Book review:
What should be noted upfront about Phyllis Richardson’s New Spiritual Architecture is that it is not a scholarly book, it is a coffee-table book. That said, it is a beautiful one: dozens of wonderfully photographed contemporary religious structures from around the world, all quite innovative in some way. Many are quite minimal, or make much use of natural materials, especially wood. Most are churches, mosques, or synagogues, with some Buddhist temples included, and several multi- or non-denominational spaces. The book is divided into sections according to the design approach- some are urban interventions, others rural retreats, etc. There are lots of luscious photographs of each building, along with floor plans and elevations, and each example is accompanied by some explanatory text. Richardson’s text is not incredibly deep, and I wish that there was more information about the architects’ intentions, although she does always try to touch upon this. I can understand that space is limited in such a book, in which the approach was so heavily visual. Richardson is also the author of XS: Big Ideas, Small Buildings as well as several other books, and was a research editor at Architectural Digest. I would describe the text as “handy”- nice descriptions, often of the intended experience of entering the space or otherwise encountering the structure, with some rather basic thought to the architects’ aims. I am speaking from the point of view of an artist, I guess, but I especially wanted to know more about the individual architects’ spiritual relationships to their creations, not just their professional ones. Or if they had any at all. Was good or innovative design their only intention (besides satisfying the client)? Or did they also consider an intended spiritual experience for those entering the space? If designing a spiritual space is creating an environment in which spiritual experience is heightened, what psychological factors did they have in mind? And how, exactly, would they define “spiritual” in the first place- mystical? Meditative? Conducive to receiving the Word efficiently? How did they relate their work to the history of religious architecture, not only in terms of pure design (elements to be maintained, or challenged), but also in terms of the intended, and actual, environmental effects on those using past spaces. How does one define “feeling spiritual”, and then translate that into material structure and space? What I like most about the book is that it serves as a nice springboard for thought. By providing so many contemporary examples, it shows a sense of some of the possibilities for spiritual architecture. And by considering possibilities, it makes one ask, what other possibilities are there? And then further: what should spiritual architecture be? What qualities of experience would I, as a user and/or designer, most want in such a space? How does a space, or place, become “sacred”? And how does one then define sacredness? To me, the strength of this book is not in its depth but in its sheer breadth. While many of the buildings covered here can be found in other books, especially in individual architects’ monographs, it is the only visual survey I’ve found of so many examples of contemporary religious structures and spaces in one volume. This book was also published in England as New Sacred Architecture by Laurence King Publishing, while being released here as New Spiritual Architecture by Abbeville Press, which made me wonder about the marketing considerations of the title change between cultures. I had found it by accident online, out of print, as the former, and felt lucky to stumble across such a thing. Happily, it is still very available.
|
