Those glorious medieval cathedrals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lepanto said:
OK, here’s a sight for sore eyes. Proof positive that new churches don’t need to look like Borg cubes.

They can be built right if they are designed with Catholic sensibilities.

adoremus.org/0908GuadalupeShrine.html

Also, I really recommend reading some of the links on this page:

adoremus.org/ArchArticles.html
Click to expand...
What’s the reason for your posting? To display your own personal taste? I like those buildings too, but they do nothing to diminish my growing respect for OLAC.

Oh yeah, and just what are “Catholic sensibilities?” Does the Basilica of Pius X (a structure I deeply admire) at Lourdes have it?
http://inlinethumb04.webshots.com/43331/2683767240054908523S600x600Q85.jpg
Or does it fall in the same category at OLAC according to your personal taste? Do you find it distasteful that it’s underground, that it holds 20K people and that it caters to the handicapped? Does it bother you that it was built out of cast concrete or that the altar is in the center?

Would it have been preferable to build 10 St. Patricks clones?
 
Chuy said:
I wouldn’t want to think about what sorta person would trowel stucco on tinted architectural concrete that was media-blasted to attain its final texture. Then again, I guess the photos don’t catch that…
Click to expand...
It boggles the mind that they made it look like that on purpose.

In my first year at Art School (I have a BFA with honours), they told us, “Unless you are Barnett Newman - if it doesn’t photograph well, then it isn’t good art.”
 
Chuy said:
And no, they’re still not “attachment” points…
Click to expand...
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem (in addition to your problem of claiming serious moral flaws in people who have a different opinion than yours). Nobody has claimed that they were attachment points. I said that the impression they give is that they are attachment points, waiting for the finished exterior panels to be mounted. The impression they give is that the construction still remains to be finished. And there is no question that the effect (however any particular individual might interpret it) is deliberate and not dictated by seismic requirements.
 
jmcrae said:
It boggles the mind that they made it look like that on purpose.

In my first year at Art School (I have a BFA with honours), they told us, “Unless you are Barnett Newman - if it doesn’t photograph well, then it isn’t good art.”
Click to expand...
Actually it boggles YOUR mind… 🤷
 
Lepanto said:
Here is the world’s newest cathedral, Christ the Light in Oakland, CA…
Click to expand...
That’s OK, you need not answer my question regarding the Basilica of Pius X at Lourdes…

Christ the Light is a wonderful, if not expensive cathedral.
 
VociMike said:
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem (in addition to your problem of claiming serious moral flaws in people who have a different opinion than yours). Nobody has claimed that they were attachment points. I said that the impression they give is that they are attachment points, waiting for the finished exterior panels to be mounted. The impression they give is that the construction still remains to be finished. And there is no question that the effect (however any particular individual might interpret it) is deliberate and not dictated by seismic requirements.
Click to expand...
Your original posting (emphasis mine):
VociMike said:
So I must be a liar because I disagree with you?

There most certainly is a deliberate attempt to have the outside look unfinished. Why in the good green earth would I make that up? One can clearly see these “attachment points” in this image:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/8/9688771_f8ce0fb9a5.jpg?v=0
Click to expand...
Q.E.D.
 
Chuy said:
What’s the reason for your posting? To display your own personal taste? I like those buildings too, but they do nothing to diminish my growing respect for OLAC.

Oh yeah, and just what are “Catholic sensibilities?”
Click to expand...
Just curious; have you ever read From Abacus to Zeus, by H. W. Jansen? It’s a first-year design text book. The section on The Catholic Sensibility should answer most of your questions. 🙂
Does the Basilica of Pius X (a structure I deeply admire) at Lourdes have it?
Click to expand...
It looks like it was designed by the same architect who did the casino at Stampede Park. 🤷
Or does it fall in the same category at OLAC according to your personal taste? Do you find it distasteful that it’s underground, that it holds 20K people and that it caters to the handicapped? Does it bother you that it was built out of cast concrete or that the altar is in the center?
Click to expand...
If you want to look at a large space that accomodates both Catholic tradition and the handicapped, check out St. Albert the Great Parish in Calgary. 🙂
 
Chuy said:
That’s OK, you need not answer my question regarding the Basilica of Pius X at Lourdes…
Click to expand...
It’s ugly. Functional and utilitarian maybe, but ugly. Creepy, too.

