The 2006 awards jury, which chose the projects presented in this issue, was vocal in its reaction to the 197 submissions in architecture and the arts. New this year was the inclusion of work by architects from around the world. Previously the awards program was open only to architects based in North America.

The international projects made a distinct impression on the jurors. One juror described them as “exceptional;” others noted that making the awards program international should raise the caliber of all submissions. The design of worship environments abroad, particularly in Europe, Asia, and the United Kingdom, was more adventurous and thought-provoking than the work they were used to seeing in North America. One juror pointed out that building abroad is not as regulated as it is in the States. He believes that fewer restrictions abroad allow designers to be more inventive.

This observation led to a larger discussion about how design is viewed in North America. One juror speculated that architects of religious buildings on this side of the Atlantic and the Pacific were generally less experimental (compared to their counterparts on the other side of the globe) and their clients were more architecturally conservative. Jurors noted that American clients for religious buildings seem to place far less emphasis on design than do clergy and congregations abroad. “The value of design is just not perceived here,” observed one juror, which results in lower fees for architects or their elimination altogether from the process of creating a religious building. Several jurors remarked that in North America the design process is usually “short-changed,” reflecting the strong influence of “consumer and popular culture and values,” especially in the U.S. One juror noted that the design of many worship environments in America today is driven by the “commercial shopping” mentality that colors everything in the culture, and that congregations want religious buildings to be “the least challenging possible, to please everyone.” No doubt the mission of many faith communities to attract new members by offering them comfortable, non-threatening environments accounts for such bland religious architecture and art.

The work of liturgical artists drew comment from several jury members, who believed that artists should “review their own work and submit those projects that stretch them the most,” meaning work that has been challenging to the artist and to the client. Many artists, they asserted, fall into being “repetitive and redundant;” the artist’s oeuvre should reflect a maturation of vision. “Artists need to push themselves,” said one juror.

The jurors also discussed whether the awards program should admit only art work commissioned for a particular environment; any piece of art created for a religious purpose can now be submitted. Jurors felt that the strength of religious art rests on its dialogue with the place for which it is created and that work should be judged within its spiritual context. “The challenge to the artist is working with a community with many voices, and distilling that into the art,” one juror observed, adding that the work should be displayed and judged within the spiritual space that it is created for.

Are the jurors’ observations about American religious architecture fair? Should the awards program restrict art submissions to commissioned work? Use our contact form to send us your thoughts.

Click on the links below to view the winners in each category.