What's your opinion on offering Mass in baroque vestments in a Gothic chapel?
#39
Crap, this is going to be huge...

(09-26-2011, 09:56 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: To be fair, it is certainly his opinion. But Baroque is not Classical; Classical is Classical. For that, look to the Baltimore Basilica (designed by Latrobe, the same architect who designed the U.S. Capitol building). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Basilica

Baltimore Basilica is not classical; it is neoclassical. A swindle has taken place in architecture since the 1760's. In an attempt to be "more authentic" to Grecian models, the neoclassical school decided to start adding elements that were out of place, ignoring Roman imperial greatness. Look at those retarded towers, totally out of proportion to the burgeoning portico. What's with the ugly, crusty, low dome? None of it is classical. Neoclassicism is a bastard of classicism. Baroque is the true classical style, because of its proportions - it may have stretched them at times, but it never added elements that don't fit. There was a certain "bursting constraint", but neoclassicism just bursts. By 1821 (when that basilica was finished), America had long since degenerated into anti-classical subjective romantic architecture (that is, neoclassical). Classicism is Wren, Hawksmoor, Jones, and anyone from Michelangelo to Bernini and the 1740's. Please, please, please don't confound that vile school called neoclassicism with true classicism! Your soul is at risk! :laughing:

Quote:Also, Christ Himself undoubtedly wore flowing garments, if for no other reason than because all garments were like that in the first century. And if He were more into the Roman style of the time, it would literally involve the "moving mountains of material" that is the Roman toga. (Not saying Christ would have worn a toga, but I remember a previous post of yours suggesting Christ would have been shorn and shaven like the Romans.)

The liturgy is not every day life. Was our Lord having the last Supper at all times? Interestingly, all the most important events in His redeeming life include a diminution of garments. Mere swaddling clothes for the Incarnation; down to the underclothes for the scourging and then naked on the Cross, wearing a mere towel with undergarments while washing the feet of the first Bishops, etc. - I often wonder what He would have worn for the Last Supper, according to the ancient Jewish celebration, not the made-up Rabbinic one.

Quote:He addresses the differences between Pagan and Christian architecture on page 39. Of course, his experience is informed by his Englishness. Nearly all pre-Reformation buildings in England are Gothic or have Gothic elements. When London burned in 1666, Christopher Wren had the city rebuilt in a Classical fashion, which was heavily associated with both Protestantism and the so-called "Age of Reason". The Gothic revival of the 1800's was always and everywhere a hearkening back to the glories of the pre-Reformation world. It was part of the larger romantic movement that swept Europe after the godless excesses of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars.

I always hated this false association. It hardly matters if Protestants invented that harsh, cold, exact classical idea out of reason. The Church adopted such reasonableness for its own, too. :) I think it's much more Christian, but obviously that's my opinion. The French Revolt and the Napoleonic Craze gave us some of our ugliest romantic neoclassical monuments. They were the first romantics, the first anti-classicists, reacting with pure passion and sweeping across the cultured world with their evil barbarism. The Gothic revival of the 1800's was always, and everywhere, harkening back to the ugliness of a pre-Classical world, a pre-Plutarch, pre-Erasmus world! Heroes and maidens were made up as if the entire Mediaeval era was one big Arthurian legend. I can't stand such B.S., even if it is for God's sake.


Quote:I used to like Il Gesu until I learned that it was the first major church built without choir stalls in the Counter-Reform era. This was for two reasons: so the altar could be highly visible, and because the Jesuits were not bound to the Office. Today I think we can more easily "see" (haha) how these are bad trends:

1.) The Counter-Reformation curiously implemented a vast, Protestant-esque campaign to destroy rood screens so that the faithful would have less obstruction between themselves and the sanctuary. But we can see now how this was a precursor to the Vatican II-era reforms. Trads can't logically admire the silent Canon of the old Mass while also deride the pre-Reformation era's sense of mystery by its use of rood screens and veiling holiness from the public eye. They both originate from the same medieval age.

