reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Duncan Stroik’s other neo-classical masterpiece, the Shrine of Our LAdy of Guadalupe, Las Cosse, Wisconsin.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Curiously, the arcade in Longford cathedral was in the Ionic order while the examples we have looked at here from the Florentine renaissance (with the excepion of the cortile of the Cancelleria) are in the Corinthian order.
Bramante’s cloister for Sant’Ambrogio in Milan is in the Doric order.
Michelozzo used Iconic for the arcades of Medicci’s San Marco Library in Florence, 1447
b+w scan, can’t find a decent image on the web.This Stroik character . . . .
. . . . defend what this man does for a living
Re Duncan Stroik, here is the link to the firm’s profile:
This might solve the problem of the Bibliotheca di San Ma<rco in Florence:
by Michael Byrne
The Church of the Assumption of our Blessed Lady,
Tullamore, 1906-2006Father Hugh Behan, the parish priest in the 1890s, had mooted the idea of a new church in 1898 as the old church had fallen into serious disrepair.
@apelles wrote:
by Michael Byrne
The Church of the Assumption of our Blessed Lady,
Tullamore, 1906-2006Father Hugh Behan, the parish priest in the 1890s, had mooted the idea of a new church in 1898 as the old church had fallen into serious disrepair.
@Praxiteles wrote:
The most obvious choice of architect for the restoration of St Mel’s is Duncan Stroik of the school of Archicture at Notre Dame Uniersity, South Bend, Indiana. Praxiteles will be glad to supply a telephone number.
@apelles wrote:
Agree that he’s definitely done some stunning work however, is there no one closer to home?
@Praxiteles wrote:
Who else has a perfect mastery of the theory of classical architecture and has actually put it into practice in large scale ecclesiastical projects?
@Praxiteles wrote:
The only other that I could think of is Quinlan Terry . . . .
@Praxiteles wrote:
Unfortunately, no Irish firm has dislayed any interest in the classical tradition of late and I am afraid that the rebuliding of St Mel’s will require someone used to building more than hay-sheds.
Let’s get one thing straight, . . . . the reinstatement of a building like St. Mel’s Cathedral, after fire damage, is a straight-forward conservation challenge that requires committed conservation professionals directing a competent building contractor employing a group of skilled craftsmen. There is nothing here that requires the particular input of a Quinlan Terry, or a Duncan Stroik, or even their spiritual mentor, Professor David Watkin.
Nothing raises the architectural hackles like one of these guys straying off campus and into the cross-hairs of a profession decimated by recession.
Architects who have made a career out of recycling the Modern Movement and, in the process, merrily made all the same mistakes again, typically fill up with moral indignation at the sight of these pastiche practitioners strutting their re-creationist stuff.
For the vast bulk of mainstream modernists, the purveyors of pastiche are the stereotypical architectural pariahs, whose continued prosperity is taken as an affront to every architect who struggles with the torment of trying to create work that is honest and representative of the contemporary moment. That’s the standard line anyway, how much torment is involved in producing most of the stuff we see around us is another question.
In my opinion, there is a gulf between what the historicists do and what mainstream modernist do, but it’s probably not anything like as wide as either side believes.
People will say that the one saving grace of practicing historicism, in the manner advocated by Terry, Stroik and Watkin, is that it keeps the crafts alive, but the truth is that there is more than enough demand for craftsmen skilled in conservation and repair [as required here at St. Mel’s on a grand scale] to keep an army of traditional craftsmen in work indefinitely, without letting architecture loose in the dressing-up box.
Prince Charles, and other patrons of historicist architecture, are right to lament the damage done to historical urban centres by ‘Modern Architecture’ . . . [”more damage than Bomber Harris”, or whatever the phrase was :)] . . . . but that’s a argument for re-addressing ‘Modern Architecture’, not an argument for reverting to a nostalgic past before modern architecture emerged, . . . . coincidentally also an era when royalty enjoyed a far higher status and when all the churches were teeming with flocks.
At best, the pastiche practitioners could probably be considered sad souls whose misguided love for the past has led them into practicing necrophilia. At worst, these people are cynical charlatans who have spotted a well feathered niche and who have duly occupied it and gone on to attempt to justify their comfortable existence by intellectualizing the practice of copying.
@grumpyjohn wrote:
Ah yes…the American professor with an impressive portfolio of work in Ireland….could those possibly be PVC windows?
