Befores:
Even the befores need help, no?
After:
At least it has been decluttered and Jesus is dethroned so that the priest and altar servers can be given the pride of place at their throne:
After after:
This seems to be a fine attempt gone wild. Now, this opinion, which is tainted by my particular tastes, sees the new altars as too dark, colors too dark and highlights too gaudy and all the statuary on the new altar too much. It is a refinement of the cluttered original sanctuary but cluttered in a different, ugly way. In other words, I don’t like it. But you know what, if those who did this, like it, then it is theirs to own and love:
Read the story and see all the pictures pressing the title:
Before and After: Blessed Sacrament in Lawton, Oklahoma
Continuing on with our 'Before and After' series, we turn today to another parish, Blessed Sacrament in Lawton, Oklahoma . They say that when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade and the parish in question was able to take advantage of the restrictions on public …
23 comments:
The problem I have with it are the proportions. The side altars are too big and bulky and, at least in the pictures, look too large compared to the high altar. They are also too rectangular, looking like cabinets.
I rather like the high altar more since it has a more interesting shape and think the side altars should have immitated it on a smaller scale.
There was a tendency in the late 19th and early 20th century towards over-ornamentation which had little artistic merit. Genuine baroque is sublime; inartistic clutter is not. There may be cultural relativists who will take issue with this, but I prefer to stand alongside discerning men who have not abandoned their critical faculties.
My question is this. Why replicate what is an anomaly even by post-Vatican II standards, namely a sanctuary with two altars? Which of them is regarded as fixed and consecrated? The GIRM envisages that an existing high altar may be retained if it is of artistic importance and the Blessed Sacrament may be reserved thereupon, but Mass should not be celebrated at it. (This does not apply to Masses in the EF, nor to moveable altars erected in front of high altars.)
"There may be cultural relativists who will take issue with this, but I prefer to stand alongside discerning men who have not abandoned their critical faculties."
No, John, you prefer to stand alongside people who share your views and tastes. It really has nothing to do with being discerning or maintaining faculties.
I'll agree that the little altar should go. Since this is a renovation the second small altar in the sanctuary makes no sense. I think it is nice to see the side altars return to being true altars, and not just some statues hinting at what traditionally had been altars. A little use in the church,parishioners and candles and such, will also add to the renovation: it needs a little life added to it.
I think it a vast improvement over what it replaces, and if I had walked in as a visitor to worship there, would have felt in a true house of worship rather than a game show studio with emcee as most modern progressive stripped bare cupboard interiors leave me feeling, empty. I very much applaud their effort and have not a thing to say against it that would not be only nitpicky fashion critic naysaying. How I wish my local parish was even half as good looking.
I agree with Fr McDonald’s take on the current revision. John hits on one of my complaints about baroque decoration. It is very appealing and beautiful. And like icing on a cake, there temptation to over do it can be overwhelming. This is especially troublesome when parish families want to donate rescued statuary to the church.
Frankly--and I know I'm opening myself up to ridicule--I liked the original. Yes, it WAS cluttered, but it was a sort of "organic" clutter. I would have been proud to attend Mass in a saints "hall of fame" that those parishioners created.
The original look is in poor black and white and one is Christmas and another a wedding, thus overdone with flowers and other stuff and makes it more cluttered.
I prefer the old main altar look and the lighter color for it. The dark brown in the new is not my favorite color and looks too severe to me.
The original side altars have way too many statues on each and simply thrown in place. The new side altars are too pronounced for my tastes and the dark brown is too much for me.
The whole sanctuary would look much better if the new altars were painted white or cream color with the gold accents. The side altars would also not look so imposing and oversized.
I see Father Snark has weighed in at 9:38 am taking a shot at his intellectual superior
Perhaps not the case here, but, where such a scenario exists up here in the Northeast, we might need to dig a little deeper.
