David Schaengold finds the skyscraper to be the emblematic building of the age of science, and the observation deck on some of them to be akin to a cathedral’s high altar. Excerpt:
Nothing like the scientific method was found in antiquity, and what glimmers of it appeared in the Middle Ages were feeble. The systematic use of the method, institutionalized in journals and laboratories, is characteristically modern, but the psychology of the scientists who employ it represents a Christian ideal. Many scientists seem to feel a passionate, personal joy at the ordered reasonableness of the universe, or more specifically, that it is reasonable, but its reasons are never exhausted. This joy is a species of the joy in being qua being that Aquinas, speaking for the Christian tradition, claimed to be the proper disposition of all Christians toward the created order. You have to know some scientists personally, I think, to realize that scientists are like this, because scientists themselves are not encouraged to articulate it, though sometimes you do hear statements in the press about how a new finding is “really darn cool.”
Being happy merely to see and to understand, as scientists are, is the feeling responsible for observation decks, whose most intellectually incurious and aesthetically stolid visitors thrill with joy as they marvel at the works of Man and discover how familiar neighborhoods tessellate. Though surmise about the psychology of ages past is hazardous, I’ll venture to guess that the civilization of the modern West has privileged and encouraged joy in the way the universe works more than any civilization in history.
An interesting thought. Though the experience of looking out on the world from the observation deck of the World Trade Center — which I was able to do twice before 9/11 (and by the way, look at these new aerial images of the disaster, sent by reader mm) — I have always had a mild aversion to skyscrapers. It’s not a fear of heights. It’s that they’ve always struck me at the emotional level as inhuman: a cold and usually featureless shaft of power rising so high into the sky that the people down below become an abstraction. The monstrous Le Corbusier once described a house as “a machine for living in,” a description that seems apt to me for a skyscraper: a machine for working in. I am capable of seeing beauty in skyscrapers — and to me, the most beautiful are the most un-modernist, e.g., the Chrysler Building, Rockefeller Center) — just as I am capable of seeing formal beauty in certain modernist works of art. But it’s a cold and forbidding beauty, one that speaks to me of the pitiless triumph of technological civilization over humanistic sensibilities and values.
The medieval cathedral, by contrast, is to me the architectural glory of humanity, a place that fulfills on a surpassing level the judgment Philip Larkin passed on a country church in his great post-Christian poem “Church Going,” to wit:
A serious house on serious earth it is,
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
Are recognized, and robed as destinies.
I’ve written before about how a different young man emerged from the Chartres Cathedral than entered it on that day in my 18th year I visited my first medieval European cathedral. I was not even Catholic, or meaningfully Christian, but I felt overawed by the majesty of the building. Mind you, it’s easy to feel overawed by the majesty of a skyscraper, but in the case of the cathedral, it was not so much the bigness, but the intricate human detail and design within the immensity. With a skyscraper, it’s just brute force and will. In a medieval cathedral, the soul feels its worth, experiencing both the exaltation of God, and His distance, and one’s intimate and beloved place within the hierarchy of existence. Once, a few years ago, I attended a winter morning’s mass at Notre Dame in Paris, with a small congregation, and beheld — that is the only word to use — the sun rising slowly through the rose window. It was one of the most magnificent things I’ve ever seen, far more moving to me than the view from an observation deck.
Still, I think Schaengold is on the mark here, in the way he writes about the skyscraper and the observation deck. It’s only that I see it as a defeat for humanity, even though it’s a triumph for science and engineering. They can’t build churches that look worth a damn anymore either, not these days. If you live in New York and want to know how alien to any human thing a modern church can be, go by the small church of St. John the Evangelist in the Archdiocese of New York headquarters and poke your head in. It belongs in a skyscraper, or in Princess Leia’s palace.
By the way, five years ago, George Weigel wrote a short, good book contrasting these two worldviews, called “The Cube and the Cathedral.” He foresees the end of Western civilization if the cube (or, you might say, the skyscraper) triumphs over the cathedral. He’s not merely talking about religion, but about a view of human nature and its highest spiritual aspirations. The interesting insight Schaengold offers us about the connection between spirituality and architecture in his admiration of the skyscraper tells us something about one’s social ideals. As I’ve said, the skyscraper, an undeniably amazing achievement, represents the triumph of science and technology over humanistic values, not, as Schaengold sees it, the fulfillment of them.
