# Christianity and creativity



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

In the past, Christianity inspired much great art. The music of Bach, and the cathedrals are two examples, but there are countless others. Today, this is no longer true, but I'm not sure why. Many of the themes in Christianity (redemption, forgiveness, sacrifice, etc) are powerful. C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia are a good example of how easily these themes can be turned into literature (for children, in this example) with wide appeal. 
Why are high-quality Christian-oriented cultural offerings so few and far between today? There are probably many reasons, and there may also be some wonderful things coming out that I am unaware of. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this subject.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gong Tao Jai_
> 
> In the past, Christianity inspired much great art. The music of Bach, and the cathedrals are two examples, but there are countless others. Today, this is no longer true, but I'm not sure why. Many of the themes in Christianity (redemption, forgiveness, sacrifice, etc) are powerful. C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia are a good example of how easily these themes can be turned into literature (for children, in this example) with wide appeal.
> Why are high-quality Christian-oriented cultural offerings so few and far between today? There are probably many reasons, and there may also be some wonderful things coming out that I am unaware of. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this subject.


Two words, prole drift.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Because smart and creative people have found inspirations other than the Bible.

------------------


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

My local Episcopal Church has a great choir. I drop in just to hear the singing (and an excuse to get dressed up on Sunday).

When I lived in Richmond, Va. about 15 years ago there was a black church that had tremendous music. I used to drop in there, too.

I can't think of any creative mass-media Christian endeavors other then Godawful stuff like Christian rock and those wretched "Left Behind" novels.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Patrons paid for religious themed art, music, and architecture. This really isn't the case anymore.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Probably one of my most pleasurable university classes was reading the Bible as literature taught by a former anglican priest. The following summer I attended an L.A. museum showing of art that had been banned or outright destroyed by the nazis. The centerpiece was a lifesize photo cutout of this wild looking wooden crucifix that had been chopped up and thrown into a marsh. I was standing next to a nun who was crying over it's destruction. I was almost moved to tears too. I don't think the creative spirit is dead, it's just moving in different directions or under a passing veneer of what we perceive to be sources of inspiration, themselves standing on the base of Christian thought and it's own older foundations. Certainly a modern recording of Hildegard Von Bingen going gold while the born again rock band Stripers invests in laundromats gives hope Of course, if you feel it's losing momentum: do what a activist friend did- go out and create your own


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

I imagine Bosthist is correct. I suppose Christian art is utterly out of fashion with those who spend a lot on art. This would be one among multiple factors.

Gmac, you are also correct, but there are certainly smart people who are Christians-- why not creative people? 

Patrick, I agree that some black gospel music is an exception. Also some bluegrass gospel. Johnny Cash did some great religious music in his last years, music that could not have been done convincingly by someone who was not religious. And I, too, thought of the tepid Christian rock and Left Behind series as what we now have instead of Michelangelo and Bach.

Kav, I do feel that it's losing momentum, but I can't say I really care. I'm an atheist, I just think it's odd.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

Economics. Not to dismiss faith as a source of inspiration, but established churches used to spend tremendous amounts of money on religious art. Churches were easily the biggest customer for art, and consequently much of the art of the era involved religion. Bach was not a freelance composer who happened to compose religious music - for most of his career his specific job duties required him to write music for church services.

Cathedrals are a clearer example of a giant public works project financed by the church - or sometimes by groups of religious individuals who want to increase pilgrimage traffic to their city and do so by building a cathedral.

But even when the church was not the patron, biblical themes still appeared in art because it was something that everyone was familiar with - Michaelangelo's "David" was designed to show the power, virility, and legitimacy of the florentine republic...it seems likely that the Medicis, who were recently kicked out of florence, were considered to be playing the Goliath role.

Anyway, I think the popularizing of classical motifs during the renaissance, as well as the democratization of art in general, led to the relative decline of the importance of religious art. Shakespeare wrote around 1600 and in none of his plays is there much religious content. ("Have you prayed tonight, Desdemona?" doesn't count [}] Similarly, opera starts in about 1600 and also has largely non-religious themes as well.