We need to hear more from grumpyjohn
@gunter wrote:
We need to hear more from grumpyjohn
Yes, perhaps he might like to upload the other photographs of the house on Lough Crew which might broaden the picture a bit.
On the question of historicism, I wonder if the architects of the renaissance can be regarded as producing pastiches of anique Rome?
@Praxiteles wrote:
On the question of historicism, I wonder if the architects of the renaissance can be regarded as producing pastiches of anique Rome?
That’s the stock Watkin argument . . . . . and it just doesn’t stand up.
You’ve posted hundreds of pictures that show how renaissance architecture retreived classicism slowly and painstakingly and always infused it with invention and creativity.
Yes the the whole renaisance movement aspired to re-learn what the ansients could teach and there was an aspiration to re-create the perceived purity of classical architecture, but every step taken was demonstably of it’s own time. Bramente built on Michelozzo, who built on Alberti who built on Brunelleschi and so on. The story is one of forward progression guided by an ever closer study of the proportions and details of classical remains, it’s the story of rediscovery, it’s not the story of reproduction.
You simply cannot equate the enormous intellectual investment of the renaissance in redescovering the classical language of architecture, to some guy photocopying a set of church plans in South Bend, Indiana.
OK..thanks for explaining that gunter…I’m beginning to get an understanding of both points of view…Were finally getting to the heart of the matter with this discussion..Many people (Joe public) & myself included don’t really understand the apparently massive void between the differing schools of thought of modernist & historical architectural thinking.. Why the pastiche is so frowned upon when the average Joe will look at it & say “my..isn’t that well done..its exactly the same as what was there before” they still appreciate it for what it is & the work that went into recreating it…I know its not pushing any new boundaries with this attitude but will there not always be an appreciation for good talented craftsmanship?…even if it is reproduction….& if so, do these craftsmen not need to be guided & inspired by the ultimate designers…Architects.
@gunter wrote:
That’s the stock Watkin argument . . . . . and it just doesn’t stand up.
You’ve posted hundreds of pictures that show how renaissance architecture retreived classicism slowly and painstakingly and always infused it with invention and creativity.
Yes the the whole renaisance movement aspired to re-learn what the ansients could teach and there was an aspiration to re-create the perceived purity of classical architecture, but every step taken was demonstably of it’s own time. Bramente built on Michelozzo, who built on Alberti who built on Brunelleschi and so on. The story is one of forward progression guided by an ever closer study of the proportions and details of classical remains, it’s the story of rediscovery, it’s not the story of reproduction.
You simply cannot equate the enormous intellectual investment of the renaissance in redescovering the classical language of architecture, to some guy photocopying a set of church plans in South Bend, Indiana.
Gunter
I was not actually quoting Watkin. It was a thought that struck myself. Put another way, is it impossible to retrieve the principles of classical architecture in contemporary circumstances and infuse them with creativity and invention? Or, are we posit that for some reason we are chained exclusively to modernism?
From the point of view of historiography, I am not so sure that I would would subscribe to the kind of historical “progressivism” with which you seem view the renaissance.
We cannot chart the renaissance as a ‘progression’ Praxitelles?
You’ll have to explain that oneQuote from apelles:
”Many people (Joe public) & myself included don’t really understand the apparently massive void between the differing schools of thought of modernist & historical architectural thinking.. Why the pastiche is so frowned upon when the average Joe will look at it & say “my..isn’t that well done..its exactly the same as what was there before” they still appreciate it for what it is & the work that went into recreating it…I know its not pushing any new boundaries with this attitude but will there not always be an appreciation for good talented craftsmanship?…even if it is reproduction….& if so, do these craftsmen not need to be guided & inspired by the ultimate designers…Architects”.That’s the crucial point apelles.
As may be evident on other threads, I would probably go further than most in advocating restoration, even re-construction, [Frauenkirche style] of damaged buildings and streetscapes, in addition to just ‘conservation’, but surly the limiting factor has to be: . . . what was actually there
We can’t just start making stuff up.
From the photographs posted on this site and elsewhere, there’s no question that St. Mel’s Cathedral is/was a splendid example of the last flowering of classical church architecture in Ireland.
As Praxiteles has illustrated, the design of the church, in addition to displaying superb craftsmanship, represented a magnificent interpretation of renaissance basilica design. The non-use of entablature above the columns and the springing instead of the nave arcades directly from the ironic capitals is a very effective piece of design that very cleverly combines the early renaissance work of Michelozzo and others with the archaeologically correct capital detail of Greek revival classicism.
