Luther makes an unambiguous distinction between a theology of glory and the true theology of the cross. The theology of glory, he says, prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, power to weakness, wisdom to foolishness, and in one word evil to good. But the theology of the cross knows that it is not enough for anybody nor does it help him that he recognizes God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the abasement and ignominy of the cross. In analogy to this we may describe Rembrandts style as a painting of the cross.
"Paul in Prison"
The Holy Family with the Angels
The Return of the Prodigal Son
When the center of painting shifted to Paris in the 1700s, all subsequent styles, from Rococo to Romantic to pre-Raphaelite and beyond, were anti-Christian in philosophy. When photography and subsequent inventions such as motion pictures replaced painting as the main technology for capturing people, places, and events, there became little need for painting in general, except as deconstructionist abstraction. OTOH, there are a number of 1400s northern Renaissance painters (van Eyck, Christus, van der Weyden, etc.) whose works would be at home in any Lutheran church.
If one does not want to think of mortals "above that which is written," (1 Co. 4:6) and thus supports honoring Mary as the humble, pious holy, Spirit-filled women of God and devout mother of Jesus that she was/is, but does not venerate/worship the omnipotent ("by grace) The MARY of CATHOLICISM, and contends against such excess, then he can find himself charged with hating the "Mother of God" by cultic Catholics.
Majoring in the minors.
I guess I missed in scripture where were supposed to focus on religious artwork when the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
Which are quite UNlike the images conjured up in one's mind when they read the excesses claimed for her by the Roman Catholic Church.
The way it's written: