Recently this question was posed at a conference of architects who practiced in the field of religious architecture. The corresponding responses were both affirmative but more so, negative. Even when the question was limited by influences (faith, time, culture, etc.), we found it difficult to answer. By way of an example, it was suggested we examine the Christian faith only and modify the question to "is it possible to create a universally sacred architecture for the Christian faith?" The diversity of positions remained, and, the majority concluded that it would not be possible.
Some of us took a contrary position and proposed that if it were first possible to define sacredness (singularly to a faith or more globally), then we would be able to create a sacred space that encompassed and accounted for all limitations (culture, faith, time etc.)
There are some underlying corollaries. Is it even relative in our time? Have we grown beyond the reach of a superior being? If so, then it is pointless to create a sacred environment. However, if we accept that something greater than mankind does exist, then, is there is a reason to create architecture worthy of transcendence?
"No" well a simple, concise and empty position. Reminds me of what Sir Edmund Hillary said after the ascent of Everest -"Well, George, we knocked the b*%#^ off." Problem is, you've not yet climbed the mountain.
I'd say no also. Minimising the 'type' of architecture to 'sacred' does nothing for you. Will it have a kitchen? It probably wont have a fuel pump. Under what context is this occuring? What set of planning rules? Is having the manufacturers details as a decal on a window an affront to the idea of sacristy? Surely consumerism or the real world has no place?
Take out 'universally sacred' and put in just about any other definition and the problem remains the same. Last time I looked, Christianty was not universal anyway...
i'll preface this with the fact that i'm an atheist, so i kinda think that the whole idea of 'sacred' space is ridiculous... however, i have also designed a major renovation of a catholic church and i do believe that it is possible to design a space that lends itself to creating an environment in which believers can find it easier to focus on the liturgy/meditate/speak to god/allah/whatever...
i would say that most good 'sacred' architecture is heavily informed and influenced by the programmatic requirements of the liturgy... this would suggest that the answer is NO since the liturgical requirements of each faith are different (and sometimes drastically different)
however, on the other hand there is also a lot of physical evidence that suggests that the opposite is true and the YES there could be a universal sacredness... for instance there are a lot of mosques that have been converted to christian cathedrals and vice versa...
i would suggest that a space like ando's church of light (minus the cross) would come close to what i would think of a universally sacred space...
or maybe holl's chapel of st. ignatius (again minus the cross)...
or maybe corbu's ronchamp...
but maybe i'm just equating interesting natural lighting effects with sacredness... or maybe these just seem sacred to me because architecture sometimes feels like a religion to me!
ok how about no because the desire to abstract contradictory and often antagonistic religious belief into some kind of universal sacredness is impossible. if you think it is possible, you might like freud's discussion of the 'oceanic feeling' - but religion is not a feeling.
i'll take a point of view at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. man does not create sacred space. god does. if you truly believe in god, no matter what your religious affiliation, then, yes, there can be universally sacred space.
example, albert kahn's livingstone lighthouse at the eastern tip of detroit's belle isle. while not designed as religious architecture, the setting of the monolith in space is deeply sacred, but completely areligious; sacred space created not by the architect, but the confluence of architecture in space.
Sacred is as sacred does [another article from Wired Magazine]:
The strangest monument in America looms over a barren knoll in northeastern Georgia. Five massive slabs of polished granite rise out of the earth in a star pattern. The rocks are each 16 feet tall, with four of them weighing more than 20 tons apiece. Together they support a 25,000-pound capstone. Approaching the edifice, it's hard not to think immediately of England's Stonehenge or possibly the ominous monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Built in 1980, these pale gray rocks are quietly awaiting the end of the world as we know it.
Monotheistic god is primarily a facet of Abrahamic religions.
Try again!
To counterpoint the lighthouse, one could not building a monolith to use in the worship of the Greek deity Hades. The cultural ideology behind Hades is simple-- Zeus got the sky, Poseidon got the ocean and Hades got the underworld.
Building an upwardly (vertical) monolith would only celebrate Zeus. To celebrate and or worship through architecture the deity Hades, one would have to build a "pit", a crevice, a lake (technically two), a river or a cave.
While paganism is technically a dead religion, various facets of it still exist in the practice of other religions. Even parts of Christianity itself are heavily borrowed from paganism but primarily various folk belief systems, witchcraft and pantheistic societies still value greco-roman religious deities as plausible icons.
I would argue that the best sacred architecture is one that bridges betwen acts of worship and the life of the community at large. Instead of isolated icons, religious buildings should be sufficiently exposed to and engaged with the community to make its functions and symbolism a seamless aspect of community life.
In contemporary America, this probably means interdenominational facilities which also serve dually as community gathering places, as well as centers for community social activities. Such a place could serve to bridge different traditions and creeds, providing a symbolic common ground for all. Engagement with the street and the community's central square or other iconic green space would, I would think, also be impotant.
11 The word of the LORD came to Solomon: 12 "As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, carry out my regulations and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. 13 And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel." 14 So Solomon built the temple and completed it. 15 He lined its interior walls with cedar boards, paneling them from the floor of the temple to the ceiling, and covered the floor of the temple with planks of pine. 16 He partitioned off twenty cubits at the rear of the temple with cedar boards from floor to ceiling to form within the temple an inner sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. 17 The main hall in front of this room was forty cubits long. 18 The inside of the temple was cedar, carved with gourds and open flowers. Everything was cedar; no stone was to be seen. 19 He prepared the inner sanctuary within the temple to set the ark of the covenant of the LORD there. 20 The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty wide and twenty high. He overlaid the inside with pure gold, and he also overlaid the altar of cedar. 21 Solomon covered the inside of the temple with pure gold, and he extended gold chains across the front of the inner sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold. 22 So he overlaid the whole interior with gold. He also overlaid with gold the altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary. 23 In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. 24 One wing of the first cherub was five cubits long, and the other wing five cubits--ten cubits from wing tip to wing tip. 25 The second cherub also measured ten cubits, for the two cherubim were identical in size and shape. 26 The height of each cherub was ten cubits. 27 He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28 He overlaid the cherubim with gold. 29 On the walls all around the temple, in both the inner and outer rooms, he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. 30 He also covered the floors of both the inner and outer rooms of the temple with gold. 31 For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood with five-sided jambs. 32 And on the two olive wood doors he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid the cherubim and palm trees with beaten gold. 33 In the same way he made four-sided jambs of olive wood for the entrance to the main hall. 34 He also made two pine doors, each having two leaves that turned in sockets. 35 He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers on them and overlaid them with gold hammered evenly over the carvings. 36 And he built the inner courtyard of three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams. 37 The foundation of the temple of the LORD was laid in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv. 38 In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it.
Thus far, everyone has resorted to a particular faith or examples to define the nature of “scared space”. That is inward thinking. Not wrong, just self limiting. The architectural challenge is to create a space that becomes a bridge while still retaining what defines your faith.
An important step is to find commonality. Such commonalities can be found in major streams of religion.
In general terms western faiths (excluding primal inhabitants, we’ll get to them) stem from Abraham (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) and, in their very basic form, focus on the “gathering” as a scared event. Judaism looks to the temple, not the synagogue as the house of the Lord. The temple is where the scrolls are kept and therefore, constitutes “sacred”. The synagogue’s prime purpose is for the gathering. The gathering is scared. Islam worships in the direction of Mecca irrespective of where a believer may find themselves at prayer time. However, gathering to worship is sacred. Christians in the most fundamental way look at “two or more gathered in His name” to define sacred. The Evangelical bent denies architecture as being critical (gathering is more important than the creation of a sacred environment) whereas the liturgical denominations, embrace the Old Testament’s direction of creating a habitat appropriate for God’s presence (hence sacred space). Evangelical Christians are the easiest to satisfy with spatial requirements (i.e. Willowcreek Church).
Polytheistic faiths (some Eastern Faiths, neo pagan, etc.) are more difficult because of the variations in fundamental components. Whereas Buddhism is more a kin to a method of how you live life, Hinduism focuses on the worship of multiple deities.
We need to think in terms of shedding the trappings of our particular faith (i.e. we can wheel it on the holy day), so that the focus becomes simply, creating a scared space. What that leaves, is basic architectural tenants placed carefully together (“when you place two bricks carefully together”). To some extent, the primal faiths may be guide.
Primal/native faiths look towards basic elements as constituting sacredness. This is a commonality with other cultures such as the Greeks, Romans and Chinese. These of course are Earth, Fire Air, and Water. Funny, it’s a lot like sustainability. The idea of natural light, materials, volume, massing, sound and cardinal points can all be captured within this notion.
The explorations in the concept of universal beauty from the Greeks through the Middle Ages and even modern philosophers (not the Humanist) have held that the achievement would be in itself sacred. A universal beauty mandates balance, harmony, etc. and therefore provides a clue in this endeavor.
Finally, there are some very basic human components that constitute sacred. These cross all faith and cultural divides. For example, birth, life and death are not only common to “faith” but common to humanity. These embrace all faiths as “sacred”.
So can a universal sacred space be created by architects? I say “yes”. Because it falls onto competent architects to rise to the challenge of creating “purpose” in architecture. To that end, it was merely a hundred years ago, that the idea of man flying was preposterous. Why shouldn’t we think “big”?
