One Weird-Looking Church
#51
(02-11-2012, 07:02 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 06:18 AM)Adelbrecht Wrote: I don't like the modernist sculptures in the newer façade though, they don't fit with the older façade.

I think you are right about some of the more recent construction (See photo below); the sculptures have more of a
modern look to them, which doesn't seem to fit with the other parts of the church. See photo below.

[Image: Passionfacade2.jpg]
Sagrada Familia Passion facade
Yeah not a fan of the passion facade, especially the crucifix - even if that sort of depiction is supposedly more historically accurate.  No loin cloth seems to fit with the whole NO aversion to veiling, reverence, and mystery.
Reply
#52
(02-11-2012, 01:06 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 01:04 AM)iona_scribe Wrote: On the topic of creepy looking churches, this is the creepiest looking church I've ever seen a picture of:

[Image: awesome-decorations.jpg]

Yep, real bones.  It's called the Sedlec Ossuary or "Bone Chapel" in Sedlec, near Kutna Hora, Czech Republic.
I've been in a couple of church crypts in Vienna, but the bones were just stacked, not used for chandeliers, etc.

Looks very homy.

:LOL:
Reply
#53
Ideal for the worship of man.
Reply
#54
(02-09-2012, 06:14 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: I think Gaudi was onto something very interesting but wasn't entirely successful at it. His ideas could have paved the way for an alternate modern style that wasn't so "modernist" as what we're stuck with today.

As beautiful as Gothic arches are, they are imperfect structurally...they tend to be weak both near the point of the arch, and toward the bottom where the curve meets the top of the columns.  Obviously architects through the centuries have found ways to compensate for this, but Gaudi wanted to use perfect arches.  He designed Sagrada Familia using inverted catenary arches (kind of like the big St. Lois, MO arch) since they perfectly distribute the downward force of their own weight through the exact shape of their own curve. So he was drawing on traditional church architecture, but infusing it with modern knowledge of physics and mathematics to try to perfect it.  But he didn't stop at the arches; he conceived of a whole aesthetic using organic, hyperbolic, and other forms of non-euclidian geometry for decoration.

Now part of the reason I think Gothic looks so wonderful is that all of the proportions of a Gothic cathedral are derived from the same triangle or square...every part is proportional to every other part. There is a clear heirarchy of proportion and repeated shapes that create a very orderly and pleasing visual experience.  In contrast, I think Gaudi was trying to do too much all at the same time. He was paying homage to the Gothic style by creating all of those fantastic columns and decorating them and the bays in between with fantastic geometric shapes, but people are not used to looking at non-euclidian shapes, and there are so many all mashed together that they lose their coherence.  Similarly, I think the melty looking parts on the outside were supposed to be a tribute to Spanish Baroque in weird way, but combined with all the crazy shapes it is overall too much.

Maybe if Gaudi's concepts had caught on and we had multiple architects building similar churches for the past century, but working toward using the same sort of geometry in a more orderly, proportional manner, the style may have been perfected by now.  Classical architectural styles are based on proportions found in nature that are very pleasing to the human eye.  It's refreshing that a modern architect was trying to design using mathematics inspired by nature (even if he didn't hit on the exact right combinations and proportions to make something universally beautiful), instead of designing with an agenda that denies the objective beauty of the natural world.

A well written and insightful post. Well done.  :)
Reply
#55
Thanks, Might_4_Right  :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)