Book notes, A Sense of the Sacred, pt. 1 of 4

I've made mention of it in the previous blogs, but I'm just over two-thirds through R. Kevin Seasoltz's A Sense of the Sacred; Theological Foundations of Christian Architecture and Art. It's a challenge, especially for someone like me who has never really studied art or architecture, and a poor head for retaining history on top of it. Regardless, I have simply slowed down, reading one-two chapters and day, and am learning quite a bit about the shifts from Romanesque to Gothic to Renaissance, Baroque, etc. Even more helpful have been the connections Seasoltz makes between these general artistic and architectural styles to the shifts in theology, which affected the liturgy, the emphasis on clergy or the community, and the participation (or lack of it) of the congregation.

Some things worth noting...

From the start and in most periods, when illustrating or making Biblical images, artists did not try to imagine and dress the people and environs "as they must have been." There has rarely been a concern re: "historical accuracy." They usually drew from their own environment and life. An important exception would be the periods of renaissance when artists would return to study and imitate the classical Greek and Roman styles. In the earliest Greco-Roman Art, "Daniel was represented as a heroic nude; the prophets were shown in philosophical garb; and the altars in the scenes of Abraham sacrificing Isaac were typical Roman altars" (p.91).

What can we draw from this? Perhaps, we would have an easier time seeing ourselves, involving ourselves in scripture if we made the effort (as many artist are) to cast these stories and imagining them in our time, modern dress and environment. Of course, much religious abstract or representative art has this in mind, but--unless trained in or sensitive to abstract art--many people are left out, and they return to the more romanticized realism of the late 19, early 20 C. 

Some people have an initial negative reaction to a clearly oriental Jesus coming from eastern art, or the African images of Mary coming from S. Africa or African American culture. We tend to so closely associate "truth" with "historical accuracy" that we dismiss the more important truths which come out of metaphor, symbols, stories. (In truth, none of the images we hold or cherish are historically accurate!) Re-imaging isn't so much about trying to re-make or pretend that Jesus, or Mary, or others actually looked like us, as it is learning and trying to see them embodied, or applied to our life and situation. Or, we may be trying to cast ourselves and world into the Bible story. How is this story or image still true for us?

Seasoltz mentions some of the early fauna used in funereal and churches to represent resurrection, "including the dolphin, the phoenix, and the peacock ...[which] do not appear in any specific bible texts." Instead, these came from popular myths and stories applied to the Christian perspective, i.e. stories of dolphins carrying drowning victims to safety (p.112). In the Northwest, how might the salmon and its life-cycle or native stories about the salmon do the same? How does the rhododendron compare with traditional Christian images and use of flora? What if Mt. Rainier and locals were used for the scene of Jesus and the disciples returning from the Transfiguration?