Christian Church Architecture

[phildavid]

Dear Forumers!
I would dare to suggest a thread as a question, of what quality is personally most important for
You in Christian church architecture? What quality or qualities of
church architecture help us to participate celebrations in a more
integrated way?

For my work I think, that for the church architecture the most
important principles are the harmony and equilibrium of forms, because
they bring us to peaceful prayer and meditations.

So, I decorate cherches and create icons for individuals, trying to
maintan the harmony and let people feel comfortable in the space,
organized by my images.

But when I see contemporary Western Christian churches, I notice, that
there are some particular tendences and principles, very different, but unfortunately I
could not get their positive functionality by now.

I would appreciate any information or links as answers...
My sincere gratidude in advance for any kind of participation!

Respectfully,
Iconographer Philip Davydov

[scribe]

Phillip--

Maybe these links will help answer your questions on Western sacred architecture. These are Catholic sites, but very informative.

http://www.sacredarchitecture.org/


http://www.dellachiesa.com/-/article?a=renovation-motorcity


http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/


here is an essay on the meanings behind sacred Western architecture, which should be mostly similar in theory to the Eastern Church architecture.
http://members.aol.com/Sabrin1315/arch.htm

Catholic architecture varies from Romanesque to modern Bauhaus-like box designs--the style that is chosen seems to depend upon when it was built and what was in style at the time the building was erected (and on finances). But there are some conservative Catholics today who are wanting to restore the proper sacred architecture.

Both Catholic and Protestant churches contain pews as the congregation sits during the services. This practice of seating the congregations was adopted in the West about 400 years ago. It used to be the custom that the rich folks in a congregation would rent a set of pews for their exclusive use. The poorer people sat in back or stood. There used to be gates on the pews as well.

Some older Protestant church architecture follows the Catholic church Romanesque or Gothic models, but the interior of Protestant church will rarely have any imagery-- at most some decoration, like colorful banners. The pulpit is also placed in the front and center facing the congregation, because the sermon is the most important event during a Protestant service and also the main art form. There are no altars in Protestant churches as they do not have a Eucharist, only an occasional sharing of bread and wine as a remembrance of Christ's Last Supper (as it is called in the West) with his disciplines before he was crucified. Some churches will have a landscape picture over their baptismal pools, maybe a picture of Christ, but that's all. What pictures of Christ that there is in the church building are not venerated. The reason for this is that the congregation is expected to focus their attention on studying the Bible and on the sermons. There are no candles, either. More modern Protestant architecture can vary from auditorium-style architecture to simple storefront churches. I do not get the impression that they consider the architecture space as especially sacred; it seems to be treated mostly as a utilitarian space for large groups to gather.

In Protestant churches, I have seen the architecture of "megachurches" (very large churches with congregations numbering several thousand) which look like airport concourses leading to various worship areas within the megachurch complex. These megachurches may be a series of auditoriums that are assigned to different kinds of congregations--congregations for older people who like a more conservative kind of music and congregations for young people who like church music to be rock 'n roll. Some even have an area for sports, cafeterias and bookstores, almost like one city built under one roof. The idea behind this architecture, I guess, is to have a place for Christians to gather together for every kind of activity and build a Christian community that way.


When I enter a church building, I expect that it should focus my attention upon the altar. It should contain sacred objects, and it should be beautiful as possible, it should look, sound, smell and feel like a temple, not like a gymnasium or auditorium or union hall.

My parish church is very small in dimension, but we were able to turn its humble appearance into an acceptable, even beautiful "temple". We only had a little money and materials to work with, but we were able to do a lot with only a little. But when I step inside it, I feel that this is a sacred place and all the congregation, including the children, know to treat it respectfully as a sacred place. Christian art in a church means very much to me. When I was a child, these objects taught me about Christianity before I could read and I remain very fond of them because of that.