What do you think?
posted February 11, 2010 at 9:36 am
Well, let’s not forget the mosque, especially those of the Ottomans (Sinan in the 16ht century in particular), which took the fabulousness of Hagia Sophia even further:
http://dillon-media.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/img_2770test2.jpg
posted February 11, 2010 at 9:38 am
I’m kind of surprised you didn’t make the skyscraper/Tower of Babel comparison…
David Schaengold finds the skyscraper to be the emblematic building of the age of science, and the observation deck on some of them to be akin to a cathedral’s high altar.
Hmmm, I would have said the ‘atom smashers’ of CERN and Fermilab were the emblematic buildings of the age of science.
Here’s a bit of serendipity for you – take a look at the image of “End view of a collision of two gold beams in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.” at this link:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom-smasher.htm
and see how the image resembles the stained glass window pictured above.
Pretty cool, eh?
posted February 11, 2010 at 10:03 am
uh duh -
http://images.google.com/images?q=tower+of+babel
Tower of Babel, anyone?
Less than a month after opening Burj Khalifa has CLOSED how’s that for a pinacle of achievement ? [ mises . org / images4 / 3038Figure1.jpg ] [ www . lewrockwell . com / blog / lewrw / archives / 49913.html ] [ blog . mises . org / archives / 010654.asp ]
North Korea’s version RYUGYONG HOTEL never opened – its still a hulk of empty concrete in downtown Pyongyang
http://images.google.com/images?&q=north+korea+hotel
Beware of ideological hubris – the “cube” that Weigel’s barbs were aiming for was probably closer to home: the RC Cathedral in Los Angeles!
Want three dimensions perfected? Try a sphere.
Now, the you’re into the real problem – how to sustain it?
(ie ensure the elevators don’t get stuck half a mile up in “skys-the-limit’” Dubai, or half a mile down in a WV mineshaft, perhaps?)
Why! that’s well nigh impossible unless you are our mighty Creator. In all humility, the best we can do is sink to our knees in awe and adoration – and that’s exactly what cathedrals were designed for — not to “glorify humanity” WRONG perspective Rod, sorry — (too much of an American Calvinist-we’re-the-city-on-the-hill-mindset) but to glorify GOD!
posted February 11, 2010 at 10:34 am
Defeat for humanity? What do you think science and engineering are? They are the work of humanity, the pride that humanity legitimately takes in accomplishment, in knowledge. I will take the skyscraper, built on miracles that work for us daily, over the beautiful but flawed work of those who had tremendous skill but put it to the service of what seems to me a base and vile superstition.
A skyscraper works. A cathedral is just a glorified barn.
posted February 11, 2010 at 10:47 am
Two things that came to mind:
(1) the mind-blowing splendor of Islamic Persian architecture. Nothing mechanistic or utilitarian about it: http://pesaretabrizi.livejournal.com/1595.html
(2) the Orthodox internet has been all abuzz about Andrew Gould lately. He’s an architect who’s all about incorporating traditional Byzantine methodology and aesthetics into the American situation of his projects. It’s tough to explain, just give it a look: http://www.newworldbyzantine.com/projects/churches/
posted February 11, 2010 at 10:50 am
Why! that’s well nigh impossible unless you are our mighty Creator. In all humility, the best we can do is sink to our knees in awe and adoration -
Oh, please. Efficient half-mile high elevators are simply a matter of material and structural technology.
Take a read about these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
posted February 11, 2010 at 11:05 am
A skyscraper has nothing to do with science. It was motivated by a specific arrangement of commerce and corporations, by the status-driven need of Big People to be in the same building with even Bigger People so they can have intimate pissing contests with the Bigger People.
Height wasn’t made possible by theoretical science; cathedrals are taller than the vast majority of skyscrapers, and cathedrals have lasted for 500 years. The science of the stonemason, based on experience plus applied math, was plenty good enough.
posted February 11, 2010 at 11:23 am
polistra, the first part was funny and so true. The second bit ignores that the addition of a steel frame to buildings is what let them go high and have lots of volume. Stone buildings can go high, but either their interior volumes are taken up by supporting structures, or like cathedrals they have to be added on to the outside of the building.