----------



## AddisonBelmont (Feb 2, 2006)

It's true that artists of the caliber of Michelangelo & Bach are no longer cranking out works for the Church (or the churches) but I think--as both an artist and a Christian--that it's less because religion has ceased to attract (or at least to emply) great artists than it is because there are hardly any Michelangelos or Bachs to begin with.

Who are our towering artists today, our great Michelangelos or Bachs or Mozarts, religious or not? Jeff Koons? Helen Frankenthaler? Richard Serra? Eliot Carter? John Cage? Robert Wilson? Not only aren't they--as far as I know--Christians, they're not even in the same league as artists. Even when you drop down a few notches, where are our van Dycks and Scarlattis and Salieris? Or further down yet, our Sargents and our Elgars and our Puccinis? No, our giants are our Garths and our Kelly's and whoever wrote "The Hard Life of a Pimp" or whtever the hell that thing it was called. Even if they all converted tomorrow, the artistic for religion gain would be just about nil.

So sure, Stryper and Jars of Clay and the sanctimoniously sentimental Thomas Kincade "Painter of Crap" don't make much of a showing for religion these days, but it really deosn't matter because, considering their competition on the other side of the fence, it's not much of contest, anyway.


----------



## mgnov (Jan 11, 2006)

"Christian" societies are not in a religious age, they are in a secular age.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

The Catholic Church is not the weathiest, most dominant institution on the face of the earth anymore. Capitalism has created wealth outside of the realm of Christianity. As a result life becomes more and more secular. Whether it is for the good or not can be debated.


----------



## AddisonBelmont (Feb 2, 2006)

Yes, the growth of capitalism is certainly another factor. Not, of course, that Wal-mart, McDonald's & Bill Gates have been in any big hurry to pick up the slack in the arts patronage department...


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

I think the most important difference is just that there is a great difference in general education and worldview today vs. periods when Christian art was at its height. 

When you look at periods such as the middle ages, the people who were educated enough and had the free time to devote to art all had some sort of connection to the church. They were brought up learning the church ideology, and often were employed by that church even if they weren't actually priest or monks. This is true even of later artists such as Bach of course.

After the Enlightenment, you simply didn't have a church stranglehold on people's worldviews anymore. You had big secular thinkers. Creative thinkers such as Newton and the like. Many of the artists of the period were actually greatly interested in the scientific advances regarding light and optics and sought to incorporate these ideas in their work. There was still a lot of church-related art, but there were now other avenues and other areas of learning and creativity that didn't exist before.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I am very interested in both art and religion, and the relationship between the two is such an interesting topic...I'm currently reading _The Agony and the Extacy_...and while I'm probably not intellectual enough to delve much below the surface of this argument...I think you bring up a very interesting point...but when you look back through history, you'll see that not only were some patrons of the arts not supported by religion they were actually stifled by it...but then again, you have some of the greatest works of art ever concieved by man that were sanctioned by the church...it's really a very interesting subject when you get into it, and I have barely scratched the surface, although it has become a subject that I wish to educate myself alot more about...but I think the thing is that in the past, wheather it was a love or hate relationship, there was alot more passion involved in the art/religion relationship...now that seems to not be the case...for whatever reason...I think if there could somehow be another great art movement, that included the church...and vice versa...where there was a great deal of passion involved in making art for the sake of spirituality instead of making art for the sake of the monitairy gain...keep it genuine...we would see some great religious art...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

I happen to think that the contemporary Christian music coming out today is better than 80% of commericial pop releases. Setting aside the lyrics for the sake of objective analysis for a moment... the quality of production is on the level of anything else coming out of Nashville (since this is the source of most of it) or LA or NY today in any genre. There is music for every taste, with talent and production quality to match. I know singer and songwriters within the industry that I would put up against the best that the secular world has to offer, without a moment of hesitation.

