In a new Catholic architecture we have an opportunity to forge a new
architectural exegesis based on tradition. Rather than relegating tradition to a
distant, inaccessible past, we must find ways to reconnect ourselves to our
heritage, in order to create a culture of spiritual unity and continuity.
A battle rages in our culture over the issue of tradition. Now on the verge
of a new century, we are emerging from an eighty?year period that has been
characterized by the denigration of the value of traditional form and
connotation in all facets of our lives, including architecture. The men who
invented modernism in the 1920s rejected traditional forms as stuffy, bourgeois
and politically incorrect. Obsessed with novelty, they created designs that
emulated the machine, to make abstract environments that paralleled unsettling
political movement and philosophical nihilism. After World War II, this
architectural agenda began to dominate and, ironically, this minimalist and
revolutionary aesthetic was embraced by corporate America. It has become the
rigid orthodoxy of the artistic establishment, as witnessed by the brouhaha over
the National Endowment for the Arts.
In the early twentieth century the Catholic Church rejected Modernism,
recognizing that its leaders, mostly atheists, sought to break the tradition of
cultural continuity intrinsic to Catholic teaching. In the 1960s the Church
tentatively got on the bandwagon of abstract modernism in a desperate search for
ways to express the environmental statements of Vatican II. The capitulation to
Mies van der Rohe's dictum "less is more" led to an iconoclastic movement,
rationalized by calls in the documents themselves for "noble simplicity." In the
United States this view became dogma through a single publication by the USCC,
Environment and Art in Catholic Worship. This book and the fervor it has
engendered still wreak destruction on the interiors of countless American
churches in attempts to "update" them.
More rarely, but more chillingly, the most official channels of the Catholic
Church have recently had serious flirtations with extremely negative expressions
of modernism. In 1996 the Vatican considered a deconstructed anti church
submitted by architect Peter Eisenman for a parish on the outskirts of Rome. In
Los Angeles, the short list of architects considered to design the new cathedral
included an architect who has designed for MTV. These and other projects have
been touted as demonstrations that the Church has finally become au courant. One
hopes that Providence will intervene to indicate that these expressions are the
bitter end of a culture movement, not its beginning. After all, God is not dead,
but those who sounded the clarion for modernism certainly are.
It is time to take another look at the Vatican 11 documents. Recent
questioning of the tenets of modernism allows us to respond to these profoundly
important directives with a full and confident sense of the relevance of the
breadth of Catholic tradition for the year 2000. In proposing that we search for
new ways to embrace and relish the physical tokens of our heritage in order to
build a worthy response to Vatican II, I am not suggesting that we retreat to a
fairy tale. We live now, and we should seize the moment to determine how we will
live. We need not passively accept what our recent ancestors have dictated. If
we apply what the Roman architect Vitruvius called "lively mental energy," we
can innovatively contradict the prevailing orthodoxy of abstraction and revive
over two millennia of tradition.
The thesis that has defined the life work of many architects, including mine,
is this: to make traditional forms of architecture vitally expressive today.
Since I began to study architecture formally in 1972, and in my professional and
academic life since, my objective has been to break through the barriers that
have been set up by modernists to make our forebears seem inaccessible.
I attribute my desire for liberation from such strictures to having been
raised Catholic. One of my earliest memories is hearing one of St. Paul's
letters read on a sunny spring morning in St. Mark's Parish in Richmond,
California. I recall wondering how St. Paul could convey postage from Heaven.
This immature but powerful fascination with the communication of ideas and
values over vast stretches of time is a foundation stone of my belief that we
are not distantly separated from our ancestors. We can bring generations, even
ages, together by concerted study, a worldview open to the lessons of the past.
One approach is to strive for a synthesis of architectural expression based on a
thorough understanding of classical forms and methods. This goal inherently
challenges the modernist aesthetic that has gained hegemony in many minds as the
sole medium for solving contemporary problems.
Vitruvius writes:
Architects who sought to be skilled with their hands without formal
education have never been able to reach a position of authority in return for
their labors; while those who relied only upon Reasoning and Scholarship were
clearly pursuing the shadow, not the substance. But those who have a thorough
knowledge of both, like men fully armed, have more quickly attained their goals
with authority (Ten Books on Architecture, I.II.II).
Like many before me, I have found an armature for current theory and practice
in the framework articulated by the Roman architect Vitruvius. His Ten Books on
Architecture culls and synthesizes five hundred years of Greek architectural
ideas. The classical language of architecture was initiated in Greece 2,500
years ago, and it has been repeatedly altered, embellished and reinvigorated in
different places to create a diverse and rich tradition. In the two thousand
years since Vitruvius wrote, his books have repeatedly inspired the revival of
an architecture that seeks integration and balance. Since early Christian times,
architecture that originated and flourished in pagan temples has been
extensively developed in the design of churches. Even casual visits to Rome and
other great cities reveal the ability of Classical architecture to express
Christian values at the deepest level.
The most important challenge in building churches today is to unlock the
connection to our full tradition and to find expressions that convey
recognizable qualities of sacredness. From the outside, a new church must
clearly symbolize its unique function, in contrast to secular buildings. It must
be immediately recognizable as a sacred edifice. Although connotations of
sacredness are inherently intangible, and architectural proposals may vary
widely, people generally agree as to whether or not particular places elicit a
sensation of sacredness. The interior of a church, then, must reinforce the
sense of sanctuary and convey the uplifting and challenging aspect of
spirituality.
For two millennia the Catholic tradition has developed a vast set of cultural
references that indicate sacred themes. These can be thought of as comprising a
vocabulary of images and forms which evoke spiritual responses on three levels.
