OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 01:52:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Moscow on the Seine: The Controversy Over Russian Cathedral Plans in Paris  (Read 2852 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: December 04, 2012, 08:46:59 PM »

Orthodox cathedrals with their trademark golden onion domes are a familiar sight across Russia. And one may soon become part of Paris's famed skyline, right near the Eiffel Tower. French President Francois Hollande has just weeks to decide on a controversial plan to build a massive Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Center in downtown Paris on the banks of the Seine River, on a UNESCO-protected world heritage site.

The project is staunchly opposed by Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, who has described the architecture as "pastiche" and "mediocre." But Moscow is reportedly putting diplomatic pressure on Hollande to approve the project and allow construction of the golden-domed white limestone and glass structure to proceed. In 2011, the online real-estate television station La Chaine Immo announced plans for the cathedral with enthusiasm, describing the building as a "happy marriage between tradition and modernity."
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2012, 08:53:01 PM »

Orthodox cathedrals with their trademark golden onion domes are a familiar sight across Russia. And one may soon become part of Paris's famed skyline, right near the Eiffel Tower. French President Francois Hollande has just weeks to decide on a controversial plan to build a massive Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Center in downtown Paris on the banks of the Seine River, on a UNESCO-protected world heritage site.

The project is staunchly opposed by Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, who has described the architecture as "pastiche" and "mediocre." But Moscow is reportedly putting diplomatic pressure on Hollande to approve the project and allow construction of the golden-domed white limestone and glass structure to proceed. In 2011, the online real-estate television station La Chaine Immo announced plans for the cathedral with enthusiasm, describing the building as a "happy marriage between tradition and modernity."

They should get rid of the stupid glass cover, then I'd be okay with it.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2012, 09:02:38 PM »

Here are more pictures of the proposed Cathedral. Looks pretty futuristic-yet-traditional.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2012, 09:14:07 PM »

Here are more pictures of the proposed Cathedral. Looks pretty futuristic-yet-traditional.

It looks like an Orthodox Church with an ugly glass cloth draped over it.

If I tried to pull that off in school as merging tradition and post-modernism, I'd probably have gotten ripped apart.

It's a stupid design and we should try to keep architects from pulling off supposedly "modernist" designs for Orthodox Churches. We don't want to repeat the same stupid mistakes the Roman Catholic Church made.

They can make it traditional and have it fit in. There are virtually no modern buildings in the area and so there is no reason to put a stupid modernist design.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2012, 09:15:59 PM »

They should get rid of the stupid glass cover, then I'd be okay with it.

That makes it unique. It would be boring and common without it.

It's a stupid design and we should try to keep architects from pulling off supposedly "modernist" designs for Orthodox Churches. We don't want to repeat the same stupid mistakes the Roman Catholic Church made.

They can make it traditional and have it fit in. There are virtually no modern buildings in the area and so there is no reason to put a stupid modernist design.

Yeah, everyone knows Russian Baroque is the only one architectural style permitted for churches.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2012, 09:19:10 PM »

It is as ugly and offensive as the Eiffel Tower. I hope it doesn't get built.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2012, 09:19:23 PM »

They should get rid of the stupid glass cover, then I'd be okay with it.

That makes it unique. It would be boring and common without it.

It's a stupid design and we should try to keep architects from pulling off supposedly "modernist" designs for Orthodox Churches. We don't want to repeat the same stupid mistakes the Roman Catholic Church made.

They can make it traditional and have it fit in. There are virtually no modern buildings in the area and so there is no reason to put a stupid modernist design.

Yeah, everyone knows Russian Baroque is the only one architectural style permitted for churches.

No, there are many different architectural styles which can be used. Modernism isn't one of them. I really hope that as Orthodoxy matures in the United States, we can begin demolishing the disgusting modernist church buildings in our country.

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible. Orthodox Churches designed in a modernist or post-modernist style are horse-dung.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 09:21:22 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2012, 09:26:47 PM »

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible.

Says who?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2012, 09:35:44 PM »

No, there are many different architectural styles which can be used. Modernism isn't one of them. I really hope that as Orthodoxy matures in the United States, we can begin demolishing the disgusting modernist church buildings in our country.

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible. Orthodox Churches designed in a modernist or post-modernist style are horse-dung.

But all these are relative.  The Hagia Sophia was designed according to the architecture of their time.  I don't think there are any canons to how churches are to be designed architecturally.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2012, 09:39:52 PM »

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible.

Says who?

Says someone who knows a lot about architecture and about the intent and philosophy behind modernist architecture. Modernist architecture is a purposeful abandonment of tradition, and often is used to insult tradition.