There are scenarios in the Northeast, mostly unique to Italian National Parishes, where those who were part of the turn of the century immigration wave were obviously not all from the same village/town/city in what became present day Italy. Devotions maintained in the homeland were brought to America mostly centered around the veneration of a particular saint. These different groups would raise money to fund a statue of the saint that was particularly venerated in their native village/town/city donating that statue to their growing 'personal' parish in the U.S. I know of a particular Italian National Parish that has at least 4 different devotional/mutual help groups each venerating their own saint. Years back, the pastor of this parish wanted cohesion within the church such that something similar to what is seen here was replicated in marble and arranged tastefully around the sanctuary and nave on pedestals and in niches. Perhaps not all parishes and emigree groups within that parish were sufficiently well off to have supported this. Anyhow, if it's an ethnic parish and it has a statue marathon, this could well be the reason why.
As for the renovation, I'm on the fence. It's nice, but I do not care for the wood tone - way too dark. It's not a dining room set where you want the chairs/pews to match the table/altar and china closet/high altar. Also, and to me, the side altars/shrines are overwhelming and look more like cabinets than altars/shrines. The "high altar" is nice but, the multiple tones, probably added to not have the statues getting lost, is just too much for my taste. It's one of those....I'd like to love it, but...
I'm sure this renovation will serve this parish's needs just fine however, if mine to do, I might have approached differently (similar to what Pierre @ 2:42 suggested). Evidently, these fixtures are new construction, not repurposed from a closed church, so the client likely could have requested execution however they saw fit.
Anonymous @ 2:45
The Anonymous whom you call Father Snark has denied he is a cultural relativist, so my strictures concerning that particular breed can't apply to him. Quite why he feels it appropriate to make silly personal attacks is something only he can answer.
John - The absurdist claims you make about who you stand with and what faculties you imagine youself to have are the basis of the corrections - not attacks - that I make in your general direction.
Have you, or anyone else, come up with that list of "objective" criteria by which we judge music to be good or bad yet? Or do we just have to hand those questions over to the standing, faculty-heavy blokes like you?
I see Anonymous K, the empty cassock, is back trying to get the last word again!
Anon TJM - Has John given you the task of compiling the list? You'd better get to work, it may take some time to invent it...
Anonymous K aka the Empty Cassock,
John Nolan doesn't need my help but you certainly need help
I'm shocked Anonymous K is as nice as he is considering the heaps of idiotic excrement flung at him on an almost daily basis in the combox of this blog (often before he even posts anything).
And I say that as someone more inclined to agree with the points people like John Nolan make. I just don't believe disagreements give me the right to call a Catholic priest (or any Brother in Christ) a "faux priest," mentally ill, or to make false claims about him, as so many of you do without good reason. John Nolan doesn't usually join in the sinful parade, but he does seem to condone it.
Anonymous at 10:01 AM,
You obviously have not posted here for very long. That person has trashed such fine people as the lovely Bee and John Nolan. He has brought it on himself.
I've followed this blog for years, so I know what I'm talking about. Also, I don't share your opinion of Bee, but I'll just leave it at that. We're obviously not reading the same discussions. I went along with the idea that Fr K was a villain at first since I didn't like his opinions about some things and because everyone else treated him like dirt. I figured he must have done *something* to deserve it, but after several years I just discovered that a lot of people don't know how to have civil discussions.
Anonymous at 12:18,
Anonymous K is generally the instigator so you have told me all I need to know about you!
Anon at 5:52,
If you are who I think you are, then I have no problem with you holding me in low regard.
If some anonymous commentator feels he needs to correct me on the substance of my comment (which is in the second paragraph of my post) then that's fair enough, although he is advised to be fully in command of the facts.
Comments on blogs are essentially opinion pieces, and should he have a contrary opinion he is quite at liberty to voice it.
Snide and derogatory comments about another's character are neither correction nor valid criticism. If that's the best he can do, he really should stop commenting.
Example of a correction: the anonymous comment at 6:25 pm on the 14th inst. should read 'your holding me in low regard'. 'Holding' is a gerund and so requires a personal pronoun in the genitive case. However, you will not find me holding it against him ('holding' is here a present participle, hence the personal pronoun in the accusative case).
Post a Comment