Richard Davey writes:
I'm finding this conversation really fascinating and helpful, particularly because I am currently trying to re-write my PhD thesis for publication, and many of these questions lie at the heart of what I was then, and am still, addressing - the taboo surrounding an artists' faith.
Fundamentally I think your project is worthwhile and important, and my comments arise on that fascinating edge where differences in nuance and emphasis can lead to development and transformation. Your considered and thoughtful responses to my own comments have provoked further reflection both about specific points and more generally.
None of the books and exhibitions that I have cited so far comprehensively address Christian influences on Modern and Contemporary Art and I am unaware of any book or exhibition that seeks to do so.
1. Do you think that a comprehensive survey is possible? I think that you are setting yourself up for a fall by an ambition that sets out to be comprehensive. It seems to me a narrow focus would allow you a better chance to realise your desire to be thorough and at the same time to raise the fundamental questions that you are seeking to address. By striving to be comprehensive you are either going to have to be so broad that your project will be full of holes, or you will never finish.
2. What do you mean by Christian influences? This is such a simple statement and yet so problematic. Do you mean influences that come from culture that are specifically Christian i.e.. the use of Christian iconography? Do you mean the essential themes that lie at the heart of Christianity- but what are those, and can we say that an influence comes from active 'Christian' influence or from the residual Christianity that underpins western society? Do you mean the faith of the artist? Or is it your own Christian faith that is being read into Modern and Contemporary art?
3. Do you mean British, French, Italian, Spanish, American art. This may seem a strange point since so much contemporary and modern art transcends geographic borders, but I think this is important when addressing the subject of faith and Christianity, because in reality attitudes to faith are fundamentally different across these different contexts. American attitudes to Faith and Christianity are very different to British 'secular' attitudes, where faith is on the back foot. The recent American presidential elections highlight this with their strong influence of faith, whereas in the upcoming general election in Britain will faith feature, or will we once again have the Blair effect - where faith and public life don't mix? And then on the continent Christian art is often tied into a Roman Catholic spirituality and integration into liturgy that is fundamentally different to British Anglicanism.
You echo Taylor's criticism of Greenberg, but I don't have a problem with Greenberg's approach - why is that? I suppose I know that when I write on an artist I am aware that I am going to be addressing it from the starting point of my own world-view, and that my reading will be coloured by that. However much I try to be open to the full range of influences that may be found in artist's work I can never achieve a truly objective stance, I will always see a spiritual perspective and this will obscure some of the secular perspectives that may equally legitimately exist in it as well. Again, in your review of Traces du sacre your implicit criticism is based upon what I take as an objection to their position that argues that the secularization of society delivered artists from their subordination to the Church and that, as a result, the traces of spirituality found in both Modern and Contemporary Art are ones that stand outside of organised religion (and Christianity, in particular). I may not completely agree with the origin being secularisation but I think that they are fundamentally right. In my many years of doing research in this area the majority of artists I have met say very early on 'I am not religious', and you have to accept this position. They are very rarely church goers and often stand outside organised religion. If I had used Church membership ,or adherence to a specific organised religion as a criteria for inclusion I would have had a very limited pool of artists of a quality worth addressing. My reflection over the years is that for artists their engagement with their faith and spiritual impulse occurs within the loneliness of the creative process, whereas non-artists do so within the parameters of organised religious practice and membership. The artists I have met who have an incredibly deep faith and highly developed spiritual awareness support Linda Woodhead's arguments that faith in the uk is becoming increasingly implicit rather than explicit, something carried out privately rather than within the bounds of traditional associational religion. Cecil Collins was an artist of incredible faith, but very explicitly anti-religion.
I remember Peter Eugene Ball's frustration and anger at being labelled a secret Christian by Keith Walker in his Images and Idols book. Peters' reaction was, 'I am not a Christian, and I know that I am not a Christian because I do not believe in the resurrection'. Yet Peter is a person of deep spiritual awareness and faith which shapes his life. Your comments about your friend Alan Stewart's reading of Andres Serrano bring this to mind. We should be honest in what we are doing. If we are doing theology through art lets say that, rather than trying to imply that our reading is necessarily implicit within the work. Is his reading true to the embodiment of the work? I think the work is what it is, an image of a crucifix suspended in a golden liquid, which we later discover is urine. That image says nothing more than that. The reading into that by the viewer is valid, but not embodied in the work. Similarly an image of the crucifixion is nothing more than paint pushed around a surface to make marks that depict a man on a cross. Any theological interpretation occurs in the viewer's mind not in the work. Paint cannot speak of resurrection, it can provoke emotions that can evoke a sensation of joy or despair etc, but resurrection etc and Christian theology are not emotions, they are concepts that are formed in the mind, constructs of theology. I actually am not certain that art can be 'Christian', it is the interpretation of the subject matter that is Christian.
