The vast interior of the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine in Manhattan stood empty on Monday, the thousands of chairs that normally sit beneath its soaring ceiling and stained-glass windows removed to make room for a more grim sight: a coronavirus field hospital. — The New York Times
Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel III, dean of the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine in New York City tells The New York Times, “Traditionally, in earlier centuries, cathedrals were always used this way, like during the plague. So this is not outside the experience of being a cathedral, it is just new to us.”
20 Comments
Great use of the space.
Gothic doesn't exist in America. That is neo gothic or gothic revival. And the biggest gothic cathedral is in Seville (SP). Just to be clear
precisely
Guess we are building neo-modernism today. Good thing that's irrelevant to all but a few architects
Thanks, Francesco. Terms are important; otherwise, just call it a cathedral.
We hear how our profession is on the decline and that we're allowing it to be marginalized. One way to fight that: language and terminology that is ours, and relevant to describing a complex built environment that holds 7 billion people and counting.
One of the reasons our profession is increasingly marginalized is we worry about irrelevant things like this. During the Renaissance, they called classicism the Antique style, not neo-antique etc. It didn't seem to affect the quality of their work or their ability to innovate, but carry on setting ourselves above the masses and then complain why no one gets us.
Relevance depends on context, of course. This item is clearly nowhere near the importance of correct notes and specs concerning life safety, for example.
But I'd argue that our profession is also charged with describing aspects of the built environment accurately, so that people can trust what we say. So we don't mislabel a beam as a column, or a dwelling as a store. And (I'd further argue) we shouldn't give a pass to an attention-seeking headline confusing a massive church built in the 1890s with others constructed under far greater constraints several centuries earlier. It's like correcting grammar or spelling. Is it life altering? Usually not. Does it call into question basic competence? Yeah, it does.
I'm making the case that our area of expertise be seen not only as helping to make buildings (well), but also shape the discussion about them (ably). NOT worrying over the vagaries of theory and criticism, but at least getting objective facts correct-- like the date on a building.
Whew! Back to work now...
I agree with 'cirizen'. I don't think this is an irrilevant thing.
Despite the aridity of this article, this is a website about architecture, and if you do information about that, with all sort of so the terminology in this case is important,
Mislabeling a dwelling as a store isn't exactly the same thing as calling neo-gothic, gothic. Imagine a music critic labeling a song Blues rather than neo-blues...would the public not trust that critic or would the public never care what that critic said in the first place. Shouldn't Renaissance Classicism be labeled neo-classicism? This has been neo-criticism.
this is not an architect's whim, is just call things with proper terminology, that's important. Of course, as you said, it depends on context. And In my opinion this is the right context where using correct words about "architecture" is important, especially for those readers that haven't any education about that but want to improve it. Ah, anyway, today we are not building neo-modernism but contemporary architecture, architectural historians say that. This is relevant to everyone is interested in architecture or simply in culture and education. Peace
"Shouldn't Renaissance Classicism be labeled neo-classicism? " I am sorry but I don't think, ok that they are connected in "onw-way" connection but the first has different intents and characteristics compared to the second, and vice versa.
Some english grammar errors, but we are not talking about grammar :) :)
Why do they need another hospital when the Javits Center and the hospital ship are practically empty and the epidemic in NYC is winding down?
this is not an architect's whim, is just call things with proper terminology, that's important. Of course, as you said, it depends on context. And In my opinion this is the right context where using correct words about "architecture" is important, especially for those readers that haven't any education about that but want to improve it. Ah, anyway, today we are not building neo-modernism but contemporary architecture, architectural historians say that. This is relevant to everyone is interested in architecture or simply in culture and education. Peace
"today we are not building neo-modernism but contemporary architecture, architectural historians say that."
So historians know more about what I do than me? Ok.
From Mr. Webster:
Gothic
2a: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a style of architecture developed in northern France and spreading through western Europe from the middle of the 12th century to the early 16th century that is characterized by the converging of weights and strains at isolated points upon slender vertical piers and counterbalancing buttresses and by pointed arches and vaulting Gothic cathedrals
b: of or relating to an architectural style reflecting the influence of the medieval Gothic
In the general sense of the term, 2b, perfectly suitable here, St. John is Gothic. I'm not sure what is gained in demanding a precision that doesn't exist. Terms often come after the fact, coined by historians et alia, unless a group or school starts a style and names it and sets rules. Which quickly break down and lead to diversions and reactions—a good reason to make rules.
And scholars debate classifications, endlessly. Which cathedral best exemplifies the Gothic style? There is no such thing as a pure Gothic building or style. It is often hard to separate Romanesque influences from Gothic. The buildings developed over decades, the style over centuries.
For that matter, what defines the Neo Gothic style? I'm guessing you'll find a wide array of influences without a defining core. I suspect the St. John cathedral, however, is much closer in spirit and appearance to medieval cathedrals than it is to Neo Gothic buildings of the period, that calling it Neo Gothic misses the essence of what it is.
Besides, Antonio is comparing how St. John is being used as cathedrals were in the earlier centuries, to tend to plagues. Labeling the building as neo Gothic would not only have been needless precision, it would also have been distracting. Plagues, using cathedrals to tend to them, were not issues in neo Gothic times.
St. John the Divine is an unusual building. I like looking at it.
Specifically:
The cathedral is an unfinished building, with only 2⁄3 of the proposed building completed, due to several major stylistic changes and work interruptions. The original design, in the Byzantine Revival and Romanesque Revival styles, began construction in 1892. After the opening of the crossing in 1909, the overall plan was changed to a Gothic Revival design. The completion of the nave was delayed until 1941 due to various funding shortfalls, and little progress has occurred since then, except for an addition to the tower at the nave's southwest corner. After a large fire damaged part of the cathedral in 2001, it was renovated and rededicated in 2008. The towers above the western facade, as well as the southern transept and a proposed steeple above the crossing, have not been completed.
from our good friends at Wikipedia
So wait. You mean to tell me that forests are made up of TREES?
STOP! You're killing me!
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.