Can the “Nay Sayers” present a back bone to their position?
'A' sacred space can be created, but 'a universal' sacred space can't, because you could never get the agreement of every end user that it is subjectively sacred.
It depends totally on what people agree as sacred, which you demonstrate above, is manifold. The closest you will get it is designing a sacred space, calling it unversal and see how much agreement you will get.
On a more helpful note, The Sacred and Profane by Mircea Eliade points to a few other common ritualistic traits - form memory, the intersection/crossroads, the square, foundation rituals etc.
EFAW, you're confusing sacred with worship. That's entirely two different things.
You've also debased your argument a little bit by describing non-mainstream or historic religions as "primal."
One big difference between Protestant (evangelical) and Catholic (liturgical) interpretations of Judeo-Christian thought is that sacred architecture may not even be used for direct deity worship.
Catholicism has many different kinds of building types that serve their own divine purpose that one could consider sacred. Obvious examples are monasteries and abbeys but there's also buildings like reliquaries, mausoleums, crypts and so on.
One really good example of that is the Santa Costanza in Rome-- which is technically a reliquary and a mausoleum but not technically a church. What makes it particularly special is that when services are held... there is a congregation but not communally as the church is an ambulatory-styled church. Worship at Santa Costanza is usually comprised of someone walking a few circles around the alter and leaving.
One of the many concepts behind abbeys and monasteries is essentially employing others to do worship for you-- that is, the main religious interaction here is paying for the monastery or abbey to function as an organization committed to doing religious work. This is partially the reason as to why the protestant reformation happened is that mostly poor people thought it was in poor taste (see: extreme jealousy) to buy your way into religious salvation.
A cross cultural example of this idea is seen in the Parthenon. While it was widely viewed as a temple and a religious structure, it was mostly a treasury. Essentially, the worship of Athena seems to have included making large monetary offers to her.
Furthermore, in pagan religious belief, the concept of sacred ground is different than what we consider it in modern times. Most religious structures often were there to provide a shelter to house an avatar or vessel for a particular deity (statue) rather than they were built to use as actual worship. The actual worship usually took place in auxiliary structures or on alters in the vicinity of the actual temple.
Some others have particularly different concepts behind them.
The Temple of Antonius and Faustus was part of the forum. Worship of these deities was done through communication and socialization-- Faustus was known and the most gracious and civil empress the empire had ever scene. So, her inclusion of a temple and priestesses into the forum was only natural.
Temple of Hercules Victor was only employed as a place of worship during festivals. Actual worship does not take place at this temple. It is believed that neither flies nor dogs will approach this temple.
Then there's the Temple of Diana Nemorensis... which isn't a temple at all. It is an entire forest and lake (Lake Nemi, I believe). Although paganism can be said to be functionally dead for nearly 1500 years, Lake Nemi still remains more or less wholly intact (rare for a body of water in Europe).
Lastly, there is a major difference in where and how worship can take places (your counterpoint did not even touch African religions or Shintoism).
Many African religions have some similarities between them. Worship can be done and is often primarily through the home or a second small auxiliary house. Typically parts of the house are set aside for the creation of personal shrines to house statues and other artifacts used to worship or placate deities important to each individual family's religious pursuits.
Often in African religions, worship is not accomplished by prayed but by action. Many prayer rituals require the creation and destruction of structures to complete the religious ceremony. In some cultures, prayer is accomplished by rubbing, touching or making offerings to statuary.
In some cultures, spitting on or driving nails into statues is seen as acceptable forms of worship.
In Central Africa, worship is heavily practiced through song and dance. The creation of masks and costumes allow the wearer to be a vessel for a god with the singing and dancing being the primary communication tool of godly knowledge.
My particular favorite mask-and-dance religious ceremony is the creation of Grassmen in the Bwa culture.
The main concept here basically is that in large parts of Africa, there is no formal quality dealing with prayer and worship. The creation and destruction of art is a predominate method of worship. In contrast, religious structures do exist... but often they are single serving and other times are not to be inhabited, entered or used by humans at all. Art is considered a consumable in Africa and art as religion is meant to use used and discarded at will.
I don't think you can create a universal structure that encompasses all of Africa's religious ideology into a singular, "sacred" architectural form.
Similarly, there's aspects of Shintoism where the creation and destruction of objects (facilitating religious belief) is an important spiritual process-- similar in line to many African beliefs. So, is there a universalism there about creation and destruction? Yes, but as far as transforming it into a singular sacred land use... I don't think it possible lead alone practical.
its condescending to turn someones faith into a generalised fuzzy blur of positivity. to turn everyone's faith into this is to condescend to the entire world, which is pretty arrogant.