I suppose I am interested in the faith that an artist has, and how this is unconsciously reflected in the sensibilities that ripple the surface of an art work. I remember being at an ACE event chaired by Marjorie Allthorpe-Guyton where she asked the panel does an artist have to have faith to use Christian iconography or work for the church. The answer has to be no, and that is important, but what gets hidden is the possibility that artists with faith may explore the subject differently and that this needs to also be recognised. But we don't want to ask about an artist's faith. We are too influenced by the de-humanising debates that Dan Siedell is currently discussing on his blog, where we are suspicious of allowing an artist's intentions into a work of art. But there is a difference for me between artists having specific agendas which they want to put into a work, and the influence of the integral world view that an artist brings into the creative process, often without conscious thought.
Where did this denigration of an artist's faith begin? I think one place we can discern it is in Art Sacre, and their belief that the quality of an artist is more important than their faith. We see this recapitulated in Sister Wendy and Keith Walker who both use artists for their fame rather than their faith.
Another question about the airbrushing for me is whether the airbrushing is about Christian influences themselves. Figurative art of a certain kind, abstract art of a certain kind, and other types of artistic practice and concern have also been airbrushed out. Beauty is treated with suspicion by art history and theory, the sublime has become secularised, mystery has been denigrated. Artists continue to address these themes but critical theory, which in the uk has been dominated by continental post-modern philosophy, finds them problematic. The visual has been denigrated by schools of art history and cultural theory dominated by philosophy, semiotics, psychology rather than visual aesthetics cf. Bourriaud's relational aesthetics which underpinned altermodern at Tate Britain recently. But artists exploring the spiritual tend to naturally explore these taboo territories of the sublime, beauty, wonder etc. I think art history ignores Christian influences not out of an anti-Christian agenda, but because the themes that underpin 'Christian' spiritual art, and that absorb artists intrigued by a spiritual world fall outside the themes that are dominant in the art world at present, where the world is a hyper-real, space of irony - something which is antipathetic to a perspective intrigued by transcendent possibilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Garbarek & The Hilliard Ensemble - Parce Mihi Domine.
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Windows on the world (55)
Ditchingham, 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buddy Miller - Worry Too Much.
Monday, 25 May 2009
Angels & Demons
The fact that Angels & Demons the novel was written before The Da Vinci Code but filmed after enables Dan Brown and the filmakers to make the film an extended apology to the Roman Catholic Church for the furore caused by The Da Vinci Code.
First, the film sees Brown's central character, Robert Langdon, reaching a rapprochement with the Vatican which allows him access to its archives and enables him to solve the mystery which threatens to undermine that Church. This occurs in a fictional post Da Vinci Code context which mirrors the actual disapproval of The Da Vinci Code by the Vatican.
Then, the unfolding of the plot of Angels & Demons reveals the central mystery as fraudulent, the use of a supposed historical secret society for contemporary personal and political ends. This is, of course, the wider Church position on the supposed historical materials on which Brown based the plot of The Da Vinci Code.
The film itself is, like the book, a prime-time plot-driven thriller where what will happen next is the main (or only) reason for both watching and bearing with the unlikely twists and turns to the plot that Langdon uncovers and survives.
I'd read the book some time ago but didn't remember which character was the villain or the main twist on which the plot turns. That either says something sad about my memory or more probably about the pleasure of Brown's thriller format being found in the roller-coaster read to resolution rather than in any sense of substance in plot or character. I enjoy the occasional roller-coaster ride, just as I enjoyed Angels & Demons, but wouldn't want that experience to characterise my everyday existence or my usual reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Drake - Time Has Told Me.
First, the film sees Brown's central character, Robert Langdon, reaching a rapprochement with the Vatican which allows him access to its archives and enables him to solve the mystery which threatens to undermine that Church. This occurs in a fictional post Da Vinci Code context which mirrors the actual disapproval of The Da Vinci Code by the Vatican.
