Wow... it's been a lonnngg time. Too much of nothing going on.

Been getting into discussions about "Christian" art and movies. So much is formulaic... and preachy. Lisa Sampson is one of the few who writes so well and and so realistically that you don't mind some prayers and Bible verses, 'cause she also shows the "clay feet" of her characters. They aren't one dimensional!

One friend says there seems to be a "cheese factor" in a lot of Christian arts. A place in the movie where you just cringe and say "Why did they put THAT in?" Or "Why is the dialogue so fake and stilted?" Or in a book, "Does that author even know the meaning of that word?" Where are the editors?

I think it occurs mostly when you can sense a deliberate manipulation... an all out play on your sense of outrage or nostalgia. Thomas Kincade comes to mind. The guy is probably not a bad painter (perspective, brush control, technique) but talk about showing the world thru rose colored glassses! Talk about formulas!!! Talk about walking the safe line!!! Talk about pulling your last nerve yearning for "ye good olde days"!

Maxfield Parrish was close to being the Thomas Kincade of his day, in terms of popularity and sales (commercial and fine), but compare the art! Parrish painted many "pretty" scenes, but there is strength, there is reality, there is humor. His art doesn't leave you feeling like you are in a vat of molasses with maple syrup oozing over your head.

Is it only color choice? True, Parrish doesn't flood his art with pastels, but I think it's more than that. Kincade is busy... for "peaceful" scenes there is usually a lot going on... mountains, gardens, streams, cottages, lampposts, roads, more flowers, sunsets, etc. Parrish might have some of them same elements, but they don't "riot" all over the painting. He knew how to tone down some things so that your eye focuses on the important. His art has "resting places" so you're not inundated with information and bombarded with busyness.

Parrish's farmhouses and villas have character, they vary, they looked lived in and REAL. Maybe because he would build sets in his studio... actually make mountains on a mirror so he could capture reflections. All his characters he drew and painted from models, including himself.

From the way he lived his life I doubt Parrish would have called himself a Christian (but I'm not sure). However his art seems truer and more reflective of God's reality and joy in creation than many a Christian artist. He certainly went about it in a much more dedicated and determined way than I do! (Maybe that's why his marriage failed?)

I know people have their own likes and dislikes and I'm not saying Nude Descending a Staircase is "better" than Kincade's stuff. Picasso knew how to milk the public and artworld with his totally different genre. I wouldn't hang most of it if it was given to me.

But why do we settle for such low standards and let ourselves be led by a great marketing campaign? If we "do all to the glory of God" doesn't that mean putting thought and effort into our art, instead of just doing what comes easily, or makes money. A work of art (music, visual, film, etc.) might present the gospel, but if it's poorly written/painted what kind of testimony does the artist have?