This is what I read...$28.5 million!I am not a fan of international / post-modern architecture in general, but I am learning to deal with it since I am surrounded by it. Give me modern or renaissance-revival any day. But this proposed Catholic Cathedral in Saskatoon is ridiculous. I could even deal with the bell tower, but pair it with that entrance canopy, and I feel like it's about to take off. Or maybe it crash landed.
I don't like to be overly critical, because it is far too easy to criticize, and much harder to come up with good design. But really, is thing justified? Matthew Alderman made a hypothetical counter-proposal which I think conveys ten-times the presence as the accepted design, but we all know the yuppies who rule the planet over there in the north-east would never allow something so traditional and stable looking. He has a lot to say about the design, the liturgical aspects, the history of the church, etc., here and here.
Even if it is preferential in style, it would likely be even more expensive, and is $28.5 million a justifiable expenditure on a church. I mean, I know we all love the big old European Cathedrals, but times, they are a changing. We could easily design something far more simple, eloquent and befitting the presence of God...less is more...for a third the price, and use the rest to fund the food bank or something like that.I could really ramble on this one, but I'll let it go for now.
3 comments:
What bothers me most (and it's not that the 28.5 mil price tag on something that hideous doesn't bother me immensely) is that most of the small communities outside of the city are furious that there is money for something like this, but there isn't money for enough priests to keep rural churches going.
I don't think there is anything wrong with building something beautiful for God, I don't think the House of the Lord needs to be a plain box to prove how humble his people are, but an ugly and expensive abomination like this is just painful to behold. I love that the "hypothetical counter-proposal" is beautiful and in many ways impractical. If you're going to spend a tonne of money building a church, instead of doing something "useful", make it something that is without a doubt, because of its striking beauty and uncompromising design, meant for the worship and reverence of God.
Matt: it's interesting you note your preference for form over function. That Alderman character actually commented that he thinks the octagonal plan is actually prohibitive to the traditional liturgical aspects and spatial requirements.
His proposal in large part addresses the spatial problems he recognized.
I have issues with this whole 'build a big church' thang myself.
Then again, I have issues with a lot of the church. People tend to forget that church is not a building, it's the people. We don't have to build something beautiful for God, we are the beautiful for God, or rather we could/can be depending on our heart, attitude and actions.
Build relationships with people, invest in the poor and needy, buy someone's groceries, etc..
Church buildings are an old testament principle. Now we have the presence of the Holy Spirit within us, we don't need a separate 'holy of holies'...
oh, I could rant for hours on this.
To my, this new building is the product of a religion, not a relationship with Christ.
And you are right, it's ugly but I couldn't even see it's appearance b/c I am still riled up about it's conception to begin with.
All that being said, I gotta go get this plank out of my eye...
Post a Comment