[phildavid]

Hello, Dear Scribe and Dear Forumers!
I would wish to thank Scribe for thetime and information, - I studied
the links and the text. Especially I do appreciate Your explainations
and the sacredarchitecture.org!
In the latter I found a lot of things, especially a very interesting
point of view, that the architecture's type, look and other qualities
depend of the historical (and first of all economical!) situation. So,
before the WW II the churches were built of authentic and expensive
materials, but afterwise everything, including church architecture,
began to be cheap and quickly assembleble... -
http://www.sacredarchitecture.org/pubs/saj/articles/lastlonglook.php

But by now I did not see any special MODERN principle, which would
make church architecture so different from the past, as it is crearted
now...

I will think more about Your information and I will continue my research, so, I hope to find something...

Again, I thank in advance everyone for participation!

With most sincere greetings,
iconographer Philip Davydov

[phildavid]

Greetings Dear Scribe and Dear Forumers!

The links were very helpful, and I made some important conclusions for
myself. SO, for the Sacred Architecture, we do have certain necessity
for new things, but we have no basis for them, - no serious Sacred
Architecture school nor Sacred Art school. As it seems to me, the
maggiority of Architects, who build churches, as in Russia, so in
Western Christian countries, mainly create their projects "on the
spot". In our time of high speed people prefer to make original
expromt extraordinary solutions, invent and impress everyone, rather
then study real needs of parishes and the tradition of Christian
Architecture in a proper way.
And when we enter such a modern church, it becomes much more difficult
for us to stay concentrated in prayer, just because the person, who
projected the church, thout much more about the originality, rather
then about the practice of prayer. Here in St. Petersburg, for
example, we have a new Orthodox church, built in a way, similar to
russian medieval churches, but the altar apse is.... on the angle of
the building! Unfortunately, I did not have my photocamera with me,
when I was there, but when I go there next time, I will take a picture
for sure.

But why do people create this sort of church buildings? What right do
they have to make other believers feel simply uncomfortable in their
churches?
I am not a "fundamentalist", but why make bad things?

And why does it happen just in our time and never happened for centuries before?

With all my sincere gratitude for participation,
Philip Davydov

[scribe]

But why do people create this sort of church buildings? What right do
they have to make other believers feel simply uncomfortable in their
churches? I am not a "fundamentalist", but why make bad things?

And why does it happen just in our time and never happened for centuries before?

Very good questions. Any trained church architects on the Forum who can give an answer?

It's not just church architecture that looks uncomfortable, it's most modern architecture. Modern architecture seems to have a failure in vision. I think it's because it leaves out man. It's not that we should be artificially held to old forms of architecture as much of the designers of the 19th century did, who designed bad versions of old architecture. In reaction to bad "traditional" architecture, modern architecture have often been anti-traditional. However, this negative reaction has provided mostly an impoverished view of space. For the most part, architecture today looks vacant, visually unpleasing, no matter how expensive the building is. But there are positive trends in architecture today that are designing beautiful buildings that incorporates the best of old and new styles. One of the universities in my city has used this old/new style to great effect in several new buildings and renovated a library that was built in the 1950's to a much more visually pleasing design.

Certainly there is a lack of understanding of what sacred space is and what it does. Maybe that's because today the prevailing secular vision has no need for sacred space, just utilitarian space. It happens, too, that the more that finances enter into the planning of a building, the chances are that the modern building will plan first for the utilitarian aspect and second (or too often last) it will be designed for beauty.

At best, modern architecture will try to fit with its natural environment in a Zen Buddhist kind of merging of man and nature environments. Often this kind of quasi-buddhisit architecture is asthetically successful and pleasing to the eye and helps to quiet the passions of man. These environments function as a "quiet place" which is as close to sacred as the modern vision seems to be. But it's also an entirely individually defined quietness that is achieved; it is not built for the sacred liturgies of a community.

