modern temples - what should they be like?

[kallimahos]

Greetings friends. My name is Kallimahos, I live and work in Athens and I'm new on this forum.

i'd like to share with you my problematic on how a hellenic temple built today should be like. Taking under consideration the fact that hellenism and the old faiths in general are reviving, i deem sooner or later there will be the need for new places of worship. To this day, hellenists use to worship either in private or in the open nature, while ruins of ancient temples is also a favorite destination. In Greece, the more advanced cases include a stone altar on mount Pentelikon as well as a somewhat romantic effort of building a temple with a peristasis in Oreokastro area, Thessaloniki. The essential debate of 'where should hellenists worship shall they ever be able to afford resources to build a really nice temple', has not opened yet. Worst, seems to me i'm the only weirdo to have this kind of thoughts. So i decided to address a bigger audience.

I've gathered some questions that puzzle me from time to time, looking for your thoughts and comments




- Marble & stone vs concrete: what is best for building material?

- Should the structure utilize modern advances in technology? (anti-earthquake methods, electricity, glass surfaces, modern paints/varnishes etc)

- Should the structure's morphology follow the classical architectural standards or be open to major innovations? Are there architects today capable of innovating on the classical aesthetics? Can the classical aesthetics be improved and if yes in what way?

- Easy vs hard access: Should the structure be built near populated areas with things like a parking lot and toilets? Should it be built away in an uninhabited area, with human interference on the site kept on a minimum?


You are welcomed to share your opinions as well as add on the list.

[RandallS]

- Marble & stone vs concrete: what is best for building material?

- Should the structure utilize modern advances in technology? (anti-earthquake methods, electricity, glass surfaces, modern paints/varnishes etc)

Some of the major ancient temples pushed the technology of the time when they were built, the Parthenon for example. So I would say the the Gods are not adverse to advances in technology. I would certainly use the anti-earthquake construction methods for any major temple.

- Should the structure's morphology follow the classical architectural standards or be open to major innovations? Are there architects today capable of innovating on the classical aesthetics? Can the classical aesthetics be improved and if yes in what way?

I think some innovation is a good think, One should honor the past but look after modern needs as well.

- Easy vs hard access: Should the structure be built near populated areas with things like a parking lot and toilets? Should it be built away in an uninhabited area, with human interference on the site kept on a minimum?

I think this depends on the deity and the reason for the temple. Both types of temples were used in ancient Greece. Temples in the midst of cities and temples in harder to access areas. However, even some of the harder to access locations apparently because major pilgrimage sites -- for example, the birthplace of Zeus in Crete.

[Star]

- Should the structure utilize modern advances in technology? (anti-earthquake methods, electricity, glass surfaces, modern paints/varnishes etc)

When you get into things like electricity (and toilets, which you mention in another question), you're talking about things that are considered really basic amenities for a human habitation in Western society in this day and age. I see no reason why I would build a temple to the Gods to a lower standard than I would build my house to.

I don't know how it is in other countries, but I suspect any temple built in the US would be subject to building codes. I don't know if that covers earthquake proofing, but I would suspect it would be involved to some degree (at least in areas where earthquakes are a major concern).

As for things like modern paints and concrete... Why not? We don't live in ancient Greece; why should we be bound to ancient materials? They built using what was available to them at the time. So should we.

[kallimahos]

Some of the major ancient temples pushed the technology of the time when they were built, the Parthenon for example.

Pushed the building technology ok, but did they embody technology? For us, there lies a large unknown territory of discovering the connections that modern technology materials have, to the primal elements and the ancient perceptions. For instance, a solar roof could be utilized on a temple of Apollo, or large glass surfaces could be used in a temple of Hygeia, but no one is discussing about how and which technological advances should be incorporated, into religious practices that have never known them.

I think some innovation is a good think, One should honor the past but look after modern needs as well.

You are right in general terms but soon as we accept innovation, questions emerge like 'what innovation' and 'how much innovation' and these are the really hot questions. Innovating on classic formulas was done in antiquity, the temple of Epikourios Apollon at Vassai portrays this with the gate carved to its eastern side. This is innovation by the same man who had designed the parthenon some 20 years before, but Iktinos case belongs to the few exceptions rather than the rule. So, what innovation and how much of it should be expected in designing a modern Hellenic temple?

I think this depends on the deity and the reason for the temple. Both types of temples were used in ancient Greece.

Good point.

As for things like modern paints and concrete... Why not? We don't live in ancient Greece; why should we be bound to ancient materials? They built using what was available to them at the time. So should we.

