Where can I listen to this podcast?

This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.

Does this podcast accept guests?

No, this podcast does not typically feature guests.

Latter-day Saint Art

Claim This Podcast

by Jenny Champoux

5.0(5 reviews)

10 episodes

Updated Daily

Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇺🇸

Podcast Overview

Latter-day Saint Art is a limited series podcast from Wayfare Magazine hosted by Jenny Champoux. In Latter-day Saint Art, I'll guide you through an examination of the artistic tradition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Each guest is a contributor to the new book, Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader, from Oxford University Press and the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. <a href="https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/s/arts-and-culture-review?utm_medium=podcast">www.wayfaremagazine.org</a>

Language

🇺🇲

Publishing Since

3/11/2025

Visit Website View on Apple Podcasts RSS Feed

1 verified contact email on file for Latter-day Saint Art

Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.

See contact details

Recent Episodes

May 14, 2025

Latter-day Saint Art Episode 10: Charting LDS Art

Jenny Champoux: Hello, and welcome to our final episode of Latter-day Saint Art, a limited series podcast from Wayfare Magazine. I'm your host, Jenny Champoux. Throughout this series, we've examined the artistic tradition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we've talked with contributors to the book Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader. The book was published in September by Oxford University Press, with support from the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. If you're listening on the podcast, keep in mind that you can find a video, transcript, and images of the artworks at wayfaremagazine.org.In this episode, we're looking at some of the broad themes introduced in the book. How has Latter-day Saint history and belief affected art production? And similarly, how has Latter-day Saint art affected faith and culture? We'll discuss the value of religious art, what makes it worthy of academic study, and what areas of Latter-day Saint art need further scholarship. [00:01:00]Our guests today are Emily Larsen and Micah Christensen.Emily Larsen is a Utah-based curator, museum professional, researcher, and collage artist. She currently serves as the executive director at the Springville Museum of Art, where she's worked in a variety of positions since 2014. Her research and writing focus on Utah artists and the Utah art scene, from 1880 to 1950. She has an M.A. in US History from the University of Utah.Micah Christensen is a scholar of European, Asian, and American fine art, porcelain and decorative objects. He earned his doctorate in the history of art from University College London, and his master's in fine art from Sotheby's Institute. He served on the board of the Springville Museum of Art until last year and is now the director of the new Salt Lake Art Museum opening in 2026. Micah is also a partner at [00:02:00] Anthony's Fine Art and Antiques. He is a co-author of the Dictionary of Utah Fine Artists and the founder of the Zion Arts Society, a nonprofit organization dedicated to showcasing works by professional and emerging Latter-day Saint artists.Although Emily and Micah were not authors in the book, they are gifted and knowledgeable art historians and curators working in the Utah and Latter-day Saint space. I'm excited to have them join our discussion today, and I think adding their perspectives to this series shows just how much more work on Latter-day Saint art is being done out there and is still left to do. Emily and Micah have been friends of mine and colleagues for several years, and they're both doing incredible work. I can guarantee that you'll not only learn something new from them today, but you'll also be inspired by their enthusiasm and passion for this work.Emily and Micah, thank you so much for talking with us today.Micah Christensen: Thank you. It's great to be here.Jenny Champoux: Emily, congrats on the annual Spring Salon that is currently at the Springville Museum of Art. I know that's a huge project. For our listeners who may not be familiar, can you tell us what the Spring Salon is and what role it plays in the Utah art scene?Emily Larsen: Yeah, so the Spring Salon is one of the longest running and biggest juried art competition shows in Utah. So, it's an open call show anyone can enter. And we've been hosting it in Springville since 1922. So, it's a huge tradition. And this year we got about a thousand entries. We had jurors who came and drew it down to about 250, and it's kind of a snapshot of contemporary Utah art, what's happening in Utah art today.It leans a little bit more towards representational art and traditional art than some of the other juried shows in the state. And is just a great celebration of Utah art and an opportunity for artists to show some of their best works [00:04:00] and be awarded for it. So, it's a fun, a fun tradition, and we'd love for everyone to come.Jenny Champoux: Great. Thank you. Yeah. Is there, have you noticed any trends this year in the show or any themes that you see popping up?Emily Larsen: You know, actually one thing that I think is really interesting about this show, sometimes we feel the shows are really a commentary on what's happening in the world, and there's a lot of, political or social commentary. And this year with everything that's going on in the world, we maybe expected that more.But I think the artists are really using the art and art as a respite. Because it feels like it's really a celebration of art and fine art and is, I guess maybe less about current events than you would expect.Jenny Champoux: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Micah, you're joining us today from what will soon be the new Salt Lake Art Museum opening next year. Tell us about your vision for this new institution and what we can look forward to seeing [00:05:00] there.Micah Christensen: Boy, I've never done this before. I don't know what to tell you. I've never started a museum! Well, the Salt Lake Art Museum will open officially in the spring of 2026 and it's housed in the historic B’nai Israel Temple, which was a synagogue built in 1890 on land that was given to the Jews in Salt Lake by Brigham Young. And my great-grandfather was a member of that congregation. I'm half Jewish by descent and I'm half Mormon. And well, I'm a mutt. And, it was a, a building that I'd always wanted. And, uh, there's a lot of construction going on in Salt Lake and the population is growing dramatically. It's doubled in the past five years in Salt Lake and it's supposed to double again by 2030. And the, uh, [00:06:00] it’s the first new art museum in Salt Lake since 1983, which, you know what, how we imagine our role is, is we'll play well with other museums. I was on the board of the Springville Museum of Art for more than 13 years. I'm still on the acquisitions committee for Springville. I see that our role is just to educate about Utah art and artists. And it's not much more complicated than that.We’re hoping to have historic and living artists on a regular basis. Competitions here and there. Nothing like the Springville Museum's competition, but more like, you know, for one, one example is we're having a small competition that's more like an invitational of 15 of the country's best plein air painters, many from Utah, to [00:07:00] focus on the Great Salt Lake and to talk about its preservation. So, things like that that we're planning on our first, I can announce now, no one really knows this, that our first retrospective next spring we'll be opening with is James Christensen. And I think it'll be the first major show to happen since he passed, and we're working with the Christensen family now.Jenny Champoux: Oh, great.Micah Christensen: It's exciting. It's total chaos. And half the time it's really exciting. And the other half of the time you just, what was the quote that I heard the other day? You know you're on the right path if the path disappears. The path, the path has disappeared.Jenny Champoux: That sounds really exciting. A lot of possibilities and exciting things coming. So, just so I understand, your museum then is just for artists that lived and worked in Utah or is just to [00:08:00] showcase Utah artists, but from any, any faith tradition or any time period or,Micah Christensen: Yeah, there's no origin criteria. It's whether or not they were connected to Utah in a meaningful way.Jenny Champoux: Okay.Micah Christensen: you know, some of the shows we're looking at doing are maybe one on Emil Kosa, who trained with Alphonse Mucha then worked in California and was the only artist I know who won an Academy Award.He did all the set design for Cleopatra and he did the 20th century Fox logo with the search lights. He invented that. But he spent about 30% of his time painting in Utah just because he loved the atmosphere. And he worked with a lot of artists that we know, like LeConte Stewart.I mean, he's not strictly from Utah, but he painted in Utah a lot. I'm not going to do a lot of those shows. The plan is that Utah needs to just [00:09:00] know its artists better.Jenny Champoux: I like that. I like that. And you also were involved in the publication a couple years ago on, was it the Dictionary of Utah Artists?Micah Christensen: I got roped into the Dictionary of Utah Fine Artists project,Jenny Champoux: Okay.Micah Christensen: so there have, this was the fourth edition of the Dictionary of Utah Fine Artists. The last one I think was published in 1997 and it had about 1500 artists living and historic in it. And we increased that size to 4,500 roughly artists. I wrote myself about 900 biographies of artists.Jenny Champoux: Wow.Micah Christensen: And I got some of them right. Some of them. And, and we would try and talk with every artist we possibly could. It was a revelation. It was overwhelming. It was inspiring. And I think that it was just a testament to the idea that we come from a place that is inordinately [00:10:00] populated by people who create art. and presently, uh, it, it was really humbling. And if you're, if any of you have a hard time sleeping at night, buy a copy, you'll, you, it's truly like a dictionary. It's like you, it's not the kind of book you buy because you're just casually reading about art. It's like a reference book.Jenny Champoux: Okay. Okay. Is Emily in the book? Because Emily, I know you're a practicing artist as well.Emily Larsen: You know, I think Vern decided that I was not, um, my art was not worthy of inclusion as an artist, but I did, I did write about maybe like 15 or 20 of the bios for some of the historic women artists.I’m a very, very small contributor, but not my collage art did not make it in as one of the 4,500, which I agree with. I agree with the decision.Micah Christensen: You know, Emily, I'm in charge of the next edition. Who knows when it happens, but, you know, we'll have a [00:11:00] conversation.Emily Larsen: I think my contributions as a museum professional are much more significant than my art contributions. But I love making art and that I think it's such a great, that that project is so important and is such a testament to the creative spirit of Utah and all the contributions that artists have made here, which it, it is fun to read about all the different people who have made art in Utah.And, and I mean, like me, there's so many people. You can never get everyone in a project like that. So, there's always more work to do, which I think is true of Latter-day Saint art too. If we're talking about specific faith tradition, it's just, there's so many stories and so many people to talk about.Jenny Champoux: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So, we're, this is our final episode of this series, looking at the Latter-day Saint Art Critical Reader. And the afterword was written by Laura Hurtado, who's another curator there in Utah. We all know, she’s done [00:12:00] fantastic work for years in the Utah and Latter-day Saint art scene.She unfortunately isn't able to join us today, but we're going to use her afterword as the jumping off point for our discussion. And in her essay, she reflected on what she saw as the central tension in the book’s essays. And it was this desire by the Latter-day Saints to be seen as both unique and sort of different, and also at the same time to be accepted by the larger society.And I think we see that theme throughout many of the essays in the book and in the art, it's reflected in the art. So, in earlier episodes that we did in the series, we saw how Saints, the earlier Saints, used art to project an image of refinement and normalcy. Even sometimes sending artwork back East to say, you know, kind of look at what we're doing out here. We’re just nice Americans building a beautiful [00:13:00] American settlement out here.Laura points out in her essay that recently most pieces for the outside art world directly addressing Latter-day Saint issues tend towards a sort of exotic approach. So, sort of looking at sort of the weirdness or the strangeness of Latter-day Saint culture and practice.I see that. But on the other hand, I also see that within the Church, it seems like there's been kind of a move by leaders and even members. And we see this like in the offerings at Deseret Book of a move towards more kind of typical Christian imagery that is less distinctly like Mormon and more just kind of Christian.So, more crucifixion imagery. Yongsung Kim has been very popular with these images of Jesus. Jesus as the shepherd, or [00:14:00] Jesus in a field, or Jesus just smiling at us. I even see artists kind of turning to these Catholic visual devices in their framing or the format of the canvas and sometimes even the symbolism.So, I mean, just, I see this sort of widening divide, right, between maybe some contemporary LDS artists and also artists outside of the faith tradition focusing on the sort of strangeness of Mormon art. But then within the Church, I see a desire for this more like mainstream kind of Christian art. So, I want to ask, are, are you seeing this as well?Do you agree with my assessment here? Do you want to push back on any of this? Or what do you think are the trends happening right now with, with Latter-day Saint art? Emily, can I go to you first?Emily Larsen: Sure. Yeah, I mean, I agree with you Jenny and I, and I agree with Laura. I think that you see such a wide variety. I think you [00:15:00] do see this, like Laura points out, especially in artists working in larger contemporary art circles and in, in different venues, that there is this emphasis on the strangeness and the, that exoticization.But like you're saying, there's so much art being created that does kind of try to conform to this mainstream imagery. We, one of the other shows we host at Springville each year is an annual exhibition competition of spiritual and religious art. And it's open to any faith tradition, but of course we're in Springville, Utah. So many pieces are dealing with the Latter-day Saint faith tradition, either from a devotional aspect or from an outsider out aspect. And think what's great about these shows at Springville, where we get so many entries is you really do see this wide swath of variety and kind of anywhere along the spectrum, you'll see are.I was talking to some other people [00:16:00] recently about in the gallery last fall for this Spiritual and Religious show. In one of the galleries, we had this very traditional depiction by Del Parson, who, that's the artist who did the very traditional portrait of Christ in the red robe that you see in the meetinghouses. So, there was a portrait of Christ by him with a young child. And then right across from this was more of an installation piece by an artist who, and I could be getting this a little bit wrong, but I think in their artist statement, identified themselves as a queer Mormon witch. And I think that speaks to the, and it was very contemporary, and it was installation based, and it was interactive. And those kind of, to me, in the same gallery in Springville showed this just the wide variety of art being made for different audiences and for different motivations in the Latter-day Saint tradition.So that was my long rambly answer to say, yes, I agree with you, Jenny.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. So, you kind of see this like widening divide here, that there's Yeah, I, yeah, but I think, yeah, it depends [00:17:00] on the audience, right? Of, of who they're marketing it towards. Micah, what do you think?Micah Christensen: Oh, I've got a lot of thoughts. First of all, I read through what Laura wrote a few times and really just, I thought she was so thoughtful and she had so many thoughts that, uh, I had thought and I thought, oh, I was the only one who thought, I thought I was the only one who thought that. Right?When I read it and then I thought, boy, you could take so many of the things she wrote and write an entire chapter or book about just one paragraph or thought that she had. I found it to be, really, really, really thoughtful and this idea that you, that, that you brought out. And you've, I agree with you.I think that there is this, uh, this idea that there's a larger art world within that art [00:18:00] world, it's not cool to be religious in, in, in some parts of that art world. And I don't want to flatten the art world too much because there's a lot of variety in the art world, right? But she talks a little bit about that.And, and I think what she's talking about is really the world of contemporary art. The kind of art that's really demanding most of the attention and resources in, in museums and art schools and, and, and galleries worldwide, which is, she travels quite widely. And she talks about going to the Venice, she doesn't biennale, but it's where I know she's gone to that. She's spent a lot of time in London. And those are things that I also have spent a lot of time at.And, you know, it the, the, when I have seen LDS artists who play in that world, they do assume this kind of, it's almost like that is what makes them different, being a Latter-day Saint.And they use that as a way to get some traction in a world where everybody [00:19:00] is trying to get some kind of identity. Right? And then there's, there, uh, she breaks down, pretty, in a fascinating way, what it was like working for the Church and the Church's concerns with the kinds of things they were collecting and what they were encouraging or not encouraging. And then I, also, I, my perspective that I think is maybe different from hers or most people's is I did my master's and PhD on how artists were trained in academic traditional art, plays very well with religious subjects in a non-cynical way. Right? It's very earnest often, and there is a Venn diagram that crosses over with Latter-day Saint artists who are working in figurative art and making very sincere images and finding an audience for it, and they see no reason to compromise what they're doing.And a larger world that's [00:20:00] doing representational figurative artwork. But even that world, which is the Michael Angel Academy, the Daniel Graves Academy in Florence, the, the academies in New York of the Grand Central Academy where there are a lot of LDS artists go to these places. When you get to, when I've spoken at these academies in London, Spain, France, Italy. The United States, even Latin America, they all have a mentality, like some of these figurative Latter-day Saints do feel that as figurative artists working in a traditional method, the art world is against us. Which then makes them feel really cool too, right? Because then they're the young upstarts that are just like the modernists who were upstarts against the academy.Now they're the upstarts.Jenny Champoux: HmmMicah Christensen: So I, I don't know, I kind of, sometimes I'm somewhat cynical when I think, oh, Latter-day Saints have to be seen as weird, or, [00:21:00] they have to, they have, I, I think it's, it's almost like you pick your audience. Or your patron is another way of saying that. And there are the demands that are put on you limitation or opportunity, right.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. No, that's really interesting. Because even though the figurative artists maybe right, are less, I don't know, in the majority, in the contemporary art world, they're very much in demand with our Church leadership, right, who was commissioning art, figurative art for temples, or just other gospel art. So it's like you said, and I think Laura touched on this in her essay too, that Latter-day Saint artists are trying to negotiate between these different patrons or audiences. Like the Church leaders who want didactic, figurative images, and members who want that too, who want prints of those kinds of images in their home.And then [00:22:00] you've got the Church History Museum trying to, you know, like build a comprehensive repository of Latter-day Saint art, trying to encompass everything. And then this really expansive contemporary art market. And, and they each have different motivations, different styles that are preferred.And, I don't know, Emily, how do you see Latter-day Saint artists negotiating those different markets?Emily Larsen: Yeah, it's really interesting and I mean, I'm so familiar with our local and regional art scene, most familiar with that versus kind of an international or national contemporary art scene, even though I keep up on that and try to be sure I'm staying aware of what's going on. But you do see artists prioritizing, like Micah said, and like Laura really points out in the book different audiences and patrons.And I think too, once you kind of decide what kind of art you're making as an artist and who that art is really for and what's motivating it, you cut, there's these different subcultures, even in like a [00:23:00] small of place as Utah and Salt Lake City, there's dozens of different art communities and cultures and they're all having different conversations and sometimes it overlaps and, and sometimes it doesn't.And that's really interesting because you do see that like what's motivating the art and who the art is trying to speak to most, whether that is a, a larger contemporary art scene or, or a scene in Utah or a religious patron. It really does affect the way that the artists are making art. And, sorry, I don't know if this thought is very well formed, but, it is interesting to see where those overlaps happen and where they don't and what motivates the different artists, even just here in Utah.Jenny Champoux: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Micah, do you see, are there places for Latter-day Saint artists that are doing religiously informed art? Are, are there places for them to market that outside of, you know, Deseret Book or Church Temple art commissions?Micah Christensen: [00:24:00] Absolutely. I, I don't know how big it is.Jenny Champoux: Yeah.Micah Christensen: that, it's, it's happening. So, for instance, there's a, an international show that's called The Art Renewal Center.So, the Art Renewal Center has this major competition every year, there's a competitor that's come up to it called the Almenara Prize that's happening in Spain. And each one of them has a lot of religious art that's sent to them, much of it by LDS artists. And it's either bought by the organizations that are putting on the competition or by people who see the artwork on the site.And I've talked with artists, they're working for Ang, the LDS artists who were working for an Anglican commission or a Catholic commission or a commission that is, it has nothing to do with Latter-day Saint group. There was a major, one of the most beautiful installations I've ever seen of [00:25:00] sculpture and painting was done by Joseph Brickey in a church in, in Minnesota. And it was done for a Catholic church. He worked on it for many years in collaboration with a Catholic priest. And here's Joseph Brickey, who is one of the fun, like most LDS of LDS artists. I mean, he's been around for decades doing work for temples, for church publications. And here he's got a huge commission that he was given by the Catholic Church. So I know that, I know that it's happening. Uh, and you know, I've judged art competitions in Spain and in France before, and there's always, you know, a few Latter-day Saint artists that are competing in them. I think that's, it's there. There is a small group that are doing it.Jenny Champoux: Yeah.Micah Christensen: I was [00:26:00] speaking to somebody who I, you know, I own, I'm one of the owners of Anthony's Fine Art in Salt Lake, and about 70% of our clients are out of the state or out of the country. And most of the religious art that I sell, that I don't have a lot of contemporary artists that are LDS that are in the gallery. It's mostly historic, but whether it's historic or contemporary religious artists, most of my art goes to non-LDS out of state buyers.Jenny Champoux: Oh, really?Emily Larsen: And we're working with a smaller group of collectors than Micah is, but we sell a huge variety of works each year from our Spiritual and Religious show that are all across kind of the genre spectrum, medium style, some very devotional and traditional, some very contemporary. And I think there's examples. Like I keep thinking of Camilla Stark.She's a, a great artist based here in Provo, who works in a more contemporary style. She just did a [00:27:00] Kickstarter campaign for her graphic novel, The Desert Prophet, and it went, it was hugely successful. And so I think there are lots of people out there, religious art answers these huge questions about what it means to be human or attempts to, right, attempts to get at some of those and some of these shared experiences.And I think there's a, a hunger for that among people. So I think there is a, a big market.Jenny Champoux: I like that. I like that idea of thinking about these universal themes, but maybe viewed through a Latter-day Saint lens or perspective on it. Yeah.All right. To shift gears a little bit, and looking more at artwork within Latter-day Saint culture, Laura's essay talked about how there is this limited list of approved images for meeting houses.For listeners who may not know, probably most of you do, but in May of 2020, Church leaders announced this initiative to emphasize Jesus or images of Jesus in meeting [00:28:00] house artwork, especially in the foyers of the meetinghouse. And as part of that, if the stake president needed to select new artwork for the foyer, there is a provided list. And at the time in 2020, it was 22 images on this approved selection of foyer artwork. I've noticed over the past five years, that list has changed a little bit. Some, some pieces have been removed, some have been added. I think there are actually 23 now, but it's, it's kind of a different list than it was five years ago.I know you're both aware of that. Without getting too much into the particulars of any, any of the paintings, which maybe we could do if you want to. But I just kind of want to take a step back a little bit and think about what's your take on the impact of having this limited scope of approved images?Are there benefits to that? I mean, it seems like clearly there are limitations, but like, what are [00:29:00] the pros and cons here? Micah, will you start?Micah Christensen: Oh yeah, I've got, I got a lot of thoughts on this.Jenny Champoux: Okay.Micah Christensen: so first of all, I think we should talk about the mechanics of this,Jenny Champoux: Okay.Micah Christensen: So it's, the Church is broken up into various patronages, you could say, right? So, there's the temple, which has images which are not reproduced outside of the temple. There's the Ensign and Church magazines and website, which things that they sometimes use the art for, but don't usually own the original art. They just buy a limited use or maybe a long-term use image, and they tend to be the most liberal with the kinds of images they use.Jenny Champoux: Right.Micah Christensen: Then you've got the Church History Museum, which is, Laura talks about, has a, she used the word edict from D&C 22 to just collect everything. Right? Not from a, just from a perspective of being good [00:30:00] stewards, of collecting what's being made right. And then there is the Church department that oversees meetinghouses, and that is what we're talking about with this particular question. And what they give, when you build a new building in the Church, usually it's given as a book to the stake president. Abook of images that the stake president, hopefully in counsel with the, like the stake leadership, including men and women.Jenny Champoux: Right?Micah Christensen: a decision to put what images in what building and they, they're, and then they say to the Church, these are the images I want.And the Church out. It's, you know, it, it, it gives them whatever size they need and frames it and sends it to them. So they have this booklet that they, they've had around since the 90s.And they chose, [00:31:00] a really important, I think to say why they chose to change it. In 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement was happening. I don't think right away, but the Church leadership, even Dallin, President Oaks, said Black Lives Matter. Right? He did use those words and there was not a lot of art that showed people of different races. Right? There's very European informed, so what the Church did in its first iteration is it took, it, it scoured their rights of what they had, that had a variety of things, and they immediately added like 10 paintings that they already owned. But then as I understand it, they've commissioned 10 or 15 more. From different artists.And it was chaos for a little while. I remember I got a phone call, I don't know if Emily, you had anything like this, but I got this phone call, five or six different versions of it. I'll tell you the one from Oakland. So a stake [00:32:00] president and stake Relief Society president gave me a phone call, conference call, and they said, we want to change out all the art in our meetinghouses. We've been told you're somebody who knows a lot of different LDS artists. We want people to walk into our meetinghouses and to see themselves. They don't see Black people, they don't see Hispanic people, they don't see people who are of all different colors. We want those kinds of images in our place. What do you think we should do? And the Church had given the counsel of, to them, of pick your own art and if, and then we will at some point send an administrator to come in and see if it's okay. But if you, but if you picked it through a counsel system, it's gonna be very, but they we're gonna largely trust you.They went out and bought the, they convinced Kirk [00:33:00] Richards and Rose Datoc Dall, who are not on the list, from what I understand, to make some original works and to buy the rights of other works, which they, as a stake paid for, to put in their building. And as far as I understand, the Church has not gone in and, and taken it out. But the Church was kind of panicked that everyone was gonna do this, I thinkJenny Champoux: Right, right,Micah Christensen: it was like, it was like, oh my gosh, like if everybody's picking their own art and going directly to the artist, we better, we better like get some standardized images.Jenny Champoux: right. Well, and that seems to be one of the benefits is you have that kind of familiar uniform visual culture throughout the world. Emily, what do you think about that? Is that, is that useful or, or are there ways that go.Emily Larsen: oh, it's, it's incredibly useful for a certain motivation of the Church, right? Like I, I Laura's book chapter talks a lot about all the [00:34:00] different ways you can identify as LDS or more or not, and I'm definitely in that complicated, I, uh, I'm not a practicing active member though I grew up LDS and am very, obviously very in, in this culture and in this world.So I might have maybe more of a cynical view of this than someone who was very much more of a believing devotional member. But I think there's, there's a lot of motivation for the corporate Church, right, to standardize that, for it to be uniform. That this is, these are the artworks that are going to be on display when we want our members taking part in taking the sacrament and doing these really devotional rituals each Sunday or, or when they're there for classes, they can then control the imagery that's part of that experience. And I think that's very useful when you have a church of millions of members all over the world.But I think you, for me, there's a huge [00:35:00] con to it because I really love the things that have come out of Latter-day Saint visual culture. Out of our, our super specific and super local. We have this great piece in our collection. It's by Mabel Frazer. Heather Belnap discusses it in her chapter in this book, and it's a work of art that Mabel created for her chapel for where that her local congregation came each Sunday and took the sacrament.And it's, it's this very strange painting of Jesus among the Nephites. I think a lot of people who see it just think it's bizarre, but it is monumental, it's, you can't even really fit it in the museum because it's so big. And that she created that for her chapel and of her understanding of this Book of Mormon's story is so much more meaningful and interesting to me as an art historian.And even as someone who would go to worship, I would love to worship in a space that had some of that more local art. But I, [00:36:00] I think there's a lot of reasons to not do it that way. Because as Micah points out, you, you kind of let it open to anything and then it's hard to, keep it standard amongst all those different congregations.Jenny Champoux: Yeah, I, I mean, I feel like it's a little tricky, right? Because I do see benefits to having that kind of uniform visual culture and there's just sort of a visualization of belief and doctrine that is appropriate. But then, you know, when the art is always like, when you have 23 paintings that are the only 23 paintings you see in Church foyers, I feel like over time there's a potential for it to become just kind of like background noise where you don't even, they're so familiar, you don't even really engage with them anymore as a viewer. It doesn't spark new thought or conversation or questions. And also, you know, may [00:37:00] not reflect, in our global church, it may not reflect individual experiences or, or different cultures. So I think it's, I think it's tricky. I don't know.Micah Christensen: I feel like she, Laura, nailed in this. There are two thoughts that I want to kind of combine that she shared. The first is that she said that we're iconoclastic in the Church. As Protestants. And I want to say more about that.But before I do, the other thought was that, I'll quote it. She says, by comparison to many other faith traditions, is still in its infancy, are at the very least in early puberty, and is awkward, naive, and still very much obsessed with policing its boundaries. Beau, I mean, brilliantly said, right? Brilliantly said. And I feel like to me, when you are half Jewish by descent, right?And my, anytime, [00:38:00] I'm not trying to belittle the pioneer experience, but anytime somebody would get up at the pulpit and talk about how much the Mormon pioneers suffered, my Jewish grandma would be like, okay, here we go again. Suffered more than the Jews, right? And she would, she would have kind of this perspective of, you know, they're, they're young people, Micah, they've only been around for, you know, a couple hundred years of religion. We've been around for 8,000 years. That was her, that was her thinking. Whether it's, we could examine that right? As an idea. But, and, and whether or not we are glomming onto other traditions and borrowing from them and those kinds of things.But I think Laura's point, I, I specifically to this question you're asking of, is uniformity good? It's a chicken in the egg scenario for me on some level because how do you have an identity and a uniform experience as a global church when you don't have [00:39:00] imagery that's shared by everybody, right? But at the same time, you're so young and the imagery you're creating is arguably underdeveloped, awkward, naïve. Like she said, in puberty. And so when you're creating work that's like that, do you, are you on some level stunting its growth by creating uniformity at such an early stage?To me that's a real, it's a, it's a, it's, it's a thought that I think is, none of us can answer it until 500 years from now.I'm not a huge fan of uniformity myself. I do not like uniformity. I am like, just everybody create whatever they want to create and, and let the best stuff win. Right?Jenny Champoux: yeah.Micah Christensen: and maybe the best stuff means that everything wins and just has different audiences. Right?Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Mm-hmm. [00:40:00] Yeah.Micah Christensen: I, I also realized that as if I were in Church leadership that I, I understand at some point you have to say. Yeah. You know, we're building a building and people come here and they, and we've got to contribute to a certain kind of experience.Emily Larsen: I think it's interesting to think about like, how, what are the ways that the Church or, or us as a, a larger Latter-day Saint culture need to introduce people to different artists? Because maybe in meetinghouses isn't the way to show the great variety of art that's being made in our tradition or about our faith tradition.But there's, I find people really at our visitors at the museum, they're experience is so specific to a specific artwork, and when it becomes, when it is that individual expression that relates to their own human experience, that's where that magic, transformative, spiritual experience can happen with the work of art.And, and how do you, a kid in a [00:41:00] random chapel in in the world, how do you help them have that opportunity to find the artwork that speaks to them spiritually? I don't, I don't know if I have answer to that. And actually, Jenny, I think you have done a lot of work on that by creating the Book of Mormon Art Catalog, where you create this huge repository of art being made about a subject that people can find.But it's, it's such an interesting and complicated question when we get down into the weeds of it.Jenny Champoux: Thanks.Micah Christensen: Yeah, I mean the, the, I think that something you said, Emily, I, I. Goes back to this iconoclasm and why we have to be iconoclastic on some level, on a doctrinal level know, you, when you go into these chapels and, and uh, Laura talks about this and quotes a couple others, the things that are definitely like utilitarian in uniform or you go in and it's the same chairs, the same tables, the same [00:42:00] walls everywhere you go because it's practical, right? It's super practical. And, and I think that you want people to have, we are a people who are extremely literate in the sense that, in the history of religions, most people before the Enlightenment were not very literate and they were experiencing religion through images, maybe mostly in architecture. They relied on a priest whose job it was to interpret. Right? And to read to them the text and, and then Protestantism comes along and everybody in our church is encouraged to read the words. Right?If I had to say, like, for me as an example is like maybe a fake made up example is you a revealed, uh, a sacrament meeting prayer that has to be word for word and it's corrected if it's wrong. We would never put an image above a sacrament meeting table [00:43:00] in, in order to show it off. We would never really put an image in a celestial room either. Right? Because the whole idea is that, that it's the revealed word. It's your personal revelation, your personal experience. And an artwork is by definition someone else's vision and idea. That's their vision and idea. And the Church is at its own cross-purposes the moment they pick one artist to represent, because words can be interpreted in all kinds of ways, right? The moment you create an image that's supposed to be everybody's way of interpreting something and thinking about something, then you create a much narrower vision what those words potentially mean. And so on some level, I think the demand of religion is either, you got two ways to go. Either have no images and everybody has their own interpretation, right? Or you let every image possibly come in. So you've got tons of variety [00:44:00] interpretations everybody has got an interesting way of looking at the first vision or something else.Or you're in this weird in between place where we've got like five official first visions and they're all a little different than one another, but they're not necessarily like, how do you depict brightness of the sun? Literally, right? Abstraction is sometimes a better way to do it, and the Church does not accept abstraction as the way to depict it.And so you're immediately like, at cross-purposes with what art can do and what the Church will do and what the word can do.Jenny Champoux: That's such an, that's such an interesting tension there between these different competing factors and motivations.Okay. Switching gears again in, in the book, in the introduction to the book, written by the co-editors, they identified several themes that they saw in Latter-day Saint art, including things like, you know, self [00:45:00] fashioning through image, or notions of race and gender. I, as I've done this 10 episode series, I kind of regrouped the way they had them grouped in the book because I wanted to think about maybe additional kind of cross dialogue between these essays.And I've really enjoyed that talking to the, the authors over the series. One that came up over and over again, I mean, there were several, but one that stood out to me was, it came up in the very first chapter by Terryl Givens, is this fluid boundary between the sacred and the profane in Latter-day Saint art.And, I wanted to ask you both how you see that. Maybe Emily, maybe with your Spiritual and Religious show there, how, how do you see artists negotiating or like transgressing that boundary between sacred and profane? And, and then Micah, I'd love to get your take as someone who, like you said, has judged [00:46:00] religious, you know, Catholic religious competitions or European religious art. Like how does Latter-day Saint, how do Latter-day Saint approaches to this sacred and profane paradigm? How do they compare with maybe what Catholics or Europeans are doing? Is it different? Is it similar?Emily Larsen: Yeah, I think, I think this is a huge theme in Latter-day Saint art that you see different artists approaching differently. And I mean, we already mentioned Joseph Brickey, but I think artists like him and who are really interested in sacred geometry and symbolism and, and really understanding how their visual language is tying into this spiritual symbolism and, and Christian iconography that goes back centuries.They're on maybe one end of a spectrum that's really more in the sacred there. I would say that they consider their art sacred. And, and, and Micah maybe can push back on my interpretation of this too, but then there's a lot of artists who are playing with the [00:47:00] daily life, sacredness, spirituality, and daily life, and that's of how they're communicating their beliefs or the, the Latter-day Saint doctrine.I think like a great example that is really popular is Brian Kershisnik’s Jesus and the Angry Babies.Jenny Champoux: Yeah.Emily Larsen: like the, this hugely celestial figure of Jesus Christ, a a God, part of our godhead sitting with babies he can't make happy. Like that's the, the, the daily ritual experience. And there's a lot, a lot of artists in Utah and in, in the Latter-day Saint tradition who, who express their religion and their spirituality through these daily lives and moments.And then there's artists like, and I already mentioned her too, so sorry, I keep just repeating artists that we've already mentioned, but Camilla Stark and the Arc-hive, which is this Mormon Art Collective, who purposefully is examining these intersections of the sacred and profane. And even in kind of a, a funny way, they curated a show that I was part of [00:48:00] maybe six or seven years ago called Holy Hell.And it was all about how do we use these symbols in our visual culture that sometimes are sacred or these sacred figures, but start to kind of play, add a playfulness to that, add a sense of humor, poke fun a little bit, and there's artists all across the spectrum doing all sorts of that.Jenny Champoux: Fascinating. Okay. Micah, what do you think?Micah Christensen: I think that fundamentally the Church is of two minds of this sacred and profane because I, I think that if you're Catholic, for instance, God is mysterious. There's a kind of unknowability and a lack of human understanding of what God is doing and why. And as Latter-day Saints, we've got that from the King Follett discourse.The idea of as man, as God as man is God once was, as God is man may become. And that was seen [00:49:00] as blasphemous by a lot of religions. We know this because it was like almost on an idea of like, of God is so much different than us, it was more like you know, we're, from their perspective, we're pulling God down to our level. A little bit, right. That he's understandable. He is knowable, he's logical from our own comprehension. I'm not saying that all our, the, all the doctrine of, of, of the Church says that, but I think in our arts it's, funny because even the way we, even use paintings there, there, you know, they're, we're posing in a picture during a baptism in front of a painting where Christ is hugging children. Right? He's somebody who's like, he's your, he's your buddy. He's your friend. He's like a member of the family, right?And, uh, it's this, this whole debate that I don't think is anything new. There's this great, [00:50:00] oh, I can't remember who it was, but it was a, was a Swedish author who comes to the United States, and he does a commentary as he's traveling across the United States in the 1970s. he says that all, the one thing that's interesting about the Mormon Christ is he looks like Bjorn Bork, which who was a famous tennis star at the time, and you've heard me talk about this before, both of you, that the Mormon depiction of God tends to track pretty closely whatever, with whatever the popular image of a perfect Hollywood star man looks like at any one time. In the eighties, he looks kinda like Sylvester Stallone and Schwarzenegger. He is big. He's got a jaw. He becomes more beautiful and Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise-like in the nineties. And now he kinda looks like a Marvel superhero. Right. And I think that not mysterious and even this discussion's about we can, he was, he, he was Semitic.Let's make him look Semitic. [00:51:00] Let's make him look like somebody who really existed, you know, 2000 years ago. And let's get that exactly right. because we can, we can do anthropology and research and we can know exactly what Jesus looked like. These are conversations that Catholics are like, you can’t know that stuff.I mean, it that, like, that is in and of itself a profane discussion, right? That we're bringing God down to this definable thing. And, and I, don't know. I think that it's got its pluses and minuses because we really have a relatable imagery of Christ. He's somebody you can relate to who understands us and our needs according to these images,Jenny Champoux: Yeah.Micah Christensen: it's also got the limitation of, it's limited by our own imagination of, you know, of what people are like. So I think Givens, it's a really profound question of, I think maybe [00:52:00] Latter-day Saints more than anybody in the shows I've judged, are more willing to make everything profane. To make it sacred.It's like going to a Church temple department meeting that they had in like 2019 where they said, okay guys, we're gonna make images for the Church. And we've got on staff anthropologists and archeologists who can make sure that the jars you put in your paintings are accurate. As if like, we look at a work of art and say, I am so inspired by that painting. That jar is really from the first century ad. Holy cow. Right? Like, I feel the spirit so strongly because that textile is accurate, right? That to me is how I like, look at this sacred and profane discussion on some level of, I, I don't think it's a I'm, I'm not trying to like knock somebody who's got it accurately. I just [00:53:00] don't think that it's necessarily the thing that's going to make art inspiring or useful.Jenny Champoux: That's an interesting example you give of that sort of drive for historical accuracy in biblical art. And that, I mean, that was very popular among other American and European 19th century Bible artists. Right? And, and, and Latter-day Saints, I think kind of picked that up and ran with it and have continued it in a way that, uh, a lot of other faith traditions have left off.But maybe one of the motivations there is that, that if it looks like a first century pottery, then somehow that speaks to like the truth of Christ's life as a mortal man in, in Jerusalem. I don't know. I mean, I'm assuming that's sort of the motivation there is that it like, is this sort of truth signaling.Micah Christensen: [00:54:00] I think that's true, and I also think it's a fight and another way against the Northern European, white Jesus. Right? Which is itself an invented image.It's also a necessary, it's one way of battling that kind of like, we're gonna have our own Mormon Christ that's different from the Danish Carl Bloch, or the German Heinrich Hofmann Christ. So I think it's part of what Laura was talking about. It's we're kind of in our infancy and our puberty trying to figure out like, is history is, is is some anthropological answer gonna get us our own Mormon Christ? I don't know.Jenny Champoux: Yeah.Micah Christensen: I don't know. I mean, it is, right, too about the idea of by making it more about accuracy historically, it also maybe brings us closer to who he actually was, which [00:55:00] goes to that profane question because it's like an everyday.Jenny Champoux: Right,Micah Christensen: than a mysterious, symbolic figure that you would possibly see in a Catholic image.Jenny Champoux: right. It's, it's emphasizing his mortality more than his divinity, right? He's not standing on a cloud. He's a real personMicah Christensen: right.Jenny Champoux: you know, in sandals standing in the dirt. Yeah. So that, that's a, yeah. Lot, lots to think about. Well, also thinking about kind of where things are headed, in the forward to the book, it was written by Richard Bushman and Glen Nelson. They talked about the book as being a launching point to inspire additional work. I mean, obviously both of you are doing amazing work in Utah and LDS adjacent spaces and there's so much more going on out there. And I just wanted to ask you both as, as curators and scholars, what, [00:56:00] what other themes do you think need to be explored or what are, what kind of work needs to be most urgently done to fill in the gaps of Latter-day Saint visual culture history?Emily, do you wanna start us off?Emily Larsen: Yeah. You know, I think great the more that gets published. I think, I don't have a specific, like I wanna see this book. I mean, there's a million books that I tell people all the time, like, I'm really excited Vern’s John Hafen books coming out. And Heather Belnap and I eventually will finish our book on Mormon Women art or Utah women artists, which a lot of them are Mormon.And there's, I know of all these projects and I feel like there's still so little done that at this point it's kind of like, do anything! Start with like, keep adding to our conversation on Latter-day Saint art and visual culture. Because I think what, what I actually think what it really means with this book is a great launching point, is more conversations between scholarship. [00:57:00] Like there's a lot of like, oh, someone's written about this and someone's written about this, but where are people kind of arguing scholarly in an academic conversation about some of these things? I think that's where we'll start to get really fruitful scholarship when there's enough of us writing about it that we're actually starting to debate with one another in the scholarship.Jenny Champoux: Oh, I like that. Yeah. That, that sounds good. Yeah. Micah, what about you? What, what do you see? How can we bring a more complete picture to this history?Micah Christensen: I, I think we're living at a time when we're getting away from being just official images and there's a lot of things happening in, in the private market. You see people like Kirk Richards who's got his JKR Gallery, and you've got Esther Candari. You've got the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. You’ve got a lot of [00:58:00] different people who all bring their own audiences and their own perspective are, they've got very different tastes than, than the Church does. There's some crossover with some. But I, I just kind of, I kinda feel like we're at the precipice of, it's, the Church is no longer gonna be the one who may be, and it's exciting, who's commissioning all the great works of art. Right? Or, or the ones that are the most remembered potentially. Right? We may be entering a time when, maybe there are private chapels or private homes or things like that, who knows? Right? And I think that if I were, if I were writing about this right now, I'd want to be talking with collectors and what they're after, right?That, and, and I would want to talk with artists who are kind of on the margin of deliberately chosen to continue making day art, but that isn't, is deliberately [00:59:00] not for the Church as a patron.I think that that world to me is, is kinda like the jazz that's going on.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Nice. Yeah. You know, when I, Emily mentioned my Book of Mormon Art Catalog website, and that project really started when I was writing a sort of scholarly history of images of Lehi's dream from 1 Nephi 8 in the Book of Mormon. And I wanted to kind of see how, how artists had responded to that chapter of scripture and what had changed over time or what, what parts of that chapter were emphasized more than others in the art.And even how artists from different countries maybe were interpreting it differently. And so I started trying to gather just images of Lehi's dream and it partly made me feel like there [01:00:00] just, there needs to be a better repository for Latter-day Saint art. Especially art based on the scriptures to show, if we want to do scholarship on Latter-day Saint art, we need to have, right, the primary sources to, to look at it. And, so yeah, so I started, that's what started the whole Book of Mormon Art Catalog. And now we have I think like 250 Lehi's dream artworks in there and over 12,000 artworks cataloged in there total. And there's just, there's so much out there and, like Emily said, I mean, just do anything, right?There's so much to be done in terms of the scholarship and the contextualization and helping, not just art historians or scholars, but also just members of the Church, understand their history better, understand how to look at art, how to engage with it, how to ask questions of it, and how to use it as a [01:01:00] helpful, study tool as, as they read the scriptures and study the doctrine.So, yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I, I, so I don't know that I have one answer of like, what's the biggest gap in the history, if it is, like Emily said, just, just get to work everybody. Like there's, there's work to be done. Yeah.Okay. So I'm ending every episode by asking our guests to share a particular artwork that is meaningful to you.Emily Larsen: One that I love is the one I already talked about this Mabel Frazer painting in our collection. And the other one that I've been thinking about as I've been mulling around this question is we just have this great self-portrait by Gary Ernest Smith in our collection.And I think actually Menachem Wecker talks about it in his chapter on the Mormon Art and Belief. But it's kind of this, it's a very dark, in some ways self-portrait. It's the moment I think it's even called Decision. But, as Gary Ernest Smith, who was one of the founding members of the Mormon Art and Belief Movement was, was [01:02:00] deciding to convert to the Latter-day Saint faith and this moment of decision.And you kinda see him very and in, in deep thought in the foreground. And then behind him are like these kind of two pathways that it's very, kind of a psychological self-portrait. And I think. To me that is the, the great thing about almost all religious art and all art, but especially Latter-day Saint art is like, it is all these very individual human experiences and spiritual experiences and spiritual decisions.And that's one of the great things about Latter-day Saint art and doctrine is there's such an emphasis on personal revelation and your own experience. And I, I think that self-portrait captures that, that moment of doubt and of belief and the tension between the two and what way are you gonna go and how will spirituality in your life.So that's one of my favorites.Jenny Champoux: Yeah, that's a really, that's a really powerful piece. Yeah, it really does capture all those emotions. Thanks. Micah, what about you?Micah Christensen: So the piece that [01:03:00] I'm thinking of is by Walter Rane. It's an oil painting that he did that, uh, I think it's called. Oh my gosh. I'll have to look it up. It may, the theme of it is resurrection.Jenny Champoux: Okay.Micah Christensen: It has a woman who is clearly holding a man who has, who is kind of being carried by the woman.And I asked Walter how he came up with it and, and what the theme was. Because I think the title isn't clearly about resurrection.He said, Micah, and if you've met Walter, he's a very soft spoken person, but he has a lot of original thinking and he does a lot of official images for the Church.And he said, Micah, this is not official doctrine. Okay. He said, but if women have a role in bringing life to and, and giving birth, don't you think they have a role in resurrection [01:04:00] and it's their job to resurrect people? And it, it, it blew my mind. Because you know, there's, there's occasionally you see these lists go around by Church officials who are trying to commission works and they're going through the scriptures and they're trying to come up with, oh, do we have that one of the prophet talking to the donkey?Or do we, do we have this one? Like we, we've got like so many of Christ talking to the Samarian woman, but we only have one of this particular image. Right? And it's like they're going by text that's literal. Walter, he was coming up with something that's not on any list. It's a, it's something that is an exploration that only art could possibly do.Jenny Champoux: Right.Micah Christensen: And I, to me that is the kind of art I wanna see more of. I want to see something that's not, it's not rebellious in its [01:05:00] nature. It's not disrespectful to anyone. It's maybe not doctrinal either. Right? But it's, but it's an exploration of a thought that makes me a little emotional, you know, to think about that piece.Jenny Champoux: Oh, that's a beautiful example of how a member of the Church is using the medium of art to, yeah, to explore their own beliefs and theology. Yeah. I like that. I'm gonna look that one up. Thank you.Micah Christensen: Yeah.Jenny Champoux: I don't know that I want the job of resurrecting people, though.Micah Christensen: Yeah. I, uh, I don't know either. And can you choose whether or not to do it? You're like, yeah, I don't know if I want to do that guy.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. It's like, well, how long has it been? I don't know. We'll see.Micah Christensen: Yeah.Jenny Champoux: Well, Emily and Micah, it was so great to talk with you both today. Thank you.Micah Christensen: [01:06:00] It was a privilege. Thanks for having us. Real honor to be picked.Jenny Champoux: For our listeners, thanks for being with us throughout this series. I hope you've enjoyed these discussions as much as I have, and that they've inspired you to look carefully at art and to learn more about Latter-day Saint visual culture. I believe there are exciting things ahead, so please keep exploring and keep looking at art.Thanks for tuning in. Thank you for listening to Latter-day Saint Art a Wayfare Magazine limited series podcast. Each guest is a contributor to the new book, Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader from Oxford University Press and the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. I hope you'll order a copy of the book to read the full essays and see all the gorgeous full-color images of the artwork.You can learn more about the book and other projects at the Center's website at centerforlatterdaysaintarts.org. If you enjoyed this interview, be sure to listen to the other episodes in this series. You can subscribe to Wayfare [01:07:00] Magazine at wayfaremagazine.org. And thanks to our sponsor, Faith Matters, an organization that promotes an expansive view of the Restored gospel.If you'd like to learn more about Latter-day Saint art, check out my other podcast, Behold: Conversations on Book of Mormon Art. You can also learn more at my website, the Book of Mormon Art Catalog. With more than 11,000 artworks, it's the largest public digital database of Latter-day Saint art. You can search by scripture reference topic, artist, country, year and more.And we recently added a new section for art based on Church history, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The website is bookofmormonartcatalog.org. Check it out and see what exciting new art you can find to enrich your study.Jennifer Champoux is the founder and director of the Book of Mormon Art Catalog. She wrote C. C. A. Christensen: A Mormon Visionary (University of Illinois Press, forthcoming) and co-edited Approaching the Tree: Interpreting 1 Nephi 8 (Maxwell Institute, 2023). Get full access to Wayfare at <a href="https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4">www.wayfaremagazine.org/subscribe</a>

