“Biblical Perspectives of Art: A Study of Contemporary Christian Artists in Respect to Three of Francis A. Schaeffer’s Assumptions about Art”
Carol Kinney Student ID 503951 ART387 BE Contemporary Visual Arts and Culture Samuel Park California Baptist University December 20, 2013
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 “Styles of art form changes and there is nothing wrong with this (Schaeffer, F. A. 73)”: A Study of Curtis R. Doll, Jr.’s Stained Glass 2.1 Personal Reflection on Curtis Doll’s Stained Glass 3.0 “There is no such thing as a godly style or an ungodly style (Schaeffer, F. A. 76)”: Sandra Bowden’s “Gold Cross (2008), encaustic and gold leaf on panel 3.1 Personal Reflection on Sandra Bowden’s “Gold Cross” 4.0 “Christian art is by no means always religious art, that is, art which deals with religious themes (Schaeffer, F. A. 88)”: Bill Fortney’s “Best” photograph 4.1 Personal Reflection on Bill Forney’s “Best” photographic print 5.0 Conclusion 6.0 Cited Sources
1.0 Introduction In his essay titled “Some Perspectives on Art (Art and the Bible),” Francis A Schaeffer made eleven assumptions to support his biblical perspective on art. Three of those assumptions are: “styles of art forms change and there is nothing wrong with this (73),” “there is no such thing as a godly style or an ungodly style (76),” and “Christian art is by no means always religious art, that is, art which deals with religious themes (88).” In order to accept Schaeffer’s biblical perspective, it is necessary to examine scripture and weigh these assumptions against what the Bible says. In order to accept Schaeffer’s perspective on art, it is necessary to study his assumptions in reference to works of art. Tools that are useful in this study are Panofsky’s iconology and Fry’s elements of design, as well as examining outside sources on a variety of topics. In this study, Schaeffer’s three aforementioned assumptions are applied to contemporary artists who use a variety of forms. The first assumption regarding changing styles is considered in the work of Curtis R. Doll, Jr.’s stained glass pieces. The second assumption concerning the debate of whether art is “godly” or “ungodly” is seen through the work of Sandra Bowden. To make the case for the assumption, Bowden’s encaustic painting is compared to a similar piece by Debra Van Tuinen. And finally, Schaeffer’s assumption regarding theme is dealt with by examining photojournalist Bill Fortney’s “Best” print. 2.0 “Styles of art form changes and there is nothing wrong with this (Schaeffer, F. A. 73)”: Curtis R. Doll, Jr.’s Stained Glass pieces.
Consider the work of contemporary Christian artist Curtis R. Doll, Jr. Not only does Doll create art in many different forms ranging from paintings to drawings, from stained glass to poetry and from photography to pastels, the artist’s style constantly changes within the various forms. For the sake of this study, only Doll’s stained glass pieces will be examined. The process of the art of stained glass is much the same for any style, yet the form can be different for various artists. Additionally, any single artist can continuously change forms throughout his or her creative history. Doll is a good example of how one artist changes forms, not only in creative processes, but within the individual form of art. Consider a few of Doll’s stained glass pieces:
Doll, Curtis R., Jr., “Sandusky front,” nd., Contemporary Stained Glass, fluid lead lines with crystal clear, textured antique glass.
Doll, Curtis R., Jr., “Symbolism,” Central Christian Disciples Church, Springfield Ohio, nd., Abstract Stained Glass.
Doll, Curtis R., Jr., “Holy Family,” St. Jude’s Catholic Church, Glen Dale, WV, nd., Realistic etched, stained and painted leaded glass.
Doll, Curtis R., Jr., “Historical Alcove,” Temple Tifereth Israel, 1987, Historical development superimposed stained glass.
Doll, Curtis R., Jr., “Artful Abstraction,” nd., abstraction utilizing beveled, industrial and antique glass with a variety of lead widths.