But how about the aesthetics of the materials? Marble is a more good-looking material than concrete for example. Also, there is a basic religious aspect in the fact that temples were build to last, resembling the eternal attribute of divinity. Correct me if i'm wrong but i think concrete was a 100-year life-span, after which it starts to deteriorate and turn to dust.

[Asch]

Correct me if i'm wrong but i think concrete was a 100-year life-span, after which it starts to deteriorate and turn to dust.

Depends on the mixture of concrete, elements/weather, and wear and tear. The Romans invented and built with concrete.

[Carnelian]

Greetings friends. My name is Kallimahos, I live and work in Athens and I'm new on this forum.

i'd like to share with you my problematic on how a hellenic temple built today should be like. Taking under consideration the fact that hellenism and the old faiths in general are reviving, i deem sooner or later there will be the need for new places of worship. To this day, hellenists use to worship either in private or in the open nature, while ruins of ancient temples is also a favorite destination.

Temples weren't places of worship, they were the houses of the deity that contained the cult statue and votive offerings. The general population probably weren't allowed in the temples, only the priests/priestesses who maintained the cult of the deity. Communal worship took place outside, and sacrifices were offered on an altar in front of the temple under open sky.

As for what temples are made of, I don't think it matters as long as they have aesthetic appeal. Also, I do think they should be kept away from polluting influences. but not completely separate from a community. They should probably just be in a nice area, or in a place within the community but in special place, like an ancient acropolis.

[kallimahos]

Temples weren't places of worship, they were the houses of the deity that contained the cult statue and votive offerings.

Well obviously an offering is an act of worship and they could not send it over by courier, plus there were sites of mass concourse like Eleusis. Regardless of that, facts show that modern hellenes (the ones I know at least) tend to gather to sacred sites for feasting and with this in mind, my guess is that sooner or later an attempt for a temple will be made.

Also, I do think they should be kept away from polluting influences. but not completely separate from a community.

That's another interesting topic about communities, because communities back then resembled small, religiously homogenous cities with a few thousand people, whereas communities today is a more 'technical' term, resembling metropolises of many millions, where individual pagans live scattered across many kilometres. So some 'completeness' of separation does enter the scene here.

Also Randall above talked of "temples in the midst of cities".... nowadays this would look something like




which is not so pagan a sight imho

[Carnelian]

my guess is that sooner or later an attempt for a temple will be made.

The attempt has been made already: http://12thespis.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/ellinonaos1/

[kallimahos]

The attempt has been made already: http://12thespis.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/ellinonaos1/

In Greece, the more advanced cases include a stone altar on mount Pentelikon as well as a somewhat romantic effort of building a temple with a peristasis in Oreokastro area, Thessaloniki.

This is essentially a one-man effort. His intentions were pure, however it draws much criticism because of its questionable aesthetics. People say he could do much better had he opted for a plain altar.

This topic is more about a collective effort with adequate resources. In plain words, had we the money to build the Parthenon anew, what would we build?

[drekfletch]

In plain words, had we the money to build the Parthenon anew, what would we build?

Well, to start, we'd need the sanctuary enclosure. I'd say that'd be at least 1/2 an acre. More if a parking area were to be included. I'd say we'd probably end up going with a building of classical revival design. So you enter the sanctuary (parking off site, in this example) and are faced with a large open front yard with the main altar center.

Given the diversity of people, it's probably be to all Daimones, Theoi et al. with maybe local patrons given pride of place. I'd say it'd be a combination of both raised ouranial and recessed cthonic. Stone would be likely, though I kind of like the idea of building a wooden table altar for each major festival to be burnt with the offerings.

On one side, I think a smaller shrine to Hestia with a perpetual fire would be appropriate. Perhaps with an attatched kitchen, for when we need to cook the sacrafices. On the other side (to satisfy my sense of symmetry) there'd be the administrative offices and supplies storage.

When we get to the temple is where it becomes more vague. I propose that this should be syncretized with a library and museum.
I'm seeing a raised collonade, fairly wide, with large ornamental doors. Smaller functional doors within them. The first room is a large foyer, with large doors ahead, and smaller doors to the side. The large door enters the statue room, and when both sets of doors are open, the main statue can see the altar. The side doors lead to study/classrooms that are on two levels, making for four rooms at the front of the Temple.

Doors on the side at the back of the statue room would lead to two galleries. These to be used as library for study and museum space. Any 'museum shop' type activities should be in the administration offices.

We could of course have a separate building somewhere for the library/museum/classrooms, leaving the temple as just the statue room. Which would be historical, as the temple itself was essentially the storeroom for whomever presided over the sanctuary.