There’s been some interest on CMR this week regarding the two new collegiate chapels being built in the United States right now. They provide the kind of comparison which is very instructive. One remains quite close to the inherited classical tradition, another one departs from it. One uses the proper grammar, rules and syntax of classical architecture but doesn’t give a lot of “whiz bang” in the Hollywood sense of “the new.” The other makes up its own rules, and in doing so suffers. One has an exterior facade composed of the traditional units of architecture: columns, entablatures, pediments, texture and image. The other is a flat stone signboard with a hole in it. On the interior, one uses traditional vaulting, marble and recognizable conventions. The other uses an idiosyncratic version of Frank Lloyd Wright disciple Fay Jones’ Thorncrown Chapel in floating steel beams which emerge on the outside like caterpillar legs. One quietly shows an understanding of how traditional architecture has always been done while making something new in a new time and new place. The other takes an idiosyncratic view of architecture as a personal expression of stylistic preferences and hires an architect to make it stand up. One uses an architect who is a leader and pioneer in the revival of traditional Catholic architecture and a scholar and teacher. The other uses a local architect without such training. One adds a beautiful voice to the great symphony of the Tradition. The other adds an off-key dissonance to the same symphony. Both mean well. Only one succeeds.
This critique is decidedly not about resistance to that which is new. It is about resistance to that which is incompetent. (I recall the title of one of the Dilbert books which the cartoonist titled after getting too much criticism for always making fun of the boss: “I’m Not Anti-Management, I’m Anti-Idiot”). There is always room for the new because the Holy Spirit keeps unfolding the revelation of Truth in Christ. However, new does not always equal good.
One of my heroes is the architect Edward Schulte. He was based in Cincinnati and was trained in the early part of the 20th century. He practiced into the 1960s, and is perhaps best known for his Cathedral in La Crosse, Wisconsin (photos below). He did something extraordinary: he took traditional church architecture as far as he could into the dialogue with Modernism yet never lost the tradition. This is an interesting and noble exercise, and what Ave Maria should have done. But it takes a master architect of the highest order to do that well. It did not happen at Ave Maria. The Thomas Aquinas College chapel didn’t really try to dialogue with Modernism, and there are good arguments to support that position. But what it did do was design a beautiful building on proper principles and give it the utmost care and sophistication. Sadly, Ave Maria’s chapel didn’t do that either. Mind you, I have nothing against Ave Maria University. It’s a great idea. It’s just a great shame that it didn’t do better with its architecture. What could have been a beacon is now ridiculous and a missed opportunity which lends fuel to the fire of its enemies.
February 18, 2009 at 12:53 am
I don’t know. One should check out
Gaudi’s Church of the Holy Family in Barcelona to gain perspective
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Sagrada_Familia.html
February 18, 2009 at 1:15 am
I think Gaudi was indeed a master, which is why he could make something new which was still credible. He broke the external rules while following the principles. Ave Maria did not.
February 18, 2009 at 1:28 am
The Ave Maria Oratory could have been so wonderful. Some of the proposals for the Oratory were great… but alas the school now suffers along with this.
February 18, 2009 at 2:44 am
The Schulte church is great! I had never seen it before. I’ll have to take a trip up to LaCrosse and see it, along with Stroik’s other masterwork Our Lady of Guadalupe.
You mention Hollywood, the irony is that TAC is close to Hollywood and I have no doubt that it will be a movie set before too long!
February 18, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Is it supposed to look like a giant mitre? (It does, clearly–but was that intentional?)
February 18, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I’d still like to know if the Ave Maria chapel is maybe against the Tridentine liturgy? Is that what the bottom line is here?
And yes, without question, the Thomas Aquinas chapel has the Ave Maria one beat hands down.
February 18, 2009 at 3:33 pm
To me (from the watching the video) the Ave Maria chapel has the feeling of an airport or a train terminal.
It feels like somewhere you pass through on the way to somewhere else. Somewhere that might make you say “ooh, it’s so neato and futuristic” but not somewhere where you’d sit and pray….
Kind of like that terminal in Detroit with the Monorails…..
