5 ms·

I feel like the only person in the world who was thoroughly underwhelmed by it and really don’t see how its future space requirements for a staircase can be jus

I feel like the only person in the world who was thoroughly underwhelmed by it and really don’t see how its future space requirements for a staircase can be justified. This isn’t me trying to be edgy, I like cathedrals, this one (and his general style) just left me cold. Duomo in Milan was far better imo.

RajT88 3y ago
I wasn't underwhelmed per se (the thing is mind-bogglingly huge). I just was on one of those "middle aged friend couples go to Europe" trips. Most of my world travel has been solo, and I like to briskly walk around for miles and miles and just see how the city is laid out. "Slowly shambling around cathedrals" was much of the trip, so I was frequently irritated on that trip, particularly so at Sagrada Familia as it must have been the 12th cathedral we shambled around in 3 days.
- simonbarker87 3y ago
  > I like to briskly walk around for miles and miles and just see how the city is laid out We would travel well together. My wife and I usually do this. We regularly clock up 20-25km a day of just walking around a city, often for 3 or 4 days in a row. We will happily walk from the centre out the the suburbs. From the far west to the far east of a city. We'll retrace our steps and then take a right that looks vaguely interesting. We only start to use the transit system to get further out or when we are short on time.
dncornholio 3y ago
I had the same type of feeling. Sagrada felt more like a zoo / tourist attraction then an actual religious building. The design is impressive but it didn't bring the uumpf that Duomo did.
- tgv 3y ago
  Because it's so crowded, I guess. It's a nice place, especially the exterior and the workshops. The interior feels too bland. Milan's Dom isn't that impressive to me, but perhaps that's because I've seen more grand, old churches, and the Sagrada Familia felt like something different.
- azulster 3y ago
  ironically i had the same feeling when i visited the vatican, and they were holding mass while i was visiting! tourist attraction is always gonna feel like a tourist attraction i guess
mhd 3y ago
I liked other cathedrals better, too, but I got a lot out of it by contrasting the medieval versions with this. I mean, you got a lot of the same motivations, just with different art styles and materials. Reflecting on that, it made me change the way I view older churches. Granted, the LOTR of Lothlorien helped, too (I only saw the Sagrada Familia in 2022). To past generations, "Gothic" means something quite different, as we see it in our current context, with darkened fronts and comparisons to buildings that allow even more glass. But back then it was all light and organic. The SF seems to go in the same direction, but unhindered by medieval masonry and mathematics. Then again, I also like brutalist churches...
- randomcarbloke 3y ago
  I can't help but see la Sagrada familia as "organic brutalism" I think it's quite vulgar despite also liking brutalism. If it were not for the glass the interior would feel like a sixties community centre. The exterior, a roughly shaped mound of excrement with some ornate extrusions. :)
- prmoustache 3y ago
  It is not like there is one medieval/gothic style though. Compare Chartes in France, Firenze in Toscana or the mosque-cathedral of Cordóba and you have entirely different styles in and out. I like the Sagrada Familia for its singularity but it indeed looks like it has been created by a child with modeling compound.
weatherlight 3y ago
#notacathedral
emptyfile 3y ago
[dead]
jonjacky 3y ago
George Orwell called it "one of the most hideous buildings in the world." (I don't agree, but I see his point -- it's certainly one of the most eccentric, and it's huge.)
Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
I’ve only seen it in pictures, but I’m not a fan either. Looks completely secular, might as well be a concert hall or something. Maybe that’s the point, throw an as wide net as possible to appeal to everyone to try to justify the cost.
- simonklitj 3y ago
  This is an interesting comment to me! How do you define secular-looking? Is it a lack of some particular design element?
  - Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
    It simply lacks Catholic design elements. The stained glass is a jumble of nonsense, not even a nice pattern like the Muslims do, and I suppose there is an altar and a crucifix in there somewhere, but they drown in all the visual clutter, like they’re ashamed of it. It’s possible, even likely, that the pictures don’t do it justice, so I will take a look in person at some point, but I don’t have high hopes.
    - AlanYx 3y ago
      There's a rhyme and reason to the stained glass that's tied into the other symbolic elements embedded in the architecture. For example, the color scheme shifts as you pan from the nativity side through to the passion side. The lower panels are not totally abstract; there are vague shapes that sort of remind you of figures, flames, etc. but then it tends to pivot towards full geometric abstraction as you raise your head. Like the Mezquita in Córdoba, it's hard to get a sense of how intensely all the combined elements make an impression just from photographs.
    - fvdessen 3y ago
      The whole church is completely covered in innumerable fractals of catholic symbolism and its main tower will be topped by a 29 meters high cross. Maybe you just don't like the style, which is understandable as it is quite divisive.
- 3y ago
killthebuddha 3y ago
+1 As another comment suggested, I think it's the crowds and the commercialism. It might as well have been erected inside Disney World. Maybe I'm insensitive, but it takes more than the literal/physical art (the building itself) to move me. Edit: For example, just walking around the Gothic Quarter at night was a significantly more moving, cathartic, or "timeless" experience for me.
lucianbr 3y ago
I didn't know about it before visiting it, and when I was there, I was surprised to realise that they have charged me admission into a construction zone. Also, it was nice, but I have no clue what the adulation in this thread is about. It's just a huge church with a lot of stone and colored glass.
throw__away7391 3y ago
I do not like this building, I don't care for it aesthetically, but more significantly it's too new to be culturally importantly. Old churches/mosques/temples can have historical significance, but such is completely missing in this case. There's a joke going around that it's the first cathedral constructed as a tourist attraction which is both hilarious and accurate. Before the modern era constructing expensive religious buildings could perhaps be justified, but after the 1800s people ought to have known better and these can't lay claim to represent the city as earlier projects could. It belongs in the same category as the castle at Disneyland.
Tactical45 3y ago
The true beauty is in the inside.
- ametrau 3y ago
  Great. It’s a shame there’s so much outside
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Same. The crowds and tourist atmosphere certainly don't help, but even disregarding them I wasn't impressed with what I saw. Same goes for the few other gaudi buildings I peeped at, as well as park guell. I can understand how their design in the late 19th/early 20th century would be very novel, but it all just seemed merely whimsical rather than inspiring or thought provoking. If we're comparing late 19th century basilicas, Sacre Coeur takes top billing in my book.
TacticalCoder 3y ago
You're not the only one. Although the lighting inside may be beautiful, it is to me, from the outside, fuglier than fugly. Totally and utterly grotesque. I'd be tempted to say a wart in the city but then Barcelona and its superblock is not a beautiful city: it's got nothing on, say, Paris or Rome. So that wart is on par with the rest of the city. FWIW I find everything made by Gaudi to be completely grotesque. I don't care about the groupthink: to each its own bad tastes.