It is is neither the cube nor the sky scraper that will doom Western civilization. Microsoft PowerPoint is going to be the end of all civilization.
posted February 11, 2010 at 11:49 am
Regarding Andrew Gould — my parish brought him out for an initial consultation last month. The man knows what he’s doing, and is one of the nicest, humblest people you’d ever want to meet. He had some great ideas for our church; the question for us will just be if we feel up to the challenge of a $2.5 million capital campaign. More detailed thoughts here: http://leitourgeia.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/on-the-difference-between-??????-and-??????-and-building-a-church-that-makes-the-difference-clear-part-i/
The skyscraper and the car go hand in hand as a monument to modernism. Use mass transit to get up and down in a skyscraper (i. e., the elevator), and it’s progress. Use it to get to the skyscraper, and it’s socialism. Look at the paranoid reader comments about the proposed mass transit system in Indianapolis: http://www.indystar.com/comments/article/20100211/LOCAL18/2110416/Momentum-vital-to-transit-plan
posted February 11, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Both forms have their beauties, I suppose, but the obviously phallic nature of skyscrapers, and the symbolic attempt at castration implied by 9/11 (followed by Dubai’s attempts to build the world’s tallest building) do make tall skyscrapers vulnerable to the charge of being simply an emblem of power and an excuse for the stupid games that terrorists and corporations play.
Personally, I think I prefer the majestic cathedral. The church I attend is not a cathedral, but it is Gothic, and so beautiful, that I could conceive of having my ashes interred there when I die.
posted February 11, 2010 at 12:30 pm
The ornate churches and mosques of centuries ago are as beautiful and detailed as they are because of the presence of cheap labor and taxation by the church.
When labor becomes more expensive, it’s harder to put up a structure with such detailed masonry, sculpture, stained glass and the rest (this is also why the Chrysler building is so much cooler than anything going up today). Plus, when the church no longer has the power of the state as a fundraising tool, it can’t pay all those masons, sculptors and artists.
In one sense, it’s a shame that buildings like the one Rod shows can’t be built anymore. In another, it shows how we have dignified the average citizen to the point that we no longer believe it is acceptable to keep him in a permanent state of penury and near-starvation to glorify both God and the people who claim to govern in his name.
posted February 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm
To rephrase rj: where your treasure is, there will your big, beautiful buildings be also.
posted February 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm
The purpose of art is to concretize the sum of a man’s knowledge. It gives him an immediate object that represents his nature and his place in the universe. A man finds value in art when it objectifies his sense of life and shows him a glimpse of existence in an ideal world. In contrast, he loathes art that tells him his ideas are all wrong. So, a man who sees the human mind as imperfect will necessarily disvalue a skyscraper. Read the “The Fountainhead” for more details.
posted February 11, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Richard, your own discussion of Gould’s work is what brought me to mention it here!
posted February 11, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Re: it shows how we have dignified the average citizen to the point that we no longer believe it is acceptable to keep him in a permanent state of penury and near-starvation
People in the Middle Ages were not “kept” in a state of penury and near starvation. To the extent people in the past (and not even the distant past) had fewer material riches than we do, this was a function of their lower technological base: they just didn’t have the sort of economic surplus to allow for the living standards we enjoy, and most people had to labor in farming to produce enough food. Even being rich was no guarantee of a good life, as consider the awful childhood mortality stats one finds historically in royalty. Meanwhile, those skilled artisans who decorated the cathedrals were actually doing pretty well by the standards of their day.
posted February 11, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Ivan: Shucks. Well, I hope I don’t constitute “the Orthodox internet” all by my lonesome!
posted February 11, 2010 at 4:39 pm
High Middle Ages Europe is characterized by the cathedral at Chartres.
High Modernist America is characterized by the Empire State Building.
21st century America will be characterized either by the abandoned shopping mall, the old folks’ home, or the government office building.
Think about it. And consider what that says about us.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
posted February 11, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Two of the most uplifting buildings I know are the Parthenon in Rome -a fantastic pagan space which it nearly 2000 years old and the Mosque in Cordoba which is probably 10th Century but suffers the indignity of a Cathedral supplanted within it’s walls. However that’s a development in history and intriguing for that very reason. One of the most depressing is the cathedral hewn out of a hill outside Madrid and dedicated to Franco. In some terms a great modern building supported by the modern Catholic church and where many republicans/aetheists died in its building. A building austere and spiritual for all the wrong reasons.
Both the earlier buildings are beautiful and spiritual but strangely the former appears to inspire the design of our local shopping mall, a point noticed by my 12 year old daughter. This is architecture borne out of the spirit of Disneyworld , but the connection is still a good one and serves to make a link with the past.