I prefer the “other” chapel at Lourdes:



By the way, have you ever been to Lourdes? If not, then why should we buy your opinion? 😉
 
Chuy said:
Your original posting (emphasis mine):

Q.E.D.
Click to expand...
Hint for reading comprehension: when one puts a phrase (such as “attachment points”) in quotes, that is often a signal by the writer that the phrase is not to be understood literally but rather in some figurative sense.

Furthermore, when I earlier wrote
In particular I was struck by the deliberate attempt to have the outside appear unfinished, as if the final finishing stone was still waiting to be mounted onto all those “attachment holes” that cover the building. That particular ugly effect doesn’t appear in most of the photos. It gives a vivid impression that they ran out of money before they could finish the building.
Click to expand...
the use of the phrases “attempt to have the ouside appear unfinished”, “as if” and “gives a vivid impression” also make it clear to those with good reading comprehension that I am not speaking of literal attachment holes but of an aesthetic effect that gives an impression of attachment holes.
 
VociMike said:
Hint for reading comprehension: when one puts a phrase (such as “attachment points”) in quotes, that is often a signal by the writer that the phrase is not to be understood literally but rather in some figurative sense.

Furthermore, when I earlier wrote

the use of the words and phrases “attempt to have the ouside appear unfinished”, “as if” and “gives a vivid impression” also make it clear to those with good reading comprhension that I am not speaking of literal attachment holes but of an aesthetic effect that gives an impression of attachment holes.
Click to expand...
That’s OK, you need not acknowledge that you tried to quietly soften your original posting with a later qualifier.

You got caught with regard to OLAC and your lack of knowledge concerning the structure. Rather than face the truth you began to tap-dance (just look at your postings.)

But that’s neither here nor there for me because I wouldn’t spend another moment with this discussion.

Long live OLAC, Christ the Light and the Basilica of Pius X! 🙂
 
I don’t know the first thing about architecture, but I know what I like, and it isn’t this modern building

I find it cold and it doesn’t stir me to feel the presence of God…It reminds me of an office building

I am glad my church was built in the Romanesque style, and it was built during the depression, and no expense was spared…When I look at the wooden beams all painted in a beautiful European style, and the fresco’s in the upper wall area, I feel God…Our stained glass windows are beautiful

I would be very let down if my Cathedral looked like this one, and I’ll bet it cost a fortune
 
Chuy said:
But that’s neither here nor there for me because I wouldn’t spend another moment with this discussion.
Click to expand...
Right. Let’s get back to discussing those glorious medieval cathedrals. 👍
 
Chuy said:
That’s OK, you need not acknowledge that you tried to quietly soften your original posting with a later qualifier.

You got caught with regard to OLAC and your lack of knowledge concerning the structure. Rather than face the truth you began to tap-dance (just look at your postings.)

But that’s neither here nor there for me because I wouldn’t spend another moment with this discussion.

Long live OLAC, Christ the Light and the Basilica of Pius X! 🙂
Click to expand...
Good for you. It’s about time you put down your shovel, for your hole was getting quite deep. Work on getting down that difference between literal and figurative, which was quite clear from my first post. And especially work on not calling those with different opinions liars.
 
Here is an article on OLAC from the dellachiesa.com a Sacred Architecture organization run by an architect who specializes in Sacred Architecture. To read the whole article you have to sign up for a one day pass to the sight.

dellachiesa.com/-/article?a=criticism-lacathedral

Also while the Institute of Sacred Architecture(which produces about one Journal a year with various articles on Sacred Architectue) does not have any articles online concerning this Cathedral they have used it numerous times as an example of bad Church design. This Journal in the past has had articles from the likes of Cardinal Arinze and Cardinal Ratzinger(before his election). While the articles were not written specifically for the Journal, permission was given for their reproduction in the magazine.

