Report a Comment

@ Paul,
"If they had had our modern glass, concrete and metal technology I suspect we would have had church buildings like this in the 14th century."

I would respectfully disagree. The beauty of a Cathedral was the pre-eminant goal of medieval builders, not how far could they push the technology. Technology served the purposes of beauty, but wasn't in and of itself considered the object of beauty (all though sometimes it inadvertantly did). The creation of beauty, whether minimalist, or very detailed has always been the way man honored God. Wasn't it He or Her that gave us our beautiful universe? Modernism subverted the dialogue between architect and lay people by eschewing beauty as a goal, or bourgeois persuit, to use their coded language.

Granted, we'll never agree on what exactly constitutes beauty, (thank god) but this design gives so little to the community in terms of beauty. Great that they want to open up to the community, I always thought that was the whole point of church, but then again I'm an ex-catholic. And as for spirituality having to do with connecting with nature which I agree with, why build any walls at all? Just leave it as a park.

Anywho, the congregation obviously has the right to pick any architect they choose, and design in any style they like, but if they are sincere in their efforts to embrace the community, they should deal with some aspect of the communities comments (here). Faye Jones' Thorncrown Chapel is an exquisit example of a building that isn't overtly historicist, is glass filled, and yet exudes spirituality. Please keep trying.

by Thayer-D on Mar 12, 2010 11:08 am • link • report