(In fact, many of this world's artistic masterpieces are inspired by religious themes. Some nations focused entirely on sacred art for many generations. Only in more recent history have secular pieces become historically significant and respected.)
That said, I have to admit, at the risk of sounding like an art snob, that I much prefer religious art that depicts actual events or prophecy from holy writ. I'm not as concerned about things religious figures might have done, could be imagined to have done, might possibly be doing now, or could potentially do.
To me, these imaginative forms of sacred art are similar to "quoted" statements from scripture, such as the Savior's reportedly teaching, "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it." While this statement does not necessarily contradict the Savior's teachings, and while it is possible the Savior actually taught this principle, these words are not contained in any revelation of which I am aware. And yet, they are some of the Savior's most oft-cited words by members of my faith.
There is another intrinsic problem with both invented religious art and imagined sacred citations: while they might be a reflection of the creativity of their authors, to the scripturally illiterate--whether by choice, inexperience, or incapacity--representing imagined situations as real or accurate can be deceptive, misleading, and the source of, for lack of a better term, our religious urban legends.
Furthermore, people will accept, remember, and believe what they see. The human mind is a powerful tool with a great capacity to recall words and images. Once an erroneous piece of information enters our mind, not only must we learn the truth when we encounter it, but we must also forget the wrong information we once learned.
Allow me to illustrate with a couple acute examples. First, this week's Church bulletin had a pencil drawing of the Savior tossing a child above Him in the air. While the image does not contradict the Savior's teachings, it also has no reference to an actual occurrence in the Scriptures.
Second, while the Scriptures teach Christ was baptized by immersion, I have seen art depicting John the Baptist and Christ in the river Jordan with John baptizing Christ by aspersion. I encountered this art as a missionary while attempting to teach about baptism by immersion and following Christ's example, and, needless to say, it had a detrimental effect on my teaching efforts.
Moreover, people have a hard enough time getting the facts straight in so many instances of Scriptural reporting. With different accounts recording slightly different information, the questions surrounding certain stories are understandable and justified. This is even more reason for artists who choose to represent sacred scenes to pay special attention to what they're producing.
This same principle has implications in music that teaches incorrect principles, or anything that does, for that matter.
What are your thoughts?
2 comments:
The problem is that adding to art is virtually inescapable as the record is so spotty. What did they wear? How did they walk? Shoot, was Jesus white? It's so sketchy that we have to allow for artistic interpretation
While I agree with you to an extent, Eric, there's a difference between attempting to depict a scene from scripture accurately and downright making it up. No one will ever get it right; no body alive today or in the Renaissance or at any other time in history will get it right: there are no photographs of it and the artists of the day are all dead. But trying to make something as scripturally acurate as possible is well worth the effort to me. Those are my two cents about your two cents.
Post a Comment