The Stillbirth of Mormon Art
Posted by jettboy on April 15th, 2007
For many years now artists who are Mormon have tried to bring a different sense of the creative within the Church. The most recent incarnation of reaching beyond the “Deseret Book” and “Ensign Cover” material has been movies. Recently, the self-proclaimed creator of Mormon cinema announced he no longer is part of the Church, having gone a different direction. This is not surprising considering some of the things he has said for the past couple of years. What it has done is put once more into question if there can be anything called Mormon art.
To be honest, that question is silly. Of course there is Mormon art. It just doesn’t reach to a level that some would like to see compared to masterpiece standards. More importantly, what is popular isn’t going to be what is accepted by those looking for something worthy of historical grandeur. That is a fact that Mormon art triumphalists must face.
Keith Merrill in the “Daily Herald” on Sunday, April 14, said it best in response to Dutcher’s parting words:
Even though, according to Dutcher, our movies at the Legacy Theater — “Legacy” and “The Testaments” — “squandered their chance to be powerful” and didn’t leave viewers “weak in the knees, their minds reeling, their spirits soaring” when compared to his own unprecedented brilliance and talent, I will press on in good faith and endure the “limitations” of LDS virtues, values and sensibilities.
I am proud to say that every project in development at a new venture, Audience Alliance Motion Picture Studios, embraces traditional standards and tells the truth.
Here is the truth. More people have been inspired by “Mr. Krueger’s Christmas,” moved to tears during “Legacy” and walked out of “The Testament” with spirits soaring than the total number of people who have ever bothered to go to Richard Dutcher’s movies combined. Your arrogance makes me bite my tongue to keep from turning a somber “goodbye” into a cheerful “good riddance.”
From the standpoint of successful art, if there is no willing audience then there is only a hobby. Those who insist they must be enjoyed and respected while the group it tries to reach doesn’t feel that way are tipping at windmills. They will either break into acceptance or it will break them. For the record, no amount of preaching and chest thumping is going make anyone like the work any more or less.
As an artist, it is sad to not see your work reach an approving audience when you have spent so much work in finishing a project. As an artist, it can be satisfying (if you let it) to just be able to work on a project for the thrill of personal inspiration. That last part, I think, is what is missing in those who want Mormon art to be so much more. If you aren’t enjoying it, if you are trying too hard, if you just want to make a buck or a name, then sometimes the intended audience can tell. They don’t like the condescension of a self-proclaimed elite.
What passes as Mormon visual art is something I have long been unimpressed with. There is very little LDS art in my house because I find the popular images to be repetitive and uninspiring. Did they all learn from the same school? Art that I put up is either from my own grandfather (a landscape artist) or masterpieces from history. I was happy to see someone put the name “Sunset in Arcadia” on the art done by the most popular LDS artists. It perfectly describes the sun drenched, nicely dressed, untouched landscape sold at LDS Bookstores and put on LDS walls.
Recently I have decided as someone who thinks that Mormon art is good in technique, but bad in aesthetics, to re-interpret the meaning of art in the Church. This reaches into paintings, novels, movies, etc. Why is the “Sunset in Arcadia” so popular among so many? Perhaps it is that “Art” itself is not a Mormon aesthetic or fit into its mission. The message of the enjoyed art is the message of the Restoration: Strive for Perfection having Faith in God (who is Love and Light). Mormons want the ideal because they are taught to reach for the Eternal. Anything that deviates from that represents going back and not forward.
I remember writing a short paper in college (not at an LDS school) about the history and hope of Mormon literature. My teacher read it and enjoyed what she learned. However, when we got into how to make good religious literature she said there has to be some kind of doubt, or challenge, or lack of an easy answer. Looking back, I now see the purpose of art, self-exploration or rebellion, is not consistent with Mormon theology. Within the faith we already know who we are, why we are here, and even where we are going. Allegiance to God is the highest priority, with a rebellious Satan as the example of Evil. Therefore, most Mormons are moved by art that either shows someone reaching for the perfect or having already arrived.
My hope is that there will finally be Mormon artists who branch out and explore other ways to do art. However, they must also be aware of the reason a particular style in LDS art is popular. Perhaps instead of completely breaking with “tradition,” these artists-to-be should see how to incorporate what is already enjoyed into new expressions. Already in the LDS Museum Art Contests there are vistas to be expanded in the more world regional “folk art” works. Writers still seem to not have learned anything from the success and talent of Orson Scott Card, who reaches both within and beyond Mormonism at the same time. There can be hope for a better artistic future. It is just going to take more than trying to break the hand that you hope will feed you.
That response by Kieth Merrill is awesome. Dead on.
