the thread title is a reference to a Bush-ism, as in "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists"......one can only assume that it is a remote reference to the fact that many of us post anti-Bush ramblings which are therefore being construed as anti-christian. Oh, and we're all architects.
And if i'm wrong, well then I'm with Bunny.
As for me, I've been grumpy ever since Silent Disapproval Robot went talkie.....SDR, how could you? It's not funny anymore.
Taking the bait.... Architect Phil Bess has written extensively on the issue (from a Judeo-Christian point of view). Here's a link to his published essays online:
I'm sorry but the question reminds me of Savonarola vs. Michelangelo in Florence in the late 1400s. Savonarola was a dominican monk who single-handedly almost erased the innovations of the reniassance. He argued that artists were being to profane and vulgar in their depictions of religious/biblical figures..........and burned countless works of artists.
To me, Michelangelo, who designed the sistine chapel, La pieta', san peter's dome, etc..... was more devout than a religious fanatic........
maestro: your question is intriguing, otherwise so many people wouldn't have 'commented', but you need to elaborate if you want more discussion than criticism.
heterarchy: let me phrase it in another manner (and I appreciate all the comments so far, including the bunny) doctors and lawyers to a certain degree have an implicit moral and religious compass that will allow them to formulate opinions on their work, or how to go about their work. Do architects need this? Could have Michealangelo produced the Sistine Chapel, The Pieta, and Medici Chapel without a relationship with God? Is there a contemporary example of architects who have a religious belief that is manifested in their work or how they go about it? Should this be discussed in design studio?
People already are encouraged to look at things that interest them for inspiration (at least in most studios I've been in). Professors always ask students to look at literature, film, music, art, nature, etc. In most of those kinds of situations the choice is yours as to what to bring to the table. Unless you're at a religious university, they really couldn't and shouldn't bring up religion specifically.
I think if you walked into studio and explained that your project reflected your "relationship with god" and didn't go any farther in explaining why you'd be criticized for being way too vague. People have physical vehicles for expressing their beliefs (or lack therof in my case) and those are what should be brought to the table for inspiration.
I've heard that chemists and physicists can maintain their religious beliefs but biologists have a hard time. Dan Brown's book "Angels and Demons" has a great discussion in the first chapters about the correlation between God and the "Big Bang" (so what if I have to use popular novels as my references and not scientific philosophers).
Strawberry: I can only speak on the Catholic tradition but I know there are similar philosophical works from other faiths on this topic. The issue of 'faith & knowledge" comes up frequently in discourse at Catholic universities (Notre Dame, Georgetown, BC, etc) and most often people are directed to the concepts of St. Thomas Aquinas who wrote of "a faith seeking understanding" - that is, a faith strengthened by knowledge of the natural word.
(Not doing it any justice for the sake of space, to extremely paraphrase the concept:) God is absolute beauty, absolute truth - thus virtuous activity - human aims with divine ends that lend toward the common good, such as the pursuits of architecture or science, are more than compatible to religous faith, they're a key component of it.
Building upon this them- the theologian/philosopher Jacques Maritan wrote "Art & Scholasiticism" which (though I havent read it yet) I understand speaks to the notion that artists honor God through their work of creating beauty and helping humanity see the world in new ways.
i think a time is coming when religions will change to incorporate the findings of science, you can only ignore it for so long. but there are pretty reasonably, and even beautiful, ways to incorporate religion and science. example, if religion can accept that the universe is much bigger and older than it believes, and even that humans evolved from primates, then the hand of 'god' (whichever one you believe in) could be seen in the birth social intelligence in early humans. even if we can trace the genetic changes that created it, who's to say that a higher power couldn't have initiated that change.
anyway, just a fun idea or prediction. :)
as for religion and architecture, i agree with e that our beliefs show in everything we create. and as architecture is the formal expression of every aspect of life and humanity, it inherently includes all of our beliefs, religious and otherwise.
