnificent, should it not? Seemingly, the very reflection of God in the form of art would be beautiful beyond words. The terror of Almighty God, the artistic process of unscrambling the mystery of the Trinity, a tangible conduit between us and the pain Christ himself felt with His Father walked away from Him on the cross - all those things would be transcendentally meaningful and theologically significant, nevermind ‘pretty’ with the qualities of ‘good art.’
But again, there is a profound discomfort in the discussion of the darker aspects, the tremendously powerful aspects of our tradition. Think for example about the childhood images of God: He is love, not He is to be feared. Indeed, a profound difference resides in those two statements: the first is comfortable, the second demands awe. From that awe, I believe that art, great art, could stem. But that awe isn’t comfortable. That awe isn’t something that the common Church seems interested in dealing with.
On the surface, creating Church identity through original art would seem to be the remedy, would it not? Instead of ripping off the ‘American Idol’ logo for a sermon series, why not creating something fresh? A general shift in ideology could have profound impact on the general scene. This, of course, is only the remedy for ‘common’ art, or ‘everyday’ art in the Christian realm. To get back to the really good stuff, the stuff we walked away from years ago, a profound shift in how we all see God is needed. That, and finally an honesty about the things in life that aren’t just chocolate and roses.
said benjamin young
at 11:55am on Tuesday
I would suspect there’s a lot more seriously good Christian art out there about which we’re simply unaware.
The reason? Because of the stigma towards so-called Christian art, many musicians, designers, painters, writers, etc. release their art without explicitly referring to it as “Christian.”
Sure, their creativity vision passes through that faith-lens through which they see the world, but the do not call the resulting work a “Christian Album” or a “Religious Painting.” I think this makes the really crappy stuff stand out all the more, but I understand the desire to want people to see your art without immediately assuming it’s inferior.
The Church at large (or at least in the West) has done a great disservice to the creative community and its own creative members. Wouldn’t we want more folks willing to stand up and say, “This is my creative work, and it’s Christian work. It’s influenced by my faith, and represents it”? I’m not insisting that all creative output from Christians should be religious in nature, but I think it would be beneficial to the Church if people were less afraid of the ridicule that comes with declaring their work to be Christian.
said Daniel
at 12:20pm on Tuesday
Doesn’t chocolate and roses lead to premarital intercourse?
said Renaud
at 12:23pm on Tuesday
point #1…dang. so incredibly true. personally, i think the current atmosphere in “Christian art” starts with us. all of us (or at least most of us). the church. maybe it’s just me and i’m totally off base here, but i don’t think Christian art is going to reflect the hardships, sad times, and feelings of utter loneliness and desperation that we all feel at times unless we acknowledge these things and become comfortable with them. Christian art only presents happy-go-lucky, i’mgonnasayi’mfineeventhoughimdesperateforsomelove, pretty stuff because that’s what we think we have to show people. act okay even if everything in your life feels like it’s about to come apart at the seams. and usually, people are more than willing to accept that distorted picture, even though they know it’s probably not complete. it’s easier that way. i think we (and by we, i mean Christians as a whole) have got to figure out how to be okay with the messy stuff…the hurt, the disappointments, the loss, the sadness, the whatever it may be. right now, even though i think we’ve made great strides in some ways as a Church, i believe most people still feel like they have to act fine, whether they are or not. (i’ve found myself in a similar place recently, and you really begin to wonder if there’s something wrong with you. because everyone else seems just dandy. and i’m one of those people who should know better…i can’t imagine what it’s like for a brand new Christian trying to navigate life.) but i’m rambling…the point i’m trying to make is that i don’t think Christian art will ever portray the ugly, messy side of life (and thus, actually become relevant and realistic) until we start getting real with each other on a personal level and embrace the “darker side of things.” art generally reflects culture, so if we want the art to be real, we’ve got to get real first.
said lauren
at 12:23pm on Tuesday
[...] Joshua Blankenship started a discussion about Christian Art over on his page. Great starting point, and I hope some of the comments are as honest and interesting as those on the prior post which instigated this one. [...]
said Ploafmaster General » Christian Art
at 12:23pm on Tuesday
C.S. lewis states it best in one of his novels, I don’t remember which, this is not an exact quote by any means, jut the gist:
“You can’t have one without the other. You can’t have good without evil. You can’t have black without white. Etc, etc, etc.”
We need some of the dark side to creep in under the floorboards of Christian art. To wake these GAP wearing golfers from their pacified and blind slumbers. We need Angels slaying Demons. We need to show God isn’t a pussy.
Think about it. Americans live from advertising. The Church is no different. They are selling a product. They need a better campaign. A scary campaign.
If Christians believe in the Devil, Demons, Angels & God in a literal way why not show these things in art and media? Scare the shit out of everyone, it’s the only way to make anyone feel bad enough to sit next to a guy in a pink polo shirt on Sundays.
said M.A.T.
at 12:29pm on Tuesday
Amen! I couldn’t agree with you more. We as members of The Body of Christ have communion regularly (at least I hope so) with the Creator of the universe. Let me reiterate… the CREATOR of the universe. Now, why is it that most Christian Creatives, be they artists, speakers, theologians, programmers, etc. find the need to mimmic (your point 3) today’s culture by copying it?
I think that we are still trying to fulfill our deepest of needs (or at least one of them), the need to be accepted and acclaimed in our given field, based on what others, usually our peers, say about us rather than what God thinks of us. It’s completely natural to desire acceptance. But whose acceptance do/should we pine for? If Christians would get back to the realization that acceptance comes from Christ, and who we are in Him, then we’d see an explosion of creativity in the “Christian Art” world.
said Adam Spooner
at 12:35pm on Tuesday
Excellent post and good discussion.
said David
at 12:40pm on Tuesday
[...] Joshua Blankenship has an excellent post on Christian art and creativity and it is being followed up by some darn good discussion. [...]
said Grab Baggage » Blog Archive » Christian Art, Parody, and Creativity
at 12:44pm on Tuesday
This is a very interesting topic. I thought it appropriate when someone mentioned C. S. Lewis. What happened to guys like him and Tolken? As mentioned before, I know of several bands that have forsaken their “Christian” labels for fear that their talent will get them no further than the local Baptist Church stage. And I don’t think any of us would want to hear it because of the limits that might be put on that music. MuteMath is the perfect example of a group of Christian guys who were pushed into a Christian label and have done whatever necessary to get out of it. Of course we have the standard Relient K and Switchfoot, who still have a very large Christian following, but have made an impact in the secular markets as well.
