By: jjph

jjph — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:20:53 +0000

Modern architecture has too long been considered a monolithic entity with uniform agenda. Such a vast over-simplification dismisses offhand the earnest work of a century. Recovering these alternate modernisms is incredibly important, especially as they relate to religious architecture. What was lauded by the architecture and art culture of the 20th c may not have been aligned with what the church would value, but that does not mean nothing of value to the church was produced.

Even those celebrated as modernist masters produced work which does not fit in the [International Style / purely functionalist / ahistorical / anti-religious] reductive modernist canon. Most of the work that does fit this model is in fact poor & incomplete imitations of black & white photographs or treatises taken out of context.

Also left out are the ways in which tradition and symbolism shifted to be carried by new signifiers which may not be as immediately apparent through visuals alone. Just because the continuity is not evident in the expression does not mean it is wholly absent.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:56:55 +0000

That sounds great and all — it seems pretty hard to put into practice, though. What does it actually look like? I suppose in America in particular it’s very difficult to strike the appropriate balance between tradition and innovation, since most architectural traditions have an imported feel to them. I like that Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, has an “organic” sensibility different from the cold, concrete slab type of modernism. The prairie style is one that seems to be successful in that regard, in my opinion. But then there’s nothing really traditional about it, since Wright basically invented the style, or Roman Catholic. There are many fine examples of modern and postmodern churches, but they all seem largely Protestant to me.

Comments on: Eucharistic Architecture

By: jjph

By: Patrick