PS I don't consider "Stryker" to be music worth analyzing, so I'm clearly ignorant on their particular sub-genre within CCM. Can't comment.

Also, I've not read the Tim LaHaye "Left Behind" book series. But it has clearly been a commercial success.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

The name of the band is Stryper, and they were a Christian hair metal band. Contemporary music in general, both Christian and secular, is unlistenable.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> The name of the band is Stryper, and they were a Christian hair metal band. Contemporary music in general, both Christian and secular, is unlistenable.


 Like I thot I made clear, I'm clearly not a fan. Sorry for the mis-statement / mis-spelling. So what kind of music DO you like. Just curious. I myself prefer the "standards" from the 40s and 50s... but I thoroughly enjoy the diverse offerings of Steven Curtis Chapman, Russ Lee, Casting Crowns, etc.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> I happen to think that the contemporary Christian music coming out today is better than 80% of commericial pop releases. Setting aside the lyrics for the sake of objective analysis for a moment... the quality of production is on the level of anything else coming out of Nashville (since this is the source of most of it) or LA or NY today in any genre. There is music for every taste, with talent and production quality to match. I know singer and songwriters within the industry that I would put up against the best that the secular world has to offer, without a moment of hesitation.
> 
> ...


 I agree. Even many 'mainstream hits' are in fact lifted from Contemporary Christian Soundtracks - such as Josh Turner's 'Long Black Train' single.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

May I suggest you read a book called 'Modern Art and the Death of a Culture' by HR Rookmaker (available on Amazon) which explains the decline in religious-inspired art. 

My own opinion is that the church's stranglehold on culture has merely been replaced by the stranglehold of the secular, politically correct, liberal-left intelligentsia, which has just as many dogmas, shibboleths and patrons as the medieval church.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

I think the reasons for the decline in the fine arts are pretty well explained in some of the posts here. I have to agree that the fine arts themselves have declined considerably, setting aside issues of religious inspiration. There is no use waiting around for the next Bach or Leonardo. But why does Christianity not appear as an inspiration or theme for, say, good novels?


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> 
> May I suggest you read a book called 'Modern Art and the Death of a Culture' by HR Rookmaker (available on Amazon) which explains the decline in religious-inspired art.
> 
> ...


Not to mention that the "medieval church" was an actual institution with a real hierarchy, and the "secular, politically correct, liberal-left intelligentsia" is a construct of fevered minds.


----------



## dah328 (Sep 27, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> After the Enlightenment, you simply didn't have a church stranglehold on people's worldviews anymore. You had big secular thinkers. Creative thinkers such as Newton and the like.


While there may be examples of such "secular thinkers," Newton is not one of them. He was quite religious.


----------



## dah328 (Sep 27, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gong Tao Jai_
> 
> In the past, Christianity inspired much great art. The music of Bach, and the cathedrals are two examples, but there are countless others. Today, this is no longer true, but I'm not sure why. Many of the themes in Christianity (redemption, forgiveness, sacrifice, etc) are powerful. C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia are a good example of how easily these themes can be turned into literature (for children, in this example) with wide appeal.
> Why are high-quality Christian-oriented cultural offerings so few and far between today? There are probably many reasons, and there may also be some wonderful things coming out that I am unaware of. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this subject.


The issue of patronage is probably a factor to some degree, but today's dominant art forms are music and film which can easily be funded by consumers. I think a bigger issue is that the Western evangelical church, with few exceptions, values outreach through missionary and charitable work much more than contributions to the arts and sciences.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

I think it is for the most part because Christians no longer follow the word of God: "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." 

Most Christians are much too busy contributing to PACs, getting republicans elected, fighting abortion and trying to create Heaven on earth through legislation. They don't have time to focus on things above and create art and beauty inspired by God.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> I think it is for the most part because Christians no longer follow the word of God: "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."
> 
> Most Christians are much too busy contributing to PACs, getting republicans elected, fighting abortion and trying to create Heaven on earth through legislation. They don't have time to focus on things above and create art and beauty inspired by God.


