The death of Detail

2,903 Views | 35 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by PabloSerna
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think about this often, esp with modern churches

Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I often find these arguments problematic. If you're comparing generic modern products and designs to what you see that survives from the past, you're typically comparing apples and oranges. Your everyday, generic, throwaway products and designs from 150 years ago didn't survive till today. And the ubiquity of things like benches and bollards today are very different from their distribution in the Victorian era. I think there's also a discussion to be had about the emphasis in the past on design for the elite few vs design intended to be simpler to produce for the use of all.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As someone who's been involved in the design of a number of churches this varies a lot with sect.

We've done some fancy old world style, and some modern ones with plenty of masonry and ornate features. St. Martin in houston is a good example.

But virtually every Protestant one wants a simple massive structure with perhaps a stupid big cross. The Catholics and Muslims throw the most money per square foot at their buildings.

Mormons are somewhere in between for what I've done but closer to the Protestants. Never done a Jewish structure.

The current modern minimalist, lots of light, sleek designs is a deliberate choice but there are also functional differences. Some of those old ornate guardrails and fences don't meet modern code.

Same with something as simple as a bollard (if it's more than a traffic diverter and designed as a vehicle barrier). The aluminum cylinder design simply complements a number of buildings better, has better weather resistance/lower maintenance and are often configured to be easily removed.

Covering a high rise with brick or stone is terribly expensive, usually when we do it it's only at the bottom few floors and the top switches to plaster or something lighter and cheaper and easier to construct.

Those glass curtain walls are light, flexible (big buildings move a lot) decently energy efficient, readily constructed 300 ft in the air and provide a view-which is what people are paying for on the high floors.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The bollard on the left would likely catch on things when it retracted into the ground if it was able to do so like the one on the right.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The current modern minimalist, lots of light, sleek designs is a deliberate choice

It's basically an overcorrection - they believe fundamentally that those they are called to reach will not step foot inside a church. Therefore, the design decision is to make it look nothing like a traditional church.

I've asked this question of several churches leadership and this is what it comes back to.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Very interesting Twitter thread, thanks for sharing.

Building design used to be a lot more location-specific, with local materials and building practices. But with globalization came the evolution of best practices and globally sourced materials. I'm also not sure it's possible to make skyscrapers interesting because the scale and ratio of height to building size would overwhelm details.

As far as minimalist interior design, I think this works in America because the problem in most households is having too much stuff and clutter and having a lot of visual and audio clutter from TVs, iPads, smartphones etc. Sumptuous old fashioned interiors have tons of details that might be overwhelming given the amount of stimulus 21st century Americans already get.

Just my speculation.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd say a lot of pre-modernist interior design was rather unattractive. It was extremely cluttered and the patterns were almost insanely garish. If you ever see a Victorian house painted in their preferred style with their preferred colors, you'd think a demented hippy lived there. And I would never advise taking drugs before looking at their wallpaper as that will guarantee a bad trip.

Much of what survives is not necessarily accurate to the original era. It's often that certain pieces or designs have been saved but the surrounding environment has been altered to more reflect recent trends and materials. Even the Enlightenment, which tended towards more subdued design vs the Baroque era before it, included some interesting choices. Often this was due to fads, for which Chinese prints and porcelains were the most popular during and after the Revolution.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, I've seen some interior photos of Victorian era houses and have cousins who live in an old Queen Anne. One of the rooms still has the original wallpaper which they had refurbished. It is orange and gold, a combination that you'd have to see to believe. Overall I'm not a fan of the aesthetics of the era.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://newworldbyzantine.com/sacred/
NoahAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd rather the Church put God's money toward spreading the Gospel than construct buildings of fine Italian marble and rich mahogany.
Let's go, Brandon!
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
a beautiful work of art can spread the Gospel, can it not?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Super fun response

swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Serotonin said:

Yeah, I've seen some interior photos of Victorian era houses and have cousins who live in an old Queen Anne. One of the rooms still has the original wallpaper which they had refurbished. It is orange and gold, a combination that you'd have to see to believe. Overall I'm not a fan of the aesthetics of the era.


if you saw my home, I think demented hippie is closer to my style than minimalist.

