3 ms·

The Pantheon no longer exists. It is now the church of St Mary and the Martyrs. And this is the difference I'm getting at. The Pantheon is a temple dedicated t

The Pantheon no longer exists. It is now the church of St Mary and the Martyrs. And this is the difference I'm getting at. The Pantheon is a temple dedicated to all the ancient Roman gods. It cannot be both that and the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs. When the Church took it over, it ceased to be the Pantheon. There's no doubt the building is the same, and we can argue about how 'true to form' it is. But that's the point. When it stopped being what it originally was, its 'form' is now a goal to never deviate from. Whereas, the various depictions of the martyrs present within the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs, for example, has no such ideal yet. The Church can (and does) shift that around. However, if it were to stop being the church of st Mary and the Martyrs, then it would have an ideal form that any restorer may want to restore it towards.

tsimionescu 2y ago
You could try doing a search for the Pantheon vs the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs to see which is alive in the general consciousness and which isn't. Ultimately, the Pantheon is not a temple to the Roman gods, it's a particular building in Rome. It used to be a temple, now it's a church, maybe 100 years from now it will be an exhibition space. It will still be the same building. And the building is far more culturally important then the current parish inhabiting it.
- matt-attack 2y ago
  For what’s its worth, this conversation has been a treat to read. Not sure who I agree with.
  - wahern 2y ago
    IMO, they're both right, but for anon291's reasons. tsimionescu's perception of The Pantheon is reflective of a shared cultural consciousness, albeit one that's cosmopolitan and intellectual. He and anon291 (maybe) see different buildings because they either have different cultural perspectives--i.e. perhaps anon291 is a practicing Catholic (or esoteric pagan?)--or at least anon291 is cognizant that many people would see a space with a meaning quite distinct than tsimionescu's. The Hagi Sophia is great example--most foreigners see one building, local Eastern Orthodox see another, and local Muslims a third. It's difficult, if not impossible, for people to see architectural spaces in the way an animal or alien might see them. Even when the culture which built it is totally alien or unknown, that basic fact, plus the context in which it is seen by the observer (including how they arrived there), as well as typical architectural features (e.g. steps) imbue it with meaning that color everything about it. Our whole world is like that. Take, for example, a stop sign--we simply can't perceive that object, at least without effort, without the culturally imbued meaning. It's not just a red & white octagon with shapes in the middle; the meaning vastly overshadows its raw physical properties.

tsimionescu 2y ago

You could try doing a search for the Pantheon vs the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs to see which is alive in the general consciousness and which isn't. Ultimately, the Pantheon is not a temple to the Roman gods, it's a particular building in Rome. It used to be a temple, now it's a church, maybe 100 years from now it will be an exhibition space. It will still be the same building. And the building is far more culturally important then the current parish inhabiting it.

matt-attack 2y ago
For what’s its worth, this conversation has been a treat to read. Not sure who I agree with.
- wahern 2y ago
  IMO, they're both right, but for anon291's reasons. tsimionescu's perception of The Pantheon is reflective of a shared cultural consciousness, albeit one that's cosmopolitan and intellectual. He and anon291 (maybe) see different buildings because they either have different cultural perspectives--i.e. perhaps anon291 is a practicing Catholic (or esoteric pagan?)--or at least anon291 is cognizant that many people would see a space with a meaning quite distinct than tsimionescu's. The Hagi Sophia is great example--most foreigners see one building, local Eastern Orthodox see another, and local Muslims a third. It's difficult, if not impossible, for people to see architectural spaces in the way an animal or alien might see them. Even when the culture which built it is totally alien or unknown, that basic fact, plus the context in which it is seen by the observer (including how they arrived there), as well as typical architectural features (e.g. steps) imbue it with meaning that color everything about it. Our whole world is like that. Take, for example, a stop sign--we simply can't perceive that object, at least without effort, without the culturally imbued meaning. It's not just a red & white octagon with shapes in the middle; the meaning vastly overshadows its raw physical properties.