If you were to actually go take some courses on architectural history, you'd know this. I am speaking as someone with a degree in art/architecture history and who has also done a fair amount of research outside of school.

If you want to know the truth about modernist architecture and it's architectural iconoclasm and rejection of tradition, just ask the architectural school at Notre Dame or many other traditional architects out there, not just in the U.S. but in Europe as well. Some of those examples are Allan Greenberg, Demitri Porphyrios, George Saumarez Smith, Nigel Anderson, Robert Adam, Leon Krier, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Robert A.M. Stern, Rafael Manzano Martos and others...
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2012, 09:42:56 PM »

No, there are many different architectural styles which can be used. Modernism isn't one of them. I really hope that as Orthodoxy matures in the United States, we can begin demolishing the disgusting modernist church buildings in our country.

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible. Orthodox Churches designed in a modernist or post-modernist style are horse-dung.

But all these are relative.  The Hagia Sophia was designed according to the architecture of their time.  I don't think there are any canons to how churches are to be designed architecturally.

There are guidelines for how to layout the church, and usually circular buildings break those guidelines, but otherwise they can be kept with some freedom. Other than that, there aren't canons. That doesn't mean it is open and free though. You have to understand a style, why it is used and how it is used. Modernism is anti-tradition (this is an accepted fact in the architecture world) and is, architecturally speaking, iconoclastic. Ask yourself if those are things that Orthodox Churches should promote with its architecture?

Architecture communicates to people, and it can also affect people.
Choosing a style based on a rejection of tradition and inherent architectural iconoclasm would basically send a mixed message to people.

Also, if you look at all previous styles and the evolution of "Orthodox" styles, there is a clear evolution, you don't have a situation, as you had with modernism, where they threw everything out and decided to become violently anti-tradition and therefore rejected anything that looked traditional.

That is one of many reasons why buildings ceased to have sculpture, art or other decorations. It is also one of many reasons why buildings ceased looking like what they were. You had churches which look like arenas or banks that look like homes, or law firms that look like Greek temples.

Like I said, people really need to learn more about architecture and architectural styles rather than assuming that modernism is just like all the others.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 09:46:25 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2012, 09:51:28 PM »

No, there are many different architectural styles which can be used. Modernism isn't one of them. I really hope that as Orthodoxy matures in the United States, we can begin demolishing the disgusting modernist church buildings in our country.

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible. Orthodox Churches designed in a modernist or post-modernist style are horse-dung.

But all these are relative.  The Hagia Sophia was designed according to the architecture of their time.  I don't think there are any canons to how churches are to be designed architecturally.

There are guidelines for how to layout the church, and usually circular buildings break those guidelines, but otherwise they can be kept with some freedom. Other than that, there aren't canons. That doesn't mean it is open and free though. You have to understand a style, why it is used and how it is used. Modernism is anti-tradition (this is an accepted fact in the architecture world) and is, architecturally speaking, iconoclastic. Ask yourself if those are things that Orthodox Churches should promote with its architecture?

Architecture communicates to people, and it can also affect people.
Choosing a style based on a rejection of tradition and inherent architectural iconoclasm would basically send a mixed message to people.

Also, if you look at all previous styles and the evolution of "Orthodox" styles, there is a clear evolution, you don't have a situation, as you had with modernism, where they threw everything out and decided to become violently anti-tradition and therefore rejected anything that looked traditional.

That is one of many reasons why buildings ceased to have sculpture, art or other decorations. It is also one of many reasons why buildings ceased looking like what they were. You had churches which look like arenas or banks that look like homes, or law firms that look like Greek temples.

Like I said, people really need to learn more about architecture and architectural styles rather than assuming that modernism is just like all the others.

Some of the reasons are just cost.  Its far cheaper to build a big box-shaped building than to have one in traditional architecture.  Also, building codes.  Some neighborhoods may not allow for those high domes that Orthodox churches are famous for.  It's not always iconoclastic.  Sometimes its practical, sometimes its just what is allowed by the government.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2012, 10:01:35 PM »

No, there are many different architectural styles which can be used. Modernism isn't one of them. I really hope that as Orthodoxy matures in the United States, we can begin demolishing the disgusting modernist church buildings in our country.

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible. Orthodox Churches designed in a modernist or post-modernist style are horse-dung.

But all these are relative.  The Hagia Sophia was designed according to the architecture of their time.  I don't think there are any canons to how churches are to be designed architecturally.

