Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Religious architecture awards

Expand Messages
  • danw888
    Go to Faith and Form mag and click on the religious architecture awards link. Do you agree that these items deserve prizes? http://www.faithandform.com Dan
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Go to Faith and Form mag and click on the religious architecture
      awards link.

      Do you agree that these items deserve prizes?

      http://www.faithandform.com

      Dan
    • Lance Michael Foster
      ... No, I don t, looks like a bunch of postmodernist work. Particularly not the sacred landscape winner...the mausoleum might qualify as a sacred hardscape
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "danw888" <danw@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Go to Faith and Form mag and click on the religious architecture
        > awards link.
        >
        > Do you agree that these items deserve prizes?
        >
        > http://www.faithandform.com
        >
        > Dan
        >


        No, I don't, looks like a bunch of postmodernist work. Particularly not the "sacred landscape"
        winner...the mausoleum might qualify as a sacred "hardscape" but I don't see a smidgeon of
        land itself in the photo. Almost looks more like a place to race NASCAR remote control model
        cars.

        Lance
      • Chris
        ... not the sacred landscape ... don t see a smidgeon of ... NASCAR remote control model ... I didn t like their choices either. I am much more pleased with
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          > No, I don't, looks like a bunch of postmodernist work. Particularly
          not the "sacred landscape"
          > winner...the mausoleum might qualify as a sacred "hardscape" but I
          don't see a smidgeon of
          > land itself in the photo. Almost looks more like a place to race
          NASCAR remote control model
          > cars.

          I didn't like their choices either. I am much more pleased with the
          way the seven wonders of the new world contest is shaping up.

          HOwever, about your point above: in my opinion, land does not have to
          be present for something to be considered "sacred landscape".

          Place is very much a cognitive state my friend.

          -Chris
        • Lance Michael Foster
          ... Place maybe, but not Land. Everybody has their opinions. Personally, I need real, breathing, land. Real soil, rocks, bugs, birds, water, sun. But
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <groups@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > > No, I don't, looks like a bunch of postmodernist work. Particularly
            > not the "sacred landscape"
            > > winner...the mausoleum might qualify as a sacred "hardscape" but I
            > don't see a smidgeon of
            > > land itself in the photo. Almost looks more like a place to race
            > NASCAR remote control model
            > > cars.
            >
            > I didn't like their choices either. I am much more pleased with the
            > way the seven wonders of the new world contest is shaping up.
            >
            > HOwever, about your point above: in my opinion, land does not have to
            > be present for something to be considered "sacred landscape".
            >
            > Place is very much a cognitive state my friend.
            >
            > -Chris
            >

            "Place" maybe, but not "Land."

            Everybody has their opinions. Personally, I need real, breathing, land. Real soil, rocks,
            bugs, birds, water, sun. But that's just me talking, an ignorant savage redskin animist.

            Lance
          • Chris
            I should probably have begun by saying where I am coming from: I define sacred landscape as synonymous with mythic geography . I also am very partial to
            Message 5 of 7 , Dec 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I should probably have begun by saying where I am coming from:

              I define sacred landscape as synonymous with "mythic geography". I
              also am very partial to "celestial blueprint". By that definition,
              heck, a constellation and a teepee are "mythic geography" aka sacred
              landscape.

              Nice topic, btw.

              Cheers,

              -Chris

              --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Lance Michael Foster"
              <lancemfoster@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <groups@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > > No, I don't, looks like a bunch of postmodernist work. Particularly
              > > not the "sacred landscape"
              > > > winner...the mausoleum might qualify as a sacred "hardscape" but I
              > > don't see a smidgeon of
              > > > land itself in the photo. Almost looks more like a place to race
              > > NASCAR remote control model
              > > > cars.
              > >
              > > I didn't like their choices either. I am much more pleased with the
              > > way the seven wonders of the new world contest is shaping up.
              > >
              > > HOwever, about your point above: in my opinion, land does not have to
              > > be present for something to be considered "sacred landscape".
              > >
              > > Place is very much a cognitive state my friend.
              > >
              > > -Chris
              > >
              >
              > "Place" maybe, but not "Land."
              >
              > Everybody has their opinions. Personally, I need real, breathing,
              land. Real soil, rocks,
              > bugs, birds, water, sun. But that's just me talking, an ignorant
              savage redskin animist.
              >
              > Lance
              >
            • Lance Michael Foster
              Thanks Chris for the clarification...I understand better where you are coming from, and I agree that your definition is valid For me, I see more and more
              Message 6 of 7 , Dec 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks Chris for the clarification...I understand better where you are coming from, and I
                agree that your definition is valid

                For me, I see more and more people who are essentially urban, in where and how they live,
                removed from the life of the land itself, and fewer who live on and with the land daily, not
                hikes...defining what is sacred land, as a mental or philosophical phenomenon is not
                enough for me, although it is an intellectually valid path

