Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@apelles wrote:
@Praxiteles wrote:
Too often, architects, even the more famous ones, do not use the Catholic liturgy as a starting point and thus end up producing avant-garde constructions that look like anything but a church. These buildings composed of cement cubes, glass boxes, crazy shapes and confused spaces, remind people of anything but the mystery and sacredness of a church. Tabernacles are semi hidden, leading faithful on a real treasure hunt and sacred images are almost inexistent.
Well the above would almost certainly apply for this mock-up for St. Mels Cathedral. Will the Commission come in to late to act or have an effect on this though?
That is a very good question and one we shall have to follow closely.
From the web page of the New Liturgical Movement:
Monday, November 21, 2011
Establishment of Liturgical Art and Sacred Music Commission as part of CDW?
by Shawn TribeThis seems worthwhile to post now, rather than waiting until tomorrow. (Thanks to a reader tip for sending this in.)
This comes from Andrea Tornielli, and, for what it’s worth, what I can tell you is that about a month or two back, I was myself first given wind of something of this sort being established in these areas. At the time I chose not to publish it, but given that Tornielli is now speaking of it, I think it has enough substance to be worth sharing.
Here is the relevant excerpt.
11/21/2011
New Vatican commission cracks down on church architecture
The new commission will be established shortly, as part of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It will also be in charge of music and singing in the liturgy
ANDREA TORNIELLI
A team has been set up, to put a stop to garage style churches, boldly shaped structures that risk denaturing modern places for Catholic worship. Its task is also to promote singing that really helps the celebration of mass. The “Liturgical art and sacred music commission” will be established by the Congregation for Divine Worship over the coming weeks. This will not be just any office, but a true and proper team, whose task will be to collaborate with the commissions in charge of evaluating construction projects for churches of various dioceses. The team will also be responsible for the further study of music and singing that accompany the celebration of mass.
Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Benedict XVI, consider this work as “very urgent”. The reality is staring everyone in the eyes: in recent decades, churches have been substituted by buildings that resemble multi purpose halls. Too often, architects, even the more famous ones, do not use the Catholic liturgy as a starting point and thus end up producing avant-garde constructions that look like anything but a church. These buildings composed of cement cubes, glass boxes, crazy shapes and confused spaces, remind people of anything but the mystery and sacredness of a church. Tabernacles are semi hidden, leading faithful on a real treasure hunt and sacred images are almost inexistent. The new commission’s regulations will be written up over the next few days and will give precise instructions to dioceses. It will only be responsible for liturgical art, not for sacred art in general; and this also goes for liturgical music and singing too. The judicial powers of the Congregation for Divine Worship will have the power to act.
If this comes to pass, it certainly is very important news indeed.St Mel’s Cathedral, Longford
Trials for the restoration of the plaster-work:
A fine example of a Sakramentshaus from the Cathedral of Fürstenwalde in the of the March of Brandenburg, built by the Saxon sculptor Franz Maidburg for Bishop Dietrich von Bülow
Or of this:
For simplicity, throughout the rest of this booklet the
generic term ‘church’ will be used to mean churches
and all other places of worship.I cannot imagine what the Muslims, Jews, Hindus and all of that other expanded faith base must not be thinking of this piece of nonsense.
Nobody employs even the generic term “church” outside of a Christian context.
And, of course, we are back to the “simplicity” bit again – the stupid public might not understand the esoterics of logical discourse!! This is straight out of the 18th century and something we might expect to hear from a despot like Frederick the Great or from the Ernestine Court of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. Please, please….
What, for example, are we to make of this:
A comparison of the numbers of places of worship
owned by each denomination or religion is revealing.
Not surprisingly, the largest number of churches
within Ireland are in the ownership of the Roman
Catholic Church which represents some 87% of the
population (CSO 2006). The smallest numbers are in
the care of the non-Christian population, while
disproportionably high numbers of churches and
meeting houses remain in the care of the Church of
Ireland and the Religious Society of Friends, which
make up 3% and 0.03% of the population respectively.
This places a heavy burden of guardianship on those
two religious groups, both of which have played an
important part in the history of this country“These documents are designed to sooth, not aggravate, you’re not cooperating Praxiteles, you are an obstacle to consensus.”