more specifically answering your question, i think that architects should be guided by a general moral compass similar to the other professions you mentioned. if doctor's are obligated to morally protect and nurture human life, and lawyers are obligated to protect and nurture justice (insert lawyer joke here if you must:), the question is what is the architectural obligation? i'd suggest the betterment of the human condition.
the first part of your clarification seems more about morality while the second part deals more with religion per se (i don't think that the hypocratic oath or the lawyer's oath are actually religious).
i can't think of many good examples of contemporary architects who are guided by powerful religious motivations, but i'd say that tadao ando would be one good example. i'd say many architects are probably guided by deep religious values, but don't transend the barrier of making a personal statement of their values in their work as michaelangelo did. they express the aesthetic tradition of religion more than they express their own feelings or opinions of the religion.
sorry, pretty long winded.
I think religion gives meaning to a structure. Ancient temples were built to provide space and boundaries to rituals. Without the religious association, a temple is just a structure. I don't see why being an architect and being religious is incompatible. Unless your church forbids you from joining the church choir because you are an architect.
As for the moral and religious compass, I think it depends more on your personal experiences and personal beliefs. Theoreticaly, no one can force you to do something that you believe is morally and/or religiously wrong.
Could have Michealangelo produced the Sistine Chapel, The Pieta, and Medici Chapel without a relationship with God? Only God knows.
Love the bunny and the robot. I think they should do a musical duet.
Heterarchy: Hold the science thought for a moment. Architecture school (in my opinion) tends to disregard the role of one's religious perspective in one's work, not because it is not discussed, but because those architectural theories which are traditionally aligned with religion (harmony, symmetry, eurythmy, etc.) have no current place in the discourse. I believe that my Critics are uncomfortable with discussing work with a religious perspective for the same reason scientists have a hard time dealing with the role of the divine in the theory of creation or intelligent design. Why not believe that the aesthetic beauty of built form is not solely the product of human hands, but divinely inspired? Le Corbusier stated that "art enters in". How could this statement not be taken as the revelation of a divine influence that guides the work of the designer? Does this mean LC thought he was God? Perhaps, but if so, we know where he stands in his relationship with God. I feel that some critics in school place too much influence in the role of divine intervention in the creative process and call it "talent" or a "breakthrough".
i think the discourse has moved on in both architecture and religion. faith is bigger now than ever before, faith in politicians, faith in scienctists, faith in idealogues, faith in the environment, look around and you will see that people believe in a lot of things regardless of the facts. the necessity to meet and discuss everything in an open forum, to build the branches for the thousand blossoms, this is an architectural discourse i believe in, the common good we should invest in, the ties that can bind us. what is the architect's relationship with god? i don't kow, but he has a similar burden of creativity.
religion brings people together in the name of a common good, today we wonder whether the good is no longer common or whether that which is common to all will be good, architecture can help, architects will help.
Are you with us or against us?
Is being an architect, and being religious incompatible?
why?
i hope silent disapproval robot is on his way.
what?!
i'm not religious. but that question is just ridiculous. what is the point of your question?
the relationship between your subject/title and post body is completely non-sensical.
i am against this thread...
i hope not.
architecture is my religion. i don't understand the question.
Bravo Ward! Architecture is one of the most powerful tools for religious propaganda........
As for my architect friends, I think you can say they belong to two groups: overly religious or overly athiest......
well i certainly find it difficult to reconcile the secular side and the christian side of myself...
What inspired you to ask this question?
hello.
that bunny with a pancake on its head is the funniest fuCk!n& thing I have ever seen.
who are you with?
what would jesus design?
OH come on people....
the thread title is a reference to a Bush-ism, as in "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists"......one can only assume that it is a remote reference to the fact that many of us post anti-Bush ramblings which are therefore being construed as anti-christian. Oh, and we're all architects.
And if i'm wrong, well then I'm with Bunny.
As for me, I've been grumpy ever since Silent Disapproval Robot went talkie.....SDR, how could you? It's not funny anymore.
Taking the bait.... Architect Phil Bess has written extensively on the issue (from a Judeo-Christian point of view). Here's a link to his published essays online:
http://www.thursdayarchitects.com/essays.htm
sigh.. that is too much to read..
religious and secular scholars will argue in circles trying to prove each other wrong until the second coming..
and both will burn.
