Rudolf schwarz church incarnate sacred function of christian architecture pps

II THE FIRST SIX PLANS The First Plan Sacred Inwardness: The King 35 The Second Plan Sacred Parting: The Open Ring.. 67 The Third Plan Sacred Parting: The Chalice of Light.. When menspok

THE CHURCH INCARNATE

Tl lie

IncarnateThe Sacred Function of Christian Architecture

Verlag Lambert Schneider, Haddberg, 1

HENRY REGNERY COMPANY 1958

MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CARD NUMHBH 58-10536

II THE FIRST SIX PLANS

The First Plan

Sacred Inwardness: The King 35 The Second Plan

Sacred Parting: The Open Ring . 67 The Third Plan

Sacred Parting: The Chalice of Light . 95 The Fourth Plan

Sacred Journey: The Way . 114

Sacred Cast: The Dark Chalice 154

Sacred Universe: The Dome, of Light . 180III THE SEVENTH PLAN

The Cathedral of All Times: The Whole . 189

KANSAS

i

and I know its power of clarification I believe it should be read not only

Cynthia Harris, itcan be studied by anyoneinthe English speaking world

MlES VAN DER ROHE

Translator's Invitation

INTRODUCTIONS are frequently useless one misses nothing if one leaves

them unread Butthis book is of aparticular., even of a difficultkind It is

itself an introduction, or more accurately an invitation And so itwill

per-haps be helpfulto provideit, as it were, with an invitationto its invitation

book makes one demand on its readers: it asks to be readwith child-like innocence Today it is difficultfor us to approach any book

with a calm mind and an open heart As you read this page you have all

the raw materialsathand which youwillneedforunderstandingthis work

you hold this book and your eye is running over the page If you stop to

allow youto breathe, givingyou timefor the reading. You will find

and limitations And you will find yourself discovering new connections

There-fore itwould probablybe bestifyou wereto read this bookaloud, since it

is not only aboutyour own body butalso aboutthatworld in which we live

meantto missthatglimpse of the soul inthe depths ofanother aboutthis

CYNTHIA HARRIS

Spring, 1958

PART I

The Foundation

The Foundation

HE ALTAR was called "Christ" in former times, just as many other

soliterally thattheindividualparts of thehouse were compared to the

indi-viduallimbs ofhisbody, the nave with thetrunk, the transept with the

out-spread arms and the choirwith the head Thus Christhung perpetually on

the cross, and because he bowed his head in death, as the Gospel relates,

image which was far morethan a comparison itwould be fittingto call

It ishard for modern men to Lake such ideas seriously Usually it is

not a naive onearid that, in the assertionthat this or that "is" thebody, the

littleword "is" remains completely open and is ready to exist at the most

varied levels The decisivereason for the modernobjection cannotlie here

3

THE FOUNDATION

them intheleast. And so it iswellto assumethat their theoretical conceptscannothave been entirely false either

Actually what separates us from these early teachings is not so much

theircontentas the difference oflanguage Today we no longer connectthe

same images with thewords and we put a new meaning into the old terms

When menspoke of the"body" or of the "body ofChrist" in earlier times,they probably meant something quite different from what we mean when

wespeak about ourbody.Andso to begin withwe musttry to makeclearto

most brilliantcolors areused for them, all the colors of glowing, burning

things Andthehead isenveloped inthe "halo" as ifin a radiant sun

formofan animal: ithas taken onclawsandbeaksandthe likeor has been

completely transformedinto amonster.Thereis an order ofthecondemned

colors, too, ending in a flame, the flame of an evil, inwardly-burning fire*

damnation, not the blackness of the sheltering night about the babe in the

manger

Thesepictures clearlyshowed that the holy body issomething luminous,somethingstar-like, and it is obvious thatan eternal meaning was ascribed

Andpeople believedthattheluminous powerof thebodycould be perverted

and turned into its evil opposite Here we are reminded thai the Scripture

tells of similar things, for instance when it relates that the Lord's face

"shone" or Stephen's in the latter's case itadds the explanation that he was looking up into the "wide open heaven."