April 30, 2025

Latter-day Saint Art Episode 8: Film Studies

Jenny Champoux: Welcome back to Latter-day Saint Art, a limited series podcast from Wayfare Magazine. I'm your host, Jenny Champoux in Latter-day Saint Art, I'll guide you through an examination of the artistic tradition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Each guest is a contributor to the new book, Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader, from Oxford University Press and the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. A video and transcript of each episode along with images of the artworks discussed are posted at Wayfaremagazine.org.In today's episode, we'll look at the history of films in the Latter-day Saint tradition. We'll focus on four themes: approaches to embodiment, the performance of values and beliefs, the influence of global cultures, and the projection of a Latter-day Saint self-image. Our guests today are Mason Kamana Allred and Randy Astle.Mason Allred is an associate professor of communication, media and culture at Brigham Young [00:01:00] University Hawaii. He earned his PhD from the University of California Berkeley with a designated emphasis in film studies. He is the author of Weimar Cinema: Embodiment and Historicity and Seeing Things: Technologies of Vision and the Making of Mormonism. In addition to being a co-editor of Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader, he wrote a chapter for the book titled, “The Piety of Perspective: Bodies, Media and Cinematic Experience In Latter-day Saint Film, 1970 to 2020.”Randy Astle is the author of Mormon Cinema: Origins to 1952 and over 60 articles on Mormon film. He has taught Mormon cinema at BYU, acquired hundreds of DVDs as the BYU Library’s Mormon film specialist. He edited special issues of BYU Studies and Mormon Artist Magazine. He served for two [00:02:00] years as film editor for Irreantum and programmed film screenings at the Sunstone Summer Symposium. And he created the Annual Academic Forum at the LDS Film Festival. He's currently writing a second book, Mormon Cinema: 1953 to 2024. His chapter we're looking at today is called, “Moving Pictures: Subjectivity and Mormon Identity in Documentary Film.”It's going to be fun to hear from these excellent scholars and to turn our attention to a slightly different form of art today. So, let's get started.Mason and Randy, thank you for talking with us today!Mason Kamana Allred: Happy to,Randy Astle: Thanks for having us.Mason Kamana Allred: be with you.Jenny Champoux: Mason, will you tell us more about your work as co-editor of this book? What was your vision for this project and how do you hope it will inspire future scholarship?Mason Kamana Allred: Thank you for that question. I love this book, so I'm happy to talk about it. And it was so much work it's really nice and [00:03:00] almost cathartic to talk about it now. But to be honest, the, the project was already really in place with, with Laura Hurtado and Glen Nelson kind of planning it out and reaching out to different authors who could cover uh, subject areas of expertise. So, by the time I was brought in to not only be a chapter, uh, author, but to be a co-editor with Amanda Beardsley, was already kind of set. So that was nice. She had done a lot of that front loading, preliminary work. But then when I came in, 'cause she's had other things going on in her life, she had to turn her attention too.So, Amanda Beardsley and I came in and took over editing together and worked with Glen Nelson and Mykal and all the team at the Center and Richard Bushman. And what it was like was, um, because we already had the author set and the, the basic subjects, we could still kind of mold a little bit like the direction of chapters and the overall sense of the volume. And we really enjoyed that. And, and Randy knows this too, but like, we kind of agreed, uh, Amanda, I, and, and Glen too, that we really wanted to have, [00:04:00] um, we wanted to be quite academic. We wanted it to like work in a college classroom, you know, at any, any campus, whether it was like BYU or Harvard, that you could totally use this in some class on, on religion and media or religious history or, or art and religion, something like that. So, we did want that, that kind of register to hit that register. Not to be inaccessible or pedantic, but to, to be legit. Like we wanted to treat it like that, and we felt like we had the right authors to pull that off.The other thing we both felt strongly that like we didn't, as much as possible, we didn't want people to write about art in a way that you could do if you'd never seen the artwork. So, we wanted them to do a lot of, to kinda lean into formal analysis, close textual analysis whenever possible. And that was great 'cause some people were more comfortable with that than others. Um, but you saw even historians kind of getting into more of that to really get descriptive and interpret at least analytical, if not interpretive, uh, at some points on these.So, we did want more of that. We knew we were gonna have tons of images. [00:05:00] So we had like, you know, 200 and something images in there. That was a lot of work. I'd never really worked with that many permissions and images and files before. That was daunting. Um, but that was the basic idea and we didn't wanna really tell authors what to do far as like their approach or coverage.And we tried to let them know like, it doesn't need to be exhaustive. Like that would be ridiculous to pretend like we could be comprehensive what we can. But you go where it takes you. And we tried to give them as much room to just do what they do 'cause they're all brilliant. Um, and I think it worked out well because of that. The, the sad thing for me was. I love this project, but the sad thing was when we first all signed up, and Randy will remember this in like 2020, it was like this idea that we were gonna get together like once, twice a year and have these big kind of like, know, moments to really counsel together, think about chapters, share with each other, what you're working on. And that only happened over Zoom, which was helpful, but not quite the same. So that was kind of sad 'cause I really wanted to hang out with all these people and we [00:06:00] gotta do like Zoom breakout rooms instead, but do anything about it at the time, right? So that's kind of how it all came together. So, it's been really exciting, uh, you know, steep learning curve. It's been great for me, but, um, I'm really proud of it. It's really a great volume. In fact, let me do my Bushman gif and hug this book because, uh, it, I'm really proud of it.I think it's a really great book. I can't wait to see how people build on it and how they critique it and do new things, but I feel, I feel really great about it.Jenny Champoux: Thank you. Yeah. And I'm glad you held up the book there for people to see. It is a gorgeous cover with that Jorge Cocco artwork on the front. Um, and I, I like, I appreciate that you, and, and also in our conversations with Glen Nelson and Amanda Beardsley, each of you have talked about how this was not an exhaustive survey of Latter-day Saint art, but, um, just sort of a first step and I think there's so much great information here, but it also just reveals the breadth of what [00:07:00] there is that can still be tackled in this field and how much there is to think about and analyze and contextualize. So, I think it's really inspiring for future work too.Mason, let me ask you one more follow up question. How did you decide the order of chapters? Because I noticed you and Randy have the only two chapters that deal exclusively with film studies, but they're, you know, separated by four or 500 pages in the book. What was your thinking as you put the chapters together?Mason Kamana Allred: So, we, we first looked at them kind, basically chronologically first. That was the list we had and how authors were reached out to. So, we all kind of saw it like that. And then as a, we got closer and closer once they were kind of written and we'd had seen versions, and I were just talking about it and we're like, it, it actually might be more productive.It just, 'cause, I don't know if it's just the way we, you know, learned about history in grad school and stuff, but just we thought it'd be more productive to get more kind of, um, constellations of ideas [00:08:00] across time rather than just this chronological. There's always a sense, I think, with chronological histories that it fills too inevitable it feels like you're headed towards some end goal. And, while that might, that might work well, theologically, I don't think it works great to think about art history that way. So, we thought it would be really productive to just bring things together and see if there weren't some kind of guiding themes or topics that we could cluster them around. And that was really productive for us too, because then we both sat down separately and thought about how we might do that, then came together and merged some those ideas and adjusted those.And, um, so yeah, we ended up the way it is, which is within a cluster. They are chronological, but they're smashed together in, in ways that we thought would, um, open up new ways of thinking about the chapters themselves. they, so they work like that across the volume. So, I think just because, um, the way that Randy and I each approached ours, um, it didn't make sense in the way we were doing that to put them together.And so, his worked out so well to put with, and I'm already kinda getting into this chapter a bit here, [00:09:00] but because he was thinking about, is such a great idea, let me just glaze this chapter for a second to think about how Latter-day Saints are so steeped in this idea of record keeping. I mean, you have like early scriptures in the Church and the Doctrine and Covenants saying keep a record like the Lord is telling them, keep a record. And there's like keep journals, keep records. such a great way to think about it is kind of the practice of Mormonism record keeping and as bearing testimony. You know, those are two things you've heard over and over across, um, since 1830 up till now. And so, to think about documentary nonfiction film in those ways works so well because then we could put his together with Colleen McDannell and Terryl Givens who both think about kind of like theological ways of thinking that are shaping what's being made and what's being displayed and how we're thinking about art.Randy Astle: That's interesting how they connect because it is because otherwise it is kind of a jump between their subject matters and mine, all of a sudden we're talking about documentaries, where'd this come from? But, but because I went so broad, I don't think I spent more than two or maybe three [00:10:00] paragraphs on a individual film.But Mason, you were able to, to limit your scope and go much deeper in your formal analysis of the films that you talk about, uh, in a way that, um, would, that I didn't do in my chapter and that. I don't think any of the films that you discuss have ever had a serious critical analysis, um, from the Mormon scholarship angle about them.Oliviera’s films were completely unknown until they've just been restored at, at BYU's film archives. And, and so you're like the first one to introduce this to the, the film scholarship community, which is, um, a different approach from mine that really phenomenal way to, to really get into the depth of, of the symbolism and the meaning and everything that was going on in these films from these directors that most Latter-day Saint viewers and readers will not have heard of before.Mason Kamana Allred: And I don't know if you know this Jenny, but like the way this worked out is because we were kind [00:11:00] of covid lockdown, I was doing research trying to find these films and I was interested in like what else is out there that I just don't know about. So, Randy's right that several of the ones I chose to go deep on are actually pretty obscure in the sense of if you're thinking of Mormon cinema. And that was a kind of deliberate move I made. So, then I felt like if you're gonna do that, to be fair, you need to be really descriptive and spend more time on each one to really, 'cause they may never see these.And the Oliviera ones, José María Oliveira, like, know, I'd heard these but I'd never even seen it back then when I was writing it.So, I was reaching out, trying to find people online who had a copy. And so eventually I, I get his phone number and I talk to him on the phone and. And then I,Randy Astle: Nice.Mason Kamana Allred: Ben Harry over at uh, BYU Provo, 'cause we worked together at the Church History Library. I was like, Hey, you gotta go to his house and get these masters and like restore this thing.And he was like, oh wait, who's it? So, in that conversation, I got Ben to go over there and meet with them and he got, and he actually had, and only Oliviera had them in his garage. Then those got restored and it was this really great relationship where like [00:12:00] I was teaching this Mormon cinema class then the next year it came around again, I had a restored copy, like a digital file of the restored copy fromRandy Astle: Huh.Mason Kamana Allred: because of that. So, and then there was a Salt Lake Tribune articleRandy Astle: I didn't know that's how it happened.Mason Kamana Allred: like what, just a few days ago talking to himRandy Astle: Yeah,Mason Kamana Allred: Right. So was really happy about that and, um, not that I'm trying to like, you know, get everyone exposure to these movies. Never heard of alone, just for the sake of being obscure. But because I think they're really worth looking at and talking about, like, I do think that they merit more attention.Jenny Champoux: I really liked this about both of your chapters that you both showed that there is a much longer historic tradition of film in the Latter-day Saint tradition that isn't as well known. Um, and I think both of you mentioned kind of the one, when people think about Latter-day Saint cinema, the first thing they think of is the movie God's Army from 2000. Randy, I saw you recently wrote a little essay [00:13:00] about this in the Association for Mormon Letters journal. Uh, so tell us what I mean, this, this may be a film that most of our listeners actually are familiar with, as you pointed out, one of the most, you know, groundbreaking LDS films.So, what, what was so revolutionary about this film? Um, what effect did it have?Randy Astle: Yeah. Well, um, I wrote this, uh, blog post, um, a couple weeks ago because God's Army actually came out on March 10th, uh, 2000. And so, I'd been casting around with some AML people or, or Ben at BYU and just saying, Hey, is anyone going to do anything, um, to, to celebrate this? And so I thought I'd write up a quick little, um, in memoriam or celebration of, of this film on its 25th anniversary, um, be, which is ironic because I kind of feel like I've made a, a little vocational career here for the past 25 [00:14:00] years of proving that God's Army was not the first LDS or Mormon film.Uh, when it came out. I, um, was really impressed by it, which is, I'll talk about that in a, in a minute, but I, I guess I have enough of a nerdy or academic bent that I thought, you know, I know this is not the first movie. I showed movies to people on my mission. I'd seen Legacy at the Legacy Theater, uh, and there's this mysterious Brigham Young movie from 1977.So, I thought, okay, what else can I go out there and, and see that there is, and you know, so that's taken 25 years as I've been learning all these thousands, not just hundreds of films that came before God's Army, um, let alone the explosion that it caused. So, so God's Army is not the first, um, LDS or Mormon film, Richard Dutcher's, not the father of, of Mormon cinema in that way.But we, I do have to give it credit, which is what I was trying [00:15:00] to do with this little blog post, because it did change everything. It's very arguably the most important, um, Mormon film ever made, at least in terms of the corpus of Mormon cinema and, and what it did to shape the course of that movement. Um, so I was a, I was a freshly enrolled, newly minted BYU film student in 2000 when it came out.And there were occasional student films and things that, that talked about something happening at BYU. So those were technically, uh, informed by the Church or the culture. Um, but then these rumors started going amongst the, the film students about this film that someone, some guy in California made a feature film about missionaries and he's going to release it.And no one knew who he was, uh, at least in my peer group or anything like that. But then he came for a Tuesday or a Thursday afternoon, um, college devotional there in the Harris Fine Arts Center. And he showed the trailer, and it was just the, I was [00:16:00] talking with Ben Harry about this 'cause we're the same age.He was there with me and he remembered it as well. Similarly, that the feeling in the room was just electrified. And there were, I think, two people crying and asking questions like, how did you do this? What, you know, where did this come from? What changed, I think, with God's Army was that it made it legitimate to tell, um, Mormon stories, but outside of, of a church setting.Not like literally going to work for the Church or showing things in, in Sunday school or seminary or firesides, but to put it into a commercial theater where it's accessible to the entire world. And, and before God's Army, you didn't think that way. That, that you could do that, that that was even a possibility.And after God's Army it was, uh, from that point on, you, um, could legitimately make a feature film about a Mormon or an LDS subject matter, which [00:17:00] just seemed unfathomable, didn't even occur to us, um, for the most part, uh, before that. Um, but, uh, you, you get sub genres. You, you get different, um, perspectives from people in different geographical locations.And it took a long time, but more and more women filmmakers, uh, entered the, the fray. So, it, it was slowly expanding, um, what it meant to, to be Mormon cinema, um, or the perspectives that you got from it. Um, but I don't think any of those would've happened, at least not on the timescale that they did, if, if God's Army hadn't come out, um, when it did and had the effect of just saying, yes, now you can actually, um, make these films for a general audience.Jenny Champoux: After I read your essay, um, I, I went back and, and watched it.Randy Astle: Oh.Jenny Champoux: Uh, and boy, it really was, I think, ahead of its time. And like you said, the [00:18:00] way that it shows these universal human experiences of with family trauma and relationships and finding spirituality, figuring out who you wanna be in life, finding love, um, finding how you want to relate to the world.And, but it's, they, the characters happen to be Mormon missionaries. Um, but it really centers around these, these bigger human universal themes and, um, I think really, really lovely. Yeah.Randy Astle: Yeah, I, I should watch it again and, and see how it's held, um, held up because I haven't really talked about the film itself. It's a well-made film, well-written, well-acted, um, shot, music, performances, everything. Um, it'll probably seem a little dated with the no smartphones and things like that, but, um, if it hadn't been one of the better Mormon films made, it wouldn't have had that effect. It would've, um, well had the opposite. In fact, it would've [00:19:00] tanked the idea for another 10 or 20 years, which is what's happened in the past with the, the movie from 1977 Brigham, which I've alluded to. I like it. I think it's fun, but it is a little campy. And it did kind of kill Mormon cinema for another 20 years in a, in a way.Mason Kamana Allred: you know what'sRandy Astle: Um, just because it didn't have the, didn't have the effect.Mason Kamana Allred: I was gonna say on, on God's Army, I think Randy's right, and, and he's written about it before where he talks about how like it's nice 'cause he has this smart way of thinking about it off that line. And like, well, Elder, you're not in Kansas anymore. It's a shift, right?You're you're not in your old Mormons anymore. And I remember I went on my mission in 2000, so I watched it right before I went on my mission. I was like, whoa, this is what I'm getting into. Wow. Because I'd seen like Labor of Love, I'd seen like some of these missionary ones where it's just so soft and sweet. then I saw that and it really opened my eyes. But I remember I was in Las Vegas and I do remember members in the ward like, oh, that's like disrespectful. That's, you know what I mean? It was aRandy Astle: Hmm.Mason Kamana Allred: reception of it, which tells me it did do something. It, it did shift the needle a little bit. And if it's ruffling,[00:20:00]Randy Astle: Yeah.Mason Kamana Allred: is probably a good sign. But I will say this too, I teach it in that Mormon cinema course, and it's wild how much these students who've never heard of it, never seen it. Love it.Randy Astle: Really?Mason Kamana Allred: it's often their favorite movie of Mormon cinema. And so, and they, the, andRandy Astle: Huh?Mason Kamana Allred: missionary is always like, oh yeah, that feels pretty spot on to my experience.I'm like, that's crazy. 25 years later. connect with these audiences still, uh, these latterRandy Astle: Yeah.Mason Kamana Allred: who've served missions. So, I'll just say it still seems to work. It still seems to hold up. The music feels a little bit outdated, I think, to a lot of students. Um, but the way it's cut together, the topics, it covers the of the characters.Like I, I think it's still a good movie.Randy Astle: It's interesting, uh, in that they relate to it so much because as I'm writing my, my second book, the second half of the history of Mormon film, um, when you're looking at it historically, the first thing you think about with God's Army is the theatrical feature film. Now we are having these movies, [00:21:00] The Other Side of Heaven, Brigham City, et cetera, et cetera, showing in theaters.But the more I thought about it, the more it was that point that you just made, Mason, that it was more realistic than Labor of Love, a Church missionary film or any other movie that missionaries had been in made by the Church. Um, so I'm calling the period, it's like mainstream realism more than, than, um, theatrical feature films because.God's Army shows a mission experience in a way that no film before it had, but which is accurate, which is realistic and, and which is some of the people were very offended by the shenanigans. They take a picture of a missionary using the toilet, things like that. Like yeah. But that's, that's how it happened.And then some other people, there were people in my student ward at BYU who were offended because they showed baptism some blessings and these things that are sacred ordinances, um, which they didn't think should belong in a commercial theater. It was not a, a [00:22:00] sacralized space that was a appropriate place to have these kinds of things.But that was Richard's entire argument. Yes, it should be. Why are we not sharing this with people? And I've written about that before about other small cultures who have similar reactions. Um, when they see something from their nationality or their religion, um, being portrayed on screen, they're like, you're, you're an insider sharing this protected thing with outsiders. That's a violation of the community boundaries.Mason Kamana Allred: I just say before we leave God's Army, that there is something redeeming, I think too, about its form. Like it is, it's an indie film, and so it feels kind of scrappy. And I think that's a great way to think about a, a Mormon mission too. The way it's cut together, the way it's shot, it feels like not cheap, but you know, it's on a budget.You know, it's an independent filmmaker making it, they're not gonna like license huge needle drop songs and stuff like that. Um, and I think that scrappiness works in its favor. know what I mean? Instead of saying like, oh, it's a [00:23:00] simple little small production. It works well to take like this idea of a mission as a microcosm of life and the Latter-day Saint stuff through it.So, I, I think it holds up maybe because of that too. It, it works. I.Randy Astle: Yeah.Jenny Champoux: Okay. So reading your two chapters together, I saw kind of four main themes running through, running through them. So, I wanna kind of organize our discussion around these. The first one is this idea of embodiment that you both touch on. And in our Latter-day Saint theology, we have this duality where we believe the body is a God-given gift, and it's, it's, uh, one reason that we come to the earth and it's, it's a wonderful thing. On the other hand, it has this potential to be dangerous, um, or, um, arousing and right, and that we have this idea that you have to control the body and its passions and appetites. Um, so Mason, why don't we start with you and let's talk a little bit about how you see filmmakers in [00:24:00] the Latter-day Saint tradition exploring these ideas of embodiment or the body.Mason Kamana Allred: Well, yeah, thank you. It's, you know, I think that my mind started to think about the movies like this because, so like in graduate school I studied with Linda Williams and she's really the one who originally kind of like coined this phrase of body genres, the type of genres that are really trying to appeal to your body over your mind. That's changed over time. Right. And you look at a lot of like, kind of like art house horror and stuff, it's doing it differently, but still the idea remains. And it was a, a new kind of rubric to throw them through to think about how these Mormon films are working. And, and it drove my attention to certain ones over other ones. So, it was a kind of guiding way to