Rod Dreher

A ‘Crews Missile’ On Evolution

Paris Vs. Regrettable Orthodox Church

By Rod Dreher • November 27, 2012, 10:31 AM

Above, an artist’s rendering of what a Russian Orthodox church Moscow wants to build in Paris would look like. And here I thought Orthodoxy had escaped the madness of modernist church architecture that caused so many hideous Catholic and Protestant churches to be built. But nyet.

The good news is that French authorities are balking. The mayor of Paris has called the proposed design an eyesore. He’s right. This design is entirely inappropriate for Paris. Build an Orthodox cathedral, but make it look like an Orthodox cathedral, not a tacky airline terminal in a provincial Russian city.

Posted in Christianity, France. Tagged cathedral, modernism, Orthodox, Paris, Russia.

31 Responses to Paris Vs. Regrettable Orthodox Church

BradleyP says:

November 27, 2012 at 10:41 am

If you simply don’t put that stupid cover over the building and grounds, you will have a proper church. Paris needs to win this argument.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

November 27, 2012 at 10:51 am

That is hideous. What’s amazing is the little domes on top just enhance its eyesoreness.
Chris says:

November 27, 2012 at 10:54 am

We Americans can’t complain about bad Orthodox architecture The great American architect Frank Lloyd Wright designed a Greek Orthodox Church in Wisconsin that is just hideous in my opinion. It was one of his last works. Looks like a flying saucer to me.

http://www.annunciationwi.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation_Greek_Orthodox_Church
Charles Cosimano says:

November 27, 2012 at 11:24 am

It’s the roof that is the problem. Otherwise it would be a perfectly normal looking churchly building. But then the Milwaukee area has a Greek Orthodox church that looks like a UFO.
Polichinello says:

November 27, 2012 at 11:47 am

It looks like one of the aliens from the 1994 movie The Puppet Masters.
Naturalmom says:

November 27, 2012 at 11:59 am

Yeah the roof is bad, and what’s with the wall around the church? Are those huge LCD screens? Ugh.
Naturalmom says:

November 27, 2012 at 12:03 pm

I kind of like the softly glowing golden domes. On a more traditional structure, those might be a nice touch of modernity.
EngineerScotty says:

November 27, 2012 at 12:25 pm

Just hang a sign over the door that says (in French) “Museum of Modern Art” and all will be OK.
Zathras says:

November 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm

It would be an eyesore in Paris, but in the suburbs it would be an aesthetic masterpiece compared to most of what’s out there.
Sam M says:

November 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm

“This design is entirely inappropriate for Paris.”

Well this is a can of localist worms!

Who decides that? And what power do/should they have to enforce their decision? We talked about this with regard to St. Francisville. The folks who are there probably want to pull up the ladder to make it so the riff raff can’t invade. So they enact strict zoning codes to determine what’s appropriate for a given area. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And just in case someone doesn’t beat me to the punch, here’s a quote from a group of Frenchmen who were desperately trying to protect Paris from the scourge of inappropriate architecture, via wikipedia:

“We, writers, painters, sculptors, architects and passionate devotees of the hitherto untouched beauty of Paris, protest with all our strength, with all our indignation in the name of slighted French taste, against the erection…of this useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower … To bring our arguments home, imagine for a moment a giddy, ridiculous tower dominating Paris like a gigantic black smokestack, crushing under its barbaric bulk Notre Dame, the Tour Saint-Jacques, the Louvre, the Dome of les Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, all of our humiliated monuments will disappear in this ghastly dream. And for twenty years … we shall see stretching like a blot of ink the hateful shadow of the hateful column of bolted sheet metal”
Siarlys Jenkins says:

November 27, 2012 at 12:37 pm

MOSCOW wants to build a Russian Orthodox Church in Paris? That rings reminiscent of the Saudis building Wahabi mosques all over the world. Now if Orthodox believers in Paris wanted to build, that would be different… not an exact parallel, but just keeping everything in perspective. Its true there are no “Sufi Orthodox” or “Calvinist Orthodox” local traditions being threatened by the missionary work…

Anyway, I agree the design is ugly.

