Luther would hate the art of the twenty first century. Artists now create art for money and for it to look nice. Luther only switched his opinion of religious images because he thought it would remind people of the Gospels.
I agree with Emily. Art now is created for beauty (even in churches) and Luther wanted all art to be of a portion of the bible so that people would be reminded of something religious. In class we looked at some art of Luther's time, and they would purposely make some people ugly so the focus was not on beauty.
Living in the period we do now, Christian art does not come to mind at all. When I hear "Christian art" I automatically think of paintings and sculptures of old. If Luther didn't like the Christian art in the Renaissance, he would detest the small availability of pieces that were Christian much less supporting the actual doctrine of Christianity. Art has transformed into a form of self expression than an expression of ones beliefs.
I agree with all of you. After doing a quick sweep over 'modern Christian art', I've drawn that a good portion of the art has one similarity- they're all made to look 'cool' or to be aesthetically pleasing. Nothing about them seems to teach a lesson or remind the viewer of heaven, God, Christ, etc.. But as for the portion of art that DOES intend to teach a lesson, how do you think Luther would view our new, modern style of conveying this message?
I think, like many people in this post have said, that the art of today in the 21 century is not very devotional or for biblical purpose. However, in response to The Dentremonster's question, I feel that he would possibly be understnading of the modern portrayal of art today. Sure, it is not exactly the way Luther may want it. But if it is still doing the job of conveying a message or biblical text to the people of the church, the job is getting done. That is the main goal, so Luther should be happy there is 21st Century Christian Art still.
I think that this depends on what one considers art. If one is talking about visual arts, then I think Luther would be proud, because a lot of visual christian art these days tends to be prints of Jesus doing something wonderful and teaching us about it (at least from what I can tell). If one considers Christian rock to be art, I am not sure how pleased he would be. A lot of that stuff tends to be devotional.
I think Luther would have completely despised 21st century art. Art now is purely painted for beauty or to tell a story, and more often than not it does not revolve around Christianity. We read a couple days ago that Luther was completely against any painting that was not associated with religion, therefore, he would hate this periods art.
The answer would be different if you were talking about early vs. late Luther but regardless, Luther would be appalled by the art of the 21st century. When Luther did approve images, he only approved those that were used to help teach people about the Bible. Also, Luther did not approve of any nudity in art and the pieces that were made under his watch were not allowed to be idealized like the paintings before the years of Protestantism.
These differences that each of you have pointed out to prove how Luther would, for the most part, disapprove of modern art exemplify how far art has come from its original purpose. Rarely in the 21st century is art that pertains to the bible created, and this disconnect comes hand in hand with a disconnect of religion and its true meaning in the 21st century as opposed to the 1500's . Therefore, you may also be able to conclude that Luther would disapprove with a good amount of the attitude towards religion and Christianity today.
Have you ever done something wrong and instead of being mad your parents are just disappointed? Meaning what you did was so bad/embarrassing that the only emotion they had was disappointment. This is how Luther would view 21 century art. We changed what he would accept as good art so much that he would simply be disappointed in our work. Some may go against his ideas and interpret scripture differently through art. This change would be so harsh that I feel Luther would be just disappointed and embarrassed with Christains.
Luther would hate the art of the twenty first century. Artists now create art for money and for it to look nice. Luther only switched his opinion of religious images because he thought it would remind people of the Gospels.
ReplyDeleteDidn't painters paint in the Renaissance for money too?
DeleteI agree with Emily. Art now is created for beauty (even in churches) and Luther wanted all art to be of a portion of the bible so that people would be reminded of something religious. In class we looked at some art of Luther's time, and they would purposely make some people ugly so the focus was not on beauty.
ReplyDeleteLiving in the period we do now, Christian art does not come to mind at all. When I hear "Christian art" I automatically think of paintings and sculptures of old. If Luther didn't like the Christian art in the Renaissance, he would detest the small availability of pieces that were Christian much less supporting the actual doctrine of Christianity. Art has transformed into a form of self expression than an expression of ones beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you. After doing a quick sweep over 'modern Christian art', I've drawn that a good portion of the art has one similarity- they're all made to look 'cool' or to be aesthetically pleasing. Nothing about them seems to teach a lesson or remind the viewer of heaven, God, Christ, etc.. But as for the portion of art that DOES intend to teach a lesson, how do you think Luther would view our new, modern style of conveying this message?
ReplyDeleteI think, like many people in this post have said, that the art of today in the 21 century is not very devotional or for biblical purpose. However, in response to The Dentremonster's question, I feel that he would possibly be understnading of the modern portrayal of art today. Sure, it is not exactly the way Luther may want it. But if it is still doing the job of conveying a message or biblical text to the people of the church, the job is getting done. That is the main goal, so Luther should be happy there is 21st Century Christian Art still.
ReplyDeleteI think that this depends on what one considers art. If one is talking about visual arts, then I think Luther would be proud, because a lot of visual christian art these days tends to be prints of Jesus doing something wonderful and teaching us about it (at least from what I can tell). If one considers Christian rock to be art, I am not sure how pleased he would be. A lot of that stuff tends to be devotional.
ReplyDeleteI think Luther would have completely despised 21st century art. Art now is purely painted for beauty or to tell a story, and more often than not it does not revolve around Christianity. We read a couple days ago that Luther was completely against any painting that was not associated with religion, therefore, he would hate this periods art.
ReplyDeleteThe answer would be different if you were talking about early vs. late Luther but regardless, Luther would be appalled by the art of the 21st century. When Luther did approve images, he only approved those that were used to help teach people about the Bible. Also, Luther did not approve of any nudity in art and the pieces that were made under his watch were not allowed to be idealized like the paintings before the years of Protestantism.
ReplyDeleteThese differences that each of you have pointed out to prove how Luther would, for the most part, disapprove of modern art exemplify how far art has come from its original purpose. Rarely in the 21st century is art that pertains to the bible created, and this disconnect comes hand in hand with a disconnect of religion and its true meaning in the 21st century as opposed to the 1500's . Therefore, you may also be able to conclude that Luther would disapprove with a good amount of the attitude towards religion and Christianity today.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever done something wrong and instead of being mad your parents are just disappointed? Meaning what you did was so bad/embarrassing that the only emotion they had was disappointment. This is how Luther would view 21 century art. We changed what he would accept as good art so much that he would simply be disappointed in our work. Some may go against his ideas and interpret scripture differently through art. This change would be so harsh that I feel Luther would be just disappointed and embarrassed with Christains.
ReplyDelete