I really don’t like doing negative pieces on new church architecture. Some people thrive on being snarky and critical, and there was a time when I enjoyed that too; there is a place for that sort of thing. But now, the work of critiquing inadequate, failing church architecture mostly makes me kind of sad and tired. It’s much more fun to write about the great things that are being done in the architecture world.
That being said, it remains instructive to comment on the sort of thing here to the left, the new chapel at Sacred Heart University, designed by one of the world’s leading Modernist-revival architecture firms, Sasaki Associates who made their fame designing for the 2008 Beijing summer Olympics. All the predictable stuff is here: concrete panels, angled walls, plate glass, walls covered in copper sheets (a little proof that the 1980s happened), a bell tower ripped right out of the architectural journals of the 1950s and the Catholic colleges of the 1970s. One has to scratch one’s head and say “Why?”. It is 2009 and we still these “slaves to the past” designs going up. Why?
Nobody wants to be mean. Nobody wants to diminish the good intentions of everyone involved or to ridicule all the work and meetings and decisions it takes to build a building. No one wants to make donors think their money was spent in vain. But how can you say anything else about this building?
The New York Times article about the building wrote
The roof and one wall use different tones of copper to suggest the folds and fabric of a nomadic tent, a note repeated in the main chapel’s ceiling. And the clear glass of the large, inviting narthex, or entry space, opens the chapel to the rest of the campus.
What we have here is clearly a failure of ontology, that is, knowledge of the nature and being of a church. A church building is not intended to be a nomadic tent, though the unsatisfactory explanation comes from Times article: the building was designed to represent the tent like quality of the “church as pilgrim people of God.” I’ve been in nomadic Bedouin tents, and the they don’t look like this.
A church is primarily an image of the Heavenly Jerusalem, showing us the perfection and attractive power of where we are going, not only where we are. Our Christian life is indeed a pilgrimage, but a difficult journey, and the shining, glorious vision of a radiant, ordered world draws us to continue on our pilgrimage. Similarly, the towers of Chartres Cathedral on the horizon keep pilgrims fixed on their destination.
And instead, the university gives its students and the world a thirty year old, inadequate semi-Corbusian vision of industrially-inspired, chaotic, second rate High Modern meeting house. Evidently there is little to no eschatalogical sense at work here. Again, I have to ask: “Why?” (the university’s president said: “the fact that we are lay-led may give us the confidence we can build a building as beautiful as this and do it proudly and gratefully.” As a lay person who loves the priesthood, I’m not quite sure what to make of that.
The press is making a lot of hay out of the interior, particularly its mosaic by the famed Fr. Rupnik, SJ. One has to admit, Fr. Rupnik has an impressive resume, having designed the mosaics for Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris Mater chapel. And it is with a certain sense of trepidation that I critique his work (although attentive readers may note that I did it without knowing who it was some time ago in looking at his work in Lourdes). I do not know Fr. Rupnik and have no personal grudge against him, but I have to say that his work leaves me cold– perhaps its the ghoulish quality that the figures have. Perhaps people are comforted by the thought that at least there is some sort of figural imagery in a traditional medium. And indeed, the works usually have a good, deep theological program. But the manner and poses appear rather more lifeless than stylized like an icon. The large eyes appear more like children’s drawings than the traditional iconic oversized eyes which indicate a saint fixed on God. Maybe its just me. I’d be interested to hear what others have to say about Rupnik’s work.
So all in all, not the worst chapel built lately. But certainly not the best. It reads as decidedly out of step with where the Church is today, though its baby steps in the right direction are certainly appreciated. It could have been and should have been much, much more.
September 28, 2009 at 6:11 pm
What I'd like to hear is a statement from an ordinary worshipper (like myself) who genuinely likes these interiors. Because I'm in the Northeast, we have fewer of these building than some areas of the country–but we we still have plenty. And the positive comments all seem to be the same: well, it's bright and airy. I might say that as bland and stark, but I would like to hear what folks who like them think about their modern spaces.
September 28, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I used to write about architecture and at one time thought maybe I would write about church architecture. Then I saw the publications about church architecture, and everything in them looked like this. I'd say you did a great job.
Cathy: I agree, I'd love to hear from someone (not an architect! architects, remember, devised those crazy stairs that are too long for human strides and other things of their ilk) who really likes this church or others like it. What do you like about it?
September 28, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Before my stint as a seminarian (which was before my current and ongoing stint as a Catholic husband and father) I had a brief stint as a workaholic architecture student, so I really appreciate your posts here, DMac.
It seems that (some) modern Church architects want to out-Ronchamp Ronchamp — http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Notre_Dame_du_Haut.html —
and this new chapel may very well be the latest attempt.
