Raphael. Michelangelo. The Cathedral at Chartres. Illuminated manuscripts. Modern Easter programs. Which of these things is not like the other?

This Easter, along with reflecting on far more important things, I have begun to wonder why the aesthetics of modern religious organizations have become so.... cheesy. (Note: As a churchgoer myself, I say this in the most respectful way possible.) Is it a severe lack of Medicis? The ability of your local parish to print their own bulletins? Or just a devaluing of the aesthetic, itself?

Look, I mean, I'm not really in church for the graphic design. But wait--for thousands of years, the church has made beauty a central part of its appeal. Why else have these beautiful buildings, priests in elaborate vestements, and all that incense? In medieval times, the squalid state of ordinary people's everyday lives made the church one of the few places of pure aesthetic enjoyment in their lives. Nowadays, with every middle-class American able to decorate their home with the latest Phillippe Starck paper-towel-holder from Target, perhaps it's just not as necessary.

Or maybe the church-graphic-design industry is staffed entirely with refugees from Hallmark.

I've thought this before about political campaigns: their design aesthetic always seemed so needlessly lowbrow, their lack of white space appalling, their inability to use colors other than red, white, and blue a sign of massive lack of imagination. Then Obama came around and showed us that political graphic design needn't be horrifying. Maybe churches need a similar breakthrough.

Those of us who design things for a living believe that there's never a reason for bad design; that effective communications should be attractive. But I think that, for churches and political campaigns alike, there's almost a sense of comfort or pride in the specific signifiers of their design aesthetic. Like, you know it's a church program immediately just by glancing at it, because that is how church programs look; just as you can immediately identify a political bumper sticker out of the corner of your eye. It may be more about that identification than anything else--if your church program was beautifully designed, it might not readily signify its purpose or appear to be, well, churchy enough.

But I think it's possible to clearly broadcast your identity and intent through the look and feel of your communications without them being unattractive. We do this all the time with clients. Appearing "serious," for instance, doesn't mean your web site needs to be times new roman type on a white background--just as sentimentality needn't appear saccharine, nor "boldness" appear tacky.

A friend of mine spent years designing architectural and theatrical lighting schemes for new churches down South. The builders of these houses of worship understood, even today, the importance of the aesthetic experience to their adherents. Yet, in their printed materials, this same care for good design seems to disappear.

I don't know if other religions have a similar problem, but if they do, it might be time for all talented designers of various religions to volunteer some time at their local place of worship. It may seem silly, but I believe that beauty is important--in all things. And I think good design improves our lives and uplifts our hearts. In the grand scheme of things, of course, this is relatively unimportant--I'd much rather churches spend their money helping the poor. But it's no more expensive to design something nice as it is to design something unattractive. Why not make the church programs as beautiful as the church?

PS: If I am not at work next week, it may be because I have been struck down by lightning for writing this post.