                I do not disagree that that is one lens, but it is not visceral enough for me...I grew up in
                the mountains and plains, nearly dying in the elements at one time or another, facing
                bears, and nearly drowning...land for me is more visceral, immediate, living...death on the
                land gives one another perspective aside from the intellectual...the spiritual is not
                confined to the intellect, but may also be learned of through the flesh

                Lance

                --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <groups@...> wrote:
                >
                > I should probably have begun by saying where I am coming from:
                >
                > I define sacred landscape as synonymous with "mythic geography". I
                > also am very partial to "celestial blueprint". By that definition,
                > heck, a constellation and a teepee are "mythic geography" aka sacred
                > landscape.
                >
                > Nice topic, btw.
                >
                > Cheers,
                >
                > -Chris
                >
                > --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Lance Michael Foster"
                > <lancemfoster@> wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <groups@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > > No, I don't, looks like a bunch of postmodernist work. Particularly
                > > > not the "sacred landscape"
                > > > > winner...the mausoleum might qualify as a sacred "hardscape" but I
                > > > don't see a smidgeon of
                > > > > land itself in the photo. Almost looks more like a place to race
                > > > NASCAR remote control model
                > > > > cars.
                > > >
                > > > I didn't like their choices either. I am much more pleased with the
                > > > way the seven wonders of the new world contest is shaping up.
                > > >
                > > > HOwever, about your point above: in my opinion, land does not have to
                > > > be present for something to be considered "sacred landscape".
                > > >
                > > > Place is very much a cognitive state my friend.
                > > >
                > > > -Chris
                > > >
                > >
                > > "Place" maybe, but not "Land."
                > >
                > > Everybody has their opinions. Personally, I need real, breathing,
                > land. Real soil, rocks,
                > > bugs, birds, water, sun. But that's just me talking, an ignorant
                > savage redskin animist.
                > >
                > > Lance
                > >
                >
              • Chris
                I see. Nice. One of my most memorable reads was Tolstoy s description of working the land in Anna Karenina. While the book is very long to read, it is worth
                Message 7 of 7 , Dec 4, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I see. Nice.

                  One of my most memorable reads was Tolstoy's description of working
                  the land in Anna Karenina. While the book is very long to read, it is
                  worth it. And that description alone is worth wading into it for, in
                  my opinion. If you have a lot of experience with living/working off
                  the land, my hunch says you'll like it.

                  Tolstoy is an example of an intellectualy (arguably the greatest
                  writer that every lived) who turned his back on such things in favor
                  of the life you describe--in effect, he put his pen down and took up
                  the plough.

                  While not a sacred writer per se, his life itself is a description of one.

                  -Chris


                  --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Lance Michael Foster"
                  <lancemfoster@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Thanks Chris for the clarification...I understand better where you
                  are coming from, and I
                  > agree that your definition is valid
                  >
                  > For me, I see more and more people who are essentially urban, in
                  where and how they live,
                  > removed from the life of the land itself, and fewer who live on and
                  with the land daily, not
                  > hikes...defining what is sacred land, as a mental or philosophical
                  phenomenon is not
                  > enough for me, although it is an intellectually valid path
                  >
                  > I do not disagree that that is one lens, but it is not visceral
                  enough for me...I grew up in
                  > the mountains and plains, nearly dying in the elements at one time
                  or another, facing
                  > bears, and nearly drowning...land for me is more visceral,
                  immediate, living...death on the
                  > land gives one another perspective aside from the intellectual...the
                  spiritual is not
                  > confined to the intellect, but may also be learned of through the flesh
                  >
                  > Lance
                  >
                  > --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <groups@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I should probably have begun by saying where I am coming from:
                  > >
                  > > I define sacred landscape as synonymous with "mythic geography". I
                  > > also am very partial to "celestial blueprint". By that definition,
                  > > heck, a constellation and a teepee are "mythic geography" aka sacred
                  > > landscape.
                  > >
                  > > Nice topic, btw.
                  > >
                  > > Cheers,
                  > >
                  > > -Chris
                  > >
                  > > --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Lance Michael Foster"
                  > > <lancemfoster@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <groups@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > > No, I don't, looks like a bunch of postmodernist work.
                  Particularly
                  > > > > not the "sacred landscape"
                  > > > > > winner...the mausoleum might qualify as a sacred "hardscape"
                  but I
                  > > > > don't see a smidgeon of
                  > > > > > land itself in the photo. Almost looks more like a place to race
                  > > > > NASCAR remote control model
                  > > > > > cars.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I didn't like their choices either. I am much more pleased
                  with the
                  > > > > way the seven wonders of the new world contest is shaping up.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > HOwever, about your point above: in my opinion, land does not
                  have to
                  > > > > be present for something to be considered "sacred landscape".
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Place is very much a cognitive state my friend.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > -Chris
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > "Place" maybe, but not "Land."
                  > > >
                  > > > Everybody has their opinions. Personally, I need real, breathing,
                  > > land. Real soil, rocks,
                  > > > bugs, birds, water, sun. But that's just me talking, an ignorant
                  > > savage redskin animist.
                  > > >
                  > > > Lance
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.