The Art of Jim Janknegt

I've been meaning to say a few words about the art of Jim Janknegt, but like a lot of things, wanted to stew on it for a while first.

I mentioned to him in an e-mail once that I thought he had "found a stylistic niche that fits the subject matter very well" and that his works "manage to express these themes in a modern vernacular... naturally and effectively, which is the challenge we all face as Christian artists.".

I'll add that I see Jim's work as genuinely contemporary while at the same time evoking the graphic power of traditional iconography and the peasant simplicity of Christian art before the Renaissance, from the medieval period and before. In fact, the flattened space, along with a consciously naive approach to the rendering of form might give the impression that these are simple images, when they are in reality more sophisticated compositions that reward sustained viewing.

In the piece above - The Visitation - the way Jesus and John the Baptist are depicted in the wombs of their mothers could have come across as merely silly to modern Western sensibilities, and yet this symbolic approach successfully conveys both the miraculous narrative (from the familiar Bible passage) and the prophetic dignity of both figures. This is a pre-Renaissance convention one sees in Madonna and Child images that is sometimes effective and sometimes just awkward. Here it accomplishes all, I think, that the artist intended.

The use of color in all the artist's work is not only lovely and harmonious, but is an important aspect of the mood and meaning of each piece. This is color that actually upholds and strengthens the narrative, that functions on different levels. It is richly sensual (which helps to make his work very satisfying in an abstract sense) while being thematically significant.

I hope to see some of Jim Janknegt's work in person, one day. I think it would be well worth the effort.

See More of Jim Janknegt's work.

Comments

[Help! I'm Trapped!]

As I am 'art'-challanged, if one ignorant as I were to look at this without any context whatsoever, those 2 objects appear as two little men trapped inside a ball of some sort.

The lady on the left looks as if she were a witch laughing at her handiwork, with the little guy inside crying out for help.

And just who are the folks in the back?

They appear as if they're from another time period (what with their relatively modern clothing and the house in the background) looking into what's happening on the other side.

[J.R. Stoodley]

That's kind of how it struck me too.

Really, if you subract the veils Elizabeth and Mary are wearing contemporary (if somewhat grandmaish) clothing too. Jesus certainly is wearing contemporary clothes too, while John is wearing his typical caveman outfit he always does in art.

I'm guessing the Farmer Joe looking guy with the suitcase is Joseph, the suitcase indicating he's been traveling with Mary, and the guy with the big piece of paper is Zechariah. The paper must be what the struck-dumb Zechariah writes on, though it looks more like a newspaper to me. The house I guess would be Zechariah and Elizabeth's house.

It's very traditional to portray Joseph as an old man in keeping with the apocryphal myth. I don't like it and most newer art portrays him as younger, but clearly this artist wanted to do something that was both contemporary and sort of continuous with iconographic tradition.

Putting biblical figures in modern Western clothing seems weird to me, but I know it was done very frequenly until maybe two or three centuries ago. I suppose it's a good thing to have in moderation. While of course historically inaccurate, it perhaps makes the people more "real."

After all, back when all this took place they didn't see themselves as wearing "bible times cloths", just what was then normal modern clothing (and houses, etc.). Within their own time and culture these biblical figures, with the exception of John the Baptist, would have just looked like "normal people".

Overall it's not to my tastes. If buying something for my own home it would be something that looked like it came out of the Middle Ages or before. Still, it's not ugly and I'm glad such contemporary Christian art is being made. I ultimately wouldn't want the Christian artistic tradition to become nothing but copying past ages.

[Memphis Aggie]

Did he design those puppets we saw in the infamous Masses described on Curt Jester (and elsewhere)?

[Tim J.]

"Did he design those puppets we saw in the infamous Masses described on Curt Jester (and elsewhere)?"

I doubt it. :-)

That is one criticism I do understand... some of the faces can be a bit disconcerting, at first, though they do grow on me.

In this particular instance, I can see that Mary is the younger, prettier face (though still a kind of caricature, rather than really a portrait), while Elizabeth is clearly older and more careworn.

Having the figures presented in this way does require us to love them for their character, their sacrifices - all their inward qualities rather than focusing on outward comeliness.

This may be a hard sell in the image-conscious West, though. I can see where it might be off-putting for some. To be honest, it was something I had to get used to, but once I did, I started to appreciate things like the serenity that is expressed here in the faces of Mary and Elizabeth.

If you look at some traditional icons, they too can be quite distorted and not what we would consider attractive. It's all about the spiritual qualities being expressed, rather than the physical beauty and naturalism that we are accustomed to from the Renaissance onward.

Physical beauty (facial and bodily beauty), as well as things like realistic modeling of form, the illusion of space and more-or-less accurate anatomy all became much more important after the Renaissance, where the iconography that seems to inspire Jim Janknegt's work was always more focused on the spiritual.

