John Franklin
John Franklin, Executive Director of Imago, talks with Sue Careless about the faith-based charity and the interplay of faith and art.
TAP: Why was the name IMAGO chosen?
JF: I don’t know the actual history of how the name was chosen. However, Imago comes from Imago Dei. We are made in the image of God and we are called to image forth who we are as creatures of God, as human beings.
TAP: What biblical doctrines speak to the interplay of art and faith?
JF: I look at this from a Trinitarian perspective. First, the Doctrine of Creation: we are in God’s image as creative beings. We have this ability to create. Second, the Doctrine of the Incarnation. The invisible becomes visible so God did not reject embodiment and the arts are deeply embodied, sensual. Creation tells us we are all human and the Doctrine of Redemption makes us fully human. Then the Spirit. All art is inherently eschatological. It provides a glimpse into the world that is different from our normal experiences – it opens possibilities for our understanding and hints that our ordinary experience is not the whole picture – and so takes you from the present moment into the future. It is sign and symbol that suggests fresh perspectives and so through it we catch a glimpse of that time when all things will be made new. When there will be a new heaven and a new earth. And what is art if it isn’t newness? In art the world you experience isn’t the final world. There are hints, traces of the transcendent, of the coming Kingdom in art whether the artist is a believer or an unbeliever.
TAP: But what about stuff that seems very sacrilegious?
JF: It might seem sacrilegious but it may not be. It seems offensive. Take the Chocolate Jesus. Could it be saying, “What’s the Church done with Jesus or with Easter? Has it made Christ into this saccharine figure?” When something seems offensive, we need to ask, “Is it blasphemous or prophetic and insightful?” You’ve got to give art time to interpret it. The artist may not have intended it to be prophetic but art can take on a life of its own beyond what the artist intended. The work may be “sacrilegious” but even then, it expresses a truth about how the artist experiences the world.
TAP: While beauty can suggest hints of the transcendent it can also deteriorate into sentimentality.
JF: Yes. Beauty can easily deteriorate into sentimentality especially in the context of faith. Sentimentality is a real danger. Artists need to be truth-tellers. Even if the truth is dark, tell it. Don’t be afraid to tell the truth. Art can be disruptive and prophetic (and in that way is akin to the gospel). There is a negative side to sentimentality and that is when it becomes a matter of emotional self-indulgence. North American culture is – I believe – sentimental (“If it feels good, do it”) and the Church doesn’t escape. Much of our art and worship music is sentimental, emotionally self-indulgent.
Beauty, at its best, has power. It can move us inwardly and capture our attention. However, I carry a suspicion about beauty because beauty can be deceptive, misleading and superficial. We need to distinguish between aesthetic experience and the experience of divine presence. You might have an aesthetic experience in an art gallery or at a concert. You might sense a divine presence there too but it is different. What I’m interested in beyond beauty is glory. In Scripture there is very little about beauty but lots about glory. We need to discuss what the difference is between beauty and glory.
TAP: Isn’t glory more about God?
JF: Yes, but as Christians we are to reflect that glory somehow. Paul tells the Corinthian Christians in his second letter to them: “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18). However, both beauty and the divine presence are elusive. When you try to possess and manage them, you diminish them. In our culture we want to possess things.
TAP: Fr. Raymond de Souza has observed that the super-rich today, unlike in the past, are not patrons of the arts. “They collect, but do not commission. They curate what previous generations have produced but are not ambitious about creating something new. Instead of visiting artists’ studios to sponsor new talents, they head to the auction house to purchase the famous names of the past.”
JF: There is some truth to that in broad strokes but some people have given thousands, millions of dollars in support of the arts. They do commission works – music, theatre, or visual art – but this is more common in Europe. The impact could be very significant if there were more Christians who would encourage and support younger artists.
TAP: When Christians are deciding where to donate their money, it would be easy to give priority to the poor and destitute and to missions that evangelize.
JF: What we don’t understand fully is the humanizing influence of art. It reminds us of who we are. It’s hugely powerful. It’s not just “I appreciate art.” It’s important for the culture, for identity, for hope and for human flourishing. The cultural mandate is expressed in Genesis 1:28 where humanity is called to “be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it …”. Simply put, this is an invitation to create culture – whether cultivating the land, building cities or making art. Humans are invited to engage the givenness of God’s good world and exercise our creative gifts to give new shape to what we have been given.
TAP: De Souza has also said, “We need art in the spaces that mark our daily life, places where we work and meet and play and pray. Not just quarantined in museums and art galleries.” Are you trying to get art by Christians out into the world?
