San Francisco Cathedral Architecture

[benedictgal]

Let me add my own corollary. First, there is no way the people who post here are a representative sample of all Catholics, or even all Catholics in the USA. Therefore, while I most certainly agree that OLAC does not speak to the majority of people who post here, I do believe it does to a majority who take the time to worship there – highly knowledgeable, abjectly illiterate and everyone in between.

With all due respect, I would actually take exception to your line of thinking. Many folks do not have a say-so in how their parishes, let alone, their cathedrals, are constructed. Oh, they can have building committees and such, but, in the end, it is usually up to the priest, and, in the case of this particular Cathedral, the Metropolitan.

Furthermore, there are liturgies celebrated in cathedrals that do not necessarily occur in the average parish, like ordinations, the Chrism Mass and even some confirmations (especially if they are held in clusters). Maybe there are some who, even though the Cathedral is their parish, don’t like the buidling. And, maybe there are some, who do attend the special lituriges at the Cathedral, who also do not have a favorable opinion.

 

[ASD]

I do believe it does [speak to] to a majority who take the time to worship there – highly knowledgeable, abjectly illiterate and everyone in between.

That might be true. But, how do you know, e.g., what the majority of illiterate people who go to Mass there think of it?

I guess you’re guessing based on the fact that people don’t complain, etc. But, I think lots of Catholics put up with lots of stuff without complaining.

 

[malphono]

I can’t help but see a parallel in this thread that is something like the Oscars. They give an award to a film and like magic, the world is supposed to bow down and say" “yes, masters, it is a wonderful film.” Whether the rest of world actually liked the film is immaterial. The Academy has spoken, and any other opinion is meaningless.

Same with art critics and book reviewers. From the heights they decide that a painting or a building or a book is “fantastic” because it has so much “hidden meaning” (or whatever), and of course the critics and reviewers “understand” it. So again the rest of the world is expected to bow down and say "yes, masters, it is a wonderful painting (or building, or book, or whatever). Whether the rest of world actually liked the painting (or building, or book, or whatever) is immaterial. The critics and reviewers have spoken, and any other opinion is meaningless.

Here’s the rub: all of the above is art. Art is a matter of taste. Some will like a particular film, (or building, or whatever), and others will not. Just because someone does not like what the so-called “critics” say is “wonderful” (or “gorgeous”, or whatever) does not mean that he/she is a clod. All it means it is that opinions differ.

Personally, I’m tired of self-styled “critics” forcing their artistic opinions down my throat. Just MHO, and it’s the last thing I say in this thread.

 

[Navarre]

That might be true. But, how do you know, e.g., what the majority of illiterate people who go to Mass there think of it?

I guess you’re guessing based on the fact that people don’t complain, etc. But, I think lots of Catholics put up with lots of stuff without complaining.

No, not guessing.

I have talked with (probably ) a representative sample of people in person about what they thought of OLAC after worshiping there. Not one spoke the negative sort of slurs one sees here, even in the case where the people with seriously anti-OLAC before worshiping there for the first time.

 

[Navarre]

I can’t help but see a parallel in this thread that is something like the Oscars. They give an award to a film and like magic, the world is supposed to bow down and say" “yes, masters, it is a wonderful film.” Whether the rest of world actually liked the film is immaterial. The Academy has spoken, and any other opinion is meaningless.

Same with art critics and book reviewers. From the heights they decide that a painting or a building or a book is “fantastic” because it has so much “hidden meaning” (or whatever), and of course the critics and reviewers “understand” it. So again the rest of the world is expected to bow down and say "yes, masters, it is a wonderful painting (or building, or book, or whatever). Whether the rest of world actually liked the painting (or building, or book, or whatever) is immaterial. The critics and reviewers have spoken, and any other opinion is meaningless.

Here’s the rub: all of the above is art. Art is a matter of taste. Some will like a particular film, (or building, or whatever), and others will not. Just because someone does not like what the so-called “critics” say is “wonderful” (or “gorgeous”, or whatever) does not mean that he/she is a clod. All it means it is that opinions differ.

Personally, I’m tired of self-styled “critics” forcing their artistic opinions down my throat. Just MHO, and it’s the last thing I say in this thread.

I agree, but what you said applies to ALL art, structures, books, movies, etc.