For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
And vice versa.
Yeah, now you've gone and turned into just "Disapproval Robot" which could never have been funny.
WonderK, it's more likely a reference to what Jesus said -'If they are not against us, they are with us.'
I'm sorry but the question reminds me of Savonarola vs. Michelangelo in Florence in the late 1400s. Savonarola was a dominican monk who single-handedly almost erased the innovations of the reniassance. He argued that artists were being to profane and vulgar in their depictions of religious/biblical figures..........and burned countless works of artists.
To me, Michelangelo, who designed the sistine chapel, La pieta', san peter's dome, etc..... was more devout than a religious fanatic........
would it really have been so funny the third time?
anyhoo. back to my piano.
Maestro, don't be silly
maestro: your question is intriguing, otherwise so many people wouldn't have 'commented', but you need to elaborate if you want more discussion than criticism.
heterarchy: let me phrase it in another manner (and I appreciate all the comments so far, including the bunny) doctors and lawyers to a certain degree have an implicit moral and religious compass that will allow them to formulate opinions on their work, or how to go about their work. Do architects need this? Could have Michealangelo produced the Sistine Chapel, The Pieta, and Medici Chapel without a relationship with God? Is there a contemporary example of architects who have a religious belief that is manifested in their work or how they go about it? Should this be discussed in design studio?
I think unless all you want to design is churches, it's irrelevant. But that bunny's awesome!
i think each of our personal views and experiences are reflected in the way we approach our work.
People already are encouraged to look at things that interest them for inspiration (at least in most studios I've been in). Professors always ask students to look at literature, film, music, art, nature, etc. In most of those kinds of situations the choice is yours as to what to bring to the table. Unless you're at a religious university, they really couldn't and shouldn't bring up religion specifically.
I think if you walked into studio and explained that your project reflected your "relationship with god" and didn't go any farther in explaining why you'd be criticized for being way too vague. People have physical vehicles for expressing their beliefs (or lack therof in my case) and those are what should be brought to the table for inspiration.
i think people bring personal influences, like religion and sexuality, to the table in more subtle ways than you are suggesting bryan.
everyone has a world view... its a prizm through which we put value on our experiences..
Sure architects can be religious.
I don't see how scientists can be though.
why not?
Because science usually conflicts with religion.
Example: dinosaurs, evolution, possible life on Mars
what's the point of knowing what happened xxxx years ago, when you don't even know how to solve the problems in your heart..
(i am not talking to anyone in particular)
I've heard that chemists and physicists can maintain their religious beliefs but biologists have a hard time. Dan Brown's book "Angels and Demons" has a great discussion in the first chapters about the correlation between God and the "Big Bang" (so what if I have to use popular novels as my references and not scientific philosophers).
SDR- i've been on archinect for about 10 months now and that picture is the first thing that has ever made me laugh out loud.
Strawberry: I can only speak on the Catholic tradition but I know there are similar philosophical works from other faiths on this topic. The issue of 'faith & knowledge" comes up frequently in discourse at Catholic universities (Notre Dame, Georgetown, BC, etc) and most often people are directed to the concepts of St. Thomas Aquinas who wrote of "a faith seeking understanding" - that is, a faith strengthened by knowledge of the natural word.
(Not doing it any justice for the sake of space, to extremely paraphrase the concept:) God is absolute beauty, absolute truth - thus virtuous activity - human aims with divine ends that lend toward the common good, such as the pursuits of architecture or science, are more than compatible to religous faith, they're a key component of it.
