Vatican speaks out against modern Church art and architecture

[Usige]

Ewwwwww. That is hideous, and more of an impediment to worship instead of assisting in worship.

Actually my first impression was hearing Entrance of the Gladiators (aka circus music). My wife thought it was an art museum. We both thought that the second image reminded us of a preschool with the blue carpet and red ceiling. Neither evoked God for me.

I think the Cardinal’s point is that churches should look like churches. Here is my test. If you remove the pews, altar, statuary, etc. does the building still scream church? My current parish is actually in it’s third building. The first building was built in 1888, but the parish moved in the 1960’s to a new property. The first building was then converted to a restaurant. Even with no altar or religious accoutrements there is no doubt that it was originally a church.

 

[Usige]

For those who would say ewwwwww, I would refer them to the edifices built in Los Angeles and Oakland, particularly LA.

I prefer not to thanks. Just had breakfast

 

[edwest2]

I have been following an announcement published last year that the Church will have an office that deals strictly with religious/sacred art, including Church architecture. And there’s this:

amazon.com/Ugly-As-Sin-Churches-Forthright/dp/1928832369/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

It started in the late 1960s, just as the dissidents were doing their worst.

ncregister.com/daily-news/trending-to-traditional/

Ed

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’d like to offer the Notre Dame des Malades of Vichy, France, an add-on to the Church of St. Blaise in 1931, as an example of a really beautiful Church that combines older styles with more modern ones, in this case, art deco. I have been there personally and I was really struck by how the old and the new were blended seamlessly and beautifully together. The art actually struck me as more like the more symbolic art of the middle ages than the more photo-realistic Rennaisance art we associate with some of the more famous Cathedrals.

I think art deco is an eminently suitable style for Catholic parish and cathedral architecture. It’s a shame that it wasn’t used more. Indeed, I think it would be very interesting if the FSSP, ICRSS, or another trad group built a church in this style.

Art deco does tend to “push the edge,” but it is still clearly, fully within the direct lineage of what came before it in the West. Modern architecture seems to be simply an over-emotional ideological reaction. Postmodern buildings tend to be much better. But for the life of me, there really is just that one building style, the modern, which tends to just be horrible through and through, with few exceptions (and there are some exceptions yes).

 

[YoungTradCath]

For those who would say ewwwwww, I would refer them to the edifices built in Los Angeles and Oakland, particularly LA.

Yikes.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I have been following an announcement published last year that the Church will have an office that deals strictly with religious/sacred art, including Church architecture. And there’s this:

amazon.com/Ugly-As-Sin-Churches-Forthright/dp/1928832369/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

It started in the late 1960s, just as the dissidents were doing their worst.

ncregister.com/daily-news/trending-to-traditional/

Ed

Well, it’s actually a section within the CDWDS. Knowing the pace of Rome, they’ll probably take several years to put any directives out. I’m not knocking that; I’d rather they get it right than rush it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I read a hilarious story written by Tom Wolfe about modern architecture, (“From Bauhaus to Our House” and another about modern art (“The Painted Word”).

While humorous writings, I think they make some very good points. Both modern architecture and modern art are, he says, essentially literature, not art. They (and especially art) are expressions of concepts; social, ideological or relating to the genre, between the artists or architects themselves. The art or architecture itself is, therefore, an entirely symbolic and arcane “language” peculiar to the discipline, which those non-artists or non-architects who nevertheless consider themseles part of the “literati” also understand or pretend that they do. Most people, however, are left cold by the building or painting or whatever, because they do not understand the “language”, and do not find it attractive in any other way. The “messages” of modern art and architecture are not inherently intelligible, and the language must be learned.

Prior to the development of this conceit, which is getting more age on it than it can bear gracefully, artists and architects strove to provide images that were inherently attractive to most people, and provided symbolism that drew them in to deeper meanings that did not require words to express. While artistic concepts are exemplified, they are not the point, and the “language” of the intended effect is inherent to humans and does not have to be learned.

That is why probably most people will not find modern art or architecture attractive, yet will find older styles attractive. Certain things have resonance in the human mind, and some don’t. Roses almost always smell good to people, while hydrogen sulfide almost never does. The reaction to both is inherent.

“Traditional styles” are not simply apish copying of older works. Some of the current church architects utilize themes that resonate, but do them in a new and different way. The works of Duncan Stroik and Henry Menzies come to mind in that regard. They are not at all “copies”, though they do utilize many traditional themes, expressed for the most part with modern materials; sometimes achieving effects that were not possible before.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Worth looking at:

hmenzies.com/
stroik.com/

 

[LisaA]

Here’s the thing - if the Cardinal is saying modern Churches look like Museums - well, ancient Churches look like pagan temples, don’t they? Because architects of that time wanted to create in a vernacular that was relevant to them. No architect of any talent living today is going to want to make a recreation of a Baroque or Gothic Cathedral, because there are already loads of them, and the highest things that can be done in that style have already been done. Think about it this way - how many people are currently writing plays using the dialect of Shakespeare? Nobody, or at least nobody worthy of reading - why would you bother with a contemporary knockoff when you can have the real thing?