In each of these five stained glass pieces, Curtis uses different styles, forms and processes within the genre. Curtis explains that the creative process is different for each piece that he creates. “We have access to a virtually limitless range of colors (“Contemporary Glass
Design”),” techniques for molding and forming the glass, “various types of glass,” variances of metals and lead, and a variety of methods in which pigments and shades are achieved. Because there is a “limitless” combination of methods to achieve the stained glass form, each work of art in this genre is equally unlimited. Consider how each of the five Curtis pieces varies from one another. “Holy Family” and “Historical Alcove” are realistic pieces in that the viewer “can certainly see what is meant to be (Howells and Negreiros 157).” The “Holy Family” is a depiction of Joseph, Mary and Jesus at the time of Jesus’ birth and “Historical Alcove” is a depiction of a Jewish temple or synagogue. The viewer knows this by applying Panofsky’s first and third levels of iconology (Howells and Negreiros 25). The view identifies what the objects in the stained glass are come from common “cultural” knowledge and the “unconscious process” of gained knowledge of Judeo/Christian symbols. While “Holy Family and “Historical Alcove” are both realistic works of art the technique, style, colors, materials and lines are different between the two pieces. In contrast, “Sandusky Front,” “Artful Abstraction” and “Symbolism” are all abstract representations of Curtis’ thoughts. In other words, the “formal arrangements of color, line, and/or shape take precedence over the representation of recognizable objects (Adams, Laurie Schneider 25).” In each of these pieces, the interpretation must come from Curtis, at which Panofsky’s second level of iconology is used by the viewer to interpret the meaning (Howells and Negreiros 25). Only after the viewer hears or reads Curtis’ intended meaning can the view interpret the message using Panofsky’s first and third levels of iconology. In the case of Curtis’ “Symbolism,” the artist offers the thought behind the creative process:
“These windows symbolically depict the life of Christ. To the left from top to bottom are the Star of the Epiphany, the Rose of Sharon or the Christmas Rose and the Lily symbolizing the purity of the Virgin Mary. In the center lancet from top to bottom are the Butterfly symbolizing the Resurrection of Christ and the fish in the form of the Triquetra. The fish is the oldest symbol of Christ. In times of persecution, the early Christians had to go underground. In order to identify themselves to one another, they would draw the sign of a fish. Why a fish? The Greek word for fish is IXTHUS, which serves as an acronym for the Greek words: "Jesus, Christ, God's Son, Savior. And the Triquetra is an ancient symbol of the Holy Trinity. In the right lancet, from top to bottom are the Descending Dove with Seven Tongues of Fire all symbolizing the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit imparted to the Twelve Disciples on Pentecost.”
After the viewer hears or reads Curtis’ representation of the symbolic elements of “Symbolism,” the viewer than consciously interprets the artist’s message at Panofsky’s first level of iconology and unconsciously applies retained knowledge at the third or intrinsic level. And like “Holy Family” and “Historical Alcove” are similar in classification to each other, these three abstract pieces are similar, yet very different. The similarities and differences can be seen using Roger Fry’s elements of design, namely the line, light and shade and color (Howells and Negreiros 42) “Sandusky Front” is clear and lacks color and relies on lines to define the piece. “Artful Abstraction” has some color and uses similar curved lines as “Sandusky Front,” but “Artful Abstraction” highlights opaqueness throughout much of the piece with just a few bursts of color. And finally “Symbolism” is full of bold energy exuding from the contrast of color and darkness and variances in width of sharp, straight lines. While each of Curtis’ stained glass pieces are similar, they are also each different in style and form. Yet, this dissimilarity does nothing to detract from the beauty of each
individual piece. Curtis’s theory about change in art forms comes from his admiration of Rembrandt van Rijn. At the beginning of Rembrandt’s career, Rembrandt painted “very realistic and polished portraits and landscapes. At the end of his career . . . he began to paint what was in his heart (“Philosophy on Art and Design”).” It is a fact that humans change throughout the course of a life-span. Psychologists have long ago identified that change in behavior, thoughts, habits and physical growth is a natural process that all humans go through, especially in mentally healthy individuals (Myers, David 175-176). Yet change for the sake of change is never a wise or healthy choice. “We should remember that life requires both stability and change. Stability enables us to depend on others, provides our identity, and . . . change motivates our concern about . . . influences, sustains our hope for a brighter future and lets us adapt and grow with experience (Myers, David 175). In the reformed tradition of theology, change is important to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. John Leith writes, “[Theology] must be written for the day . . . Every generation must write its own theology for its own time and place (Introduction to the Reformed Tradition 112).” The Reformed Church in America words this belief in this way: “Reformed and always reforming, earnestly seeking to know the mind of Christ as it strives to be faithful in a changing, complex, and often troubled world (rca.org).” Yet Leith also adds that change in theology should only occur in the form and not the original message of the gospel. Change is a basic message of the Bible and is central to the gospel message. The Apostle Paul writes, “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new
creation: everything old has passes away; see, everything has become new! (2 Corinthians 5:17 NRSV).” By examining Doll’s stained glass in light Panofsky’s theory, Fry’s elements of design, psychology, reformed theology it is seen that Schaeffer’s assumption that “Style of art form change and there is nothing wrong with this (73) holds water. Not only does it prove to be true in the art, psychology and theology disciplines, but more importantly it is an assumption that is biblical. An artist who changes styles, forms, mediums, and thoughts is not creating for the sake of creating, but allowing his art to reflect the changes in environment, culture, times and him or her own self. It is a natural and healthy process. 2.1 Personal Reflection on Doll’s Stained Glass pieces. When I was young, my father had a best friend who was a stained glass artist. I called him “Uncle Harold” and long before there was any fear of lead based products being unhealthy for children, I was allowed to explore Uncle Harold’s place of business and he helped me create small window ornaments to give to my mother and grandmother as gifts. Uncle Harold would do all of the process, but I was allowed to pick and sometimes draw designs, pick the glass and colors and watch him craft the piece. Because of this experience when I was younger, I have always loved all kinds of stained glass works. I wish that I could say that Doll’s pieces held a special attraction to me outside of this general love of the craft, but there was not much more to that.
However, what kept my interest in Doll’s stained glass was the use of color in his pieces. The bright, vivid colors are just the ones that I always picked in Uncle Harold’s studio. Even in Doll’s pieces that lacked color, I saw how he used the lead lines to create shape and color that enhanced the view of the outside surroundings.
3.0 “There is no such thing as a godly style or an ungodly style (Schaeffer, F. A. 76)”: Sandra Bowden’s “Gold Cross (2008)”, encaustic and gold leaf on panel.
Should a Christian listen to secular music? Should Christian watch movies that are violent or use explicative language? Should every Christian watch Duck Dynasty because the people are Christian? Do I need to like Thomas Kinkade paintings because he was a Christian who painted Christian themes? Christians are often plagued with deciding which art forms are suitable according to the Bible. Francis Schaeffer agrees that Christians should question how art is created and interpreted against the Christian worldview (83). Yet the message is what dictates whether or not art is appropriate, and not the style for there is no “godly” or “ungodly style.” Contemporary art historian Daniel A. Siedell and his colleague Robert Johnston quote Douglas Campbell when they write that art cannot be divided into labels like “the sheep and the goats (God in the Gallery 160).” While Siedell and Johnston do not agree with all of Schaeffer’s assumptions about art, that there is “godly style or ungodly style” is upheld by the Siedell and Johnston based upon two observations of Christian artists. First, “Christian artists who have graduate degrees are trained exclusively in secular graduate studio art programs.” If Siedell’s and Johnston’s assumption might or might not be fully true, it
makes perfect sense to say that if it were true at least some of the time, then Christian artists who are trained in secular universities and studios are not trained in a style that is “godly.” And if the training is not “godly,” then it is also true to say that the style is not “godly,” for “ungodly” training does not reap “godly” style. However, this is not true. Take for example the encaustic and gold leaf on panel work of Sandra Bowden:
Sandra Bowden, “Gold Cross (2008),” encaustic and gold leaf on panel. Bowden’s “Gold Cross” is a representation of the four gospels and hung in a square pattern to “suggest” Christ’s cross (Bowden, S.). There is no need to study the intrinsic level of Panofsky’s iconology for Bowden’s “Gold Cross” as there is no “unconscious (Howells and Negreiros 25)” or hidden meaning in the piece; Bowden flat out exclaims the intended message which is fully intended “to encapsulate (Howells and Negreiros 25)” to the audience. However,