There have been some schools of modern architecture (especially Le Corbusier) that have deliberately taken out the human element in architecture. This kind of architecture was often used for cheap public housing in many areas around the world. Not surprisingly, these places, being already thoroughly de-humanized atmospheres, are now terrible and dangerous slums.

In my city, there have been very many beautiful buildings built. They were built very solidly to last for centuries. But within 100 years, they were torn down and replaced with something that looked like tin sheds or all glass commerical building that birds crash themselves into by the dozens. It was terrible. Church architecture these days seem to follow the same trend that are mostly driven by economics and lack of understanding.

In my city, there is a massive and beautiful Catholic church that was built in 1840. It is full of wonderful wood carvings and stained glass windows of a style not seen anymore. Over the years, the congregation moved away and the area became very poor. The church building was allowed to fall into bad repair and was going to be torn down and the land used for a parking lot for a truck company. Some men of the parish decided to renovate it, but they had to do the work against the will of the archdiosese, which wanted the place demolished and sold. Finally, after twenty years, the men have finished the renovation. The place is magnificent, but the archdiosese will not assign a priest to it. So how long can this church survive without a priest? But this is happening everywhere.

Recently a famous, world-class architect was hired to renovate a portion of our city's art museum. At the public forum in which the architect was questioned by members of the community, a man from the audience asked the architect if he would design with beauty, because (as he said) few modern buildings have been designed with that in mind. The spokesman for the museum answered instead saying-- of course our architect will design with beauty as the museum is filled with things of beauty. But the architect himself just smiled and did not answer this question. So I must wonder what he will actually do.

Perhaps it is a renewed vision of sacredness is what we all need. Then maybe we will know what Beauty is. Then we can create again with beauty, the kind of beauty that is a part of worship.

[scribe]

Here’s is a site that’s worth looking at. Conception Abbey was designed in the 19th century. Its mural work and other decorations are in the rare Beronese style. The abbey, located 100 miles north of Kansas City, Missouri (USA), was designed and decorated by a group of monks who invented the Beronese style, which was a kind of revival of a medieval style. It’s very beautiful and effective.

There were very few other monasteries that incorporated this style—the most famous monastery that featured Beronese murals was Monte Cassino in Italy. But this monastery and its artwork was destroyed during World War II. So the only abbey left that has the original mural work and woodworking in this style is Conception Abbey.

http://www.conceptionabbey.org/Basilica/Murals/TofC.htm

[phildavid]

Dear Scribe and dear Forumers!
I thank Scribe very much for the link to the Conception Abbey. I
studied the web-site and watched carefully the images. I liked very
much, that they did really try to create some concrete unity of style.
And as I suppose, when you enter in the main abbey church, you do feel
the integrity of the decoration, but, as I see on the images, there is
no collaboration between the image and architecture. The artists tried
to "marry" them, but every individual scene or composition is too much
autonomous and not much related to the architectural forms, it is
situated on.
I have a friend, a very good mosaicist Alexander Karnaukhov, he always
works with the architectural space. He tries to make the image become a part of the wall, - his beautiful phrase I remember for ever - the painting is the breath of the wall!!!Unfortunately, now I have no images of decorated architectural spaces, - only one photo - here www.sacredmurals.com/karnaukhov.jpg .... He worked in many countries in the world and even
participated decoration work for a chapel in Vatican. I will try to
find something more about him, by now I have just the image.
Anyway, Iwould be always happy to learn more about other people, who try to
integrate image and architecture in a harmonious way, as our medieval
collegues did. For example now I am working for a russian orthodox church
in a rectangular square-planned church, and I am just wondering, how
it would be better to make it become united sacred space. So, I study
experiences of my collegues...

Looking forward to see other opinions! Everyone is welcome to speak
about integration of art and architecture!!!

With most sincere greetings,
Iconographer Philip Davydov

[Alex N]

I think much of modern architecture (or any architecture for that matter) fails because it leaves out God and the innate human need to worship, to sense the Other, as unapproachable or as close as that Other might be.