Too many condemn what they personally dislike (or do not understand) as being universally bad and they couldn’t be more wrong in many cases. They should learn to use qualifiers like “In my opinion I really don’t care for XYZ” rather than suggest “XYZ is (or should be) universally bad to all people in all cases.” They attempt to offer their personal pronouncements as objective truths and often look foolish in their attempts, particularly when they are depending on secondary or tertiary resources.

 

[Lepanto]

I agree, but what you said applies to ALL art, structures, books, movies, etc.

Too many condemn what they personally dislike (or do not understand) as being universally bad and they couldn’t be more wrong in many cases. They should learn to use qualifiers like “In my opinion I really don’t care for XYZ” rather than suggest “XYZ is (or should be) universally bad to all people in all cases.” They attempt to offer their personal pronouncements as objective truths and often look foolish in their attempts, particularly when they are depending on secondary or tertiary resources.

Actually, there are objective truths about what constitutes beauty. To say otherwise is a product of relativistic thought…the kind of thought that gave us the nonsense called modern art.

Please see post #67 for a few criteria of beauty.

 

[ibkc]

I found some YouTube videos of masses celebrated at OLAC, all shot from within the pews. I have to say, if I hadn’t known I was looking at a cathedral, it would have taken me a while to figure out that I wasn’t looking at a huge convention center.

OTOH, the choir is absolutely wonderful.

 

[JPUSC]

I have been to the LA Cathedral several times, and I will say that it does feel like a church on the inside. It’s not the best, especially with the statue of Mary that looks like a man, but I suppose it’s ALRIGHT. The interior looks better than St. Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco.

I do think having a paid valet parking service at the cathedral is a bit much. It also looks like they rent the place out for special events (e.g., gala events, cocktail parties, business meetings). They also have a catering service/restaurant, a ballroom, a viewing foyer, etc. I suppose you can say it’s very LA. St. Mary’s Cathedral also has a ballroom and conference center. I think I also remember seeing their own security force and parking attendant, things I haven’t seen at other cathedrals.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

DANCE THE NIGHT AWAY AT THE CENTER AT CATHEDRAL PLAZA

Book your Company Event, Wedding Reception, or Social Function on the Plaza under the stars, in our beautiful ballroom or one of our functional meeting rooms.

Experience extraordinary settings, culinary delights prepared by our award winning chefs and heartfelt hospitality by our friendly and professional on-site catering staff.

olacathedral.org/conference/aboutfs.html

levyrestaurants.com/Levy/PartiesEventsAndCatering/SportsAndEntertainment/Center+at+Cathedral+Plaza.htm

 

[Lepanto]

THE ROOTS OF MODERNIST CHURCH ARCHITECTURE

stroik.com/publications/rootsofmodernistchurcharchitecture/

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Actually, there are objective truths about what constitutes beauty. To say otherwise is a product of relativistic thought…the kind of thought that gave us the nonsense called modern art.

Please see post #67 for a few criteria of beauty.

The fact that so many people on this thread have negative things to say about these three cathedrals should be sufficient to show that the transcendent beauty of modern church architecture is lacking. Google a photo of St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo. My best description is a small, hollowed-out volcano with an interior covered in concrete. The only things these and other similar structures have in common are the relative dates of construction and a general opinion that money was sadly wasted on them.

Compare these unfortunate edifices with another California cathedral, Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Sacramento. It was recently restored to its 1880’s beauty by (now retired) Bishop William Wiegand, who did an equally-magnificent restoration of the Cathedral of the Madeleine in his former see of Salt Lake City. Upon entering Sacramento’s cathedral, it is obvious that one is standing in a house of God. Everywhere one looks, there is easily-identifiable Christian imagery and ornamentation that even humbles California’s ornate capitol building two blocks away. It is accessible and understandable to anyone, and doesn’t require docents to rattle off lengthy explanations of what all the cryptic symbols mean.

 

[Lepanto]

St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo

freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-alien011.gif

 

[LUISV]

No, not guessing.

I have talked with (probably ) a representative sample of people in person about what they thought of OLAC after worshiping there. Not one spoke the negative sort of slurs one sees here, even in the case where the people with seriously anti-OLAC before worshiping there for the first time.

One of the highlights in my mother’s liturgical year is when she gets to go to OLAC. I think we need to put the buildinging in context. This Church was built as the center of the Archdioses of Los Angeles. One of the largest on earth with some of the most dissimilar cultures, all proffessing a Catholic faith. The architecture is piece of modern art that tries to represent all of LA. Not everyone likes modern art. But if the purpose of a Church is to draw us closer to God then OLAC serves the purpose nicely. People, like my mom, who worship there infrequently, are left with a sense of majesty.