There are guidelines for how to layout the church, and usually circular buildings break those guidelines, but otherwise they can be kept with some freedom. Other than that, there aren't canons. That doesn't mean it is open and free though. You have to understand a style, why it is used and how it is used. Modernism is anti-tradition (this is an accepted fact in the architecture world) and is, architecturally speaking, iconoclastic. Ask yourself if those are things that Orthodox Churches should promote with its architecture?

Architecture communicates to people, and it can also affect people.
Choosing a style based on a rejection of tradition and inherent architectural iconoclasm would basically send a mixed message to people.

Also, if you look at all previous styles and the evolution of "Orthodox" styles, there is a clear evolution, you don't have a situation, as you had with modernism, where they threw everything out and decided to become violently anti-tradition and therefore rejected anything that looked traditional.

That is one of many reasons why buildings ceased to have sculpture, art or other decorations. It is also one of many reasons why buildings ceased looking like what they were. You had churches which look like arenas or banks that look like homes, or law firms that look like Greek temples.

Like I said, people really need to learn more about architecture and architectural styles rather than assuming that modernism is just like all the others.

Some of the reasons are just cost.  Its far cheaper to build a big box-shaped building than to have one in traditional architecture.  Also, building codes.  Some neighborhoods may not allow for those high domes that Orthodox churches are famous for.  It's not always iconoclastic.  Sometimes its practical, sometimes its just what is allowed by the government.

Sure some of the reasons are just cost, that is what happens sometimes today. But there are still significant factors playing a part.

Also, as I've pointed out before, there are ways to build something well with cost.

You can make a church look like a church without having to spend a lot of money. I pass by this stupid looking church every Sunday on the highway. It is a building with blank sides and a pitched roof. The only reason you know it is a church? Because it literally says "CHURCH" in big letters on the side.

Also, I wouldn't say that the way many buildings are built in America can be considered modernism. There is a difference between practicality and modernist style.

This is modernism and it is terribly ugly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2006-06-05_1580x2900_chicago_modernism.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bauhaus.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewYorkSeagram_04.30.2008.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lincoln_Center_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VillaSavoye.jpg

This not a church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crys-ext.jpg

This is also not a church:
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/ronchamps/ronchamps.html

Many of the Orthodox Churches built 50 years ago were built in a modernist style and it had nothing to do with cost. In fact, many of them had plenty of money to spend, but spent it on ugly modernist designs.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2012, 10:06:30 PM »

This is a model of an Orthodox Church in Zagreb:

« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 10:07:21 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2012, 10:07:03 PM »

Sure some of the reasons are just cost, that is what happens sometimes today. But there are still significant factors playing a part.

Also, as I've pointed out before, there are ways to build something well with cost.

You can make a church look like a church without having to spend a lot of money. I pass by this stupid looking church every Sunday on the highway. It is a building with blank sides and a pitched roof. The only reason you know it is a church? Because it literally says "CHURCH" in big letters on the side.

Also, I wouldn't say that the way many buildings are built in America can be considered modernism. There is a difference between practicality and modernist style.

This is modernism and it is terribly ugly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2006-06-05_1580x2900_chicago_modernism.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bauhaus.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewYorkSeagram_04.30.2008.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lincoln_Center_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VillaSavoye.jpg

This not a church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crys-ext.jpg

This is also not a church:
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/ronchamps/ronchamps.html

Many of the Orthodox Churches built 50 years ago were built in a modernist style and it had nothing to do with cost. In fact, many of them had plenty of money to spend, but spent it on ugly modernist designs.

The Orthodox Churches in my area are either those who built their churches a long time ago when costs were lower, thus they were able to make a church that has that Orthodox character.  The other group are those who are small and then grew, or just a big batch of immigrants came and they were able to acquire a Protestant church that closed down in an area they like.  The OCA parish I am moving to is such the case, they acquired an old Protestant church.  But God-willing, given the exploding population of that parish, there will be enough funding in the next couple of years to build a proper Orthodox-looking parish.  The property is quite big, there is a big vacant lot where a new church can be constructed while keeping the old one for use until the new one is ready.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2012, 10:11:48 PM »

Sure some of the reasons are just cost, that is what happens sometimes today. But there are still significant factors playing a part.

Also, as I've pointed out before, there are ways to build something well with cost.

You can make a church look like a church without having to spend a lot of money. I pass by this stupid looking church every Sunday on the highway. It is a building with blank sides and a pitched roof. The only reason you know it is a church? Because it literally says "CHURCH" in big letters on the side.

Also, I wouldn't say that the way many buildings are built in America can be considered modernism. There is a difference between practicality and modernist style.