A couple of years ago, I wrote an article on sacred space for the Toronto Star (http://www.united-church.ca/gathering/2004/ace/newman0305.shtm) though it only covers Protestant and Catholic churches.

To me, the architectrs who really "got" sacred space were artistis first and foremost and unstood the tenuous relation between human and divine, a relationship that is essentially artistic in nature, potter and clay if you like, though not necessarily Christian.

The most inspiring interview I had was with native Canadian architect Douglas Cardinal -- his grasp of the Oblate Father's vision was incredible. There are different types of architects, of course, and they waver between engineering genius and artistic heights -- and flights -- of imagination. The engineer type does everything to spec, but without the imagination fails to express the inexpressible. That's precisely where the artist component comes in, so that, Scribe, as you wrote "the individually defined quietness" is superseded by the need for space that can be the embodiment of liturgy.

PhilDavid, if you haven't already, you should also take a look at various sacred spaces designed by the likes of Corbusier. There's also a new American church nestled within the COmmunity of Jesus on Cape Cod. (http://www.churchofthetransfiguration.org/index.html)

Alex

[phildavid]

Dear Alex!
Thank you very much for your post, - the thought seems to be so simple
and clear, but how few people do follow the idea. Probably the same
conceiption would function for any other art or any other human
activity in general. As in our life we get the things, we wished to
get. So, if we wished to follow Christ and get closer to Him, somehow
we arrive, but if we wish to get money, or become famous, or whatever
we wish, we get it! The only thing is to understand clearly, what we
really try to achieve, being honest with ourswlves. And for the
contemporary world it is rather unusual to think about the divine
sacredness of space, much easier to think about "forms" and "styles" -
how the building will "look like", rather then "what kind of building
it will be". And even the artistic, creative energy often is moved
toward formal solutions, rather then content.

But what a beautiful synthesis, - "express the inexpressible", as you,
Alex, wrote. SO, we really can not do anything about it, but we try to
express one thing through another, - give some "signs", like
indications, as old church fathers did. And maybe in this case the
matter is, that the engineer is just used to work in his own sphiere,
not much various and very concrete - there are great designers in our
time, - yes!,
But design is based on technical and ergonomical necessity, the church
architecture is based on something different, - on correspondence of
forms and content. Maybe we all are just loosing capacity to "enter",
comprehend the essence of things and forms, and when we try to
realise something, we "combine" weightless forms, not real things.


I thank you very much for the links in your post, - I will study them in
the nearest time, when I put in order my internet connection...
With gratitude and hope for future communications,
Philip Davydov

[Alex N]

Dear Philip,
I'm pressed for time at the moment, and would like to answer you more fully at a later date, but wanted to direct you to a website of a stained glass artist whom I think you would like. Her name is Sarah Hall and her website is www.sarahhallstudio.com. She comes from a Quaker background and she remembers the stillness and silence in her rustic country Ontario church, and the light streaming in from plain windows, all of which informed the beauty of her current work.

As one architect said so succinctly, "we build what we believe."

I will check out your website, too,
Blessings
Alex

[phildavid]

