Tim Jones, here. From my blog, Old World Swine;
The painting at left, by Italian artist Angelo Casciello is an illustration that is part of the new lectionary approved by the Italian bishops. Sandro Magister comments;
The Italian bishops’ conference has entrusted the illustration of the
new Lectionary to thirty contemporary artists, with their styles. It’s
the first time that a liturgical book has been associated with modern
images. An audacious undertaking – and one immediately criticized
I have tried to find a clearer version of this piece of art online, but
so far have been unsuccessful. I would like to see it better so that I
can do a more fair critique. I realize there might be objections to
critiqueing the piece in this format, but right now it is all I have to
go on.
I also Googled up the websites of the other artists named in the
Magister article, and they all seem to be pretty well within the same
broad stylistic milieu.
Where to begin?
Let me just say what this painting is not; It isn’t beautiful, it
isn’t technically accomplished, well composed or evocative.
It probes none of the human experience of the event it depicts (the healing of the man born blind), and it
utterly fails to draw the viewer in or make them care about seeing it
again.
It is not really a work of art. Like so many modern abstract pieces, it
is a placeholder representing the idea of a work of art. There should
be a little rectangle in the middle with the words "place artwork
here". What this painting is, is easy. The shame of it is, there are
probably many living artists in Italy who could have provided, even in a very simple format, art of beauty and depth.
Now, of course, there will be those who will counter that they like
this piece and find it terrific in all kinds of ways, but I can only
respond in advance that lots of people liked disco, too. I would like
to hear explained why and how this is a good painting. To fall back on
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a cop-out. There is certainly
a subjective element to beauty, but that is not nearly the end of it.
Some things are really beautiful and some things are really ugly, to
the point of making mere opinion superfluous. This is why people drive
as fast as they can through Nebraska to get to Yellowstone Park, and
not the other way around. Sorry, Nebraska. I give thanks for you every
time I open a bag of tortilla chips, but there is just not much to look
at there.
According to Catholic News Service, there are a number of translation
and typographical errors in this new Italian lectionary… so many that
they are issuing a set of corrective adhesive stickers to cover them
all. One wonders if they could not issue a new set of illustrations
in the same way.
Robert Heinlein was right: These days, any neurotic with astygmatism and a blowtorch calls himself an artist.
I’ll say it. It’s crap.
That’s about the healing of the man born blind? I thought it was man’s inhumanity to man.
Or, maybe, the infliction of this “art” on us is an example of man’s inhumanity to man.
Ewwwww, yuck.
Blinking is a miracle?
I don’t think it’s crap. As part of a magazine ad for an over the counter sleep aid, I would have no problem with it. I might even think it was fairly clever. But that is it’s level of “art.” Just as so many in the Church have chosen a new age styled spirituallity, many have accepted a Madison Avenue style of art. Why, with such immense treasuries available to us, do we chose such poverty? I don’t think this is what our Lord meant when He said “Blessed are the poor.”
If anyone has read well this Gospel account, he will easily understand that this story is MUCH MORE than just a miracle, much more than just an act of mercy or charity. The most important item of this story actually is NOT the healing, but the fact that this blind man stood before the Pharisees and defended work and sanctity of Jesus. Herein, this poor blind man became the first public confessor and defender of Christ before the Pharisees. And he stood up for Christ basically alone in his arguements, with even his parents not willing to publicly side with him!!
And the amazing thing, the most interesting item of this account, is that Jesus is actually impressed with this public witness and shameless brazen faith, and rewards him by going out of His way to find him, and then, reveals Himself to him as “The Son of God”.
What a reward! What a thing that Jesus appreciates SO MUCH those who defend Him in publicly!
And for those who aren’t that familiar with incredible story, I’ll include the second half of it, the trial, so to say…skipping entirely the much more common, and less important item, of the physical healing itself:
…”They therefore called the man again that had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner. 25 He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.
26 They said then to him: What did he to thee? How did he open thy eyes? 27 He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard: why would you hear it again? will you also become his disciples? 28 They reviled him therefore, and said: Be thou his disciple; but we are the disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God spoke to Moses: but as to this man, we know not from whence he is. 30 The man answered, and said to them: Why, herein is a wonderful thing, that you know not from whence he is, and he hath opened my eyes.