This is modernism and it is terribly ugly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2006-06-05_1580x2900_chicago_modernism.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bauhaus.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewYorkSeagram_04.30.2008.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lincoln_Center_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VillaSavoye.jpg

This not a church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crys-ext.jpg

This is also not a church:
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/ronchamps/ronchamps.html

Many of the Orthodox Churches built 50 years ago were built in a modernist style and it had nothing to do with cost. In fact, many of them had plenty of money to spend, but spent it on ugly modernist designs.

The Orthodox Churches in my area are either those who built their churches a long time ago when costs were lower, thus they were able to make a church that has that Orthodox character.  The other group are those who are small and then grew, or just a big batch of immigrants came and they were able to acquire a Protestant church that closed down in an area they like.  The OCA parish I am moving to is such the case, they acquired an old Protestant church.  But God-willing, given the exploding population of that parish, there will be enough funding in the next couple of years to build a proper Orthodox-looking parish.  The property is quite big, there is a big vacant lot where a new church can be constructed while keeping the old one for use until the new one is ready.

The situation is different everywhere. The city I live in right now has two parishes which left the city in the midst of white flight and one left a more traditional building, the other a building that literally looked more like a ancient Roman or Greek temple and they both built very modern buildings which are almost entirely brick (which costs a lot). There are 3 other parishes in this city which all built pretty traditional buildings, all within the last 15 years. I've only been in 5/6 of the purpose-built Orthodox buildings in my city and the traditional ones are far better than the modernist ones.

Some have purchased Protestant buildings, but there are a large number (for some reason mainly Greek) who built very modernist buildings back in the 1950s-1970s.

Since I'm in the architecture profession and want to design churches in my future, I have been compiling a database of photos of Orthodox Churches around the world for several years now and have over 900 photos, about 240 of those in the U.S.. There are many, many traditionally designed parishes in the United States.
If a parish doesn't have much money, they ought to look towards many of the nice Alaskan or Canadian parishes as examples of what can be done simply but traditionally.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 10:19:50 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,374



« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2012, 10:52:44 PM »

I personally like it.
Logged
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2012, 11:46:35 PM »

It would be nice without the 'cover.' Fashion statements are linked to their time and just become ugly. It is better to be classic/classy.

Take an example from the Catholics with all their ugly churches from the 60's through 90's. They still build some, but a lot of them are being converted into classically designed and ornamented structures (glorious examples).
Logged
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2012, 11:51:47 PM »


How did they get Sauron's tower to California?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 11:52:11 PM by Jason.Wike » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2012, 12:45:08 AM »


The best part is the Roman Catholic Church has purchased this fine property Wink
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2012, 01:11:39 AM »

There are guidelines for how to layout the church, and usually circular buildings break those guidelines, but otherwise they can be kept with some freedom. Other than that, there aren't canons. That doesn't mean it is open and free though. You have to understand a style, why it is used and how it is used. Modernism is anti-tradition (this is an accepted fact in the architecture world) and is, architecturally speaking, iconoclastic. Ask yourself if those are things that Orthodox Churches should promote with its architecture?

Architecture communicates to people, and it can also affect people.
Choosing a style based on a rejection of tradition and inherent architectural iconoclasm would basically send a mixed message to people.

Also, if you look at all previous styles and the evolution of "Orthodox" styles, there is a clear evolution, you don't have a situation, as you had with modernism, where they threw everything out and decided to become violently anti-tradition and therefore rejected anything that looked traditional.

That is one of many reasons why buildings ceased to have sculpture, art or other decorations. It is also one of many reasons why buildings ceased looking like what they were. You had churches which look like arenas or banks that look like homes, or law firms that look like Greek temples.

Like I said, people really need to learn more about architecture and architectural styles rather than assuming that modernism is just like all the others.

What about Postmodernism? BTW, can you define "traditional"? How do you decide whether something is traditional or not?

BTW, in that part of the world circular shape is one of the "traditional" ones.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,374



« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2012, 01:13:53 AM »

Take an example from the Catholics with all their ugly churches from the 60's through 90's. They still build some, but a lot of them are being converted into classically designed and ornamented structures (glorious examples).
Many of those are beautiful restorations.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2012, 02:34:31 AM »

There are guidelines for how to layout the church, and usually circular buildings break those guidelines, but otherwise they can be kept with some freedom. Other than that, there aren't canons. That doesn't mean it is open and free though. You have to understand a style, why it is used and how it is used. Modernism is anti-tradition (this is an accepted fact in the architecture world) and is, architecturally speaking, iconoclastic. Ask yourself if those are things that Orthodox Churches should promote with its architecture?

