If the building hadn't been redesigned in a modern context several times throughout its life, it would have been an old dilapidated stone church and not the icon it is today. The reason people care about this church and that it resonated with people throughout history is that it has continuously been redesigned and renovated in a modern context.
> If the building hadn't been redesigned in a modern context several times throughout its life, it would have been an old dilapidated stone church and not the icon it is today. The reason people care about this church and that it resonated with people throughout history is that it has continuously been redesigned and renovated in a modern context.
The old Church did resonate with me (though the Sagrada Familia definitely resonated more), but a modern light-show definitely wouldn't resonate at all.
I think think part of the point of cathedrals is to be a little otherworldly, and chasing the "modern context" subverts that. That may not have been true in the past (stained glass is insanely expensive and you definitely wouldn't have seen it everywhere hundreds of years ago, even if it was state-of-the-art), but it's definitely true now.
Yes, but usually that's done with respect for what's already there, not "hey we have millions of donations, let's throw all this old junk away and install a multimedia show for tourists instead".
Quotes to support my statement:
> Altars in the chapels would also be displaced and only four confessionals maintained on the ground floor.
> So the chapels, some of which could be renamed after Asia, Africa and other themes, should display “multiple offerings” such as light projections of Bible quotes in foreign languages including Chinese.
They want to move the other confessionals to the 1st floor. The chapels were near derelict before the fire apparently.[1] Renaming chapels and projecting lights doesn't have to mean throwing away things anyway.
That's a very modern mindset, dating to the second half of the XXth century.
Before that, the mindset for reconstructing historic places was pretty much "hey we have millions of donations, let's throw all this old junk away and install a multimedia show for tourists".
One might say that any old historic building that is not in ruins has already underwent at least one of reform in that style.
Speculating wildly, I'm wondering if part of it is a fundamental conflict in what the church is for. Is it a museum (what the State wants) or an "indoctrination center" (what the Church wants).
From the Churches point of view, if no one leaves thinking "maybe Catholicism is for me after all" then on some level they're not doing their job right. I guess that explains the focus on Chinese tourists since that is a huge untapped 'market' I'm sure they would love to break into. Having "multiple offerings" makes it easier to A/B tests different types of marketing and tailor the sales pitch to the audience. At the end of the day the Catholic church has always been business and their primary goal is to convert as many 'customers' as possible, and church architecture as always been a reflection of that mission.
> Yes, but usually that’s done with respect for what’s already there, not “hey we have millions of donations, let’s throw all this old junk away and install a multimedia show for tourists instead”.
There’s always a complex dialogue between maintaining what exists, cost, and adapting to new practices and ideals. Where there is massive destruction, though, that usually shifts the balance far in the direction of new designs, because cost no longer heavily favors the status quo.
