Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Religious architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Religious architecture

I have significantly expanded the article on religious architecture, largely borrowing from other articles in a survey of the field style. Comments and suggestions are welcome as are collaborators and contributions. I know we are missing some major periods as well as the architecture of some major religious movements. However, it is probably not helpful to the article to cover absolutely everything. I am eager to know where you see major oversights or helpful additions. Is there enough balance between Western (Christian) periods and Eastern (non-Christian) topics. I am not looking for a theological or proportional answer to that question, but rather once that is informed by the history of World architecture. Thoughts?

Also, is it enough to link to other articles in WP that constitute the source from which the copy has been distilled, or must references be cited in each article independently? Opinions? Thanks. Glenn4pr 06:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I think each article needs to be referenced independantly unfortunately.
2. This article makes a better fist at the history of architecture than the actual History of architecture article - but there in lies a gripe - is this the history of architecture under a different name - I'm not sure what your criteria for inclusion is?
3. The section on modern and postmodern architecture is a bit US centric in my opinion - whilst the cadet chapel is a really striking building, I've never come across it before, which makes me think its place in architectural development may be tertiary; whilst major works such as Notre Dame du Haut get no mention. The Church of the Light might be a good one for a Japanese example.It might be better to subdivide the modern architecture section - it's been going for nearly 100 years now so there's plenty of hues and shades - see Josef Franke's expressionist churches for example - or the Art Deco churches [1] or Coventry Cathedral or Oscar Niemeyer's cathedral in Brazil.......
4. The problem seems to me that almost any architectural style or period has been employed in the construction of religious architecture. Perhaps it might be better to merge it with history of architecture (no mean feat - perhaps an article improvement of the month candidate?)

Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 19:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about merging this into history of architecture. I think that article should stay as secular as possible, but agree it needs some help. I would like to see here a section or some discussion of buildings from the old testament, maybe in the ancient architecture section, or in its own. There are some articles on these around. Yes, it needs more coverage of buildings from Judaism. Synagogue architecture would be a good place to start. Glenn4pr, you can also submit this to WP:PR for more eyes than just ours. DVD+ R/W 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, synagogue looks better than synagogue architecture - though I get the gist of it, the latter looks kind of forky. Some other buildings to discuss: Western Wall, Dome of the Rock, Solomon's Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple, Tabernacle, Sukkot, and more. Best, DVD+ R/W 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if were intent on not merging ......... we might think about adding Zoroastrianism to the faiths - A really old religion. Fire temples are notable as are the rock funery osiaries (I'll check the spelling but if memory serves the old death rituals used to be that bodies were placed on towers to be later devoured by vultures and then the bones were tossed into the tower). --Mcginnly | Natter 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the eastern orthodox should get a mention particularly Onion domes and the russian timber church tradition (pictured)

24-domed Intercession church on the Vytegra River was built in wood in 1708 and burnt down to the ground by accident in 1963. It has not been restored so far.

Other notables are the Aztec and Inca temples (Machu Pichu Mesoamerican pyramids Maya architectureetc. How about precolumbian native american architecture? --Mcginnly | Natter 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't claim to know much about it but the Indus Valley Civilization was incredibly precocious in terms of its development in world history - first town planning, sanitation etc. presumably religious architecture too. Also what about Stonehenge and the celtic/beaker monuments? --Mcginnly | Natter 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that the topic is considered on a solely historic ground (with even a strong emphasis on western architecture starting from classical), with minimal considerations of the specifics of different religions. My original stub was rather a collection of religious-specific links. I think the article needs to refocus on the specific requirement of these buildings, with style peculiarities kept secondary. Of course, I can still never give enough credit to those who expanded it into the current and Church architecture (incidentally, the latter contains a good section on Orthodox churches) articles. Circeus 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the headings are a bit confusing. Is the article structured by chronology? historical relivance? by religion? by architectural style? I would put a heading Christianity, and then do the styles under that, ordered by chronology. I agree with Circeus that, although style should be noted, I think functional significance should first separate the different headings. Bytebear 22:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the way the article is arranged, even though it means that Islamic architecture is sandwiched between two Christian styles. As is stated in the article, Byzantine architecture influence Islamic architecture. The first sentence of the article is a bother. "Religious architecture is concerned with the design and construction of places of worship." Architects are concerned with the design and construction. The article concerns matters of design and construction. But the architecture itself isn't in the least concerned! On the other hand, if you are referring to architecture as a process, rather than as a conglomeration of buildings, then you can say "Religious architecture is the design and construction of places of worship." But the "concern" has gotta go. Also, in the paragraph Spiritual aspects of religious architecture the word "return" is used twice. I'm not comprehending the significance, and the second use is particularly confusing. I know this is nit-picking, but the concepts described seem to be straightforward except for the use of that word.

--Amandajm 12:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)