Dear Alex!, Dear Forum Visitors!
Thank You very much for Your post and for the links to the Sara Hall
Studio and Your article!
When you learn, that someone is working in the same field and thinking
about the same problems, you feel company and feel inspired.
The link to the web-site of SaraHall Studio was very, exceptionally
useful for me. One more time we see, that if you wish to work
creatively, and you try to listen, not just speak, you get marvellows
results. And as it really seems, - the one "builds what he believes",
- so great phrase!
Your article gave me also a very important impulse, - we just see,
that as in the medieval time, - the world does not consist of billions
of "human beings", but of concrete persons, who try to achieve God.
And we are happy to have people, like the ones, you mentioned in the
article in the interview, among us on the Earth.
As for the link to the churchofthetransfiguration.org, I would say,
that I liked very much first of all the idea of the church! I
absolutely agree with the builders of this church, that even in our
difficult time we have to create a certain synthesis of al the arts,
and that would be a good church to stay in. The mosaics are beautiful,
architecture and other things, even if they might seem strange to a
person, used to traditional images, are creative works. All works seem
to be listening to the architecture and "singing" together, exceipt,
unfortunately, the recent "frescoes"... I am sorry, I did not wish to
say anything about their artistic qualities, but they are absolutely
not related to the space, they are painted on. The painters do not
care about the architectural forms, these recent frescoes seem to be
just applied" on the walls, and distroy the integrity of the interior
harmony. They create an illusion space behind the wall, what never
happened in the medieval time. They try to pretend something false
with this illusion, - not like mosaics and carvings.
What would you say?
I am sorry for so much negative text in my post, but, again, I would
repeat, I love very much this church as it is and I am really sorry
for the "imperfect" detail of it.

Thank you again for your posts and for everyone reading and answering
in advance!
I appreciate all the opinions and I would wish to suggest a new
thread, about preaching in visual art...

With warmest regards!,
Philip Davydov

[scribe]

Phillip--

Can you tell us what you mean what relating the mural images to the architectural space? Exactly how can this be done?

I'm not an architect, so please explain this in non-technical terms, maybe post examples of murals that do relate well to the architecture.

[phildavid]

Oh, yes!, in the nearest ime I will make a kind of article with illustrations of what I intend on this topic... Sorry for being incomprehensible... But I like this necessity, - to make clear things, and I will do it rather for myself too.
Thank you again for supporting me...
With most sincere greetings,
Philip

[Alex N]

Philip,
I have been in the Church of the Transfiguration but before most of the frescoes were in. Although I think the church is lovely, it did strike me as anachronistic, as in we are not medieval churchgoers. I do believe it is possible to accomplish what the medieval churches did, only in a modern vernacular.

I think I see what you mean about the frescoes, but would want to hear from you where you see them as failing the structure and its context. For me, they are simple, yet lack depth.

Also, after checking that link I see that half of the original piece was chopped out, and exactly the part about understanding what a church must do in order to achieve sacred space. It's not my wisdom at play here, but that of the native architect Douglas Cardinal. (I've attached those portions below.)

It's a discussion that plays over and over among modern "artists" -- that being how to translate truth, gospel, and I guess incarnation really -- to a modern, and post-modern, world.

Considering that many church architects are not Christians, but have a very deep and abiding sense of the divine transcendent, it also begs the question of how much of a person's literary (as opposed to liturgical or imaged) faith must be in play in order to translate. Some expressions in French, for example, are just not translatable into English.

Alex

Probably the most famous Canadian example of post-Vatican II liturgical changes is the design of St. Mary’s Church in Red Deer, Alberta. It was native architect Douglas Cardinal’s first building, several years before his commission of the Museum of Civilization in Ottawa, by Pierre Trudeau. St. Mary’s was an “inspirational experience” for him. “I am always inspired by the passion and vision of my patron. Father Mercks, an Oblate Father from Germany, was very learned. We spent a great deal of time talking, about philosophy, architecture, and church history. We looked at what the emphasis of the early church was, and about the importance of the altar and its true meaning of Jesus’ sacrifice.” That importance had been lost over the centuries with overdone backdrops and Father Mercks wanted to get back to basics. Many discussions, and many sketches later, Cardinal and Mercks agreed on a shape (square and strong to reflect Jesus’ nature), a material (unpolished stone, to symbolize the rock of the church, and Jesus’ humble lifestyle), and placement (in the center of the space around which people could gather).

The church was finally built in 1967, two years after Mercks and Cardinal first starting working together. Every aspect of the space was examined in the light of theological relevance, and architectural doability. Drawing the perfect amount of visual attention to the altar, through light from the roof, and yet not distract the eye at all, for example, created all sorts of problems and at the time computers were not widely used –Cardinal had to borrow one in Chicago. “It was a major structural challenge to do the roof the way I wanted in order to reflect what was needed theologically,” Cardinal remembers. What resulted was a sacred space that has become one of the icons of Canadian architecture.

