Between mysticism and industry: Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder
In much of the recent literature covering the interaction between religion and aesthetic modernity, modern ‘sacred’ architecture has been understood as an initiative to safeguard an autonomous, separate notion of ‘sacred space’ against the reifying effects of a technocratic modernity. Within this hi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of art historiography 2022-06 (26), p.26-SOP1 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | In much of the recent literature covering the interaction between religion and aesthetic modernity, modern ‘sacred’ architecture has been understood as an initiative to safeguard an autonomous, separate notion of ‘sacred space’ against the reifying effects of a technocratic modernity. Within this historiographic lens, modern ‘sacred’ architecture is placed in opposition to what the historian of religion Mircea Eliade refers to as the ‘junk space’ of modern profane architecture. However, when examining the conceptual interactions between the Benedictine monks of Collegeville in Minnesota and the Bauhaus-trained architect Marcel Breuer during the course of their collaborative project for an Abbey Church in their religious community (1953 – 1961), a more nuanced picture of the interaction between ‘functionalist’ (modern) and ‘symbolist’ (pre-modern) ideas emerges. Drawing on a key series of documents Breuer collated in a binder throughout the course of the project, this article unpacks the way in which key terms such as ‘functionalism’ and ‘symbolism’ were negotiated across this cultural divide. The first part of the article examines the extent to which Breuer’s architectural design at St John’s could be considered ‘symbolic’. The second part interrogates the reasons behind the rejection of a design for the main window by fellow Bauhäusler, Josef Albers. The article concludes with a coda on how the arguments mobilised throughout the collaboration questions key tenets of much of the historiography which has informed discourses on modern ‘sacred’ architecture. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2042-4752 |