Not trying to be either condescending or arrogant. However, it is a difficult topic to discuss without someone interpreting the effort as such.
My previous comment about “rolling objects in on holy days” was over simplistic, but attempted to convey that "sacredness" is sometimes created through adornment and accruements. I would also concur that "sacred" constitutes much more than just worship and ritual. One of the first points in the discussion was the quandary of how to define "sacred". Eliade's book was a wonderful resource and might be a good source to derive a definition.
It is also important to distinguish between "place" and "space". Whereas sacred "places" are primarily natural environments or modifications to the natural environment (marks in/on the ground, cairns, etc.) which invoke sacredness, our focus is on creating "space" that invokes sacredness.
Your numerous examples of places of "memory" were points well taken. “Memory” can shape and influence our perception of sacred. But memory is also tempered by the element of time. Whereas a temple was perhaps sacred to the culture that constructed it, we in our time, might perceive it to a lesser degree.
So, the focus needs to be (if possible) to define “sacred” as it relates to the built environment. Would you concur?
my gut reaction to this question was that a universally sacred architecture is impossible. but having chewed on the idea for a couple of days i feel that an architecture (perhaps with electrocution/radiation/etc) that kills universally & indiscriminately would at least be respected in a universal sense.
respected, of course, is not quite the same as sacred but at least its tackling the "universal" part of the challenge.
Invoking sacredness is fraught with difficulty. Facilitation of an experience is notoriously difficult to 'facilitate'.
My first thought/image goes to the creation of a 'blank' space, kind of like Yamaguchi's White Temple in Kyoto:
But that is as far as you can go with people - naming a space - unless you hand out pills at the door to invoke the kind of experience you want to engender.
I am hating any architecture at the moment that is an assemblage of building materials, with logos, safety warnings, product descriptions, shiny colours, the latest mullions etc, etc.
I am a bit with Puddles in terms of killing off the universal. The ideal you are looking for is the ability of the user to forget the real world.
no offense, but it sounds like a lot of you all wouldn't know a sacred space if it kicked you in the balls. sacred space is not something that can be created by analysis. it simply is. i know that the majority of you rational people out there will balk at such a nebulus definition (and architects tend to be more rational than not), but i believe someone who is seriously in touch with god knows a sacred space when he or she is in one regardless of whether one is hindu, muslim, christian or buddhist. and to repeat, sacred space is not created by man; it is created by god.
I am agnostic, but I am just as susceptible to and welcoming of the sublime beauty of the world. Its not rationalism that is the impediment, it is totalitarianism.
If sacred spaces is created by god, then by definition, no sacred space could be created by man. Problem solved.
sacredness isn't a feeling. ask any theologian or shaman or imam or whatever, and they will explain how sacredness is an absolute value, distinct from any subjective experience.
for those interested, Roberto Matta, father of Gordon Matta-Clark, had the idea for a "League of Religions"
it can be found in Tony Vidler's "Architecture to be"
more importantly, from the essay:
"I went mad in Corbu's studio. There were three of us, an Austrian, a Japanese, and me. The office was run by his cousin, Jeanneret, who was loaned by the Jesuit monastery. We had no work and were not paid, obviously."
I would look at the popular concept that to be sacred, or to be affiliated with it, we as mortals yearn for some kind of transcendence. We are flesh and to reach a form higher than what we have been so accustomed to is a natural curiosity/pursuit.
And as our predecessors have often showed to us, space can be designed (some more exquisitely than most) to bring that feeling of transcending more achievable.
I would say yes it is possible. Even without our architecture. Without the narrow minded images/relics we use to define very small understandings of this universe. It would not be "sacred" by itself, because I doubt we can bestow sacredness on anything unless it already is...but our design would provide a sense of sacredness through the spatial experience, a feeling of transcending.
The Rothko Chapel in Houston Texas, adjacent to the Menil is precisely defined as a sacred space for all. It is rather amazing in its simplicity and the large Rothko color fields seem to hum in a subtle dialog.
Is it possible to create a universally sacred architecture
Recently this question was posed at a conference of architects who practiced in the field of religious architecture. The corresponding responses were both affirmative but more so, negative. Even when the question was limited by influences (faith, time, culture, etc.), we found it difficult to answer. By way of an example, it was suggested we examine the Christian faith only and modify the question to "is it possible to create a universally sacred architecture for the Christian faith?" The diversity of positions remained, and, the majority concluded that it would not be possible.
Some of us took a contrary position and proposed that if it were first possible to define sacredness (singularly to a faith or more globally), then we would be able to create a sacred space that encompassed and accounted for all limitations (culture, faith, time etc.)
