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:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Elektronisch Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
June 2022
|
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| 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. |
| Beschreibung: | 1 Online-Ressource (48 Seiten) |
| ISSN: | 2042-4752 |
| DOI: | 10.48352/uobxjah.00004091 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nma a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV048928905 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 00000000000000.0 | ||
| 007 | cr|uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230504s2022 |||| o||u| ||||||eng d | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.48352/uobxjah.00004091 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)1378492069 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV048928905 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 049 | |a DE-Y3 |a DE-255 |a DE-Y7 |a DE-Y2 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a O'Connor Perks, Samuel |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Between mysticism and industry |b Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder |c Samuel O'Connor Perks |
| 264 | 1 | |c June 2022 | |
| 300 | |a 1 Online-Ressource (48 Seiten) | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a 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. | |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g number:26 |g year:2022 |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |t Journal of art historiography |d Glasgow, 2022 |g Number 26 (June 2022) |w (DE-604)BV035944348 |x 2042-4752 |o (DE-600)2532257-6 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.48352/uobxjah.00004091 |x Verlag |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034192889 | ||
| 941 | |h 26 |j 2022 | ||
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804185117498802176 |
|---|---|
| adam_txt | |
| any_adam_object | |
| any_adam_object_boolean | |
| article_link | (DE-604)BV035944348 |
| author | O'Connor Perks, Samuel |
| author_facet | O'Connor Perks, Samuel |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | O'Connor Perks, Samuel |
| author_variant | p s o ps pso |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV048928905 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)1378492069 (DE-599)BVBBV048928905 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.48352/uobxjah.00004091 |
| format | Electronic Article |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02706nma a2200313 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV048928905</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">00000000000000.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr|uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230504s2022 |||| o||u| ||||||eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.48352/uobxjah.00004091</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)1378492069</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV048928905</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-Y3</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-255</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Y7</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Y2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">O'Connor Perks, Samuel</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Between mysticism and industry</subfield><subfield code="b">Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder</subfield><subfield code="c">Samuel O'Connor Perks</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">June 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1 Online-Ressource (48 Seiten)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">number:26</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="t">Journal of art historiography</subfield><subfield code="d">Glasgow, 2022</subfield><subfield code="g">Number 26 (June 2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV035944348</subfield><subfield code="x">2042-4752</subfield><subfield code="o">(DE-600)2532257-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.48352/uobxjah.00004091</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034192889</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="941" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="h">26</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV048928905 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-03T21:56:45Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T09:50:08Z |
| institution | BVB |
| issn | 2042-4752 |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034192889 |
| oclc_num | 1378492069 |
| open_access_boolean | 1 |
| owner | DE-Y3 DE-255 DE-Y7 DE-Y2 |
| owner_facet | DE-Y3 DE-255 DE-Y7 DE-Y2 |
| physical | 1 Online-Ressource (48 Seiten) |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publishDateSearch | 2022 |
| publishDateSort | 2022 |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | O'Connor Perks, Samuel Verfasser aut Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder Samuel O'Connor Perks June 2022 1 Online-Ressource (48 Seiten) txt rdacontent c rdamedia cr rdacarrier 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. number:26 year:2022 Journal of art historiography Glasgow, 2022 Number 26 (June 2022) (DE-604)BV035944348 2042-4752 (DE-600)2532257-6 https://doi.org/10.48352/uobxjah.00004091 Verlag kostenfrei Volltext |
| spellingShingle | O'Connor Perks, Samuel Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder |
| title | Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder |
| title_auth | Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder |
| title_exact_search | Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder |
| title_full | Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder Samuel O'Connor Perks |
| title_fullStr | Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder Samuel O'Connor Perks |
| title_full_unstemmed | Between mysticism and industry Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder Samuel O'Connor Perks |
| title_short | Between mysticism and industry |
| title_sort | between mysticism and industry breuer the benedictines and a binder |
| title_sub | Breuer, the Benedictines and a binder |
| url | https://doi.org/10.48352/uobxjah.00004091 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT oconnorperkssamuel betweenmysticismandindustrybreuerthebenedictinesandabinder |