BTW: Here is an awesome new church(Holy Redeemer Parish, Vancouver, WA) being built in the Northwest! It is being designed by Duncan McRoberts Associates.
http://www.mcroberts-associates.com/html/05_HolyRedeemerElevationA.htm
 
Check out this Church in Barcelona: Sagrada Familia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Sagrada_familia_by_night_2006.jpg

Construction began in 1882 and the expected completion date is 2026. It is different in design from almost any other church I have ever seen. It is definetly modern for the time it was designed in, yet it still looks to the past, to nature and to theology for its design. It is monumental, expensive, and awe inspiring. I dunno if it would be in my top ten church design list ever, but I would love to go see it, and I think it is a perfect example of how YES WE CAN BUILD MONUMENTAL CHURCHES LIKE WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. It is being funded by private donations, not the local diocese or the state. That says even more. Obviously this church is beyond what most dioceses should do, but if this can be done by private doners a church half as resplendent could be done by many dioceses (and certainly by one as wealthy as the LA diocese is).

When finished the church will have 18 towers, one for each of the 12 apostles, 4 for the Evangelists, and 1 for Mary and one for Christ. The Christ tower will be over 500 feet high at completion.

And as far as glorious medieval cathedrals one of my favorites is the Cathedral in Orvieto!
 
Rolltide said:
Actually, it’s preferable to move the Tabernacle out of the sanctuary in the event that a church or cathedral is a particularly popular tourist attraction and will have a large amount of daily traffic by both Catholics and non-Catholics. By moving the Tabernacle to a side chapel, it maintains the reverence for the Eucharist and allows privacy and silence for those wishing to pray in the presence of the Lord. When I was in Spain, the Tabernacle and Blessed Sacrament were almost always moved, even in Cathedrals of Toledo and Seville, for these very reasons.
Click to expand...
Citation, please. If it’s preferable, it’s written down somewhere.
 
chewchoo said:
and so that reasoning could also be applied to the temple in jerusalem, right? one of the main reasons for it being built, twice, was to help the economy… i don’t think so.
Click to expand...
The analogy to the temple in Jerusalem isn’t the same. Also, the historic record for building the some of the great cathedrals was indeed, for the purpose of stimulating the economy. The areas where some of the cathedrals where built, were in rural low populated areas, where building such enormous buildings made no sense other than to draw tourist.

Some of these buildings took almost 100 years to be built, and the attention they drew, brought the masses and of course, their wallets.

There were plenty of churches around at the time, but these exceeded the normal construction of the time.

Jim
 
Chuy said:
What’s the reason for your posting? To display your own personal taste? I like those buildings too, but they do nothing to diminish my growing respect for OLAC.

Oh yeah, and just what are “Catholic sensibilities?” Does the Basilica of Pius X (a structure I deeply admire) at Lourdes have it?
http://inlinethumb04.webshots.com/43331/2683767240054908523S600x600Q85.jpg
Or does it fall in the same category at OLAC according to your personal taste? Do you find it distasteful that it’s underground, that it holds 20K people and that it caters to the handicapped? Does it bother you that it was built out of cast concrete or that the altar is in the center?

Would it have been preferable to build 10 St. Patricks clones?
Click to expand...
I visited this basilica when I was in Lourdes and attended Mass there.

The tour guide explained that the interior design was to remind us of Jonah while in the whale, and the interior indeed resembles that of a whale. Notice the rib like construction.

The Rosary Basilica and the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception are also beautiful. However, they can’t hold the numbers of people that the Basilica of Pius X holds, especially when the Pope’s visit and say Mass there.

The thing is, at Lourdes, there are three basilica’s, but then there’s about a half dozen little churches and chapels, to accommodate the crowds. The english Mass is said in a chapel that is also used as a lecture auditorium.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top