Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

. . .ITS FUNCTION RAISES IMPORTANT MORAL ISSUES. . .

  • Comment
LETTERS

The letter jointly signed by Clare Lasbrey and Ian Robertson (AJ 15.09.05), actually raises more questions in my mind than the writers' own disquiet concerning the relevance of religious (specifically read 'Christian') architecture today.

Whether or not the function of a building can be described as an 'anachronism', for one. What are the 'international events', mysteriously hinted at? If it is true that 'Western culture' (whatever one may believe this is anyway! ), 'is based on a 2,000year-old lie' - why in heaven's name is this 'unfortunate'?

As to the perceived anachronism of a church having a congregation in our post-Christian society, a Biblical reply is - 'where two or three are gathered in my name' - not two or three hundred, thousand, million etc. Any number will make up a congregation. The further question this raises is what is a congregation? A reasonable argument could be made for including casual visitors, sightseers and even the odd lover of architecture as part of an impromptu congregation during a service.

Their final question, however, is relevant, as it does open up a ginormous can, squirming with densely packed and slippery worms. To what extent may we take into account the function of a building when making an architectural assessment? In functional terms only, how far is architecture independent of moral judgements? What to make of a well-designed gas chamber, torture chamber, armaments factory, etc? And whose mores are to be used for this value judgement?

To the penultimate question, I can only answer what one of my mentors used to drum into me - you are a human being first, an architect second.

Thomas Burfitt-Williams, London

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.