Architecture communicates to people, and it can also affect people.
Choosing a style based on a rejection of tradition and inherent architectural iconoclasm would basically send a mixed message to people.

Also, if you look at all previous styles and the evolution of "Orthodox" styles, there is a clear evolution, you don't have a situation, as you had with modernism, where they threw everything out and decided to become violently anti-tradition and therefore rejected anything that looked traditional.

That is one of many reasons why buildings ceased to have sculpture, art or other decorations. It is also one of many reasons why buildings ceased looking like what they were. You had churches which look like arenas or banks that look like homes, or law firms that look like Greek temples.

Like I said, people really need to learn more about architecture and architectural styles rather than assuming that modernism is just like all the others.

What about Postmodernism? BTW, can you define "traditional"? How do you decide whether something is traditional or not?

BTW, in that part of the world circular shape is one of the "traditional" ones.

Actually no. If you read the history of Christian architecture, circular structures were always baptisteries, martyria, storage places etc... Circular buildings weren't Churches, there are very few examples like the St George Rotunda in Thessaloniki, which had to be modified since the circular layout isn't suitable for liturgy.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2012, 02:36:10 AM »

Actually no. If you read the history of Christian architecture, circular structures were always baptisteries, martyria, storage places etc... Circular buildings weren't Churches, there are very few examples like the St George Rotunda in Thessaloniki, which had to be modified since the circular layout isn't suitable for liturgy.

When it comes to "tradition" I prefer to trust dozens of cradles here than one American convert, sorry.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,706


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2012, 04:01:56 AM »

Actually no. If you read the history of Christian architecture, circular structures were always baptisteries, martyria, storage places etc... Circular buildings weren't Churches, there are very few examples like the St George Rotunda in Thessaloniki, which had to be modified since the circular layout isn't suitable for liturgy.

When it comes to "tradition" I prefer to trust dozens of cradles here than one American convert, sorry.

Devin is talking complete sense here. His status as a convert is irrelevant, and your disregard for him on this basis is rude and unbecoming. I might also remind you that I've been Orthodox for more than twice the time you've been alive.  police

A detail which many people overlook is that traditional church architecture is almost always acoustically far superior to the modernist equivalent. No need for microphones, no need for incorporating distracting architectural elements.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2012, 04:24:55 AM »

Devin is talking complete sense here. His status as a convert is irrelevant, and your disregard for him on this basis is rude and unbecoming. I might also remind you that I've been Orthodox for more than twice the time you've been alive.  police

If in this context we understand "tradition" (I asked him for his definition of tradition but he ignored it) as a set of practises, customs, superstitions, and solutions aroused among communities where Orthodox Christianity is dominant religion his status as a convert is relevant. You can't learn it. You live it or not.

Everyone here say circular shape is "traditional". No matter how many wise books say otherwise I won't change my opinion. There is a world outside books. You seem to forgot about it.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 04:25:39 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,706


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2012, 04:35:11 AM »

Quote
Everyone here say circular shape is "traditional"

Everyone? Not me. And nobody else has called them traditional. Only you have, from your post #20:
Quote
BTW, in that part of the world circular shape is one of the "traditional" ones.

And there is a circular Orthodox church in my city, built in 1966, with a disjointed pillar for a bell tower. Inside and out, it's one of the ugliest church buildings of any denomination I've seen, and the acoustics are terrible. Not to mention that a circular church simply doesn't work in terms of clergy movement, etc.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2012, 04:39:01 AM »

Everyone here say circular shape is "traditional"

Here. In the area first Orthodox parishes appeared in X - XI century.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,706


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2012, 05:00:25 AM »

Everyone here say circular shape is "traditional"

Here. In the area first Orthodox parishes appeared in X - XI century.

Are you saying that circular churches were being built in your country during those centuries?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2012, 05:03:10 AM »

Are you saying that circular churches were being built in your country during those centuries?

That fact appears in any text published anywhere concerning church architecture, religious school books... I have no idea how is it popular and do not care. No one objects or says it's not true. It's enough for me.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2012, 07:17:50 AM »

Architecture bespeaks a certain philosophy. For example, Notre Dame in Paris says something completely different then the monstrosity known as Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles. The latter reflects modern man's refocusing of his religious feelings onto himself rather then lifting up his mind and soul to God.

Architecture, along with all of the other externals of the Faith: icons, frescoes, candles, incense etc aid us in contemplating the Divine.

The church itself looks fine but I'm perplexed by the metal sheet over the top  Huh
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2012, 11:11:51 AM »

Are you saying that circular churches were being built in your country during those centuries?