Then, the unfolding of the plot of Angels & Demons reveals the central mystery as fraudulent, the use of a supposed historical secret society for contemporary personal and political ends. This is, of course, the wider Church position on the supposed historical materials on which Brown based the plot of The Da Vinci Code.
The film itself is, like the book, a prime-time plot-driven thriller where what will happen next is the main (or only) reason for both watching and bearing with the unlikely twists and turns to the plot that Langdon uncovers and survives.
I'd read the book some time ago but didn't remember which character was the villain or the main twist on which the plot turns. That either says something sad about my memory or more probably about the pleasure of Brown's thriller format being found in the roller-coaster read to resolution rather than in any sense of substance in plot or character. I enjoy the occasional roller-coaster ride, just as I enjoyed Angels & Demons, but wouldn't want that experience to characterise my everyday existence or my usual reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Drake - Time Has Told Me.
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Responses to 'Airbrushed from Art History?' (2)
In his comments about the 'Airbrushed from Art History?' series of posts, Richard Davey wrote firstly that:
"You contradict yourself from the start. Christianity and religious influences have not been airbrushed from art history, as the books and exhibitions you cite demonstrate."
The books and exhibitions that I have cited to date in this series constitute a miniscule proportion of those that address Modern and Contemporary Art as a whole. None of the books and exhibitions that I have cited so far comprehensively address Christian influences on Modern and Contemporary Art and I am unaware of any book or exhibition that seeks to do so.
Books and exhibitions on particular movements will reference Christian influences, as with the books on Symbolism that I have cited thus far, but this is generally as part of a sub-set of influences and usually in terms that are somewhat disparaging e.g. Robert Goldwater's argument that the "clear religious message" of Émile Bernard and Maurice Denis is deterimental to the art or Michelle Facos' statement that the "Catholic revival in art and literature ... frequently descended into xenophobia."
Several of the authors that I have cited make the argument that I have summarised in the phrase 'Airbrushed from Air History.' For instance, in the second post I quoted Mark C. Taylor as arguing that the way in which the influential art critic Clement Greenberg defined the terms of debate "effectively obscures the self-confessed spiritual preoccupations of the very artists whose work he analyzes." In the third post of the series, I reviewed the Traces du Sacré exhibition at the Centre Georges Pompidou, an exhibition about the exploration of spiritual themes within most of the major movements in Modern Art but one which argued that the secularization of society delivered artists from their subordination to the Church and that, as a result, the traces of spirituality found in both Modern and Contemporary Art are ones that stand outside of organised religion (and Christianity, in particular). As Greenberg and Traces du Sacré tell stories of Modern and Contemporary Art in ways that obscure or ignore the Christian influences on the artists whose work they discuss, it seems legitimate to describe this as airbrushing Christian influences out of art history.
Other writers cited in the initial posts make essentially the same argument and I could cite a wider range of writers to support my point. James Elkins in On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art may well be the author who has made this argument most strongly:
"Sooner or later, if you love art, you will come across a strange fact: there is almost no modern religious art in museums or in books of art history. It is a state of affairs that is at once obvious and odd, known to everyone and yet hardly whispered about ... a certain kind of academic art historical writing treats religion as an interloper, something that just has no place in serious scholarship ... Straightforward talk about religion is rare in art departments and art schools, and wholly absent from art journals unless the work in question is transgressive. Sincere, exploratory religious and spiritual work goes unremarked. Students who make works that are infused with spiritual or religious meanings must normally be content with analysis of their works' formal properties, technique, or mode of presentation. Working artists concerned with themes of spirituality (again, excepting work that is critical or ironic about religion) normally will not attract the attention of people who write for art magazines ... An observer of the art world might well come to the conclusion that religious practice and religious ideas are not relevant to the art world unless they are treated with scepticism. And that's odd, because there is a tremendous amount of religious art ..."
For these reasons I think it is legitimate to write of Christian influences as having been airbrushed from art history. To do so does not mean that there are no books of exhibitions where that influence is acknowledged but to say that particular ways of telling the story of Modern and Contemporary Art do underplay or ignore the extent of those influences.
"The problem is not that Christianity has been airbrushed out but that it has been understood and read from outside the parameters of faith."
The initial posts in this series reference the argument that the way in which the story of Modern Art has been told has had a secularising agenda. This is highlighted particularly in the first post where I quote Sally Promey writing that the "strongest determinant in this "modernist divide" regarding art and religion is the lingering paradigm of the secularisation theory of modernity."
