Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 9:40 am
I do not disagree with any of what you say. I am sad whenever artistic expression is highly restricted.
If I understood correctly, the claimant referenced earlier was indicating that she was not allowed to do watercolor painting and I was curious if there are any groups that would actually discourage this. In my experience, watercolor painting was the kind of art that was encouraged and even taught.
How would you all view 'play-acting' as compared to painting as an art form? (The Beachy A-M congregation my wife grew up in after her parents left the Old Order Amish in 1964 did not approve of even skits, where any person was portraying someone that they weren't. Maybe someone read about where the English word 'hypocrite' comes from....)
I wonder if some of the Anabaptist ambivalence around artistic expression is a residual reaction to the extravagant church sponsored art in the 16th century. Another possible contributing stream is suspicion of putting the individual over the group. We like choirs more than soloists.
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 9:40 am
If I understood correctly, the claimant referenced earlier was indicating that she was not allowed to do watercolor painting and I was curious if there are any groups that would actually discourage this. In my experience, watercolor painting was the kind of art that was encouraged and even taught.
I want to clarify what Angela Rose wrote in the comment section of her post.
Here goes: "... isn’t it wonderful to be able to embrace color and art!? I think especially when it was once forbidden, we appreciate it even more deeply than most!"
So, does anyone actually know of any church groups, conferences, etc. that would prohibit watercolours or colouring in a picture?
We may have an archetypal example of "Misstatements Anabaptist groups make about other Anabaptist groups" here. This seems to be quite common about a variety of topics.
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 8:33 pm
So, does anyone actually know of any church groups, conferences, etc. that would prohibit watercolours or colouring in a picture?
We may have an archetypal example of "Misstatements Anabaptist groups make about other Anabaptist groups" here. This seems to be quite common about a variety of topics.
Or possibly, misstatements ex-Anabaptists make about their own former Anabaptist group...
barnhart wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 8:05 pm
I wonder if some of the Anabaptist ambivalence around artistic expression is a residual reaction to the extravagant church sponsored art in the 16th century. Another possible contributing stream is suspicion of putting the individual over the group. We like choirs more than soloists.
The Mennonites of the early Franconia settlement has quite a knack for Fraktur and many Lancaster conference congregations still have quilting circles. I have a couple of reproductions of fraktur pieces hanging on my wall. The "just for nice" mentality runs strong in our history as well.
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 9:40 am
I do not disagree with any of what you say. I am sad whenever artistic expression is highly restricted.
If I understood correctly, the claimant referenced earlier was indicating that she was not allowed to do watercolor painting and I was curious if there are any groups that would actually discourage this. In my experience, watercolor painting was the kind of art that was encouraged and even taught.
How would you all view 'play-acting' as compared to painting as an art form? (The Beachy A-M congregation my wife grew up in after her parents left the Old Order Amish in 1964 did not approve of even skits, where any person was portraying someone that they weren't. Maybe someone read about where the English word 'hypocrite' comes from....)
The English word is a direct derivative of the Greek work hypokritēs. Do you have more to add?
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
barnhart wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 8:05 pm
I wonder if some of the Anabaptist ambivalence around artistic expression is a residual reaction to the extravagant church sponsored art in the 16th century. Another possible contributing stream is suspicion of putting the individual over the group. We like choirs more than soloists.
The Mennonites of the early Franconia settlement has quite a knack for Fraktur and many Lancaster conference congregations still have quilting circles. I have a couple of reproductions of fraktur pieces hanging on my wall. The "just for nice" mentality runs strong in our history as well.
Yes, I would not fall into the camp that suggests Anabaptists are against all art but I do think we have an uneasy relationship with it. That's why I used the term ambivalent. And maybe that is a healthy place to be in the long run but wonder if we have under valued the beautiful and expressive in the quest for the simple and practical.
The only time I have ever seen a person openly weep at a scripture reading was in the train station while our church hummed softly "Wonderful Words of Life" a sister recited a lengthy passage from memory. Art breaks barriers to the soul in a way nothing else can.
Ernie wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 5:05 pm
I'd be interested in learning about what groups restrict watercolor painting.
I am not aware of any groups with formal restrictions on watercolor painting. However, I think you would agree that many conservative Mennonites are wary of the arts (and they are not entirely mistaken in this). Conversations here on Mennonet have touched on this. I think it's fair to say that in more conservative groups especially the study and practice of art beyond certain bounds would be widely considered to foster pride, represent poor stewardship of time and money, and expose one to inappropriate material. It is unlikely that the person in question was prevented from any and all artistic expression, but I do not find it hard to believe that she did not feel free to create art to the degree that she wanted to.
I do not disagree with any of what you say. I am sad whenever artistic expression is highly restricted.
While I am sad when artistic expression is highly restricted, I do have parameters.
IMO, the best art is meaningful to those with simple comprehension as well as those who are artistically developed.
For example...
If a work of art does not bring is not accessible to the common person, I wonder whether it is really honoring to Jesus.
If a work of art does not abide by scriptural principles, I don't think it is an honor to Jesus.
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 9:39 pm
If a work of art does not bring is not accessible to the common person, I wonder whether it is really honoring to Jesus.
