Is that a church?

[Kadu]

Why do people need to couch their opposition to something in intellectual argument? This is just a filter to silence the mass of people who haven't had the education you might have, and yet who do not deserve to be rode roughshod over, and have ugly things imposed on them. And matters of aesthetic can't so easily be put into the sort of discourse you're asking for. All this is just a tool to control public money by small self-interested sections of the intellectual world. They decide what art is, and we are supposed to put up with it. To argue with them, you are expected to do it on THEIR terms. Stinking elitism, and jobs for the boys. Well, stuff them, say I.

I'm sorry Osweo, i thought i was posting on a high brow section where people normally justify and expand their ideas rather than ranting just for the sake of it.

I think i have to clear some ideas here about Architecture. Architecture unlike other Artistic fields serves Mankind, a simple door is the reflection of our shape and proportion and it serves a very clear purpose, to walk through to communicate to, to give access to.
Architecture is a form of speech, you could say that a building is a story, and this story is made up with several sentences and words, and all this must be very well connected and coordinated. Purpose and meaning are fundamental in Architecture, because when a Architect designs he's not doing it on a canvas but in our physical world for people to inhabit, to work in, to experience it.

We Architects, for the most part are not fetishists, but mere interpreters of the current times, of the current needs, we design accordingly to the specificities of each society, each country, each person.

Look who's talking. You understand nothing about tradition and what you want is to have and make arty-farty 'churches'

As a matter of i do possess an historical perspective over the evolution of churches through out times that the common man doesn't have, as i have studied and analysed dozens of churches of different periods, so there's no way of throwing that to my face, sorry.

[Osweo]

I'm sorry Osweo, i thought i was posting on a high brow section where people normally justify and expand their ideas rather than ranting just for the sake of it.

We differ over the purpose of the forum, then. I had seen it chiefly as a place to share opinions, news and thoughts, not a seminar for intellectual back-scratching.

I think i have to clear some ideas here about Architecture. Architecture unlike other Artistic fields serves Mankind, a simple door is the reflection of our shape and proportion and it serves a very clear purpose, to walk through to communicate, to give access to.
Architecture is a form of speech, you could say that a building is a story, and this story is made up with several sentences and words, and all this must be very well connected and coordinated. Purpose and meaning are fundamental in Architecture, because when a Architect designs he's not doing it on a canvas but in our physical world for people to inhabit, to work in, to experience it.

We Architects, for the most part are not fetishists, but mere interpreters of the current times, of the current needs, we design accordingly to the specificities of each society, each country, each person.

Architects are great with words and high-sounding phrases. Shame most of their buildings these days look like weird grain-silos, abattoirs or like some kid built them from lego.

As a matter of i do possess an historical perspective over the evolution of churches through out times that the common man doesn't have, as i have studied and analysed dozens of churches of different periods, so there's no way of throwing that to my face, sorry.

I've seen more churches than most Englishmen. I've travelled every county of this kingdom looking at them, as welll as many in all parts of Russia. I do it for rather different reasons - collecting folklore and local history, or simply sight-seeing, but I still get to look at the buildings and have learnt something of their character. And I see nothing but rash dismissal of the past, of tradition, of national character and taste in the buildings shown in this thread.

Surely one important thing to notice about these new 'churches' is that they are appallingly international. There's no clue as to their origins. If all architects are studying old styles in their training, why does NONE of this show in their products?

[Tony]

We Architects, for the most part are not fetishists, but mere interpreters of the current times, of the current needs, we design accordingly to the specificities of each society, each country, each person.

Given I know and knew many of your kind I can tell you most of architects are gay or leftist or sometimes the two things together , people who think of themselves as the new Piano/Liebeskind/Hadid/Foster but who will end up mostly in renovating a cafe , delusions of grandeur are typical in architects.

As a matter of i do possess an historical perspective over the evolution of churches through out times that the common man doesn't have, as i have studied and analysed dozens of churches of different periods, so there's no way of throwing that to my face, sorry.

Lol at this self-congratulation
from what you wrote let me doubt it will you?
christian architecture before and after Council Vatican II are 2 completely different stuff and say that , since the styles have been always changing , from romanesque to the the gothic and baroque , also this new style doesn't break any tratidion in particular , it just simply means that you don't know about it.

[Anthropos]

As a matter of i do possess an historical perspective over the evolution of churches through out times that the common man doesn't have, as i have studied and analysed dozens of churches of different periods, so there's no way of throwing that to my face, sorry.

Having taken a modern education does not qualify you in any way to understand tradition.

[Tony]

A couple new ones , the first is by Heinz Tesar and is located in the UNO district in Wien , the second in Andorra.

[Kadu]

Lol at this self-congratulation
from what you wrote let me doubt it will you?
christian architecture before and after Council Vatican II are 2 completely different stuff and say that

After 1965? Not in Architecture, liturgy has gone through some changes but it didn't affect the organical structure of churches.

since the styles have been always changing , from romanesque to the the gothic and baroque , also this new style doesn't break any tratidion in particular , it just simply means that you don't know about it.

You must see things through an evolutionary perspective, as i said before each Architectural period is the consequence of a certain time.




Well since this is about posting churches i'll start with the Church of the Light in Ibaraki, Japan by Tadao Ando

[Mesrine]

The new church they built in my grandparents' village, after the earthquake of 1976.
















The old church, before the disaster.