Building upon this them- the theologian/philosopher Jacques Maritan wrote "Art & Scholasiticism" which (though I havent read it yet) I understand speaks to the notion that artists honor God through their work of creating beauty and helping humanity see the world in new ways.
i think a time is coming when religions will change to incorporate the findings of science, you can only ignore it for so long. but there are pretty reasonably, and even beautiful, ways to incorporate religion and science. example, if religion can accept that the universe is much bigger and older than it believes, and even that humans evolved from primates, then the hand of 'god' (whichever one you believe in) could be seen in the birth social intelligence in early humans. even if we can trace the genetic changes that created it, who's to say that a higher power couldn't have initiated that change.
anyway, just a fun idea or prediction. :)
as for religion and architecture, i agree with e that our beliefs show in everything we create. and as architecture is the formal expression of every aspect of life and humanity, it inherently includes all of our beliefs, religious and otherwise.
more specifically answering your question, i think that architects should be guided by a general moral compass similar to the other professions you mentioned. if doctor's are obligated to morally protect and nurture human life, and lawyers are obligated to protect and nurture justice (insert lawyer joke here if you must:), the question is what is the architectural obligation? i'd suggest the betterment of the human condition.
the first part of your clarification seems more about morality while the second part deals more with religion per se (i don't think that the hypocratic oath or the lawyer's oath are actually religious).
i can't think of many good examples of contemporary architects who are guided by powerful religious motivations, but i'd say that tadao ando would be one good example. i'd say many architects are probably guided by deep religious values, but don't transend the barrier of making a personal statement of their values in their work as michaelangelo did. they express the aesthetic tradition of religion more than they express their own feelings or opinions of the religion.
sorry, pretty long winded.
and that bunny is the funniest damn thing i've seen in a long time :)
i cracked up as well when i saw it... awesome
I think religion gives meaning to a structure. Ancient temples were built to provide space and boundaries to rituals. Without the religious association, a temple is just a structure. I don't see why being an architect and being religious is incompatible. Unless your church forbids you from joining the church choir because you are an architect.
As for the moral and religious compass, I think it depends more on your personal experiences and personal beliefs. Theoreticaly, no one can force you to do something that you believe is morally and/or religiously wrong.
Could have Michealangelo produced the Sistine Chapel, The Pieta, and Medici Chapel without a relationship with God? Only God knows.
Love the bunny and the robot. I think they should do a musical duet.
I'm jumping on the bunny bandwagon... thats where my vote is cast.
it's all about the common goods
Heterarchy: Hold the science thought for a moment. Architecture school (in my opinion) tends to disregard the role of one's religious perspective in one's work, not because it is not discussed, but because those architectural theories which are traditionally aligned with religion (harmony, symmetry, eurythmy, etc.) have no current place in the discourse. I believe that my Critics are uncomfortable with discussing work with a religious perspective for the same reason scientists have a hard time dealing with the role of the divine in the theory of creation or intelligent design. Why not believe that the aesthetic beauty of built form is not solely the product of human hands, but divinely inspired? Le Corbusier stated that "art enters in". How could this statement not be taken as the revelation of a divine influence that guides the work of the designer? Does this mean LC thought he was God? Perhaps, but if so, we know where he stands in his relationship with God. I feel that some critics in school place too much influence in the role of divine intervention in the creative process and call it "talent" or a "breakthrough".
i think the discourse has moved on in both architecture and religion. faith is bigger now than ever before, faith in politicians, faith in scienctists, faith in idealogues, faith in the environment, look around and you will see that people believe in a lot of things regardless of the facts. the necessity to meet and discuss everything in an open forum, to build the branches for the thousand blossoms, this is an architectural discourse i believe in, the common good we should invest in, the ties that can bind us. what is the architect's relationship with god? i don't kow, but he has a similar burden of creativity.
religion brings people together in the name of a common good, today we wonder whether the good is no longer common or whether that which is common to all will be good, architecture can help, architects will help.
vote dino.
sdr & his piano are vastly superior in comedic content than that fucking rabbit.
sdr is my new religion.
I'm very religious, and in love with Architecture too
I'm against us
the bunny and the robot are both fantastic- but nothing beats an act of god like the elephants who ate the restaurant in seoul this week....
[url=http://jeffinkorea.blogs.com/ruminations_in_korea/2005/04/breaking_news_s.html]link[/feeding the 2 elephants]
what???????????
do whatever u want
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.