I describe my home decor "as though a world market threw up" mostly.
AGinHI
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

I often find these arguments problematic. If you're comparing generic modern products and designs to what you see that survives from the past, you're typically comparing apples and oranges. Your everyday, generic, throwaway products and designs from 150 years ago didn't survive till today. And the ubiquity of things like benches and bollards today are very different from their distribution in the Victorian era. I think there's also a discussion to be had about the emphasis in the past on design for the elite few vs design intended to be simpler to produce for the use of all.
I've been going to and fro in TexAgs forums after our baseball loss today and I just wanted to say in this thread that I enjoy your knowledge of history (you teach history correct?). I also read your responses in the savage Indians thread on the History board today. I so appreciate the expertise of TAs posters.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I always assumed the minimalist design has more to do with being cheaper than being an actual design plan.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not too mention that it was literally deadly
https://www.slam.org/blog/arsenic-in-victorian-wallpaper/#:~:text=Chemists%20and%20paint%20makers%20introduced,that%20arsenical%20wallpaper%20could%20kill.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And I think we can all agree that mid century modern is the pinnacle of design.

Followed closely by streamline modern and atomic age
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGinHI said:

Sapper Redux said:

I often find these arguments problematic. If you're comparing generic modern products and designs to what you see that survives from the past, you're typically comparing apples and oranges. Your everyday, generic, throwaway products and designs from 150 years ago didn't survive till today. And the ubiquity of things like benches and bollards today are very different from their distribution in the Victorian era. I think there's also a discussion to be had about the emphasis in the past on design for the elite few vs design intended to be simpler to produce for the use of all.
I've been going to and fro in TexAgs forums after our baseball loss today and I just wanted to say in this thread that I enjoy your knowledge of history (you teach history correct?). I also read your responses in the savage Indians thread on the History board today. I so appreciate the expertise of TAs posters.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know.


I appreciate the kind words. Yes, I teach early American / early modern European history (typically).
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I always assumed the minimalist design has more to do with being cheaper than being an actual design plan.

There's been some tie-in with anti-consumption, but there's definitely some expensive minimalist design items.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

I often find these arguments problematic. If you're comparing generic modern products and designs to what you see that survives from the past, you're typically comparing apples and oranges. Your everyday, generic, throwaway products and designs from 150 years ago didn't survive till today. And the ubiquity of things like benches and bollards today are very different from their distribution in the Victorian era. I think there's also a discussion to be had about the emphasis in the past on design for the elite few vs design intended to be simpler to produce for the use of all.


Can we explore this a little? The idea of throwaway generic things is modern. Ikea and fast fashion are new ideas, not old ones. It's not apples to oranges at all; it's a function of wealth, identity, materialism, and more. In a world where things are expensive we work and save for the real thing because we value them. We then hand them down. In a world where things are cheap and inexpensive, where I can and may change my identity at a moment's notice, why would I pay extra for details? It serves a basic function and will be swapped out soon enough. Everything is stripped down to what someone considers its essential purpose and nothing else is valued (see the response earlier about spreading the gospel, as if beauty and reverence offers nothing to it).

Edit: i say this as someone who has parents and family members aging into senior living facilities. I have ikea furniture and I'm swapping it out slowly for real wood and quality materials as we're offered stuff from them. I don't buy fast fashion for myself or my family. Details are character; smells, sights, feels, the things that generate memories and tie a person to a place rather than the vapid sterility of the modern coffee shop.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

The current modern minimalist, lots of light, sleek designs is a deliberate choice

It's basically an overcorrection - they believe fundamentally that those they are called to reach will not step foot inside a church. Therefore, the design decision is to make it look nothing like a traditional church.

I've asked this question of several churches leadership and this is what it comes back to.


At my prior church that's part of it but really it speaks more to theology. Architecture is a function of belief as much as anything else. If you're just here to spread the gospel and it's all gonna burn why spend extra on the details instead of the souls?

The most important thing will be front and center. If you're evangelical it's the preacher and the podium and everything flows from there. Here's the word now go share it outside of here. If you're liturgical its the real presence that's more than just a 'god is everywhere at all times' type thing. The story of God is told all throughout the church and your congregation is steeped in it (via stained glass, the liturgy, the procession). So why neglect the building, pews, and windows?
NoahAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
swimmerbabe11 said:

a beautiful work of art can spread the Gospel, can it not?
Perhaps.
But not when it is hoarded behind the vatican walls.
Let's go, Brandon!
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Duncan Idaho said:

And I think we can all agree that mid century modern is the pinnacle of design.

Followed closely by streamline modern and atomic age


literally ew to me
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
this is a great description that does a very good Job of being fair to both sides
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
swimmerbabe11 said:

Duncan Idaho said:

And I think we can all agree that mid century modern is the pinnacle of design.