 And they _were_ following it back during the 'golden age' of European theocracy?

I cast my vote for the prole-drift theory.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Joseph Casazza_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hear, hear!

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by dah328_
> 
> While there may be examples of such "secular thinkers," Newton is not one of them. He was quite religious.


I am not using the term "secular thinker" to describe people who were agnostic, atheist or otherwise non-religious. I am using it to describe people who developed non-religious avenues of thought and discovery. The thinkers of the Enlightenment were often religious men personally, but they were not dogmatic thinkers in trying to use the Bible as a comprehensive and complete source of human knowledge.

They used their senses and their mind, via scientific and mathematical inquiry to make discoveries which were essentially secular rather than religious.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

On the subject of Christian novels, I believe George Orwell wrote something on this. His basic idea was that to be a good Christian (or good adheretn of any dogmatic system including Communism, although he was specifically referring to Catholics) you have to be dogmatic, and the novel is essentially an undogmatic format borne out of the Protestant individual conscience. 

He cited the only good religious novels as being 'bad' religious novels, such as the works of Grahame Greene.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Joseph Casazza_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that liberal-left dogma does not exist except in the imaginations of its opponents, or that it does exist and that its adherents are fevered minded?

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that liberal-left dogma does not exist except in the imaginations of its opponents...?


Yes. I've never seen the "sacred text" embodying the "liberal-left dogma" nor heard of the "liberal-left" pope or congregation for the doctrine of the faith that enforces it nor heard tell of a "liberal-left" institution of the power and scope of the medieval church with a hierarchy controlling the kind of wealth the medieval church controlled. There are ways to identify the parts of the organization of the Roman Catholic Church and the members of that body will not disagree with your identification. What is the "liberal-left" institution you are thinking of? Do its "members" consider themselves part of such an institution? This "liberal-left" conspiracy smacks of the kind of paranoia that has fueled so many other constructs of fevered minds, some of which have turned out quite badly for the rest of us.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I think liberal-left dogma exists, as conservative-right dogma does. You don't need a pope or holy book to confirm its existance. The farther you get from the middle the more dogmatic, inflexible, self-righteous and unable to recognize the validity of other points of view(they claim its "principled") you get.

I guess I'm throwing down the "moderate" gauntlet. [:I]


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by KenR_
> 
> I think liberal-left dogma exists, as conservative-right dogma does. You don't need a pope or holy book to confirm its existance...


Then what do you need to confirm its existence? I work with liberals and conservatives on Capitol Hill every day, and I don't know anyone in either group who could confirm for you in any reliable way what an element of such dogma would be, though they can tell you in no uncertain terms what they think.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gong Tao Jai_
> 
> In the past, Christianity inspired much great art. The music of Bach, and the cathedrals are two examples, but there are countless others. Today, this is no longer true, but I'm not sure why. Many of the themes in Christianity (redemption, forgiveness, sacrifice, etc) are powerful. C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia are a good example of how easily these themes can be turned into literature (for children, in this example) with wide appeal.
> Why are high-quality Christian-oriented cultural offerings so few and far between today? There are probably many reasons, and there may also be some wonderful things coming out that I am unaware of. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this subject.


I wonder if it might have something to do with the fact that modern Christianity is dominated (in the popular mindset, at least) by evangelicals. Some would suggest that evangelicals are not big on "high quality cultural offerings."

It sounds like you're seeking what a great many large mainline Protestant congregations offer in terms of music, book study groups, lecture series, high brow sermons, and high church liturgy.

Are you Episcopalian? Presbyterian? If not, perhaps you should think about converting.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Joseph Casazza_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that there is a difference between Catholic dogma and liberal dogma (or conservative dogma for that matter), in that the latter are not institutionalised to such an extent. Of course perception of bias depends on your viewpoint, but surely you must concede that the 'arts' has a liberal/left bias and that there would seem to be a general agreement about what is, and what is not acceptable in those circles?