RajT88 3y ago

I wasn't underwhelmed per se (the thing is mind-bogglingly huge). I just was on one of those "middle aged friend couples go to Europe" trips. Most of my world travel has been solo, and I like to briskly walk around for miles and miles and just see how the city is laid out. "Slowly shambling around cathedrals" was much of the trip, so I was frequently irritated on that trip, particularly so at Sagrada Familia as it must have been the 12th cathedral we shambled around in 3 days.

simonbarker87 3y ago
> I like to briskly walk around for miles and miles and just see how the city is laid out We would travel well together. My wife and I usually do this. We regularly clock up 20-25km a day of just walking around a city, often for 3 or 4 days in a row. We will happily walk from the centre out the the suburbs. From the far west to the far east of a city. We'll retrace our steps and then take a right that looks vaguely interesting. We only start to use the transit system to get further out or when we are short on time.

dncornholio 3y ago

I had the same type of feeling. Sagrada felt more like a zoo / tourist attraction then an actual religious building. The design is impressive but it didn't bring the uumpf that Duomo did.

tgv 3y ago
Because it's so crowded, I guess. It's a nice place, especially the exterior and the workshops. The interior feels too bland. Milan's Dom isn't that impressive to me, but perhaps that's because I've seen more grand, old churches, and the Sagrada Familia felt like something different.
azulster 3y ago
ironically i had the same feeling when i visited the vatican, and they were holding mass while i was visiting! tourist attraction is always gonna feel like a tourist attraction i guess

mhd 3y ago

I liked other cathedrals better, too, but I got a lot out of it by contrasting the medieval versions with this. I mean, you got a lot of the same motivations, just with different art styles and materials. Reflecting on that, it made me change the way I view older churches. Granted, the LOTR of Lothlorien helped, too (I only saw the Sagrada Familia in 2022). To past generations, "Gothic" means something quite different, as we see it in our current context, with darkened fronts and comparisons to buildings that allow even more glass. But back then it was all light and organic. The SF seems to go in the same direction, but unhindered by medieval masonry and mathematics. Then again, I also like brutalist churches...