The good news is that we aren’t the first people thinking about this. David Crowder’s latest full length album has themes of the darker sides of life. I heard him speak on the subject and he said just what many of us have been saying on here. He mentioned that he has had several friends die in the past few years (namely the pastor of the church that he co-founded who was electrocuted when he dropped a microphone in the baptismal). The album is dark and it addresses several of these issues. Derek Webb has made plenty of statements (inside of his music and not) based on these same facts. Oh and let’s not even get into Sufjan Stevens as well (see Casmir Pulakski Day for one). There are many other Christian’s speakers and artist who are facing this subject and trying to deal with it.
Personally I think the problem has caused a vicious cycle among Christian artists. There is an extreme lack of competition. That is you don’t have to work very hard to become a successful Christian artist because no one else is good. Of course I am generalizing, but you don’t have to be very good to get played, even on Christian radio, much less be a full time musician playing at a different church every night. I just don’t think there is as much insintive to be good when you are a Christian, even though, to me that makes no sense.
said Matt
at 1:27pm on Tuesday
This is an argument that I find myself in often and wish that I wasn’t. I’m not sure if I personally see a need for change in the “Christian art” scene. I attended a twenty-something service at a church in Orlando when I lived in Florida and the “pastor” (young guy who led the thing) said, and this is an exact quote, “we are going to re-brand Jesus.”
I almost walked up on stage and punched him in the face. I had to grab a hold of my seat just to stay for the entire service. The idea that Christ somehow needs our help to reach people makes me want to cry.
I think that there are several arguments here that desperately need to be separated. The first needs to be pushed back into the “what is art” discussion. Defining what art is and what it needs to say is an argument I will stay away from. Why must there be Christian anything? In its specific definition of being “Christian.” Christian art, Christian clothing, Christian music. If a Christian is doing art or music or clothing or whatever, I hope that their love of Jesus and His purposeful sacrifice on the cross comes out. Whatever an artist chooses to put into their media is the correct amount. I’m not going to yell at a non-Christian artist for not having enough secularism in their works.
As for why Christian art always seem happy and joyful, I don’t know if I see it that way or agree that “Christian art” can’t be in that majority. Yes we are to live our lives in an honest understanding of our sin and how sin affects our lives. But that doesn’t mean we have to focus on it at all. Conversations we have with our friends and family is just as much an expression of who we are and the life we are living (if not more so) than what we would produce as artists. How much of your conversations is about how depressing something is or how sad you are? This leads to Point 4. If Christians are smoking what we are selling, then our lives should be filled with the joy of the Lord and the peace that passes all understanding. Why wouldn’t that dominate what we express? That is the message we are spreading. That sin and pain and hurt does exists but isn’t our existence.
The second argument I see here is that there isn’t enough Christ being shown in the lives of Christians. If we are going to yell at the Christian artists and designers about not showing enough of what our lives as Christians are about, then let’s keep that ball rolling. Let’s talk about police officers and firemen and fishermen and washing machine repairmen and mechanics not showing enough Christ in their work. I agree that we as a Church of fellow believers are not living the way we should. I know that we never will live like we should, but we aren’t trying hard enough to get closer than we are today and were yesterday. And I understand that this is a discussion mainly by artists and designers, so I do understand it being played on that field.
The third argument I see as one of laziness in the church. And I don’t mean that in the meanest way it can sound. Get to about 50-60% of its meanest and stop about there and you’ll find me. I work at a church about 15 hours a week doing all their publications and branding work. Some web work, business cards, bulletins, video, PowerPoint junk, stuff like that. My Pastor and Associate Pastor both have a great amount of faith in me and what I turn in. But — and this will sound rather egotistical — I do really good work for them. In the past they have had the same amount of faith in their “designer” and have given them the same amount freedom that they have given me. They just lucked out and got a designer in me who pushes himself and has a bit more skill than their previous employees. By working at my church though, I have seen how a church treats design. “Get it out, if you have time to do something nice, go for it. But you don’t have time to spend on it like you would for a business that hired you.” Its just not something that is important. And if something isn’t important, you take the easy way out. For the easy way out, just copy something you’ve seen somewhere else.
I have not seen a lot in-house church designers who are the cream of the crop. In fact, I can only think of a handful of designs (brochures, web sites, etc.) that were for churches that have really impressed me from a design stand-point. (On a side note, before I forget, sometimes parody can be creative. But I will admit that 99.9% of the time it’s used, it’s laziness.) I think that the main problem is that churches don’t put a lot of stock in the fact that design and image is worth paying for. Should it be at the top of what a church focuses on? Please Lord, never let that day come. If it does, I will leave that church and go read my Bible in my backyard with 10 friends. But should the “brand” (I hate that word) of the church be something that is attended to? By all means. The main argument that is consistently put forth by anyone controlling the church budget is “why would I pay a designer $10,000 to make a website when I can spend that $10,000 on renovating the sanctuary with a new sound system?” How do you argue with that logic? I think that a new sound system would be a better investment than a website. I know I am shooting myself in the foot by saying that, but I believe it to be true.
said Aaron
at 1:36pm on Tuesday
Good stuff Shua.
I can see the tendency for a church to mooch ideas from popular brands or ideas. It’s something that is current, relevant and most likely ties in nicely with whatever sermon, t-shirt, product, site. etc. I can live with that; most church graphic designers are underpaid, overworked kids just trying to use their talents for God.
Art is so subjective. That is what is so beautiful about it. I don’t feel like I can say one way or another that a particular artists art should be “more creative”. The very artistic bone (if you will) is from God. Whether or not the work is bringing Him glory directly, it is still bringing Him glory in the fact that the artist was ABLE to create it in the first place. All talent is from God.
Like I said yesterday, the thing that really gets me is the mooching of original ideas and spun into a “Christian” mold. Like Daniel said up there, there very well could be some great “Christian” stuff out there, and we just don’t know about it. I can think of a few VERY talented artists who believe in God, yet don’t express it explicitly in their work.
A solution: Do not expose yourself to secular media. As an artist (which I am not), can you restrict yourself to viewing creation, the world around you, nature, people, the human eye as your guide for inspiration and motivation? Just a thought.
said Noah
at 1:45pm on Tuesday
Aaron brings up a tough sticking point related to money spent on art by the church…
I don’t think the problem will ever go away. Should a single congregation have a multi-million dollar cathedral built with a cut-stone edifice and glorious stained glass windows, modernly designed by I. M. Pei? Or should they have simply what they need and spend the rest on feeding the poor and sponsoring local missionaries in the Far East?
It’s difficult to balance the concept of spending money on sacred art (which may very will inspire and turn people’s hearts to God, or help Christians focus on Him during worship) and instead using the money to do the work of the Church.
