The Reformation is often known for its iconoclasm: opposition to and destruction of images and icons in churches because of their misuse. The Reformers were actually quite divided on this issue, and Luther was one who argued that images and icons should remain in the churches, but that the people must be taught how to use them properly. Thus Luther criticized Karlstadt and other Reformers and their followers who went around the countryside destroying statues and paintings and vandalizing churches.
Luther admonishes: “We must permit the images to remain, but preach vigorously against the wrong use of them. We preach not merely against this particular misuse or danger, the worshipping of images. That is a very small matter. But we must preach against the worst misuse of all, of which the papists are guilty to overflowing. I refer to the fact that they place images in the churches because they thing they are thereby doing a good work and a service to God.”
In a 1525 essay entitled Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, Luther urges that the stories and picture of the Bible should be made visible for our remembrance and contemplation. “Pictures contained in the Bible we would paint on walls for the sake of remembrance and better understanding…Yes, would to God that I could persuade the rich and the mighty that they would permit the whole Bible to be painted on houses, on the inside and outside, so that all can see it. That would be a Christian work.”
Does it surprise who to hear such defense of images and representations of the Bible from a Reformer? Do you agree with Luther, or do you think Reformers like Karlstadt were right to destroy the statues and murals and paintings that were being used for idolatrous uses, urging people to erase biblical images from their physical environments and their minds?
Wes, you’ve struck upon my grudge against Puritanism: Those iconoclastic roundheads broke the line of succession for Shakespearean performance history when they closed the theatres.
I thought you might jump on this one!
Wes, are these my only choices?
“Do you agree with Luther, or do you think Reformers like Karlstadt were right to destroy the statues and murals and paintings that were being used for idolatrous uses, urging people to erase biblical images from their physical environments and their minds?”
Can I have another option?
Les
Absolutely. There are a lot of different options out there for the use of images in Christian worship and spirituality. What’s your take?
By the way, by posing the “Luther or Karlstadt” dilemma, I am more interested in the historical question: which was the better response to the abuse and misuse of images by the Roman Church?
In your view, how can/should images be effectively used within the church?
Who, may I ask, is asking?
This is a question that requires another post to answer, which I hope to do in the future.
The short answer is that I think art can and should be used in worship as well as in discipleship, personal meditation, and for general Christian edification and enjoyment.
Wes, another thought:
Given the current prevalence of evangelical bookstores (more like trinket-stores) that specifically market the work of posers like Thomas Kinkade and other such kitsch, I would contend that we should be just as concerned about poor art as the reformers were about the misuse of great art. Perhaps we should be more concerned. After all, misunderstanding or misusing a fine painting or statue really only harms oneself, and it leaves open the possibility for others to appreciate its beauty and truth. But bad art harms the whole world because it lies to everyone who comes across it. In any case, I hope we don’t lose a sense of irony when thinking about 16th and 17th century iconoclasts: images of devotion remain popular among Protestants; it’s just that they are no longer art.
If I try to transport myself back to their time and the idolatry going on, I might have done the same thing. See 2 Kings 18 and Hezekiah’s actions, done per the Lord.
So I am less inclined to be very critical of the actions of men who were zealous for the holiness of God and the true worship of Him.
But, I am curious how you would use art in corporate worship.
Les
I’d be interested to know how Thomas Kinkade is a “poser”? Whatever you think of his art, he seems to garner respect from his peers, which is certainly a great witness to Christ. The man is pursuing his dreams, and using his gifts. How arrogant of us to heap such criticism upon him for his “bad art”. At least people appreciate his artistic endeavors, which cannot be easily said of many “artists” who are never succesful, but yet think their work marvelous.
Ah, Kinkade. I agree with Paul, and allow me to provide some background. The following is my perspective:
First, Kinkade produces art to sell, and he does so by painting a world that is all light and no sin, hardly a Christian view of reality.
Second, Kinkade commonly employs other artists to create his work, then puts his signature on them, thus cheapening the artistic process.
Third, Kinkade is viewed by a large segement of the art world (Christian and non-Christian) as someone producing kitsch art, not art with depth and real religious meaning.
But alas, I realize this is just my opinion, but I would be willing to defend the persepctive that Kinkade is not producing good art.
On another note, I would like to post sometime soon about the use of art in worship, but I would prefer to being that discussion with a new post.
I am no Kinkade apologist. In fact I am no apologist for anyone’s art. I know very little of it. However, the beauty of his art may very well be in the eye of the beholder.
Who made any of us the arbitrar of someone else’s tastes? Let’s face it, he is an entrpreneur. And many like what he does. Is that bad?
I am not prepared to be their judges.
Les
Now, correct me if I’m wrong but don’t most professional artists produce art to sell? I thought it would be nice to hear a little about Kinkade, so the following are quotes from his webiste. Yikes….he sure sounds like the Christian aesthetic wrecking, shallow man he’s made out to be.
“Thomas Kinkade is America’s most collected living artist. Coming from a modest background, Kinkade emphasizes simple pleasures and inspirational messages through his paintings. As a devout Christian, Kinkade uses his gift as a vehicle to communicate and spread inherent life-affirming values.”