THE FOUNDATION

IntheStrasbourgtympanum, wherethedeathof theVirginisrepresented,

holdsthis likenessinhishand This is what is lasting: the bodyof the soul

much smaller butthisdoesnotmeanthatit is unimportant or only a

althoughit is notbound toanyparticular size, is indeedboundtothe

The magnificentportalat Autundepicts the Last Judgment. The Lord is

thepeopleare so smallthatit ishard tobelievethat allthisis forthem and

their judgment But the "souls" or the "spirits" are not depicted, for that

would have been against the beliefinthe resurrection of theflesh. These are

real menwithrealbodies who are climbing out oftheir graves, and this is

be taken seriously. Whatthey showisnotmeantas a landscape of the soul

noras an artisticinterpretation it ismeant to be genuinehistory.

should actuallybe shown with bodies of approximately the same size. The

historical painting developed, the early art of painting history was lost.

Painting continued to be done in perspective, but this new perspectivewas

THE FOUNDATION

gossip.This isa comfortableart; orperhaps weshould call itahighly

diffi-cult un-art,since it presupposes asingularand complex disturbance which

itself outofafew figuresand their greatworks a few men, a tree, a wolf,

the hall?)

Inearliertimes men must have seen the community itselflikethis.

Troubetzkoy, who speaks so beautifully about the holy fire burning in

dome"has nothingto do witheitheran onion or a dome. It isthe flame, he

says,and whenone seessuch anold city,lyingwithhermanychurches

sun-litupontheopenplain, the earth is afire. The city is a sea of flame

weresmall and were consumed in the flames of the great spires*

the saintsand also out of the teachings forinstance theteaching aboutthe

peoplevividly connected with theword "body" in those days Namely two

things

First and foremost they took thebody seriously They thought its every

detail terriblyimportant andthey tookit literally. Theyaccepted itinaway

building with the Lord's body would have been unthinkable without this

THE FOUNDATION

outofa seriesof accidents buthad beengivenbytheCreatorin accordancewiththesacredplan. To themthisrealbodyofeveryday reality in itsevery-

hisown form, firstonthesixth dayof the creation, as Genesis described it,and thenonce more whenthe word becameflesh. In the Savior, in hisholy

all true growth and all sacred life had imitated this revelation which had

had become visible The Middle Ages certainly did not simply imagine

super-ficial. What lay inside thebody could only beguessed at: anatomy was

un-known since itwas thoughtthat even cutting into the structure of the dead

body was forbidden to men. This led to lacks in the teachings and in the

work,formanyof these conjectureswereutterlyfalse.Buteventhe

sacred connection between its structure and the holy chastity of its life.

But thisisthesecondthing -thebody which wasseenwithsuch realism

could transform itself, itwas overflowing with possibilities, it could shine,

itcould grow tall and unspeakably (glorious; and the body could also go

was boundtonodefinite sizeand to no definiteform andyetit possessed an

through all this remain true to itself. Body was a work to be continually

freedom.Eventhe fact thatthesaintswereoftenhardon itdidnotatbottom

8 THEFOUNDATION

the body not meant anything to them they would not have treated it as

theydid.

These, then, are theapproximate premises for the assertion that the

before God

Personally webelieve thatthe sacred objectivity of these old concepts is

erred far away from it. Sacred structure is no longer understood as that

understood in the same way in which historical painting understands

his-tory.Idlefolkrunaboutwithinitandseekouttheirownprivateviewpoints,

have their private pleasures and write them down in private books Even

realitycan be deprivedofall form andcan be misinterpreted ineveryway;

toberight. Butwhatalotofmisunderstandings! Howdistorted the meaning

truth,the"laughterof theuniverse"which simply becameitself,child inthe

final, consummate consent; "seeing" was acceptance and response through

Butthe totalcon-version and re-version ofthe building art mut come to

pass wholly out ofwhat is genuine

We cannot return to the early cathedrals and take up their

THE FOUNDATION

our "technology/*wouldfailus Itwould ofcourse be possibleto copythe

archesof the Gothic But itwould notbetrue For usthewall is no longer

build-ing materials aresomethingdifferentfrom whattheyweretotheold masters

We knowtheir inner structure, the positions oftheir atoms, the course of

their inner tensions And we build in the knowledge of all this it is

would draw premature conclusions about the matter which is served by

ontheirfirstday andtheymoveusdeeply.Whata "spire"isandproclaims,the procession of "pillars" and "arches," the crowd of "pinnacles" and