There are some underlying corollaries. Is it even relative in our time? Have we grown beyond the reach of a superior being? If so, then it is pointless to create a sacred environment. However, if we accept that something greater than mankind does exist, then, is there is a reason to create architecture worthy of transcendence?
Thoughts and positions are welcome.
no. how's that for a position.
"No" well a simple, concise and empty position. Reminds me of what Sir Edmund Hillary said after the ascent of Everest -"Well, George, we knocked the b*%#^ off." Problem is, you've not yet climbed the mountain.
I'd say no also. Minimising the 'type' of architecture to 'sacred' does nothing for you. Will it have a kitchen? It probably wont have a fuel pump. Under what context is this occuring? What set of planning rules? Is having the manufacturers details as a decal on a window an affront to the idea of sacristy? Surely consumerism or the real world has no place?
Take out 'universally sacred' and put in just about any other definition and the problem remains the same. Last time I looked, Christianty was not universal anyway...
i'll preface this with the fact that i'm an atheist, so i kinda think that the whole idea of 'sacred' space is ridiculous... however, i have also designed a major renovation of a catholic church and i do believe that it is possible to design a space that lends itself to creating an environment in which believers can find it easier to focus on the liturgy/meditate/speak to god/allah/whatever...
i would say that most good 'sacred' architecture is heavily informed and influenced by the programmatic requirements of the liturgy... this would suggest that the answer is NO since the liturgical requirements of each faith are different (and sometimes drastically different)
however, on the other hand there is also a lot of physical evidence that suggests that the opposite is true and the YES there could be a universal sacredness... for instance there are a lot of mosques that have been converted to christian cathedrals and vice versa...
i would suggest that a space like ando's church of light (minus the cross) would come close to what i would think of a universally sacred space...
or maybe holl's chapel of st. ignatius (again minus the cross)...
or maybe corbu's ronchamp...
but maybe i'm just equating interesting natural lighting effects with sacredness... or maybe these just seem sacred to me because architecture sometimes feels like a religion to me!
ok how about no because the desire to abstract contradictory and often antagonistic religious belief into some kind of universal sacredness is impossible. if you think it is possible, you might like freud's discussion of the 'oceanic feeling' - but religion is not a feeling.
i'll take a point of view at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. man does not create sacred space. god does. if you truly believe in god, no matter what your religious affiliation, then, yes, there can be universally sacred space.
example, albert kahn's livingstone lighthouse at the eastern tip of detroit's belle isle. while not designed as religious architecture, the setting of the monolith in space is deeply sacred, but completely areligious; sacred space created not by the architect, but the confluence of architecture in space.
Yes, but it takes at least six tabs a head.
Sacred is as sacred does [another article from Wired Magazine]:
The strangest monument in America looms over a barren knoll in northeastern Georgia. Five massive slabs of polished granite rise out of the earth in a star pattern. The rocks are each 16 feet tall, with four of them weighing more than 20 tons apiece. Together they support a 25,000-pound capstone. Approaching the edifice, it's hard not to think immediately of England's Stonehenge or possibly the ominous monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Built in 1980, these pale gray rocks are quietly awaiting the end of the world as we know it.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-05/ff_guidestones
huh?
Monotheistic god is primarily a facet of Abrahamic religions.
Try again!
To counterpoint the lighthouse, one could not building a monolith to use in the worship of the Greek deity Hades. The cultural ideology behind Hades is simple-- Zeus got the sky, Poseidon got the ocean and Hades got the underworld.
Building an upwardly (vertical) monolith would only celebrate Zeus. To celebrate and or worship through architecture the deity Hades, one would have to build a "pit", a crevice, a lake (technically two), a river or a cave.
While paganism is technically a dead religion, various facets of it still exist in the practice of other religions. Even parts of Christianity itself are heavily borrowed from paganism but primarily various folk belief systems, witchcraft and pantheistic societies still value greco-roman religious deities as plausible icons.
The fucker could have at least hired an architect.
The fucker could have at least hired an architect.
yes it is possible EFAWarch but you gotta have faith!
I would argue that the best sacred architecture is one that bridges betwen acts of worship and the life of the community at large. Instead of isolated icons, religious buildings should be sufficiently exposed to and engaged with the community to make its functions and symbolism a seamless aspect of community life.
In contemporary America, this probably means interdenominational facilities which also serve dually as community gathering places, as well as centers for community social activities. Such a place could serve to bridge different traditions and creeds, providing a symbolic common ground for all. Engagement with the street and the community's central square or other iconic green space would, I would think, also be impotant.
