https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/art-foyers-entryways-reverence-jesus-christ
There has been a lot of criticism of the new policy about art in Chapels.
Some have seen it as a retreat from the trappings of cult of personality that came with general authority pictures in high council rooms and primary.
Others see it as “white man’s burden” Christ images. Others point out the call, about a year ago for pictures of Jesus that have him with more authentic Semitic features.
Giving the Church the benefit of the doubt, what do you think of the new art policy?
Do you like this picture from https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2002/12/images-of-christ?lang=eng
I invite your thoughts.
Wheat & Tares 
I do have a problem with LDS art. It’s a a gender issue. Over the years, I have come to recognize that women in LDS art are mostly absent. When women are portrayed in LDS religious art, they seem to always be kneeling in a subservient role. The only time women are portrayed in a standing or somewhat equal position within LDS art is if they are holding a child.
While the the kneeling pose portrays a specific submission to God that is important within Christianity, there is a significant lack of other positioning. Men in LDS art are shown in a variety of roles from the strong masculine roles of protector to decision maker to tender father and provider. The art is a varied celebration of their physicality, societal roles and gender. Women are portrayed and celebrated only for their motherhood and submissiveness. Fertility is led out. Female physicality is left out. Any sort of decisiveness, strength or leadership is left out.
With all the historic Christian art that exists and the number of amazing LDS artists, it would be lovely if the LDS church could find or commission a couple pieces of art that have a woman standing on her own two feet and doing something besides holding a baby or child.
“…Doubt not…” Mormon 9:27
“Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.”—President Dieter F. Uchtdorf,
OK, I’ve pulled those out of context, but I don’t know what “giving the Church the benefit of the doubt” means as a modifier of the question “what do you think of the new art policy?”
I’ve likely said enough about the policy elsewhere. But I’ll add that the policy and its art selections would have been better done as suggestions. (Though my preference would be to trash some of those suggestions — at least Liz Swindle’s tacky and potentially offensive execution of what I hope was a well-motivated idea, and probably Del Parson’s tiresome repetitiveness and Harry Anderson’s tired illustrations.)
Implementation of the policy will make no difference to the use of the foyers in or entrances to our building. It may make a difference to some in other buildings. Many of our people seem comforted by kitsch and sameness. The sameness creates and reinforces a very limited view of who and what Jesus is. Implementation of the policy will make no difference to the fact that when I want to be inspired by Christian art I must generally look to other churches, museums, or the internet.
When I look at the set of approved pictures there is only one that looks new to me. Generally more of the same with that one exception.
Correlation strikes again. They want a lot of Jesus art on display so visitors see it and think, “This church is really into Jesus. It must be Jesus 24/7 here.” When in fact it’s Jesus once in a while, Joseph Smith a lot, tithing a lot, follow your leaders in all things a lot, and so forth.
In the foyer of my chapel there is a beautiful shot of a forest with a few deer on the distance. Sunlight shines down through gaps and illuminates a fawn. It’s a relaxing scene with pleasantly understated reference to the First Vision. Hey, God is in nature, not just in pious proclamations. I’ll bet that picture is gone soon. How sad. Temple walls are covered in nature murals — why should it be verbotten in chapels? Or do they intend to whitewash temple walls as well?
The pendulum was already swinging to home church/Come Follow Me prior to the coronavirus quarantine. Now ward buildings and temples are mostly closed. Who knows what the future holds? In the mean time, pick your own art work for your home church.
I just have one request related to Church art: please delete any art that depicts the translation of the BOM in a traditional way (JS reading the plates, etc.) because we know that’s not how it happened. I get it that the Church isn’t excited about showing JS peering into a hat. So don’t show anything about it.
PS: if you’re going to show art related to the First Vision, maybe label it “as described in the official 1838 version”
When I looked through the curated paintings, I had a visceral reaction to “Jesus Praying in Gethsemane,” by Harry Anderson. I love this painting. I assume it has been around longer than me. And for me, it captures the essence of Gethsemane. Partially because of Jesus’s posture—a pained mixture of dignified and forlorn. But on a strictly artistic level, my love of the painting is caught up in the artist’s use of green as part of the nighttime lighting. If you want to effectively transition me from vainly fiddling with my tie in the parking lot to reverently entering the Sacrament Room, this painting is great choice.
Okay, that was the benefit you asked for, Stephen. Now here’s the doubt. Far from being new controversy, this is just the latest example of art being selected by committee in service of a corporation. This situation is not even uniquely Mormon. Whether commissioned by secular or sacred organizations, committee-selected art tends to be conventional to a fault. The paintings selected here are generally safe choices for the institution commissioning them.
