Flipping through channels the other day I came across a worship service, produced by a local Christian church. It left much to be desired. Washed out colors, long camera shots from boring angles, ancient graphics.It bothered me. My initial thought was: here is another church taking the most powerful message on earth and subjecting it to mediocrity, at best.
However, my reaction made me question my assumptions about aesthetics and where I stand on the ever-present debate of form vs. function. And this, especially in the context of current cultural forces.
I once debated a program manager of a religious television network along these lines. He insisted on playing old material that matched the description of the above worship service. His perspective was that the content itself was too good to shelve. I argued that poor production value compromised the effectiveness of the network as it attempted to compete in the present television milieu.
Of course, that was based on my assumption that competition was his main goal (or even one of his goals), as is mostly the case with traditional television outlets. Which makes for an interesting set of questions.
What do religious organizations hope to achieve by having a presence on television? Is the goal to maximize audience size or to simply fulfill a (co)mission of presenting a message?
In theological terms, which ranks above the other, form or function? And is that even a fair question or one that could be easily answered?
What assumptions are we making when it comes to television? Is television itself an aesthetically oriented medium or simply a broadly applied vehicle of communication?
And are certain aesthetic approaches more effective at creating and communicating messages over one medium vs. another (a derivative of Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” argument).
Further, what role do aesthetics play in the expression and presentation of religious messages? Historically, communities of faith have, for the most part, embraced artistic expression. Arguably, prior to the Renaissance, the Christian church at-large dominated the (western) world of art and relied heavily on creative forms of presentation.
By contrast, a significant portion of today’s Church seems to have streamlined its commitment to the arts, and to aesthetic value in general.
One wonders if this shift from form to function was influenced by larger cultural dynamics such as the Modernism movement in western architecture. Catalyzed by the likes of Adolf Loos, who claimed that “ornament is criminal” and Louis Sullivan who coined the phrase “form (ever) follows function”.
The connection is rather loose. However, I can’t help but wonder whether there’s been a cultural trickle down effect leading to the function-oriented view adopted by some churches.
In the end, a counter movement is also evident as more and more newly started local churches are integrating artistic value into both facility design and ministry. The trend has led to conferences such as C3 (Creative Churches Conference) hosted by the Fellowship Church in Grapevine, TX.
At the same time, flipping through local channels on any given Sunday morning makes the case that the above questions still linger in our society. I’ll be considering perspectives and implications to these questions in upcoming entries.
(Image courtesy of autowhich)
Posts