Yes, This this was already answered in 960 B.C.
Could be the first set of specifications ever written....
For those who don't like to read
1 Kings 6:11-29
11 The word of the LORD came to Solomon: 12 "As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, carry out my regulations and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. 13 And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel." 14 So Solomon built the temple and completed it. 15 He lined its interior walls with cedar boards, paneling them from the floor of the temple to the ceiling, and covered the floor of the temple with planks of pine. 16 He partitioned off twenty cubits at the rear of the temple with cedar boards from floor to ceiling to form within the temple an inner sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. 17 The main hall in front of this room was forty cubits long. 18 The inside of the temple was cedar, carved with gourds and open flowers. Everything was cedar; no stone was to be seen. 19 He prepared the inner sanctuary within the temple to set the ark of the covenant of the LORD there. 20 The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty wide and twenty high. He overlaid the inside with pure gold, and he also overlaid the altar of cedar. 21 Solomon covered the inside of the temple with pure gold, and he extended gold chains across the front of the inner sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold. 22 So he overlaid the whole interior with gold. He also overlaid with gold the altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary. 23 In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. 24 One wing of the first cherub was five cubits long, and the other wing five cubits--ten cubits from wing tip to wing tip. 25 The second cherub also measured ten cubits, for the two cherubim were identical in size and shape. 26 The height of each cherub was ten cubits. 27 He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28 He overlaid the cherubim with gold. 29 On the walls all around the temple, in both the inner and outer rooms, he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. 30 He also covered the floors of both the inner and outer rooms of the temple with gold. 31 For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood with five-sided jambs. 32 And on the two olive wood doors he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid the cherubim and palm trees with beaten gold. 33 In the same way he made four-sided jambs of olive wood for the entrance to the main hall. 34 He also made two pine doors, each having two leaves that turned in sockets. 35 He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers on them and overlaid them with gold hammered evenly over the carvings. 36 And he built the inner courtyard of three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams. 37 The foundation of the temple of the LORD was laid in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv. 38 In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it.
although the american bank has now become a temple and therefore stands tallest in the urban sky replacing church steeples as the tallest structure
i guess the worship of money has now become more important than worshiping God
God is probably gonna smite us soon
sweet model tagalong did you create it yourself? do you happen to have a model of heaven? i believe it is specd in the bible as well
hehe...nope, just pulled it off wikipedia
oddly enough, I have an old Tyndale bible which contains very good axons of the Temple.
Let us break it down –
Thus far, everyone has resorted to a particular faith or examples to define the nature of “scared space”. That is inward thinking. Not wrong, just self limiting. The architectural challenge is to create a space that becomes a bridge while still retaining what defines your faith.
An important step is to find commonality. Such commonalities can be found in major streams of religion.
In general terms western faiths (excluding primal inhabitants, we’ll get to them) stem from Abraham (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) and, in their very basic form, focus on the “gathering” as a scared event. Judaism looks to the temple, not the synagogue as the house of the Lord. The temple is where the scrolls are kept and therefore, constitutes “sacred”. The synagogue’s prime purpose is for the gathering. The gathering is scared. Islam worships in the direction of Mecca irrespective of where a believer may find themselves at prayer time. However, gathering to worship is sacred. Christians in the most fundamental way look at “two or more gathered in His name” to define sacred. The Evangelical bent denies architecture as being critical (gathering is more important than the creation of a sacred environment) whereas the liturgical denominations, embrace the Old Testament’s direction of creating a habitat appropriate for God’s presence (hence sacred space). Evangelical Christians are the easiest to satisfy with spatial requirements (i.e. Willowcreek Church).
Polytheistic faiths (some Eastern Faiths, neo pagan, etc.) are more difficult because of the variations in fundamental components. Whereas Buddhism is more a kin to a method of how you live life, Hinduism focuses on the worship of multiple deities.
We need to think in terms of shedding the trappings of our particular faith (i.e. we can wheel it on the holy day), so that the focus becomes simply, creating a scared space. What that leaves, is basic architectural tenants placed carefully together (“when you place two bricks carefully together”). To some extent, the primal faiths may be guide.
Primal/native faiths look towards basic elements as constituting sacredness. This is a commonality with other cultures such as the Greeks, Romans and Chinese. These of course are Earth, Fire Air, and Water. Funny, it’s a lot like sustainability. The idea of natural light, materials, volume, massing, sound and cardinal points can all be captured within this notion.
The explorations in the concept of universal beauty from the Greeks through the Middle Ages and even modern philosophers (not the Humanist) have held that the achievement would be in itself sacred. A universal beauty mandates balance, harmony, etc. and therefore provides a clue in this endeavor.