Terrible sorry, Gunter, but consensus with the isonoclasts is simply not possible and no amount of soothing is going change that. And, as mentioned previoiusly, the concensus process might not stand up very well in a court of law in relation to the Planning and Development Act 2000 as a correct application of the Act. As far as Praxiteles can see, there is no mention of it in the Act. And, since this come from the Department of what-ever-it-is-now, we may well be facing another example of an exemption not contained in the Act- as the Deptartment insisted previously in its guidelines.
Then, of course, we had the Dept’s example of “consensus” in relation to Cobh Cathedral when Freddy O’Dwyre put forward an even more ridiculous “final solution”.
“It is an unwritten rule in architectural discourse that the term ‘style’ is only used when referring to the distant past. To use the term in a near present context [as planning officials sometimes cause mirth by doing] is to grievously diminish the profundity of what we do.”
In this case, as far as Ireland is concerned, we will have precious little to talk about. Just how far back is the remote past?
“Praxiteles, the drafting of architectural guidelines has become so anodyne in recent times that if you hadn’t highlighted those mildly opinionated passages, we could have snored gently through the whole thing.”This is perfectly true except that they tend to be quoted in applications such as that made for the destruction of Cobh Cathedral. If Praxiteles is not mistaken, it would appear that the horrible spectre of Paddy Jones from the irish Liturgical Centre was cast over the launch of this opuscule. Hardly helpful that either.
Praxiteles has more to say about this booklet and can easily afford a few more examples of its condescending platitudes. Really, does the Dept. not have guidelines about sustainable forests and criteria to determine what should or should not be published before felling them?
To return to our current text:
The department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has just made a further addition to its “advice series” entitled The Conservation of Places of Worship.
The full text may be viewed on line at this link:
http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/Publications/H … ip%20(2011).pdf
Helpfully. it indicates the following:
Editor: Nessa Roche
Series Editor: Jacqui Donnelly
Design: Bennis Design
Cover image by Patrick DonaldText by: Howley Hayes Architects
Contributors: David Lawrence, Lisa Edden and Edith Blennerhassett
All images are by the authors or DoAHG except where otherwise statedThe book consists of an Introduction, 10 chapters and a Glossary.Praxiteles
Old MasterPraxiteles thinks that page 9 of our book of the week must be the real pits as far as accuracy is concerned. It states the following:
“In the Roman Catholic Church,
early nineteenthcentury churches were mostly designed in either the
Neoclassical or the Gothic Revival styles, architects such
as John B Keane and Patrick Byrne working
competently in both idioms, although the churches
and cathedrals of Dominick Madden and William
Deane Butler were ubiquitously Gothic. From the 1830s
acclaimed architects of the High Victorian Gothic
Revival were employed to build churches throughout
Ireland, facilitating ecclesiological principles, as
liturgical emphasis shifted from the word to the
sacraments.The earliest of these was A W N Pugin,
who designed Killarney and Enniscorthy cathedrals,
together with several fine churches in County Wexford.
In the 1860s his son, Edward Welby Pugin built up a
considerable, if short-lived Irish practice, run by his
partner George Coppinger Ashlin. This practice was
continued by Ashlin alone after 1869, and in
partnership with Thomas A Coleman after 1903. Their
main rival was James Joseph McCarthy, who designed
the chapel at Saint Patrick’s College, Maynooth and the
cathedrals at Thurles (unusually Romanesque in style)
and Monaghan, as well as completing that at Armagh.
Leading figures of the late-nineteenth century included
William Hague and William H Byrne, the latter joined by
his son Ralph in partnership in 1902″.Firstly, forgive Praxiteles for mentioning it, but did not the Princess Alexandrina Victoria succeed to the throne on 20 June 1836? So, how do we come to have “the High Victorian Gothic revival” in the 1830s? Are we to take it that the High Victorian Gothic Revival was reached within three and half years of Queen Victoria’s accession? That must surely be a record on the scale of Darwinian evolutionism! At least in Ireland, the High Victorian Gothic Revival was, for the most part, inspired by French Gothic prototypes. Praxiteles is at a loss to think up of a significant gothic revival Catholic church built in the 1830s and inspired by French examples – indeed St Nicolas in Nantes was only built in 1844. Praxiteles is inclined to think that the HVGR took off in Ireland in the 1850s -nearing on twent years into the reign. One could easily mention in this context Sts Peter and Paul’s in Cork, Cobh Cathedral, Clonakilty and Sts John and Augustine in Dublin.