think about them. And, and you're exactly right. Like the way I saw it was embodiment is so integral to Latter-day Saint theology it's almost weird how much they, um, love and believe in flesh and bone and that it will be eternal. And they believe in like a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who have flesh and bone. So you really wanna know how to like live in [00:25:00] this and it will be glorified. I mean, that's kind of wild and kind of amazing to believe, things like that. How's that showing up in your cinema then? And it's just, um, easy to see in a, in a lot of Mormon cinema fare. Like that they're very comfortable with kind of, I think kind of schmaltzy, sentimental.Let's get the audience to cry. And if you're having a spiritual experience, excellent. Who am I to judge? You know what I mean? But like, if you are kind of dropping into these melodramatic forms to, in a negative way, manipulate in a positive way, uplift or get them to feel something audience, I think that's actually pretty normal.And Latter-day Saint creators have gotten pretty good at doing that, but it's also safe. So, you're making what I, I think in terms of the culture or kind of harmless entertainment, it's okay to cry or it's okay to laugh, right? Like as Randy said, after the kind of this new birth of new Mormon cinema in the early two thousands, like, you know, you get a lot of comedies. Um, and so that seems fine, right? To get a, to use bodies on screen, to get bodies in the [00:26:00] audience to cry or to laugh seems okay as, as long as it's appropriate. Things that they're crying or laughing about. What's really scary for Latter-day Saints is these things when you drip more into like horror or eroticism or these kinds of things that are gonna pull on the body in different ways, like you said.So, um, to really freak you out, to get you scared, to jump scare, like your stomach to turn. These kinds of things, which can be used so effectively to engage with really important ideas. But initially, I think Latter-day Saints are scared of it. It feels wrong. We're not supposed to do this. Why are you doing this?And then of course, with arousal, anything that's gonna be like intimacy on screen, which is again, if you think about the theology, these are people who I think on paper, believe deeply about the importance of intimacy between humans and procreation. And, and sex is like actually a really important thing, think they believe goes on in some form eternally.So it's interesting that the, that the practice, the way it's showing up in movies is all that. Like avoid all that. [00:27:00] So once you think about it like that, it seems pretty clear. It's not too like, you know, this crazy, weird academic way of thinking. It's just like, how are bodies being addressed through these films and what techniques are they using to do it? So instead of looking at those mainstream ones I'm talking about that are getting you to cry, I was kind of interested in ones that make you feel other things and how they're addressing your body. So, then I turned to these, know, seemingly obscure ones in some ways, especially ones that were from other countries to think about like how, how do they pull this off? How do they get you to feel and what do they want you to feel and why do they seem less timid about some of these topics? And surely some of that's their culture, right? If you're coming from Spain or the Philippines, it's a little bit different than a Mormon corridor sense of like, let's just call it like prudishness. And so that, I just got really fascinated by it and I found individual scenes that are doing it in really interesting ways and to what to me was so encouraging was like they seem quite sophisticated. Whether it was conscious and deliberate or it's just the way they make movies based on their brain, how it works [00:28:00] and their culture, where they come from. I was really impressed with the way that they would edit, shoot, sound, design, all this stuff address your body, to feel certain things that I felt like were, not just manipulative for the sake of getting an audience to cry, but to get you to sort of identify with certain characters that I think would make you think new thoughts and maybe even questionRandy Astle: Hmm.Mason Kamana Allred: that I thought were really actually quite creative and productive.So, I kind of wanted to praise that and point it out, but it's a kind of just a way of thinking about Mormon cinema-making in terms of bodies on screen and bodies and audiences. What does that tell us if we look at it like that?Jenny Champoux: Right. I, I really liked that one of the, um, kind of tropes that you point to, that shows up repeatedly in the Latter-day Saint cinema is, um, dancing. That, that dancing pulls these two things together where, um, it's like, can be an expression of beauty and like self-actualization, but it can also be [00:29:00] potentially like being overrun by the body's passions. Um, and even, I mean like Napoleon Dynamite, right? Like you give that example, the, the dancing scene is that sort of climax where he, um, lets himself go and is able to do the, perform this dance and it's like the highlight of the film and it's sort of where he finds himself right through the dance. But then you talk about how in these 1970s films from other countries, dancing was also, um, a really important symbol that the filmmakers were using to express some of these ideas. Can you tell us a little more about that?Mason Kamana Allred: So, once I was focused on like the way the body's being used, um, symbolically in films to get at the audience, then I was thinking like this, like you said, where dance is kind of like media. For Mormons where it can be so great and it can quickly be so scary, right? So, like, yeah, it's a sign that you're finally in touch with your body and maybe you're feeling feeling great and you're dancing.It's a wonderful thing. [00:30:00] Please dance. Like Brigham Young would say dance. But then maybe, uhoh, it's this like weird sensual dance you shouldn't be doing, you're losing yourself. Something like that. And media's always like that too, right? Like we, oh, we love it. We're gonna use it. And Latter-day Saints are so good at using media and content creation, and we're early adopters, but media will corrupt you.It's dangerous, it's scary. Don't let it come into your home. So that ambivalence around it, the duality of, of dancing and media showed up for me in, in these films. So I wanted to focus on that. And you're right, it's happening in so many where it can be a sign of, of either. And if you go back to the one in the early seventies, like Eros, uh, The Dead, the Devil and the Flesh, that scene, it's almost like it just reaches out the film and grabs you and is like, you've gotta talk about me.'cause it's so unexpected. It's so,Randy Astle: weird.Mason Kamana Allred: so weird. It's so beautiful. Can we describe it for your listeners? I can't play, I can't play it in the background. I guess I could have set up, share my screen and do it, butRandy Astle: We have video, so you can just stand up and.Mason Kamana Allred: lemme just act it out and get the song going. First of all, the soundtrack is amazing. [00:31:00] He has an original score for this film that's just beautiful and you have to understand in by the early seventies, late sixties, early seventies in Spain, we're talking about Spain at this time, and this is the first like Stake President there, convert to the Church, but wanted to be a filmmaker. And if you look at the other films around that time, it's just so fascinating the context in which he's making this. 'cause you know, they're coming towards the end of Franco, Spain, they have a dictator, right? Franco's running things quite oppressively. So, a lot of like control and censorship, even in filmmaking and so forth towards more like nationalism and religion and family and stuff like that. You start to have these early things creeping in of like a little bit of horror, a little bit of eroticism, the exact things I'm talking about coming in the late sixties, early seventies. When he makes his, he's interested in these topics, but he is not quite doing it the same way as everyone around him. Um, so in his scene of dancing, it's in the spirit world and Korihor basically invites or commands these spirits to stand up and dance, kinda like in the way you used to when you had a body. So they're like enacting what it would be [00:32:00] like to have a body 'cause they miss these, these lustful, sensual things that were so like carnal when they had a body. So this dance ensues where it's semi-choreographed definitely from the beginning, but then they're not all in unison, great song. It's just shot and fascinating ways where he'll, like, blocks it so he can see the whole thing in a long shot, but he'll get a lot of like the waist down kind of a shot.So it's like a, you know, medium closeup, but the bottom half of the body to the top half. And I'm like, this is visually exactly what I'm talking about is if you shoot a movie to address someone's body, not their brain, he's doing it formally in the way he's actually making the movie. So you're visually taking in what some of these people are doing on a editing level, formal level, so they have characters doing what they're hoping to do to your body anyway, in that sense, it's this weird, thing that they don't have bodies to experience this, but they're trying to remember what it felt like and go through these hollow movements and these kinds of things. And I just, I think, I mean, like Randy said, it is weird. Like I said, it does stand out, but [00:33:00] it's also and emotionally like a beautiful way to do this. To actually think about what he means by the doctrine of being in a spirit world and losing a body and how much Mormons love the idea of getting a body back, but to then act it out as a dance where you miss having a body and you're missing the point what it means to a body. Like that's actually quite sophisticated and I think it's worth that scene.As weird as it is, I kinda like that it's quirky and weird too. 'cause you will never forget it. But it's doing something I think on a few layers.Randy Astle: Yeah, the, the mise en scene, the whole way that he shot it and staged it. 'cause from that point on, there's no dialogue for this scene. It's just the dancing scene with the music. And, but it's uncomfortable. It's not just weird. It's, um, it's uncanny, Freud's heimlich, where you have these bodies imitating something alive, but we know they're not alive in that way.And he's doing this with actual actors instead of like, um, stop motion puppetry or things like that. Um, like when you see a [00:34:00] doll over across the room, you, and at first you think that's a real person, you're like, oh, you're, it freaks you out for a second. Oliviera manages to sustain that across the scene by making them act, they're moving like puppets.They're moving unnaturally. And so this thing which should be joyful or physical embodied distinctly feels off in, in that way, uncanny and, and strange. And that's his the greatest scene in the film for the tragedy that it would be to, to lose your body and to not be able to perform these very physical actions.And I think it, it's standing in for sex and for other things that you wouldn't want to, um, to portray. I, I like that you brought up another dance scene in the 1990s cult film, uh, Plan 10 from Outer Space by Trent Harris, because these are aliens, not zombies, but they're moving the same way, um, in this really awkwardly choreographed scene, which is such a contrast to, to how Napoleon Dynamite, just lets go with, with the physicality.[00:35:00] And, and that's more of an eruption of, of abundance and pleasure and joy, uh, as opposed to, to when it's done in, in this false way that just doesn't, doesn't feel right. Um, I think that Mormonism, um, focuses in the culture often about what is wrong with these movies? What, what content is in a film that makes it R-rated or that makes it objectionable?Is there sexuality? Is there violence? Is there profanity? Those are all legitimate concerns if, if you don't want to participate or view that kind of behavior. But it can make you kind of restricted or uptight about anything that gets close to, to physicality in, in that way. And so it's great when a film like Napoleon Dynamite can say, well, set aside your, um, uh, restrictions about what you're going to be able to allow yourself, your body to do and, and just enjoy this moment of, of abundance where, [00:36:00] um, all the repression kind of gets broken through and you have this great moment of joy or, or something like that.You, you don't see that very often in LDS films. Uh, done really well. Um, that's maybe one example. Um, I. The, there's a, the climax of Once I Was a Beehive, uh, is a crying scene, but it's so, it's very physical and emotional in that way, but it's a scene where this teenage girl who has been repressing her grief over the death of her father for the whole film, finally lets it out.And, and you just have this surge of, of abundance as film scholars sometimes like to say, where everything just, all the emotion comes through the physicality and it works really well in, in these, in these rare occasions when it happens.Mason Kamana Allred: I think the other thing that's so interesting about the dancing too, 'cause, and I'm reminded when Randy was talking about the scene from The Dead, the Devil, and the Flesh, is because it also gets at this idea of like, like are you in control? Are you being controlled? [00:37:00] And that even takes us back to Heretic and Randy's essay on this, the blog.But,Randy Astle: Oh yeah.Mason Kamana Allred: that's important for ritual movements because like in The Dead, the Devil, and the Flesh, Korihor kind of commands them up and it's shot like he's a puppet master and they're being sort of controlled to do this dance where it's always this, that kind of low angle up at him and there's a literal, uh, art frame behind his head, like a painting.So it frames his head, he tells 'em kind of what to do, and then you shoot from a high angle over them, this kind of wide shot to see the whole thing. And then they dance. And then you come in with those closeups I was talking about. So it, it's edited the feel like he's kind of controlling them and they are hollow mindlessly just doing what they've been told to just dance like this. That can happen in film. So like, are you following into the unison uniformity of just like someone else is controlling you? And you could say that about ritual too. Like if you've ever done like a Hosanna shout or how some people take the sacrament, or even in the temple when you do rituals where everyone falls into unison, it can feel so and ritual and you're being controlled.You're just like a cult that mimics each other [00:38:00] or it can feel like you truly are feeling something. You’re an individual in this collective doing something amazing. And that's gonna depend on the way you do it, where your head space is, all these things. But true that, that that little flip of the coin. Is a fascinating way to think about all these things. Media, dancing, control, they're all that duality. And I think dancing scenes just get at that so well of like, are you truly letting loose, like Napoleon Dynamite or are you actually kind of controlled? You're doing the same Fortnite dances, everybody else does, and but manipulating controlled by short form media and video games.You know what I mean? Like that's a really important thing to think about.Randy Astle: Well, when I was reading your chapter again, Mason, um, I, for some reason I kept thinking about Richard Dutcher again, in, in this context, because of all the Mormon or post-Mormon directors. Uh, the way he approaches physicality is really interesting. We talked about it a bit with God's Army. Um, but the main, his character, Pops, has epilepsy, I [00:39:00] believe.He has seizures and, and he heals through a blessing someone who they're teaching who's crippled and got beat up and, and so they give him a blessing. And then the next day, um, it was like this transformative moment for him. Um, so, um, like the elephant man not laying, going down to bed on his pillows, Pops, decides not to take his medicine that night and he dies the next day.Uh, and so this is all a very physical thing. And then in Brigham City there's violence 'cause it's about a serial killer in a small Utah town, and it gets, um, a bit of gore and, and a lot of dread. Um, there's sex in States of Grace, his next film and, um, also violence as well, gang violence. But then you get to his, his first film that came out after he left the church falling, which he said he thought of at the same time as God's Army.These are all in his, in his approach to Mormonism. That film Falling is about, uh, he plays a, um, [00:40:00] freelance cameraman in Los Angeles who follows around, um, violent crimes, gang shootings, car accidents, things like that. And he films 'em for the news and, and the violence there gets very gory and, and just uncomfortable in the same way of these dances that we're talking about because he's, he's putting the, the, um, gore right in your face.But it's, it's not to celebrate at all. It's very uncomfortable. And, and it shows how tragic and, and horrific this is. And then even when there's a sexual scene in the same film where his character's wife has to undress during a film audition. It is not sexual. It's uncomfortable in the same way as the shootings and the stabbings and things like that because it's showing, it's exploited, that she's being exploited, um, by the people in power in this, um, film situation.And, and it's a brilliant way to just, um, show how horrific some this misuse of bodies or mistreating other people's bodies, um, can [00:41:00] be. So I think that Dutcher needs more credit for that kind of, uh, really visceral filmmaking.Mason Kamana Allred: He needs to unvault that film. 'cause none of us have seen it. But it's, it's the Night Crawler. It's like the night crawler one. Right. Where they, he feels likeRandy Astle: Yeah. It's the one that he, he actually filed a suit against Night Crawler against saying that they had copied his idea. I only saw it because he's a great guy and he let me see it at his studio.Mason Kamana Allred: But I think that's, like Jenny and, and as we move on here, like when you think about creating art and Latter-day Saints creating film, I think it's important to remember as creators that even like, kinda the way Randy's talking about that movie from Dutcher right now is that any scene of violence or any scene of sexuality, a commentary on that thing. It doesn't necessarily mean it's already saying do this, you know? But it is usually a way of thinking about that. And so it's important to learn how to, to appreciate and attend to the framing how it's set up in the film as far as narrative, but also even just formally the way it's shot.What is the, is the music telling you? It's just like Randy just said, like he knew how to watch that movie. Right? [00:42:00] But if I just read online, it hasRandy Astle: Yeah.Mason Kamana Allred: this, this. I'm gonna say, oh, man.Randy Astle: Oh yeah. People are really offended by the, the blurb about that movie. Um, 'cause they haven't seen it. Um, and see that it's not praising this kind of stuff. Yeah.Mason Kamana Allred: I’m not saying that Latter-day Saint film needs to get gorier or needs to be more erotic, but I am saying that I think we should be sophisticated enough, and I would hope for the kind of art that really thinks deeply about how to treat these things, but that violence and sex and sadness and crying are three of the most universal things for all humans.So how do they get, how do they look when you take 'em through the filter of Latter-day Saint theology and thought, I just think it could be done in really sophisticated ways, and it has sometimes, but I think that, um, you'll see even more and more in that direction.Jenny Champoux: Yeah, really interesting. So for me, I am much more comfortable looking at like a painting or a sculpture or a drawing. Um, that's sort of my training and film [00:43:00] studies feels a little different to me. It's a different medium. Um, I mean, just the way that there's, there's movement, there's character development. Things happen and change in a way that they don't in a static painting. Right? And, um, so I, I wanted to, let me ask you first, Randy, ask you, um, how, through, through this kind of performance or action of the characters in the films, is that being used by Latter-day Saint filmmakers to express Latter-day Saint values or beliefs?Randy Astle: Hmm. Yeah. Um. Uh, somewhat of the, it's not where I started on this article, but the ending where I, I wound up, um, putting my focus is that there's not any universal, um, monolithic kind of Latter-day Saint values or, or, um, things of that nature where, where you can really homogenize and put [00:44:00] people into a box.Um, so I wound up saying that it's individual. There are as many ways to have, quote unquote Latter-day Saint values as there are people who have passed through, um, the faith. Uh, the, so I, I focused in my chapter about documentary films on three different, um, ways that you could approach this. And, and Mason uh, mentioned it at the beginning with the record keeping and, and the kind of proselytizing.Um, so one is if you are focusing on proselytizing, if you are trying to put your films out there for outsiders, quote unquote, um, to, to be exposed to the Church or to the faith for the first time. Then what tends to happen is it does tend to homogenize, it does tend to, to gloss over faults and quirks and individualities, uh, to just say like, this is what Mormons are.So we've had two films from the seventies and from the 2010s called Meet the Mormons, uh, which obviously just by the titles tells you that they're gonna say, this is what our people are like. Um, the first film [00:45:00] from the seventies made by Judge Whitaker or Wetzel Whitaker, the director of the BYU Motion Picture Studio, the first lines of dialogue of, uh, voiceover narration or something like this is a story of a people, uh, people not unlike you, people who are admirable and part of society today, and let's learn about them.Um, and as soon as you do that, you know, you're, you're not going to be getting, um, into the nitty gritty, uh, the remake by Blair Treu focuses on individuals rather than on like practices, customs, like family home evening or tithing. Uh, but he profiles individuals. So you do get, um, individual, um, personality traits in those, but the effect is still to, um, put your best foot forward sometimes at the expense of, um, realism or, or believability.If you're just, if you're facing inward, if you are, um, making a record of a person, then you're, you don't have that weight on [00:46:00] you of like, of presenting the church in its best light to this outside audience, which is somewhat that we talked about with God's Army. People being offended that he's putting this out there to, to this outside audience.Hundreds, thousands of historical documentaries and, and repertorial and other styles. So I, I kind of focused on the ones that are just profiles or portraits of an individual or of a family. Um, so in, in film speak, those would be like cinema verite films or, or direct cinema, observational cinema films where the camera and the subject are just there in a room together.Um, and those can be brilliant, those can be some of our, our greatest movies, um, where you just get to spend 20 or 60 or even 90 minutes with someone and, and to see what their life is like. And that's what, um, you know, myself as someone who's no longer practicing in the church. To me that's the, the beautiful thing about [00:47:00] Mormonism, the, the beauty of these people's lives without having to say this proves a thesis about the Church itself, or its veracity or anything like that, you can still see these beautiful, wonderful people who are living these lives of service and love and, and dealing with their struggles of disabilities or death or, um, relationships. And so, um, that those are the greatest values to me, and the, the greatest ways to express people's faith and how their faith informs their lives. Um, not because of some statement about, um, the Church, but it's just about this is who I am.And oh, and then the third way, um, that I, I tagged onto the end of my article is about people who feel misrepresented or underrepresented by the large culture of the church, especially near its, its center, um, racial minorities, women, some or um, LGBTQ, uh, people and their allies who have been very prolific and making films advocating [00:48:00] for acceptance and, and, and just making their version of formalism.Made known, um, in, in contrast to the dominant narrative that, that you normally see.You've got people with cell phone video functions, um, there's lots of documentation. It's just going on to social media.They're not making giant finished documentaries or anything of that sort. But when they hike up Y mountain to light the Y in rainbow colors, every phone is going, that kind of thing. And I, I think that's going to have a long-term impact on, on the Church, um, or on the culture I should say, where you've got, um, people's voices being amplified in ways that they couldn't be before the internet, before social media, before, um, smartphones and, and things like that.I've gone off on a tangent, but hopefully that shows that there's a variety and infinite variety of different ways to express how Mormonism affects people's lives through film. And that's why I think, [00:49:00] um, documentaries are some of our, our greatest films because it's taking its material from real life like that.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. No, that's, that's great. And that's actually one of the other themes that I wanted to touch on is that idea of, um, how maybe Latter-day Saint images and film have changed over time from this more, you know, monolithic, leader-led, you know, institutional, top-down projection to the world to, like you said, more individual members of the Church sharing their own experiences in a variety of ways now that there's so many more platforms to do that as an individual. Mason, let me ask you too, uh, how, how have you seen that evolution? And, um, and also I wanna get your thoughts too, on the second theme of this performance of Mormonism through characters in, in film.Mason Kamana Allred: Yeah, I think it's true for, for feature films. To that there's been more room more recently to deal with kind of more warts and faults and a little more [00:50:00] three-dimensional characterization for sure. Especially like Randy said, when it's not institutional so people have a little more freedom. Um, but the kind of stuff where it was like a lot of comedies were just kind of making fun of, um, some Mormon culture I don't think accomplished too much.Their performance of it was kind of already a, a self-caricature, which can be fun and funny, but, um, I feel like that didn't necessarily move the needle artistically as much as many of us would hope. So, the performance of of Mormonism on screen though, in some ways there, it's like, you know, obviously missionaries are huge, this performance of dedication, like literally dedicating time, years of your life to something like this. And if you look at that, that kind of a parameter, films like that where it's like this sense of these people dedicate themselves, they consecrate their life to this, but they're not perfect that I think that has been kind of productive. So, if [00:51:00] that's for an outside audience, which I often think hasn't been enough of that, it's still, to me, to my mind, it feels like a lot of these films still feel somewhat insular.Like the hope is that the core audience will be Latter-day Saints, who will, who will get this, and then if it reaches others, excellent. I'm, I'm sort of excited about those who would try to flip that model and say, let's try to reach everybody. And if Latter-day Saints get it on an on another level, excellent. But they should reach everybody. I think that's also really, really worthwhile to try and do it like that. The performance though, I would say, like, I think even, like Randy was saying with, with the ordinances in God's Army or, or at the end of Brigham City that he just wrote about, again, with these transcendental endings. Like to, to display Latter-day Saints as those who engage with ordinances that some way literally change their lives, is such a great prospect for cinema because it's literally changed over time. But it's through this catalyst that may be very meaningful to these people. So to show someone, [00:52:00] someone a blessing and then the person walks like that, I, it is so audacious in God's Army to do that.'cause you're gonna lose half your audience if you have a miracle like that. But to do something like that, or at the end of Brigham City to have that sacrament meeting where they come together and don't take it, then they all take it and it's really, I think, touching communal moment that's cathartic for them.And maybe even transcendental as, as Randy wrote about it, that's actually a bold move to show the performance of Mormonism as we who do ordinances. That for us have really deep meaning and are embodied actions. Taking bread, touching someone's head, putting oil on 'em, whatever, that actually can change ourselves, change the world. You know what I mean? Like that's, that's a bold wayRandy Astle: Yeah.Mason Kamana Allred: if you can pull it off.Randy Astle: I was gonna say that, uh, they're by definition embodied. They, uh, it's not just a, a prayer or a internal revelation as you're reading your scriptures or something like that. You have to pass that tray around in the scene in Brigham City. And every single [00:53:00] person refuses to take the sacrament because the bishop who feels guilty for the people who got killed on his watch, um, doesn't take it.And then it goes back to him and he takes it. And it means more than, than you normally ever, um, realize if that, if that's a routine part of your weekly life. And then it goes around again and everyone takes it this time. And it, it's an embodied to go back to that previous theme, um, healing moment and knitting together, unifying of this community that's, that's been scarredMason Kamana Allred: Yeah.Randy Astle: by this, um, traumatic event that's happened over the last few weeks.Mason Kamana Allred: to think about it is like the performance of Mormonism, literally saints is often this connection between the temporal and the spiritual that like it's true. Like you don't believe that he's gonna bless this guy and heal him by just thinking in his head like, you know, father, please bless this.It doesn't work like that. He actually has to put his hands on his head or put oil on him and his hands on his head, or they have to touch the bread and put it in their mouth and digest it and [00:54:00] pass it around. But it's connected to these spiritual beliefs and hopefully for them spiritual outcomes and that I think we shouldn't lose sight of in Latter-day Saint filmmaking is that connection between the temporal and the spiritual. That embodied actions are connected to like eternal ideas. And if you lean into that in ways that are kind of smart, think that can actually be a really cool cinema.Randy Astle: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Uh, I was gonna say, I was actually the, a home teacher of the actor who got the blessing in the film when the film came out. So I knew him personally and I knew that he could walk and things like that, but it still had that same effect where I'm like, okay, um, this, it's a miraculous moment.We've talked about transcendental endings, um, which comes from a, a book from 1972, I think, by the director and screenwriter, Paul Schrader, where he talks about, um, three international directors, auteurs, uh, Yasujiro Ozu, Carl Dryer in Denmark, and, um, Rob Roberta, Robert Brion, and France. [00:55:00] And how they have the, this style where their films are very flat emotionally, um, through the duration and they just pair it down, take away any emotional meaning, um, or psychological motivation for the characters or things like that until the ending when they have this moment, this eruption of abundance, like I mentioned earlier, where something amazing happens, someone comes back to life. Or something like that. Um, and, and those are the kinds of things I, I mean, that that book is now feeling dated and, and people have had a lot of, um, things to say about it and, and Schrader's own filmmaking practice.Um, but his, his film from a few years ago, First Reformed, had an ending like that where, um, this, uh, suicidal pastor instead of killing himself has this lengthy embrace with this woman. Um, it's not very sexual, but it's very emotional and, and, um, I want more of that in moron films, IMason Kamana Allred: [00:56:00] Yeah,Randy Astle: guess.Mason Kamana Allred: First Reformed was awesome, but you know, this style, he'sRandy Astle: Yeah.Mason Kamana Allred: this, at least the way that, that, uh, Schrader talks about that transcendental style a, as a form to use is so interesting. 'cause it, it would today work like, um, so narratively for film, it would almost be the parallel to like a, a, like a digital detox because what you do with the audience is you bring the stimulation down so you get a kind of like baseline that's much lower than a normal film.So that then when you do have it, it works better. And if you believe in a theology of opposition in all things, you need the sort of silence. So, the sound means something, right? You need the sort of that lower baseline. So, the eruption is bigger and grander. And, and I'm glad that, that Randy brought that in in his discussion of, of, um, Heretic and Brigham City. It's a great, like, just think about making movies like this where you can use all of these tools at your disposal. You’re not reinventing the wheel. It's actually already there. But you're thinking about why use that one and what it might do. And when it's done well, man, it can be powerful.Jenny Champoux: Okay, fourth theme, [00:57:00] and we've touched on this a little bit already, um, and this may apply mostly to, to Mason's chapter, but maybe both of you. Um, the fourth theme is the way filmmakers are bringing their own cultures from around the world into Latter-day Saint, um, based ideas in film. And, you know, this is a theme that popped up throughout the book in the different chapters, and, and on these podcast episodes too. And I think that's really important think about the ways that we are a global church, and, um, right, that there's more than one way to think about how to visualize Latter-day Saint ideas.It's not, doesn't have to be just an American or Western type of visualization, but, um. Uh, Mason, do you, do you see, I mean, you talked a little bit about Oliviera using his sort of Spanish culture. Can you give us a little more detail about how he's bringing those two things together?Mason Kamana Allred: like it'd be really helpful if [00:58:00] you look at trailers from the early seventies of like The Blind Dead or other series like this that have these elements and that little micro genre in, in Spain at the time is called Fantaterror. 'cause fantasy with terror. So kind of horror with fantasy. But these Fantaterror films, you know, they feel a little bit campy. But they're starting to play with these scary things. And so in, in The Blind Dead, for instance, these like Knights Templar or zombies who come back, so it's the undead Knights Templar, and they're supposed to symbolically represent that old conservative regime of Franco that's still holding people back from progressing forward.So politically people are writing about at the time, like they kind of know this new cinema that's eking through the cracks is exploring more eroticism and horror because it's like been so repressed under Franco that how can we push back a little bit cinema. So you think about, um, Oliviera as the Stake President there in Spain making this movie in that context. And he'll, he'll gesture towards some of those aesthetics. [00:59:00] But because he is doing it in such a Mormon way, like it's all about this theology of a guy who's like converted to Christianity. He never says Latter-day Saint or anything in it, but this guy's converted to Christianity and his wife isn't happy about that, and she sleeps like with just about every guy that comes into the movie.Um, so she's cheating on him and he's wants to, he's converted so he's changed his life then when they end up in the spirit world, she is killed. So she ends up there and then he somehow magically walks across a cemetery and he is, finds himself in the spirit world so they can then converse there and, and, and deal with that.So he has this doctrine of kind of idea of spirit world, how that works. And one moment in the spirit world, they go in a room and there's two Latter-day Saint missionaries with their name badges on. He's infused these ideas about like agency. Uh, he calls one of the guys his good, helping him, Alma, the bad guy, Korihor, like he has definitely infused it with these things. If you didn't know Latter-day Saint doctrine, you might not catch all those, obviously. And it played as like a double feature [01:00:00] with, with, uh, Bruce Lee's, uh, Enter the Dragon in Spain at the time. Like, and it, it's in, you know, mainstream theaters is like a normal movie.So it's just such a cool, uh, thing that he created there. But it, it is definitely a very Spanish for him at the time, early seventies version of thinking through Latter-day Saint ideas. And, you know, he even says that he was very inspired by films like Exorcism, stuff like that. He is like, how would, how would Latter-day Saints think about the next life though?So he is interested in spiritualism and life after death and with this belief system of Latter-day Saints, how it show up.So I just got really fascinated in, in the ways that the culture was, shaping their experience of Mormonism differently, where I feel like they latched more onto the doctrines that they were fascinated by. But then it gets dressed with their own culture, which is I think really great for viewers to see the difference there. 'cause I mean, I've showed like the Singles Ward in my class students from like, you know, Japan or like Tonga. Like I don't, I don't get this, what the heck is this? This makes no sense. So like, they don't quite get the [01:01:00] same culture. So to see the different dressing on the different packaging I think is really good for our brains to see that it can be thought of differently.Randy Astle: Well the Singles Ward gets a lot of flack, um, precisely for this. Like it's unintelligible if you're from, as far as 40 miles outside of Utah Valley. But I love it for that specificity because in that, you know, 'cause I lived in Utah Valley, I was a BYU student when that came out, like, okay, this is, I get it, it's not going to speak to someone from California, let alone from Japan or Tonga.Um, but it got to show our culture, a little slice of life culture in 2002 there, um, in a funny way. And I got all the references. It was cool. Um, but if, if Kurt Hale, the director of that film, can do that for Provo. Then what can Leino Baka or someone from, from the Philippines or um, any other director from any other, um, place on Earth would be able to do with a fiction film, but with nonfiction [01:02:00] early in the fifth wave in this post God's Army period, I was really looking at the potential of online video on BYU TV's broad broadcasting range and things like that.And, and envisioning this period when people would be kind of sending films around or posting 'em all online and we'd have this nonfiction, um, renaissance of what are Church members doing in France? What are they doing here? And everyone's just kind of building a global community that way. I don't think it really happened, um, in that sense that I was kind of, uh, hoping it might.Jenny Champoux: Hmm. Okay, I am ending every episode in this series by asking our guests to share an artwork that is meaningful to them.Randy, why don't we start with you?Randy Astle: I haven't chosen one beforehand because I know what we talked about. Um, I think we haven't talked about New York Doll.Jenny Champoux: Right.Randy Astle: much. Um, which is, uh, I, this is a spoiler. I'm working on a list [01:03:00] of my 100 greatest Mormon films for Irreantum, the AML journal, and that's got a lock on number one. So it's a documentary, um, came out in 2005, 20 years ago.Um, is Greg Whiteley his first film? He's now a pretty celebrated documentarian. Um, it was just about his friend Arthur Kane, who used to be Arthur Killer Kane, when he was the bass player for the New York Dolls, the glam rock punk band in, uh, the 1980s. Um, his life took a turn, took a tumble when the band fell apart, and, and, um, he was dealing with addiction issues and health issues.And he saw reader's guide ad for the Church and he converted and started working at the Family History Center by the LA Temple. And that's how Greg Whitely knew him. They were friends in the same word, I believe. But then, um, Morrissey, um, in London wanted to have a reunion [01:04:00] for, for the band. And so Arthur Kane, who'd left this whole life behind, suddenly has an opportunity to go back to make up with, um, David Johansson, who just passed away a month ago or so, and his other band mates, um, and play his music again.And so it's this swirling, um, vortex of a film. Um, Arthur knows that he's living these two completely incompatible lives where he, he has lived them. And what he now has to do is put them together, go back, play his music, be in that environment at the Royal Festival Hall in London, um, see all these people from all these bands.Um, the Smiths, the Pretenders, uh, um. And, and be there with his old self without losing his identity as a disciple of Jesus Christ. And as someone who's reformed and has this great love for the Church and for Joseph Smith. And so it's just a fascinating film to watch this successfully happen. And [01:05:00] then a powerhouse of an ending, which, um, isn't exactly transcendental but kind of somewhat is, um, which I guess I won't spoil because I think everyone should go watch it.Um, that it ends with David Johansen singing “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief” over the closing credits, which is a great decision. 'cause we go out on this really emotional song, which has a lot of, um, uh, allusions for Mormon viewers who are in the know. It's a song. It's about Jesus Christ. And it's coming from things like Isaiah 53, how he was a man of sorrow, acquainted with grief.But we also associate it with Carthage and the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. And so we associate it with him. And now, um, David Johansson is singing it about Arthur, it seems. So you've got Jesus and, and Joseph Smith and Arthur Kane all mixed together with this really resonant and rich, um, symbolism and, and meaning.So [01:06:00] it, it achieves that kind of emotional peak with no dialogue or anything. It's just a song being sung. But, um, that's the kind of thing you can do in, in a film that you can't do in a painting or a sculpture or a static piece of art.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Thank you. All right, Mason.Mason Kamana Allred: I was trying to think about this and I didn't choose a painting. Sorry. We're gonna be different, but I'm gonna give you a few and then I'm gonna land on my favorite film. I consider these pieces of art that are Latter-day Saint in some way. So I really love, I'm calling this art, Bushman's, Rough Stone Rolling.I know it's historical book, but it's, it's an art. And Panic! at the Disco’s “This is Gospel.” Killers’ human song. I mean, we talk about are we dancer, are we human on your knees praying. I think that's important. Um, so I would take those all as somehow Latter-day Saint in some way. And I really like those.But, um, the film I would choose I, I think I still always go back to Electrik Children as my favorite, uh, you know, narrative feature film. And, um,Randy Astle: I second that. For [01:07:00] what it's worth.Mason Kamana Allred: it's a great movie, right?Randy Astle: Yeah.Mason Kamana Allred: I feel like this one's really well done. Rebecca Thomas made it after she was out at Columbia, I think she went to BYU Provo for film, but then ending to Columbia got funding and put this movie together. And it's a smart way to approach it. What I like about it is she starts with Julia Garner as this young woman named Rachel in a clearly like fundamentalist Mormon, uh, society in southern Utah. um, so it allows her to do it, I think is deal with very just generally Mormon anxieties ideas, but put 'em in a kind of extreme form because she went with this more like, um, uh, this more fundamentalist, uh, structure around it. And so I like the idea that it's this, um, really like a visual director. I really like Rebecca Thomas's style. It opens with Rachel having a interview with who we find out is her stepfather, who's also like her, the prophet figure that runs this commune here and then her brother there in the room, and they're gonna, and they turn on a tape record, [01:08:00] record. The interview, the interview questions will sound very familiar to most Latter-day Saints. And this, this little girl is just, you know, kind of joking at first and falling into this of power in the room and is shot like that. Like this guy's got all the power. He interviews you and capturing that, that kind of vulnerable situation for a young woman to be interviewed by this man and, uh, just have another guy in there as a witness to, it is a great opening to the movie to already set the stakes of who's in power and who's not. Anyway, she shortly ends up getting fascinated by that cassette player. She, out of her, uh, her room at night and goes down and finds it and plays this, you know, this little tinny pop song of, um, “Hanging on the Telephone” and she listens to it and then she thinks it made her, it impregnated her. So she's gonna deal with this pregnancy.And anyway, the way it works out to deal with the kind of young woman's experience of in religion, her escaping fundamentalist Mormon setup. 'cause her mom helps her and gives her the keys somehow more understanding. Helps her get a pregnancy test. Actually the film like, kind of follows her experience as a kind of a maybe [01:09:00] unreliable narrator.Can we trust her that this was an immaculate conception? Is it actually abuse what happened here? And then she'll move, she'll travel from southern Utah, this very deserty escaping into Las Vegas full of lights. She's like on Fremont Street and stuff. And she'll hang out with, um. She gets in this little group of these kind of like punk skater kids. They're in this music scene and different world for her. Um, and try to make sense of, um, what happened with that tape and where's the, where's the father? I'm looking for the father of my child.And anyway, the way it plays with his anxieties that I was very interested in around media, the power of media, the idea of dancing. She's dancing to that tape recorder when she thinks that she's pregnant. The ideas of, um, religion and its power and the abuses of that power, the idea of a woman's experience in in religion, it's shot well, and even the little touches where I, I can, I feel like I can trust the director. She, there's a little hint of maybe how this happened when. Rachel puts on these red heart glasses that if you know her from Lolita, Stanley Kubrick's version of Lolita that he shot with these red heart-shaped sunglasses.And [01:10:00] then the end, she has this almost homage to the ending of The Graduate, like with Dustin Hoffman, the Mike Nichols movie, where she pulls up in a red convertible where disrupt and stop a wedding and then to run off. And so I just, I like it when I can see directors have seen the right movies they're quoting them in the ways that work for their own movie, not just in hollow reference. I think that's a powerful movie that works really well. I like the way Rebecca Thomas teed that up.Randy Astle: Yeah, I've described it, I frequently describe it as, as almost a magical realism kind of thing. 'cause of ambiguity you're talking about. Is that an immaculate conception really? And, and by the end of the film I had an opinion about whether it was or not. But, um, it's, it's so cool that you have these kinds of possibilities that go up, take a step outside of, of realism.The Devil, the Dead and the Flesh does that, and that he walks into the spirit world. Um, there are lots of possibilities for, um, some more flights of fancy [01:11:00] and fantasy. Um, instead of sticking to strict realism all the time, like it often happens in Mormon films. So it's, it, it provides new avenues for us in that way.Jenny Champoux: Well, you both have really, um, opened my eyes to a whole genre of art that I really didn't know a lot about. And thinking about the ways that Latter-day Saints are making films for themselves and films to project themselves to outsiders and the way other people are making films about Latter-day Saints, it's just, it's really fascinating to see all that happening. Um, so Mason and Randy, thank you both for joining us today.Randy Astle: Thank you.Mason Kamana Allred: Thank you for having us. That was really fun.Jenny Champoux: To our listeners, thanks for tuning in and join us on the next episode as we consider contemporary Latter-day Saint art. Chase Westfall and Maddie Blonquist, who are both museum curators, will be our guests and we'll talk about current trends in the art and offer our [01:12:00] predictions for the future. We'll see you then.Thank you for listening to Latter-day Saint Art, a Wayfare Magazine limited series podcast. Each guest is a contributor to the new book, Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader from Oxford University Press and the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. I hope you'll order a copy of the book to read the full essays and see all the gorgeous full color images of the artwork.You can learn more about the book and other projects at the Center's website at centerforlatterdaysaintarts.org. If you enjoyed this interview, be sure to listen to the other episodes in this series. You can subscribe to Wayfare Magazine at Wayfaremagazine.org. And thanks to our sponsor, Faith Matters, an organization that promotes an expansive view of the restored gospel.If you'd like to learn more about Latter-day Saint art, check out my other podcast, Behold: Conversations on Book of Mormon Art. You can also learn more at my website, the Book of Mormon Art Catalog. [01:13:00] With more than 11,000 artworks, it's the largest public digital database of Latter-day Saint art. You can search by scripture reference topic, artist, country, year and more.And we recently added a new section for art based on Church history, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The website is bookofmormonartcatalog.org. Check it out and see what exciting new art you can find to enrich your study.Jennifer Champoux is the founder and director of the Book of Mormon Art Catalog. She wrote C. C. A. Christensen: A Mormon Visionary (University of Illinois Press, forthcoming) and co-edited Approaching the Tree: Interpreting 1 Nephi 8 (Maxwell Institute, 2023). Get full access to Wayfare at <a href="https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4">www.wayfaremagazine.org/subscribe</a>

April 30, 2025

Latter-day Saint Art Episode 9: Looking Ahead

Jenny Champoux: Welcome back to Latter-day Saint Art, a limited series podcast from Wayfare Magazine. I'm your host, Jenny Champoux. Throughout this series, we've been examining the artistic tradition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and talking with contributors to the book, Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader. It was published in September by Oxford University Press, with support from the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. If you're listening on the podcast, keep in mind that you can find a video transcript and images of the artworks wayfaremagazine.org.In today's episode, we'll look at contemporary Latter-day Saint art and thinking about current trends. What distinguishing features do we see in contemporary art and how do they relate to those of more traditional art forms? Where is the art headed in the future? We'll also consider the role of the BYU Art Department in shaping Latter-day Saint art approaches.Our guests today are Chase Westfall and Maddie Blonquist.Chase Westfall is an artist, educator, curator, and arts administrator. He currently serves as curator and head of gallery at VCU Arts Qatar. In 2024, he served as the interim executive director at the Institute for Contemporary Art at Virginia Commonwealth University. Prior to that, he served as director and curator of student exhibitions and programs at the Anderson, also at VCU. In 2021, he curated Great Awakening: Vision and Synthesis in Latter-day Saint Contemporary Art at the Center Gallery for the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. Westfall received a BFA from the University of Florida and an MFA from the University of Georgia with a concentration in painting. His book chapter we're exploring today is titled, “Toward a Latter-day Saint Contemporary Art.”[00:02:00] And then Maddie Blonquist works primarily with religious art objects within the BYU Museum of Art’s collection as the Roy and Carol Christensen curator of religious art. In 2018, she graduated from Brigham Young University with degrees in music and interdisciplinary humanities, and she went on to receive an M.A.R. in Visual Arts and Material Culture from Yale Divinity School and Institute of Sacred Music. Maddie has worked at numerous art institutions, most recently at the Yale University Art Gallery and Utah Museum of Contemporary Art. Maddie is not one of the book authors, but I'm delighted that she's agreed to join us to enhance our discussion, offering her perspective as a curator and scholar of Latter-day Saint art.So, let's get started.Chase and Maddie, thank you for talking with us today!Maddie Blonquist: Of course.Jenny Champoux: Before we jump into [00:03:00] the book, I'm hoping we can tell our listeners a little more about the work you do. Chase, I want to say that you're a triple threat because you're not only a working artist, you're also a scholar of visual culture, and a curator, a museum curator. So, can you tell us how, how do those things overlap for you, or how does your scholarly work inform your artistic production?Chase Westfall: First of all, yeah, that's a very flattering way to categorize, I think what I do is very kind of you. I often feel a lot of imposter syndrome that because I work in a lot of areas, I'm sort of a quasi or semi, all of those things, with a few other things thrown in. I think, at its best taking that kind of jack of all trades approach creates moments where you can have these really lovely kind of synergies, where the different perspectives can inform one another and augment and sort of be a force multiplier for one another.I used to play a lot of sort of like punk [00:04:00] rock guitar and I think about like a phase shifter. If anybody has familiarity with that, it's like a, it is a special effects pedal where the different sort of frequencies come in and out of phase. And so, you get these really wonderful, I think, high peaks when the, the different bodies of knowledge can align in exciting ways.But then you have some sort of troughs and valleys and tough places where you feel like you're not making the progress you might want to, in any given area because of being sort of spread thin. But, you know, so there's challenges that come with not really being a subject expert, not necessarily being an expert in terms of the modalities.But on the whole, it's a good thing. If you'll indulge me, there's a, there's a term that comes from a really well known curator, which is Ausstellungsmacher, which sounds really pretentious, but it's a German word that just means like “exhibition maker.” And I like using that term because it has, uh, it implies sort of a more pragmatic approach to exhibition making.And I think within that pragmatic [00:05:00] framework, having all those different areas of knowledge to draw on really helps you kind of get the work done, get projects across the finish line with some assurances that at least it's gonna hit some of the right notes for the different audiences that you're trying to serve.So anyway, it's a, it's mostly a good thing and, and sometimes a very challenging thing.Jenny Champoux: Yeah, I would think that being a practicing artist and having worked with the different kinds of media and materials might give you some additional insights as you're doing scholarly work into analyzing art.Chase Westfall: I think it does. You know, when you get into, uh, talking through the artwork, which is sometimes the first sort of step in doing that analysis, having some familiarity with the means and methods, I think does help. It gives you an entry point. Or you can engage it as an object, you can engage it as a process in addition to whatever it might sort of mean or [00:06:00] signify.And bringing that multiple perspectives to bear is, I think, a, a nice way of sometimes triangulating a compelling argument that you want to be able to make for work. I think that's a good point.Jenny Champoux: Maddie, congratulations on recently joining the BYU Museum of Art as the religious art curator. I'm curious, what are you enjoying most there so far? And is there anything in the role that has surprised you?Maddie Blonquist: So, I can't say I've been very surprised just because I worked at the MOA as a student for a few years during my undergraduate degree, and they actually gave me quite a bit of independence, and let me work on some really amazing projects at a very high level. And so returning feels very much like coming home. Although it's still surreal to be in the office that, Kenneth Hartvigsen had when he was there and I was being mentored by him, I still sometimes feel a little bit funny opening that door [00:07:00] and I have the key now. But no, it's been really wonderful to, to be back in that space and I'm really enjoying.Being able to work with the collection and acquire new works into the collection and shape sort of the future of, uh, what holdings we have. And Ashlee Whitaker, who held the role before me, who's featured in this book as well, huge shoes to fill, but I think she's left such an amazing legacy and Dawn Pheysey before her in that same position I'm just trying to build upon and move forward.So it's been wonderful so far. It's not quite been a year yet, but I plan to be there for a very long time.Jenny Champoux: Wonderful. I'm so thrilled. And I've known Kenneth for a long time too. We overlapped just a little bit in our graduate program at Boston University and, you know, he did really great work there at the MOA. And Ashlee too, with putting [00:08:00] on some fantastic exhibitions there and did great work. So, I'm so excited that you're part of that legacy now. I'm excited to see what you do thereMaddie Blonquist: Thanks, me too.Jenny Champoux: As we start thinking about Chase's chapter from the book today, let's first define for our listeners what we mean by contemporary art. Chase, can we start with you? What is contemporary art and how is it different from what we might call modern art or more traditional kind of art of the past?Chase Westfall: That's a great question. It's an elusive definition. I think anybody in the field would be willing to admit that. Maybe one of the simplest ways to sort of start to signal where it is, is thinking about it almost as, as much to do with attitude and disposition. Certainly more to do with that than, than any particular set of materials or any particular visual sensibility, right?It's about sort of thinking about art making as a kind of [00:09:00] space of interrogation, as a space for thinking through being vulnerable, asking questions, dealing with uncertainty, et cetera. So I think that marks a big shift in, you know, what we might call like a turn away from like a modernist sensibility towards a post and now meta or whatever you want to call our kind of contemporary moment that, that it's a space for getting murky and kind of getting into the muck of things and breaking down definitions rather than maybe asserting definitions. And, for that reason, it can be a really exciting space, but can also be a really challenging space for people because it asks them to sort of check their presuppositions at the door.Jenny Champoux: So it sounds like it's meant to be a little bit disruptive.Chase Westfall: Yeah. Not always and not exclusively, but yeah, that willingness to be disruptive I think sits very much at the heart of a contemporary approach to sort of culture making and especially visual art making.Jenny Champoux: And do we think about [00:10:00] contemporary art as needing to be relevant to a particular time or place?Chase Westfall: That's a great point. I think that one of the things that gets sort of slippery with contemporary art is its need appropriate need to always sort of be hunting for what the, what the latest kind of language is. So I guess maybe that might not be an exact answer to your question, but if we think about sort of the temporality of it, it's always about that sort of now, now, now, now, now.Right? So, whatever it is now, that's the contemporary art movement and that's a real challenge. And, I think where again, we wanna focus on its sort of attitude and its energies and its, you know, demeanor maybe more than we think about the particularities or the sort of formal structures that it presents because what is resonant with and what speaks to, with what you know, what [00:11:00] can speak with urgency to the questions of the day as kind of a constantly shifting target.Jenny Champoux: Sure. Yeah. Maddie, anything you'd wanna add to that?Maddie Blonquist: No, I think that's true. I think there's sort of a way of thinking about it where it's like, well, art of the last 10 years, right? Like, because I do think there's maybe a bigger window than just now, but I also think I see a lot of contemporary artists being very referential to other movements in art history and reclaiming those movements and conventions and of traditions in new ways that are relevant now. So, I definitely second everything Chase has said, but I think there's also something about, never completely, it's not always completely original, if that makes sense. There's always a dialogue, it seems to be between the artists that are working today, whether that's through the medium or the process that they're revisiting. Even if you don't see that on [00:12:00] the canvas, there might be a process that they're engaging that is actually, has quite an extensive history, even, you know, hundreds of years sometimes before they are sort of living and working today. I think that referential component is often there, even if what appears to be quite divorced from, uh, an older historic context.Jenny Champoux: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.Chase Westfall: That's totally true. I think that's a great point. It doesn't mean a, now that's severed from, you know, itself. And in fact, I think one of the things that really marks our, our kind of turn in contemporary art is art that's very self-aware about how it situates itself within a continuum.So, and then there is this other question, you know, thinking about from a practitioner's perspective, how do I make contemporary art now? Which is in some ways a separate question from how does a museum and how does a collection speak to notions of contemporary? Because there, again, you're talking about a [00:13:00] wider sort of maybe set of temporal terms because there is work that was made in some cases a hundred years ago, they can still feel very contemporary in the sensibility that it brings, you know, et cetera.Jenny Champoux: Well, Maddie, as curator of religious art at BYU, I know you're dealing with pieces that fall into an array of styles, time periods, and even different faith traditions. How do you approach more traditional religious art versus contemporary pieces that maybe challenge expectations? And do you feel like those approaches can ever be in context with each other in productive ways?Maddie Blonquist: So one thing that my predecessor Ashlee Whitaker did that I always loved about her curatorial approach is she frequently put more traditional or even academic works of art and dialogue with newer pieces. And I think when we talk about [00:14:00] conventional art or traditional art, we're usually thinking of something that's illustrative figurative.There's a legibility to that, but I think a lot of people find very comforting and familiar and beautiful, and our brains love that because it's easy, right? Like it doesn't take a lot of work on our part to, you know, unpack that. We're like, oh, a tree, a horse, like a man, like, great, you know, and, and I think there's amazing techniques, like the, sort of, the subjects are sometimes a vehicle for an artist to show off their stuff, and we can appreciate that.And they are sort of making creative choices that I would argue as you get into it, like really are quite cutting edge. But often I think people are intimidated by contemporary art, art that's more abstract in its style that is a little bit less legible in those ways because it asks more of them as a viewer and that can put some people [00:15:00] off.But what I have found is that it's actually a way of an artist being completely invitational and inviting you to participate in the meaning making of the work. Like I love when artists do not title their pieces. Like I think that's something that people find frustrating when they look at a label and they're like, well, I don't even know what this is called. Like how am I even supposed to find entry into, you know, this work? But it's completely open to you. It just takes sort of maybe a maturity and a willingness on the viewer's part. And I would also say an empowerment to feel like they're allowed, they have permission to engage it and meet it where it's at from their perspective and their experience.But artists that I've talked to that are living and working today are very, uh, much open. And they know they're gonna, they know you're gonna be there, you're gonna be looking at their work. And that's what they're interested in facilitating, is that dialogue. And for me as a curator, I don't know that everyone really notices this, even though I'm like, what do you think I've been doing upstairs in my office, but I'm [00:16:00] setting up dialogues all the time between artworks.There are often sort of a title or thematic section in the way that I'm approaching curating exhibitions, and then there's maybe sections the way that, uh, artwork are grouped together, there's sort of a unifying theme or something that I want you to notice or think through. I'm trying to give you tools in your toolbox so that not only can you look at the works in those, uh, sort of that section or that room and find connections yourself, but that you'll leave and come back to other exhibitions or other artworks and be able to kind of do those work in those same modes.So I find those dialogues, especially between traditional art that's more figurative, that's easier to understand in some ways and next to a contemporary piece of artwork. Fascinating, and I'm doing that constantly. Um, this next religious show I'm working on at BYU will have a lot of that, so I'm just gonna put a little plugin for that.That show's gonna be up in [00:17:00] the fall and will be up for the next three years. It's called Earthbound and Heavenward: The Sacred Art of Discipleship. And there are lots of pieces that are by artists that are living, artists that are working today and also next to others that have been gone a long time, but there's still a lot of really fruitful connections that they're making even so.Jenny Champoux: Wow. I'm really excited for that. Thanks for your work putting that together. We'll look forward to seeing that in the fall. And I like the way you talked a little bit about, um, maybe just visual literacy and how you said people are often more comfortable looking at more figurative descriptive of art, more traditional kind of art. But then putting it next to maybe a more abstract or non-representational contemporary piece, helps you find ways to bridge or, or to like carry those skills that you might use to [00:18:00] decipher a traditional piece to a contemporary piece and see that a lot of times the same analysis that you might bring in terms of formal elements or the style help, or even the symbolism, that you can use that same kind of visual literacy in approaching both kinds of art.I definitely think that's something that from my own experience and having taught art history for years too, uh, it's something that we're lacking in America, that this kind of, there's just a sort of discomfort that I think a lot of people have with looking at art. And I think, like you said, Maddie, really that kind of permission that they feel like they need to their own context or interpretation to a piece.That at least when I taught, I often would have students feel like there was one right way to approach a piece and they were always looking for like the right answer. But I [00:19:00] like what you said about, having permission to engage with it on your own terms. That's great. Chase, anything you wanna add there?Chase Westfall: I mean, again, strongly second that I think that there is this really important work to do that good museums do. I think the BYU Museum is a wonderful example of this in helping empower audiences and helping take away some of the anxiety people can feel and encountering new work art has benefited.I think it's, you know, the role that it has culturally and the way that it's, it's sort of value is taken for granted. Like everybody knows art is important, right? I think one of the ways that it's created that sense of its own sort of value is by, um, perpetuating the story that it's meaning is like intuitive and, and it's welcoming and everybody can sort of get it.And you can sort of be born an artist and those are really helpful narratives, but they do a disservice to, to people or [00:20:00] they, they, they become a double-edged sword when people have an expectation that they can just walk into a space, encounter a work of art, and get it, and don't understand that what they're seeing is also sometimes an expression of a discipline that is inaction.That is, that has been pursued for a very long time. And so, you know, I've sometimes said to, to friends of mine who struggle with contemporary art, you know, that you wouldn't, you wouldn't expect to be able to pick up the latest journal of medicine. And be literate in all of the arguments and all the points and all the sort of technical language.So, you know, don't necessarily expect that you can, by the same token then walk into a space of a different discipline and, and be readily fluent in the very detailed and very kind of particular lexicon, lexicon of that, of that, you know, discipline. So just be willing to put in a little bit of work, be willing to, um, learn the language a little bit, give yourself a little [00:21:00] grace, give the work a little grace and you know, work towards that moment when you'll have a kind of aha with the work.But anyway.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Yeah. Fantastic. Chase, in your chapter you noted a book published in 2020 by the BYU Art Department. It's called A 15-Year Expanse. And in it, Laura Hurtado chronicled 10 art department alumni and reviewed their contemporary work. What has been the response to this book? Uh, both maybe within Latter-day Saint circles or from the broader arts community.Chase Westfall: That's a great question. And to be honest, I wish I knew. Um, I don't, I can't say that I have a sense for the broader sort of reception,Jenny Champoux: Oh,Chase Westfall: um, and, and shame on me. I, I, it, your question prompts me and, uh, makes me realize that I wanna dig a little deeper and I'd like to talk to some of the folks and, and see [00:22:00] how they felt it was received.I obviously can sort of speak to my own enthusiasm for the book. Um, I talk a lot about it in the chapter. It was, um, it sort of came to me in a moment when I had a lot of sort of questions about, um, what kind of steps could be made forward in an effective way. And then it sort of exemplified and embodied and modeled a lot of those, uh, for me.I am hopeful that it's been really well received, that people sort of take it as, as what it is, which is a kind of, um, you know, like a proof, you know what I mean? Like a proof of concept of, uh, a body of people who can be working together in a really thoughtful and faithful way, and also making really compelling art.Jenny Champoux: Maddie, in your role there at the BYU Museum of Art, do you have any overlap with the BYU Art Department or do you collaborate with them at all?Maddie Blonquist: I mean, we always want more. [00:23:00] They're currently at a sort of a West campus location. So they're further than they've ever been from us, which I think is a little bit tricky. But the new arts building is scheduled, I think, to be up fall 2026, and they will be right next door. So we're really excited to have that proximity with that department again. I think there's amazing collaboration that happens, especially our educational department reaches out to them. They have open studio nights where they'll invite, uh, professors to come and do a workshop on something like Jen Watson did one on screen printing, I think recently for like the, uh, pop art sort of show with our Andy Warhol that we had up.So we're always drawing on their expertise and also trying to meet their students' needs as well. So we'll have sketch nights frequently, or you can apply for a sketch pass at the museum to just come and, and draw and sketch and kind of, you know, learn from the masters, uh, that way. And, um, so there's all [00:24:00] kinds of program that we gear towards art practitioners. Both in our community but also on campus. I had a really great experience collaborating with Madeline Rupard recently, who you feature one of her works in this show. She's also, uh, newly appointed faculty in the BYU Art Department, doing an amazing job. And we, um, the museum had an opportunity to display Eight Approaches, which is a work, an eight panel, uh, triptych, octtych, I guess you you might call, um, by Joshua Meyer, who's a Boston-based Jewish artist.And this work was all about sort of Hanukkah and commemorating that religious tradition in the way that he remembered it and memory and it really beautiful work that we had up for a very short period of time. And, Madeline and I worked together to bring him for an artist talk, so a Q&A that we hosted at the museum and many of her students attended, but we also set it up so that Joshua could work with the students before he [00:25:00] arrived on campus. Sort of a one part, two part, situation where he gave them a lecture over Zoom and then the students created work inspired by him and his art style. He's this sort of a distinctive palette knife approach to his panels. Um, and then that same day we had the artist talk, we ran over to that class with Madeline and he critiqued like, and reviewed and workshops all their work with the students.So I think at like peak, that is like what we would wanna be doing every day with the art department. Um, but we, we certainly would love to do, you know, even more things like that in the future I think.Jenny Champoux: That sounds like a really exciting collaboration and good things happening there. Yeah. Chase, as I was reading your chapter, I was reminded of Art and Belief movement, which was covered in one of the other chapters. We talked about this in episode five of this podcast, and it seemed like these Art and Belief movement artists who [00:26:00] came out of BYU mostly, um, never really found an audience because they were too religious for the broader art world, but then they were too weird for a Latter-day saint audience. Is that still the case today with contemporary LDS artists? Do, do they feel like they have to choose one audience over another, or can they ever kind of find a happy middle ground there?Chase Westfall: That's a great question. I'm gonna sort of, I'm gonna start by not speaking to the question directly, but acknowledging something that your question helped me realize when it comes to sort of art and belief I've had. On the one hand over, over the years as again as an LDS artist, been really drawn to some of the work that, that came out of that moment outta that movement, as coming from the perspective of like a painter, which is where I sort of started my kind of artist journey.Those were some of the kind of most exciting LDS paintings. Things that, um, [00:27:00] helped encourage, inspire me to feel like this was a, you know, that, that art was a place where I could express my sort of spiritual self. Um, but I think there is a sort of, there's a consensus that, that their vision wasn't ever quite achieved or wasn't quite realized in the way that they would've hoped.So there are these, there, there are all these little lingering questions around them, and one of the things that I realize is that, that they, I think give, they deserve more credit than I've given them in the sense that I've always seen them as this kind of, kind of, um, again, like, like they couldn't ever quite make a breakthrough into the cultural space within the Church that they had hoped or into the broader cultural space within, in the way they might have hoped.But they did do something which no one else has sort of done, which is to sort of be a moment, be a movement. We're talking about it now. There's a chapter dedicated to them in the book. So, I'm taking an opportunity to sort of like, maybe just admit that I haven't [00:28:00] probably given them the sort of credit they deserve, and maybe even culturally we can, we can do more to think about the success that they had because, you know, for better or worse, they are an established thing.They are a really crucial cultural touchstone for us, um, in ways that I think other groups that have given up that fight and decided, well, I'm just gonna lean church, or I'm just gonna lean, um, you know, secular, um, you know, haven't been able to, haven't been able to achieve that. So, I don't know. I, but I do think to your question, that artists still do sort of struggle with this feeling.I think that feeling is going away, but it is still there that I have to sort of choose between kind of a faithful approach, a really sort of neatly, culturally aligned approach, an approach that's sort of palatable to an LDS audience. Um, and or an approach that sort of caters more to my wild side maybe, or, you know, to the, um, the sort of [00:29:00] the more, um, permissive sensibilities of contemporary art.I think people often feel that they come to a why and they have to sort of go left or right. Um, I think that that feeling is something that can be sort of challenged and worked through and sort of debunked. That's one of the things that I try to talk about in the chapter is that, you know, in my experience, when you actually look at what is working in contemporary art, people are very open about all kinds of very, sort of powerful faith experiences.I think where it gets sticky is when people want to use contemporary art as a space for, um, religious exploration. Uh, or maybe to put it another way, if they think that they can sort of roll their comfortable experience and expression of their, of their own religion into a contemporary art space, they're gonna be in for a little bit of a, of a, of an unpleasant surprise when that religious sort of [00:30:00] sensibility is sort of challenged and broken down and brought into question, and kind of brought into the muck, as I said, as as contemporary does in many things.Whereas on the other hand, people who bring what we might call less, you know, an exploration of religious sensibilities and whether we might come more like an, an, an, an exploration of their kind of faith journey, we'll find that that faith journey, um, expressions of which are really welcomed within contemporary art, right?So, um, to the extent that they can maybe reframe their practice and think about it less as exploring their sort of. Again, like their religious sense of self and more of their kind of like faith journey. They can, they can find a good audience there anyway.Jenny Champoux: Okay, so maybe they feel like they have to be a little less overtly religious or about a particular religion and more just kind of a spiritualityChase Westfall: You know, there is room to sort of see Art and Belief [00:31:00] more from the lens of sort of being a success, right? That they, that they did something important in that they modeled the tension, um, of trying to be their authentic selves in, in a space where, or in answer to two cultural spaces, neither of which was completely comfortable with them exploring that full, authentic range of self.Right? To your point earlier, I think the sort of secular audiences weren't quite ready for, or weren't quite attuned to the spiritual, um, kind of rawness that they were bringing or, or, um, the particular spiritual perspectives they were bringing. And an LDS audience wasn't comfortable with explanations of faith that were as kind of vulnerable as the ones that they were putting on the table.Um, and so that vulnerability maybe is where the key factor lies, that if people want to make contemporary art a space for [00:32:00] you know, uh, evangelizing or simply kind of perpetuating, uh, conventional lines of religious thought. they're gonna find that being challenged consistently. But if they can bring their, again, authentic spiritual journey, uh, which could even be an explicitly LDS spiritual journey, there's nothing that, that demarcates that, that says that that's out of bounds.Uh, whatever your kind of spiritual path is, LDS or otherwise, I think as long as it's worked through in a really raw and honest, and vulnerable and open way, contemporary art will embrace that. That's been my experience. Um, and maybe not contemporary art. I won't necessarily speak for the market, but I'll speak for sort of the peer group and the community and the artists themselves.There's a lot of openness to sort of faith expressions of every kind. As long as they, as long as they're, you know, like honest.Jenny Champoux: Yeah, I think that's a great way to put it, that emphasis on the vulnerability and honesty. Maddie, what about you? Do you [00:33:00] see Latter-day Saint artists feeling like they have to tone down the religious elements of their art to be taken seriously in the art world outside of Utah?Maddie Blonquist: I mean, I think I agree with Chase in that I, it's maybe less so than it ever has been, although, I do know that one of the questions that came up actually when we were doing that Q&A with Joshua Meyer was, How do I as a student, like incorporate faith into my art practice? So this is, you know, this is as recent as, you know, a few months ago.So clearly students at BYU, at least are thinking about this question, and that makes sense to us, right? Like we, we know that it would, because there's this dual heritage there, this mission to produce disciple scholars that whatever major you declare, you are doing it sort of in a spirit of consecration. And I think that's wonderful if, if people want to do that. My, I have a couple thoughts about this. [00:34:00] One is that I think we can't dismiss the importance of venue. I think there are certain, there's a lot of different kinds of contemporary art. There's a lot of different sort of registers and tones that, that it hits. And I think that. There's a landscape, particularly in Utah where I am based, um, of amazing venues that will allow certain contemporary art to be shown, maybe to better reception than others. And so, BYU Museum of Art, for example, like we will be having a Trevor Southey in the next show. And we've had, we've showed Trevor Southey in the past and we've showed Gary Ernest Smith and we've shown, you know, Bruce Hixon Smith.You know, like there's, there's members of that kind of Art and Belief movement or that sort of time period that have established themselves as artists working within the Latter-day Saint tradition and with Latter-day Saint or, uh, religious subject matter. And they've done that successfully and it's sort of demonstrated that [00:35:00] it's, uh, it's held up over time. But I also think there are, you know, the closer you sort of move to like the nucleus of the Church as an institution, that sort of flexibility might change. So what is accepted in the International Art show, um, at the Church Museum, that is gonna be different than what can come in the Spiritual and Religious that Springville does.So I actually love that there's this network. Um, I feel it's very expansive and abundant in the way because know that if there's something that doesn't feel like it's as good of a fit for BYU, there's probably another institution even within an hour drive somewhere that is gonna be a great place for that to be.And so I think that would be my sort of for artists is to think carefully about, you know, do the art that you feel is, um, is important for you to be making. And [00:36:00] that if your Latter-day Saint identity, um, is an important part of your process or of the subject matter you're dealing with, um, like, don't take that.Don't, don't take that out. If that feels authentic or important, like lean into that because there's a lot of other identity markers in the art world that are being given, given a lot of space right now. I mean, and some of those are, you know, racial or geographical or, you know, there's lots of different ways that identity is being explored in contemporary art that is acceptable.I think religion and religious identity is one that we are becoming more. Comfortable with. It's sort of, it hasn't been as sexy to talk about, but I think now there's a lot more discussion and exhibition sort of dealing with this in secular spaces. And maybe the treatment of those curatorially or academically is a little bit more but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.So it's about venue for me. Um, the other thing that I, I [00:37:00] would say, and, and this is a quote that you have in your chapter, Chase, you say, “In my personal practice, I had spent enumerable hours hashing and rehashing the question of what it meant to be an LDS person making contemporary art.” And I first love that you sort of distinguish like you're an artist who happens to be LDS.Like I feel like that's an important kind of way that we can talk about it and the, the book necessary, like necessarily, excuse me, necessitates the use of that of right Latter-day Saint art, Latter-day Saint artists. We can't really escape that in this book, but I just wonder if this is something that we would find an easier time navigating if we look to other examples of artists that are working within a faith tradition that are also having to think this through.We have some unique pressures that I, I think the book lays out pretty But, um, is this something that like a Catholic artist or Jewish artist or a Muslim [00:38:00] artist, like, are we even talking about this in those ways outside of our tradition? And if we aren't, can we move into that modality as well and find that helpful in resolving some of these things internally for ourselves as creatives?Jenny Champoux: Hmm. That's a great point, Maddie. I like the way you're thinking about that. And I like the way you talked about thinking about venue too, as you know, that artists maybe need to think about the right space for the art that they're making. Just kind of a follow up question for both of you. Are there other steps that can be taken to try to position Latter-day saint artists more meaningfully in the contemporary art world? Chase, do you have any thoughts on that?Chase Westfall: Um, I think again, sort of building a, uh, kind of credible and exciting kind of critical mass of conversation around some of the strong examples of work that we have would be really [00:39:00] helpful. I think that there's a, um, because of the kind of precarious relationship that, um, contemporary art has to, again, mainstream LDS culture and even to a certain extent like, you know, like the Church as a kind of organization, there, there, there's a feeling that our best products, best cultural products as people are somewhat sort of adrift, right? And so if there was I think a sense of more buy-in and momentum from our audiences, uh, from our academics, from our institutions, uh, if external audiences felt that we were more kind of rallied around our artists, I think they would, um, um, be sensitive to, susceptible to the feeling of enthusiasm that we could bring to arts.So sometimes I think it's maybe just organizing ourselves a little more as a people so that when someone from the outside comes in and, and encounters an example of LDS work, they can feel that there is some weight behind it, that it isn't [00:40:00] just a kind of a little island that's adrift out there. That's one thing that sort of comes to mind and that sort of tails into thinking about systems of patronage.Um, you know, one of the sort of shame on me, I had this epiphany in my thirties when it probably should have been self-evident when I was in art school, you know, like in my twenties. But like, um, it, it, it, I realized that all of the sort of canonical works I was familiar with, um, that were in the National Gallery of Art in DC were canonical because they were there. They weren't there because they were canonical. Do you know what I mean?And so if we can be more thoughtful again about, um, creating systems that position our best works in a place that they can then be absorbed into the canon, that will be a really thing. And that has to do, as I mentioned a moment ago with just maybe organizing ourselves a little better.So [00:41:00] that, um, we can create some of those, um, uh, conspicuous places for some of our best stuff. And that would also include maybe somewhat crassly, just better systems of like patronage. I think outside of the Church, can we tap into some of the Silicon slopes energy and in the way that young, you know, like young, wealthy, you know, upwardly mobile, people are supporting, uh, contemporary art in other spaces around the globe.If we could get them to do so there in Utah, for example, um, then, you know, those, those, those collections mature and they go into museums and then they become part of the discourse and then that is a way of building momentum.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Chase, I'm thinking also of the Great Awakening show that you curated for the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts and, and because I think that was largely contemporary,Chase Westfall: Yeah, I would say, I would say exclusively contemporary and.Jenny Champoux: Exclusively. Yeah. So that, IChase Westfall: Yeah,Jenny Champoux: [00:42:00] I think that's a great example of an organization and, and people that are giving a, a platform and a, like a showcase to this kind of Latter-day Saint contemporary art, bringing it to the attention of a larger audience.Chase Westfall: absolutely. I think, you know, I think the center is doing a lot of amazing work. I think Wayfare is doing a lot of amazing work, and I say that speaking a little bit outta turn because to my, to my shame, I haven't invested in that space as much as I ought to have. I, I, I am actually, I have a, a to-do list item. It's, you know, convenient because we're doing this conversation, but I swear I have a to-do list item this week. I'm gonna finally get my subscription to Wayfare, right? Because like, I, I know that I have to sort of walk that walk also and be more invested in, um, bringing whatever I can, um, in terms of consecrating the best of my abilities to helping, uh, you know, sort of gather the storm and, and make sure that some exciting things can happen, that we have that critical mass within our own kind of.Within our own cultural space. Um, but yeah, so there, there's, there [00:43:00] are, there are the beginnings of, and I say this even in my chapter, but I think, you know, I think this book, um, uh, whether my chapter helps this or doesn't help us, I don't know. So I, again, in a disinterested way, I would say that this book and the fact that it exists, um, these are the kinds of things that will hopefully help us get the momentum that we need and, and start to break through into some of these other spaces.Jenny Champoux: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think you're right that these are all good things and, and Wayfare certainly is doing a good job of bringing lesser-known artists, um, to the attention of a broader audience. And they, they do a really nice job of incorporating visual art into all their publications. I'll say just personally a personal plug here for my Book of Mormon Art Catalog, that's a, you know, a website I've built to try to gather Latter-day Saint artists from all around the world who [00:44:00] are engaging with the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants and Church history.And, I hope gives them a platform to also reach a broader audience that people can more easily find a variety of art, um, or international artists, um, or different styles. We definitely have some abstract, uh, pieces in there that people may not be as familiar with. And, um, I just think that having that variety is really important to, um, about how art can inform our reading of scripture, um, and, and, uh, and having a greater variety, I think is important there. Maddie, anything you see that could be useful to help Latter-day Saint artists be taken more seriously if they're working on religious subjects?Maddie Blonquist: I mean, I think my, I'm well positioned to participate in that. I [00:45:00] think other curators have demonstrated that this is, curator, like that the institutional liaison plays a huge role in introducing new artists and giving them validity. Um, at, I think there's, I mean, there is institutional trust, right?If someone comes into a museum and something's on a wall, the assumption is this is good art. Like this is, this is important. There's something noteworthy about this. We should be looking at it. Um, there's a, there's a cultural value that is ascribed to that, that already, and actually monetarily as well, because as works of artists enter collections, the value of any other works, other people own and private collections increases.And so there's a real, um, currency to that, that I take very seriously. But I think in the one thing I love about this book this reader is that, and I think it's very clear about its objectives to do this, but I mean, it's published by Oxford University Press. Like this is not something that is, [00:46:00] um, sort of, uh, self-produced. It is going through a rigorous peer review process. Um, it's done by academic scholars, curators, people who have been doing this for a while. Um, it's thorough and everything that I think the editors and project managers hoped that it would be.When I'm writing text, especially for that I'm sort of lifting up, we've got a few works in this next show. One is by Amelia Wing, the other is by Elise Wehle. These are women artists that are working in Latter-day Saint spaces that to my knowledge, we have never shown before in our venue, but have sort of made their way actually in, in Wayfare, both of them and, um, other spaces. And I'm really pleased to be in a position to sort of help take their careers to maybe the next level by acquiring their works into our collection or, um, showing them on display for a longer period of time.[00:47:00] And writing text in a thoughtful, thorough a way that demonstrates the value of what they're doing aesthetically, even if sort of there is an inherent accessibility to those works because they are beautiful and interesting to look at. But I think they're doing something too that's worthy of intellectual engagement. And as a curator, you know, selecting the works and then contextualizing them in a way that does them justice. Like I feel like that is the work I'm trying to do every day. And I mean, there is, there is impact there. I mean, Jorge Cocco Santangelo, who is, is very saturated now. Like we, he is super recognizable and that sort of sacrocubist style that he does and people love him, but he didn't, you know, this was sort of a discovery that was made not that long ago and it was because a curator thought there was something interesting there and put it up.So there is, [00:48:00] you know, impact on the market. Um, and in the visual material culture on the ground of members, you know, these prints end up in people's homes.I think that that, uh, sort of or trickle down process that I'm engaged in, um, I'm very aware of my position that's in that um, again, wanna do right by everybody, the artists and the community that we, that we serve.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Fantastic. That's really good insight. Thank you, Maddie. Okay, we've gotta get into some of the artworks here. Chase, in your chapter, I loved the piece by, is it Jason Metcalf?Chase Westfall: yeah. Hie to Kolob is the name of the exhibition and in and in fairness, I do it a little bit of a disservice because I refer to it by the, the title of the exhibition when, you know, all of the, all of the independent works also have titles and, and ought to be extended. The, you know, the, the right that they have of having a life of their own.But I just lump 'em all [00:49:00] together, so shame on me.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Okay. So it's several different pieces, but organized into one sort of group show. And I just felt like this piece really encapsulated the point you were trying to make in your chapter about how contemporary art shifts from the depictive to the sort of questioning or interrogating mode, and less represented, like less figurative or representative too.So walk us through this piece. Tell us about the different pieces and, and how it all comes together.Chase Westfall: Yeah. In fairness, I think it should be admitted, I did not ever, I didn't see the exhibition in person. Right? So my understanding of the exhibition comes from documentation and from conversations that I've had with Jason and with others who did experience the, the installation firsthand.So, as I sort of talk about in the chapter, it's almost kind of like a diorama, and that immersive quality that it has is, is I think one of the things that, um, is sort of [00:50:00] an ear marker of what we would call sort of contemporary art, right? Um, it's willingness to embrace different modes of, of, um, making within a kind of comprehensive, kind of unified gesture.Um, the fact that it, um, uh, you know, embraces its own kind of like theatricality. Um, that it's sort of self-aware in that way and that it's willing to, um, think more about, maybe, sort of more holistically about an, an instance of encounter, right? And the affect and sort of the feeling and the mystery that all of that might carry with it, rather than just trying to communicate a specific message or a specific, uh, narrative or et cetera.Right? So, um, the viewer comes in and steps into a space, and within that space there are a series of paintings hung along the wall. And the space itself goes from being dark at one end to sort of being brightly lit at the other end. And the, the paintings that are there hanging on the wall are kind of [00:51:00] matched to the gradation.They don't, um, they don't obviously touch on every single sort of. Moment within that transition, but they sort of step out for the key moments from, from almost sort of pitch black on the one end to basically like a fully brightly lit kind of like white painting on the other end. And, um, what, you know, there are many ways in which you could interpret it, but, but the, the sort of title tees it up for one kind of interpretation, which is a visual and experiential standing for the sort of spatial journey that is referenced in Hie to Kolob.Right? Like, one of the very unique things about LDS doctrine and cosmology is this belief that, you know, God is an embodied being who lives on a planet, right? And there's a sort of, there's a, there's a physical concreteness to his existence. Um. And so Hie to Kolob puts this kind of really radical, kind of doctrinal belief sort of front and [00:52:00] center by sort of spatializing this journey.And then also at its conclusion, um, once you've moved from the darkest part of the gallery to the brightest part of the gallery where you encounter the bright white painting, which in many ways is again, kind of like a symbolic of maybe being in the, the celestial space or celestial presence. There is also, um, a plated, a sort of a, what it's called, a paved work of pure gold is the name of the individual gesture.So it's a sort of 12 inch by 12 inch square, um, gold plated piece of aluminum that sits on the floor that's sort of spot, and there's this incredible kind of plume of golden light that sort of bounces off it. And then, you know, uh. So by virtue of that sort of golden square, we sort of symbolize either God's direct presence or a place where God could come and sort of stand and be present.Um, so I mean that's sort of the, the, the setup to help [00:53:00] viewers kind of maybe understand what, what that encounter is like. Um, and it, it doesn't sort of shy away from I think the kind of radicality of some of our more heterodox, more sort of hetero if you think about sort of within the mainstream Christianity, right?Some of our sort of more strange, um, um, beliefs and, um, because it sort of situates them there directly and states them directly and doesn't kind of mince words in that regard. It, it does sort of feel very kind of like revelatory, right? You have, um, a kind of collision with this kind of bold, new concept of the universe that is part of the understanding that comes out of the restoration.Um, and so as I, as I try to talk about in the chapter, I think for people who are not LDS, this is a kind of really radical concept. Um, or, you know, the different concepts that the, that the, um, installation is built from are all very kind of strange and radical and new. And [00:54:00] even for persons coming from an LDS perspective, it asks us to kind of put our money where our mouth is and take, take literally and take seriously some of the things that we, um, might compartmentalize and not be actively considering as part of our kind of daily experience of faith.Right. Um, so, you know, all that said, you know, there's, there's again, paintings, sculpture, there's this sort of theatrical lighting set up. So, um, Jason sort of does all the things to put you in this place where you feel, um, um, exposed to a whole new kind of other reality, and you have to kind of sit with it and be in it and deal with it.Jenny Champoux: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Great, great discussion of that. I, I think this is such a great example of, um, maybe what we mean when we're talking about contemporary Latter-day Saint art. That compared with of the art we see as Church members, [00:55:00] so, you know, the sort of illustrations of scripture stories like, um, Arnold Friberg or Simon Dewey, and which is wonderful and certainly has its uses, right, and is, and is useful and, and important. Um, but this is such a different approach, right? That it's not trying to be didactic, it's not trying to teach you a particular story or a particular message, but it's just opening space for you to think differently and to think theologically, I think. Right? To encourage you to really, um, engage with doctrine and the scripture, um, but in a very embodied way. I like the way you talked about how you actually move through this space and the light changes and it's theatrical and it's almost like you as a viewer are part of this performance of the piece as you move through it. And, um, and I think lends to that materiality that you talked about. [00:56:00] Um, I, I just think this is an incredible piece and, and your analysis of it in the book was fantastic. And, um, and I thought showed your analysis, showed some of the, just new ways of thinking that this piece opened up for you and for me, reading your, your analysis of it. So yeah. Thank you.Chase Westfall: Well, I appreciate that very much. Yeah.It confronts us with some of the things that really test what we might think of as our, um, understanding of ourselves. As sort of spiritual beings and as Christians. So, um, that's heavy lifting, right? And an artwork that can put in that place is doing meaningful work.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Maddie, is there a Latter-day Saint artist that you see that is doing successful contemporary art that you wanna mention for us?Maddie Blonquist: I mean, there's so many. I, I think there's a few that are gonna be well known and established at this point. Um, [00:57:00] I think. I, I'll say Bruce Smith again, just because he also taught a next generation of artists as well, like J. Kirk Richards, um, I, I see artists I think, that are the most successful in navigating all of these different venues, um, that have appeared in multiple places.Like, I think that's what I'm looking at again, just thinking about like who is able to, um, sort of pivot and, and make sense to a variety of members in the community. And I think both of them have, I think it's because are meeting people where they're at in terms of like, here's something you can recognize. Here's a human form. Um, but here's my way of stylistically interpreting it that's doing something different. And of course it's still beautiful. I mean, that's [00:58:00] not a word that I think a lot of, uh, of cutting edge contemporary venues are looking for in their art is they're not saying, well, give us the pretty stuff, you know, and that's fine.I don't, I think there's an incredible value to looking at things that you don't like. Actually, those are the experiences with art that are the most meaningful to me. and that push me and I think in, in growth for me as a person. But I would say those that have sort of proven their success, um, that would be good for artists working now as they're sort of starting out to maybe look at are those like Bruce Smith and J. Kirk Richards, who have found a way to appeal to a diverse number of audience audiences, but also maintained integrity in their own style and approach. So I don't know those are who I would mention. There's amazing people doing incredible things. [00:59:00] Like I think Jason Metcalf is an incredible artist. I, I love the examples that you picked Chase, because that to me is like art.Even the ones that you mentioned, um, that are not necessarily Latter-day Saints, but they're engaging ideas that would resonate with members, like prophecy and, and those other things. I think those are hallmark examples of exactly what you're talking about. But for me, in terms of who sort of the test of time and demonstrated success over a long period that we can recognize and maybe learn from for the next generation, those are the two that I think of.Jenny Champoux: Mm-hmm. Maddie, you mentioned earlier you maybe think of contemporary art as art from the past 10 years, so let me ask you, where do you see Latter-day Saint art headed in the next 10 years? Or where would you like it to be headed?Maddie Blonquist: Well, I mean, maybe I can revise even my previous, one thing I didn't say, but I do think is important is to, to note that all art is contemporary [01:00:00] art. Because at some point it was new. So that's sort of the first, the first thing. But then also there are contemporary modern viewers that look at it now with their own context and make it new again.So, um, I think, I think that's important to note. In terms of the next 10 years, I am hoping Uh, again, I mentioned I feel strongly about giving people tools and empowering viewers. Hoping that we'll see maybe not on the artist's end because I think they're doing amazing things. I'm not worried about them, um, on the audience and reception end. People that are more open to looking at whatever the artists are making. So that is maybe not the answer you would expect, but, but on my end, I'm, I'm really thinking about our audience and how can we equip them receive the amazing things that artists have been doing and will continue to do, um, so that [01:01:00] we. We can basically try, you know, Art and Belief over again, but we'll be ready for them this time. So my hope to see is I hope to see more, um, audience engagement. I, I wanna see and support, um, spaces like Wayfare and, uh, compass Gallery. I mean, Faith Matters, they're all sort of a, a unit. But, um, you know, all of those spaces that I think are are doing that legwork of, representing new artists well, but also institutions that are participating in educating viewers and collectors. There's a really rich, um, of people dedicated to the arts and their respective spheres.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Chase, in your chapter one part that stood out to me was you said a revolutionary theology calls for a revolutionary art. Talk to us about what you mean by that and, and where do you see the art headed in the next 10 years?Chase Westfall: Um, [01:02:00] well, what do I mean by that? Um, I think there is a hope, and maybe it's a sort of a romantic and idealistic hope, but you know, we can have a cultural impact that's as radical as the theological impact that we've had. I mean, the Restoration transforms the world and, uh, can we have, um, a similar world transforming impact through the, the, the other kinds of cultural products that are attendant to the restoration.Um, but you know, that's also, it is also that kind of thinking that, um, creates the, some of the challenges that we face. So, admittedly, I'm sort of even as I'm trying to maybe be part of the, or or provide pathways for, for a solution. I'm also, in some sense, part of the problem because, um, uh, statements like that, you know, put pressure on us to do something that's really exceptional.You know what I mean? I sort of, I sort of feel that [01:03:00] pressure. I think other artists feel that pressure and that pressure isn't always healthy, but, but I do hope I hold onto the hope that we can. Um, we, you know, as a people can, can put some things out there, um, that will astound ourselves and astound, you know, our kind of audiences.I think high to call is an example of that, and that's one of the reasons that I think I've given as much attention as I have.Jenny Champoux: Where do you think we're headed with Latter-day Saint art? What do you see as being the trends coming up in the next 10 years?Chase Westfall: I, I honestly don't know. I think one of the things that, um, you know, I, I sort of outlined some hopes in my chapter, um, but they are, um, you know, contingent upon certain trends that are, that are happening contemporary art now. And if those trends shift, I should say maybe when they shift, um, then the goals might shift accordingly.But, um, we are in a moment where there is a lot of openness to different [01:04:00] kinds of, um, earnest explorations of faith. And so if we can spend the next couple years and move quickly to kind of break down the residual kind of mistrust that we have of, uh, you know, collectively as a culture of, of contemporary art.Then we might be able to sort of make some hay while that sun shines and get a version of the authentic faith journey, um, enmeshed in there alongside all the other beautiful expressions of the authentic faith journey that, that are part of contemporary art. Um, I'm really looking forward to, you know, A 10-Year Expanse: Volume Two.Uh, I don't know if BYU is gonna come through with that sort of intimated promise, but I'll be looking to take a lot of my cues from that. I, you know, I have kind of an implicit trust in BYU and their art department there. They've, they've shown over the years that they're worthy of that trust. They continue to do exciting things.And when I get a little, um, curmudgeony [01:05:00] about the state of LDS culture, um, they will always produce something that helps, helps me get past my cynicism again. The first version, volume one, was a great example of that. And, you know, we mentioned Madeline Rupard earlier, that Madeline's, you know, joining the, the faculty there alongside some of the, you know, all the incredible folks already there is, is cause for optimism on my part.So, um, I don't know. I think if we sort of move fast, um, and if we can continue to build from the, um, the sort of systemic support that some of these organizations that we've already talked about, providing that within a few years, I, I really think we could see one of our folks break through into, you know, like the Whitney Biennial, kind of like one of the moments in a meaningful way.Um, and that would have a lot of cascading and sort of trickle down, uh, door opening effect.Jenny Champoux: Mm-hmm. Yeah. You know, I was really inspired in your chapter, your kind [01:06:00] of call for Latter-day Saint art that looks, as you said, authentically and honestly at the doctrine and the culture and the history, but in a way that is not apologetics, that's not trying to tone it down or sugarcoat it or idealize it. But is also not looking at it as something that's like spectacle or comedy as is often done. Right? But that there's some, there's a third way where it's just an honest engagement. And I think as you said, let the doctrine speak for itself through the art.Chase Westfall: Yeah.Jenny Champoux: I think that's a really great, uh, a great way to think about, um, an exciting way to move forward with Latter-day Saint religious art.Chase Westfall: Thanks. I appreciate that. I think it's, yeah, the, the doctrine is, is radical. Let it, let it do its radical work. Like unleash it, you know? [01:07:00] Um, and, and not just the doctrine, but also our values, you know? Uh. The, I mean, I am, I am totally converted to, you know, the values of Christian discipleship and in my life experience anywhere that those are applied unapologetically in a spirit of love and the spirit of sort of truth, amazing things happen.You know, and if we can sort of get out of our own way and apply our discipleship with that kind of earnestness in the sort of the cultural sector, I think incredible things can happen.Jenny Champoux: Yeah. Okay. I am ending every episode by asking our guests to share, um, an artwork that is meaningful to them. And it could be contemporary art here. It doesn't have to be, um, just Latter-day Saint artwork that you feel like you'd like to tell us about. Chase, why don't we go to you first?Chase Westfall: You know, I, I actually, I mentioned Madeline came up, Madeline Rupard came up earlier in the, in the wonderful sounding [01:08:00] collaboration that you all did. And I mentioned her just a moment, her recent, uh, um, recently joining the faculty. And so, uh, the piece that comes to mind for me is a piece she did recently called Father Johns, and you can find it on her Instagram account.Um, I, I love Madeline's work for a lot of reasons. Um, it is a really beautiful embodiment of some of the things that I have kind of clumsily hinted at today, right? Like a person who is just working through their faith via the tools of, um, creative expression. Um, taking, taking the skillset that she has as an artist and applying it, um, in an earnest way to the, the big philosophical and metaphysical questions of her life.Um, and doing it in a way that reflects the, the, you know, the absurdity of, of, of daily life and the sort of strangeness and alienation and the, again, the even sometimes the indecency [01:09:00] of a daily life, right. So, but this one piece, Papa John or Father John, um, is a quick series of images with accompanying text where she's sort of narrating her thoughts about the perverseness of a Papa John's pizza being next to this, um, old cloisters.Um, that was a, a monastic cloisters that was built. And let me, I'm looking at my notes to make sure I get the town right. Ephrata, it's called the Ephrata Cloisters. It's at Ephrata, Pennsylvania. I've never been there, but I think it's something like a, kind of like Shaker village, right? There was a, a religious community, a, a community of monks that live there.And so she's navigating the grounds and kind of reflecting on the legacies that they speak to of faith and scholarship and all that, you know, monasticism stands in for. And that now in the contemporary mode across the street, there's this Papa John's pizza and she, you know. Among the many sort of beautiful and wonderful observations that she makes, it ends in the last frame with [01:10:00] this text, which for me is just, I don't know, it feels like it sort of hits the nail on the head of, of where art does its beautiful work. And so it says, after asking these questions of herself, right, she says, “I think these questions matter, but I can't prove why.” Um, willingness to acknowledge, um, that I think these things matter.I think art making matters. I think making a painting can have value for someone in some way, even though I can't prove why. You know? Um, and I think if, you know, I won't say if we are honest with ourselves. I'll say if I am honest, the same kind of thing can be said about my discipleship journey. Like there are times when I have big questions and there are times when things get cloudy and you don't know what's going on, and you have hopes and you have fears, and you have all these things.Um, um, but in the end, what holds you there is that thinking that these things matter, even if you can't always prove why. Um, so I, I [01:11:00] just, that resonated with me in a really profound way. So I offer it, uh, a, a, an answer to your answer to your question. I encourage anybody to go check out Madeline's Instagram and look for that piece in particular.It's really, it's really beautiful.Jenny Champoux: Thank you. Yeah, and we'll try to put it in our show notes.Chase Westfall: Yeah. Thank you. Because I did not give it a description convoluted. So.Jenny Champoux: Okay, Maddie, let's go to you.Maddie Blonquist: Yeah, so I mean, so many, right? Like, this is such a hard question,Jenny Champoux: I know.Maddie Blonquist: um, it related to sort of what direction do we see it going? I, I do think the works that we've recently acquired can kind of speak to like that trajectory and like what are we acquiring now? What will be up, sort of what's been up for three years, what's gonna be up for the next three years?So one work that um, we recently acquired that was in the last show and will be in this show, is a work by Paige Crosland Anderson.I think her name will be familiar to many, if they don't know [01:12:00] her name, they will recognize her work. It's very distinctive. Um, and we have her, um, Atonement triptych, which is the three-panel work that shows each, uh, phase of Christ's atonement.So there's Gethsemane on the left-hand side and on the right-hand side there's sort of a crucifixion type. And then there's in the center panel a resurrection type of page. If you've seen her work before, you'll know she is an abstract artist. She doesn't deal with, uh, human forms very often, at least not in the, in a strict, readily um, legible way. And she instead is inspired by, um, quilt work and quilting and sort of the history of women's work and domestic art forms. Um, and also, you know, other, other sort of patterning [01:13:00] that we see in nature and sort of these other everyday, um, ways that pattern crops up. She's very fascinated by that and so I love that she's taken in her painting, which is sort of on the hierarchy of art historically at the top, you know, sort of, it's like painting and sculpture sort of like at the top. And then you have something like quilting, which is a craft or a fiber art form that is done mostly by women in the home, rarely on display. And so has again, that sort of referential dialogue that I think artists even now engage in still.She has created a painting in the form of sort of a patchwork quilt that is about the savior sacrifice. And she will sand things and she will repaint layers there. She doesn't, um, I don't believe she uses anything. Like a straight edge or anything. So she's doing these all meticulously by hand. So there's an incredible amount of time and effort that you can see just on the canvas.Like this must have taken hours. So the [01:14:00] labor is very apparent. Um, and yet she's touching on these really universal Christian themes and theologizing, um, in this work that is sort of pointless or um, you know, abstract. And so I love that. She, again, I think is, I've mentioned kind of Bruce Hixon Smith and J. Kirk Richards who maybe have done and contemporary work that has worked.I feel like I see Paige sort of that next push in that direction to get people feeling that much more comfortable with abstraction. I find it incredibly meaningful and, uh, devotional. That's one of my favorites that I think we have. And she's got many others. Um, Wayfare I think, has featured her in several of their issues.The last issue, I think she was a main essay and a new work she created just for that. So she's a great one and [01:15:00] um, I'm looking forward to having that one on display again very soon.Jenny Champoux: Yeah, that is such a beautiful piece. Just really gorgeous just to look at. And I like the way that piece is framed too, with the kind of old sort of gold, right? Isn't it a gold kind of,Maddie Blonquist: yeah. It's like a period frame. Frame as well for this.Jenny Champoux: yeah. In that triptych three panelMaddie Blonquist: Yeah.Jenny Champoux: but then with a totally different kind of visual inside of the frame than what you might expect to see in a frame like that. And that's a, a really cool juxtaposition and, um, like you said, just helps you, helps you think about things a little differently.Well, Chase and Maddie, thanks for all the great curatorial work that you're both doing, and thanks for an enlightening discussion today.Maddie Blonquist: Thank you. This was really fun.Chase Westfall: Thanks for the time. Thanks to both of you and yeah, wonderful discussion and appreciate that you know, you guys are building audience for this kind of conversation. It's important.Jenny Champoux: Thanks. [01:16:00] To our listeners, thanks for tuning in. Join us next time for our final episode of this series where we'll be joined by Emily Larsen Booth and Micah Christensen. We'll see you then.Thank you for listening to Latter-day Saint Art, a Wayfare Magazine limited series podcast. Each guest is a contributor to the new book, Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader from Oxford University Press and the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. I hope you'll order a copy of the book to read the full essays and see all the gorgeous full-color images of the artwork.You can learn more about the book and other projects at the Center's website at centerforlatterdaysaintarts.org. If you enjoyed this interview, be sure to listen to the other episodes in this series. You can subscribe to Wayfare Magazine at wayfaremagazine.org. And thanks to our sponsor, Faith Matters, an organization that promotes an expansive view of the Restored gospel.If you'd like to learn more about Latter-Day Saint art, check out my [01:17:00] other podcast, Behold: Conversations on Book of Mormon Art. You can also learn more at my website, the Book of Mormon Art Catalog. With more than 11,000 artworks, it's the largest public digital database of Latter-day Saint art. You can search by scripture reference topic, artist, country, year and more.And we recently added a new section for art based on Church history, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The website is bookofmormonartcatalog.org. Check it out and see what exciting new art you can find to enrich your study.Jennifer Champoux is the founder and director of the Book of Mormon Art Catalog. She wrote C. C. A. Christensen: A Mormon Visionary (University of Illinois Press, forthcoming) and co-edited Approaching the Tree: Interpreting 1 Nephi 8 (Maxwell Institute, 2023). Get full access to Wayfare at <a href="https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4">www.wayfaremagazine.org/subscribe</a>

10 total episodes available

Deep-dive analytics for Latter-day Saint Art

Frequently asked questions

Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.

What is Latter-day Saint Art?: Latter-day Saint Art is a limited series podcast from Wayfare Magazine hosted by Jenny Champoux. In Latter-day Saint Art, I'll guide you through an examination of the artistic tradition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Each guest is a contributor to the new book, Latter-day Saint Art: A Critical Reader, from Oxford University Press and the Center for Latter-day Saint Arts. <a href="https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/s/arts-and-culture-review?utm_medium=podcast">www.wayfaremagazine.org</a>
How often does this podcast release new episodes?: This podcast updates daily.
Where can I listen to this podcast?: This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
Does this podcast accept guests?: No, this podcast does not typically feature guests.

Legal Disclaimer

Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.

All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.

We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.

By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.