But I can attest, first hand, to just how glorious and inspiring it was when, for the first time I walked through the Vatican Museums and the Sistine Chapel. Same goes for the Duomo in Pisa or Piazza di San Pietro.
said Daniel
at 2:00pm on Tuesday
Resource: take a look at CIVA: Christians in the Visual Arts. Check out these pieces here, and here. I’m not claiming that none of the art in CIVA has the potential to fall into the “Christian Kitsch” category, because some of it in my opinion would. Many of the artists with CIVA are good at what they do and don’t fall into that mass produced Thomas Kinkade stereotype that has been placed upon many Christian artists.
said Zach
at 2:03pm on Tuesday
Aaron Martin is one of my favorite people ever.
said Joshua
I’ve said over and over: the church mistakes style for creativity.
said Paul
at 2:52pm on Tuesday
Also, good christian art can be found at CIVA.org
said Paul
at 2:53pm on Tuesday
Oops, I missed your post Zach (I do the web work for CIVA, so I have a selfish admiration for them)
said Paul
at 2:58pm on Tuesday
excellent discussion,
one which can I say has been going on a lot longer than today, or even in the late 20th century to early 21st century. while being relevant, creative and seeking to be true artists, “christian” artists should take the time to look back into church history and see this discussion in context. Paul, Augustine, Luther and many others, all engaged this question quite passionately. yes, perhaps the church pulled out of culture and art in the 20th century, but this question of, “do we Create or Critique?” has been around for a long time.
i know that for myself, i have often just reacted to this topic, blabbing away with my opinions and ideas, but lately i have been realizing that there is larger context to this question, one which is bigger than my little christianized postmodern brain can really take in. (yes! i used christian as an adjective.)
i don’t think i am agreeing or disagreeing with any of the points already mentioned, as they are quite persuasive. I just want to bring my opinions back to the place where they are christ-like, because if i call myself a christian, and i do, then i am calling myself a “little-christ” which in itself is an adjective. I never want to be a noun, but a reflection, a representation of christ.
and that’s what i want my art to be. a representation of christ. so, if someone wants to make it into an adjective, that’s fine by me, so long as it’s (the art i create) not about myself.
some of my thoughts.
thanks joshua for letting us talk about this.
said joonitree
at 3:26pm on Tuesday
Honestly, coming from an agnostic point of view. I think creativity, Christian or not, comes from the same place. Creativity is about skill, and mastery of that skill. Just because someone is Christian, doesn’t make them have more or less creativity than another person. I think some people are arrogant enough to think their “connection” to the Holy Spirit, inclines them to better art/music/whatever.
I have a pet peeve. I really hate the separation that Christians do with everything. Such as those t-shirt rip-off with bad puns and art ripped off, “Christian” music, “Christian” art, the Jesus fish (thereby converting ones car into Jesus-mobile, ran on love and road rage). It’s just really annoying. If they really wanted to connect to the world, they should do it by actually CONNECTING, instead of rejecting and separating.
The expression of basic human emotion, the connection achieved by the viewer, that’s what makes great art. It’s not because it’s “Christian” , it’s because there is a connection, deeper than paint on a canvas, photograph, or muddy dirt made to resemble a vase. The piece will have staying power, because it’s skillfully done, because it’s beautiful, because it means something, not because it’s “Christian”.
said Jerrett
at 4:13pm on Tuesday
Creativity is fundamental to all humans. If we’re in the imagine of God (as I believe we are) then we’re imbibed with this fingerprint of His creativity (just look around you, the mastery of color, shapes, science); creativity is not only the strong hold of artists. Creativity is the act of finding unique solutions to a problem. Fine art incorporates creativity, but so does mathematics, engineering, physics, etc. So neither Christians nor fine artists (or illustrators or designers) can claim to have the rights to creativity. Christian just a term; not a truth. Just like jumbo shrimp.
said Paul
at 4:23pm on Tuesday
i gotta say, things like GodTube are the perfect example of christians getting the the charge to be “in the world and not of it” backwards. GodTube is completely “of the world” but not in it. there’s no way godtube will minister to people who aren’t already christians. the only thing that it has doen is make nonbelievers laugh at christians and make christians with integrity embarrassed.
said benfRank
at 4:41pm on Tuesday
Well I guess we can start arguing, what came first, creativity or the artist? ;)
Is the artist a result of creativity, and the artist imitates that creativity through art, expression, writing, etc. Or is creativity the result of the artist out of a need to (in the beginning) express day to day things and it just happened to grow into this huge movement of self-expression, emotion, problem solving?
I don’t know the answer to that. I just have my doubts as to whether we each get a “I, God, approve of this human and impress on him creativity…” stamp.. It’s not really provable, as many things aren’t.
said Jerrett
at 4:47pm on Tuesday
Well, like i said, I believe we’re made in the image of God; which means you have to hold certain attributes of God (obviously not all of them), one of them is creativity (as evidence; well, by human creativity) — the extent of creativity varies, obviously. Since (in my belief, Christian belief) we’re of God, from God, through God, creativity starts with God — that doesn’t mean one HAS to believe in God, just being human makes you “of” God. If you don’t believe in God, then my point is moot; but I’m not making my point to convince anyone about God, just stating where I believe creativity starts/begins (not where it ends).
Creativity has personal and corporate values. I never said creativity meant you are a Picasso or Rembrandt; that’s a “type” of creativity. Don’t think so grandly; creativity exists in small things, unseen, unheralded, unknown.
said Paul
at 4:58pm on Tuesday
Paul, I think your ideas on creativity are great.
I have a feeling I’m introducing a tired quote, but I thought it worthwhile:
“Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.”
- Pablo Picasso
I’m not sure what Pablo meant exactly, but it’s something to chew on. While I do think imitation can be flattering, I believe it often isn’t so with the parody that church art/designs engage in. If you asked a church why they imitated a certain piece of art or logo, I doubt it would be because they loved the layout or the type or for some other pure love of design. More likely it is a half-handed attempt to be relevant and modern without having to try too hard. They just needed to use SOMETHING, and if it is a lame ripoff, so be it. While that surely is nails on a chalkboard to an artist, it’s so far down the list for most churches I doubt most give it a second thought. It’s hard enough for an artist to find his/her original voice/style/direction, how much more so for a church with underpaid artists and designers who will get the same reaction whether they turn in gold or crap.
Some people think making genuine, original art is risky. Most of the time I would agree. It’s an opportunity to lay out there something you probably care about very much to either be praised, derided, or worse yet passed by with indifference. At the end of the day, I think they church finds it less of a hassle to just play it safe.
said David Drennon
at 5:04pm on Tuesday
I’m currently a creative director at a church, so I wrestle with these questions constantly.