Secondly, the quotation above from page 9 contains this most extraordinary statement: “In the Roman Catholic Church….From the 1830s acclaimed architects of the High Victorian Gothic Revival were employed to build churches throughout Ireland, facilitating ecclesiological principles, as liturgical emphasis shifted from the word to the sacraments.” Is this to be read to mean that at some stage in its history prior to the 1830s the worship of the Catholic Church overemphasised the word to the detriment of the sacraments? If so, then whoever wrote it does not have a clue about Catholic liturgy, little or nothing about Catholic ecclesiastical history and certainly nothing about Catholic Sacramental theology. If the above statement is to be read as such, then it raises even further questions about the writer’s knowledge and understanding of the texts of the Second Vatican Council – to which no explicit reference is made. If the statement about 1830s prolifiration of emphasis on sacraments is to be taken literally, then what are we to make of Sacrosanctum Concilium’s insistence on the expanded use of Scripture in the liturgy in 1963? The rediscovery of the importance of sacrament is an exclusively Protestant phenomenon and linked to the tractarian movement in Oxford and to John Henry Newman, et al. Praxiteles has no evidence to suggest that Newman, as far as liturgy is concerned, became a Catholic for any other reason than having found extant in the Catholic Church what had been lost at the reformation in the Anglican church. There is no evidence at all to suggest that he began a campaign to emphasise sacrament over word in teh Catholic Church. Please, put an end to this fuzzy thinking and have a bit of common sense.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Building today in a style that
was popular a hundred or more years ago may detract
from the historic fabric and create confusion in the
perception of both parts of the building.Praxiteles is just wondering what the implications of that beauty might have been had it been uttered in Italy around 1440-1550? How would it have left Brunelleschi, Bramante, Donatello, Michelozzo, Alberti, Serlio, Palladio, Michelangelo, Raphael….. ?
Now, the advice document we are looking at provides a photograph of the methodist Church in Killarnery with a ghastly awful thing build alongside it by a company called Mott MacDonald Ireland. Unfortunately, they are not advertising this particular outing on their own webpage. They do tell us however that they are putting down a new sewerage syatem for Cork City with lots of pipes out into Cork Harbour. Their site also tells us that they were responsible for the quondam Sheraton Hotel on Fota Island. they even have a photograph:
Praxiteles wonders whether this might not be a more appropriate example of “Contrasting
but respectful addition” to Fota House; and one “more visually and aesthetically successful” for being able to be seen over the mature trees of the Fota estate from about five mile away?Come to think of it, it does have something of the quality of von Hildebrandt’s Upper belvedere-gone-wrong about it. If not aesthetically successful, that certainly would be something of an aesthetical achievement even for a company in Ireland.
And this, by the way is what Mott MacDonald planked up against the Honan Chapel in UCC
Another example of (what was it?): “Contrasting
but respectful additions to the ensemble are often
more visually and aesthetically successful”coupled with:
“Careful consideration of the palette of materials, the scale and
the detailed design can ensure that the new work
complements the original while reflecting the values
of the present time”.Just think of the careful consideration given to this when contrasting it (respectfully) with the Honan Chapel !!
And another example of Mott MacDonald Ireland’s “Contrasting
but respectful additions to the ensemble” of Patrick’s St, Cork in which the those brutal steel pillars and stage lights are “more visually and aesthetically successful”.
Thankfully, the rust is working on them and health and safety regulations will soon require their disappearance.
Building today in a style that
was popular a hundred or more years ago may detract
from the historic fabric and create confusion in the
perception of both parts of the building.Praxiteles is just wondering what the implications of that beauty might have been had it been uttered in Italy around 1440-1550? How would it have left Brunelleschi, Bramante, Donatello, Michelozzo, Alberti, Serlio, Palladio, Michelangelo, Raphael….. ?