But, it might just be that I’m prejudiced in favor of TAC– if it wasn’t in California, it would top my list of schools I’d send my kids to…….
February 18, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Why imitate Bernini’s baldachino? :O I have to admit, I find it garish even in the Basilca of St. Peter. While it appears from the photo to be scaled back, I’m guessing that it looks ostentatiously extraneous in a smaller space such as Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity Chapel which appears to have no other baroque features to it.
If the church requires a balachin, please design one that is in keeping with the rest of the space!
February 18, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The baroque “swirly” columns are used at St. Peter’s in imitation of what they thought the columns of the Temple of Solomon looked like. They had a set of of these Solomonic columns when they built the original St. Peter’s in the 4th century. (They are still there, though most people agree they aren’t actually from the Temple). So the baldachino and columns were used at St. Peter’s to cite the original St. Peter’s which they tore down to build the new one, and the old one was “quoting” the Temple of Solomon. In that tradition, the TAC chapel “quotes” St. Peter’s to express TAC’s loyalty to Rome and the papacy. This was done all throughout Germany, Italy and Spain (and the Spanish colonies) after Trent for this very reason. Admittedly, the chapel at TAC is much quieter architecturally than the baldachino. I can’t speak for Prof. Stroik, but my guess is that the most visually striking architecture was placed near the altar to draw the eye to it. The TAC baldachino is certainly less flashy than the one St. Peter’s, as it should be.
February 18, 2009 at 4:32 pm
The bottom line for me is that the Ave Maria chapel architecture is not good. Why bring up Tridentine liturgy?
February 19, 2009 at 12:00 am
I can’t help myself on this one.
The bottom picture is VERY reminiscent of the hall that leads up to the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz.
February 19, 2009 at 12:00 am
Interesting to finally see these side by side like this.
As an alum of Ave Maria – and great fan of TAC – I have more than a passing interest in this.
I recall when I was getting ready to head down to AMU, the original chapel design was released (2004) – it was still all glass at that time (which Monaghan claimed was a communication error with the architects). Michael Rose launched some online blistering assaults on the design, which aggravated Fr. Fessio (whose Ignatius had published some of his work before) to no end.
I bring this up because Rose managed to work his contacts at the Notre Dame Architecture school to see if any of the students might like to take a stab at a more traditional design for the AMU oratory. Sure enough, they came up with a striking baroque Spanish mission design in no time flat, and Rose published the renderings online. Alas, they’re no longer to be found anywhere on the web. It’s a shame – they’re worth a look.
Given these criticisms and some murmurings from major donors, the design did get altered (the all glass was clearly impractical in South Florida), but the basic Fay Jones aesthetic remained. In the end, it was Tom Monaghan’s checkbook providing most of the money, and so his say was final. Monaghan is a passionate Frank Lloyd Wright disciple, and had some pretensions to being an architect in his youth, and so he paid close attention to making sure his architectural vision for the oratory and the campus won out. And it did.
The final design is not without some virtues – single axis nave, verticality, some good sacred art, prominent confessionals, central tabernacle – but the overall design is still a confused mess, I’m afraid, and not what it could have been. My sense was that a fair number of people at Ave felt likewise. But what’s done is done.
The TAC design, however, is outstanding with virtually no qualifications. I think I like it even more than his Guadalupe chapel – it fits well with the environment, and has a very coherent Florentine idiom without being unduly cluttered. It’s a chapel that TAC can be proud of 100 years from now.
February 19, 2009 at 12:15 pm
True, the AMU chapel is worse than the TAC chapel, but it’s much better than most churches built in the last 35 years. Hey, at least it’s not “in-the-round.”
February 19, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“At least its not as bad as….” is a pretty flimsy endorsement! The AMU chapel is THE flagship new Catholic church of the day, and it’s embarrassing. It just “proves” to some that Catholics with money have no taste and no intellectual sophistication. It therefore undermines the credibility of the university.
February 20, 2009 at 3:31 am
a flat stone signboard with a hole in it.
You’re too kind. It looks like, pardon me, a horse’s ass.