I make use of this argument to explain why Christian influences have often been airbrushed from art history while Davey uses it to argue "that the recognition of these influences has come from a particularly secular and disengaged position." The two do not, however, need to be mutually exclusive. It is true that there are books and exhibitions which recognise these influences and I have cited several in these early posts but this does not negate my argument that there are others (of significance and in significant numbers) which ignore or downplay these influences.
Where books and exhibitions do recognise these infuences, as with Goldwater or Facos, I agree with Davey that "the interpretations of works which are informed by a position of faith, or employ christian iconography are largely made from a position of secular theology, which seems to offer a contradictory sensibility to the one the work itself seems to embody, or we feel before a work."
"Theology has airbrushed art out of its history as well. There are any numbers of books including David Brown, George Pattison, Richard Harries etc., which engage with art and use images to offer insights and reflections on theology and biblical studies, But what they engage with is iconography, they do not allow the work of art to be a sensuous embodied thing which offers its own knowledge of the world; providing a natural theology that may not sit comfortably within the confines of theological method and praxis."
I agree fully with both statements made here and don't see these arguments as invalidating the basis of my series, based as it is in art history rather than theological history.
In relation to Davey's first statement, in my second post I highlighted Mark C. Taylor's argument that throughout the twentieth century Christian theologians and philosophers of religion have been, for the most part, either critical or dismissive of the arts. Taylor places the blame for this on the influence of the dialectical theology of Karl Barth.
Davey's second point that, where theologians engage with art, what they often focus on is iconography rather the work as a whole is, I think, also largely correct. This is, I think, the major focus of Daniel A. Siedell too when he suggests in God in the Gallery that contemporary culture does not need the “Christian artists,” for which Protestant writers such as Francis Schaeffer and Hans R. Rookmaaker have argued, instead it needs “critics and curators who have a rich vocabulary from which to revive the sacramental and liturgical identity of human practice and to demonstrate that this identity finds its most complete and profound embodiment in the Nicene Christian faith.” His book was written to offer "a way to do a Christian approach to modern and contemporary art that could accommodate urinals and dripped paint on canvases and chocolate cubes." In other words, to engage as Christians with all art holistically and not just in terms of iconography.
"... just as we need to be careful of approaches that read a secular theology into works that are informed by a metaphysical theology, so we need to beware of reading our own faith into works that are essentially 'secular' [whatever that means]."
I think that this statement holds good in relation to my intentions in this series i.e. that in writing what is essentially art history I should beware of reading Christian influences into works where no evidence exists of such influences being a factor for the artist(s) concerned. However, if we are talking about the work of interpreting art for contemporary culture (the task that Siedell outlined above) then I would argue that interpreting essentially 'secular' (whatever that means) artworks in ways that inform our faith is legitimate as such interpretation is as much about the viewer's response as it is about the artist's intentions providing it responds to the "work of art as a sensuous embodied thing.".
My friend, Alan Stewart, has spoken of this in his 'Icons or Eyesores' presentation which ends by examining responses to Andres Serrano's Piss Christ. He notes Serrano's motivation for the work of critiquing mass produced Christian icongraphy before suggesting that reflecting on the submersion of a crucifix in urine can lead to a profound reflection on the incarnation and crucifixion as a submersion in the detritus of human existence. This reflection is not based on the artist's intention but is nevertheless true to the embodiment of the artwork itself.
"... the real problem, the lack of attention to the work of art itself as something made by an individual with their own subjective space within the world. The issue is not airbrushing, but respect - respect for the work of art as an object itself made by an embodied human being for embodied human beings."
I think that this paragraph shows that what Davey and I are debating are nuances or emphases rather than fundamental differences. I would agree that where airbrushing occurs (and I continue to maintain that there are many examples, both by art historians and theologians) this shows a lack of "respect for the work of art as an object itself made by an embodied human being for embodied human beings"
My intent in this series is to respond to the lack of respect shown to those works and their embodied human creators which are informed by a position of faith, employ christian iconography or are influenced the heritage of Christianity, when these influences/positions are ignored or downplayed. In seeking in a modest fashion through this project to carry that out, I agree that it is also vital that the same respect is shown to works and their interpretation which are essentially 'secular.' I agree that respect is the broader agenda but continue to think that responding to airbrushing where it has occurred is a necessary and legitimate task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U2 - Moment Of Surrender.