Finally, there are some very basic human components that constitute sacred. These cross all faith and cultural divides. For example, birth, life and death are not only common to “faith” but common to humanity. These embrace all faiths as “sacred”.
So can a universal sacred space be created by architects? I say “yes”. Because it falls onto competent architects to rise to the challenge of creating “purpose” in architecture. To that end, it was merely a hundred years ago, that the idea of man flying was preposterous. Why shouldn’t we think “big”?
Can the “Nay Sayers” present a back bone to their position?
'A' sacred space can be created, but 'a universal' sacred space can't, because you could never get the agreement of every end user that it is subjectively sacred.
It depends totally on what people agree as sacred, which you demonstrate above, is manifold. The closest you will get it is designing a sacred space, calling it unversal and see how much agreement you will get.
On a more helpful note, The Sacred and Profane by Mircea Eliade points to a few other common ritualistic traits - form memory, the intersection/crossroads, the square, foundation rituals etc.
EFAW, you're confusing sacred with worship. That's entirely two different things.
You've also debased your argument a little bit by describing non-mainstream or historic religions as "primal."
One big difference between Protestant (evangelical) and Catholic (liturgical) interpretations of Judeo-Christian thought is that sacred architecture may not even be used for direct deity worship.
Catholicism has many different kinds of building types that serve their own divine purpose that one could consider sacred. Obvious examples are monasteries and abbeys but there's also buildings like reliquaries, mausoleums, crypts and so on.
One really good example of that is the Santa Costanza in Rome-- which is technically a reliquary and a mausoleum but not technically a church. What makes it particularly special is that when services are held... there is a congregation but not communally as the church is an ambulatory-styled church. Worship at Santa Costanza is usually comprised of someone walking a few circles around the alter and leaving.
One of the many concepts behind abbeys and monasteries is essentially employing others to do worship for you-- that is, the main religious interaction here is paying for the monastery or abbey to function as an organization committed to doing religious work. This is partially the reason as to why the protestant reformation happened is that mostly poor people thought it was in poor taste (see: extreme jealousy) to buy your way into religious salvation.
A cross cultural example of this idea is seen in the Parthenon. While it was widely viewed as a temple and a religious structure, it was mostly a treasury. Essentially, the worship of Athena seems to have included making large monetary offers to her.
Furthermore, in pagan religious belief, the concept of sacred ground is different than what we consider it in modern times. Most religious structures often were there to provide a shelter to house an avatar or vessel for a particular deity (statue) rather than they were built to use as actual worship. The actual worship usually took place in auxiliary structures or on alters in the vicinity of the actual temple.
Some others have particularly different concepts behind them.
The Temple of Antonius and Faustus was part of the forum. Worship of these deities was done through communication and socialization-- Faustus was known and the most gracious and civil empress the empire had ever scene. So, her inclusion of a temple and priestesses into the forum was only natural.
Temple of Hercules Victor was only employed as a place of worship during festivals. Actual worship does not take place at this temple. It is believed that neither flies nor dogs will approach this temple.
Then there's the Temple of Diana Nemorensis... which isn't a temple at all. It is an entire forest and lake (Lake Nemi, I believe). Although paganism can be said to be functionally dead for nearly 1500 years, Lake Nemi still remains more or less wholly intact (rare for a body of water in Europe).
Lastly, there is a major difference in where and how worship can take places (your counterpoint did not even touch African religions or Shintoism).
Many African religions have some similarities between them. Worship can be done and is often primarily through the home or a second small auxiliary house. Typically parts of the house are set aside for the creation of personal shrines to house statues and other artifacts used to worship or placate deities important to each individual family's religious pursuits.
Often in African religions, worship is not accomplished by prayed but by action. Many prayer rituals require the creation and destruction of structures to complete the religious ceremony. In some cultures, prayer is accomplished by rubbing, touching or making offerings to statuary.
In some cultures, spitting on or driving nails into statues is seen as acceptable forms of worship.
In Central Africa, worship is heavily practiced through song and dance. The creation of masks and costumes allow the wearer to be a vessel for a god with the singing and dancing being the primary communication tool of godly knowledge.
My particular favorite mask-and-dance religious ceremony is the creation of Grassmen in the Bwa culture.
The main concept here basically is that in large parts of Africa, there is no formal quality dealing with prayer and worship. The creation and destruction of art is a predominate method of worship. In contrast, religious structures do exist... but often they are single serving and other times are not to be inhabited, entered or used by humans at all. Art is considered a consumable in Africa and art as religion is meant to use used and discarded at will.
I don't think you can create a universal structure that encompasses all of Africa's religious ideology into a singular, "sacred" architectural form.
