I have very mixed feelings about the "approved" paintings. We've seen them for years, in our meetinghouses and temple visitor's centers. My gripe is that the majority of them are not art at all, but merely illustrations. Look at the Harry Anderson paintings; there's nothing artistic about them. They don't demand a thing from the viewer. Static and evoking no depth of emotion, provoking no questions, providing no challenge. Contrast them with the Heinrich Hoffman painting "Christ and the Rich Young Man'", on the approved list. It's everything the Anderson paintings are not. Or anything from Carl Bloch. I might use an Anderson painting to illustrate a scripture story, but I'll take Hoffman, Bloch, or hundred others if I want to contemplate who the Savior is, what he did, and what it means.
It will be wonderful to have these paintings displayed to remind us of our Savior and the reason we come to worship, and to increase our reverence.
The place where no paintings are displayed, is in our chapels.
I am told that the reason for this is that nothing is to upstage the Sacrament Table. Partaking of the Sacrament each week is our sacred privilege so that we can renew our covenant of taking upon us His name, and recommitting ourselves to keeping His commandments.
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.