Personally, I don’t know enough about 19th/20th century church architecture to know whether this is very special, or just bloody good. I could be ignorant of dozens of similar churches that these architects lifted the design from, but even if they did, I’ll bet they still progressed the architecture, developed the themes, and refined the details. The central point is that these people were still operating within a living tradition and in St. Mel’s Cathedral, they created a magnificent work that is clearly ‘of it’s time’.
Classicism survived the pick-n-mix eclecticism of the 19th century and it re-emerged, in a sober form, as the style of choice for churches, bank branches and public buildings in the 20th century, as a civic counterpoint to the homeliness of the Arts + Crafts movement. What killed it was a combination of the emergence of the Modern Movement and the reactionary adoption of classicism to serve the monumental tendencies of the fascists.
For all the scorn that is rightly poured on post-modernism, at least that movement offered a re-interpretation of classicism that focussed on the ironic possibilities, rather than the even more superficial flicking back to an earlier chapter, which seems to be where practitioners like Duncan Stroik and Quinlan Terry get off.
All but the most stubborn architects [admittedly probably most of them] agree that we often have to take a step back in order to go forward, . . . . but not back to 1570 . . . and the purpose is . . . . to go forward
Back from Wekepedia on Davd Watkin and some interesting little snippets:
“David John Watkin (born in 1941) MA PhD LittD Hon FRIBA FSA, is a British architectural historian. He is an Emeritus Fellow of Peterhouse at Cambridge University, and Professor Emeritus in the History of Architecture at the Department of Art History at Cambridge University. He has also taught at the Prince of Wales’s Institute of Architecture.[1]
David Watkin is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. He is Vice-Chairman of the Georgian Group, and was a member of the Historic Buildings Council and its successor bodies in English Heritage from 1980-1995.
“Watkin’s main research interest has been classical architecture, particularly from the 18th century to the present day, and has published widely on that topic. He has also published on general topics including A History of Western Architecture (4th ed. 2005) and English Architecture: A Concise History (2nd ed. 2001), as well as more specialised monographs on architects Thomas Hope, Sir John Soane, James Stuart, and C. R. Cockerell.
Watkin first came to wide international attention, however, with his book Morality and Architecture: The Development of a Theme in Architectural History and Theory from the Gothic Revival to the Modern Movement (1977), re-published in expanded form as Morality and Architecture Revisited (2001). The basic premise of his argument is that the language with which modernist architecture is described and defended is rooted in the false notion of the Zeitgeist or “the spirit of the ageâ€, as put forward by German Idealist philosopher Friedrich Hegel, so that any opposition to modernist architecture – and here he has in mind the revival of classical and traditional architecture, which he has championed in his writings – are condemned as “old-fashionedâ€, irrelevant, anti-social, and even immoral.
In terms of Zeitgeist architecture, he traces its moralistic attitude back to architects Pugin, Viollet-le-Duc and Le Corbusier, among others – including their supporters within history such as Nikolaus Pevsner, who claimed that their chosen style had to be truthful and rational, reflecting society’s needs. Watkin also sees the pedigree of a distorting modernist architectural history emerging from Hegel, and that modern art and architectural history began in the nineteenth century as a by-product of history and the philosophy of culture in Germany and the rapid growth of Marxist sociology.
Among the ‘contemporary’ architects Watkin has championed are John Simpson and Quinlan Terry, as well as theorist Leon Krier. In his book on Terry, Radical Classicism: The Architecture of Quinlan Terry (2006) Watkin is forthright: “The modernism with which Quinlan Terry has had to battle is, like the Taliban, a puritanical religion.â€
And he certainly has written quite a bit:
David Watkin, The Roman Forum, Profile Books, London, 2009.
David Watkin, Carl Laubin: The Poetry of Art And Architecture, Philip Wilson Publishers, London, 2007.
David Watkin, Radical Classicism: The Architecture of Quinlan Terry. Rizzoli, New York, 2006.
Christopher Hartop, Diana Scarisbrick, Charles Truman, David Watkin, and Matthew Winterbottom, Royal Goldsmiths: The Art of Rundell & Bridge. John Adamson, London, 2006.
David Watkin, A History of Western Architecture. Watson-Guptill Publications, New York, 2005.
