Each year, the members of the awards jury gather to pore over nearly 200 entries in religious arts and architecture. It is the perfect opportunity to consider the direction of the field, to reflect on project both selected for awards and those passed over, and what they indicate for the future of architecture and art for worship.

What did the jurors see in this year’s entries? Generally, there was a concern about entries in the Visual Arts categories. The jury felt that the level of quality fell short of expectations, that more was expected of glass art and sculpture. There was not a dynamic use of artistic imagination, the jury noted, a general lack of brilliance in the glass arts and in sculpture. It was suspected that much of this work is donor driven, may not have generous budgets, and that clients may be less demanding of path-breaking work and more comfortable with conventional or traditional designs.

Jury members detected more willingness on the part of Jewish congregations to push the envelope on innovation in architectural design than was evident in work completed for other faith communities. Jury members felt that many Jewish projects were much more progressive in their attitude about art and architecture, in restoration projects, now work and interior design. Generally, projects for Jewish congregations were distinguished by a “much more open, progressive effort” and a willingness to “take more risks.”

In contrast, the jury speculated that a less experimental spirit in Christian projects, particular those for Roman Catholic clients, might indicate a more cautious approach that it is a product of a worldview more fearful and challenged by the growing diversity of faith communities. They are uncertain about the future, not willing to take risks, and more comfortable in the past.

This year’s jury cited 21 projects for awards, yet only four were designated Honor Award winners (the rest received Merit Awards). The jury noted that the projects that received Honor Awards were highly refined and very carefully executed. They exhibited great care in programming and in their functional resolution. But they also aspired to art. Their creators were not satisfied with meeting the status quo, and they worked with congregations to make this happen, making them aware of the possibilities. Of these award-winning projects, one jury member said, “it is heart-warming that, in them, the gift of imagination still dances.”