 

[benedictgal]

One of the highlights in my mother’s liturgical year is when she gets to go to OLAC. I think we need to put the buildinging in context. This Church was built as the center of the Archdioses of Los Angeles. One of the largest on earth with some of the most dissimilar cultures, all proffessing a Catholic faith. The architecture is piece of modern art that tries to represent all of LA. Not everyone likes modern art. But if the purpose of a Church is to draw us closer to God then OLAC serves the purpose nicely. People, like my mom, who worship there infrequently, are left with a sense of majesty.

With all due respect, a cathedral is not supposed to be designed to represent a particular community. It is supposed to designed to gear us all towards God, towards the vertical.

Yes, you have said that the purpose of a church is to draw us to God. We agree on this point. However, looking at the interior shots and the statuary, it completely misses the point, in my opinion.

I may not necessarily like the Shrine Basilica of Our Lady of San Juan in South Texas. But, when I’ve visited it, there is no doubt that I am inside a church. It may not be the most beautiful church building I’ve ever seen in person (the new Cathedral at St. Louis ranks first, with San Francesco di Paola in San Antonio in the top 10), it still looks like a church.

 

[Navarre]

One of the highlights in my mother’s liturgical year is when she gets to go to OLAC. I think we need to put the building in context. This Church was built as the center of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. One of the largest on earth with some of the most dissimilar cultures, all professing a Catholic faith. The architecture is piece of modern art that tries to represent all of LA. Not everyone likes modern art. But if the purpose of a Church is to draw us closer to God then OLAC serves the purpose nicely. People, like my mom, who worship there infrequently, are left with a sense of majesty.

Very insightful posting…

I would suggest one thing and I would appreciate your thoughts. To me OLAC is not a piece of modern art. Stripped of the Blessed Sacrament and its furnishings it’s a nice but fairly mundane building. OLAC is really, in my opinion a stage for God’s gifts – be they gifts through man like the great bronze doors, the retablo or the tapestries or directly from God in the case of the Eucharist.

 

[Navarre]

I have been to the LA Cathedral several times, and I will say that it does feel like a church on the inside. It’s not the best, especially with the statue of Mary that looks like a man, but I suppose it’s ALRIGHT. The interior looks better than St. Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco.

What about the interior did not makes it feel like a church? Was it the great bronze doors? Was it the wold-class tapestries of some of the greatest saints of the Church? Maybe it was the sold cherry wood pews or the huge pipe organ? Could it have been the huge altar?

I do think having a paid valet parking service at the cathedral is a bit much. It also looks like they rent the place out for special events (e.g., gala events, cocktail parties, business meetings). They also have a catering service/restaurant, a ballroom, a viewing foyer, etc. I suppose you can say it’s very LA. St. Mary’s Cathedral also has a ballroom and conference center. I think I also remember seeing their own security force and parking attendant, things I haven’t seen at other cathedrals.

There is no valet parking unless you wanted to provide your own for a wedding or other function.

They have a parking structure. Free parking for all Masses, else you pay. How else would you handle it given the fact that adjacent office workers and tourists would fill the structure in the first 15 minutes of every day, for the entire day otherwise?

The ballroom and conference center is analogous to parish halls. Some adjacent halls at Gothic cathedrals are quite lavish themselves.

Private security force? Very common, even EWTN has one. As for the parking attendants, please see above.

 

[Navarre]

The fact that so many people on this thread have negative things to say about these three cathedrals should be sufficient to show that the transcendent beauty of modern church architecture is lacking.

No way.

The people of this forum are in no way experts on the subject, nor are they in any way an unbiased sample. Many who come to these forums are predisposed in their dislike for OLAC (and its founder) based on secondary and especially tertiary sources. But if you want to play this game let’s look at this source of 14 people who actually visited OLAC:

tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g32655-d258226-Reviews-Cathedral_of_Our_Lady_of_the_Angels-Los_Angeles_California.html

Of the 14 reviews, 12 liked it very much and 2 clearly loathed it. Nothing in between. I’m guessing that 12 of the people were open to experiencing OLAC and based on ridiculous comments (“This place looks like the result of the cheapest possible construction”) 2 likely never actually visited it.

Google a photo of St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo. My best description is a small, hollowed-out volcano with an interior covered in concrete. The only things these and other similar structures have in common are the relative dates of construction and a general opinion that money was sadly wasted on them.

