It was the institution of the Catholic Church that produced (or rather, acted as the patrons of) that art, not really Christianity per se. Your garden-variety Protestant Christianity, especially in America, is no-where near as sophisticated as the Catholic Church.
That argument can be made, but I don't think its valid to the point: The point is that Christian
culture produced great works. Sure you could say it was the church princes that commissioned it, but the laymen certainly appreciated it, and artists came from the lower classes. Also, rich non-prelates were also inspired to commission artwork, some religious in theme, and some secular. You had a culture that valued such art and was geared to produce it, even though it was a small number of people who were most intimately involved.
If, as you say contemporary protestant culture lacks this artistic patron class, you could see that as a lack in the culture:
why does it lack the patron class and the art valueing culture. That is the point of the discussion.
And in (partial) answer to Tom:
Contemporary art seems to be in a state of flux. In my field (architecture) there's no real dominant style, though deconstructivism seems to be just about dead, and I think future scholars might call this era 'eco-corporate neo-modernism.' Where buildings are largely built in the same vocabulary of the international style, but with hi-tech, often environmentally driven modifications, and where color and decoration are allowed, but the whole is constrained by a sort of conservative, moneyed aesthetic.
In the less practical arts, as I alluded to, the long tyranny of anti-representativism seems to be over, with representational art now appearing side by side with abstract art, which, to my mind, is a wonderful thing. For a long time, any art that wasn't abstract was viewed as kitschy and crowd pleasing. I am less well versed in this sort of art.
In music, I have very little to say, but more knowledgable people are invited to discuss this at any length.