Frankly, this is an appropriate direction for a corporation to take. We’re talking about privately-owned foyers, not art museums. Everything from the carpet to the wattage of the fluorescent bulbs is selected in service of the experience the corporation wants to provide. That said, many of these paintings tap into my nostalgia for growing up Mormon in the late 20th Century. To second Dave B’s comment, I am a bit irked. This is the latest blatant bid by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to appear conventionally Christian, which it most certainly is not.
Doing a riff on Kafka,
“Art must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us.”
When we enter the chapel we should be overwhelmed by beauty, color or message. God should be calling out to us from art as in a challenge for our souls to change. “The calling of Saint Matthew” by Caravaggio. It is a call for all of us. Light in darkness, fear or trust.
Stephen,
Here is the benefit. Growing up you and I meet for Church meetings in our home, the VW bug and occasionally when we were lucky in a real chapel. I for one enjoyed seeing the various art work as we used buildings of other faiths and even found the in the depictions of the cross a form of reverence. I will be happy to have a picture of Christ greeting me as I prepare to enter our chapel and partake of the sacrament. It is a welcome change.
My hope is along the same line of many of the priests I talked with in Europe while we lived there. It is that someone with more talent might take the time and depict Jesus with all the appropriate settings of the time period. Until then I am happy to be greeted by someones admittedly imperfect rendition of Christ. Somehow the imperfections remind me of my own imperfect views and my attempts to be more like him.
Loved the Post.
Benefit – I guess some new art if these are not prominent in the foyer and a good excuse to get rid of the garbage can that sits next to the couch. It could have been worse – we could have representations of bathtub Jesus or Mary outside our church to match the logo – do a google search on it; it’s a thing you can’t unsee.
The doubt – did we really need this? My ward in Iowa has some really good oil paintings from a ward member depicting pioneers coming across Iowa – it is tasteful and interesting art. They will presumably move it to the hall. Why? Do we need Salt Lake to tell us how to decorate our building? not really. Plus, the art they have chosen is not that interesting or good. The oldest ones are the best in my opinion. The new ones look airbrushed and boring. I chafe against it in the same way it annoys me to have the logo with the Christus as the big reveal during conference or to try to rebrand us as not as Mormons or Christians but as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. . It feels like corporate branding. At work, when we reorg a group thinks about what the logo is, the official font, the color schemes, and the types of signage and art for the corporate headquarters that match the company mission and vision. I guess I have enough of that at work and I am not sure that God really works this way. Does God really care what our logo is? Or what art is in the foyer? Maybe he does, but I would bet that there would be good reasons to let local inspiration handle some of these decisions.
My initial reaction to the announcement was positive, but the devil is in the details. I hadn’t realized there were only certain pictures of Christ allowed. Is anyone willing to admit they’ve read the YA book “Matched”? I have to wonder if her dystopian culture limiting the number of songs, poems, etc. is inspired, even perhaps subconsciously, by the church limiting what art, music, etc. can be used in church lessons. (I have been known to sneak in contraband Francis Hook and J. Kirk Richard to Primary.)
In an effort to give the benefit of the doubt, I’m trying to think of what worst-case scenario they might be worried about. (For me, Simon Dewey IS worst-case scenario.) Are they worried about a black Jesus? A PG-13 Jesus with blood? An irreverently laughing Jesus? A bystanding woman rocking sleeveless? I noticed none of the pictures have Jesus on the cross. Is that related to our vampirish aversion to crosses?
I’ve been excited about The Friend’s new willingness to draw cartoon-Jesus as a middle-Easterner, so many of these art selections feel like two steps back. By promoting these few, it will consciously or unconsciously lead to belief that these are the most accurate likenesses of Christ.
What if Jesus were a really ugly-looking person with especially dark skin. Jesus in art is always a very handsome (by modern Western standards of beauty) person with clean-looking skin and beard without any blemishes or deformities. What if he had courser skin (highly likely, they didn’t makeup back then) and a dustier beard? His clothes are clean, finely cut. Might they have been dirtier and rougher-looking? His nose is European. What if he had a very big and lumpy nose? Jesus in Mormon art has a well-built body. What if he were very skinny and bony, or short and stalky? His hair is flat and nicely combed. What if it were frizzy and curly and rather unkempt? What if Jesus couldn’t grow facial hair very well? Might seeing an ugly, course-skinned, bony, dark-skinned, unkempt Jesus change how we conceptualize him?
If they worry about the appearance of the foyer, why to they buy the same ugly couch for every building?
Does the church make these at the DI, or own the company that does ? . Would they release a memo to update the furniture to 2020, it is still in the 1985 style.
I agree with Jake that this is corporate thinking. I was surprised decades ago when I was asked to pick out my office decor from the company catalog, including the artwork! All the options were pretty conventional, what I would call “motel art.” Since I like to paint, I now adorn my offices with my own work. Corporate restrictions on artwork could always be gotten around if you were high ranking enough, even in a corporate setting. Not so in the Church.
I definitely think that 1) the Church wants to either portray us as being focused on Christ, or more likely, subtly encourage us to actually BE more focused on Christ, and that 2) there are huge blind spots in the selection committee regarding the portrayal of women (I concur whole-heartedly with Damascene) and Christ. This is a Jesus you might meet at the Bountiful Costco. You would probably even check Him out. There are also huge blind spots with regard to genre. There is really no variety in terms of the style of art, which is a shame given how many great pieces by Mormon artists are out there. Instead we are swimming in the same old stuff. It’s just a waste.
I have been surprised how moving the artwork in other worship spaces can be, particularly when it is unique. I find more to contemplate in ambiguous or modern works than in these hyper-realistic sentimental works.
Just found this:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2002/12/images-of-christ?lang=eng
I’m adding one of the pictures to my essay.
I have enjoyed some of the variety of new art brought to light by the church art competitions.
https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/exhibit/iac-2015-tell-me-the-stories-of-jesus?lang=eng
https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/exhibit/theme/2019-international-art-competition-meditations-on-belief?lang=eng
It seems like there is something for everyone, including those to whom abstract and figurative images carry more power that a direct representation.
John W, quite frankly we *should* be portraying Christ unflatteringly; “There is no beauty that we should desire him” is right there in Isaiah.
John W, we *should* be portraying Christ unflatteringly; “there is no beauty that we should desire him” is right there in Isaiah.
Perhaps it is RMN making sure he makes a difference(is remembered)
It just feels like micro managing.
My problem with the selection is that they are all rather boring. We’ve seen most of them so often over the years and I’m also tired of seeing mostly white European looking Jesus. I’d like to see him more representative of his actual heritage. The art also reflects how ‘white’ the corporate church is. With its reach into all the world and how multicultural the members are now I think we could all welcome art that reflected that instead.
I was once carrying our three-month-old daughter around one of the waiting rooms at Primary Children’s Medical Center. She is black. As we looked at the many pictures of children hanging on the walls, she almost jumped out of my arms when we came to a picture with black children. I recreated the scene for my wife and again my baby got so excited to see children that looked like her. I was surprised because she was too small to be going around looking at herself in the mirror. I hadn’t supposed she would have any race-based self-identity at that age.
As I look at the approved picture gallery I see, as has been noted, very few non-white faces. How much more welcoming would our foyers be if they better reflected all God’s children? “I belong here” vs. “Oh, these guys must be Christians”.
“Giving the Church the benefit of the doubt.” Perhaps I am picking a nit, here, but please bear with me.
Why would we NOT give the Church the benefit of the doubt?” To disagree with what the Church is doing does not preclude giving it the benefit of the doubt. I often get frustrated by the corporate Church, and wish that things were done differently, but the Church (speaking of it as a collective whole) tries to do good. It gets things wrong (as do we all) and has trouble opening its mind to new ways of thinking (as do we all). But is there anyone who denies that the Church is trying to do what its leaders think is right? If I automatically assume malign intent in my dealings with others or the Church, then that is simply an example of the poisoned incivility of our times.
For the record, I am not a huge fan of “correlated” Church art, and wish the Church would allow more LIFE and individuality into the paintings it uses, I appreciate the questions raised by Stephen Marsh. I like the picture of Christ embracing the young man, and it has a lovely message, but repeated 17,000 time, its appeal wanes. Angela C’s point about a Church version of motel art is apt.
Doubt is a superior emotion to faith—trust it!
I know a Christian church when I see it and it has nothing to do with foyer art or the logo and everything to do with the people they accept, the line of haggard people streaming down the sidewalk waiting for a warm meal, the food pantry in the basement… that’s a Christian church that follows Christ..
I love having a picture of Christ hanging in the foyer of our ward house which I must pass before entering the chapel itself. I find it very appropriate, something that reminds me of where I am and how I should be behaving etc. etc. Of course, the particular picture of Christ that we have (I think it is a lithograph of one of the more famous paintings) probably looks nothing like Christ. It is somebody’s idea of Christ and it reflects the artist’s biases which explains why this particular Christ looks very much like a handsome Scandinavian man with his gold-flecked beard and hair and his light eyes. I imagine members in South America, or Asia or other parts of the world might envision a very different looking Christ. The only scriptural description of Jesus we have is in the Old Testament of all places, Isaiah, and it says the messiah will look very ordinary. I’m not sure Jesus then looks anything like Thorvaldsen’s famous sculpture. In the end, the Jesus we like to look at probably says more about us than it does about Him.