On the issue of parodies: There’s a fine line between a parody and a ripoff, and it has a lot to do with what Jarrett talked about. Using an existing piece of art as a basis for a new piece of art is by no means wrong; it’s been done for centuries. The question is, how skillfully do you parody that piece of work? Did you simply use it to prop up your own artistic deficiencies, or did you take it and put a new twist on it that simultaneously pays homage to the original (or satirizes it) and gives it a new meaning? One good thing about using television shows, etc. as the basis for church services is that it helps unchurched folks latch onto something already familiar to them as a reason to attend what would normally seem completely alien. (Anybody have a better way of saying that?) If we constantly disappoint with our lack of skill in doing the original work justice, it will be recognized as a tired and cheap trick really soon.
What I’m driving at is this: The major reason “Christian art” has a bad reputation is because it deserves it. Why? The short answer is a lack of attention to craft. There are a myriad reasons behind that lack of attention, including a lack of money and the fact that most church art is done by volunteers who are already stretched thin by their real-life duties. A dedication to really learning a craft will be key in regaining a good reputation where the arts is concerned.
Oddly enough, “the world” has begun reciprocating this practice. Hollywood businessmen have recognized the vast market of people just waiting for something “Christian” to come along on the big screen, and they’re doing their darndest to learn the ropes of Christian PR (screening for parachurch organizations and megachurch leaders, mass mailers to individual churches, etc.) to hook Christians into buying tickets for what is really a “secular movie.” The only difference is there’s no altar call at the end of the movie. Oh the irony. (See: Superman Returns; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; Polar Express.) Listen to this radio program about it.
said Gus
at 5:07pm on Tuesday
Great topic. This is something I’ve been wrestling with myself over the last year. I think a lot of it comes down to the wall of definitions and separations that the church (little ‘c’) makes with culture. And because of that, it’s easy to end up in a sub-culture that is no longer relevant to the world at large. And then Christian’s wonder why no one takes them seriously.
Two quotes from books that helped me immensely in my own processing of this subject:
“How much of life is Christ to be Lord over? Is he only interested in that part of life we think of as religious or spiritual? Or is he interested in every facet of our lives - body, soul, mind and spirit? The sort of art we make as Christians will illustrate our answer.” (credit)
If our art is not relevant to all parts of our lives (good and bad) it won’t be relative to others in this world.
“We may not like [it], but we call the work of such artists un-Christian or non-Christian at our own peril. Christ has always worked in ways which have seemed peculiar to many men, even his closest followers… So we need not feel that we have to understand how he works through artists who do not consciously recognize him. Neither should our lack of understanding cause us to assume that he cannot be present in their work.” (credit
When we have an “us or them” attitude about art, we put constraints on what we can do ourselves and we restrict our ability to recognize beauty, goodness, and truth in art that isn’t explicitly labeled, “Christian.”
said gb
at 5:58pm on Tuesday
I don’t want to start arguing with anyone specifically, but I disagree with what Jerrett said about separation. I don’t see a problem with calling yourself out and displaying what you are. If it’s okay to have “Brown Pride” sticker across your back window, a purple-first rainbow, or a Red, Gold and Green sticker, why is it somehow different and offensive for a Christian to have a fish or “God Loves You” bumper sticker?
said Aaron
at 6:58pm on Tuesday
@Aaron - The God of Christianity seems to be the most offensive doesn’t He? I wonder if a Buddha/Allah/Baal, take your pick, sticker on a car would draw as much attention?
said Noah
at 7:11pm on Tuesday
@gb: great books. i also recommend “The War of Art” by Steven Pressfield
said Paul
at 7:19pm on Tuesday
Christian music, specifically, tends to be bad because it is boiled down to the lowest common denominator, much like Top 40. Christian kitsch is often not created by “artists” at all, but by people attempting to market something.
Here are some Christians who make good art:
* Tec Petaja
* Dave Barnes
* Paper Route
* Jeremy Cowart (not just photos, but paintings too)
* Joshua Blankenship (Call me a suck-up if you want, but it’s true.)
* That guy in The Damnwells
* Anne Lamott
Most of these people are/were not subsidized by major corporations to help them fuel their careers. They are all out there, plodding along, doing their thing. You might not hear of them via major media channels, but they’re out there, loving Jesus and creating great things, whether or not they call it “Christian.”
said TLC
at 7:39pm on Tuesday
I’d say Jeremy’s made it; working with Fox/FX; but certainly takes nothing away from his talent of creativity. Success doesn’t (always) mean sell out. Christians don’t differ from anyone else in terms of making a product (coughKincadecough) purely for money or get fame or popularity. We’re human. Plus, we all need to eat; its a matter of perspective and priority.
said Paul
at 7:45pm on Tuesday
just seems to me like when you pull the christian-creativity card instead of creating something original, you are robbing god of his ability to be creative through you.
without god we would have no creativity, and to let our creative ability go unused, its almost like robbing someone of theirs.
i dont know, i just hate it when pastors, churches, christians, take work from someone else and twist it a little bit to make it church-worthy. just makes me feel icky.
said dan simmons
at 9:59pm on Tuesday
i’m not sure the church is the only “outlet” responsible for ripping off culture. i think our collective issue with christians (as i think you’re saying dan) is that our belief ought to necessitate excellence. anything less is capitulation.
said Paul
at 10:13pm on Tuesday
True that, Paul, it isn’t constrained to the church. Just spend 5 minutes at the mall in Hot Topic. OK, bad example.
said David Drennon
at 10:32pm on Tuesday
@ Paul: yeah. i liked the post someone said about “christian’s have god on their side so shouldn’t they be able to create kick ass stuff?” haha. never thought of that…but yeah.
said dan simmons
at 10:53pm on Tuesday
There’s a good exploration on Christians and Kitsch called A Profound Weakness (amazon link).
said matt
at 11:15pm on Tuesday
Joshua, I personally loved the mock spray painted mock HD logo. It gave people something to reference what they heard on Sunday (Jesus) with what the see/hear throughout the week. Yes, I agree this can get out of hand, but anything taken too far is, well, too far.
The only difference between sacred and secular is God. Seeing/hearing/recognizing God in something makes it sacred to me immediately, regardless of the intentions of the person who copyrighted it, etc.
I appologize if these thoughts were previously echoed by someone else, but for the most part, I am too lazy to read long comments.
said Jamie
at 7:55am on Wednesday
[...] Preach it, brother!!!! [...]
said Joshua Blankenship on Christian Art, Parody, and Creativity - Matt and Nancy Heerema
at 9:29am on Wednesday
Tara, you are my favorite suck-up.