Compare these unfortunate edifices with another California cathedral, Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Sacramento. It was recently restored to its 1880’s beauty by (now retired) Bishop William Wiegand, who did an equally-magnificent restoration of the Cathedral of the Madeleine in his former see of Salt Lake City. Upon entering Sacramento’s cathedral, it is obvious that one is standing in a house of God. Everywhere one looks, there is easily-identifiable Christian imagery and ornamentation that even humbles California’s ornate capitol building two blocks away. It is accessible and understandable to anyone, and doesn’t require docents to rattle off lengthy explanations of what all the cryptic symbols mean.

I guess you don’t grasp that your personal opinion is not necessarily an objective truth. St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo is not a waste of money because you believe it is and I don’t think you realize that. It may be a waste of money to you personally, but certainly not to most who actually make use of the structure.

I also don’t think you realize how ridiculous it sounds for you to suggest people know they are standing in a “house of God” when they visit Sacto’s Cathedral (nice place) and not OLAC. That might indeed be the case with you personally (and perhaps many others here) but it’s not some kind of universal truth. I feel VERY much like I am in His House when I am at OLAC.

 

[ibkc]

No way.

The people of this forum are in no way experts on the subject, nor are they in any way an unbiased sample.

The second point may be true, but I’m not sure how you can support the first, not knowing the backgrounds of the people offering opinions. My opinions are based on the fact that I have studied (on the graduate level) sacred architecture and specifically, the development of church and cathedral architecture from Roman times to the Renaissance, and the various aesthetic philosophies that went into that development. It wasn’t my major of studio (I am a studio artist) but we did go into pretty great depth and I wrote some papers on the subject. Also due to my undergrad and graduate art education, I know more than the average bear about modern and contemporary architecture. So, I consider myself a fairly well-informed about this particular topic and qualified to form a basic opinion about OLAC and any other church or cathedral based on photos and videos, without actually having been to some of them.

 

[JPUSC]

What about the interior did not makes it feel like a church? Was it the great bronze doors? Was it the wold-class tapestries of some of the greatest saints of the Church? Maybe it was the sold cherry wood pews or the huge pipe organ? Could it have been the huge altar?

There is no valet parking unless you wanted to provide your own for a wedding or other function.

They have a parking structure. Free parking for all Masses, else you pay. How else would you handle it given the fact that adjacent office workers and tourists would fill the structure in the first 15 minutes of every day, for the entire day otherwise?

The ballroom and conference center is analogous to parish halls. Some adjacent halls at Gothic cathedrals are quite lavish themselves.

Private security force? Very common, even EWTN has one. As for the parking attendants, please see above.

Stop being so defensive. If you read my post carefully, I said that it DID feel like a church inside.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Stop being so defensive. If you read my post carefully, I said that it DID feel like a church inside.

I have never been inside the L.A. Cathedral, and I don’t expect ever to be. I have just seen the photos. To me, the inside looks like a set for an Indiana Jones movie. The outside just defies description.

It’s interesting to me that almost nobody ever builds his home in a “modern” style. There are adaptations to traditional themes, but the themes are still traditional and recognizable. Those who favor modern architecture for churches should consider that fact before concluding that everybody is going to like it, feel comfortable with it or find it inspiring.

Another thing to consider is that “modern” doesn’t stay modern. Some of the churches built in the 1950s are ridiculously “old hat” now. So, in 75 years, are the afficionados still going to love the L.A. Cathedral, or will “modern architecture” have moved on, as it always does?

We still read Shakespeare and Milton and Chaucer and Twain and Eliot, while a thousand celebrated authors sink into obscurity every year because, while their work might have been “timely”, it did not stand the test of time. It did not continue to resonate when their particular time frame passed. We should not be so blithe about casting off things that really have passed the test of time.

Architecture nowadays is essentially a “conversation” among architects more than it is anything else; much as modern art is. It’s a literary declamation more than it is anything else. One has to learn the “language” to appreciate it, if one does, because it is not automatically appealing to most. It does not, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most, appeal to universal human notions of beauty or inspriration.

I do not favor cloning 19th century American Gothic cathedrals. But I do think time-tested themes and decor can be used in new ways. In my thinking, Henry Menzies and Duncan Stroik do that. Google them, and I think you will agree.
hmenzies.com/projects.html
cre8media.com/clients_dgs.asp

 

[mantilla410]

Isn’t this thread supposed to be about San Francisco’s Cathedral? How did we end up in L.A.?

Oh, right! We took the PCH!! :yup: