How All Catholic Churches Should Look!

[Hubertus]

I'm just so uneasy about modern architecture in churches because a lot of it *doesn't* exactly reflect the glory of God. Our church is a result of 60s-70s-built modern architecture, and it just looks like a plain ol building with a weird roof, from the outside. :/ Not to mention the awkward seating arrangement - it was designed so the altar could be in the middle of the church. Father changed it so the pews were all more or less facing the same direction, but they're still angled because of the building structure, so you can pretty easily stare at the rows of people across from you during Mass... Distracting.

In fact, it was originally supplied with chairs instead of pews and the tabernacle off in the side chapel, and the sanctuary was used as a multi-purpose room for parish functions...


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331750589' post='2400679']
There's more to it than that. Sacred architecture isn't just what happens to make us happy, or what happens to be trendy. There is a certain standard, and a very specific purpose.
A modernist church like that is far less appropriate for worship than something in, for instance, the Gothic style, because of features of the style itself.

It's just like how certain styles of music are inappropriate for Mass, whereas certain other styles are very well suited for worship. In the case of sacred music Gregorian chant is the 'gold standard', whereas pop hymns and folk settings are not acceptable.
[/quote] So what's the criteria? And couldn't you say that old churches were built in the styles of their time, and therefore justify building churches in the styles of our time?

Edited March 14, 2012 by Hubertus

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1331751126' post='2400688']

So what's the criteria? And couldn't you say that old churches were built in the styles of their time, and therefore justify building churches in the styles of our time?
[/quote]

The elements of the style itself each have a specific purpose. Have you perhaps read Spirit of the Liturgy by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger?

[Nihil Obstat]

The thing is I don't exactly have all the lingo internalized, so when I try to get deeper into the subject I tend to not be able to remember the terminology I need to accurately express the principles. Also I don't have my references on my today, so I'm at a distinct disadvantage if we were to start debating.

[Hubertus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331751303' post='2400691']
The elements of the style itself each have a specific purpose. Have you perhaps read Spirit of the Liturgy by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger?
[/quote] Afraid I haven't. That's good to know though, that there were elements in the style with a purpose - elements that modern architecture often leaves out.

Tangent: I really don't get the "modern" style religious art. It's like we're trying to hide God. There's a cross in our chapel with what's supposed to be the risen Christ on it, but it's just a humanoid-shaped piece of metal. What's the purpose of that? Seems like that's what borders idolatry, if you can't even make out the likeness.

[i<3LSOP]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1331751612' post='2400694']
Tangent: I really don't get the "modern" style religious art. It's like we're trying to hide God. There's a cross in our chapel with what's supposed to be the risen Christ on it, but it's just a humanoid-shaped piece of metal. What's the purpose of that? Seems like that's what borders idolatry, if you can't even make out the likeness.
[/quote]

Yeah! It is sooo sad... in our church you can't see the tabernacle... and the statue of the Blessed Mother is in the hallway.

I call the statue of Mary, "Our Lady of the Hallways"

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1331751612' post='2400694']
Afraid I haven't. That's good to know though, that there were elements in the style with a purpose - elements that modern architecture often leaves out.

Tangent: I really don't get the "modern" style religious art. It's like we're trying to hide God. There's a cross in our chapel with what's supposed to be the risen Christ on it, but it's just a humanoid-shaped piece of metal. What's the purpose of that? Seems like that's what borders idolatry, if you can't even make out the likeness.
[/quote]

Here's an easy example:

A circular sanctuary would be inappropriate, objectively, while a 'traditionally' oriented nave and sanctuary is objectively best. The traditional orientation reflects the fact that the priest leads the people in prayer, and reflects his status as an alter Christus. The liturgy is then oriented in the proper direction, i.e. towards Jesus in the Eucharist, towards the altar, towards the crucifix towards the "orient", the liturgical east from whence Jesus will return and in the Mass indeed does return. A circular sanctuary and 'nave' destroys this symbolism, and therefore objectively is not appropriate.

[arfink]

The problem that I have with a wholesale rejection of modern art is the idea that an entire artistic language has already been written for our time. Not to say that we shouldn't be holding religious art to a higher and perhaps radically different standard than secular art, but we cannot honestly expect to just slavishly clone the designs of the past and actually reach people.

I will agree that in religious art you need to be very careful about what truth, or lack therof, you may unknowingly convey. But this does not have to mean the exclusion of all modern influences.

[arfink]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331752427' post='2400703']
Here's an easy example:

A circular sanctuary would be inappropriate, objectively, while a 'traditionally' oriented nave and sanctuary is objectively best. The traditional orientation reflects the fact that the priest leads the people in prayer, and reflects his status as an alter Christus. The liturgy is then oriented in the proper direction, i.e. towards Jesus in the Eucharist, towards the altar, towards the crucifix towards the "orient", the liturgical east from whence Jesus will return and in the Mass indeed does return. A circular sanctuary and 'nave' destroys this symbolism, and therefore objectively is not appropriate.
[/quote]

See, this is what I'd like to be hearing more of. Specifics are what people have in mind, so specifics are what we need to hear. Architects and artists don't necessarily know this stuff, and it's actually harder than you might think to find out the details. The other problem is that, like it or not, artists do desire some level of artistic freedom, and most of the people who actually want to talk about church architecture and art are, well, slavishly fond of the past. Sorry if I'm grossly misinterpreting it, but it's hard to see past that.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1331752547' post='2400708']
The problem that I have with a wholesale rejection of modern art is the idea that an entire artistic language has already been written for our time. Not to say that we shouldn't be holding religious art to a higher and perhaps radically different standard than secular art, but we cannot honestly expect to just slavishly clone the designs of the past and actually reach people.