Paul, entertainment photography doesn’t pay nearly as well as most think it does.
said Joshua
Also, I just want to thank everybody for their thoughts and opinion and questioning here. This is a great discussion. You guys are awesome.
said Joshua
[...] There are a couple streams of discussion about creativity and faith weaving their way through the blogosphere that you should take the time to read. Joshua Blankenship, a talented designer, opened up a can of worms that has quite a few diverse opinions on the matter. Benjamin carried on the conversation with good results here. And our good friend, Lon, is gearing up for some thoughtful discussion. If you’re joining in, you should read up on L’Engle’s Walking on Water. Among the great many books on the subject of faith and art, I think it stands out. [...]
said Tales by the Fire · Faith Brokeness and Art
at 9:41am on Wednesday
I agree on the L’Engle book. While much of the original post by Joshua and subsequent comments point out the weakness of “Christian” art, her bold statements directly counter this flow: All good art is Christian art.
I would totally butcher trying to summarize her supporting arguments for this statement, so I won’t try, but if that sparks any interest in you, get the book.
said Timothy
at 10:50am on Wednesday
There are still great artists out there who’s best buddy is Jesus. I’m not going to make some list or anything, but the problem is that popular “Christian artists” are appealing to a mass culture and whenever “artists” create for a mass culture usually they suck - Christian or otherwise. However, the artists who create work that is personal and heartfelt usually make better work - Christian or otherwise.
Read Anne Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and the case is closed.
said Renaud
at 10:52am on Wednesday
and as any good writer should know, “show don’t tell.” i think this applies also to art, making art and creativity.
said joonitree
at 11:15am on Wednesday
the human mind changed during the Enlightenment. we learned that truth could be found through science and math, through things we could verify and prove.
in the process, we lost our ability to find truth in other areas, like art and poetry, and it was cast along the wayside because we couldn’t experiment on it.
this thinking, of course, filtered into the church.
said ysbl
at 11:39am on Wednesday
@TLC - I totally agree - I always think of the question, “do you want to be the best Christian artist, or be the best at your craft as you possibly can?” - one of those has a much smaller world and much lower expectations attached to it…
Oh, and shameless plug, I have to add some local Colorado friends, Tifah to your list. And call me a suck-up, but you’re on my list as well.
@dan simmons - I think that “icky” feeling is the knowledge that something is being dumbed down for a Christian audience - like we can’t use our own discernment or set our own boundaries as to what is acceptable or isn’t - instead we have to churchify stuff and make it safe.
@Timothy - that’s why I really liked the book - her biggest points were 1) as Christians, more than anyone else, we should be the best at our crafts as we can because we know where the talent really comes from, and 2) that we can recognize beauty, goodness, and truth in the world at large and realize that God is at work outside of our little Christian sub-culture.
said gb
at 12:10pm on Wednesday
It’s much easier to set up boundaries that we don’t have to think about than it is to look at the whole of creation saying “what is best for me, what is good, what is potentially harmful” and so on.
We should be much more worried about what is GOOD for us to intake as opposed to what is SAFE. What does that even mean? No risk, no potential for harm? There seems to be very little faith involved in seeking out what is deemed safe (not to mention it’s ignoring the fact that life is, by nature, NOT safe and so the pursuit of safety is a rather fruitless endeavor.)
In an example specific to the discussion, it always struck me as odd that people blindly buy whatever is in their local Christian bookstore believing it to be approved by the gatekeepers of safety - but that item might be an album from an artist who is currently plastered drunk at an industry party put on by the same record label that supports Cannibal Corpse or 50 Cent. It seems naive, overtly trusting of a world built on commerce, and, as you said GB, severely lacking in discernment.
We don’t like to think for ourselves. It takes too much effort.
said Joshua
Guess I better weigh in here. My quoted thought was “Don’t just imitate, innovate,” and I think I’ll expound on that a bit.
Churches in America gave up the ghost a long time ago with regards to cultural relevance. With the advent of the motion picture, we blasphemed the names of those “Hollywood Heathens” and threw our bibles at the big screen. With the advent of radio we cursed the evils of the airwaves. With the advent of TV we spat upon the images flashing before us and exorcised the television from our homes. The Bible college I dropped out of refused to allow internet access, even in the school library, because of how eeeevil the internet was!
In effort to combat the “art” springing forth out of a nation of people just awakening to the potential of first amendment freedom, we started our own, exclusive Christian radio stations, Christian TV stations (and later cable and satellite networks) and Christian music labels and Christian movie studios and now Teh Christian Internets. But it’s all happened about 30 years behind the curve!
In the wide swath of the median of this curve, we have the bulk of today’s Christian art - Christian tee shirts that look like corporate logos, Christian talent shows in the spirit of American Idol, Christian Radio spinning the same few hits we’ve managed to manufacture over the past twenty years, and poorly directed, poorly lit Christian movies breaking one tenth the creative ground of Robert Rodriguez’s El Mariachi with over ten times the budget.
Personally, I believe if we spent less time trying to fit Jesus into a Harley Davidson or Coca Cola logo, and more time imitating Christ, the innovation would flow again through the world of religious art like living water.
Every artist who turns out another piece of “culturally clever” art is shamelessly admitting to the world that “Christ isn’t any more inspiring to me than this Reese’s Cup wrapper onto which I have lettered His name.”
The media isn’t “immoral” because it’s anti-Christian, it’s “immoral” because Christians are anti-media, and holding that fort cost us thirty years on the battlefield. We cursed the bad taste of the world, failed to throw any salt on it to improve the flavor just a little, stocked it up for ourselves in our churches, and now we’re stuck here on this blog complaining about how everything tastes so damn salty all the time!
I think the study of art scares Christians. It scares them because there is so much to learn about it, and so little time on the earth to devote to it. There is a fear that to devote one’s life to excellence in art is to worship an idol - to devote one’s life to something other than Christ. It’s to elevate ourselves as creators, to ride the twisted rails of Milton’s Lucifer and attempt equality with God.
It’s easier on the collective Christian conscience to commit the misdemeanor of trying to take on the form of the world than it is to commit the “cardinal sin” of taking on the form of God. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we’ve been called to do in the first place. Satan, by brilliant example, deceived us into what not to do. He HAD to fall, or we would would be a lot more scared of emulating the world with our art than boldly approaching the divine, tapping into a far more influential source of inspiration.
To be unfortunately candid with everyone here today, I say all of this after having offered little resistance to posting a “Godweiser” logo on my church’s homepage and having published my own sendup of the movie “300″ as a recruiting banner for volunteers. I’m as guilty as everyone I’ve pointed to, which makes me just as hypocritical as I am cowardly. But I don’t think it makes me any less right.
said Charlie
at 1:17pm on Wednesday
First my favorite Christian T-Shirt ever: An image of Jesus hanging on the cross and the caption reads “Don’t leave Him hanging”.