"You contradict yourself from the start. Christianity and religious influences have not been airbrushed from art history, as the books and exhibitions you cite demonstrate."
The books and exhibitions that I have cited to date in this series constitute a miniscule proportion of those that address Modern and Contemporary Art as a whole. None of the books and exhibitions that I have cited so far comprehensively address Christian influences on Modern and Contemporary Art and I am unaware of any book or exhibition that seeks to do so.
Books and exhibitions on particular movements will reference Christian influences, as with the books on Symbolism that I have cited thus far, but this is generally as part of a sub-set of influences and usually in terms that are somewhat disparaging e.g. Robert Goldwater's argument that the "clear religious message" of Émile Bernard and Maurice Denis is deterimental to the art or Michelle Facos' statement that the "Catholic revival in art and literature ... frequently descended into xenophobia."
Several of the authors that I have cited make the argument that I have summarised in the phrase 'Airbrushed from Air History.' For instance, in the second post I quoted Mark C. Taylor as arguing that the way in which the influential art critic Clement Greenberg defined the terms of debate "effectively obscures the self-confessed spiritual preoccupations of the very artists whose work he analyzes." In the third post of the series, I reviewed the Traces du Sacré exhibition at the Centre Georges Pompidou, an exhibition about the exploration of spiritual themes within most of the major movements in Modern Art but one which argued that the secularization of society delivered artists from their subordination to the Church and that, as a result, the traces of spirituality found in both Modern and Contemporary Art are ones that stand outside of organised religion (and Christianity, in particular). As Greenberg and Traces du Sacré tell stories of Modern and Contemporary Art in ways that obscure or ignore the Christian influences on the artists whose work they discuss, it seems legitimate to describe this as airbrushing Christian influences out of art history.
Other writers cited in the initial posts make essentially the same argument and I could cite a wider range of writers to support my point. James Elkins in On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art may well be the author who has made this argument most strongly:
"Sooner or later, if you love art, you will come across a strange fact: there is almost no modern religious art in museums or in books of art history. It is a state of affairs that is at once obvious and odd, known to everyone and yet hardly whispered about ... a certain kind of academic art historical writing treats religion as an interloper, something that just has no place in serious scholarship ... Straightforward talk about religion is rare in art departments and art schools, and wholly absent from art journals unless the work in question is transgressive. Sincere, exploratory religious and spiritual work goes unremarked. Students who make works that are infused with spiritual or religious meanings must normally be content with analysis of their works' formal properties, technique, or mode of presentation. Working artists concerned with themes of spirituality (again, excepting work that is critical or ironic about religion) normally will not attract the attention of people who write for art magazines ... An observer of the art world might well come to the conclusion that religious practice and religious ideas are not relevant to the art world unless they are treated with scepticism. And that's odd, because there is a tremendous amount of religious art ..."
For these reasons I think it is legitimate to write of Christian influences as having been airbrushed from art history. To do so does not mean that there are no books of exhibitions where that influence is acknowledged but to say that particular ways of telling the story of Modern and Contemporary Art do underplay or ignore the extent of those influences.
"The problem is not that Christianity has been airbrushed out but that it has been understood and read from outside the parameters of faith."
The initial posts in this series reference the argument that the way in which the story of Modern Art has been told has had a secularising agenda. This is highlighted particularly in the first post where I quote Sally Promey writing that the "strongest determinant in this "modernist divide" regarding art and religion is the lingering paradigm of the secularisation theory of modernity."
I make use of this argument to explain why Christian influences have often been airbrushed from art history while Davey uses it to argue "that the recognition of these influences has come from a particularly secular and disengaged position." The two do not, however, need to be mutually exclusive. It is true that there are books and exhibitions which recognise these influences and I have cited several in these early posts but this does not negate my argument that there are others (of significance and in significant numbers) which ignore or downplay these influences.
Where books and exhibitions do recognise these infuences, as with Goldwater or Facos, I agree with Davey that "the interpretations of works which are informed by a position of faith, or employ christian iconography are largely made from a position of secular theology, which seems to offer a contradictory sensibility to the one the work itself seems to embody, or we feel before a work."
"Theology has airbrushed art out of its history as well. There are any numbers of books including David Brown, George Pattison, Richard Harries etc., which engage with art and use images to offer insights and reflections on theology and biblical studies, But what they engage with is iconography, they do not allow the work of art to be a sensuous embodied thing which offers its own knowledge of the world; providing a natural theology that may not sit comfortably within the confines of theological method and praxis."
