Category talk:Architects of cathedrals

Architects of cathedrals

For architects who have been responsible for significant design work at structures that have served at some point in their existence as cathedrals.

This is a ridiculous category! Cathedral is an ecclesiastical designation, not an architectural one. And this description which defines the category merely shows up the problem!

I'm not just a random editor making an arbitrary judgement. I'm the main editor of Cathedral, Romanesque architecture, Gothic architecture, Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches and Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England. What I am saying here is that the category Ecclesiastical architects is sufficient. Amandajm (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a cathedral

This has never been a cathedral

In defense....

Amandajm,

Apologies for not getting back to your earlier message and having to respond to you more formally here.

To address some of your first messages to me:

Your statement was not discouraging and all your points are valid. Although I am not the Wikipedia editor in charge of anything related to ecclesiastical architecture, this is a field I work in professionally in the US and UK and am more than well aware of the distinctions applied to what constitutes a “cathedral,” “basilica,” “abbey church,” “special church,” etc. In fact, as this category is presently defined, the occupants could be even more ridiculous as because there is no denominational limits, so many qualifying buildings in New York City alone would be house churches, often unimportant examples of residential architecture that at best are significantly good example of adaptive reuse (a good example of terrace/rowhouse-turned-church is Manhattan’s former Our Lady of Guadalupe RC Church, but this is irrelevant because it is not a cathedral and rather off topic).

So point taken on the relevance of this category and specifically on the definition of who qualifies. Could the category be broadened out to cathedrals and basilicas of mainline denominations, perhaps, but it would fast becomes a hairsplitting highly subjective exercise.

That said, the reason why I created the category is that the general ecclesiastical architects category is equally arbitrary in lumping together P.C. Keely and J.J. McCarthy, prolific designer of pedestrian-designed 19th-century RC churches and cathedrals, with contemporary designers who may have completed a minor re-ordering or porch addition to a suburban gospel hall. Although well defined, the term cathedral conjures up higher architectural ambitions, despite what the reality may be. Having been trying to organize many of the British/Irish/American architect articles, I believe categories illuminate interesting contrasts in architect’s output (likewise, ecclesiastical architects category has just been more narrowly specified by nationality by someone else). Also, while many architects specialize in certain fields (the above two mentioned rarely worked for non-ecclesiastical clientele), some ecclesiastical architects refuse to work for certain denominations (Butterfield’s stance against Catholicism), and some shy away from grander work altogether. However, in many biographies, such as that of architect E.J. May, there was a desire after having mastered residential design to fulfill his career ambitions by designing a church (he unfortunately didn’t). Other ecclesiastical designers have similar ambitions to design a cathedral.

While the definition of this category is narrow, subjective, and near irrelevant in many cases, I’d hold off on declaring it “ridiculous,” if only because I meant it to reflect a level of achievement and ambition in design. There will be glaring exceptions: Michelangelo designed sculptural works for cathedrals (Florence and Bruge), but his masterpiece, St. Peter’s Basilica, is not nor ever was the cathedral of Rome, despite possessing St. Peter’s cathedra. Likewise, other architects will slip into this category who may not be worthy: Thomas Archer is here because his parish church at Birmingham was distinguished enough to become the centre of a newly created diocese, Phillip Johnson designed a mega church that for publicity reasons was titled a cathedral, Richard Mitchell Upjohn’s redundant but well-designed Manhattan Episcopal Trinity Chapel was bought and reused as the Cathedral of St. Sava (Serbian Orthodox), Nicholas Hawksmoor was on the design team of St. Paul’s but not its principal designer, etc., etc.

So is this category hopelessly irrelevant or can it be corrected with a more narrow but fair definition?---James R (talk) 20 Apr 2011