"responders" these are valid foralltimes, as valid as a paintingby

Loch-ner orthe sculptures of Bamberg Buteven sowe canno longerbuild these

isgivenintoour handspossessescompletelydifferent,perhapspoorer,form

were.We know whataGothicspirewasbut ourown spireissomething very

different.Forus the oldwords nolongernamethesamelivingreality.Here

we arenotspeaking as historians ortheorists whose only questionis "how

can still be brought into living consummation today. We speak rather as

stracttruthand anarchitecturalreality. Forthemasterbuilder,whatprovestrue istrue, real what realizes In his bare workshop the things are worth

only as much as they can perform When he perseveres in the genuine he

doeswhat Godwants ofhim, even ifthisgenuinethingbe poor. We should

notfallupon his work and demand realizations oftheoretical truthswhich

he cannot provide, for then nonentities may arise, unproved fabricationsand faithlesssacrality and alongwith these weeds the people may throw

cannolonger buildinthemedieval manner and yetit is difficulttoholdout

doing whichuses only thehistorical things and notthe historical forms

formsof our owntime It is onlyout of sacred reality that sacred buildingcan grow Whatbegets sacred worksis not thelifeof theworld but the life

of faith the faith, however, of our own time This is the third thing: that

sacred substanceout ofwhich churches canbebuilt must be alive and real

to us.Itwould be sosimpleto gobacktotheold teachingandto saythatwe

should buildthe "bodyof Christ"- itwould evenbe modern Today peopleagain recall the oldterms and like touse them They speakof the body of

an-cient conceits of a holy theology but they do not use diem to name

was seen and experienced; but when we repeat them today we oxprosH at

bestafeeling. Nowadays we nolonger see thebodyas people formerly saw

heavy,bound tothespot.And soit isthatwhen we speakof thesacredbody

our onlypossibility is to think either completely honestly of this our body

THE FOUNDATION 11

as it now is admittedly a needy premise for theology or to think of

only hasfeelings.Theoldwords nameda verydefiniteandparticularsight.

little prospect of standing the test oftime

To build churches out of that reality which we experience and verify

every day; to take this our own reality so seriously and to recognize itto

teachingsconcerning sacredwork bytryingto recognizethebody, evenasit

it so; to reinstitute the bodyin its dignity and to do our work so well thatthis body may prove to be "sacred body." And beyond all this to guard

ourselves against repeating the old words when forus no living content is

connected with them

Inthe following wewill attemptto show, inthe two examples of theeye

andthehand, that it is possible to believe inthe bodyas we know ittoday

today is good and that it could well be made into "God's work." And

finallyweshalltrytoshowin whatrespectsthiswork must bedifferentiated

the sphereoflight: thegrowingball towhichthe center expands.

theexpressionand thetransformationof the others and eachis unthinkablewithoutthem theformiswhollyunified. Centerexpands into sphere, rays

one partnamesthewhole.The starisprimary form.

Thelightbeats apath throughthe space, irradiates itand takes it up into

THE FOUNDATION 13

beginsto shine Since,however,thelightandthestar areone andthe same,

it isin realitythestarwhich reachesthisthingontheraysoflightand which

isunitedwithit. In thecourseofthisprocess the shining object takes a part

ofthe light, now changedto darkness, into itself. The rest itpasseson and

surfacethestar-form isformed once againand coloredlightstreams out in

a

The first star isthe only one whichreally unfolds, welling forth out of

itsowncenter Allthe laterones are"open stars."They, too, are composed

ofcenter,raysandsphere buttheircenterdoesnotitselfgenerate Inwardly,

source hutturning-point it "mediates" the primal light. "Open stars"

Theirlight is "broken," forone part of the original light, now transformed

which remains goes on as color Therefore it is not quite accurate to say

that the essence of the things finds expressionin their color, since thelight

in theircoloredshadows Colorislightwhichhas unitedwithanobject. The

Whenhis eyesees,thehumanbeingbecomes open for thelight It enters

throughawindow Onceinside, itcomestogetheratthe focal point,whence

it shines, again a star, onto the horizon of the retina Thus the star-images

The lightcomes as a rayfrom the outsideto the star in the eye, too, and

this second star is "open" in the direction of the bridge of rays If the eye

closes, the star is extinguished The star in the eye lasts only us long us it

THEFOUNDATION 15

thefirstlightispassed on againandagainandeach time itproducesa star.