I will agree that in religious art you need to be very careful about what truth, or lack therof, you may unknowingly convey. But this does not have to mean the exclusion of all modern influences.
[/quote]

It would definitely be hasty to reject 'modern art' entirely. But if we want it to be adapted to sacred use, then there are both objective standards it must conform to, and tendencies it must reject.

Another example: A pastor is evaluating potential designs for his renovated sanctuary, and for the crucifix he is offered two options. The first is very traditional, we'll say a San Damiano crucifix. The second is coloured glass will embedded sparkles with an abstract figure on the crux that vaguely resembles the "risen Christ" motiff.

The 'modern' crucifix is clearly not appropriate for Catholic worship. That doesn't necessarily rule out all modern crucifixes, but what it does show is that there are norms to be followed. If a gifted artist could make a somewhat more modernly-styled crucifix that still adhered to all traditional principles of design, then it would be acceptable. Unfortunately I don't have that sort of artistic vision and I can't offer even a rough description of what that might look like. :D

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331750589' post='2400679']
There's more to it than that. Sacred architecture isn't just what happens to make us happy, or what happens to be trendy. There is a certain standard, and a very specific purpose.
A modernist church like that is far less appropriate for worship than something in, for instance, the Gothic style, because of features of the style itself.

It's just like how certain styles of music are inappropriate for Mass, whereas certain other styles are very well suited for worship. In the case of sacred music Gregorian chant is the 'gold standard', whereas pop hymns and folk settings are not acceptable.
[/quote]

I never said it was about what makes us happy. I very specifically said that it was about reflecting the glory of God so please don't go putting words in my mouth.

Assuming a link between modernism and inappropriateness is a huge leap and an unfair one at that. My old parish was a modern building, purely because it was in a country where the growth of Catholicism is very recent. The parish I go to in the city now is Gothic Revival. Both were beautiful and both were perfectly suited for worship yet they are completely different. Yes there are modern churches that are hideous but there are also some older ones that are just as bad.

[Papist]

The above is Chartes Cathedral. Everything about its architecture is for God's glory, not a art/etc.

[img]http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/chartreswest/svoussoirs.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/chartreswest/stymp.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/chartreswest/slintel.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/chartreswest/sportal.jpg[/img]

[arfink]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331753055' post='2400714']
It would definitely be hasty to reject 'modern art' entirely. But if we want it to be adapted to sacred use, then there are both objective standards it must conform to, and tendencies it must reject.

Another example: A pastor is evaluating potential designs for his renovated sanctuary, and for the crucifix he is offered two options. The first is very traditional, we'll say a San Damiano crucifix. The second is coloured glass will embedded sparkles with an abstract figure on the crux that vaguely resembles the "risen Christ" motiff.

The 'modern' crucifix is clearly not appropriate for Catholic worship. That doesn't necessarily rule out all modern crucifixes, but what it does show is that there are norms to be followed. If a gifted artist could make a somewhat more modernly-styled crucifix that still adhered to all traditional principles of design, then it would be acceptable. Unfortunately I don't have that sort of artistic vision and I can't offer even a rough description of what that might look like. :D
[/quote]

See, and that's what I'm trying to point out- I love that there are people like you who care about this issue, but there aren't many who can cleanly and clearly articulate what the norms are, or at least what they should be. I can totally see what you mean about a "gut feeling" of what should and should not be acceptable, and it's very easy to just point to very old and traditional designs as acceptable and stop there. So I totally understand where that's coming from, but I just wish I could find something more.

[arfink]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1331753348' post='2400718']
The above is Chartes Cathedral. Everything about its architecture is for God's glory, not a art/etc.
[/quote]

If you don't think that Chartes is art then I can't help. The idea that crafting something for the glory of God and "doing art" are somehow mutually exclusive is insane.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1331753263' post='2400715']
Assuming a link between modernism and inappropriateness is a huge leap and an unfair one at that.[/quote]

Not really. The style of what we specifically call modern architecture tends, in the aspects that make it unique, to embrace modernism. Same is true of postmodern architecture, futurism, art deco, googie, etc.. Architecture reflects and expresses the philosophical stance of the architect, in my opinion. Thus, if a building is truly and properly built in the style of Modern or Post-Modern architecture, then in its details it does embrace Modernism.
(Edited for clarity)

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1331753349' post='2400719']
See, and that's what I'm trying to point out- I love that there are people like you who care about this issue, but there aren't many who can cleanly and clearly articulate what the norms are, or at least what they should be. I can totally see what you mean about a "gut feeling" of what should and should not be acceptable, and it's very easy to just point to very old and traditional designs as acceptable and stop there. So I totally understand where that's coming from, but I just wish I could find something more.
[/quote]

It's the same problem that we have in sacred music right now. Most musicians don't have a clue what they're doing. As a Church we're impoverished because of it. I'm not really sure what the solution is, besides pushing for a restoration of worship and identity.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[arfink]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331753596' post='2400725']
It's the same problem that we have in sacred music right now. Most musicians don't have a clue what they're doing. As a Church we're impoverished because of it. I'm not really sure what the solution is, besides pushing for a restoration of worship and identity.
[/quote]

I hate to be obnoxious about it, but in the middle ages the solution was obvious to them: pay for good religious art like you mean it! Patronage is how you get good art, no matter what kind you want. The modernists get tons of very nice, objectively modern art because they will pay for it, so their artists don't have the choice of a) making good art and starving or b) stopping the art and working at a grocery store.