This is work that I could see being at home in some of the more modern church buildings, while still bringing a nice sense of continuity with the Catholic tradition of art.

[Help! I'm Trapped!]

Okay, be honest now, r y'all really saying this is serious religious 'art'?

I mean, look at the one where he has the Virgin Mary in a bathing suit!

Okay, come on now, r y'all really considering these works as serious religious 'art'?

I mean, look at the one where he has the Virgin Mary in a bathing suit!

http://janknegt.eccwireless.com/art/egyptmd.jpg

[Tim J.]

Define "serious"...

I don't expect these pieces would be at equally at home everywhere, and I can understand if they aren't everyone's cup of tea.

I can also understand the criticism of the modern dress. It works in some instances better than others. In the piece above, it works. The Egypt piece, not so much. If it weren't for the title, it would be impossible to identify that piece as religious art. There's nothing wrong with it as a painting, but it makes it appear as if the holy family's flight into Egypt was a kind of vacation... which, you know, I kinda doubt.

So, that piece doesn't resonate with me, but why single out one painting and infer that the whole body of work is not really "serious" art.

I enjoy looking at some of these images partly because they are whimsical and maybe *not* so serious. I think they would make a terrific illustrated Bible for children, and that is no insult to the work... quite the opposite. My wife and I have always loved children's books, and still have a pretty good collection. It was Green Eggs and Ham that brought us together in the first place.

It might be that Jim Janknegt's art is made for those who can still manage to see with a child's eyes.

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

We may disagree on the details of abstraction, but I like Jim's style and have admired his paintings for a few years now (know if him via the ArtsandFaith.com forums) *wink*

And wouldn't you say he's abstracted the figures in his works quite a bit? Is this "decorative" art therefore?

And, at the above commenter, with respect to the mixing of historical and modern imagery, this is a common tool in the post-modern toolbox. I'm guessing Jim wasn't intentionally trying to be post-modern, but that's how it comes across nonetheless.

[Tim J.]

"And wouldn't you say he's abstracted the figures in his works quite a bit? Is this "decorative" art therefore?"

Come, now. Icons also are very abstract. This is why we need to keep in mind the difference between abstraction (which could be said of all art) and non-objective art, which properly speaking, not an abstraction at all.

All art should be decorative in the sense that it should be well composed, beautiful (not necessarily pretty) and make good use of color, etc...

"decor... 1897, from Fr. décor, from L. decor "beauty, elegance," from decere (see decorate)."

Above from the Online Etymology Dictionary;

http://www.etymonline.com/

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

I forget that you use the term non-objective in place of non-representational. You're the only one I know personally to do this. Not saying it's wrong, just saying I'm not used to it and get a bit confused when I read some of your posts that use the phrase.

And on Jim's abstraction, I was mostly just egging you on :-p

[Tim J.]

"I forget that you use the term non-objective in place of non-representational."

Sorry, I picked up the term in my graduate studies. I have no idea how commonly it's used.

It has to do with art that might represent *something*, but not any object (for instance, it might ostensibly represent an emotion or idea, rather than a material object).

"And on Jim's abstraction, I was mostly just egging you on :-p"

I figured. Like I don't have enough grief, blogging my fingers to the bone! And don't think you can make all nice by tagging on your cheap emoticons!

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

I seem to remember you employing a few smileys in the TAE comments . . .

. . . but we digress *emoticon*

[Help! I'm Trapped!]

"I can also understand the criticism of the modern dress. It works in some instances better than others."

Actually, after J.R. Stoodley's comments, I can see the attraction to this art for others.

It does seem to make those biblical times more accessible to ours.

Although, I kinda still find it strange to see the guy with the newspaper and the other with a briefcase in the above painting given its context; however, it does help modern folks relate to it somewhat.

"In the piece above, it works. The Egypt piece, not so much. If it weren't for the title, it would be impossible to identify that piece as religious art. There's nothing wrong with it as a painting, but it makes it appear as if the holy family's flight into Egypt was a kind of vacation... which, you know, I kinda doubt."

That's why I had difficulty in accepting this kind of art as serious religious art because, in some instances, they more so give a cartoon-ish perspective of those biblical times rather than present pious reflections of those times.

"So, that piece doesn't resonate with me, but why single out one painting and infer that the whole body of work is not really "serious" art."

See above comment.

"I enjoy looking at some of these images partly because they are whimsical and maybe *not* so serious. I think they would make a terrific illustrated Bible for children, and that is no insult to the work... quite the opposite. My wife and I have always loved children's books, and still have a pretty good collection. It was Green Eggs and Ham that brought us together in the first place."

Actually, if it were but to introduce the bible to kids; definitely, this would be a good means to perhaps acquaint them with the biblical characters and the scriptural narratives.

For Church?

Not so much...

That's my own opinion though.