People are Christians. Art and media is not. The idea of Christian media just doesn’t make sense to me. Once that label is applied someone is excluded. Once things stand on their own merit without the guise of being Christian they come up short. I always think we as Christians have the best product there is. How do we mess that up? I guess it’s because we want a shortcut. On my keyboard Shift F12 makes things Christian.
said Big Guns
at 1:45pm on Wednesday
Nice.
said Joshua
may i suggest _Santuary Cinema_ by Terry Lindvall? A history of ‘christian’ cinema. quite interesting, especially the fact that for the first 20 years of the moving picture business, the church (catholic and protestant) was not only exhibiting movies, but endorsing hollywood and even creating their own films. then with the advent of sound, it just got too expensive to make films, so the church turned to criticism rather than creating. and that’s where the pull-out as charlie mentioned happened, at least in the film industry.
i wonder how much money has got to do with the ability or inability to create art? (maybe i shouldn’t mention money)
said joonitree
at 3:15pm on Wednesday
I never said “making it” had to do with money; but achieving goals (good clients, creative work, good exposure, etc). Funny that you went there though … hmmm … ;-)
said Paul
at 3:26pm on Wednesday
wow, excellent quotes you’ve got there, thank you for sharing. i just finished teaching a series on creativity and spirituality. I’ll need some time to digest more of the comments here but thanks for bringing the topic up! the church desperately needs to reclaim creativity!
said Lon
at 3:29pm on Wednesday
I feel pretty proud (like Aaron had said) to have the fortunate circumstance to do work with a church that values creative thought, and allows me free reign; we take risks when needed; do all original work; but I don’t know if it ought to be or should considered art — its photography/design; I’m not making commisioned paintings to hang in the Church State halls.
said Paul
at 3:33pm on Wednesday
Some of you people need to take a class on concise writing. You all bring good points with sooo much gratuitous writing. Should take seconds to realize your point, not minutes.
That being said, its about who you are in your passions (may that be art, business, cooking, music, etc) that defines you as a christian, not your work itself. Coca-Cola T-shirts rewritten with “Jesus Christ” isn’t art or good marketing so why is it there? Good art is good art. If its reflection on a spiritual experience, or an expression, or just a hobby, its art. There is no separation about what a christian can produce and what his secular counterparts can.
said Austen
at 4:24pm on Wednesday
I seriously doubt every point can be summarized in seconds.
said Joshua
Jesus told stories. Some were good and some were dark. Some ended with redemption and some ended with confusing questions. But he wasn’t afraid to tell stories that might turn people away. Many times people walked away after hearing the story, never to return (the rich young ruler who was told to sell all he owned). Other times, the story led the listener to an experience with the living God.
We are usually so intent on making sure we don’t blow our one shot at witnessing to someone that we try our best to make Christianity attractive and cool, hip even. “Hey, look at us, we’re relevant. We’re trendy too, we like Radiohead just like you because we’re THINKERS. We’re not stupid, come play in OUR sandbox.” Yet our job is not to ‘re-brand Jesus’ (than you Aaron), it is to deliver the truth and believe that it is powerful enough to draw those who are truly looking for it.
Jesus needed no affirmation from his audience to give merit to the truth He spoke. He let it do its own work. He knew that the beauty of His Father’s words–their strength, their grit and their grace–would eventually draw back the true seekers. He was not afraid of his message’s reception, just its transmission. Many times, Jesus did miracles and then walked off. He knew that those who wanted the truth would come looking for Him. Sheep among wolves, right? Not the other way around.
Instead of taking our evangelistic cues from Jesus, we try to present a bite-size, single-sitting Gospel that leaves a happy Pop Rocks taste in the mouth. We want our songs to end with answers, not questions. We want our stories to always end with hugs, certainly not with tears. It is uncomfortable to acknowledge that the God we purport to communicate with hasn’t imbued (not “imbibed”, sorry Paul) us with the answers to all the difficult questions. And yet the man who was described in the Bible as being ‘after God’s own heart’ wrote some of the most frustrated, questioning, confused, fierce and beautiful songs ever composed.
We need to be willing to say, “I’m crazy. I’m weird. I talk to the Maker of the Universe and I’d dance naked down Main St. if He told me to. Come with me.” The world is not looking for bad imitations. They, like creation, are “waiting for the sons of God to be revealed.” They’re waiting to see the power we reminisce about. The miracles we tout. Aren’t we supposed to be pulling off greater displays of God’s power than even Jesus is recorded as having done?
==
Brevity is the soul of wit, Austen, not argu-scussions. Therefore, I press on…
==
Lastly, Madeleine L’Engle’s book is one of the most compelling, non-religious texts I’ve ever picked up on this subject. It is true, daring and immediately relevant and yet, if you take a look at the copyright date, you’ll be in for a surprise.
Secondly lastly: Well done, Joshua, for tossing a bloody chunk into the shark pool to see what we’d do with it. I am impressed with how many people took the time to organize their thoughts and record them for the rest of us.
said thomas hallstrom
at 5:10pm on Wednesday
i am the media director at my church and they want to be creative and be visually impactful, but its usaually outvoted so we can do the pop culture take on a topic.
we our doing a series this easter called “INKED” along with hundreds of others who have done it.
now its a great idea. Christians carry the mark of Jesus. Its a series on Holiness and how we should act, yet i think it could have been called something else, but the argument is “INKED” is household. So what? we could call it The Mark or whatever. I just hate when we compromise for a “good idea”. we did a mission series called M:28:19. sure it had funny videos, but as an artist is was not challenging or fulfilling. i push so hard for original ideas, but majority rules and the artist suffers. the thing is our pastor is one of the most gifted speakers, so no matter what the sermon is going to be awesome. i feel as artists, our ideas should carry a bit more weight. if not i should just make stupid t shirts that rip other ideas off.
Got Artists? not if we cant excercise that gift that God gave us.
said j rocka
at 5:11pm on Wednesday
First let me apologize for assuming this “discussion” is not that but an opportunity to be read. If you want to be read, you practice concise habits. Interesting enough this is far from that but a great discussion I have enjoyed reading, and previously not adding much.
Well a complete point with plenty of support no. But I am talking about a point to point discussion. I realize we don’t know each other so we can’t use any judgement to what is meant by a short point. In this setting support is needed for full understanding. Oh it hurts like when the Fonze apologizes.
Right on. Thanks for not listening to me. One of wit often mistakes a discussion for a battle of wits.
Isn’t one of the most vital aspects of evangelism appealing to the non-believers? Joshua hit the nail on the head. How can you expect to draw in seekers if nothing about your art, production, dare I say building, or staff is impressive?
