Talk:Jesus Church, Copenhagen

Is this really objective?

The article as it stands at the moment seems to present an over-critical view of the Jesuskirke. It may well be that from some circles there was criticism of the ornamentation and that some have called it blasphemous but the references here are very weak.

Would it not be more reasonable to concentrate first and foremost on the church's impressive design, the talents of the architect, and its place in European architecture? This might require additional research but it would at least present a more objective view of the building.

Vilhelm Dahlerup was after all one of Denmark's most productive architects and is remembered for his contributions to historicism. I would argue that this is also the primary style of the church, whatever instructions he received to base it on older buildings. Ipigott (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If the article seems over-critical or to focus too much of the criticism in its own day, it is certainly a mistake. I merely intended a brief mention of the contemporary criticism since it seems well-documented and is mentioned in most sources I have come across (both in regards to the overall ornamentation and specifically in the context of the troll sculpture reaching out for the crucifix). What you suggest as the most important aspects to focus on is certainly also what I find most interesting about it. The architecture, artwork and the Jacobsen link is what makes it interesting. As far as I know Jacobsen's instructions to the architect was to make it the most beautiful church in Copenhagen and one which was particularly good for music (the organ by Aristide Cavaillé-Coll also needs to be mentioned). But it was one of the first articles I started on Wikipedia and it was getting very long and very technical and therefor In gave up on it - and unfortunately not much has happened since. THIS text provides a lot of interesting details about history and the oeigins of its design. Ramblersen (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the lengthy information at jesuskirken.dk. While it is very interesting, it seems to be more about the relationship between Jacobsen and Ussing than about the church itself. It does however reveal that Jacobsen was particularly struck by the churches of Ravenna, especially the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare in Classe which might deserve a word or two. You are of course right to mention the troll statue but there seems to be only one small reference to blasphemy: "I sin bog "Guder i Forårslys" finder Ole Wivel den ligefrem pinlig-blasfemisk." Unless there are other references, we should probably tone this down. I would suggest, in any case, that the lead concentrates on the more positive aspects of the building and its architect, leaving the discussion of opposition to its ornamentation to a later section in the article. You are right to mention the organ. There is excellent background material at [1]. Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now looked a bit more on it. I seem just to have attempted a never completed translation from the Danish wikipedia article (which is of course unsourced). I fully agree with you that there is no reason to mention the criticism in the lead (or anywhere else for that matter unless more substantial sources turn up - while I can find many places which mentions it they all seem to refer to the same single event and, most likely, eachother). However, I do think it is worth mentioning that it is unconventional and relies on inspiration from Southern Europe and that Jacobsen took an active interest in its design (since he is a prominent figure of the time who has had great infuence on the cultural life of the country and the cityscape of Copenhagen). THIS source also mentions the synagogue in Toledo as a source of inspiration. But it is its architecture, devorations and artwork which is interesting. Sorry if I made you read a long and irrelevant text, O only had a quick look at it myself and thought there was considerable details as to his motivation for building a church in the first place, his motivation for opting for that particular style in particular, the link to the Marble Church and the unusual location in the middle of nowhere. But eventhough I found it interesting, you're probably right that it is not too relevant to this article. There are so many other details more important to focus on.Ramblersen (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus Church, Copenhagen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206100017/http://www.detmodernegennembrud.dk/composite-727.htm to http://www.detmodernegennembrud.dk/composite-727.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)