Templeton Religion Trust
What role do our surroundings play in how we connect with and remember art?
How do sacred artworks change us, both in the moment and when we look back on the experience?
Can experiencing sacred art influence how we see ourselves or how we tell the story of our lives?
There’s a genre of art specifically meant to draw your thoughts toward spiritual matters. Whether it’s the nativity scene your mother unpacked every December or a certain holy ceiling you arched your neck to view on a trip to Italy last summer, sacred art is designed to bridge heaven and earth. These images remind us of divine encounters “once upon a time,” while facilitating new moments of spiritual reflection. But how does sacred art influence our understanding, memory, and spirituality?
Dr. Robin Jensen and her team at the University of Notre Dame are expanding their research on this topic in innovative ways. Bringing together theology, psychology, and art history, her work examines how time and space influence art experiences. “Sometimes pieces of art shape how you understand your faith,” Jensen explains. “Sacred art can become woven into your autobiographical narrative.”
While organized religion is losing relevance in parts of the Western world, sacred art is increasingly encountered in neutral spaces like museums. How does this recontextualization of sacred art impact modern audiences? This question inspired Dr. Jensen’s new research.
An earlier project examined how participants engaged with and remembered two works of sacred art at the University of Notre Dame, correlating their experiences with distinct contexts. But this work only scratched the surface. How do personal beliefs and life circumstances shape art engagement? How much does the viewer’s mindset shape the encounter?
This new study dives deeper into how context—such as a chapel versus a museum—affects engagement. It also introduces VR technology to control variables and extends its scope by comparing sacred and secular art as well as representational and abstract works, yielding surprising findings.
The research incorporates three innovative approaches to study how sacred art is experienced in different contexts.
The team discovered that affinity for a piece of art did not necessarily predict how well it was remembered. Participants were more likely to remember works they struggled with, particularly abstract pieces. Representational art, with its easily accessible meaning, was often enjoyed but quickly forgotten. In contrast, abstract works provoked more pondering, leading to stronger memories.
This finding challenges assumptions about sacred art, which often emphasizes representation. As Jensen notes, “When you come to something that you think you already know, like the images of Jesus carrying the cross to Golgotha, you don’t have to sit and figure it out.” Pairing abstract works with art education or guided docent experiences could merge affinity, memory, and impact, creating more profound engagements.
“The art speaks for itself” may be true, but it doesn’t speak by itself. This research highlights the dynamic role of context—physical space, decor, time of day, time of year, and social surroundings—in shaping the artistic encounter. A flipped script for artists, prioritizing context over content, could lead to more impactful creations.
The VR component of the study underscores the value of controlled experimentation while revealing the limitations of virtual spaces. VR allows researchers to measure variables like time spent viewing art or distance from a piece, but it lacks the emotional depth of real-world experiences.
This raises questions about the purpose of museums today. Could they become loci of meaning-making, curating “sacred” experiences the way churches once did? Jensen observes, “In a museum space, we often encounter art a little bit more objectively. … There’s a sort of natural way that we see art differently depending on the context, and especially if it’s sacred art.” Museums may provide a neutral platform, freeing viewers to interpret artworks personally, but they also risk losing the communal and spiritual resonance that sacred spaces provide.
Art, religion, and spirituality have always been intertwined, but this research challenges us to rethink those relationships. Churches might find new ways to incorporate art to resonate with contemporary audiences. Museums, in turn, could embrace their potential as spaces for spiritual and cultural connection, fostering dialogue and understanding in increasingly secular societies.
Sacred art invites us to explore not just its visual and spiritual meanings but also our relationship to the spaces and times in which we encounter it. By studying the contexts of sacred art engagement, Dr. Jensen’s research offers valuable insights for artists, architects, curators, and communities. It challenges us to rethink how art creates meaning and connection, bridging divides and enriching human experience.
Much like sacred art itself, this research reminds us that meaning is not static. “What we see when we look at sacred art is not just the art itself, but a mirror of our beliefs, context, and aspirations,” Jensen reflects. By exploring these connections, we can better understand not only the art but also ourselves—and the spaces we share.