Now, the advice document we are looking at provides a photograph of the methodist Church in Killarnery with a ghastly awful thing build alongside it by a company called Mott MacDonald Ireland. Unfortunately, they are not advertising this particular outing on their own webpage. They do tell us however that they are putting down a new sewerage syatem for Cork City with lots of pipes out into Cork Harbour. Their site also tells us that they were responsible for the quondam Sheraton Hotel on Fota Island. they even have a photograph:
Praxiteles wonders whether this might not be a more appropriate example of “Contrasting
but respectful addition” to Fota House; and one “more visually and aesthetically successful” for being able to be seen over the mature trees of the Fota estate from about five mile away?The the same document: here we have a beautiful piece of patronising clap-trap derived from a rather outdated 18th century enlightenment idea that somehow or other we know best and the poor stupid public are so stupid that they may be “confused” – building in a similar style might be confusing. Please come into the 21st. century !!
“When designing a new parish centre in the vicinity of
a church, some people believe that the historic style of
the church would be best respected by being copied.
However, copying historic building styles successfully
is problematic and the architectural style of a new
building or extension does not need to imitate or
replicate the original building in order to be
considered acceptable. Building today in a style that
was popular a hundred or more years ago may detract
from the historic fabric and create confusion in the
perception of both parts of the building.Then comes the nanny-state bit: stated in a rare example of proof of the writer’s (at least fleeting) aquaintance with the indicative mood!! Praxiteles will not comment on the arch-prizzie use of the Word “respectful” in the following sentence. And then, of course, we have the fascist reference to what are called “values of the present times” leving us with the (confusing?) impression that third rate brutalistic run-down modernism executed by eccentrics has somehow how or other acquired the status of an absolute. Please, please…..
Contrasting but respectful additions to the ensemble are often
more visually and aesthetically successful. Careful
consideration of the palette of materials, the scale and
the detailed design can ensure that the new work
complements the original while reflecting the values
of the present time.Can anyone tell me if the Planning and development Act makes any mention of “consensus” when speaking about protected structures? Or, are with dealing here with another adjunct to the act that will require a trip to the High Court for a quashing?
Also, I find the author’s reliance on Historic Churches Advisory Committees, aka HACKS, a trifle naive. In the case of the diocese of Cloyne, and especially with regard to the late lamented bishop’s personal desire to wreck the interior of Cobh Cathedral, from an enlightened conservation perspective, the Cloyne HACK was about as affective as the Cloyne Child Protection procedures – with the one difference that there was no external supervisory body to expose the HACK’s crass cronyism and stupidity.
It came as news to Praxiteles that “reordering is ongonig” and that it might be devisive !
The above mentioned booklet is certainly not at its best on page 70 when we read the following:
Reordering and liturgical change
Just as many churches have been enlarged and altered
over time, so too have they seen liturgical change,
most recently in the Roman Catholic Church since the
Second Vatican Council. In retrospect, the manner in
which some liturgically inspired changes were
implemented since the 1960s and 70s might now be
questioned as many of these changes involved the
removal of fabric and artefacts and, in some cases, loss
of character from historic churches.There is, however,no doubt that in many cases the objective of bringing
the clergy and the congregation closer together in
more direct communion achieved its aim. The wish to
reorder churches for liturgical reasons continues.While under Section 57 (5) of the Planning and
Development Act 2000, a planning authority is
required to respect liturgical requirements when
issuing declarations for a place of public worship that
is a protected structure, all proposals which would
materially affect the architectural heritage require
planning permission. Reordering has the potential to
affect the character of a protected structure. In order
to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck
between the protection of the architectural heritage
and the need for continued use of the protected
structure as a place of public worship, early
consultation between the planning authority and the
relevant church authority is advisable. There may also
be requirements for diocesan and/or central church
consent to be obtained; in the case of the Church of
Ireland, both diocesan and central church consent is
required.
In 2003, the four main Christian denominations agreed
to establish bodies to provide advice to local church
authorities on matters relating to liturgically-inspired
change. The Roman Catholic Church agreed to
establish Historic Churches Advisory Committees at
diocesan or inter-diocesan level; the Church of Ireland
set up a Historic Churches Advisory Committee within
the Representative Church Body (which has since
been absorbed into its Property Committee); the
Presbyterian Church in Ireland has a Historic Churches
Advisory Committee based at the Board of Mission in
Belfast, and the Methodist Church in Ireland deals with
these matters through its Annual Conference.