randomcarbloke 3y ago
I can't help but see la Sagrada familia as "organic brutalism" I think it's quite vulgar despite also liking brutalism. If it were not for the glass the interior would feel like a sixties community centre. The exterior, a roughly shaped mound of excrement with some ornate extrusions. :)
prmoustache 3y ago
It is not like there is one medieval/gothic style though. Compare Chartes in France, Firenze in Toscana or the mosque-cathedral of Cordóba and you have entirely different styles in and out. I like the Sagrada Familia for its singularity but it indeed looks like it has been created by a child with modeling compound.

weatherlight 3y ago

#notacathedral

emptyfile 3y ago

[dead]

jonjacky 3y ago

George Orwell called it "one of the most hideous buildings in the world." (I don't agree, but I see his point -- it's certainly one of the most eccentric, and it's huge.)

Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago

I’ve only seen it in pictures, but I’m not a fan either. Looks completely secular, might as well be a concert hall or something. Maybe that’s the point, throw an as wide net as possible to appeal to everyone to try to justify the cost.

simonklitj 3y ago
This is an interesting comment to me! How do you define secular-looking? Is it a lack of some particular design element?
- Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
  It simply lacks Catholic design elements. The stained glass is a jumble of nonsense, not even a nice pattern like the Muslims do, and I suppose there is an altar and a crucifix in there somewhere, but they drown in all the visual clutter, like they’re ashamed of it. It’s possible, even likely, that the pictures don’t do it justice, so I will take a look in person at some point, but I don’t have high hopes.
  - AlanYx 3y ago
    There's a rhyme and reason to the stained glass that's tied into the other symbolic elements embedded in the architecture. For example, the color scheme shifts as you pan from the nativity side through to the passion side. The lower panels are not totally abstract; there are vague shapes that sort of remind you of figures, flames, etc. but then it tends to pivot towards full geometric abstraction as you raise your head. Like the Mezquita in Córdoba, it's hard to get a sense of how intensely all the combined elements make an impression just from photographs.
  - fvdessen 3y ago
    The whole church is completely covered in innumerable fractals of catholic symbolism and its main tower will be topped by a 29 meters high cross. Maybe you just don't like the style, which is understandable as it is quite divisive.
3y ago

killthebuddha 3y ago

+1 As another comment suggested, I think it's the crowds and the commercialism. It might as well have been erected inside Disney World. Maybe I'm insensitive, but it takes more than the literal/physical art (the building itself) to move me. Edit: For example, just walking around the Gothic Quarter at night was a significantly more moving, cathartic, or "timeless" experience for me.

lucianbr 3y ago

I didn't know about it before visiting it, and when I was there, I was surprised to realise that they have charged me admission into a construction zone. Also, it was nice, but I have no clue what the adulation in this thread is about. It's just a huge church with a lot of stone and colored glass.

throw__away7391 3y ago

I do not like this building, I don't care for it aesthetically, but more significantly it's too new to be culturally importantly. Old churches/mosques/temples can have historical significance, but such is completely missing in this case. There's a joke going around that it's the first cathedral constructed as a tourist attraction which is both hilarious and accurate. Before the modern era constructing expensive religious buildings could perhaps be justified, but after the 1800s people ought to have known better and these can't lay claim to represent the city as earlier projects could. It belongs in the same category as the castle at Disneyland.

Tactical45 3y ago

The true beauty is in the inside.

ametrau 3y ago
Great. It’s a shame there’s so much outside

IncreasePosts 3y ago

Same. The crowds and tourist atmosphere certainly don't help, but even disregarding them I wasn't impressed with what I saw. Same goes for the few other gaudi buildings I peeped at, as well as park guell. I can understand how their design in the late 19th/early 20th century would be very novel, but it all just seemed merely whimsical rather than inspiring or thought provoking. If we're comparing late 19th century basilicas, Sacre Coeur takes top billing in my book.

TacticalCoder 3y ago

You're not the only one. Although the lighting inside may be beautiful, it is to me, from the outside, fuglier than fugly. Totally and utterly grotesque. I'd be tempted to say a wart in the city but then Barcelona and its superblock is not a beautiful city: it's got nothing on, say, Paris or Rome. So that wart is on par with the rest of the city. FWIW I find everything made by Gaudi to be completely grotesque. I don't care about the groupthink: to each its own bad tastes.