Theeye is complete onlyin thesun, and so actuallywe seenothing except

exist at all "in reality." The eye cannot see the backs of the things, their

depthsand furrows,the thingswhich are disguisedorturned away from it.

beenaccusedofbeinga poorinstrument. Extensivetheorieshave beenbuilt

notanapparatusfor thepurposeofrecognizingthethings.Ratheris itman's

star everything is arching smoothness without furrows or depths The eye

altersthe worldaccordingto theplanof the star, and theeye itself isbuilt

according to thisplan, in order that theworld may enter into it. When we

goodunderstandingwhich findsmeaning and form in allthesethings.

this chosen thing asthe only sun in a newuniverse, to make oneself, one'sownbody, intothesphereofthisshining thing?To formone'sown body into

16 THEFOUNDATION

star, to make oneself "dependent" upon it, to nourish oneself from it and

And allthis hasa form

Theeyeisform,beautifullyandwiselybuilt inaccordancewiththe design

an-swertothe stars; thebody's meeting withthe light"looks like" this.

itsopenshell-like form isagenuine symbol This sign stands for thehuman

beingand we maydesignate thehumanbeing with it sincewe did notinvent

it:thebodyitselfcreatedthisform We canlearnfromthisprimal sign thatthebodyisbuilton encounter, thatit isanswertolight,that thehuman being

andthatweneverpossess it completely; and that consequently the human

beingisnot a microcosmosbut rather a deficientbeing,needful of

comple-tion.Orfarmore,thatby makinghimselfintoan open form, thusrepeatinginwardlytheopennessof theuniverseanditsdependence onlight,thehuman

beingmay renew withinhimself the structure of the world

surroundtheworld onthe outside with ownhorizon won world

THE FOUNDATION 17

completely Andonlythosethings,whichstars are,are complete The world

disposes itselfaround themas perfect eye Butthe horizonof the retina

circumference, dark, hollow and in readiness But the star is center which

are based on oneanother forms which find their meaning onlywhenthey

meet, forms which become whole in each other And we see thatthe forms

Whether the eye is capable of action?

smile at us, thatthey can grow and radiate underour glance. Our feelings

knowthat eyes can enchant or encourage, command or obliterate The eye

thismeans morethan simplythe outward ability to avoid a meeting, to cast

comprehended and changed Everything which is asserted and believed

18 THEFOUNDATION

about the effects of seeing concerns the whole, never the details; it is as if

a dark power, utterly without contour, streamed out through the eye Thismeetingwould be consummated in all purity where one pair of eyes looks

beingtobeing, purestconcord happens.Perhaps the figure of theseeing eyecould be readbackward:then the nerveswould be the channels of the dark

lightcurrentfromthe outsideandthe dark fromthe insidewould unite and

function!

The hand canradiate

The arm rises, the fist clenches and over the single pointing finger the

gathered power discharges the hand becomes radiating point. But when

Thefingers come together to form a bowl, empty and open in the

uponesinglebowl

form

The farthest

finger-tip softlytouches a thing, the gentlest power of

com-munication flows outto it and slowly, softly it reveals itself.

Withthefirst gentle touchthe reaching movement is reversed: surrender

andfingersit. The handcanreassure, loveand bless Here being surrenders

THEFOUNDATION 19

compared to the communication of intrinsic being which occurs when the

eyes rest on a thing. Both eye and hand work changes deep within The

mysterious meetingof one pair of eyes in another corresponds lastly with

the clasping of two hands whose streams of being are exchanged and

The hand can feel.

The hand whichyields itself toa thingassumes theformof thething.Yet

it doesthis insuchawaythatwherethe thingprotrudesthehand isconcave

and wherethe thingisconcavethehandispliable.Thusthehandis"answer"

totheformed-nessof the things and in thisit isliketheeyewhich sees The hand runs overthe surface provingly and this movementis at once feeling

con-versing

In many ways the hand understands the world better than the eye It

"sees"theworld fromall sides.The handcangrasp. Itsfingersclosearound

into itself and in a dark current this power flows about the clasped thing,

can conceal and this the eye cannot do either, since for it the world is

andcontain itwholly;itcan graspthe thingfrom allsides The hand makes

and its capacity is small The hand is built for what is nearby, for the

Eye and hand are sister and brother for both apprehend the surfaces

up for itselfa part of theworld which is closedto the eye: the inner space

20 THEFOUNDATION

ing" hand strains the material until it begins to grow soft. The resistance

ofthemassis expressed inthe increasing tension of sinewsand muscles, in

instrumentit can form them and alsoweigh them.