And that Greek Orthodox church in Milwaukee was shaped like an Easter Egg. Its actually quite beautiful.
J says:

November 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm

It’s a meandering to the mosque side of the church-to-mosque architectural spectrum. An amusing pathetic-defiant statement.
VikingLS says:

November 27, 2012 at 12:56 pm

What’s weirder is that they’ve mostly also resisted this temptation (so far) in the new churches they’ve built in Russia.

This looks like something Moscow mayor Luzkov would love though.
Richard Johnson says:

November 27, 2012 at 12:57 pm

Lose the blue napkin and street level Jumbotron and it’s not too bad.
Charles Cosimano says:

November 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm

It isn’t just the outside of churches that are weird. When my wife’s aunt was funeraled (ok, it’s a neologism) the church was build around a circle with the pews around it on an incline, a sort of theater in the round meets Parchesi effect. And I could not help but think what would happen if my stepson’s 700 pound wife were to be there and lose her balance, rolling down the ramp like a boulder down a mountain, crushing the obviously gay priests and demolishing the altar.

[Note from Rod: Long live Cosimanian Orthodoxy! -- RD]
Maxine says:

November 27, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Can anyone explain/clarify the diocesan identities involved here? So, presumably this new church is to be a cathedral of the Moscow Patriarchate? Then of what archdiocese is the Alexander Nevsky Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Paris? Moscow? Russian Orthodox Church Abroad? Will an archbishop’s seat be moving from St. Alexander Nevsky to the new church, or are we talking about two different archdioceses? Is the new building both a cathedral and a museum?

Sorry if these questions are obtuse, but I figure you’re always safe assuming that Orthodox hierarchical relationships are more complicated than you think.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

November 27, 2012 at 2:19 pm

The blue napkin is why structural engineers want to strangle architects. What are they going to build it out of? I don’t see any structural support along the edges and keep imagining a good strong wind getting under it and sending the whole mess flying.
cka2nd says:

November 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

I always liked walking by this Orthodox chuch on the way to Stuyvesant High School back in the day:

St. Mary’s Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite

http://midcenturymundane.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/brutalist-church-on-stuyvesant-square/

The mural and the cross are quite beautiful.

[Note from Rod: It's not an Orthodox Church; it's a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church. But I see what you mean. -- RD]
BN says:

November 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm

Well, it does represent modern Russia pretty well.
Chris says:

November 27, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Of course, the appropriateness of this building in Paris is a question of taste. After all, the city of Paris put up that hideous George Pompidou Centre (blech!!) so if the Parisians are going to wreck their city’s aesthetics with the Pompidou then the Orthodox monstrosity won’t be *that* out of place.
Grumpy Old Man says:

November 27, 2012 at 4:07 pm

When the Muslims take over Paris, they can snap the crosses off, put up a minaret, and call it The Flying Carpet Mosque.

Feh.
Grumpy Old Man says:

November 27, 2012 at 4:10 pm

I like the Milwaukee church.
J.J. Gonzalez says:

November 27, 2012 at 4:39 pm

The domes are quite striking. Mystical. The roof could even be interesting. I withhold harsh judgment until seeing it more clearly.

The Byzantine church in Stuyvansant Square is quite striking too. It’s a very good example of mid-century modern. I’m quite fond of it.

A number of mid-century modern churches are liturgically correct and follow rules of classical aesthetics even if they make use of steel and glass and modern techniques. They’re often full of rich marble and retain altar rails and such.

It’s the American suburban churches from the 70′s and on that are truly wrecks on every level.

A trend happening now is to make churches look traditional with veneers, but keeping the cheap post-modern structures — fake pillars and columns that are just for show, don’t support anything. No architectural integrity. This is NOT renewal.