“Kinkade credits the Lord for both the ability and the inspiration to create his paintings. His goal as an artist is to touch people of all faiths, to bring peace, and joy into their lives through the images he creates.”
“Kinkade has met with the Pope, U.S. Presidents, celebrities, and other well-known dignitaries to convey his hope-filled, life-affirming message.”
That last quote certainly shows how ineffective his art is for Gospel purposes. That rascal!
Are you saying that every piece of art needs to convey the entire Gospel message–depth of sin and its hopelessness, as well as salvation through Christ and the hope that it brings? I find it difficult to always encompass these two spectrums in one piece of art. Is that what it takes to make art “Christian?”
What is good art? Who determines what is good art?
Paul W. just posted this on the other blog, so I thought I would copy it over here.
“Where to start? First, let’s discuss separating the artist from his work. I admit that separating Kinkade from his work is terribly difficult for me; I place quite a bit of blame on him. But in the end I have to say something like, “I’m sure he is a very nice person, probably even a devoted Christian. He probably means well, but his compositions are not art.” Good intentions do not guarantee good results, and I think art is important enough that we demand excellence from the work itself, not merely from its author.
Second, let’s discuss whether art is “in the eye of the beholder.” As we pointed out already, Kinkade is very popular among evangelicals. Several fine people at my church, whom I love dearly, own Kinkade paintings. But surely nobody would say that Kinkade’s success in the marketplace necessarily qualifies his work as art. Nor do I think that art is purely subjective; rather, I define art by its vast potentiality for actualization by its audience. In other words, we release what was already present within a work of art when we perceive it well.
Kinkade’s painting is sentimental, a quaint view of reality that whitewashes (and hence cheapens) existence. This seems particularly disingenuous for one who purports to be an artist. The artist’s task has always been to gaze keenly at reality, to achieve a wisdom born from inspiration, and to then give it form in a particular medium. Conversely, Kinkade’s compositions indicate either a skewed vision of reality, or a dearth of courage to express that reality.”
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kincaid for some insight into the way Kinkade has received critique for his art, his business dealings, and (unfortunately) his behavior in public.
I like your new blog, Wes…
I think this “what is art?” conversation is well-suited for the community table (seats 8-10 people, and it’s round) at O’Connell’s Pub. I have been “into” art for as long as I can remember, from painting to drawing to sculpting to art history to museums. So I have some comments and observations I would like to make, but I feel like a blog comment wouldn’t do them justice (I’m not knocking blog comments). The difficulty with word-debating/talking is that we only see what each other is saying in 1-D.
All this to say (this is to everyone)…while I love blogs (I have one), we should make an effort to at some point have a good old-fashioned round table discussion at a good old-fashioned pub (or anywhere really).
Blessings to all.
This is a wonderful idea, Laura. I was thinking about having a monthly discussion of this sort at a pub nearby. Have you heard of the new Corner Pub and Grill at Doughtery Ferry and Big Bend?
Again, I am no Kinkade apologist. I am just trying to understand. I looked at a Monet sunrise (http://www.toffsworld.com/art_artists_painters/images/claude_monet_sunrise.jpg) and a Kinkade print(http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/images/water%20tower2-thumb.jpg)
Why is Monet legendary for his depiction of a “snapshot” of reallife and Kinkade is not. Please leave technical skill out, because I perveive that that is not your all’s main reason for calling Kinkade’s work “not art.”
Les
Kinkade’s work is definitely art (I have never claimed otherwise), but whether it is good art is another question, which involves factors such as technical skill, method, production, and purpose.
I was really asking the question for Paul. Paul said, “He probably means well, but his compositions are not art.”
I don’t have any problem with Paul, Wes or anyone else saying they do not like a particular artist’s work. That is anyone’s perrogative. There are plenty of art pieces I saw in the Chicago Museum of Art that I did not like. Just not my taste.
But to declare it “not art” is so subjective. That is like saying that the Empire State building is not architecture. It is. It may not be the best in design, to you, but to many it surely is.
Still, I really want to know the answer to my previous post re Kinkade and Monet. Somebody help!
Les-
I would be honored to tackle your Monet vs. Kinkade question in another post tomorrow. It’s a good question!
So stay tuned…
My comment was so long, I had to post in on my own blog.
In case that link didn’t work, it’s laura-steel.blogspot.com
Wes, thanks for your response. I think our root difference is that you think Christian artists should be held higher standards, whereas I view art as art. Perhaps knowing that the artist is a Christian could have an impact on how we view his/her art, but it shouldn’t have any impact on whether or not the art is good. Also, I don’t think art necessarily symbolizes a worldview (see Van Gogh’s “Chair”, for example).
I’m not sure why the second part is in italics…that html.
[...] and Images" Okay I have to weigh in. This is in response to a post on Wes’s blog on The Reformation and Images. I have a lot more to say, but for now I’ll keep it brief. I do not personally like [...]