While modern architects may say, and some may believe, that they are building temples to modernity, it would be wiser to understand this as a kind of modern artistic spin whilst meeting a modern purpose within budget. Buildings are likely to be successful if they serve the purpose of the function for which they are intended. Large cathedrals today seem to succeed because they draw tourists or they meet the requirement of specific kinds of spiritual aesthete. I like them too but to lump modern skyscrapers together and compare with the medieval cathedral is a bit disingenuous. Are apples really better than pears?
posted February 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm
The men who worked on those early skyscrapers (Chrysler and Rockefeller Center as an example) weren’t paid so well – about $1,900 a year which in todays money would be less than $30,000 a year. They also worked when there were few safety regs in place as well as no worker compensation.
skilled artisans who worked on a cathedral had their wages set by the Guild – not the Church and if they were injured or died the Guilds provided for them or their families. In that sense they were actually better off than the men who worked on the early modern skyscrapers.
I don’t see skyscrapers as being about science/engineering but more about money – capitalism – and power. In that sense a more accurate comparison would be to castles – which were also about projecting power and intimidation – and were built using forced labor from the local serfs and were supported by taxing the locals. Note too that castles lack the decorative elements that are all over your basic cathedral.
What I dislike about your modern downtown dominated by skyscrapers is 1) the lack of human scale 2) the lack of sunlight. They do seem to me to be all about a contest – my skyscraper is bigger than yours.
I also think that most skyscrapers would be obsolete without cheap energy. I know it is very un- pc to speak poorly of the WTC nowadays – but they were ugly buildings and the plazas at their base always had these swirling winds generated by the size of the towers that made walking around them unpleasant – you sure could not sit for long in those plazas. And then there was all the bathroom waste that went directly – untreated – to the Hudson River. Somehow that doesn’t seem to reflect very well on the glories of science and engineering.
The earliest Cathedrals were built not just by the artisans but required incredible numbers of volunteers – and not just volunteer laborers but people who gave food to feed the volunteers and workers. We know that Cluny was built by thousands of volunteers from all over France – even the King took his turn hauling stone to the site. The cathedrals we see today are not the same as they were when built – their exteriors would have been brightly painted in lots of colors and the interiors were also brightly painted or white to enhance the light. They also would not have had any pews/chairs. I was very lucky to have seen Durham Cathedral minus all the wooden chairs – they were doing some repairs to the floors – the sense of space and light was incredible with the chairs gone.
posted February 11, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Fake Fan Base: Point of clarification — the Parthenon is is Athens. The Pantheon is in Rome.
posted February 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Stand corrected. Thanks.
I was there 2 weeks ago!! Should do a blog on dementia.
posted February 11, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Given the pictures of the collapse of the towers on a previous post of this blog, I should add the spirituality apparent in the work of Lieberskind who I believe has the commission for Ground Zero.
Lieberskind’s Imperial War Museum in Manchester in England is excellent. It is a building that appears to confront the horrors of war. Perhaps there is a humanist connection with the sacred in his work
posted February 11, 2010 at 10:04 pm
New_Ideas, you mentioned “The Fountainhead.” I don’t mean to turn this into a discussion about Ayn Rand, but I think “The Fountainhead” is one of the worst books I’ve ever read. Lest you think I am dissing your heroine, I thought “We the Living” was absolutely brilliant (because it was about Rand’s actual experiences) and I can’t believe it was a first novel because it was so good. (I also love the Italian movie that was made of “We the Living.”
I also liked “Atlas Shrugged” very much. I thought it was full of vitality and bursting with ideas, whether I agreed with them or not. But, I guess the word for “The Fountainhead,” in my opinion, is turgid. It is also devoid of recognizable humans with human motivations.
posted February 11, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Alicia: New_Ideas, you mentioned “The Fountainhead.” I don’t mean to turn this into a discussion about Ayn Rand,
No, but he does. Robotically.
posted February 12, 2010 at 10:10 am
Thanks, Rod. I’ll try not to take the bait next time.
posted February 12, 2010 at 3:54 pm
One of Chicago’s newer skyscrapers, mostly full of law offices, has a marvellously mosaic-ed lobby which a friend of mine calls the Chapel of Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation.
posted February 13, 2010 at 2:34 am
What about suspension bridges? They can be graceful.
And along California’s Big Sur, there are a number of Depression Era bridges that are lovely. But they were also part of a machine-age “we can do it” spirit.
posted February 22, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Here’s an interesting blog post that takes a view contrary to Mr. Dreher:
“On Architecture and Values”
http://www.culturesponse.com/2010/02/on-architecture-and-values.html
Whereas Mr. Dreher finds the Medieval cathedral “the architectural glory of humanity,” the blog author argues:
“I do not question the architectural achievements embodied in cathedrals–their construction a testament to the ingenuity of incontestably talented men–but upon entering cathedrals the majesty of their engineering is quickly diminished by the air of their purpose–namely: The degradation of man-on-Earth.”