Vatican II also heralded an age of experimentation that was not always so successful though the intentions were good. To diminish hierarchical lines and ensure greater participation architects employed the fan-shape, which Chiotti says is one of the worst acoustically and never really resolved the separation of the clergy from the laity.” An Oakville church he is currently designing in the square features a sanctuary against one of the walls, with the altar projected into the congregation. A pyramidal roof still hearkens to the cosmic dome of heaven theme inherited from the early church, and skylights punctuate the apex of the pyramid to allow shafts of light to come in. It is a simple space, that communicates a kind of cosmic stillness, and yet a place that fully accommodates interaction.

In a recent redesign of the Loretto Sisters chapel near Niagara Falls, Chiotti strove to reflect not only the retreat’s geographic realities, but also its theological mission of environmental stewardship. In an attempt to connect religion and creation in this new way, the chapel in the round features a baptismal font that “departs from the rectangular box of its predecessor…instead, what emerges is asymmetrical, egg shaped and womb-like, a place to be in touch with the divine mother, the creator God, the word made flesh.” The altar is a 150-year-old tree stump, taken from the garden where the community’s foundress is buried. “It adds a feminine dimension rooted in the history of the order and in creation.”

Changes in liturgical architecture are not only for the benefit of the members, but also meant as a signpost to the surrounding community. Anyone, believer or not, should be able to walk into a church, says Chiotti, and recognize immediately what its primary focus is.

But in a culture that has closed its eyes and ears to a message they feel is largely irrelevant and predominantly exclusive, the medium may have to make a more forceful message.

And this is where the discussion can become heated. Steven Shloeder writes in his book Architecture in Communion, that what is worshipped in a culture, and that in the west, “public acts are commerce, consumption, work and entertainment.” How does the church strive to be relevant to a largely consumer society, by offering more of the same or something completely different?

GREAT ARTIST OR GREAT BELIEVER?
With greater interaction between Christianity and culture, it does beget the question of whether a church architect needs to be a great artist or a great believer. Chiotti says his architectural understanding of liturgical space has been deepened by studying theology. Sarah Hall explains it in art terms: “Art needs to be real not just religious. If artwork is sentimental, people can dismiss it, and therefore dismiss the community.” Father Vito says it depends on how you define believer: “It may not be a person of that group, but one who is on a journey of discovering God, in whatever way they define that.”

The past century is rife with examples: the French humanist Le Corbusier created a masterpiece in the pilgrimage church of Notre Dame de Hant, numerous pieces of the Jewish Marc Chagall’s works of art hang in cathedrals, and more recently native architect Douglas Cardinal and Steven Teeple who have both created churches of great beauty and quiet simplicity. Teeple, though not a church-goer, says architecture students are required to study the Bible – “the Judeo-Christian legacy has influenced art, architecture, literature -- all our Western thinking. “

For Douglas Cardinal, the experience went beyond liturgical education, and into a metaphysical understanding on the nature of the sacred, and the focus of worship. This inspiration to be both poet-philosopher and mathematical genius abides, with a certain amount of tension, in most architects.

The big challenge for architects and liturgical designers, then, is whether architecture can adequately be a medium for the message of change. Can it become metaphysical metaphor and bridge the dualism of matter and spirit, begun so long ago with Enlightenment rationalism? Can it reflect both who the community is, and who the community worships? But mostly, can it express the inexpressible?

[phildavid]

Dear Co-workers and Visitors of the Image Forum!
I suggest Your attention a new article about the attitudes between
Architecture and Image in it...

www.sacredmurals.com/imageinarchitecture.htm

Thank You in advance for Your time and attention!

I will be expecting Your opinions and corrections.

Faithfully,

Philip