CHURCH DECORATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19833, 31 December 1927, Page 1 (Supplement)

CHURCH DECORATION.

WORSHIP AND BEAUTY.

BY W. PAGE ROWS.

In all countries which have developed any degree of culture, the church or temple has been the home of art throughout the greater length of its history. The temples of Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome and the East, and the churches of the Old World, have provided rich means of expression for long ages to the architect, the sculptor, the painter and the artist-craftsman in many other mediums. Tlia genius of the musician, and to some extent the dramatist, has also been nurtured by the churches. It is true that this close association of art and religion has, at one time or another tended to hamper the free movement of the spirit of art by insisting on strict forms and traditions, to the discouragement of imaginative creation. Tho fact remains that the churches of all ages and of all creeds have been the greatest inspirers and the most generous patrons of art. The reason for this association of religion and art, although sufficiently obvious, has a very direct bearing upon the question of Church decoration to-day. The churches of any of these periods did not adopt art from any belief in "art for art's sake.", Although instinct for display certainly entered into it, since even priests are human, the glorifying of the god of their faith was the leading and living motive for making beautiful the iemple. And that motive surely remains valid to-day. That it does not hold the sway that it did in times past is not so much because religious people have lost faith in it, but rather that it has been submerged under the debris of upheavals, within and without the churches. The urgencies of modern life, also, have tended to put art in its highest forms among the less desirable luxuries. The pagan spirit of the Renaissance and the aggressive austerity of the Reformation, although they did art a great service in bringing it out into the open, at the same time deprived it of many opportunities. The Patron of Art. The Lutheran and the Puritan regarded church adornment as embroidery upon the robe oi: the Scarlet Woman, and as the means of idolatry. In pre-reforma-tion times the churches, were erected by wealthy religious houses, by kings, and great men of the State, who were also the chief patrons of a culture which gave pride of place to the fine arts. Ihe rise of constitutional government and the Industrial Revolution between them abolished the aristocratic patron of art. At the present our churches, whether of the Establishment or otherwise, are mostly provided from common funds, the source of which is more democratic than cultured. The ecclesiastical architect is still permitted to treat his designs artistically, only within such _ limits as may be prescribed by authorities which do not, as a ru«e, attach any great importance to art. ■ Nonconform.ty, with its inherited dislike for anything which in the least savours of " PoiDiny," has evolved for itself what may bo described as almost a special order of architecture. In Great Britain, till about 50 years ago, the dissenting church, or clicipely as it was then called # was very much of a barn, with possibly an ornamental front which would have been equally appropriate for a swimming bath. In later years Gothic architecture —an all-too comprehensive title—has been permitted by nonconformity, with a careful exclusion of traditional religious symbolism. Both types are to be found in New Zealand. Church Decoration in New Zealand. It is perhaps natural that the interior decoration of the..place of worship, whatever shade of Christian belief it represents, is not usually regarded as of any great importance in this country. Ihe pioneer must perforce give all his attention to meeting strict necisssities, and that attitude still obtains to some degree. But it is surely not too soon to introduce the benign influence of beauty into tho place of worship. So far as one has observed, most of the churches have little decoration beyond occasional stained glass wmdows, which are too often unworthy of any religion, being supplied by tradesmen, who are not artists, and paid for by those who have more respect for the memory of the dead than for the aesthetic susceptibilities of tho living. I have one example in mind wbich is quite dreadful enough as a memory; as a visual fact, to be faced Sunday by Sunday, it is something more than an artistic crime. It is an east window, anU, therefore, in the common line of sight. The badness of the design is equalled only by the vulgarity of the colouring. Ihe central figure of an apostle is very pale, as well he might be in such surroundings, but nothing in reason can account for his impossible hands, or for the stiange beast which only a knowledge of Christian symbolism could identify as a lion. I\o doubt the donors of such windows as this —and there are others —were inspired by the highest motives, including a desire to beautify their church. They failed so badly because they did not know that art was an essential factor to success. Art Indispensable. This is but another example of how art is regarded as unrelated to the serious affairs of life. Yet the whole splendour of the great cathedrals at Home, by which few of us fail to be impressed, is entirely owing to great artists. The linglish Church liturgy itself owes its wonderful adequacy of expression to great artists in the use of words. Art is not a hobby for the amusement of those who are interested in the unimportant. It is a unique means of expression of man's highest aspirations, and of his emotional nature. Whether we realise it or not, humanity is ruled by its emotions in the last event. The' ever-increasing stress of economic necessity has led us to neglect, if not lo despise, the emotional factor, but it will not be supressed, and that is why there is so much futile sentimentality, which is misguided emotion. Art is entirely based on a sense of fitness. It is emotion disciplined. It is equally certain that no good art has ever been produced _ without deep study and strenuous work. Is there not, then, good reason for beautifying our churches, and for ensuring that beauty, by enlisting, artistic knowledge and talent ? Large expenditure is not inevitable. There is another churdh' interior in Auckland which, by the simplest means, has been greatly beautified, simply by four heraldic shields, richly buft correctly coloured, on tho chancel walls. The deadly monotony of untreated woodwork has been relieved also, and although more is, I understand, to be done, already the desirability of enriching this otherwise somewhat commonplace interior is made plain to anybody with a normal appreciation of beauty and fitness. Nov/ that wooden churches are being gradually replaced by more permanent structures, the time is opportune for using art in its highest forms, both within and without. But so long as its great function is not fully realised, so lohg as comeliness is left to chance and to tho tender mercies of tradesmen, so long will the meeting of worship and beauty bo delayed.;