|
View the H-Stained-Glass Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Stained-Glass's October 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Stained-Glass's October 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Stained-Glass home page.
Jon asked: >When designing for a spiritual space, is it better to treat the space like >any other and to use the religious information like that you would use to >design for a theatrical back drop, or do you need to have belief in that >faith in order to interpret the information with understanding? what have >artists done in the past? Jon, what an interesting question! I'm sure it'll spark lots of interesting debate and thoughts. My two ha'pence worth I think windows should NOT be theatrical back drops - that's the job for the church itself - but extra props, in keeping with the general feel. Having seen windows designed by staunch believers and by atheists, I think what is important is a sympathy to the set of beliefs rather than actually sharing them yourself, like Vaughan Williams writing the most swooningly-beautiful church music though he was a non-believer. Having designed for Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Presbyterian clients, I assume they choose someone they feel will be sympathetic; if you respect the views of the clients and have an awareness of the space, I think whether or not one believes is irrelevant - it's not about you, it's about the window, I suppose, and that should be best you can do whatever. However, a knowledge of specific symbolism is often extremely useful (a vicar once told me that one of the reasons they chose me to make three windows was that at the initial meeting with the committee, I told them that their colour choice was liturgically incorrect - did that matter? (I was young and brash!) Oops, they said, yes it does. Really grateful that I had actually listened to my teacher on our trips round churches! On that occasion, I produced three of the few windows where I actually think I got it about right for the place and them) And then there is the interesting question of the Fine Artist. On a recent trip to Scotland, I looked at some windows designed by Jemima Blackburn (her cousin Beatrix Potter immortalised her as Jemima Puddleduck!), a professed atheist and noted watercolour artist who counted Ruskin and Landseer amongst her admirers. They were wonderful compositions, beautifully filling the space, partly marred by the poor glasses available and the fact that she was a painter on paper not glass, but the most important thing I thought about them was that they felt like wonderful studies which would have been equally at home in a museum; they had "church" themes, but they didn't really add anything to the feel - the spirituality, if you will - of the place. The example par excellence I think of is Chagall, who does wonderful paintings, amazingly interpreted by Marc, which are full of his own personal symbolism, no matter the denomination of the building. Personally, I think they are often hugely self-indulgent and take over the buildings - so they are not churches about religion and belief but places to see Chagall windows. I think we owe it to our clients to interpret their beliefs as appropriate for their building, rather than the sort of paint-by-numbers hackneyed approach I sadly so often came across. (I don't say I do it, I just aspire to it) But I don't think we need to share it to empathise with it. Rona --
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|