When plans for reordering are under consideration,
it is prudent to talk to all interested parties and
stakeholders, including the architectural conservation
officer of the local authority, to discuss possibilities,
obtain feedback and hopefully to reach a consensus.
Reordering can, at times, be controversial and divisive
at a local, and even national, level. Sometimes the
changes sought might conflict with the character of a
protected interior. The building works that are most
frequently included in reordering proposals today are
the removal of confessional boxes, altar rails or pews;
enlargement of the dais or predella towards the
congregation; the lowering of altar floors; and the
removal of altar furniture and furnishings from the
main sanctuary, chancel or a side chapel. A degree of
compromise to the historic fabric may be justifiable in
some cases where it brings about an overall
improvement in the way a church functions.
Where reordering is being considered, a concise report
should be prepared by a suitably qualified expert on
the character, importance and condition of the fabric,
furniture and artefacts to be moved or removed to
allow the full impact to be considered. The proposals
should show that the design has been carefully
developed to respond sensitively to the existing
interior and to minimise any adverse effects on the
historic fabric. Alterations which impact on significant
elements of the building should be capable of being
reversed, wherever possible. The report should
illustrate the mitigation measures that are to be taken
to reduce the impact on the character of the interior.
An appropriate location for the storage or reuse of
redundant elements should be identified, preferably
within the church building. At planning application
stage, the supporting documentation should include
copies of correspondence or evidence of support from
the relevant Historic Churches Advisory Committee or
similar body.The department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has just made a further addition to its “advice series” entitled The Conservation of Places of Worship.
The full text may be viewed on line at this link:
Helpfully. it indicates the following:
Editor: Nessa Roche
Series Editor: Jacqui Donnelly
Design: Bennis Design
Cover image by Patrick DonaldText by: Howley Hayes Architects
Contributors: David Lawrence, Lisa Edden and Edith Blennerhassett
All images are by the authors or DoAHG except where otherwise statedThe book consists of an Introduction, 10 chapters and a Glossary.
Anyone who has been reading this site over the past five years will not be unfamiliar with the tactics applied in other areas by the terrible duo nor surprised with the results !!
And again:
11 Feb 2007 18:14
For the category of corporate arch-vandals we must present the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork:
3. Bishop Magee, well, suffice it to say that it is strange that 30 years of meandering around the painted halls of the Vatican Palace has seemingly not had the slightest effect on him as far as art or architecture are concerned. Apart from trying to wreck Cobh Cathedral he does not have hobbies.
15 Aug 2007 13:09
Some further musings from Denis O’Callaghan and the Cobh Cahedral debacle:
“Eventually the design came before An Bord Pleanala for planning permission”.
The use of the word EVENTUALLY in this sentence covers a multitude of unsavoury factors that our author would rather pass over in the deepest silence. As we all know, planning permission is not granted by An Bord Pleanala. Planning Permission is granted by the Local Autority – in this case a very tame and over-coperative Cobh Urban District Council.
The plans to wreck Cobh Cathedral came to ABP because the planning permission so willingly supplied by Cobh Urban District Council was challenged (successfully) by all the major conservation groups in the country and by the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral – the group that formally requested an Oral Hearing from ABP. It is important to keep the record straight. DO’C just simply cannot recreate a coco version of it.
The use of the word EVENTUALLY also meant that DOC did not have to dwell for too long on the sham “consultation process” that took place AFTER the planning application had been lodged. It also allowed him to skip the bit about a solemn promise made by bishop McGhee to return to the people of Cobh BEFORE doing anything with the Cathedral. It also meant that he need not have to make mention of the lies told in writing to the FOSCC – which were subsequently unmasked at the Oral Heraing.
Using the word EVENTUALLY also meant that DOC did not have to mention anything of bishop McGhee’s IMAGINATION that he had APPROVAL from Rome for his plans when, in reality it transpired at the Oral Hearing that he had a letter that barely mentioned the subject and certainly could not be construed as an approval.
Using the word EVENTUALLY also meant that he did not have to mention anything about the dirty tricks unleashed by Jim Killeen on the FOSCC and his attempts to portray them as unlawfully collecting money and of his attempt to to have the police block the FOSCC from collecting funds to pay their legal expenses.
So, there is indeed a lot in a word!