to look for “Gold Cross” for a “godly” or “ungodly style” would be useless. Apart from the intended message and meaning of the piece, there is no evidence of godliness or ungodliness in the style. Much of Bowden’s work is a representation of the artist’s Christian worldview, yet the artist’s training was only partially completed at Christian universities. Bowden received her training from four separate colleges and universities, one fully Christian (Berkshire Christian College), one steeped in Christian tradition with some modern secular attributes (College of Saint Rose), and two fully secular (State University of New York and Massachusetts College of Art). If training dictates style, then Bowden’s art is not fully “godly.” Yet this is simply not true. The second point that Siedell and Johnston make in support of Schaeffer’s assumption is that if there were a true “godly style” and a true “ungodly style,” Christian artists would decline “offers to exhibit their work in secular . . . art galleries and . . . museums . . . [and] turn down opportunities to have their exhibitions reviewed by the secular media (160).” James Clifton says that while Christian art is not always treated fairly in the way that it is displayed in secular museums, Christian art is nonetheless found in a majority of reputable secular museums in the United States and throughout the world (“Truly a worship experience,” 2006).” Siedell’s and Johnston’s basis for this assumption is that Christians artists would not want audiences, curators and critics who have no understanding of the Christian worldview to scrutinize their works of art. To say that Christian art is not found in secular museums is and to say that Christian artists have not welcomed review from non-Christian critics is absurd. Returning to the example of
artist Sandra Bowden, the artist offers three collections of her work as “traveling exhibitions (sandrabowden.com).” Nowhere in the artist’s offer to show the works of art does Bowden claim that it can only be displayed in so-called Christian museums: “There is no charge for the exhibition but each venue is responsible for shipping costs (“Word as Image”). Additionally, among the many venues that have displayed Bowden’s art, are the Holiday Inn International in Tennessee and General Electric Corporation in Selkirk, NY. These are not museums, but purely secular venues, yet still prove that Christian artists choose to display art wherever they choose, and is not always in fully “godly” or fully “ungodly” places. Now consider another encaustic painting by artist Debra Van Tuinen:
Van Tuinen, Debra, “Untitled (2013),” encaustic painting. Van Tuinen’s untitled encaustic painting is similar in form and style to Bowden’s “Gold Cross” right down to the element of color. Yet nothing in Van Tuinen’s biography suggests that the artist is a Christian or that the artist’s work carries a Christian message (www.vantuinenart.com). Yet, like Bowden, Van Tuinen’s training is received from various Christian and secular institutions: University of Washington, Hope College in Michigan and the
Byam Shaw School of Art in London (“resume”). Also like Bowden, Van Tuinen chooses to show her works of art in a variety of secular and Christian venues (“resume”). And like Bowden, Van Tuinen uses the encaustic form of painting. “The word encaustic originated from the Greek work, enkaustikos, which means ‘to burn in.’ The encaustic painting technique involves first creating the encaustic medium, applying it to a porous surface and then fusing it together with heat. The medium is a combination of wax and dammar resin (Et Lis, Rose).” There is nothing in the description of the style of encaustic painting that suggests whether the process is “godly” or “ungodly.” Because this is true for any style of art, then Schaeffer’s assumption that “there is no such thing as godly style or an ungodly style (76),” but rather the biblical understanding of “godly” from the Hebrew chaciyd (Strong, James) and the Greek eusebos (Strong, James) comes from the message that is intended by the artist. This is true to scripture (Psalm 1, 2 Peter 2 and others). For Bowden’s encaustic “Gold Cross” the message is intended and fully implied that it is “godly”; for Van Tuinen’s “Untitled” encaustic painting there is no clue as to what the message is and so it cannot be determined if it is “godly” or not. And if style cannot determine whether art is “godly” or not, then a Christian cannot judge any art form’s style on this basis. The message of the art is what determines whether or not it is appropriate to watch, view or listen to, not the style. 3.1 Personal Reflection on Bowden’s “Gold Cross.” Before knowing that Bowden was a Christian artist, and before knowing the title and meaning of the piece, I was drawn to the shimmering gold color, the nearly hidden detail in the
lines throughout the piece and the arrangement of the four panels. I was also intrigued with the process of encaustic painting which is using hot melted wax to highlight color, lines and shapes within a painting. I thought that I would like to have this work of art in my home. The bonus came when I read the title of the piece and the meaning implied by Bowden. While the style is neither godly nor ungodly, the message and the artist herself represent my own Christian worldview and that only made me appreciate the work that much better. In contrast, Van Tuinen’s untitled encaustic is equally intriguing in her use of elements, but there is no bonus excitement for me in the message of the piece. Aesthetically, I can appreciate both works and would like to have both hanging in my home, but if I had my choice of the two I would chose Bowden’s “Gold Cross” because of the message.