As for Ronchamp which you show in your article, I always wanted to go there. Corbu did this one. He was an atheist! Anyway, there are some elements to it that are oddly enough beautiful. OK, it is a monstosity but… still it’s an impressive.
Polichinello says:

November 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm

And I could not help but think what would happen if my stepson’s 700 pound wife were to be there and lose her balance, rolling down the ramp like a boulder down a mountain, crushing the obviously gay priests and demolishing the altar.

Best liturgy ever!
cka2nd says:

November 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm

[Note from Rod: It's not an Orthodox Church; it's a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church. But I see what you mean. -- RD]

I was going to make that distinction but they claim to be part of the Orthodox tradition, at least according to the following that someone copied and pasted on the architecture website, http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GRP/GRP013.htm:

“From the First Millennium, Christians of the Byzantine tradition have referred to themselves as “Orthodox Christians”. Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians who embrace full communion with the Church of Rome and its primate, Pope John Paul II, the successor of St. Peter, the first among the Apostles.”
JonF says:

November 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm

cka2nd,,
Liturgically they are part of the tradition. But ecclesiastically they broke with that tradition when the King of Poland (or in some cases the Emperor of Austria) dragooned their forebearers into swearing fealty to the Pope.
JonF says:

November 27, 2012 at 6:16 pm

While I agree this particular church is ugly, surely it is not always necessary to produce carbon copies of existing churches? What about St Basil’s in Moscow? it was like nothing else in the Orthodox world when it was built, and yet it was acknowledged a masterpiece almost from the start.
James C. says:

November 27, 2012 at 8:36 pm

Rod, alas I think I’ve seen an Orthodox church uglier than that here in Boston. Once while taking a stroll through the Back Bay Fens, I noticed this hideous, bizarre double-barrel construction:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3496/4025364546_28a237e495_z.jpg

I was aghast when I discovered it was the OCA cathedral! Most of the Orthodox church buildings I’ve seen around here are quite lovely, as they often began life in the 19th century as majestic Protestant churches, and Boston has a glut of these magnificent structures. Yet the cathedral looks like it floated up from the 1960s through a stinking portal in the surrounding fens! Perhaps the interior doesn’t look bad, but still…
Gregg Gerasimon says:

November 27, 2012 at 9:27 pm

“From the First Millennium, Christians of the Byzantine tradition have referred to themselves as “Orthodox Christians”. Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians who embrace full communion with the Church of Rome and its primate, Pope John Paul II, the successor of St. Peter, the first among the Apostles.”

——–

Yes, the “Orthodox in communion with Rome” angle. Which has always made absolutely zero sense to me, but which allows some Byzantine Catholics to believe that they can pick and choose which Catholic teachings they agree with and which they don’t agree with. But one simply cannot be an Orthodox Christian and also be in full communion with the Church of Rome, which also means agreeing with all of its teachings concerning the Papacy. This is one case where you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Rod Dreher says:

November 28, 2012 at 6:47 am

I was aghast when I discovered it was the OCA cathedral!

My gosh, that is one ugly church. It’s uglier than the OCA cathedral in Philly, but not by much. The Philly church was built in 1974, and looks like 1974′s idea of the future. On the Boston cathedral’s site, there’s this informative but strikingly self-conscious history of the cathedral’s architecture, which more or less concedes that many people find the thing to be a monstrous carbuncle, but says HEY, it’s AN IMPORTANT MODERNIST BUILDING.

Here, from the cathedral’s site, is evidence of the main problem:

“Architectural design of Holy Trinity Cathedral on Park Drive was completely unique in the fabric of Orthodox architecture, American or otherwise. “

BTW, James, my wife made your applesauce bread recipe the other day, and it was fantastic. So, thank you.
Fr. John W. Morris says:

November 28, 2012 at 12:39 pm

I agree. They should build an Orthodox Church that looks like an Orthodox Church. Here in America, the trend is towards more traditional Orthodox Church architecture and away from some of the awful modernist architecture of the past which look like Protestant or Catholic Churches. . We are now building traditional Byzantine Churches like St. George’s Cathedral in Wichita, Kansas. A beautiful traditional Russian style Church would be an addition to the architectural beauty of any area.