That fact appears in any text published anywhere concerning church architecture, religious school books... I have no idea how is it popular and do not care. No one objects or says it's not true. It's enough for me.


Actually it doesn't. I've given you evidence before, even from Orthodox architects. Look at books onChristian architecture and my point will be proven.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2012, 11:48:09 AM »

They should get rid of the stupid glass cover, then I'd be okay with it.

That makes it unique. It would be boring and common without it.

It's a stupid design and we should try to keep architects from pulling off supposedly "modernist" designs for Orthodox Churches. We don't want to repeat the same stupid mistakes the Roman Catholic Church made.

They can make it traditional and have it fit in. There are virtually no modern buildings in the area and so there is no reason to put a stupid modernist design.

Yeah, everyone knows Russian Baroque is the only one architectural style permitted for churches.

No, there are many different architectural styles which can be used. Modernism isn't one of them. I really hope that as Orthodoxy matures in the United States, we can begin demolishing the disgusting modernist church buildings in our country.

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible. Orthodox Churches designed in a modernist or post-modernist style are horse-dung.

The architecture also needs to have a happy ending.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2012, 12:04:32 PM »

They should get rid of the stupid glass cover, then I'd be okay with it.

That makes it unique. It would be boring and common without it.

It's a stupid design and we should try to keep architects from pulling off supposedly "modernist" designs for Orthodox Churches. We don't want to repeat the same stupid mistakes the Roman Catholic Church made.

They can make it traditional and have it fit in. There are virtually no modern buildings in the area and so there is no reason to put a stupid modernist design.

Yeah, everyone knows Russian Baroque is the only one architectural style permitted for churches.

No, there are many different architectural styles which can be used. Modernism isn't one of them. I really hope that as Orthodoxy matures in the United States, we can begin demolishing the disgusting modernist church buildings in our country.

If you think of a style prior to 1900, then its probably acceptable for Orthodox Churches. However, Modernism and Post-Modernism are not permissible. Orthodox Churches designed in a modernist or post-modernist style are horse-dung.

The architecture also needs to have a happy ending.

No, church architecture should always be of higher art. Think Dostoevsky versus Eight Shades of Grey, or Giorgione's Birth of Venus versus Manet's Olympia. Or Notre Dame de Paris versus Notre Dame du Haut.

It should always be traditional and rooted in tradition. Either vernacular or inspired by and rooted in a classical tradition.

What Michal and others fail to realize is that all Eastern European Orthodox architecture, including Russian, has been derived from the Byzantine style and merged it with the regional vernacular architecture and let it evolve locally. In turn, Byzantine has its root in classical Roman and Greek.

Modernist architecture and the modernist movement is the architecture world's equivalent of Protestantism in Christianity and the movement in philosophy towards secularism, humanism and atheism. There are strong parallels in the ideas of each movement.
Logged
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2012, 12:19:53 PM »

Orthodox cathedrals with their trademark golden onion domes are a familiar sight across Russia. And one may soon become part of Paris's famed skyline, right near the Eiffel Tower. French President Francois Hollande has just weeks to decide on a controversial plan to build a massive Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Center in downtown Paris on the banks of the Seine River, on a UNESCO-protected world heritage site.

The project is staunchly opposed by Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, who has described the architecture as "pastiche" and "mediocre." But Moscow is reportedly putting diplomatic pressure on Hollande to approve the project and allow construction of the golden-domed white limestone and glass structure to proceed. In 2011, the online real-estate television station La Chaine Immo announced plans for the cathedral with enthusiasm, describing the building as a "happy marriage between tradition and modernity."

They should get rid of the stupid glass cover, then I'd be okay with it.

Agree. I don't understand the attraction to such bizarre architecture—in any case, but especially with a church.

To me, it's the subtle embrace of chaos. The classical rules of architecture embrace symmetrical, solid, beautiful designs. Today architects are all about chaos, discord, and impossible-looking designs. It just ain't right.

A church doesn't have to be Russian or Byzantine; they could design a great traditional-looking French church with perhaps some Russian influence. But don't build this monstrosity.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 12:24:35 PM by age234 » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2012, 12:43:49 PM »

Orthodox cathedrals with their trademark golden onion domes are a familiar sight across Russia. And one may soon become part of Paris's famed skyline, right near the Eiffel Tower. French President Francois Hollande has just weeks to decide on a controversial plan to build a massive Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Center in downtown Paris on the banks of the Seine River, on a UNESCO-protected world heritage site.

The project is staunchly opposed by Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, who has described the architecture as "pastiche" and "mediocre." But Moscow is reportedly putting diplomatic pressure on Hollande to approve the project and allow construction of the golden-domed white limestone and glass structure to proceed. In 2011, the online real-estate television station La Chaine Immo announced plans for the cathedral with enthusiasm, describing the building as a "happy marriage between tradition and modernity."

