“Selling out” and Christian Pop Art

“no one can depict Jesus as Lord but in the Holy Spirit.”

Selling Out?

Since the so-called Age of Enlightenment, the attitude towards art has shifted dramatically. Historically, artists have relied on commissions. A person or group commissions the artist to paint a particular subject. The artist completes the work and is (usually) paid the agreed upon price. Up until the late middle ages and the rise of a merchant/middle-class, the largest patron of artists was the Church. Most artists worked in guilds or prominent studios and so when the local church needed a commission, that is where they went to employ an artist. Artists who worked independently of a guild or studio existed, but they were less common and struggled more to make ends meet.

As the Church was the largest patron, the subject matter for artists was of course Christian in nature. Local churches needed liturgical art to adorn their places of worship. Frescoes, murals, panel paintings, reredos, and stained glass windows expressed tenets of the faith. Even wealthy merchants commissioned such work as a gift or offering to their local church or cathedral.

For most of history the commissioned work largely served the church or the state. In other words, for the most part, the work of the artist served something greater than his own ego. The idea of the starving artist, working in a drafty garret, fighting tuberculosis, all for the sake of “being true to his personal vision,” is largely a Victorian invention that grew out of social changes a century earlier.

The Age of Enlightenment and the growing middle class, precipitated a change in artistic output. Secular subject matter became more and more common as individuals with means sought to decorate their homes rather than their church.

By the Victorian period it was common for artists to paint whatever they wanted and submit the work to various associations and shows in the hopes of attracting more clients.

All of this has led to the current attitude among a significant number of artists and patrons, that any artist who actually makes money from his art, is “selling out.” The thinking seems to be that any true artist should follow his personal vision and disdain any commercial aspects his or her work might attract.

This, of course, is utter nonsense. Like every other adult person, artists have financial obligations to meet, family responsibilities, and bills to pay.

So what happens when commercialism clashes with religious art? What are we to make of the practice of an image of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, placed on a t-shirt or a phone case? Is it sacrilegious or is it missionary outreach?

Albrecht Durer

One of the most successful business-minded artists, was Albrecht Durer (1471-1528). In addition to his painted work commissioned by churches and a wealthy middle class, he produced hundreds of prints and etchings meant for patrons of lesser means. Much of his work was either collected and published, such as his series of 16 images illustrating the Apocalypse, or the Book of Revelation, or they were sold by his wife as single woodblock prints at the local market. His subject matter included a range of secular and religious images.

Nothing has really changed in the last 700 years, except the technology. I think there is little doubt, that had he access to today’s computers and print on demand services, Durer would happily put his artwork on anything that was popular among his patrons.

So to return to our modern day question, how should we look at today’s commercial market when that market includes religious imagery?

There is an argument among some that putting an image of Our Lord or Our Lady on t-shirts, stickers, and phone cases is at best inappropriate and at worst, sacrilegious. Is the meaning and depth and sacrifice of Jesus trivialized when it is put on clothing?

Christian Pop Art

I think we need to make some distinctions. There is sacred, liturgical art meant for worship spaces, which by the way an artist is paid for. This would include icons, murals, altarpieces, etc.. The work is intended to foster the devotion of the faithful.

Then there is devotional work that appeals not to the body of the faithful at large but to a smaller group or perhaps even an individual who feels a personal spiritual connection to a work.

There is also a very real category of religious art that might be best described as Christian Pop Art and this is where controversy arises.

I think the best way to approach this question is by looking at the intent of the artist. In Catholic thought, intent plays a large role in how our actions are judged. For example, there is a popular piece of jewelry known as a “Thor’s Hammer.” It usually takes the form of a pendant in the shape of a hammer, taking its pattern from pagan Nordic examples. If a Catholic were to wear such a pendant simply because they thought it was an attractive design and nothing else, that would be fine. Perhaps they might have to explain to their friends why they are wearing a symbol of a pagan idol, but as long as their intention was simply that they liked the design, there really isn’t a problem.

On the other hand, if a Catholic were to wear such a pendant thinking that it somehow connected them to the Nordic god of Thunder, a god distinct from the One, True God, then there would be a problem and the person may be putting their soul at risk.

If a Christian artist puts their religious work on say a phone case, there are two aspects to consider. First, there is the intent of the artist, something we may never know. But if the intent is to make money there are other far more lucrative subjects than religious themes. We must consider that the intent of the artist may be to spread the Gospel message to people by reaching out to them where they are.

Some Christian artists faced this question with the rise of the pandemic. Artists who refused to put their work on anything other than prints which they made by hand, adjusted their thinking to satisfy their patrons who looked for the work of their favorite artists on face masks. If an artist truly believed that we should all “mask up,” and putting their work on masks might encourage a few more people to do so, then why wouldn’t they allow their work to be used in this way?

The second aspect of Christian Pop Art to consider is the effect it has on the consumer.

There is indeed value in the concept of evangelizing people where they are. The “spiritual but not religious” demographic is growing every year. People who may never step foot inside a church may see an image of the Sacred Heart that speaks to them so much they want to carry it with them every day, on a phone case. That “pop art” may in turn cause them to think about their relationship with God in a new and different way and eventually cause them to return to a life of faith. Granted, that may only happen once in a thousand or even a million cases. But saving that one soul is worth all the millions who buy that phone case just because they think it is a “cool” image.

The hallmark of the Christian is the love and charity we extend to all of our brothers and sisters. We need to think the best of people even if it is something that is not to our taste. An image of a muscular Jesus breaking the cross into pieces may not appeal to everyone, but as long as it does not contradict a Catholic world view, then let it be and move on.

Saint Paul told us that no one can say Jesus is Lord but in the Holy Spirit. In the same vein I would say that no one can depict Jesus as Lord but in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit acts mysteriously and unseen.

The Church has never adopted an official style of art. That is because the output of the artistic gift, in all its variety and splendor, reaches different people at different times in their lives, in all their variety and splendor.

Pax vobiscum