Does a truly Catholic home need to be neo-classical architecture?

(Brendan)

A commenter to the last post brought up a fantastic point for discussion, one which I had been planning on posting about but had neglected to do so to this point. It would have been better had I done this post closer to the unveiling of the schemes, because it probably would have answered a lot of questions about the design. So the comment is something like this: the home designs look a lot more modern than expected given my statements about church architecture, Duncan Stroik's architecture, etc., and this is surprising.

This is a totally fair question or comment, so I'd love to address it. First, here is an example that the commenter (Leeann) was referring to, a rendering from Scheme A:
What you see here is a couple things that brought about the comment. First, there's floor-to-ceiling windows, which are definitely more of a contemporary design thing. Also, the columns that are supporting the structure are "unadorned;" i.e. they aren't "classical" in terms of doric, ionic, or corinthian, or other classical design themes. What you see is very linear lines (that's kind of redundant I suppose, but you know what I mean), and uncluttered design feel, etc. So the question is, is this type of design philosophy opposed to beauty, the human person, or even transcendence, which are things that are usually acknowledged as being supported in classical architecture?

My answer would be "no." First off, I think anyone would acknowledge that a portion of design is simply personal taste. My personal tastes gravitate toward uncluttered, simple, elegant design. You can see that in the design of this blog, which I have been very careful in doing (though hopefully it looks like I didn't spend a lot of effort). I think ornamentation can, if it's not done properly, add to a space feeling cluttered. So that's some background on my personal tastes, and as a reminder there is more specifics here for both myself and Molly. (Molly's tastes are obviously a little different, so part of this process is melding our tastes to produce something both of us can really relate to).

Secondly, one of the overarching philosophies in the design you see above is "tectonics." That is, that the physical structures you see before you in a space actually mean something; they're there for a reason. So, when you see the columns above, those are there because they are actually supporting the structure of the home. There are no extra columns just for looks. Also, even the vaulted ceilings are tectonic in that they conform to the shape of the roof. There is no unnecessary dead space, which would be created by having a simple horizontal ceiling. So in my own words, tectonics is "truth-in-design", what you see has meaning for the physical structure. The physics and the design are melded into one form. I think that can be elegant and beautiful. I don't think it would be truth-in-design to tack up corinthian veneers all over the place to make the space look "classical." I don't think that's necessary or very elegant. I think ancient Greek and Roman architecture was tectonic in that the ornamentation you saw was actually physically carved into solid marble or stone, and that makes sense to me. Today's cost structures certainly would not allow for that (and it's not like the peasants of these ancient societies were running around building their own classical homes either).

All this said, what I do wholeheartedly support are classical design principles, which aid in making a design "timeless." Things like proportion and pattern, use of the golden ratio, these things can be part of any design. Let me show you some examples of architecture that I think relate to Scheme C, are contemporary, and employ timeless design principles. This is all stuff I have found on my own, so I don't want to put words in my brother's mouth that these relate to the design of Scheme C, but I think they do from my own viewpoint. First, here's a reminder of the side elevations of Scheme C:
A great contemporary architect that I think produces good residential designs is Hugh Newell Jacobsen. Now, he generally seems to produce designs that are quite a bit more expensive than our home will be, but here are some of his designs that I think relate well to the design of Scheme C:
I especially like the last one. The design is so elegant, with everything so rationally ordered and balanced, it's quite beautiful. You can see the so-called "clean lines" in his designs, and the uncluttered nature of them, but I think it would be hard to argue that if these designs were shown to a person from, say, the 1700's that they would find the designs unintelligble. I think they would understand the designs quite nicely, which relates to the timeless principles of the designs.

Where I depart from the contemporary philosophy is in the design of a Catholic space, whether it be a church or chapel. There you need a whole different sort of tectonics, a spiritual tectonics. A Catholic space has to have iconography and some degree of ornamentation and formality to communicate truths of the faith. Stripping a Catholic church of these things strips the church of the spiritual meaning that is intended to be communicated to the faithful. So here is where I wholeheartedly endorse the church architecture of Duncan Stroik and others like him who are reclaiming the sacred language of church architecture and revitalizing the Church. If you are interested, here is a piece by Duncan McRoberts, another fine Catholic church architect, on spiritual tectonics in specifically Catholic spaces like churches and chapels. So, our chapel in the home will necessarily be a different space than the rest. Part if that is coming from me; I will be creating sacred art for the chapel and the rest of the home that will add the necessary iconography. But the design of the chapel itself will be different too, and we really haven't gotten to that point yet.

I think, in general in regard to the home as a whole, there are two extremes that need to be avoided. One extreme is the claim that ALL architecture must be "classical" or neo-classical in form. I totally disagree with this. I would say that Duncan Stroik may lean this way; if you look at his portfolio at his non-religious architecture, he designs every home or office building using Classicism. I don't have a problem with that at all, but if one were to argue that this is the ONLY way these buildings should be done, and that any contemporary architecture is unsuited for the task, that's where I would not agree.

The other extreme is rampant in the architecture and art world today. That is that one MUST design architecture or art to be something completely new (often couched in the term "of our time"), or that you completely throw off the old or ancient human knowledge about design and try to "invent" everything yourself. If a building includes classical elements, or utilizes the language of architecture from past eras, then it is automatically disqualified from getting recognition as a "good" building because you didn't do something "new." This, again, is something I totally disagree with. Today's novelty is tomorrow's fad, and unless universal principles of timeless design are used, new architecture risks being a fad, cast off later in favor of whatever the next new thing is.

In then end, my hope is that the home can meld the contemporary and the ancient, two things that are often presented as opposing one another. The home can then show that the contemporary and the ancient can be in conversation with one another, which incidentally is also important for presentation of the Catholic faith to the modern world, much of which feels that the "ancient" teachings of the Church have no place in the modern world. Truth is timeless.