They should get rid of the stupid glass cover, then I'd be okay with it.

Agree. I don't understand the attraction to such bizarre architecture—in any case, but especially with a church.

To me, it's the subtle embrace of chaos. The classical rules of architecture embrace symmetrical, solid, beautiful designs. Today architects are all about chaos, discord, and impossible-looking designs. It just ain't right.

A church doesn't have to be Russian or Byzantine; they could design a great traditional-looking French church with perhaps some Russian influence. But don't build this monstrosity.

Exactly, traditional architecture is either based on the vernacular or based on order and prior traditional styles. Modernism is all about "innovation", abandonment of tradition, architectural iconoclasm and general chaos.
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,752



« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2012, 02:39:38 PM »

The glass blanket over it makes it terrible, I hope it is never built with it.
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2012, 05:23:17 PM »

Are you saying that circular churches were being built in your country during those centuries?

That fact appears in any text published anywhere concerning church architecture, religious school books... I have no idea how is it popular and do not care. No one objects or says it's not true. It's enough for me.


Actually it doesn't. I've given you evidence before, even from Orthodox architects. Look at books onChristian architecture and my point will be proven.

How do you know what happens here? Can you read Polish? Have you ever been to Poland?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2012, 08:31:11 PM »

Are you saying that circular churches were being built in your country during those centuries?

That fact appears in any text published anywhere concerning church architecture, religious school books... I have no idea how is it popular and do not care. No one objects or says it's not true. It's enough for me.


Actually it doesn't. I've given you evidence before, even from Orthodox architects. Look at books onChristian architecture and my point will be proven.

How do you know what happens here? Can you read Polish? Have you ever been to Poland?

I'm talking about Europe in general, and for the majority of Christendom. Poland, like Russia, didn't arrive on the scene of Christianity until the middle of the 10th Century, and unfortunately on the side of the Pope.

From what I've seen so far, the earliest Church still extant in Poland is in Krakow, and it is a square church. Yet that doesn't mean that square or circular churches are the norm. In fact, they are definitely not the norm. As I've said before, square and circular churches were always martyria, baptisteries and the like. However, like today there were people who didn't know what they were doing and built churches in that manner. It didn't seem to be that hard for the Latins to serve in such churches, but such buildings aren't suitable for the Divine Liturgy.

The St. George Rotunda is one of the few examples in the East of a circular church. It wasn't built as a church though, it was built as a mausoleum for the Roman governor. The Christians took it and turned it into a church like many other places. However, the Rotunda needed a 50ft apse added to it to to at least make it somewhat directional and so it could face east appropriately.

There is also a difference between square buildings and octagonal/circular buildings. In fact, most Orthodox Churches (or many) are square, but are still in the shape of the cross inside, giving it a clear direction/orientation towards the holy of holies.

I've even spoken to someone who was once a member at the parish in Milwaukee at the Greek Church that Frank Lloyd Wright designed (the one that looks like an ugly UFO). This person supported everything I've said about circular churches, it is not condusive to the liturgy.

__________________________________________

Also, I thought you were Ukrainian living in Poland? Isn't Poland 90% Catholic? I think Ukraine has wonderful examples of Orthodox architecture.

Roman Catholic (and Protestant/Anglican) architecture post-schism shouldn't be used for Orthodox architecture. If we want to know good precedents for Orthodox Churches, we need to look at other Orthodox architecture, not at Roman Catholic architecture.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 08:41:49 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2012, 09:51:50 AM »

I'm talking about Europe in general, and for the majority of Christendom. Poland, like Russia, didn't arrive on the scene of Christianity until the middle of the 10th Century, and unfortunately on the side of the Pope.

What do you mean by Poland?

Areas of the modern country?

Some parts were Christianised from Moravia in the IXth century and there are some remainings of rotundas left.

Piast country?

Oldest Piast chapel is in Poznań, some archaeologists say it may have been circle (it is to difficult to determine).

Byzantine rite followers?

Their descendants say it's OK.





Quote
From what I've seen so far, the earliest Church still extant in Poland is in Krakow, and it is a square church.

Do you mean St. Wojciech Church or Theotokos rotunda? The first one is square, the latter - tetrakonchos.



Quote
The St. George Rotunda is one of the few examples in the East of a circular church.

Finland is in the West, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turku_Orthodox_Church

Quote
I've even spoken to someone who was once a member at the parish in Milwaukee at the Greek Church that Frank Lloyd Wright designed (the one that looks like an ugly UFO). This person supported everything I've said about circular churches, it is not condusive to the liturgy.

