When the 2007 awards jury members gathered to choose this year’s winning projects, they were struck by the range of work represented: big projects, small chapels, houses of worship for a wide range of faiths and from diverse locations around the globe.
The jury members were most surprised by the dearth of completed projects from the ranks of Evangelical Christians, those who have been the principal clients for megachurches across the land. “There might be limited interest in liturgical art and architecture,” ventured one jury member, which would mean that one of the greatest church expansions in the history of North America is taking place with scant attention to the elements that have distinguished great religious architecture for the past few thousand years.
Also rare in the submissions, in the view of the jury, were religious buildings in rural settings. Urban structures had a strong showing in this year’s submissions, which might signal the rebirth of cities as centers for the liturgical arts. At the same time, the jury felt that some of the most successful projects were those that conveyed a sense of place through their art and architecture. Solutions that captured a regional flavor received high praise. The jury was also encouraged by the growing number of projects that celebrate sustainability in their design and construction. Many of these projects reflect environmental awareness and stewardship as part of the congregation’s mission. As one juror observed, “This is the wave of the future. We are all part of God’s creation, and we should show respect for that creation.”
What makes a winning project? The jury’s consensus is that the best projects are holistic. There is careful attention to materials and how they should be used. An emphasis on daylight seems essential in creating environments that strive to be spiritual and uplifting. Spatial scale is also key: environments scaled to the individual worshipper, to the congregation in total, and to the neighborhood of the faith community. And a big budget is not necessary for a great project. Several projects with modest budgets caught the attention of the jurors. “We admire what clients and architects achieved with meager means,” explained one juror.
The least successful projects, in the jury’s estimation, are those that are the most predictable. “We want to encourage more reflection about what is the regional identity,” explained one juror, “what lends itself to expressions that are unique and creative, memorable and different. Much of what we saw in the submissions was not memorable. The architect and the artist have to go beyond simply solving the problem.”
The jurors encourage more artists to enter the field of sacred art, and more congregations to engage artists in the creation of sacred places. The jurors note the importance of art as the design generator of the entire worship space; it should not be an afterthought. “The visual arts were generally not the equal of the architecture that was represented,” was the opinion of one juror. “There is a great need for more artists to enter this realm,” he explained. “This is a chance to work for Michelangelo’s client.”
