Do you think that this Cathedral is ugly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GoLatin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tabitha said:
It always happen that when your about to give up…you finally find what your looking for.

holyfamilyparish.org/crossnl/crossnlf.htm

holyfamilyparish.org
Click to expand...
I’ll be honest, I think the sculpture is beautiful. But, does it belong above an altar as a crucifix? Perhaps, I’d have to see it in context better. This is crafted beautifully and I’ve seen far, far worse! I’d take it in a heartbeat compared to what’s in our parish.

I’ll have to check it out in person sometime. I have relatives that live very close to there.
 
I agree that it’s nice but it’s aweful as a crucifix above the altar.
 
My major problems with “modern” architecture in general, and its use for Catholic Churches in particular are two:
  1. Modern architecture is fundamentally “literary”, not artistic. Much of modern art and music are the same way. It expresses architects’ personal notions about what exmplifies what within the genre, but the public, generally, is not a party to the conversation. People expect, not some esoteric expression of this concept or that, but beauty that appeals to them, and they don’t get it. But they do have to pay for it. How many people build their own homes in a “modernistic” style? Very few. Why? Because it is in a language they don’t speak. They build what they understand, and what appeals to them without having to “acquire the taste” for what seems bizarre to them. Ever see a Christmas card of a scene with a modernistic church in the background? Probably not. Why? Because it would have no appeal to any but a few architects or their very few real admirers, and people wouldn’t send something they thought was ugly to their friends.
  2. Modern styles are, indeed, styles. They go out of fashion. Today’s “bold new statement” is tomorrow’s tacky embarrassment. Then the parishioners or members of the diocese are stuck with something they can’t afford to replace. How many people admire a church thought to be “modern” in 1958? Modern architectural styles change with a surprising rapidity, and unless they hit some kind of real resonance with peoples’ innate aesthetic sense (refer to #1 above) they are of no lasting appeal to anyone at all. Most “traditional” styles had, and still have, a mass appeal. (no pun intended) I think there are reasons for that, but that, as Kipling was wont to say, is another story.
I truly do think there is a certain elitism in modern architecture, as there is in much modern art and modern music. The aesthetic senses of ordinary people are studiously ignored, if not deliberately disappointed or even insulted. You have to be “in on it” to “get it”. So the elites, real and would-be, who talk to each other through architectural “triumphs of the moment” no doubt enjoy the experience of seeing them, but few others do. Yet those others are expected to pay for them and live with them. There is a fair degree of uncharity toward ordinary parishioners in all of this.
 
Although I love the look of Gothic Cathedrals, I am not against new styles.

I was impressed with the architecture and the materials used. I thought it was tastefully done.

It may not appeal to everyone…but it certainly wasn’t ugly.
 
It’s not bad, but it’s not great. The problem with a lot of new churches, and new buildings in general, is that the proportions are horrible. Everything is always squatty and horrizontal (and not in a cool Prairie Style sort of way). A beautiful church could probably be built on the cheap if classical or Gothic proportions were used - you know, high ceilings and arched windows.
 
I don’t think it is ugly at all. I think it is actually beautiful, especially the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadelupe. I like the doors, the tabernacle and the seating arrangement of the pews. I looks like there are no bad seats, even in the back, which is good because it allows everyone to concentrate and focus on the Sacrifice of the Mass. 👍
 
Tabitha said:
It always happen that when your about to give up…you finally find what your looking for.

holyfamilyparish.org/crossnl/crossnlf.htm

holyfamilyparish.org
Click to expand...
Egad!!! Anybody into Thor worship there? What is wrong with a wooden cross with a figure of Christ crucified upon it? On their website, why is it that these stupid “mission statements” that parishes all feel compelled to have these days always begin with something along the lines of “we, the people”? Sounds like a good start for the formation of an autonomous nation, but not for a description of an integral part of the Catholic Church.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Modern styles are, indeed, styles. They go out of fashion. Today’s “bold new statement” is tomorrow’s tacky embarrassment.
Click to expand...
That’s as good a reason as any to avoid some styles of architecture for churches. A Catholic church should exude permanence, and I believe architects should stick with architectural styles that have stood the test of time when designing one.
 
Then, there’s always St. Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco. The locals call it “St. Mary of the Maytag” for its obvious similarities to the agitator in a washing machine, and it was built 30 years before the Taj Mahoney. Another similar cathedral is shown in the second url. If you have ever wondered what the inside of a hollowed-out volcano looks like, visit St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo, Japan.

uquebec.ca/~uss1010/orgues/etatsunis/sfranciscosmc1.html

contaxg.com/files/1755/14_.jpg
 
Cavaille-Coll said:
Then, there’s always St. Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco. The locals call it “St. Mary of the Maytag” for its obvious similarities to the agitator in a washing machine, and it was built 30 years before the Taj Mahoney. Another similar cathedral is shown in the second url. If you have ever wondered what the inside of a hollowed-out volcano looks like, visit St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo, Japan.

uquebec.ca/~uss1010/orgues/etatsunis/sfranciscosmc1.html

contaxg.com/files/1755/14_.jpg
Click to expand...
Those churches are UGLY. Especially the second one.
 
Those churches are very ugly. What are they thinking when designing these?

What about the one in California being built in California (are they done with it yet?). It looks like something out of aStar Wars movie or something. The ceiling looked like a rib cage to a dinosaur.
 
Noman said:
Those churches are UGLY. Especially the second one.
Click to expand...
The second one reminds me of the Crystal “Cathedral” in California. The first is beyond terrible as a design for a church (or for that matter, anything else).😦
 
Hi GLatin,

I think it is a very beautiful church, putting the talent of modern artists at the service of the liturgy. Remember that in the 1200’s, Gothic was modern.

Verbum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top