I have not said anything about that flying saucer.

Quote
Also, I thought you were Ukrainian living in Poland?

No, I'm not an Ukrainian.

Quote
Isn't Poland 90% Catholic?

95% What does this have to do with anything?

Quote
I think Ukraine has wonderful examples of Orthodox architecture.

Baroque. I prefer those flying saucers than it. "Ugly" - yes but far from "wonderful".

Quote
Roman Catholic (and Protestant/Anglican) architecture post-schism shouldn't be used for Orthodox architecture. If we want to know good precedents for Orthodox Churches, we need to look at other Orthodox architecture, not at Roman Catholic architecture.

Who are you discussing with?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
converted viking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 198


« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2012, 10:52:35 PM »

Actually no. If you read the history of Christian architecture, circular structures were always baptisteries, martyria, storage places etc... Circular buildings weren't Churches, there are very few examples like the St George Rotunda in Thessaloniki, which had to be modified since the circular layout isn't suitable for liturgy.

When it comes to "tradition" I prefer to trust dozens of cradles here than one American convert, sorry.

I am an American and a convert.  This link will direct you to my parish which for your information is comprised mostly of CONVERTS who are Americans, our church is hardly a monstrosity.  http://www.allsaintsnc.org/ 

Viking
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 11:04:09 PM by converted viking » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2012, 07:32:55 AM »

Actually no. If you read the history of Christian architecture, circular structures were always baptisteries, martyria, storage places etc... Circular buildings weren't Churches, there are very few examples like the St George Rotunda in Thessaloniki, which had to be modified since the circular layout isn't suitable for liturgy.

When it comes to "tradition" I prefer to trust dozens of cradles here than one American convert, sorry.

I am an American and a convert.  This link will direct you to my parish which for your information is comprised mostly of CONVERTS who are Americans, our church is hardly a monstrosity.  http://www.allsaintsnc.org/ 

Viking

You don't get my point. Calm down and (re)read this thread.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
converted viking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 198


« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2012, 10:14:09 AM »

Actually no. If you read the history of Christian architecture, circular structures were always baptisteries, martyria, storage places etc... Circular buildings weren't Churches, there are very few examples like the St George Rotunda in Thessaloniki, which had to be modified since the circular layout isn't suitable for liturgy.

When it comes to "tradition" I prefer to trust dozens of cradles here than one American convert, sorry.

I am an American and a convert.  This link will direct you to my parish which for your information is comprised mostly of CONVERTS who are Americans, our church is hardly a monstrosity.  http://www.allsaintsnc.org/ 

Viking

You don't get my point. Calm down and (re)read this thread.


OK I read through the posts once again and I get your point. Taking cheap shots at converts has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.  Get over yourself.

Viking
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 10, 2012, 12:39:06 PM »

OK I read through the posts once again and I get your point. Taking cheap shots at converts has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.  Get over yourself.

Viking

So do you think Americans arguing with other nations about what traditions do these nations have make sense? Nice. So I think I'll start to educate you how you should celebrate Thanksgiving, Halloween or how you should watch those NASCAR races:

I think you all do that wrong and real American tradition is that you should eat crocodile instead of turkey on Thanksgiving. I've read that in a book written on American traditions by another one Belarusian so this must be true...

I'm not saying converts are inferior in any way. I only think Americans preaching to me what are the tratditions of Podlachian Belarusians (because they read some books written by other Americans) are just behaving silly.

Don't you still get how ridiculous 88Devin12's arguments are?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 01:03:27 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,904



« Reply #44 on: December 10, 2012, 01:36:32 PM »

OK I read through the posts once again and I get your point. Taking cheap shots at converts has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.  Get over yourself.

Viking

So do you think Americans arguing with other nations about what traditions do these nations have make sense? Nice. So I think I'll start to educate you how you should celebrate Thanksgiving, Halloween or how you should watch those NASCAR races:

I think you all do that wrong and real American tradition is that you should eat crocodile instead of turkey on Thanksgiving. I've read that in a book written on American traditions by another one Belarusian so this must be true...

I'm not saying converts are inferior in any way. I only think Americans preaching to me what are the tratditions of Podlachian Belarusians (because they read some books written by other Americans) are just behaving silly.

Don't you still get how ridiculous 88Devin12's arguments are?

Michal, you have yet to show how pre-schism Polish Churches were circular or octagonal.
Logged
Tags: Polish Poland Polish Orthodox Church 
Pages: 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 71 queries.