Comment # 1 left by Connor on April 15th, 2007
Really Connor? Merrill came off as a peevish twit to me. (Though my respect for him did increase in the last sentence)
Comment # 2 left by Geoff J on April 15th, 2007
I have a brother-in-law who is trying to make it as a painter. His name is Kent Turner and he sells his wares on ebay. He has won several awards. But while he is Mormon and an artist, he is not really a Mormon artist in that he does not pursue Mormon themes.
Perhaps there is something similar to conference talks and Mormon art themes. Boundaries that many would consider appropriate which might limit popularity.
Interesting post.
Comment # 3 left by Eric Nielson on April 16th, 2007
Kieth Merrill offered an apology for the “outrageous and over-reactive response” to Richard Dutcher. (hat tip DMI Dave)
Comment # 4 left by Téa on April 16th, 2007
Hugh Nibley’s view on “Mormon art” was that since the LDS Church provides a “third dimension” that other Churches can’t provide (due to our knowledge of how the Plan of Salvation and our place in it extends beyond this life and into another plane of existence), that most, if not all, of our attempts to artistically portray the grandeur (I’m paraphrasing here) of the Gospel will always come off as being flat and uninspiring by comparison.
(I don’t have my CWHN volumes available right now, but I think that’s a fair restatement of his view on it.)
Comment # 5 left by Mark N. on April 16th, 2007
jettboy, just out of curiosity, what do you make of Spencer W. Kimball’s challenge to Mormon artists, his insistence that we ought to have our own Shakespeares and Miltons? His definition of great art seemed to have more to do with the sorts of artistic and aesthetic judgments serious critics might apply than with popular reception, while you seem to be focusing more on reception and market viability. I think that Dutcher has certainly been more successful by critical standards than most Mormon filmmakers; do you think it’s a problem at all, given Kimball’s aspirations for Mormon art, that Mormon moviegoers prefer to be entertained than challenged?
Comment # 6 left by Kristine on April 17th, 2007
Kristine, I’m not sure why you’d make that assumption, since “Saints and Soldiers” was much more successful in the film festival circuit than any of Dutcher’s Films, and Kieth Merrill has one Acadamy Awards for his work…
While I haven’t even read Jettboy’s post above, but this seems like critical success to me.
Comment # 7 left by Matt W. on April 17th, 2007
I think that, like Milton and Shakespeare and Michaelangelo, were artists first and religious people second. Therefore, a Mormon artist should be an artist first and a Mormon second. Not only that, but think of the centuries that passed between all great artists. Sometimes there is a genuine artistic movement in a relatively short time with a handful of memorable works. At other times, there is one great artist that did something so special that it continues with us today.
As a sidenote, there is another problem that I see that makes it almost impossible for a great artist to emerge in or outside of the Church. Most of the great ones had patrons who sought out and encouraged greatness. It freed them from the limitations of popularity, but still challenged them to make something that could be appriciated by those that hired them. Not only that, but usually the patrons were educated enough to understand at least the rudiments of artistic theory and practice.
As to Spencer W. Kimballs words, I don’t know what to think at this time. Perhaps, like so much prophecy, it will never be fulfilled until the Millenium. Frankly, what does “Mormon Milton and Shakespeare” mean? You could have a “13 year old Milton and Shakespeare,” but that doesn’t mean they would be comparable. If we are to take his words seriously, I think what he really means is that Mormons need to look at the history and scriptures and use them as inspiration rather than how “artistic” we can be. I use Orson Scott Card way too much, but (as overinflated as he probably would think this to be) he is our first and so far only Milton and Shakespeare in existance. Yet, only 1/3 of his works are “Mormon” specific, but almost all of them are very Mormon.
As I have always said, Mormonism should be in the background and not the foreground unless there is something about the subject that goes beyond the subject. We must get out of “this is Mormon” and start saying, “this is what I want to do.” Visual artists, on the other hand, need to go to more diverse school and stop copying each other.
Comment # 8 left by Jettboy on April 17th, 2007
you don;t know me and i am pretty sure i would not want to know you after reading just the title of your post. As a inactive LDS women, a mother to a child that was stillborn, i and an artist to top it all off. I think you should reconsider what you call the “stillbirth” of Mormon Art
the title of your post is in appropriate. it is vulgar and enraging, if you were the parent of a child that died in this manner you would never in a million years think to use this word.
Do you know what stillbirth is defined as? here let me share with you the very narrow definition of stillbirth.
stillbirth |ˈstilˌbərθ|
noun
the birth of an infant that has died in the womb (strictly, after having survived through at least the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, earlier instances being regarded as abortion or miscarriage).
the death of a fetus at any time after the twentieth week of pregnancy. Stillbirth is also referred to as intrauterine fetal death (IUFD).
perhaps you meant to be glib with your post title b you just come across as ignorant. if you intended to incense your readers or others that might find you by way of a search engine you did it. and for that your a small small person. there is nothing deep or noteworthy about your words, or your opinion.
Comment # 9 left by Christine on January 1st, 2008