I’ll jump in. “Less is more” is defective as an architectural stance for liturgical architecture because it rises out of the “form follows function” school of thought that led to the Bauhaus school and the exaltation of function above all.
In liturgical architecture, “function” has a much wider definition than how you hold up the roof. The use of ornament is a moving fashion but the complete absence of ornament has never satisfied the Western eye or heart
Well said. I’d like to add another comment, a famous story about building the great Cathedrals of Europe:
One day a man showed up on the construction site of one of the great cathedrals and saw a builder carving a tiny bird into a beam that would eventually be covered over by the roof. Puzzled, the man asked the worker, “Why are you putting so much time and effort into something no one will ever see?” It is reported that the builder replied, “Because God sees.”
The concept of “less is more” is rhetorically sound, that lavish ornamentation distracts from the sacrifice on Calvary re-presented on the altar, that anything which does not immediately serve the liturgy immedialy distracts from the liturgy. But here’s where the rhetoric ends: how can lavish beauty dedicated to the Lord detract from the Lord?
If a person sees side-altars as unused furniture, then they’re worthless. But if a person recognizes side-altars as small tributes to Calvary’s hill, then they serve to glorify Jesus Christ.
If a person sees the statues of the saints as old-fashioned decoration, then they’re worthless. But if a person models their lives after the saints-- people who dedicated their lives to following Christ under the direction of the Holy Spirit, then the statues are
literal models for how to follow Him.
If you see the High Altar as a sign of keeping Christ away from the laity, then the High Altar is nearly offensive. If you see the High Altar as a grand throne for Christ the King, then the thought of a nasty three-piece bronze blob of a tabernacle at the Taj Mahony as patently offenseive.
What end does a church’s beauty serve? Does it serve to make us “feel like we’re in heaven”? Then I say that’s hooey. The Holy Sacrafice of the Mass is not about
feelings. It’s about Christ! Our churches, while they certainly need to have a horizontal component, should serve a vertical component. Take care of yourself actually trying to
get to heaven, then you’ll have that feeling like you’re there.
I concede, however, that some of the most compelling churches in Europe are Cistercian: an exaltation of simplicity. Nevertheless, even the Cistercian style employs cornices and mouldings to add grace to the forms:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Abbaye_de_Fontenay_-Abbatiale.JPG/450px-Abbaye_de_Fontenay-_Abbatiale.JPG
I can wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Especially considering the Cistercian lifestyle. I also love the Trappist’s simple minimalism. Of course it should be noted that those buildings were constructed with a different audience in mind that even the parish churches of the same era. They were built to comply to a monastic lifestyle that you don’t find among hoi polloi.