31 Now we know that God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a server of God, and doth his will, him he heareth. 32 From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard, that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind. 33 Unless this man were of God, he could not do any thing. 34 They answered, and said to him: Thou wast wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?
36 He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? 37 And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee. 38 And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him. 39 And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind.”
……………….
So it seems that this basically wacky modern art wants to over simplify the whole story to reduce it to merely any one of the common miracles abounding in the Gospel narratives.
Therefore it’s pretty shallow art… if the entire story is considered in its true depth and significance!!
Looks like something my three-year-old would draw.
Is there a fear of beauty in today’s church?
Or is it just an overblown sense of “relavence”?
Whatever that is.
The most I can say is, it’s less cruddy than some other modern art. But that’s not saying much. It certainly has no place in worship.
I always get a kick out of the defenders of modern art who will basically imply that you are too stupid to get the ‘deep meaning’ of their medium. Yeah…right. Junk is junk. I don’t care if some modern art snob thinks its a moving and deep interpretation of the metaphysical anachronism of the central theme of blah blah blah. Now they want to splash this all over a liturgical book???? The clip art we have to endure in this country is painful enough without having to hold the book sideways and upside down and wondering “what the heck is THAT supposed to be?” I look at the old Missale Romanum that I have and the artwork is meant to uplift because of its grandure, beauty, and its ability to be understood by even the simplest of folks.
Yet again…God save us from the ‘progressive’types who know more than you know.
Word.
And what’s wrong with disco?
I have to agree with the majority on this one. The work in question lacks artistic merit. The problem or challenge associated with so much contemporary art is that an artist’s language of expression can be so confined to that individual artist that their work becomes an “inside job” at best, and at worst an “inside joke”. Catholic artists should avoid narrow individualism in favor of personalized expression in a universal style, which is not to say a “dumbed down” mode of expression. To render ideas in a universal mode implies mastery of the grammar of expression: theological, compositional and presentational. Catholic art (visual, musical) should be as much orthodox theology as the writing of Saint Thomas Aquinas is art. It sounds like the bishops need a course or two in art appreciation. As wretched and condemnable as the behavior of some Renaissance bishops and popes was, they did have an eye and ear for art.
One thing I find in common with almost all modern religious art is that the artists all seem to want to express their concepts in a, more or less, ‘cute’ way.
In centuries past, ‘profound’, ‘intriguing’, ‘edifying’ and ‘enlightening’ were the qualities demanded from authorities who commissioned religious art. This is how the Church came to aquire the multitudes of beautiful Cathedrals throughout the centuries! Now, though, ‘cute’ or ‘cool’ seems to be the prerequisite needed before selling a piece of religious art.
And…do you think that any of these modern religious artists ever did stints at Disney? Seems like the same cute and cartoonish genre as found “The Little Mermaid/ Lion King, etc..”?! Maybe Walt has had more cultural influence than anyone ever suspected!?
I have a problem with art that has to be explained. its like writing a book In your own Personal language that no one understands. and words that are unpronounible. About things that are in your dreams that no one understands.
Wow you have just told us nothing. that is unless you have a few “experts” that will banter around foolish “supose to mean” coments.
And on top of that you get millions from it.
even though no one would want it in their library.
I do this kind of work for my self, Because I understand my own ramblings. Art is a form of communication,and expression. If you cant communicate , or tell people how you feel,without a self centered critic telling you what you feel. You have failed as a artist.
My art gives different thing to different people, But they can “READ” it and understand somthing without a “CRITIC” explaning it. It should be like great poetry, the simple walk away with somthing, and the wise see deep into its heart.
Why, with such immense treasuries available to us, do we chose such poverty?
Because it’s novel. It’s clever novelty at times, even.
I figure sometime this century artists will figure out where there’s room for modern styles and techniques to fit in between photorealistic depictions of Biblical events and pretty geometric patterns. I know not all real art falls right at those two extremes, and I have no problem with artists exploring the realms in between, but I hope it’s sooner rather than later that painters and sculptors and architects who have something they can contribute to sacred art will get over doing only experimental art for its own sake.
