Nope. I referred to some comments as being steeped in ignorance. You seem to be the one referring to yourself as “ignorant.” ** Nice try.**
So you say. Why did you call the cathedral “awful?” No, you’re supposed to tell us why you consider it objectively beautiful. If you persuade me, it’s 'nuff said.
You said “Seems to me it would have been easier and perhaps less disconcerting to elevate the sanctuary than to go to all the trouble and expense of doing a subtly tilted floor. But I guess if the architect just couldn’t stand the thought of elevating the sanctuary or the celebrant over the people, then I suppose he would want to place them below the congregation. Seems to me that’s pretty representative of a certain way of thinking about the sacred.”
Extremely sarcastic to say the least. While you would not know this as you have never visited the structure, there is not a sense of “looking down” at the sanctuary. The slope of the floor is that gradual combined with the gentle elevation of the sanctuary – part of Dr. Moneo’s gift. ** It is you who say that his reverential sense is so good. A man of such genius must surely have had some reason for everything he did. I readily admitted that I have not visited the structure. Go back and read what I said. And is it not representative of a particular way of thinking to place the altar below the congregants? It has always been deemed appropriately symbolic to place the altar above the congregants. So if one changes that, especially one of Moneo’s parts, one can only assume that there is some purpose in it beyond mere visibility, since raising the sanctuary would do the same thing as far as visibility is concerned, and less expensively. Please explain to me, then, why it was placed below the congregants. **
Please don’t ever accept my views.** Well, I just did. You didn’t like certain things about the cathedral that I couldn’t see. So, not wishing to comment on something I couldn’t see, I took your word for it. Am I not free to do either agree or disagree with you?**
Thankfully others have not shared your mindset else we would all be living in caves and huts made of mud and sticks. Just exactly what architecture is “good” and what is “bad?” What rationale do you use? Seems like most around here revolt if it dosen’t look like some existing building. Why is that? Because the designs have weathered the test of time? Poppycock. ** But see, caves and huts made of mud and bricks have NOT stood the test of time. One reason is that they’re not attractive. Other things have been deemed attractive or inspiring and have stood the test of time. Why do you think people still read Aristotle or Homer? Because their writing is old? No, because, over the years, people have determined that they are meritorious. By the way, what did this structure cost? **
Sure I did. OLAC was built as a facilitator of bringing religious works of art, the word of God and ultimately the sacraments of the Church – most especially the Eucharist to the faithful. In this instance the form of the building most certainly follows its function.** Ah yes. “Form follows function”. And in what way would this differ from an airplane hangar that displayed even more religious works of art? Or fewer, perhaps, if your “foofofmeter” registers too high.**
When present at the Mass you’ll be benefiting from the seating arrangement, the natural lighting, the awesome acoustics and many other qualities without really knowing it. From the ambulatory entrance to the ergonomic cherry-wood pews to the remarkable yet understated artwork, it’s all designed to focus and amplify our spiritual experience.** Been in lots of those. How is this better?**
It’s not the sort of building that seats us behind a post with poor sight-lines, weird acoustics and enough foof to pull our attention away from what’s taking place in the sanctuary.** But see, those are all your subjective judgments. I thought you were going to tell us why we should consider it objectively beautiful. And are you really saying that all prior cathedrals put people behind posts, had weird acoustics and excess foof? What, to you, are weird acoustics? Too much sound carrying? Too little? Distortion? What? What is excess foof? Can you describe that concretely? For that matter, what’s foof? Would St. Peter’s qualify as having excess foof? **