4.0 “Christian art is by no means always religious art, that is, art which deals with religious themes (Schaeffer, F. A. 88)”: Bill Fortney’s “Best” photograph
There are countless artists in the world that are Christian. Some choose to create paintings, sculptures, music, poetry, works of fiction, and countless other art works using religious themes and icons. However, not every Christian artist chooses or must create art in this manner. Christian artists are no different than other Christian professionals in that religious themes do not have to dictate the product of the work. Is it reasonable to suggest that a Christian retailer must only sell religious items or that a Christian doctor only treat Christian patients? Absolutely not! Such is the same for Christian artists and to suggest otherwise is absurd.
Additionally, there are no biblical mandates for this thought. Instead, the Apostle Paul says, “Whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Colossians 3:17 NRSV)” and “Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord (Colossians 3:23 NRSV).” The key word in each of these scriptures is “whatever.” Paul makes no dictate that all “tasks” must carry a religious theme. Photojournalist Bill Fortney is no stranger to Christianity. At the 2004 Southwestern Photojournalism Conference at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fortney told the audience that cancer had changed his perspective on life and his relationship with God (Arnold, Lauri). Prior to that experience, Fortney had only focused on becoming a famous photographer, and after cancer he “focused on serving God (Arnold, Lauri)” through his work. After surviving cancer, Fortney achieved his dreams of being “one of the premier nature photographers in America (Arnold, Lauri),” as well as a published photojournalist and a “professional” nature photography representative for Nikon Corporation (Arnold, Lauri). The key word in the description of Fortney’s photography is not religiously themed or descriptive of icons, but is simply “nature.” Such as this print, simply titled “Best” on Fortney’s website:
Fortney, Bill, “Best,” nd., photographic print in color.
Fortney’s “Best” print can easily understood in light of Panofsky’s first and third levels of iconology. The viewer can draw from conscious and “unconscious (Howells and Negreiros 25)” knowledge that the subject is a body of water flowing over and around rocks. The viewer does not necessarily need to understand the print in Panofsky’s second level of iconology to appreciate the work. However, in order to for the viewer to better identify with the subject, Fry’s elements of design can be of better use. Fry’s “emotional elements of design (Howells and Negreiros 42) are: line, mass, space, light and shade, and color. Fortney’s “Best” uses all five of these elements to produce an emotional reaction from the viewer. The long ripples and flow and the curvatures of the rocks and swirling water, show Fortney’s eye for line. The mass of the rocks is weighed against the mass of the water. There is no open space in “Best,” yet Fortney defines space in the print primarily in the flattened rock at the upper left side of the print. And finally, Fortney’s uses of reflective light, shade and color in the print suggest time and movement.