David Watkin, The Architect King: George III and the Culture of the Enlightenment. Royal Collection, London. 2004.
David Watkin and Robin Middleton, Architecture of the Nineteenth Century. Phaidon Inc Ltd, London, 2003.
David Watkin, Morality and Architecture Revisited, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2001.
David Watkin, English Architecture: A Concise History, WW Norton and Co Inc, New York, 2001.
David Watkin (Ed). Sir John Soane: The Royal Academy Lectures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
David Watkin (Ed), Sir John Soane: Enlightenment Thought and the Royal Academy Lectures (Cambridge Studies in the History of Architecture) Cambridge University Press, 1996.
David Watkin, The Royal Interiors of Regency England. Rizzoli, New York, 1985.
David Watkin, Morality and Architecture: The Development of a Theme in Architectural History and Theory from the Gothic Revival to the Modern Movement. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1984/original 1977).
David Watkin, The English Vision. John Murray, London, 1982.
David Watkin, Athenian Stuart: Pioneer of the Greek Revival. Harper Collins, New York, 1982.
David Watkin, The Rise of Architectural History, Eastview Editions, London, Reprint edition, 1980.As a point of view, I think what he has to say deserves a hearing.
Stroik does not come from this school but from that of Thomas Gordon Smith. I shall ask him if he photocopies plans -as has been suggested.
More on David Watkin:
He is joint vice chairman of the Georgian Group:
latest Poll Results: Longford Cathedral should be
rebuilt faithfully as to its pre-Vatican II design 43.42%, rebuilt as before the fire 15.79%, rebuilt in a modern style 18.42%, left as a ruin 22.37%
Voters: 76.@apelles wrote:
latest Poll Results: Longford Cathedral should be
rebuilt faithfully as to its pre-Vatican II design 43.42%, rebuilt as before the fire 15.79%, rebuilt in a modern style 18.42%, left as a ruin 22.37%
Voters: 76.Has there been any word on the fate of the altar and pulpit which were in the crypt.. ?
Also – what were the statues in the niches around the cathedral made of? I have a suspicion that the only 2 to survive were on the back sanctuary wall. Since the marble altars and panelling have held up to a certain extent, I can only assume that the statues either fell, or were made with a material that basically shattered or burnt in the heat.
@Praxiteles wrote:
. . . . is it impossible to retrieve the principles of classical architecture in contemporary circumstances and infuse them with creativity and invention? Or, are we posit that for some reason we are chained exclusively to modernism?
We’re back to ‘Tradition and Innovation’
I do understand where you’re coming from Praxiteles, the loss of ‘craft’ in modern architecture is almost as severe as the loss of craft in modern art, it’s right that we lament this and it’s appropriate that we strive to put it right.
I also agree that there is no fundamental difference between the past and the present and that we’ve become obsessed with the notion of ‘the contemporary’ as though it somehow didn’t instantly turn into more of ‘the past’, but one big difference with all this constant academic learning and professional training is that the acquisition of individual ‘knowledge’ has replaced the more collective notion of ‘tradition’.
I would bet that all the great works that we’ve admired in this thread were the product of collaborations between architects, sculptors, artists and legions of craftsmen, that was the real power of tradition.
More than a handy label to apply afterwards to a given historical phase, a tradition was a medium or a language in which ideas were communicated and through which advances were made, often incrementally. Within a tradition, everyone who understood the language understood how the ideas related to their craft and what was communicated appears to have been both instruction and licence.
We’ve abolished or abandoned the process of tradition and replaced it with a system of absolute knowledge which is communicated by an ever more minutely detailed set of instructions in the form of multiple drawings and specifications. In the process, we’ve replaced the craftsman with the technician . . . . . and then we wonder why our buildings are often uninspired.
I don’t think we’re ‘chained exclusively to modernism’. I think we can learn a lot from modernism. I think if we go back to the roots of modernism, we can see in the work of people like Mackintosh, some radical modernist notions in the freedom of expression, but combined with enormous attention to context and great respect for tradition, all expressed with of buckets of craft.
If we want to go backwards to get the inspiration for a fresh start, I’d go back that far maybe.
@Praxiteles wrote:
On Duncan Stroik
. . . . I shall ask him if he photocopies plans – as has been suggested.Oh come on now Praxiteles, you don’t think he’s going to say: ‘Yeh, I photocopy plans’ 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