I’m sure that there are some Churches that go to far, but I think there are some “modernist” (though not in the theological sense) Churches that are very beautiful and not at all Protestant in mentality, like the Cathedral of Brasilia by Oscar Niemeyer,

http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/images/3/31/Catedralbrasilia25.jpg

I find this disturbing and unsettling like a bad dream. I cannot imagine praying in this space. This is a Catholic church?

The two architects posted by Ridgrunner have modern (as in new) churches but the designs are more classical. As per the above comment regarding our instinctive response, some things are just universally appreciated and others are really a matter of taste…or lack thereof?

I found when visiting the Vatican that the “modern” are was mostly quite ugly and I suspect someone agreed as it was all sort of tossed into a couple of halls at the end. People who lingered as long as possible in the Cistine Chapel went through these rooms at a brisk clip…

Lisa

 

[Avdima]

Ewwwwww. That is hideous, and more of an impediment to worship instead of assisting in worship.

A Impediment to worship? I doubt very much the fine folks who worship there would agree with this statement.

The layout is not my cup of tea but it is beautiful none the less, and to worship there would be a gift.

 

[Avdima]

I find this disturbing and unsettling like a bad dream. I cannot imagine praying in this space. This is a Catholic church?

Meh… I am sorry but one could say the same about the Church where you pray at(not to be rude).

We as humans have different building styles and different ways of expressing our culture, I find it a little arrogant to dismiss someone else’s Church on looks alone, because someone else could with the same authority do the same to us and ours.

I doubt St Peter ST John or the first Christians would like a lot of the Churches we worship in, in terms of looks and aesthetics. But don’t think for a minute they would not fellowship with us in prayer and worship despite our ugly Churches.

 

[edwest2]

Meh… I am sorry but one could say the same about the Church where you pray at(not to be rude).

We as humans have different building styles and different ways of expressing our culture, I find it a little arrogant to dismiss someone else’s Church on looks alone, because someone else could with the same authority do the same to us and ours.

I doubt St Peter ST John or the first Christians would like a lot of the Churches we worship in, in terms of looks and aesthetics. But don’t think for a minute they would not fellowship with us in prayer and worship despite our ugly Churches.

I’ll stick with the Vatican’s take on this.

Ed

 

[zz912]

A Impediment to worship? I doubt very much the fine folks who worship there would agree with this statement.

The layout is not my cup of tea but it is beautiful none the less, and to worship there would be a gift.

It’s beautiful for a museum, or concert hall, or assembly building. It does NOT look like a church. Take out the pews, and you wouldn’t know it was a church. In fact, a church would be the LAST thing you would associate it with.

 

[GangGreen]

The old style should be the standard. A church should glorify God and as such should be made to be beautiful. Art, architecture, and things of that nature which are made to be beautiful for God, glorify God. I don’t know anyone whether they’re Catholic, Protestant, Atheist or whatever who would walk into an old style church and not be impressed by its beauty. These modern churches hardly even look like churches and definitely not like Catholic churches.

Unfortunately, we’re in a time where art and architecture are just very different than the past. Most of which is secular in nature… We don’t have great artists working with the Church like they did in the Renaissance and those times.

 

[Usige]

It’s beautiful for a museum, or concert hall, or assembly building. It does NOT look like a church. Take out the pews, and you wouldn’t know it was a church. In fact, a church would be the LAST thing you would associate it with.

That’s the impression I got from the Cardinal’s comments. It’s not a matter of it’s beauty or lack of beauty, but rather if the art and architecture are consistent with Catholic tradition for lack of a better term. In other words, does it speak “church” when you enter. I asked a non-catholic friend what he though it was and he said lecture hall of a major modern art museum. I pointed out the Crucifix and he said he thought that was a “prop” for a lecture.

What is interesting is that building was not meant to be a Catholic Cathedral. It was originally designed and built by the government as a generic ecumenical church. It was started and then sat unfinished for almost a decade before the Catholic church agreed to take it and finish it.

 

[manualman]

As others have mentioned, architecture is an art form in that taste really isn’t entirely arbitrary. There are things that are innately beautiful and things that are innately ugly. But church architecture is more than just beauty. Architecture ALWAYS says something about the purpose and meaning of the building.

Once catholic churches were laid out such that the people all faced the same direction (including the priest) during the liturgy of the Eucharist. That was an architectural message that the people were united in worshipping God together. Sometime in the 1960’s, prominent liturgists decided to attack that paradigm. They decided that the people should be fanned out so that they faced each other. The altar was still a focal point of sorts, but the message was blurred when the priest faced the people. Suddenly the people had THREE focal points: the altar, the priest and each other. Not coincidentally, the meaning and reality of the Eucharist as actual body and blood of Christ sacrificed to God for our sins has been radically de-emphasized in popular understanding ever since. It wasn’t by accident either. Those liturgists WANTED to change the emphasis of mass from one of holy sacrifice to one of community meal sharing. Architecture was a powerful tool towards that goal (good luck finding a church built in the last 30 years where the seating doesn’t place people facing each other). IMO, this was less a mistake than a nefarious intention.