It may even be reasonable to suggest that the rock in the upper right side of the print is shaped in a way that is reminiscent of a cat lapping up water, although Fry did not directly state that shape was one of the emotional elements. And though Forney offers no implied meaning about “Best” to suggest that the rock looks like a cat this is purely subjective on the viewer, but can help the viewer to form an emotional connection to the print just the same. Bill Fortney’s nature photograph “Best” can be shown to be a work of art by examining it against Panofsky’s iconology and Fry’s elements of design. Fortney is a public artist who also happens to be Christian, yet his images are not religiously themed by any means. While Fortney’s appreciation for nature may very well be a result of a Christian worldview, there is no evidence to suggest that the artists work is symbolic of a religious icon or thought. Yet this does not detract from the fact the Fortney is a Christian artist. Because all of this is true, and scripture supports Schaeffer’s assumption, then “Christian art is by no means always religious art, that is, art which deals with religious themes (Schaeffer, F. A. 88)” is proven to be true. That Fortney photographs nature does not make the artist any less of a Christian photographer than a Christian photographer who chooses to take photographs that are religiously themed. It is his worldview that defines Fortney as a Christian artist and not his work. 4.1 Personal Reflection on Bill Fortney’s “Best” photographic print. Fortney’s use of Fry’s elements of design is what drew me to his work as a whole, but especially this particular print. Simplistic in nature, yet vividly inviting is how I would describe the subject matter of “Best.” The more that I studied it, the more I realized that the shape of the rock looked like a cat lapping water and because I am a cat lover, it presented a different
connection between me and the print. However, because I cannot be sure if that is Fortney’s intent or message, this does not affect the peaceful emotion that I feel when I view this print. It is inviting and enticing to view and ponder. 5.0 Conclusion By examining Schaeffer’s three assumptions through Doll’s stained glass, Bowden and Van Tuinen’s encaustic paintings and Fortney’s photographic print, the assumptions are proven to be truthful. By using Panofsky’s iconology, Fry’s elements of design and other sources such a psychology textbook, theological commentary and artistic commentaries, Schaeffer’s assumptions are faithful to the nature of art. Finally, because Schaeffer’s assumptions can be held accountable against God’s word, then it can be said that Schaeffer’s three assumptions in the essay “Some Perspectives on Art” are biblical. Because all of these things are true, based upon this study, Schaeffer’s Art in the Bible is a faithful and useful tool for looking at art from a Christian perspective.
6.0 Cited Sources Adams, Laurie Schneider. Looking At Art. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. 2002. Print. Arnold, Lauri. Baptist Press: News with a Christian Perspective. “Christian photojournalists exposed to the big picture.” Bill Fortney. 17 Mar. 2004. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. <www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17866>. Bowden, Sandra. Sandra Bowden. 2006-2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2013. <sandrabowden.com>.
Clifton, James. “Truly a worship experience?: Christian art in secular museums.” 2006. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 52. Museums: Crossing Boundaries (Autumn, 2007). JSTOR. <www.jstor.org/action/showShelf?action=add&doi=10.2307%2F20167746>. Doll, Curtis R. , Jr. “A View from Within.” nd. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <www.curtisgraphics.com>. Et Lis, Rose. All things paint and plasters. “Waxing Poetic: Encaustic painting.” 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <allthingspaintand plasters.blogspot.com/2010/11/waxing-poeticEncaustic-painting.html>. Howells, Richard and Joquim Negreiros. Visual Culture 2nd Ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2013. Print. Leith, John H. And Introduction to the Reformed Tradition: A Way of Being the Christian Community. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1981. Print. Myers, David. Exploring Psychology 8th Ed. New York, New York: Worth Publishers, 2011. Print. Reformed Church in America. Beliefs. “The Reformed View of the Christian Faith.” 2013. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. <https://www.rca.org>. Schaeffer, Francis A. Art and the Bible. “Some Perspectives on Art.” Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Print. Siedell, Daniel A. & Robert Johnston. God in the Gallery: A Christian Embrace of Modern Art. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008. Print. Strong, James. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1996. Print. Thomas Kinkade Asheville. “About the Artist.” 2007. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. <www.thomaskinkadeasheville.com/kinkade.htm>. Van Tuinen, Debra. Van Tuinen Art. 2013. Web. 14 Dec. 2013. <vantuinenart.com>.
Images Bowden, Sandra, “Gold Cross,” 2008, encaustic and gold leaf on panel. <sandrabowden.com/encaustics/gold-cross>. Doll, Curtis R., Jr. Curtis Graphics. nd. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <www.curtisgraphic.com>. “Artful Abstraction,” nd., abstraction utilizing beveled, industrial and antique glass with a variety of lead widths. “Historical Alcove,” Temple Tifereth Israel, 1987, Historical development superimposed stained glass. “Holy Family,” St. Jude’s Catholic Church, Glen Dale, WV, nd., Realistic etched, stained and painted leaded glass. “Sandusky front,” nd., Contemporary Stained Glass, fluid lead lines with crystal clear, textured antique glass. “Symbolism,” Central Christian Disciples Church, Springfield Ohio, nd., Abstract Stained Glass. Fortney, Bill, “Best,” nd., photographic print in color. <billfortney.com/?page_id=2185>. Van Tuinen, Debra, “Untitled,” 2013, encaustic painting. <www.vantuinenart.com>.