Followed closely by streamline modern and atomic age


literally ew to me

Your taste is clearly as bad as your theology

Winky face
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I love MCM although sadly I think it is on the way out in popularity compared to the last 15 years. I don't think it will ever be completely out of style but things seem to be trending towards more bohemian/eclectic/maximalist design cues now.

But there is a lot of really bad "modern' styling in coffee shops and meeting spaces across America that make for very underwhelming spaces and is causing the inevitable backlash.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

At my prior church that's part of it but really it speaks more to theology.

I don't really get this response, as I have not stated anything otherwise.

Quote:

The most important thing will be front and center. If you're evangelical it's the preacher and the podium and everything flows from there.
That's where you miss it. What's front and center is the atmosphere that gets whoever says "I can't go to church because I wont be accepted" in the door. The building architecture is all about this, not necessarily about the preacher. (obviously, there will be exceptions). I don't even 100% agree with it, but I understand it.


Quote:

Here's the word now go share it outside of here. If you're liturgical its the real presence that's more than just a 'god is everywhere at all times' type thing. The story of God is told all throughout the church and your congregation is steeped in it (via stained glass, the liturgy, the procession). So why neglect the building, pews, and windows?

Luke 15: 7 - "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

(note: personally, I don't see either or as being better or worse, so I have no interest in any sort of debate where I am defending evangelical design. I am just telling you were it comes from)
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:


Quote:

At my prior church that's part of it but really it speaks more to theology.

I don't really get this response, as I have not stated anything otherwise.

Quote:

The most important thing will be front and center. If you're evangelical it's the preacher and the podium and everything flows from there.
That's where you miss it. What's front and center is the atmosphere that gets whoever says "I can't go to church because I wont be accepted" in the door. The building architecture is all about this, not necessarily about the preacher. (obviously, there will be exceptions). I don't even 100% agree with it, but I understand it.


Quote:

Here's the word now go share it outside of here. If you're liturgical its the real presence that's more than just a 'god is everywhere at all times' type thing. The story of God is told all throughout the church and your congregation is steeped in it (via stained glass, the liturgy, the procession). So why neglect the building, pews, and windows?

Luke 15: 7 - "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

(note: personally, I don't see either or as being better or worse, so I have no interest in any sort of debate where I am defending evangelical design. I am just telling you were it comes from)



Church architecture is distinct - it requires a worship space and normally classrooms. You can't escape that. Regardless of your outward design and materials the inward use informs your belief. Minimalist interiors with nothing on stage but a podium point to…the pastor! Sure you're not putting a steeple in their face but you're making clear what's important. Buildings made of the same materials and design as those around it are communicating exactly what you say: they're not a church. I'm not missing anything as I've been at several churches during building campaigns and have seen and heard the explanations for the decisions as well.

I have no idea what you're getting at with the second part. I was simply informing what the liturgical attitude is. Stained glass was important for an illiterate people to tell a story. It can inform a poorly catechize youth group as we if you'll let it. Beauty and detail can and often is an overflow of the heart and worship.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My church is definitely a minimal design. At one point we started decorating the stage(I know you liturgical folks hate that term), but there was pressure to stop because the message should be all that matters. The only design we are allowed to have is a cross. It bothers me, I think the message is important but like others have said, worship can be done through art.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

diehard03 said:


Quote:

At my prior church that's part of it but really it speaks more to theology.

I don't really get this response, as I have not stated anything otherwise.

Quote:

The most important thing will be front and center. If you're evangelical it's the preacher and the podium and everything flows from there.
That's where you miss it. What's front and center is the atmosphere that gets whoever says "I can't go to church because I wont be accepted" in the door. The building architecture is all about this, not necessarily about the preacher. (obviously, there will be exceptions). I don't even 100% agree with it, but I understand it.


Quote:

Here's the word now go share it outside of here. If you're liturgical its the real presence that's more than just a 'god is everywhere at all times' type thing. The story of God is told all throughout the church and your congregation is steeped in it (via stained glass, the liturgy, the procession). So why neglect the building, pews, and windows?

Luke 15: 7 - "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

(note: personally, I don't see either or as being better or worse, so I have no interest in any sort of debate where I am defending evangelical design. I am just telling you were it comes from)



Church architecture is distinct - it requires a worship space and normally classrooms. You can't escape that. Regardless of your outward design and materials the inward use informs your belief. Minimalist interiors with nothing on stage but a podium point to…the pastor! Sure you're not putting a steeple in their face but you're making clear what's important. Buildings made of the same materials and design as those around it are communicating exactly what you say: they're not a church. I'm not missing anything as I've been at several churches during building campaigns and have seen and heard the explanations for the decisions as well.

