Visual art is made for communication and expression, and thus must be evaluated for how it accomplishes these tasks in a liturgical context. The evaluation process must be sensitive to be theological and aesthetic considerations. In particular, arts for liturgical use are best presented and evaluated in the context of the Christian year or the particular Sunday for which it is created.
The visual arts present opportunities to look at long-standing prejudices and ideas about art in worship and to search for fresh ideas in a field shunned by many faiths for a long time. It is presumed, in this article, that what we are evaluating is temporary art, rather than architecture or more permanent additions, such as sculpture, stained glass, or furnishings.
The Broader Questions
Many of us are untrained in the visual arts. We are vaguely aware that art can decorate our walls, and that some people collect art, and that some institutions enshrine it for the rest of us to venerate. We can appreciate art that pleases us. We can even find a place for visual art in worship, especially during Christmas, when our secular life holds such a strong promotion of nostalgia. Creches and greens are then a part of the times and do not offend our sense of appropriateness for our worship spaces.
Is this how we evaluate the function of art in worship? Is it to entertain? Does it provide the traditional image to particular festivals? Do people have to like art for it to be acceptable in worship?
Many of us have tolerated another form of art—that which instructs or gives a message. We permit slogans or cliches to appear on our walls, brightly colored, in the form of banners. Occasionally we even abandon words, substituting instead a cultic vocabulary of esoteric symbols or crests from creeds of the past. Our favorite medium for this is felt and Elmer’s Glue, and we often “design” by vaguely copying examples from religious catalogs or poster books. We even totally ignore the space it will show in, disregarding color or size as relevant considerations. Such religious “propaganda,” such it is because its function is to persuade or educate us, attracts our attention for a moment or two, but seldom goes beyond this. It is quickly dismissed or overlooked beyond a first glance.
Should art used in worship be the Word made visual? Should it explain, justify or connect an illustration as illustrative of a theme or idea from Scripture or sermon? Is it less important than other parts of worship?
Another tradition of the visual arts has been that of the icon or religious image that serves as a meditative focus for prayer. Usually, these images are stylistically and iconographically predictable. Their function is to become transparent to our experience, almost magic in their ability to transform our humble words to prayers fit for the Holy to hear.
Is there religious art and secular art? Is subject matter the most important quality to consider in evaluating such art? Can religious subject matter ever become kitsch? Or sentimental?
There are dangers in attitudes like these that are used to evaluate visual art in worship. Many of us are uncomfortable with sentimental religious experiences, sensing with embarrassment their inability to address the complex and conflicting questions and priorities before us today. We see cloying sweetness and innocence leading toward indifference or hostility toward the world as it is. We also are jaded by fads and by slogans and are impatient with cliches. Our artists often sell out to our aesthetic limitations, choosing instead to approach us as yet another client for a commission, yet another advertising design challenge. They do not give us art, but a product they think will please us.
We hunger for truth, honesty, and freshness. We wither without our imaginations. We cry out for visions of glory. We want our sons and daughters to dream dreams, our old ones to see visions, and our men and women to prophesy. I believe it is here that we must begin to evaluate art that is used in our sanctuaries for use in worship.
Specific Ideas
What, then, is appropriate for worship? Obviously, such an evaluation begins with a clear understanding of what theme or season is highlighted on a particular Sunday. It is probably more appropriate to look backward at credal images on Reformation Sunday than on Pentecost. Thorns belong more to the austerity of Lent than the abundance of Epiphany. Many churches find art for worship flowing naturally when particular Scriptures guide not only the sermon and music but all other aspects in the liturgy. The use of a lectionary or similar long-range plan makes such creativity practical.
There are certain aesthetic considerations in visual art that have parallel sensitivities in the other arts. Visual art is evaluated by these criteria: composition, color, scale, harmony, counterpoint, and the environment in which the piece is hung. Usually, scale is the most difficult concept to grasp. Many of us simply make things too small! A grand scale, like one would use in stage-set design, conveys of itself a graciousness and majesty that automatically adds a sense of glory and importance to worship.
One of the reasons artists make art is for self-searching and self-expression. When working for a congregation, this cannot be the focus. Here we are making art for communal use and common expression. Here the work is not for self, but rather for communal identity. When our own experiences can be made broad enough or transparent enough in their meanings that the community can use them or claim them, they can be appropriated. But even here, it is not a personal testament as much as a corporate vision that works.
The strongest criteria of the quality of art appropriate for worship is its ability to evoke, to involve, to refresh, to provoke, or engage the worshiper on an emotive rather than a rational level. Such art allures us, calling forth response before calling for explanation. It is often very difficult to talk about it at all. Often images based on an emotional response to the Scripture or theme of worship for that day are the place to begin. Usually, these are semiabstract in form, engaging our imagination rather than instructing us.
There are not categories of spiritual feelings and nonspiritual feelings. We must be ready to accept the intensity of all the feelings evoked and integrate them with faith experiences.
Finally, for the work to have integrity, it best arises out of the people themselves. It is created for their own community at a particular time, for a particular occasion, on a specific site. This is perhaps the most difficult dimension of evaluation. Not every church is able to claim artists among their own, nor find artists willing to work within the assumptions and needs of the church. Making visual art is a talent and skill, like making sermons, or making music. Unfortunately, the church has done much to discourage the artist from participating in worship as an artist.
In summary, how is work evaluated? Does it work aesthetically? Especially the scale? Is it integrative, as the other parts of the worship service are? Is it communal in its nature rather than personal or esoteric? Does it evoke rather than instruct? Does it merely decorate? Does it have courage and integrity? Is it imaginative? Does it arise from the work of the people themselves?
When art arises from these parameters, it belongs naturally in worship. It adds a dimension that is unapproachable by any other means. But diminishing any of these parameters by compromise or carelessness seriously weakens this gift.
Yet it is our visual artist who can most clearly show us a vision that hints at the Kingdom of Shalom. It is God’s glory that is reflected whenever one works from courage, integrity, and imagination. It is God’s love made visible in yet another way when the abundance of such art is showered upon us with lavishness and sensuality: a gift that is bestowed with love made visible.