Much of what some catholics perceive as merely ugly in modern churches is actually bad architecture from a THEOLOGICAL perspective (like the above). Another example is the tabernacle. It used to be that the placement of the altar and tabernacle together made for a unified focal point that didn’t create confusion. There was little separation in location because there was little separation in meaning. Today we stuff the tabernacle into architecturally insignificant cubbies. That sends a message and I’m not remotely convinced that it wasn’t done on purpose.

An idea I had that I think is worth kicking around is to construct a beautiful altar with a tabernacle at the center. The tabernacle would be beautiful and secure, but could be designed so that it actually moves! During mass, the tabernacle could retract down into the altar out of sight, leaving a flush surface. After the consecration, the tabernacle would rise up our of the altar into view so that the remaining hosts could be reposed there after communion. The tabernacle could then stay in view until shortly before the next mass (or perhaps retracted when the church is locked up for better security). It’s just an idea and if done badly it could be too gimmicky. But if done well it could be a way to restore the architectural unity of focal point in the church without having to fight a civil war in the church over the priest celebrating mass ‘ad orientum’ (standing on the people side, facing the altar with the people). In any case, my point here is that the problem with new architectural ideas is not that they’re new, but that they are BAD. New ideas need to be faithful to what the building is FOR.

 

[edwest2]

The old style should be the standard. A church should glorify God and as such should be made to be beautiful. Art, architecture, and things of that nature which are made to be beautiful for God, glorify God. I don’t know anyone whether they’re Catholic, Protestant, Atheist or whatever who would walk into an old style church and not be impressed by its beauty. These modern churches hardly even look like churches and definitely not like Catholic churches.

Unfortunately, we’re in a time where art and architecture are just very different than the past. Most of which is secular in nature… We don’t have great artists working with the Church like they did in the Renaissance and those times.

I don’t think the evidence points in that direction. There are great artists working for the Church. It’s almost like saying all the great architects died in the late 1960s. It’s quite obvious that some coordination occurred when someones unknown contracted with certain architectural firms and architects whose style suited what they wanted, which was a strong distortion of the Church building as a place to evoke reverence and encounter the mystery.

Ed

 

[NoliteTimere]

It’s beautiful for a museum, or concert hall, or assembly building. It does NOT look like a church. Take out the pews, and you wouldn’t know it was a church. In fact, a church would be the LAST thing you would associate it with.

Aren’t pews a relatively modern invention? We should pull those out to stay true to style. The kneelers are never properly cushioned anyway and it detracts from my worship.

I’m seeing a common theme here: the right style is MY favorite style, and I cannot possibly see how any other style would be appropriate for anyone else.

To be honest, I love gothic style and gregorian chant. I also happen to like Life Teen Mass and (say it ain’t so!) the Crystal Cathedral . The styles of the churches are products of the time in which they were built and, IMO, to say that one designer was seeking self glory because his style is modern is quite a stretch.

 

[zz912]

Not coincidentally, the meaning and reality of the Eucharist as actual body and blood of Christ sacrificed to God for our sins has been radically de-emphasized in popular understanding ever since. It wasn’t by accident either. Those liturgists WANTED to change the emphasis of mass from one of holy sacrifice to one of community meal sharing. Architecture was a powerful tool towards that goal (good luck finding a church built in the last 30 years where the seating doesn’t place people facing each other). IMO, this was less a mistake than a nefarious intention.

Much of what some catholics perceive as merely ugly in modern churches is actually bad architecture from a THEOLOGICAL perspective (like the above). Another example is the tabernacle. It used to be that the placement of the altar and tabernacle together made for a unified focal point that didn’t create confusion. There was little separation in location because there was little separation in meaning. Today we stuff the tabernacle into architecturally insignificant cubbies. That sends a message and I’m not remotely convinced that it wasn’t done on purpose.

Of course it was intentional. We’re talking about the positioning of God Himself. He is the sole reason for the building. It would be like looking at the architectural plans for a basketball arena, and somehow overlooking that you were placing the basketball court in the parking lot. It is inconceivable that it would be a mistake. And the same goes for the placement of the Tabernacle in a corner, or a side area. It is intentional to take the attention away from the Tabernacle, and move the attention to the priest.

 

[zz912]

Aren’t pews a relatively modern invention? We should pull those out to stay true to style. The kneelers are never properly cushioned anyway and it detracts from my worship.

I’m seeing a common theme here: the right style is MY favorite style, and I cannot possibly see how any other style would be appropriate for anyone else.

To be honest, I love gothic style and gregorian chant. I also happen to like Life Teen Mass and (say it ain’t so!) the Crystal Cathedral . The styles of the churches are products of the time in which they were built and, IMO, to say that one designer was seeking self glory because his style is modern is quite a stretch.

Pews are relatively modern. But the point is that if you take them out, does the church still even LOOK like a church? Sure there is always a personal preference to architecture, but even for those churches where you don’t personally like the style, if it is still reverent, and lifts the mind to God, then it is doing what a church should do.

Many of these new church buildings are either cookie-cutter McChurch buildings that have nothing of the Catholic faith (i.e. any denomination could jump right in without any changes), or they are horrendous modern “art” disasters.