I agree fully with both statements made here and don't see these arguments as invalidating the basis of my series, based as it is in art history rather than theological history.
In relation to Davey's first statement, in my second post I highlighted Mark C. Taylor's argument that throughout the twentieth century Christian theologians and philosophers of religion have been, for the most part, either critical or dismissive of the arts. Taylor places the blame for this on the influence of the dialectical theology of Karl Barth.
Davey's second point that, where theologians engage with art, what they often focus on is iconography rather the work as a whole is, I think, also largely correct. This is, I think, the major focus of Daniel A. Siedell too when he suggests in God in the Gallery that contemporary culture does not need the “Christian artists,” for which Protestant writers such as Francis Schaeffer and Hans R. Rookmaaker have argued, instead it needs “critics and curators who have a rich vocabulary from which to revive the sacramental and liturgical identity of human practice and to demonstrate that this identity finds its most complete and profound embodiment in the Nicene Christian faith.” His book was written to offer "a way to do a Christian approach to modern and contemporary art that could accommodate urinals and dripped paint on canvases and chocolate cubes." In other words, to engage as Christians with all art holistically and not just in terms of iconography.
"... just as we need to be careful of approaches that read a secular theology into works that are informed by a metaphysical theology, so we need to beware of reading our own faith into works that are essentially 'secular' [whatever that means]."
I think that this statement holds good in relation to my intentions in this series i.e. that in writing what is essentially art history I should beware of reading Christian influences into works where no evidence exists of such influences being a factor for the artist(s) concerned. However, if we are talking about the work of interpreting art for contemporary culture (the task that Siedell outlined above) then I would argue that interpreting essentially 'secular' (whatever that means) artworks in ways that inform our faith is legitimate as such interpretation is as much about the viewer's response as it is about the artist's intentions providing it responds to the "work of art as a sensuous embodied thing.".
My friend, Alan Stewart, has spoken of this in his 'Icons or Eyesores' presentation which ends by examining responses to Andres Serrano's Piss Christ. He notes Serrano's motivation for the work of critiquing mass produced Christian icongraphy before suggesting that reflecting on the submersion of a crucifix in urine can lead to a profound reflection on the incarnation and crucifixion as a submersion in the detritus of human existence. This reflection is not based on the artist's intention but is nevertheless true to the embodiment of the artwork itself.
"... the real problem, the lack of attention to the work of art itself as something made by an individual with their own subjective space within the world. The issue is not airbrushing, but respect - respect for the work of art as an object itself made by an embodied human being for embodied human beings."
I think that this paragraph shows that what Davey and I are debating are nuances or emphases rather than fundamental differences. I would agree that where airbrushing occurs (and I continue to maintain that there are many examples, both by art historians and theologians) this shows a lack of "respect for the work of art as an object itself made by an embodied human being for embodied human beings"
My intent in this series is to respond to the lack of respect shown to those works and their embodied human creators which are informed by a position of faith, employ christian iconography or are influenced the heritage of Christianity, when these influences/positions are ignored or downplayed. In seeking in a modest fashion through this project to carry that out, I agree that it is also vital that the same respect is shown to works and their interpretation which are essentially 'secular.' I agree that respect is the broader agenda but continue to think that responding to airbrushing where it has occurred is a necessary and legitimate task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U2 - Moment Of Surrender.
C4M webpage update
This week's commission4mission webpage posts were both about forthcoming exhibitions.
There was a reminder about commission4mission's very first exhibition which will be in the Pentecost Festival on Saturday 30th May at Westminster Central Hall from 12 noon - 6.00pm. David Hawkins, Harvey Bradley, Rosalind Hore, Henry Shelton and myself will be exhibiting.
Also, there were photographs of St Andrew's Leytonstone where our summer exhibition will be held. St Andrews contains windows by noted stained glass artist Margaret Chilton, banners and a window by Hilary Davies and Stations of the Cross by Lewis Davies. Our exhibition will therefore complement a space in which art already plays a significant role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahalia Jackson - Come Sunday.
There was a reminder about commission4mission's very first exhibition which will be in the Pentecost Festival on Saturday 30th May at Westminster Central Hall from 12 noon - 6.00pm. David Hawkins, Harvey Bradley, Rosalind Hore, Henry Shelton and myself will be exhibiting.
Also, there were photographs of St Andrew's Leytonstone where our summer exhibition will be held. St Andrews contains windows by noted stained glass artist Margaret Chilton, banners and a window by Hilary Davies and Stations of the Cross by Lewis Davies. Our exhibition will therefore complement a space in which art already plays a significant role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahalia Jackson - Come Sunday.
Pentecost Festival
The Pentecost Festival begins on Tuesday and this is the most recent mailing about it from its organisers, SJI:
"Next week will see London become alive with over 100 events demonstrating the life, diversity, and relevance of the Christian faith today! And we want you to come along! So book your tickets (they're selling out fast!) plan your trip, and be part of this incredible festival in the heart of our Capital!
Book Now For Pentecost Festival Ticketed Events!
All tickets for Pentecost Festival are on sale now - and they are selling fast! Book now to avoid disappointment! Please note that tickets will be more expensive on the door! Our Reel Life film festival, featuring Veggietales, Walking on Water, Son of Man, and Invisible Children: Rough Cut, are also on sale at the Odeon website. Tickets are limited, so book your seat today!
You can also book tickets for Hope for Planet Earth, and the Film Stream on the Odeon website.
We Need Photographers!
During the festival we'll be needing budding photographers to be snapping about the place,capturing the colour, vibrancy and excitement of the day. Want to be part of our team? Contact us with your details and a couple of examples of your stuff. If you're successful, you'll get a press pass for the festival, as well as a free ticket to the event of your choice!
Festival Editing
We here at Pentecost Festival know that life right now is tricky and complicated, with a saturation of information coming from 24 hour news, Twitter, iPhone applications and now Pentecost Festival! And with 240 hours of entertainment at this years festival, you might not know where to start. Well never fear, as Pentecost Festival has created Festival Editing - your customised guide to this year's festival, steering you through the weekend and showing you the events to suit your needs!
Street Teams
Still want to be part of the festival? Then join the street teams! It only costs £8 to be a part of this year's Street Teams. We are looking for people to move out onto the streets, directing, talking to and praying with the people of London during Saturday 30th May, telling them, explaining to them and showing them what Pentecost Festival is all about! Join here!
Pray for the Festival
There are still ways you can be part of the festival, and this one is the most important: Pray for the Festival! We want to see people from all over London witness the Celebrations of Pentecost 2009, and know that the Christian faith is alive and relevant in their lives today! If you would like to receive prayer updates for the festival, click here.
Get Connected!
Follow us on Twitter here to get up to the minute changes in programme details, as well as festival updates on the week leading up to, and on the day of the festival! Find us on Facebook to connect with other festival goers and upload your festival photos!"
Don't forget that commission4mission will be exhibiting at the Festival on Saturday 30th May at Westminster Central Hall from 12 noon - 6.00pm. David Hawkins, Bishop of Barking, is to join Harvey Bradley, Rosalind Hore, Henry Shelton and myself as an exhibitor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phatfish - There Is A Day.
"Next week will see London become alive with over 100 events demonstrating the life, diversity, and relevance of the Christian faith today! And we want you to come along! So book your tickets (they're selling out fast!) plan your trip, and be part of this incredible festival in the heart of our Capital!
Book Now For Pentecost Festival Ticketed Events!
All tickets for Pentecost Festival are on sale now - and they are selling fast! Book now to avoid disappointment! Please note that tickets will be more expensive on the door! Our Reel Life film festival, featuring Veggietales, Walking on Water, Son of Man, and Invisible Children: Rough Cut, are also on sale at the Odeon website. Tickets are limited, so book your seat today!
You can also book tickets for Hope for Planet Earth, and the Film Stream on the Odeon website.
We Need Photographers!
During the festival we'll be needing budding photographers to be snapping about the place,capturing the colour, vibrancy and excitement of the day. Want to be part of our team? Contact us with your details and a couple of examples of your stuff. If you're successful, you'll get a press pass for the festival, as well as a free ticket to the event of your choice!
Festival Editing
We here at Pentecost Festival know that life right now is tricky and complicated, with a saturation of information coming from 24 hour news, Twitter, iPhone applications and now Pentecost Festival! And with 240 hours of entertainment at this years festival, you might not know where to start. Well never fear, as Pentecost Festival has created Festival Editing - your customised guide to this year's festival, steering you through the weekend and showing you the events to suit your needs!
Street Teams
Still want to be part of the festival? Then join the street teams! It only costs £8 to be a part of this year's Street Teams. We are looking for people to move out onto the streets, directing, talking to and praying with the people of London during Saturday 30th May, telling them, explaining to them and showing them what Pentecost Festival is all about! Join here!
Pray for the Festival
There are still ways you can be part of the festival, and this one is the most important: Pray for the Festival! We want to see people from all over London witness the Celebrations of Pentecost 2009, and know that the Christian faith is alive and relevant in their lives today! If you would like to receive prayer updates for the festival, click here.
Get Connected!
Follow us on Twitter here to get up to the minute changes in programme details, as well as festival updates on the week leading up to, and on the day of the festival! Find us on Facebook to connect with other festival goers and upload your festival photos!"
Don't forget that commission4mission will be exhibiting at the Festival on Saturday 30th May at Westminster Central Hall from 12 noon - 6.00pm. David Hawkins, Bishop of Barking, is to join Harvey Bradley, Rosalind Hore, Henry Shelton and myself as an exhibitor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phatfish - There Is A Day.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Finding common ground in the credit crunch
People of faith form a huge constituency, can motivate people to action and are also part of rooted communities which in some instances are beginning to plan for greater economic resilience.
As such, the network of individuals and faith-based organisations that is Faiths in London’s Economy (FiLE) believes that people of faith should make their contribution to the current search for means of ameliorating the financial and environmental misery experienced around the world, in part because of the effects of the credit crunch.
FiLE has therefore facilitated a process for preparing a shared faiths response to the credit crunch which calls for: non-interest bearing transactions; mutual societies; business accountability to a wider range of stakeholders than shareholders alone; transparent and ethical business practices; and recognition of the role that artists and communities play in generating real wealth.
The overall process that has produced this shared faiths response is one that has included people from the Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jain and Jewish traditions in addition to representatives of faith-based and inter-faith organisations. We hope that our modest efforts will be a small part of a much wider process of reflection and restructuring needed to genuinely respond to the issues raised by the credit crunch.
Initial results show the impact that a modest initiative such as this can have. The document was picked up by the Faith Engagement Team in the Department for Communities and Local Government and posted on the G20 London Summit site as part of the Faith Debate section. The full text of our ‘Shared Faiths response’ is also being published in the forthcoming edition of the ‘Faith in Business Quarterly,’ an article on the document has been prepared for the Three Faiths Forum newsletter, and the document has informed a consultation on the issue undertaken by the East of England Faiths Council.
Producing a common statement from a diverse group of people was a considerable challenge and FiLE undertook this project as an experiment to see to what extent there were shared statements that could be made by different faiths on these issues. We found much common ground and the ability to understand similar concepts expressed in differing phrases. The use that has been made to date of our document indicates the wider value of such shared approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Rowley - Beautiful Tomorrow.
As such, the network of individuals and faith-based organisations that is Faiths in London’s Economy (FiLE) believes that people of faith should make their contribution to the current search for means of ameliorating the financial and environmental misery experienced around the world, in part because of the effects of the credit crunch.
FiLE has therefore facilitated a process for preparing a shared faiths response to the credit crunch which calls for: non-interest bearing transactions; mutual societies; business accountability to a wider range of stakeholders than shareholders alone; transparent and ethical business practices; and recognition of the role that artists and communities play in generating real wealth.
The overall process that has produced this shared faiths response is one that has included people from the Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jain and Jewish traditions in addition to representatives of faith-based and inter-faith organisations. We hope that our modest efforts will be a small part of a much wider process of reflection and restructuring needed to genuinely respond to the issues raised by the credit crunch.
Initial results show the impact that a modest initiative such as this can have. The document was picked up by the Faith Engagement Team in the Department for Communities and Local Government and posted on the G20 London Summit site as part of the Faith Debate section. The full text of our ‘Shared Faiths response’ is also being published in the forthcoming edition of the ‘Faith in Business Quarterly,’ an article on the document has been prepared for the Three Faiths Forum newsletter, and the document has informed a consultation on the issue undertaken by the East of England Faiths Council.
Producing a common statement from a diverse group of people was a considerable challenge and FiLE undertook this project as an experiment to see to what extent there were shared statements that could be made by different faiths on these issues. We found much common ground and the ability to understand similar concepts expressed in differing phrases. The use that has been made to date of our document indicates the wider value of such shared approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Rowley - Beautiful Tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)