I don't have time to go hunting for closeup photos. I'm on the fence here. While there is no question this is an improvement over the 1960s/70s sanctuary, it, to me, is not an improvement over the original sanctuary. What annoys me here is that at a glance, one might think they restored the original form and function of the cathedral by reinstalling a high altar and side altars. From a distance, there's a hint of mensa on all. Get closer, and you will see that your eye has been fooled. These fixtures look like something that they are not. Why???
Yes, I understand the academic/liturgical reason for one altar but, here, and in this scenario, I don't care for it. Somehow, and to me, those Spanish-style retables achieve "look/no function" more successfully.
Years back, churches and cathedrals were reliably constructed and arranged following similar recipes. One didn't enter and wonder where things would be and how they might be used. Hopefully, we someday get back to that.
1 comment:
I don't have time to go hunting for closeup photos. I'm on the fence here. While there is no question this is an improvement over the 1960s/70s sanctuary, it, to me, is not an improvement over the original sanctuary. What annoys me here is that at a glance, one might think they restored the original form and function of the cathedral by reinstalling a high altar and side altars. From a distance, there's a hint of mensa on all. Get closer, and you will see that your eye has been fooled. These fixtures look like something that they are not. Why???
Yes, I understand the academic/liturgical reason for one altar but, here, and in this scenario, I don't care for it. Somehow, and to me, those Spanish-style retables achieve "look/no function" more successfully.
Years back, churches and cathedrals were reliably constructed and arranged following similar recipes. One didn't enter and wonder where things would be and how they might be used. Hopefully, we someday get back to that.
Post a Comment