I have no idea what you're getting at with the second part. I was simply informing what the liturgical attitude is. Stained glass was important for an illiterate people to tell a story. It can inform a poorly catechize youth group as we if you'll let it. Beauty and detail can and often is an overflow of the heart and worship.
I'll just point out that the Puritans did not believe in sacred space. Their meetinghouses served as a court, city hall, fortress, school, and church. They thought it sinful (idolatrous) to decorate the space. The idea was to focus on the individual and communal relationship with God rather than a relationship with the space. So minimalism isn't new.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Evangelical churches are not a monolith. Not all are putting the pastor front and center. This is what I think you are missing.

The 2nd part was informing why neglecting pews, stained glass, etc. I am not saying that your church does not focus on this, but as you've noted - architecture informs belief. Focusing on the lost means eschewing some of these things.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Evangelical churches are not a monolith. Not all are putting the pastor front and center. This is what I think you are missing.

The 2nd part was informing why neglecting pews, stained glass, etc. I am not saying that your church does not focus on this, but as you've noted - architecture informs belief. Focusing on the lost means eschewing some of these things.


Ok. What's the most important part of the service (what do you build up to and spend most of your time on)? And who delivers it? Where do they stand in relation to the people? And where do they sit/stand in relation to the presence of God?

Focusing on the lost does not mean eschewing these things. Seeker friendly churches have their own issues but one doesn't need to forsake beauty.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

diehard03 said:


Quote:

At my prior church that's part of it but really it speaks more to theology.

I don't really get this response, as I have not stated anything otherwise.

Quote:

The most important thing will be front and center. If you're evangelical it's the preacher and the podium and everything flows from there.
That's where you miss it. What's front and center is the atmosphere that gets whoever says "I can't go to church because I wont be accepted" in the door. The building architecture is all about this, not necessarily about the preacher. (obviously, there will be exceptions). I don't even 100% agree with it, but I understand it.


Quote:

Here's the word now go share it outside of here. If you're liturgical its the real presence that's more than just a 'god is everywhere at all times' type thing. The story of God is told all throughout the church and your congregation is steeped in it (via stained glass, the liturgy, the procession). So why neglect the building, pews, and windows?

Luke 15: 7 - "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

(note: personally, I don't see either or as being better or worse, so I have no interest in any sort of debate where I am defending evangelical design. I am just telling you were it comes from)



Church architecture is distinct - it requires a worship space and normally classrooms. You can't escape that. Regardless of your outward design and materials the inward use informs your belief. Minimalist interiors with nothing on stage but a podium point to…the pastor! Sure you're not putting a steeple in their face but you're making clear what's important. Buildings made of the same materials and design as those around it are communicating exactly what you say: they're not a church. I'm not missing anything as I've been at several churches during building campaigns and have seen and heard the explanations for the decisions as well.

I have no idea what you're getting at with the second part. I was simply informing what the liturgical attitude is. Stained glass was important for an illiterate people to tell a story. It can inform a poorly catechize youth group as we if you'll let it. Beauty and detail can and often is an overflow of the heart and worship.
I'll just point out that the Puritans did not believe in sacred space. Their meetinghouses served as a court, city hall, fortress, school, and church. They thought it sinful (idolatrous) to decorate the space. The idea was to focus on the individual and communal relationship with God rather than a relationship with the space. So minimalism isn't new.


Minimalism / modern architecture as we describe and use it is. Puritans didn't have exposed duct work and beams with brick interiors. There is an evolution of worship space from the temple to the early church to the modern one. Where the altar is, whether people sit or stand, where they do so, much has shifted as worship and its focus have changed post reformation. The puritans are part of that evolution and some evangelical churches have large multipurpose rooms used as sanctuaries very much like they did.

Edit: this isn't to claim liturgical traditions remain untouched. Some vary as well. Some try to preserve those aspects. Most do not go near as far into the minimalist space because of their theology.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

What's the most important part of the service (what do you build up to and spend most of your time on)?

There is no most important part.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

this is a great description that does a very good Job of being fair to both sides


The Vatican recognizes that it is a curator of works of art. There is no hoarding as you put it.

Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.