I always thought it was a great and beautiful thing that Catholicism got away from the Orthodox tendency of the iconostasis. We are now able to see the sanctuary whose protecting veil was rent, both in reaction to the blasphemy of the Crucifixion, and as a sign that we may enter the sanctuary of the temple of our hearts in Christ. It is so glorious, so holy... rood screens and iconostases ruin that meaning in my opinion. The meaning of the Mass must come before aesthetics, though aesthetics certainly can help convey the meaning.

Quote:You do realize that "Baroque" almost literally means lopsided, right? Again, Baroque is not to be confused with Classical. Baroque implies oval shapes.

I suppose my idea of Baroque is English Baroque. Even French Baroque keeps to a certain "balance of the lopsided", whereby a gigantic lopsided thing on one element is balanced by a gigantic lopsided thing on another element. ;D Baroque is the original classical, though I suppose the Renaissance may be called that, and the Baroque an "elaboration". Neoclassical, what you call classical, only came in during the Sturm und Drang period - this is very pregnant with symbolism, for me. We can see it reflected within the other arts.


Quote:You don't seem to understand Gothic architecture at all. As Pugin explained, everything in Gothic architecture has a purpose. The buttresses were made for a practical reason, which was to hold up the walls of the church. Buttresses were needed because the walls had so many windows, to bring as much light into the church as possible (in sharp contrast to the previous Romanesque churches which were very dark inside).

The towers of the old Gothic churches may be uneven because they actually collapsed all the time in the medieval period. The medievals were pioneers of feats never before achieved in all of human history with far fewer resources than later ages, so yeah, they fell down and had to be rebuilt rather often.

This is what I mean by sloppiness, basically. Classical churches let a ton of light in very easily. In the Baroque, Christian meaning is conveyed by the intense painted imagery, not by architectural nuances that somehow point to unknown Christian geometries that no one can understand without having to read Pugin. In the Classical style (let's say the death of Michelangelo to 1760), they decided just to paint the scenes and be done with the abstractions in the building's form.


Quote:Gothic is Christian because it was created by Christians in a wholly Christian era. Notice how, in that essay, Pugin actually calls it "Pointed Architecture" most of the time. It highlights the nature of the architecture to point upwards to God and to uplift the soul.

Notice how high up St. Paul's in London is. Those two gigantic towers at the western end, and the MASSIVE dome, point me toward God in a very intense fashion. This is a sublime pointer, not a twisted mess of dark stone and gargoyles. ;)

(09-26-2011, 10:03 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: It's very sad Old Saint Peter's got torn down.

I'm happy it's gone - the new one is strikingly perfect. What a testament to our stretching out to grasp God's hand, so freely offered to us in mercy despite our evil sins.

(09-26-2011, 10:23 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Further thoughts.....

Before anyone accuses me of hating Baroque: have you ever worn knee-breeches, lace cuffs, jabots and frock coats? Didn't think so.... but I have. The 17th and 18th centuries were interesting ages for secular fashion. Certainly better than the sans-culottes of the post-French Revolution era. But the Church isn't really the best place for such developments. Look at it this way: the Baroque architects modeled the churches after the grand palaces of the kings and dukes. Secular informed the sacred. They wanted the Church to look more like the world. On the other hand, the Gothic architects modeled the secular palaces after the styles first found in the churches. Sacred informed the secular.

Nay, the sacred baptised the secular. It commanded the secular! You might as well object to St. Thomas using Aristotle, because "paganism informed theology". Aquinas baptised that pagan and brought him into the light of true Christian reason. Just glorious...

All architecture is a ramp/slope, in my opinion, from the ancient days up to the true classical era, then a long slow decline from about 1780 onward; 1800 in Britain. Look at Kinross House... yum!
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: What's your opinion on offering Mass in baroque vestments in a Gothic chapel? - by Laetare - 09-26-2011, 02:36 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)