As architecture goes, this style has its qualities, for sure, can be innovative and in some cases (think Balboa) can be inspiring.
But as church architecture, yuck! My own diocese has some feeble attempts at churches and chapels like this and when I go into them, I find myself thinking about the architect or the mural artist rather than about Christ. Then I remember that I'm in the church to pray and force myself to focus on Christ, but am quickly distracted again from the geometric patterns, notch-hole windows and ugly copper relief-statues.
I went to seminary at St. John's in Brighton Mass. Our own chapel was beautiful, but of all the churches, my favorite was the Jesuit chapel at Boston College across the street. My first, and lasting impression, was that entering that chapel, I had entered the womb. Or, Christ's own Sacred Heart. During the day, it was a darkened hall, with beautiful gothic windows, the focus of the whole design being to point the penitent toward the altar and tabenacle, the only objects in the room that had any light. That space directed all minds and hearts to God, not Le Corbusier.
September 28, 2009 at 10:52 pm
For a building this architecture is great, for a Church it is dreadful.
I am sorry but this kind of architecture may serve many purposes except the one that churches are built to serve, the Liturgy and the teaching of the Faith.
September 29, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Yes, dreadful church architecture indeed! I would be curious to know what Mathew's brother-in-law, Dr. Denis McNamara, would say about this.
September 29, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Mike in CT–
I went to BC and yes, the Chapel there on the main campus is really lovely, as is St. Ignatius Church.
Still haven't heard from anyone who likes this….
September 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I thought that the "icons" along the front of the Basilica at Lourdes were awful, and these look like more of the same.
I know that there is a lot worse out there, but there is something disturbing about seeing our Lord and our Lady with eyes borrowed from a Hollywood alien. It seems to me to be saying "The truth is out there" rather than "The Truth is right here".
September 29, 2009 at 5:19 pm
As an architect, I appreciate your comments on this church. I always find it sad that the Modernist movement's notion of essentially rejecting the past is true except for those things done in the style of the Modernist movement. If you stylistically reference that Movement you are accepted, if you reference anything before it you are labeled a slave to the past or "Not Progressive". I am not familiar with Fr. Rupnik's work but while the figurative style seems somewhat anemic and distant it is refreshing to see actual figures portrayed with Christ as the focus.
September 29, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I'm not sure about all the feminized delicacy of the wording of the article but I for one don't give in to such angst. I'm blunt and to the point: it's all ugly. Those who design these crappy buildings have no idea what a church is and what it is for. Patrick was correct when he said they lack entirely the ontological construct of a church and its meaning and purpose, thus its lack thereof is quite evident.
If one ponders just a moment, almost no where in the secular world (at least mainstream) is this kind of psychotic imagery to be found. No mall or hotel looks like that, nor would any Fortune 500 company's buildings look like that. Sadly when it comes to Catholic institutions (examples abound), yes, that old saying about one being born every minute is quite true, especially when he's a Catholic, else why do we have these suspicious growths on the face of our Church?
My opinion, folks, but it certainly is.
Matt
September 30, 2009 at 6:53 am
Anonymous 8:57– "D Mac" is Denis McNamara. He wrote this post.
September 30, 2009 at 6:53 am
Anonymous 8:57– "D Mac" is Denis McNamara. He wrote this post.
September 30, 2009 at 6:49 pm
"D Mac" is Denis McNamara! Oops, my apologies. 🙂
Can't wait to see you at "The Glory of Catholic Architecture" conference next year!
October 1, 2009 at 12:26 am
FWIW, I dig the mosaic. But the building itself, no so much.
October 1, 2009 at 9:05 pm
BTW, I like to plug Michael Rose's book "Ugly as Sin" whenever this subject comes up. If you want to know why church architecture is so ugly (and which architects are responsible for it), and how it was specifically designed to change the way Catholics worship, it's all right there. And it's not polemical either, although you might suspect so from the author of "Goodbye, Good Men."
October 1, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I agree with the sentiments above – it would have made a nice public library or museum; as a church, it sucks.
The recent cathedral in Houston is not a bad attempt at fusing old and new with a nod to the purpose of a church. It's pretty decent inside and out except they unfortunately dropped the ball where it really needed to be done well – the main crucifix. They went in for some cartoonish looking Jesus on the crucifix even though other statues in the cathedral are very lifelike. Bummer.
October 2, 2009 at 12:01 am
As a public library, it would be ugly. As a Catholic Church, it is tragic. Modernism is an infection.
October 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I someone wants to see what a University Chapel should look like then one should look at the neww Cahpel at Thomas Aquinas College in Ca., with its prominent altar. Also You don't need a road map to find the Tabernacle. This Church , pictured hear would be ugly no matter what went inside it.