As one who has studied (at the amateur level) and been impressed - to tears, even! - by the uniqueness of the revolutionary (yet commonsensical) structural engineering and design methods explored by Gaudi, I'm very sorry to have to read this.
But of course, the Catholic Church from which much of this building is inspired has been viewed as a joke by insiders and outsiders alike for 2000 years, so I suppose it goes with the territory.
At least his architecture pays attention and builds upon classical forms, which is more than one can say about the edifice completed in LA and the one proposed for Oakland.
Sorry it doesn't pass muster.
***But of course, the Catholic Church from which much of this building is inspired has been viewed as a joke by insiders and outsiders alike for 2000 years, so I suppose it goes with the territory.***
No, I find great beauty in parts of the Catholic Church and its historic architecture.
But I found Gaudi's architecture too whimsical and outlandish to be an adequate vehicle for the conveyance of the majesty of Christian theology.
Especially the statuary.
I found the horrible, modernist figures to be like something ripped form the pages of the "Good News for Modern Man" translation of the Scriptures.
The modernist style has the effect of de-historicizing the historic figures of the Scriptures, of turning the living breathing men and women of the Scriptures into disembodied "forces" or wraiths.