Similarly, there's aspects of Shintoism where the creation and destruction of objects (facilitating religious belief) is an important spiritual process-- similar in line to many African beliefs. So, is there a universalism there about creation and destruction? Yes, but as far as transforming it into a singular sacred land use... I don't think it possible lead alone practical.
Whoops!
Lake Nemi
its condescending to turn someones faith into a generalised fuzzy blur of positivity. to turn everyone's faith into this is to condescend to the entire world, which is pretty arrogant.
Not trying to be either condescending or arrogant. However, it is a difficult topic to discuss without someone interpreting the effort as such.
My previous comment about “rolling objects in on holy days” was over simplistic, but attempted to convey that "sacredness" is sometimes created through adornment and accruements. I would also concur that "sacred" constitutes much more than just worship and ritual. One of the first points in the discussion was the quandary of how to define "sacred". Eliade's book was a wonderful resource and might be a good source to derive a definition.
It is also important to distinguish between "place" and "space". Whereas sacred "places" are primarily natural environments or modifications to the natural environment (marks in/on the ground, cairns, etc.) which invoke sacredness, our focus is on creating "space" that invokes sacredness.
Your numerous examples of places of "memory" were points well taken. “Memory” can shape and influence our perception of sacred. But memory is also tempered by the element of time. Whereas a temple was perhaps sacred to the culture that constructed it, we in our time, might perceive it to a lesser degree.
So, the focus needs to be (if possible) to define “sacred” as it relates to the built environment. Would you concur?
No. Because sacred is not something that applies to just the built environment-- not all religions require a predefined space or place to be observed.
my gut reaction to this question was that a universally sacred architecture is impossible. but having chewed on the idea for a couple of days i feel that an architecture (perhaps with electrocution/radiation/etc) that kills universally & indiscriminately would at least be respected in a universal sense.
respected, of course, is not quite the same as sacred but at least its tackling the "universal" part of the challenge.
Invoking sacredness is fraught with difficulty. Facilitation of an experience is notoriously difficult to 'facilitate'.
My first thought/image goes to the creation of a 'blank' space, kind of like Yamaguchi's White Temple in Kyoto:
But that is as far as you can go with people - naming a space - unless you hand out pills at the door to invoke the kind of experience you want to engender.
I am hating any architecture at the moment that is an assemblage of building materials, with logos, safety warnings, product descriptions, shiny colours, the latest mullions etc, etc.
I am a bit with Puddles in terms of killing off the universal. The ideal you are looking for is the ability of the user to forget the real world.
no offense, but it sounds like a lot of you all wouldn't know a sacred space if it kicked you in the balls. sacred space is not something that can be created by analysis. it simply is. i know that the majority of you rational people out there will balk at such a nebulus definition (and architects tend to be more rational than not), but i believe someone who is seriously in touch with god knows a sacred space when he or she is in one regardless of whether one is hindu, muslim, christian or buddhist. and to repeat, sacred space is not created by man; it is created by god.
I am agnostic, but I am just as susceptible to and welcoming of the sublime beauty of the world. Its not rationalism that is the impediment, it is totalitarianism.
If sacred spaces is created by god, then by definition, no sacred space could be created by man. Problem solved.
sacredness isn't a feeling. ask any theologian or shaman or imam or whatever, and they will explain how sacredness is an absolute value, distinct from any subjective experience.
I had an unfortunate bout of being serious
for those interested, Roberto Matta, father of Gordon Matta-Clark, had the idea for a "League of Religions"
it can be found in Tony Vidler's "Architecture to be"
more importantly, from the essay:
"I went mad in Corbu's studio. There were three of us, an Austrian, a Japanese, and me. The office was run by his cousin, Jeanneret, who was loaned by the Jesuit monastery. We had no work and were not paid, obviously."
hilarious
sweet pere corbu
I would look at the popular concept that to be sacred, or to be affiliated with it, we as mortals yearn for some kind of transcendence. We are flesh and to reach a form higher than what we have been so accustomed to is a natural curiosity/pursuit.
And as our predecessors have often showed to us, space can be designed (some more exquisitely than most) to bring that feeling of transcending more achievable.
I would say yes it is possible. Even without our architecture. Without the narrow minded images/relics we use to define very small understandings of this universe. It would not be "sacred" by itself, because I doubt we can bestow sacredness on anything unless it already is...but our design would provide a sense of sacredness through the spatial experience, a feeling of transcending.
The Rothko Chapel in Houston Texas, adjacent to the Menil is precisely defined as a sacred space for all. It is rather amazing in its simplicity and the large Rothko color fields seem to hum in a subtle dialog.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.