For example: when was the last time you saw a play with the premise that multiculturalism was wrong, or that immigration should be restricted, or that criticised Islam and celebrated Christianity? All these ideas are things I hear people talking about, yet they are not exposed in any kind of artistic or cultural context.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## Ubu_Roi (Mar 22, 2006)

Christian art declined as society and culture became less autonomous on an exclusive Christian tradition.

As a sidenote, please note the recurrent imagery of sado-masochism in Christian iconography.

*'God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.'

Alfred Jarry*


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

I think the current crisis in art is due at least in part to the conflict between power and truth. In olden times the power of the Church (and all it blessed) was legitimated by the unquestioned belief that the Church held the truth. Artists, whose domain is the truth (all art is true), were thus naturally inspired by religious feeling. The last power system that claimed absolute legitimacy was communism. This inspired a number of artists, who produced great art for a while. The Third Reich also claimed absolute legitimacy, and also inspired artists, though they have been disqualified by history. Today power is not celebrated in art, because power has no unchallenged legitimacy. Artists look elsewhere. Anything institutional is purely contingent and so of no interest to artists.

I think this is part of the story.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> Anything institutional is purely contingent and so of no interest to artists.


Except the NEA bearing checkbook, of course. []


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Harris' comment hits the issue on the head, there has been a fundamental shift (pun intended) in what groups best define Christianity today. Previously, old line Episcopal, Presbyterian, even Methodist, Catholic or Orthodox would set higher standards for worship. Now you have are the non-denominational, come as you are, simplistic world views, mega churches dominating. Trust me, these people are not interested in high culture.

In fact, the old line churches now have contemporary services to compete with the upstarts. [xx(] Something is lost, at least for me. A certain reverence or seriousness that should exist in a worship setting. I definitely miss the organ based music of the church I grew up with, and I am not even thirty.

But I guess jeans & sweats go better with contemporary music.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> 
> For example: when was the last time you saw a play with the premise that multiculturalism was wrong, or that immigration should be restricted, or that criticised Islam and celebrated Christianity? All these ideas are things I hear people talking about, yet they are not exposed in any kind of artistic or cultural context.


Well, I recently saw A Merchant of Venice - does that count?


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> I agree that there is a difference between Catholic dogma and liberal dogma (or conservative dogma for that matter), in that the latter are not institutionalised to such an extent. Of course perception of bias depends on your viewpoint, but surely you must concede that the 'arts' has a liberal/left bias and that there would seem to be a general agreement about what is, and what is not acceptable in those circles?
> 
> For example: when was the last time you saw a play with the premise that multiculturalism was wrong, or that immigration should be restricted, or that criticised Islam and celebrated Christianity? All these ideas are things I hear people talking about, yet they are not exposed in any kind of artistic or cultural context.


Well, "the arts" have always been in a difficult position. Even in the pre-Romantic days, the "artist" has always had to conform to prevailing taste enough to make a living, while making him/herself different enough to attract a clientele, preferably wealthy, that preferred his/her work. The aristocratic or avocational "artist" had an easier time of it, of course, since making a living was not necessarily part of the equation. Since Romanticism, we now labor under the misapprehension that the artist must express him/herself, which leads to such things as the autobiographical fallacy. Anyway, this Romantic emphasis on self-expression added to the pressure to differentiate oneself from the crowd almost guarantees the perception that artists are liberal and are not keeping to the conservative party line, whether that line is religious or political.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JRR_
> 
> Harris' comment hits the issue on the head, there has been a fundamental shift (pun intended) in what groups best define Christianity today. Previously, old line Episcopal, Presbyterian, even Methodist, Catholic or Orthodox would set higher standards for worship. Now you have are the non-denominational, come as you are, simplistic world views, mega churches dominating. Trust me, these people are not interested in high culture.


The problem is, many of the mainline churches are not much interested in Christianity.


----------

