Where has all the religious art gone?

[notoppings]

Some of the most famous art throughout history has been religious based, when did it go out of style? and why do you think it did? Today there are artist who's work is shocking and disturbing some of it good others get famous on shock alone. When did society, or did they, decide that religious art is no longer appealing?

Just wondering about this, I am not religious and hope that others here more wise then I will know or have an opinion.

[Monte314]

This is a very interesting question.

I think that in the 1950's, the mainstream church in America began to abandon the arts, feeling that they were somehow "impure", and should be shunned. This trend continued through the 1990's, leaving religious themes to be treated by those not espousing the historic faiths of America. As a (Christian) religious leader myself, and one cited in "Who's Who in the Media and Communication", I am strongly encouraging those whom I help shepherd to consider careers and avocations in the arts and media.

Because religious people decided to sit on the sidelines and throw stones rather than roll up their sleeves, they forfeited this area of cultural life to secularists. In the last 10 years or so, there has been a reawakening of interest in the arts among the young religious, and I think we will begin to see more religiously inspired art entering the mainstream over the next decade or so.

[Santana28]

look up the work of joachim luetke - his rendition of the Last Supper is my absolute favorite piece ever. if i could get that on my wall... oh man...

[notoppings]

This is a very interesting question.

I think that in the 1950's, the mainstream church in America began to abandon the arts, feeling that they were somehow "impure", and should be shunned. This trend continued through the 1990's, leaving religious themes to be treated by those not espousing the historic faiths of America. As a (Christian) religious leader myself, and one cited in "Who's Who in the Media and Communication", I am strongly encouraging those whom I help shepherd to consider careers and avocations in the arts and media.

Because religious people decided to sit on the sidelines and throw stones rather than roll up their sleeves, they forfeited this area of cultural life to secularists. In the last 10 years or so, there has been a reawakening of interest in the arts among the young religious, and I think we will begin to see more religiously inspired art entering the mainstream over the next decade or so.

I wonder if they, the ones you encourage will bring a modern interpretation to old classics or if they will take contemporary images and show the relevant religious interpretation, either way I think it could be amazing.

look up the work of joachim luetke - his rendition of the Last Supper is my absolute favorite piece ever. if i could get that on my wall... oh man...

I haven't found it yet but will continue to look for it, it must be amazing to be your favorite.

[tp6626]

Religious institutions in the past were one of the few who could afford art. They had vast amounts of money, and with it they commissioned the best artists they could find. Why do you think churches, cathedrals etc are so big, plush and wonderful buildings? They were designed to create awe and wonder in the people who visited, and to portray this godly image.

I assume as art became more affordable, and less of a status symbol, that the churches stopped commissioning such works, because they no longer held the same status or had the same effect that they must have done in the past.

[Shaz]

It's true, the church was where most of the money came from. They would pay artists to "advertise" religion, and "educate" people who couldn't read for a lot of them. Biblical scenes, etc. A lot of people can't really read them anymore but at the time the symbols and scenes in the paintings were easily recognisable by everyone.

I live in Florence and the huge Duomo still looks immense and awe-inspiring nowadays. It's impossible for us to imagine how it would have looked to a 15th century peasant. But the church had so much power, it was their way to show it.

I know it's not quite the same in America but nowadays in Europe religion isn't very powerful anymore (euphemism... esp. in France where I come from). The church doesn't really have money, and believing isn't a given. Actually atheism is the norm here now.

[konec]

I agree with Shaz and tph216, but a question has been forming in my mind and it has to do with the artist making art without someone commissioning them to do so.

Did the peasant family ask van Gogh to paint them, while they were eating potatoes? Well, I think it's save to say: no, they didn't, but at what time did the artist's individual choice for and interpretation of (I think maybe this has always played an important role) the subject of his art became more/most important? Is it the most important?

[Kuroyue]

I had to satiate my curiousity regarding Luetke's rendition of The Last Supper. Well, I found it!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But I don't quite get it.

[Santana28]

I had to satiate my curiousity regarding Luetke's rendition of The Last Supper. Well, I found it!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But I don't quite get it.

honestly, i dont quite get it either. i just appreciate his intrinsic attention to his particular style and detail, and use of media. i think its beautiful.

[Shaz]

at what time did the artist's individual choice for and interpretation of (I think maybe this has always played an important role) the subject of his art became more/most important? Is it the most important?

That's an interesting question. It has always had an important role, as you say. But I think there are different factors that changed a lot : first, photography and the industrial revolution, which forced painting to find a different purpose than representing reality accurately. A lot of people say modern art started with impressionism. Another thing is that artists nowadays have no stranglehold (is this correct?) like they used to, because the money comes from patrons that don't serve anything else than themselves. There has always been a part of personal expression, only before it was much more subtle because you had a whole list of prerequisites to respect, and all sorts of canons, etc.

Painting used to be a tool, nowadays it is no more needed as such. Of course there must have been painters who did other than church or rich patron's commissions but they are not remembered much. You can take the romantics, but they are the archetype of the starving artist : because they painted something that was much more personal, and therefore not as easily sellable. There are exceptions though I guess, like Whistler for ex.

To come back to the first point : academism (accurate copy of nature, which was the canon at the time) reached its peak towards the middle of the 19th century. I think you couldn't really go any further towards an accurate representation of nature (ex : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 80%29.jpg I know it's very corny, though teachers in my school don't seem to think so), and so it was a sort of dead end. From there started impressionism, pointillism, then onto fauvism etc. Basically, since you couldn't really copy nature better and that photography was getting better and better anyway, painting had to find another voice, a more personal voice. That's how it started.

Then again nowadays it's pushed to a ridiculous extent, partly because of our very individualistic society, and also because of all the investments in art which is in my point of view rotten.

edit : there is still religious art around, only it's not mainstream