TPJCatholic:
otm,
I wonder, would you say that the San Francisco Cathedral has more beauty then Saint Peter’s in Rome? I ask that because those two structures stand on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you were personally to make the choice for a new Cathedral and money were no object, would you choose to replicate a structure like Saint Peter’s or would you build the Cathedral as it now stands in San Francisco?
I live in the Chicago area, I have seen and worshipped in many different types of Churches, from the old “Roman styled” structures to the ugly cold modernist structures that reflect very little sacredness. I think James made a very good suggestion, you should read “Ugly as Sin” by Michael Rose. Churches are intended for far more than performing sacraments and Masses.
I am a bit curious, do you think that Saint Peter’s Basillica in Rome has beauty and sacredness?
[btw, I think some of the houses that Frank Lloyd Wright designed are just plain ugly–I have never fallen into a group that thinks something is beautiful just because co-called artist say it is]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
For San Francisco, I would probably not try to replicate St Peter’s; I would probably go with a modern design.
I have seen ugly, too, in some more recent architecture; I think particualrly of the post-Mondern rendition of city hall in Portland. I think it looks like aomeone attempted to replicat a gift box, preleat with ribbons, and I think it is rediculous. Furthermore, if there is a hell fo architects, it should be one in which they have to live (work, or whatever) in their creations. The interior of the city hall was an architectural joke, sadly played not only on the city, but those who had to work there.
I agree that churches are for more than just the confecting of the sacraments; however, we differ on our reaction to the interior of St Mary’s (or, Mother Mary Maytag, if you will).
There will always be those who think something is beautiful, or magnificent, and those who’s reaction is one from dismay to hate.
Should all cathedrals be modern? I certainly would not take that position. But neither would I go in with a preconceived notion that there is only one form that fits within the definition of representing sacredness.
Architecture is a bit like music. It conveys quite a bit to one person, and leaves the next one cold. Does that mean that the first one is wrong and the second one right? Note; go back and read those two sentances again; i meant them the way they were written.
Rose would have us to believe that modern architecture and its influences are less than stellar. there are a large number of people who would disagree.
Some people think modern jazz is fantastic; it leaves me looking for the dial to change the station. My opinion is that I don;t like modern jazz. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have “soul”; only that it does not convey it to me.
Or take some of the atonal music that was written in the avante garde heyday in symphonic music. Some people may get a great deal out of it; I wouldn’t go if you paid me.
There is, however, an element of people who decide, because they don’t like something - certain types of music, certain types of architecture - that it is therefore “bad”. And I usually find that their expertise as a critic usually amounts to what taste - and they have no further background or training in it other than their own personal opinion; and perhaps an art appreciation course in their freshman year of college.
Having said that, I am well aware of the "emperor has no clothes’ reaction too. Time will tell as to where on the spectrum of excellent to ugly St. Mary’s lands, but I’ll lay dollars to donuts Michael Rose is not going to be the deciding factor.
Oh, and I think St Peter’s is magnificent, too.
I also think that part of this is an issue of how sacredness is conveyed; some don’t get it and never will in certain genres; that is not necessarily the deciding factor.
I have never seen all of the houses that Wright produced, but I did like some quite a bit, and was left somewhat flat by others.
