Since the middle of the 16th century religious art had come entirely to an end in all the Protestant parts of Germany . . . Nothing but sectarian narrowness could deny that German . . . art stood higher before the Reformation than after it. For nearly two centuries architecture, sculpture, and painting produced nothing more in Germany that could be compared with the creations . . . immediately before . . . the Schism in the Church. (Janssen, XI, 50-51)
Hans Holbein the younger, one of the greatest painters of all ages, was obliged to undertake house painters’ work, and to paint Coats of arms. in order to make a living . . . In consequence of being thrown out of work he saw himself compelled to migrate to England . . . ‘The art of painting,’ Albert Durer complains in a pamphlet addressed to Wilibald Pirkheimer, ‘is greatly despised among us Germans nowadays by many people, and they say it tends to produce idolatry.’ (Janssen, IV, 165)
A popular history of art summarizes the Protestant Revolt’s detrimental influence:
In the northern countries, in Germany, Holland and England, artists were confronted with a much more real crisis . . . whether painting could and should continue at all. The great crisis was brought about by the Reformation. Many Protestants objected to pictures or statues of saints in churches and regarded them as a sign of Popish idolatry . . .
We can witness the effect of this crisis in the career of the greatest German painter of this generation . . . Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543) . . . In 1526 he left Switzerland for England . . . ‘The arts here are freezing,’ Erasmus wrote commending the painter to his friends . . . When Holbein had left the German-speaking countries painting there began to decline to a frightening extent, and when Holbein died the arts were in a similar plight in England. In fact, the only branch of painting there that survived the Reformation was that of portrait painting which Holbein had so firmly established . . .
There was only one Protestant country in Europe where art fully survived the crisis of the Reformation – that was the Netherlands . . . Artists . . . specialized in all those types of subject-matter to which the Protestant Church could raise no objections . . . [e.g., still-lifes]
The more the Protestants preached against outward show in the churches, the more eager did the Roman Church become to enlist the power of the artist. Thus the Reformation . . . also had an indirect effect on the development of Baroque. (E. H. Gombrich, The Story of Art, London: Phaidon, revised 11th edition, 1966, 274, 277, 279, 326)
Preserved Smith provides an interesting insight:
Even when the Reformation was not consciously opposed to art, it shoved it aside as a distraction from the real business of life. Thus it has come about in Protestant lands that the public regards art as either a ‘business’ or an ‘education.’ (Smith, 215)
In deciding what was “pure” Calvin and his legatees made themselves silly:
Reformed churches would not permit organs . . . It filled the church with ornamental and non-Scriptural sound . . . an instrument of the elaboration and clutter which their cleansing stream of simplicity was washing away . . . In Calvinist countries, except Holland . . . they preferred to have no organs . . . There is a story of the organist of . . . Zurich weeping as he watched the axes smashing his great organ . . . All the English organs were sold or demolished again in 1644 . . . (Chadwick, 438-439)
Fortunately for the history of music, Bach was a Lutheran instead of a Calvinist!
Another Puritan, Dr. Reynolds of Oxford, was the scourge of Elizabethan theatre which . . . he wished to ban completely. The Puritans forced the theatres to move from . . . London to Southwark. If they had triumphed nationally, many of the greatest works of English literature would never have been written . . . Shakespeare, Jonson and Webster, no doubt, would have turned to other professions. (Paul Johnson, A History of the English People, New York: Harper & Row, Revised edition, 1985, 162)
In Calvin’s Geneva,
[T]he theater was denounced from the pulpit . . . attendance on plays was forbidden. (Huizinga, 171-172)
The Book of Discipline in Scotland forbade attendance at theaters. Calvin thoroughly disapproved of them, and even Luther considered them ‘fool’s work’ and at times dangerous. (Smith, 44)
Martin Luther: A Curious Mix
Luther himself was moderate in this regard:
I do not hold that the Gospel should destroy all the arts, as certain superstitious folk believe . . . The law of Moses forbade only the image of God. (Durant, 820)
On the other hand, however, Luther was most eager to trivialize and vulgarize art in commending ridiculous caricatures of Catholics as donkeys, etc.:
Wherever one goes one sees . . . caricatures of priests and monks” so that “one now experiences a feeling of disgust on seeing or hearing of a clerical person. (Janssen, XI, 56; LL, II, 674; Luther’s letter to Archbishop Albert of Mayence, June 2, 1525)
In 1526 Luther called on his disciples to:
. . . assail the . . . idolaters of the Roman Antichrist by means of painting. Cursed is he who remains idle in this matter, while he knows that he can do God a service. (Janssen, XI, 56)
This is typical of Luther’s unfortunate habit of disagreeing by means of slander, obscenity and mockery, rather than by reasonable discourse.
Protestant Iconoclasm (Are Artistic Images Idolatrous?)
The early Protestant antipathy towards art was most graphically displayed in their iconoclasm with regard to “images” in churches, which they considered idolatrous:
Reformers less human than Luther, less cautious than Calvin, preferred to outlaw religious painting and sculpture altogether, and to clear their churches of all ornament; ‘truth’ banished beauty as an infidel. In England, Scotland, Switzerland, and northern Germany the destruction was wholesale and indiscriminate; in France the Huguenots melted down the . . . shrines, and other vessels found in the churches . . . The demolition was brutal and barbarous. (Durant, 821)
Amongst the preachers of the new religious opinions there were multitudes who, like Wickliffe of old, denounced all arts and sciences as devil’s traps. Zwingli and his followers designated Christian art, within the churches at any rate, as a snare of the devil . . . They assumed a hostile attitude towards Christian painting in general . . . Zwingli would not even tolerate the pictures of Christ. The Helvetian confession of faith, drawn up by Bullinger, rejected images of Christ as though they were pagan idols . . . In the Basle Church Regulations of the year 1529, introduced by Oecolampadius, it is said: God has ‘cursed all those who make images.’ William Farel went so far as to denounce the making of pictures and images as a sin against nature . . . Calvin called the setting-up of pictures and images in churches a . . . ‘miserable folly which had been the destruction of all piety on earth;’ it was also iniquitous to give representations of events from sacred history. Theodore Beza directed his fury especially against pictures of the Crucifixion, which he ‘abominated.’ He wished that ‘the Christian magistracy would reduce all pictures to powder.’ (Janssen, XI, 28-29)