The Casciello painting is interesting to me, but mostly in that “I’m wandering past the local library’s high school art display, and I wonder where the student who did that black and white blinky thing got the idea” sort of way. For liturgical use, I think something from the “fingerpaintings inspired by medieval skinny, wooden, sad looking cartoon characters” school would even be more appropriate
When I saw just the thumbnail, I thought perhaps it was an ad for fake eyelashes, the cheap kind that strippers might wear.
Then I read the article and looked at the full picture. Now I think it’s a joke the “artist” is playing on a bunch of unwitting Italian bishops.
That ain’t art. I prefer realism, but I love many pieces by artists such as Dali and Picasso, and even Pollack. This Man Born Blind illustration is dreck.
‘thann
While we’re on the topic, one need only look at the liturgical art in the US “Christian Prayer” (Liturgy of the Hours) by Catholic Book Publishing to see what we’ve suffered this side of the herring pond. The most kindergardenesque stuff around, and it’s still there, decade after decade. Too bad, not the least because Virginia Broderick did some really nice other stuff, but one would never know it from the junk plopped in CP.
Where have I seen something like this before? Oh, yeah. Felt banners at church.
The Church really has nothing against modern art, per se (see SC, Chapter VIII), but like using modern music in the liturgy, it must be able to pull the viewer closer to God. A twelve-tone alleluia would be deadly in a liturgical celebration, except a liturgical celebration among the really expert in music performance. Likewise, modern art has its place among the artistically expert interpreters, but if a work of art does not lift (the operative word being lift) the mind and heart to God, then the piece of art has failed as sacred art.
This work may be a fine piece of abstract secular art depicting an incident in Sacred Scripture, but as a piece of sacred art, it is trite, in my opinion. Why, because it has no anchor to the sacred.
I will go farther. If one presented this drawing to a psychiatrist and told him that a depressed patient had painted it as a depiction of his coming out of depression, I suspect that the psychiatrist would be none the wiser that this were, in fact, a piece of religious art.
I could also label the piece, “What…I’m Awake…” and sell it at a coffee convention. None would be the wiser.
This piece is so dependent on the interpretation that one brings to it that it does not make the viewer think of God immediately.
As Flannery O’Connor wrote:
“When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs as you do, you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock, to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind, you draw large and startling figures.”
The Chicken
Tim,
While I agree with your assesment of the painting in question, I do feel that you are flawed with your view of the state of Nebraska. I assume that you take the modern Interstate 80 through the state, which took the easy route of following the Platte River valley. Also, I am told that the quote, by Gertrude Stein, refers to Oakland, CA, not Nebraska.
“Like so many modern abstract pieces, it is a placeholder representing the idea of a work of art.”
Great way of putting it.
The immediate impression I had, before getting a chance to read anything but the headline, was, “Why is there a picture of a woman in a burka on a Lectionary?”
The gospel story would NEVER have occurred to me, and I’m not unfamiliar with the gospel.
In response to the question posed by Joanna above (“Is there a fear of beauty in the church?”), the answer is a resounding Yes. Because, as Keats said, “Beauty is truth, and truth, beauty….” When you fear one, you also fear the other. Read Fr Dubay’s The Evidential Power of Beauty to understand that, just as there is a objective truth, there is also objective beauty. How do you recognize it? You just do–and *that* is what makes it art (the mysterious cognition we all have of beauty–regardless of education.) Real art *is* beauty and requires no explanation or “interpretation.”
Read Fr Dubay’s The Evidential Power of Beauty to understand that, just as there is a objective truth, there is also objective beauty.,/i>
I’ll look for that book. The quote sounds like Belloc in The Great Heresies that there is Truth, Beauty, and Goodness and an attack on one is an attack on all.
Italics off.
I see many of these kinds of modern art all around the offices and hallways of my place of business. As I walk around the building every day, I hardly notice them as I pass by. Almost all of the paintings on the walls look like the stuff little kids produce in kindergarden class. They are uninspiring and ugly. They don’t even ‘brighten’ up the place, in my opinion. And it’s everywhere. It’s one thing to see impressionistic ‘art’ at work, in media ads, displayed in museums, etc. But it’s quite another to see it inside the pages of liturgical books to be used in praise of God. Somehow, these types of illustrations just don’t mesh with sacred texts. They look so out of place. Why isn’t it obvious to those putting together the new lectionary? It almost seems as if they’ve lost the ability to tell the difference between the sacred and the profane.
Everyone familiar with the ‘Artist’ Marla Olmstead? Check out the section on Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marla_Olmstead
This article shows some of the work and background:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3701484.stm
Compare Marla’s art to the Jackson Pollock. I’m not sure if I don’t prefer Marla, but that doesn’t make her a great artist.
For anyone who likes the painting, you are going to love the new Scottish Parliament buildings. Wikipedia has a comprehensive article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_Building
My kids do the same thing that this little girl Marla does. Are they the next Picassos? Should I take their scribbles to Southeby’s?
“As I walk around the building every day, I hardly notice them as I pass by. Almost all of the paintings on the walls look like the stuff little kids produce in kindergarden class. They are uninspiring and ugly. They don’t even ‘brighten’ up the place, in my opinion.”
Have you seen any kindergarten art lately? It can be bright and cheery and cute and even upliftling. But not appropriate for a religious book.
I agree that the church is aftraid of beauty becayse beauty leads to the truth. Very well said.
Uh oh. Someone (probably grammatically challenged) is using SDG’s name and posting slang responses…
🙂
Hello Fr Bill. I agree with your post 100% Your quote: “I always get a kick out of the defenders of modern art who will basically imply that you are too stupid to get the ‘deep meaning’ of their medium.” reminds me of the Ern Malley hoax, and they were RIGHT ON THE MONEY! The arts have been so corrupted and hijacked that true talent these days goes completely unappreciated unless you can do something outrageous or attention grabbing.
Unfortunately, the late JP II did not help church art one iota by carrying around some twisted monstrosity as his crosier and wearing a stoll and miter that looked like 3rd grader cut-out art. I always thought it was ironic that all the artwork behind “renew” looked like it came from the 1970’s…not necessarily a high-point in artistic expression that merited renewal.
Yeah…right. Junk is junk. I don’t care if some modern art snob thinks its a moving and deep interpretation of the metaphysical anachronism of the central theme of blah blah blah. Now they want to splash this all over a liturgical book???? The clip art we have to endure in this country is painful enough without having to hold the book sideways and upside down and wondering “what the heck is THAT supposed to be?” I look at the old Missale Romanum that I have and the artwork is meant to uplift because of its grandure, beauty, and its ability to be understood by even the simplest of folks.
Yet again…God save us from the ‘progressive’types who know more than you know.
Posted by: Fr Bill P
So, Jesus slumped on the cross is a “twisted monstrosity”? Sounds like what my liberal friends who wouldn’t go to The Passion of the Christ said about it (before they chose instead to go to Dawn of the Living Dead). It’s sad when ideology trumps seeing the beauty that is there. I particularly liked his crosier, and him having a constant reminder of what his calling was, to suffer as Christ did for his flock.
I have many crucifixes of Jesus “slumped on the cross” in many media; gold, ivory, silver, bronze, wood and even one plastic. They are all realistic, artistic and definite visual reminders of the suffering and death of Our Lord. Although you say you “particularly liked” JP II’s crosier, to the benefit of those who have not seen (or noticed it) you can view it here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/europe_pope_john_paul_ii/html/10.stm
In my opinion, this crosier does a gross injustice to centuries of church art and iconography. First, it is not even a true cross (more of an arc shape which from behind looks like a crossbow). Second, it is in fact not even a crosier, but an “heirloom” from Pope Paul VI made in the 60’s (the height of modernistic innovation in the church). Third, the representation of rhe figure on the cross is non-descript and indistinguishible; there is no crown of thorns, no human facial expression of any sort. It is as if someone put a stick-figure there which could be anyone. If a child or someone who had never heard of Jesus or the story of the crucifixion saw it, they would most likely think it is an abstract grotesque thing, whereas a true crucifix leaves no room for question on what you are looking at.
If you like it, all I can say is to each his own. Pope Benedict has certainly shown himself to be far ahead of his predecessor on many things in the short term of his papacy. And artistic taste is definitely one. I think it’s only a matter of time before he “retires” the hand-me-down crosier from JP II in favor of something less modern looking and more traditional.
Traditional over anything else. While winky the eye isn’t much in the way of art by me, I don’t think lumping the crosier used by both JP II and Benedict XVI into the same category is much less than a disservice to the faithful and sacred art.
And, in case you haven’t noticed, as of six days ago, Benedict didn’t seem to have a problem with the crosier, and is still actively using it. See picture in article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/europe_pope_john_paul_ii/html/10.stm
Jarnor, I don’t understand your statement “traditional over else.” Are you saying you feel you are that way? Or are you maybe a liberal above all else? Please explain. As for me, I am a traditionalist in the sense that the apostles (namely St Peter) told us to hold to the traditions of the church. Art and architecture are also traditions and hallmarks of the western church. They evolve and in several cases devolve. An example would be looking at the 4th century mosaics in St Costanza in Rome and comparing them with the 10th century frescoes of Sant’Urbano alla Cafarella. Yet two centuries later an even higher evolution of art began…and all of this in the same region.
While you think the i-lectionary and the grotesque crosier aren’t in the same category, I would of course beg to differ. You say by my equation of the two is doing a disservice, but I say you are ignorant on art and iconography and your ignorance does a disservice. I don’t find anything particularly sacred in a melted stick-figure on a cross-bow.
What you fail to realize is there was an insipid and calculated manoeuver at work here. Sacred works of art were often erroneously revered, nearly to the point of worship. But the majority of the faithful merely paid respect to the aspect or representation of the art. Often this came in the form of kneeling, kissing or bowing to the object. But Protestants took any outward sign as idol worship, so the church recoiled in the 60’s and 70’s and “retooled” it’s objects so no one would mistake them for idols. Look at the staff for instance; how could you? In this same spirit, Catholic churches throughout the world got rid of realistic statues or crucifixes or replaced them with abstract “art”. Incidentally, this was not constrained to art, but also high altars containing the eucharistic monstrance, which were of course in many cases torn out and replaced.
If you can’t see the pattern here, then that is your problem. I think I have stated my case pretty clearly and plainly for anyone else who is interested enough in the topic to participate in the conversation.
All youre eyeses are belong to us!!
I like the crosier.
But then, I can understand symbolism, which it seems you cannot, deusdonat. (For example, the cross being “bent” represents the weight of the world’s sins upon Jesus.)
Lincoln, Nebraska is a long-time bastion of orthodox Catholicism in the U.S.. Even before it became chic to be a traditionalist, bishop Fabian Bruskewitz made reverent liturgy and fidelity to the Magisterium priorities in this diocese. You’d think more people would be inclined to visit, especially those who are tired of liturgical dance, glassware on the Altar, and Call To Action agents in the chanceries.
I can see the point of both sides, while you are as blind as the man in the original piece mentioned.
Traditional above all else is indeed a disdaining of such an idea as you profess to, as do I with liberal above all else.
You assume far too much.
Joanna, how do you even know that is Jesus on that crossbow? Just like straining your eyes to see a dragon in a passing cloud, you can attempt to read in as much meaning and symbolism in any piece of abstract art. The fact that you see this in the crosier says much more about your piety and reverence than the object itself, I must say.
Jarnor, I think it is you who assume too much. The fact that you are championing the twisted metal cross-bow crosier, which is a modernistic abstract creation of the 1960’s speaks volumes. This is not an assumption, it is an observation.
Well, let me think.
Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict used/use the crosier. Both of them were/are the head of the Catholic faith. The most prominent symbol of the Catholic faith is a crucifix, which depicts Jesus being crucified on the cross. The crosier features a figure being crucified on a cross. Ergo, the figure is Jesus.
I think the better question is, how do YOU [b]know [/b]that it’s NOT Jesus on the crosier?
Joanna, I don’t know it is NOT Jesus on the crosier. As you say, given its porter, I would assume it was. However, were it left on the side of the road or propped up against a tavern somewhere, I would have to wonder. As I said before, the figure has no features, no crown of thorns, no distinguishing characteristics to speak of. It looks like it may have at one time been a crucifix bugt was left near a heat source for too long and melted beyond recognition.
Anyway, as I said earlier, if you like it then to each his/her own. It’s not that I cannot appreciate the “meaning” or “symbolism” in it. I just think it has none, and in fact mocks the reality of Christ’s endurement on the cross, as well as centuries of church art and iconography that did quite well at relaying this message previous to this dastardly era of artistic depression.
I think the fact that it’s a figure being crucified on a cross is all the identification it needs. Really, how many others could that particular figure be mistaken for?
Perhaps the non-nondescript nature of the figure is meant to symbolize the universality of Jesus as opposed to making him a Caucasian with brown hair, as much traditional art does. If the crosier is not to your taste, that’s one thing, but it goes a bit far to say that it’s a “a gross injustice to centuries of church art and iconography.”
My rosary has Christ on a cross much more ornate than what would have been used for real at His crucifixion. In addition, through use, many of the facial features have become less sharp, and it may not be completely determinable what Christ’s face looks like.
So, is this clearly a bad item to have around, misleading people? Is my rosary useless because it’s not an exact copy of the moment?
Split hairs all you want, but a worship of realism is no better than those who call an intentionally irreverent piece holy. And last I checked, being created between 1960 and 1979 doesn’t automatically make anything unholy either. Thank goodness, as many of my family were born then.
Joanna, do you know how many people were crucified at the time of the Romans? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions. The defining features of Christ’s crucifixion are that he was nailed hands and feet wearing a crown of thorns, his back torn open and later his side pierced. The stick figure in the crosier in question shows none of this, therefore my comment of it being “a gross injustice to centuries of church art and iconography” stands.
Jarnor, “Is my rosary useless because it’s not an exact copy of the moment?”
You need to get a dictionary and look up the word iconography. This is the point. Realism is not the issue that you are making it to be. There is a statue in St Peter’s Basilica of St Peter himself seated in blessing. For centuries the faithful have gone to kiss his feet in respect. Today, the feet are pretty much worn away beyond recognition. But in the context of the statue, you know they are feet. The same with your rosary. The fact that the crucifix is worn away speaks to your devotion (or whoever was using it). In the case of the crosier, there was never anything there to begin with. Had it been a depiction of Christ’s crucifixion showing all the symbols we associate with it and just happened to be rescued from a fire, it would have different meaning. But as is, it was deliberately created with a distorted, contorted stick figure with NONE of the symbolic characteristics of Christ’s crucifixion.
Anyway, I have made my point here and have learned that most liberals and modernists are so entrenched in their world view that they cannot distinguish between it and reality. The case in point is how you think there is a difference between the i-lectionary and the crosier when in reality there is none.
Yes, but how many of those crucified are worshiped as God? I think it’s clear enough, personally.
I’m not a huge fan of most modern works, especially if they’re that way in religious use for the sole purpose of being “novel”. I’m really not a big fan of the work in question originally here, and think it does look more like a Visine ad. However, I AM a huge fan of that crosier, and don’t see it as being the same.
I guess this matter is going to have to be one of those “agree to disagree” things.
It belongs at the bottom of a bird cage.
Silly me for wondering this, but WHY do we need illustrations in a book that is used to read from? If I am using the book for its intended purpose, who will see these works of “art” other than Lectors, Deacons or Priests? Are they going to now hold up the book to show the people the “pretty pictures”?
Sigh…
Rock, I’m thinking that piece might scare the birds a bit too much. Don’t want an animal cruelty charge.
Well, I guess I may be the odd one out here, but as a piece of art, I really don’t think it’s all that bad. I do see the folk tones and imagery in it. I just don’t think it’s appropriate for a lectionary or even one of those burlap banners we see far too often in church these days.