Bingo. Aaron Martin is one of my favorite people ever. Having done plenty work for churches over the years, his experience has taught him well and think he conveys this accurately. Is art an expression or a way of selling something? Both?
said Austen
at 5:49pm on Wednesday
its kind of interesting. it seems the church is alwasy lacking SOMETHING that it needs to catch up to culture with. relevancy, community, creativity?
i dont know, just a thought.
said dan simmons
at 7:01pm on Wednesday
I feel for those that work in the Church. On one hand God has created us with gifts and talents. And when we use those to the best of our ability it should glorify him. But when we do so people get upset. They say to much money is being put into this. It’s becoming to much of a show or production. So it’s almost frowned upon to do the best you can. It’s such a strange idea that our talents and resources shouldn’t be used to their fullest. That’s why I just revamp the Got Milk? slogan for everything I do.
said Big Guns
at 9:21am on Thursday
@big guns - i think an extension of what you’re talking about is the weird, but sub-culturally prevalent idea that when we use our artistic talents to glorify God, that somehow has to come in the form of something intrinsically religious - if a dentist who happens to be a Christian can glorify God by being an extremely good dentist, why can’t an artist who is a Christian be extremely good at his/her craft and let that glorify God without _needing_ to insert something we would categorize as religious into the art - i don’t doubt that being good at my art glorifies God, but sometimes I don’t feel like the church thinks so
said gb
at 2:55pm on Thursday
This is why I miss Florida. Peeps like Daniel.
said Aaron
at 4:32pm on Thursday
Thomas Hallstrom told me to write so I write…
On Tuesday at 4:13 PM a man called Jerrett wrote a brief statement and that’s what “Christians” should pay attention to… I don’t know if he’s a real, honest to God (if He’s there…) agnostic, but if reaching unbelievers is what “Christian” art is about, then Jerrett’s one and I think he can see how silly the Christians sound.
Arrogant is how he put it… Not just silly, but arrogant. God/Jesus/HolySpirit is not concerned with your album sales or your recognition as a great innovater in your craft. God is reaching out to His children to reveal Himself. Can He do it through you?
If you’re a plumber and you got a hankerin’ to reach the lost through your craft than work at it with all your heart as working for the Lord. Use the good materials, don’t over-charge, keep your pants up even when under the sink… and just maybe, if you listen real close, your client might utter some statement during the day that you can engage because the H.S. (not High School but Holy Spirit) drops some one-time-useable, in-the-moment nugget of wisdom that you speak to your client (not prey) that leads them a step closer to believing.
Now we arteests… My conclusion is this, like Jerrett before me, it has come to my attention that, Christian or not, we’re on the same playing field. The Christians never seem to have anything on the UnChristians when it comes to ability to create “art” (I’m using our modern definition of what passes as art a.k.a. “that which sells units”, probably not God’s definition and not the definition that we used pre 20th century) We Christians always seem to think we should be better than everyone at everything. I’m reminded of the verse that says “…you have not cause you ask not and when you do ask you ask with wrong motives.” I have a friend who is a Christian and wants to be a rock star. Talk about wrong motives, just the job title/description screams “Worship Me!… and God too I guess”
That Holy arrogance again… What are Christians good for then? What do we have to offer the music industry? Nothing?!? No! We have plenty to offer! We have the great moral compass, which we all need. We have the ability to not die at age 27 because of stupidity(Janis Joplin, Robert Johnson, Cobain, Hendrix etc.). What can/should Christian artists be doing? Same thing as the plumber, cause we’re not as different in profession as we seem to think we are (No special book in the Bible just for artists). The plumber understands he’s there to perform a service. Artists perform a service. Plumbers shouldn’t steal someone else’s materials. Artists shouldn’t steal someone else’s material.
I look at the life of Jesus and I see a terrible marketing scheme and oh how effective it has proved to be.
The whole “Christian Music Industry”. Reducing Christ to a genre really - I think it’s a joke. If you’re an artist who’s a Christian then be a Christian who is an artist not a christian artist… but I get too upset about it, and maybe we all do. Paul in Phillipians “…what does it matter? whether from false motives or true, Christ is still preached…”
Art, to me, is always true, whether it’s true questions or true answers. Also, Truth is not limited to the “saved”. I think a rousing chorus of “We are the Champions” after Jesus rose from the dead would have been quite appropriate, because we are the champions dammit!
said A different Aaron from Seattle
at 4:01am on Friday
and bad art is that which is untrue… bad art is bad religion - true art is good religion.
said A different Aaron from Seattle
at 4:08am on Friday
In So. Cal in and around LA, Christian art shows, quasi-Christian bands, and young churches abound. It’s a weird culture of super hip, super artsy, and super sized churches with super sized stages. Churches often have nice branding and better marketing talent and direction that rivals large businesses. Their photography, music, and their design style in physical and digital media if often very edgy.
But getting back to this discussion… I think one of the central ideas surrounding this topic of Christian art is the issue of relevancy. And by this I mean relevancy to the artist themself, their audience (usually the church itself), relevancy to the world, and relevancy to Jesus. Christians are supposed to be different and “Not of This World™” . And it’s that struggle between trying to be different, and wanting to be relevant and true that the awkwardness lies.
said Jeremy
at 9:50am on Friday
Hebrews uses the word, “peculiar” to describe the children of God.
said joonitree
at 10:38am on Friday
“as a man thinks so he is” and “you will know a tree by it’s fruit” and so it is with art. You can only produce from what you believe and know. Just being a christian doesn’t make you a better artist or plumber etc.
And frankly there are a lot of naive artists in the christian world. We copy because we just don’t know. It’s hardly surprising that christians generally produce bad art, just look at our theology and tendency to follow trends and use marketing as evangelism. Christians can be such a trendy easily led sort of people at times. I don’t think many of us are that serious and committed to make great art. Swimming in a swell of emotionalism, won’t make great art. Not standing up for important issues and being counted, won’t make good art. Making good art takes committment,talent,knowlege,skill, and for the christian honesty and prayer as well. It’s not some glib tool we use for marketing our brand of chritianity. I’ts not a new bondage we entice ourselves with. But like the gospel it’s about freedom.
said David
at 8:23am on Saturday
Question (hoping for rhetorical answers):
What would happen if Christian orgs took all the money they funneled into sending out spies to count how many f* bombs and butt cheeks one experiences in any given film (or tv show, or what have you) and instead funded (I’m going to say it) Christian artists (filmmakers, writers, what have you) to make superior films (or narratives, 3-Dimensional objects, what have you).
And so on.
said Gus
at 2:17pm on Monday
This sort of reminds me of something that CS Lewis (I think) once talked about, he was talking about thinking about God and how you can’t do it directly, because as soon as you do you start to think about how you’re thinking about God and now you’re not thinking about God. To me art is the same way, as much as people in the church hate gray areas, art is one, it has no formula. There is no equation for how make good art or express what you want. Personally I think once you decide to create a piece to say something in particular you have, to some degree, stifled creativity. The biggest reason ‘Christian’ art is so unbelievably lame is that it is censored. It has to be ‘family safe’ or be obvious, “this represents God’s love and this is the color of grace blah blah blah,” is this freaking paint by numbers?