First, the shapes and volumes of basic church forms themselves have strong
associations. The deeper question of which style-Gothic, Classical or other-will
be used to articulate the church asks what these architectural languages evoke
in a particular culture. For example, certain facets of Gothic and Classical
have been developed for Protestant denominations and so would seem inappropriate
for a Catholic church. Second, the tradition of iconography in Catholic culture
is enormous. Meaning can be conveyed through formal elements or images, ranging
from basic geometrical shapes which carry symbolic meaning to minute pictorial
details. We must realize that the initial reaction to Vatican 11 was to destroy
the images, in a virtually iconoclastic frenzy that still affects parishes. In
the aftermath we must learn to employ iconography, by reinvigorating canonical
forms as well as by incorporating specific traditions pertaining to cultural
groups or regions. Finally, the figural imagery that has been developed over the
centuries to depict Christ and the saints in painting, sculpture and stained
glass has a renewed potential. Some of the most vital painters and sculptors
working today halve reformulated figural art not only technically, but with the
intent to communicate meaningful spiritual themes. We no longer have to imitate
Chagall or Matisse; we have living artists to work with who are keyed into our
objectives.
The perception of sacredness is inherently subjective, yet the fluent and
intelligent use of our storehouse of cultural resources, from the muted language
of architecture to the more tangible media of iconographic painting and
sculpture, has enormous capacity to elicit sacredness. This is more likely to be
achieved when we employ-with a lively imagination-elements that have traditional
recognition than when we attempt to invent inspiration from scratch.
Since 1979, I have been trying to grasp this elusive sense of sacredness
through projects for churches and related buildings. I was fortunate to be a
Fellow at the American Academy in Rome in 1979 -80 while Fr. George Ruder was
studying at the Angelicum. He agreed to assist me as a surrogate patron on a
hypothetical project, which was to design an oratory dedicated to St. John
Vianney on a rare vacant spot on Rome's Via Giulia. That project was ideal for
exploring many questions of spirit and connotation in architecture. This
oratory was the project that allowed me to choose to depart from the typical
postmodern ambivalence regarding Classicism, and to emulate instead the rigorous
practice of Classicism incarnated in the Roman churches I was studying. This
project also presented me with the issue of finding expression for sacred themes
within the rich tradition of Catholic iconography. In this I was greatly
assisted by the historian of Baroque iconography, John Beldon Scott.
In 1994, I designed a chapel for the headquarters of Domino's Pizza in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. This project required a transformation of a basement level,
boxy office space with a suspended acoustical ceiling. We achieved a sacred
space by de-emphasizing the walls and ceiling with paint colors, replacing
ceiling panel lights with hanging brass fixtures, and creating a focus on
liturgical furnishings with a custom built altar protected by a baldachino and a
matching lectern.
A final project to note is a retreat house and study center near New York
City for the Cardinal Newman Institute. This is not a church but almost a
compact monastery; one might call it a hermitage. It consists of an octagonal
structure that is lit by a cupola, and a small (twenty five person) chapel
extending from the back. The octagon is for meetings and discussion, and in a
gallery running around it is housed a collection of books. The chapel is
semi-private, with a tall vaulted nave focused on the sanctuary in the apse. The
wall surfaces could be articulated with frescoes or hung with oil paintings
designed to fit into the architectural structure. Modest residential quarters
are tucked within the attic areas.
The octagonal cupola is developed on the exterior as an interpretation of
Matthew 5:15, "No one lights a lamp to put it under a bushel; they put it on the
lampstand where it shines for everyone in the house." The octagonal shape is
developed following an icon of Hellenistic culture, the Tower of the Winds.
Built in the agora of Athens two thousand years ago, this monument is
characterized by a frieze with high relief sculptures of eight effigies of winds
in flight. These figures personify the character of the seasonal winds in
Athens. The rugged portrayal of the north wind, for example, is in decided
contrast to the youthful and calm Zephyr, or west wind. In trying to adapt this
pagan imagery to a Christian content, I came to realize that seven of the facets
could be converted to representations of the Offices of the Day. Thus, the
allegorical figure representing Lauds will be placed on the eastern facet of the
frieze that is illuminated when the sun rises at 6:00 a.m. The figure for
Vespers will occur on the northwest facet, illuminated at 6:00 p.m. The northern
exposure will only be struck in summer by glancing light, but this facet will be
articulated with symbols of the Eucharist, symbolizing the heavenly time of the
eighth day. The octagonal tower will be functional, accommodating the vents for
the ""winds" of the heating and ventilating system and serving as a place to
install bells. In this sense the tower satisfies Vitruvius' three requirements
for building: utilitas, firmitas, venustas, or, as translated in the sixteenth
century, "commodity, firmness, and delight." The last criterion, delight, should
be its most recognized feature. The tower should be seen as a lantern on a hill
to proclaim that delight in Christ has been established in a new place for a
renewed time.
The renewal of ecclesiastical architecture does not depend only on architects
who are willing to debunk the modernist ideal of the architect as an isolated,
self absorbed creator.
Although it is our responsibility to take on a more humble role as servant
able to provide solutions for the needs of the Church, patrons must increase
their level of self confidence in order to help create a new Catholic
architecture. Patrons must foster buildings that fully honor the vision and
legacy of the Church. This vital role has been forgotten because in recent
decades society has honored only secular buildings. Patronage requires a study
of architectural history and an understanding of contemporary practice, as well
as recognition and acceptance of the role of leadership. Confident leadership is
characterized by a determination to do what is right despite obstacles. The
creation of great buildings requires the cooperative effort of many people,
from architects to builders and artisans, but it depends most on the courage,
dedication and protection of patrons. +
©1997 American Arts Quarterly
Thomas Gordon Smith is an architect and chairman of the
University of Notre Dame School of Architecture.
|