Church Architecture

  • Thread starter Thread starter triumphguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

triumphguy

Guest
architectureandmorality.blogspot.ca/2011/12/vapid-unbearable-lightness-why-modern.html

Finally an article I can get my teeth into regarding traditional church architecture and why modern architecture isn’t very successful at creating sacred “Catholic” spaces (Though thre are notable exceptions which do get it right).

modern church that does get it right:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Cistercian Chapel by Gary Cunningham, Irving, Texas
 
triumphguy said:
architectureandmorality.blogspot.ca/2011/12/vapid-unbearable-lightness-why-modern.html

Finally an article I can get my teeth into regarding traditional church architecture and why modern architecture isn’t very successful at creating sacred “Catholic” spaces (Though thre are notable exceptions which do get it right).

modern church that does get it right:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-alBUvm_63.../l-i8zfDVI88/s1600/Gary_Cunningham_Chapel.jpg
Cistercian Chapel by Gary Cunningham, Irving, Texas
Click to expand...
This would be an exceptional location for a vibrant charismatic Mass.
 
Even medieval Cistercian and Carthusian chapels are purposely pretty spare. I think that chapel, with a traditional looking crucifix, could be an excellent place to pray. Not if it had one of those silly ‘risen Christ’ ones though. Jesus rose from the tomb, not the cross.

I’ve read a few articles recently on the return to classical forms of Church architecture. Gives me hope!
 
On a recent trip I visited a church in San Diego that is new with relatively modern architecture and I was really surprised on how much I liked it…I normally don’t like modern Catholic architecture but the Holy Spirit has once again shown me to think outside the box
 
From the article:
Sacred spaces achieve much of its effect by emphasizing mystery. This is at the core of any religion, in which divine truth is revealed beyond any logical or rational framework. As is often said, God is revealed in mysterious ways, and the purpose of any sacred space is to embody this reality. It is inherent that a secular space is completely counter to this and thus adopts an architectural language devoid of mystery or even ambiguity. Secular spaces instead embrace the language of the engineer, someone who works outside the world of art, poetry, and indeed of mystery, by solving problems with the most rational tools of math and science. There is a lot of work that goes into making successful setting for secular activities, much of it having to do with the science of building, such as lighting, acoustics, and visibility. There is also a tendency for generating phenomenological effect through technology, such as making walls highly transparent or reflective, surfaces either smooth or deliberately rough. To the Modernist who puts its faith in technological progress, the more an effect can exceed what can be done by the human hand, the better.
Click to expand...
Such attention to a material’s effects point to Modernism’s essentially materialist philosophy on architecture. In sacred architecture, the building and the spaces within serve to connect users to a deeper reality that transcends its walls. They function as a gateway from the material world to a spiritual realm–the focus is on the eternal, not the object that portends to represent it. In a secular context like Modernism, the object is the thing itself, and all meaning is tied directly to that object. Walking into a exemplary Modernist space, one is supposed to marvel at its lightness, smoothness and simplicity, attributes that are commonly summarized as ‘machine-like’. If one desires a more ‘humanist’ look and feel, the designer can instill a quality of ‘roughness’ by texturizing concrete, oxidizing steel, and inserting warmth by using natural materials such as wood and stone. Industrialization gives us that much more control to generate a precise effect, and empowers the designers unlimited opportunities in experimenting. At the same time, it diminishes the role of the craftsman, who throughout most of human history was the guardian in generating material effects, and in many ways assumed the role of architectural detailing. Machines take the human factor out of the art of making, thus producing something devoid of passion, feeling that imbues every man-made object.
Click to expand...
 
Churches are supposed to be a catechism in stone. I think when that is remembered, success is more likely.

-Byrnwiga
 
It looks terrible. I would never take part in a Church that looks like this. I would walk out the moment I went in.

In my humble opinion, that is.
 
The photo in the first post seems very appropriate for a Cistercian abbey church. Simple and spare, with a minimum of adornment. The architecture challenges those in attendance to focus on the Mass: what will happen, is happening or has just happened. But this simplicity of design requires that those in attendance be motivated and committed, that they be willing to work on their spiritual experience.

The argument made in the article is a familiar one. That modern architecture is too intellectual, too refined, too bland. The author wants architecture to stir the emotions. He believes this is spiritually necessary in a parish church and helps to maintain ongoing conversion. And he is probably right.
 
CarloMagnus said:
It looks terrible. I would never take part in a Church that looks like this. I would walk out the moment I went in.

In my humble opinion, that is.
Click to expand...
If I may ask, what exactly is wrong with this building?
 
I would not build that church if it were up to me, but I do think it serves as a good example of Modernist architecture. I think it is appropriate for its setting and for its use. I think it would be very difficult to pull of in a parish situation, but then again, this isn’t a parish church.

For what it is, the above church works very well. Even though it isn’t my cup of tea. It is not ugly. It is not hideous. It is not dysfunctional. It transcends the sum of its parts, but again, I would not build this for a parish church. It works for what it is.
 
YoungTradCath, I respect your opinion, although I disagree; I very much like the style of the building. There’s one thing you wrote that though, that I’d like to ask;
YoungTradCath said:
but I do think it serves as a good example of Modernist architecture.
Click to expand...
Traditional Cistercian layout = Modernist architecture?
 
I love it.

The three windows above the three doors evoke the Trinity.

The rough hewn stone reminds me of God’s commandment to Moses about building an altar.

If you make an altar of stone for me, do not build it of cut stone, for by putting a tool to it you desecrate it. (Exodus 20:25)

The sanctuary at the same level as the pews fits Cistercian/Benedictine monastic spirituality perfectly - that of a community of Brothers who worship, pray and live their lives according to the rule as a family. It too reminds me of Exodus.

You shall not go up by steps to my altar (Exodus 20:26)

The simple wooden cross sans corpus is classic for a monastic Abbey Church. It reminds me of St. Francis of Asissi Church in Raleigh, NC.

-Tim-
 
There is no doubt that some of the modern buildings are hideous. But in the case of the Cisterian chapel show above. It is quite in keeping with their tradition of simplicity and austerity. In fact EWTN just repeated their program entitles “The Great Silence” which follows the lives of the monks in the La Chartreus abbey in France. Their abbet church which is centuries old was quite simple. So that type of style is not new.
 
Melchior said:
YoungTradCath, I respect your opinion, although I disagree; I very much like the style of the building. There’s one thing you wrote that though, that I’d like to ask;

Traditional Cistercian layout = Modernist architecture?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think if this were built as a parish church, the complaints would be along the lines of how “modern” and “austere” it is. Not that austerity is wrong, but in a parish church (which I have granted that this is not) it probably isn’t a good idea.
 
Just a gentle question: did anyone read the article? 🙂

I only used the photo as an example of where modern architecture works. I think there are a couple of Churches (Liverpool Cathedral, and Eglise d’Heremence) where it works also.

I’ve argued against some of you on traditional architecture citing modern churches that work, but in 80% of cases they do not.

The article finally puts into words WHY they don’t. I knew my arguments were weak, but I didn’t have the architectural perspective to understand why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top