Ifwe wantto testthe weight of a thingwe mustlift it, hold it suspended

thebody.Hiddenwithin thebodyisasystemoftensionrunningoversinews,

muscles and bones, through arm, spine and legs, from the weighted object

down to the earth A sort of pathway is formed between the earth and the

thing, a course which passes overthe body as the bearing bridge Thus we

massiveheaviness Body which apprehends the heavy things is not weightbut responseto weight Its answerto theheavy compactness of ihe world'smatter reads"column" and "cable." Mass isexpanding, unformed, roomy;

thebody's answeris linear, slender, articulate Mass isfullness The body

it isfalse to accusethe body ofbeing earth-bound orto contrastit with the

supposed lightness of some "spiritual" principle. By its very nature, the

dullmassivenessintobuoyantpower The body isnot primarily weight, but

Weexperiencemass in the growingtensionof ligaments, which is to say

that we experience it lineally This very simple circumstance reveals its

expressedinthe curve Theexperienceofmass canbe"reckoned," itcan be

THE FOUNDATION 21

time hardly anything else counted Afterward the "grasping" hand was

bitterlyattacked the hand which saw onlythemassiveness and weight in

last,theeye andthe"worldofforms" weregiventheirrightfulplace beside

the grasping hand and withthem the outlines of the things, their shapes

liberation

for the depths of the world's matter. If this aspect remains isolated, the

imageof theworldisdistortedandthework evenmore But we maynotnow

replace the "haptics" of the grasping hand with the "optics" of the seeing

whole, it must place the eye, the ear, the whole body, next to the hand sothatonce againwe mayachievetotalworks andsothattheworld may become

and liketheeyeit must cometo stand for thewhole body sincelikethe eye

the hand, too, is a little human being, is the image, the body of man.

("Manu" means "little man.") Within this whole, however, a very highplace is owed to the "concept,"to the "grasping" hand It is not true that

concepts understand nothing of the essence of the things The concept

an-swers a particular part ofthe world througha wonderful fabric of curves

Here it achieves profoundest concord with the world The concept and its

We could continue to consider the body in this way; the image would

22 THEFOUNDATION

free.The world is filled with a great dialogue which passes back and forth

dialogue is not limited to the sound of words alone: it is exercised with

onlyitsmaterial whichisnoweye,nowhand, nowfoot, nowray,nowball,

thenbowl, then ligament, then shaft thismaterial seemstobehardly more

than a plasticmass out of which that something which imparts the answer

hardlymore thanits changing image, its message into the world and also

opinion then the body is "really" something, and this something

com-mandsthe materialalmost likea sovereign, playing with the forms and yet

form; then it is not something-or-olher, not some proteus-like fluid, but

speak of "form." The body is consumed utterly in its momentary form

to this form Rather is it prepared to answer all sorts of situations in the

mannerappropriateto the momentthrough forms which are ever differentand everclear, and yet beyond them all it remains itself. And so the body

all forms, and form, which, asit is, is serious and complete.

norour fieldto provide an anthropological doctrine Our concern is rathergood guidance to truework And since our work can be true work if

THEFOUNDATION 23

bad building material after all and that we couldmake out with itwithout

fleeing into historisticism What we have pointed out is not actually new.

Children learn it in school But we believe that it might be looked at for

onceasif itwerenew, as ifwe hadjustheard aboutitfor thefirsttime We

reasonable anddeductible as things and processeswhose form and

like."And it must be possibleto trust thatthe Creator meant something in

givingitthisform and no other

about man, which indeed we all need so badly It seems to us that at the

necessaryinordertogettothe root ofwhat man actuallyis,and itseemsto

us, too, that no such difficult books need be written about it books whose

readers evenatthe end havestillnot found outhow many legs are allotted

mother She knowsthatit isthedetailswhichare the reallyimportantthings

about her littleboy and shetendsto basethe proof for the divine origin of

man onthe fact that this littleboy happenstobe just as heis, withtwofeet,

held accountableforhavingkepthisearsclean,sinceshe believes that these

crea-ture But the philosophical mother, to whom these ears are not "of the

essence" haslittleprospectof eternallife.

Would not thisperhaps be eventhe more correct way of learning to see

sacredbody? A bodyevereffected asspeech and answer would notbe

diffi-cult to believein as an image or a likeness or asan answerto the Creator's

un-24 THE FOUNDATION

theeyes ofGod. The bodyconstantlyenacted or effectedwould bethe most

thatthebody,givinganswer anewtothe voice of theCreator,can berestored

notdirectly,butasthatreply to God's own form whichhasbeen awakened

Painting

canvas with forms and colors, continually testing to see whether or not he

has copied it exactly It is rather that in the beginninghe has only a seed

making atired reproduction should he stillhave any desire to make the

boringtranscription Far more does his picture grow under his hand as a

stepsback andviewstheworkwith anappraisingeye.Theeye itselfcannot