I’ve never considered myself an artist because an artist is a type of person, not a degree of skill of title that someone can give you, but I do know that a true artist is an artist to his very core, he can not detach himself from it, when he’s sad his art is, when he’s joyful his art is, and everything he creates bears some part of his soul.
I only have 3 solutions for the ‘Christian’ artist.
1. Stop censoring yourself, let your art flow, just because something is dark or not meant for everyone, or not “Jesus!, Jesus!, go Jesus!” doesn’t mean it’s bad, and the opposite doesn’t mean it’s good.
2. If you want to be an artist then BE ONE. Painting takes years of practice, be open to criticism, stop hiding behind some BS pseudo-religious explanation for the lopsided man who looks like he’s doing the hokie-pokie.
3. Stop caring what other people say or think, especially me, art is between the artist and the canvas or guitar or nose flute or whatever your expression is.
said Jeremy
at 6:08pm on Monday
[...] Jmyers weighs in on Joshua Blankenship’s post on Christian Art, Parody, and Creativity. [...]
said Iconia» Blog Archive » Arts Roundup: Religion at Eurovision and Selling Nazi-Looted Art to Pay Lawyers’ Fees
at 8:48pm on Tuesday
I worked for a church plant where I had to produce exact replicas of existing work because they thought it was the only way people would get it. I hated it and thankful no longer serve there. God has given the most excellent example of creativity through creation the least we can do is create our own works, but better yet we can use the gift of creativity to create amazing works of art that glorify God and spread His good news.
said Ben
at 10:38pm on Tuesday
Yeah, I was thinking about “church” specific “art” (design, illustration) and like any design work, you’re at the mercy of the client (the pastor and staff) — and if they come to you with a theme that is lacking, then you’re almost hamstrung as a designer. I believe it starts from the top down. Until the church shifts its focus away from imitation through style, the church will always be insignificant in what it offers in terms of relevance and impact. Fine art is different matter (painting, sculpture, etc); and I believe its not subjected (typically) to any outside force — in all realms of fine art, Christian or not *in modern times.
said Paul
at 10:10am on Wednesday
A few points:
- “This sort of reminds me of something that CS Lewis (I think) once talked about, he was talking about thinking about God and how you can’t do it directly, because as soon as you do you start to think about how you’re thinking about God and now you’re not thinking about God.”
He may have said it about God as well, but Lewis did essentially say that about happiness–that you can’t make happiness your goal because it comes as a byproduct of something else rather than by reaching directly to be happy.
- Artists in the secular world are underpaid and volunteer oftentimes as well. It’s no excuse for laziness, even if it is a reason.
- Adding to the list of Christian artists who are real and don’t hit you over the head with the faith: Dawn Xiana Moon (amazing singer-songwriter) and Over the Rhine.
said Alexa
at 1:38pm on Saturday
[...] Christian Art, Parody, and Creativity Interesting Blog…. What do you think? My Signature Phil “A little gaussian blur keeps me young” Want to design your own graphics? Need some training for your volunteers? Check out: Elements for Worship Considering MediaShout as your worship Software? PM me for a great rate for CMN’ers! [...]
said Christian Art, Parody, and Creativity - The Church Media Community
at 2:28am on Sunday
wow. i love this discussion.
i’m a freshman at cedarville university. i think cedarville is a breeding ground for the art that both you and i despise. however, i live here and it’s cost-effective. so i can mold minds here. i was browsing here doing research for a gen. ed. required comp. class. this page is a blessing to me. it makes me happy.
american christianity has been failing for some time now. it makes sense that the art failing christians put out lacks power. i strive for truth. i have been broken by the will of God and am ankle deep in an ocean of salvation. my art is growing, but i think many people on this blog would appreciate it. to be completely vulnerable, my dad was an ordained baptist pastor who divorced my angel of a mother and had affairs but just got remarried. i’ve spoken truth into his life. but it’s easy to bullshit when pride is superfluous. my art reflects MY heart. not what i know my heart should be like.
shalom , brother joshua.
thanks for the words.
said nathan keller
at 2:36pm on Thursday
I agree with you. I also agree with some things that have been said, for instance we should not be afraid of the criticism that WILL come from the artistic community. Actually i think the artistic scene is open to a much more intense and direct expression of what we believe because that is basically what art is, its the expression of what we are and a form of communication. Critics should not complain if we are only doing the same as every one else in that sense. I look at it as a super oportunity to spread the gospel or at least plant the seed.
PS i totally agree with nathan up here^
said Natalia (Puerto Rico)
at 3:46pm on Thursday
Not to negate the great things that have been said in support of creating excellent art- but what about communication?
Sometimes, in order to get your point across, you have to use concrete examples. Most of us here are probably pretty intuitive individuals, but there is an entirely different segment of the population who does not think as we do.
They deal is concretes, in absolutes. They need examples to make parallels. I think what is missing in a lot of your perceptions is the very real fact that some people don’t understand Art or art, or even abstract concepts. They need real-world examples– they need parables. Jesus understood this which is why (I think partially why, at least) he spoke in parables.
He used real thing people were familiar with and used that understanding to communicate a real message. I’m not, in ANYWAY supporting things like GodSpace (ick- that makes me want to gag just thinking about it) but when it comes to things like sermon illustrations and using TV or movies as a vehicle to communicate, I think it can be very helpful.
As much as I want to be a great artist (and whether or not I am there now)I want much more to be a great communicator. I want to be able to be understood even by those people who don’t get art and poetry.
said Gloria
at 1:03pm on Monday
Great Discussion here. We are trying to make good art more accessible to the church throughout the world. CreativeMYK.com is a place where Christian artists are coming together to bless the church with their talents. The response has been incredible and we are encouraged to see the Church embracing the arts. We would appreciate your feedback and contributions.
said CreativeMYK
at 11:32am on Monday
Hello, my name is Dallas Drotz and I just became a member here. It’s pretty tough to find christian/faith-based artwork that really works well in contemporary interiors…both in the home and office. Many classic themes like the Footprints poem and the Serenity Prayer are often available in a style that feel outdated or from another era. I want to create pieces to inspire, encourage and remind people of God’s promises and goodness through artwork that boldly fits into modern room settings. So please take a look at faithbasedart.blogspot.com and let me know what you think. Is there a favorite scripture passage or theme that you would like to see added? What are some of the ways to present Christian, faith based art in a way that makes it more popular in today’s homes and decorating styles? Feel free to drop me a line with your ideas! Thank you for your time!
said Dallas Drotz
at 5:04pm on Thursday