Yes. We need not just decorative art but rotating fine art shows in not only colleges but also in coffee shops and restaurants, homes and work environments. Art should be woven into life, not simply objectified in gallery and concert halls. This is a win-win for everyone: artists, owners and patrons. We hope that Crossings will take art in its many forms into the streets of downtown Toronto next year. And there will be opportunities to discuss the works and engage with the artists. [See p. 4 for more on Crossings.]
TAP: What can individual churches do to encourage faith and art in their congregations? Should more visuals be used in the pulpit or will they just be distracting?
JF: Art should not be just an appendage, a frill; it needs to be integrated. If you do it, do it well. It can be distracting but it can be enriching. You need to have people who have good artistic sensibilities to help in the planning. Liturgy in its own way is art that serves to tell a story. One key thing a church can do is provide a space where you could have an art show or a poetry reading or a musical presentation. And be sure to have a conversation afterwards so there is more participation and involvement.
A major problem in some Christian communities is that we think of ourselves as Christians first and forget we are humans. We stress the doctrine of Redemption but forget the Doctrine of Creation, that we are all created in the image of God. As important as it is to be a believer, we are human beings who are redeemed. Sometimes we are so busy being Christians we forget our humanity. We feel we have to preach in our art. Yet art can act as a bridge that opens a space for conversation about faith in a non-threatening environment.
TAP: Yes. Dr. Janine Langan has said, “Great art makes you shudder. Yet it makes you human.”
JF: Yes, I believe Janine is right.
TAP: Christians in one tradition and age often need help interpreting art from another tradition or era, to grasp motifs and symbols not part of their own spiritual heritage. Protestants need help reading icons. We need to let Christians from other cultures and denominations minister to our imaginations and souls if we are to mature as Christians.
JF: It’s all too easy to write something off that you can’t connect with immediately. Instead we need to ask ourselves, “What’s happening here? What emotion does this provoke in me?” That’s where an aesthetic education is so important, whether obtained in college courses or through good books – or through a faith community that takes the aesthetic side of life seriously and so fosters a deeper sense of our humanity.
TAP: In 1999 I viewed Under the Sign of the Cross: Creative Expressions of Christianity in Canada at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. But generally speaking, there appears to be little or no place for religious sensibility in our secular art institutions.
JF: There are some hopeful signs: Seeing Salvation: Images of Christian Art in the National Art Gallery in London in 2000 was an outstanding exhibition centred on Jesus and it drew one of the largest crowds in the museum’s history. And there have been many other highly successful exhibitions with a focus on the spiritual or religious. More recently there was Mystical Landscapes at the Art Gallery of Ontario (2016-2017).
It is the most successful show that the AGO originated. During the five-year preparation for the exhibit, its AGO Curator, Dr. Katharine Lochnan, met in consultation a number of us associated with the Toronto School of Theology. There were varying views about the subject of mysticism but that diversity served to enrich the discussions about its relationship to art. Katharine later invited a number of us to contribute one of the twenty essays in the catalogue.
After the exhibit closed in Toronto, it moved to the Musée d’Orsay in Paris. I would advise you to buy the English language catalogue, which is much more than a mere catalogue, because the French version published in Paris excised much of the theology.
TAP: Canadian theologian James K. A. Smith has recently been making the claim that we are liturgical beings. Do you agree?
JF: Yes. Call-and-response is at the heart of liturgy. And it is a good way to live, listening to God’s call and responding. Smith argues in Desiring the Kingdom that we are liturgical beings and says what’s really important is not what you know but what you love. Smith is following Augustine here. We have been Cartesians too long: “I think therefore I am.” And the Church has bought into that. Spiritual life is not just ordering your beliefs but ordering your desires. We think if we get all our beliefs in order, we’ll be fine. I’m not disparaging beliefs, but love is also a way of knowing.
Art speaks to the affections, to the desires. It moves us one way or another. We’re engaged there. You have in art a call and you are invited to respond.
TAP: You have said that “Art invites us to engage in a hospitable posture.” What do you mean?
JF: At its foundation human life is relational and the opportunities to be in “relation” are innumerable. One place where that invitation takes place is with art. You are being hospitable to the artist. I’m going to listen to this music, hear this poem, look at this painting.
What the relational posture fosters is engagement for the sake of someone or something else. Hospitality allows me to be affirming, inviting, caring yet we can still speak honestly to the other and it is an alternative to the prevailing call to tolerance. Tolerance silences you. You cannot say what you really think. Hospitality allows you to engage with one another. What happens in our culture is hostility; if I disagree with you, we get hostile. As Henri Nouwen has suggested, we need to go from hostility to hospitality, to being charitable yet still speaking and listening honestly to one another.
French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil said that at the heart of spirituality is attentiveness and we’re invited to be attentive in art. Take a moment to look at this painting. Take a moment to read this poem. Take some time to listen to this music. Art cultivates attentiveness; it nurtures this valuable human sensibility. TAP
