Wednesday, July 28, 2010

I Apologize for the Delay

Life, as always, got in the way of my attempt to focus more on my writing, and on this blog in particular. However, I am committed to this blog and shall try to update weekly as promised. Or at least monthly. I owe y'all monthly at least. And now, on to some good, old fashioned Bean Town architecture.

I've always had a passing interest in architecture ever since I took AP Art History my senior year of high school. Gothic architecture and some of the modern work by people such as Frank Gehry in particular caught my fancy. When I first arrived in Boston in August of 2008 to attend Wellesley, I was impressed with the buildings squished together around me on the streets. The architecture here is almost nothing like that of San Diego. Southern California has a much more youthful, spread out feeling to it, with heavy southwest influence in the ever-present stucco and earthen tones of so many buildings. Boston, on the other hand, is old and rich with history that San Diegans can't even begin to imagine.

And so I invite you to take a virtual journey with me to some of my favorite buildings in Boston that I have come across thus far. This will likely be the first of many entries about architecture I come across.

Today's entry will focus on three buildings in Copley Square, which is a very busy, tourist-filled area of Boston, especially around this time of year. Here's a photo I took of part of Copley Square on a recent outing with a friend:


And that, unfortunately enough, is not the side of Copely Square which we shall be discussing today. Instead, we will turn to the left and start with one of my favorite buildings in all of Boston: The Old South Church, also known as the New Old South Church. The reason for this strange nomenclature is that the Old South Church congregation had been around much longer than this building had. This was the "new" building that was created for a congregation that had been around since 1669. In fact, the congregation, a part of the United Church of Christ, is one of the oldest religious communities in the United States. Can your religious community claim that?

I love this building because of its ties to Gothic architecture, which captured the heart of my inner art enthusiast three years ago.

Completed in 1875, "the most beautiful basilica in North America," according to the Boston Transcript, was designed in the Gothic Revival style by William Sears (not of the department store fame) and Charles Cummings (a man with a very unfortunate last name). It became the third home of the Old South congregation. This Gothic Revival style particularly reflected the architecture of the cathedrals in Venice, as was advocated by John Ruskin, an influential English architecture critic. The exterior of the building if constructed mostly of puddingstone and deep rose sandstone to create an alternating red and white exterior that is also relatively common in Spanish architecture as well (google images of places in Cordoba, if you don't believe me).


The campanile, or that gorgeous tower attached to the building that most Americans probably couldn't climb without getting seriously dehydrated, is two hundred and forty-six feet tall, and houses a bell that weighs 2020 pounds. That's right, the bell weighs less than your environmentally-conscious Prius and is about 1/13 the weight of the largest bell in the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Quasimodo laughs at your puny bell, Boston. For shame.

All jokes about the Hunchback of Notre Dame aside, the Old South Church is thriving in the center of a city famous for people who can't pronounce their "R"s, beans, and tea parties. It currently is home to more than 650 Bostonians from every background you can imagine. They even have a female Senior Minister. Yeah, progress! For a church who once had a man named Ebenezer Pemberton as their Senior Minister and baptized Benjamin Franklin when he was born, I'd say they're doing pretty well for themselves.

One of my personal favorite tiny details of this building happens to not be on the building at all but on the iron gate that surrounds it:

Now, this I can tell you nothing about other than I found it to be especially pretty and so I snapped the above image.

Directly across the street from the (New) Old South Church is the McKim Building of the Boston Public Library, which certainly puts the Balboa branch of the San Diego public libraries to shame, and will possibly be put to shame by the new design for the Central Library in San Diego. However, as far as libraries go, this one is pretty... how shall I describe it? Well, "baller" seems modern and colloquial enough, despite the fact that it is normally applied to people.

Built in 1895, the McKim building was heralded as a "palace for the people" and currently contains the Library's administrative offices, exhibition rooms, and research collection. The building was designed by Charles Follen McKim in the Renaissance Revival style. Why everyone in Copley Square chose to design something in a revival style is beyond me, though I figure it's probably because these people knew good architecture style when it stared them in the face. No need to invent something new when there is already something perfect available, right? The exterior facade was heavily influenced by the Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve in Paris whereas the enclosed courtyard pictured below was modeled after the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome.


There are all sorts of interesting little symbols and details throughout the library that, in order to cover them all, I would have to create an entire post devoted to this building alone. My personal favorites are the two large statues in front of the library that represent Art and Science;

the head of Minerva (known as Athena to the Greeks), goddess of wisdom, over the main entrance;

the marble lions that proudly, if lazily, lord over the stairs and memorialize the Massachusetts Civil War infantries;

and the fountain in the Italian-inspired courtyard with the statue of the Baccante and Infant Faun in bronze.

For someone who normally misses the heavy symbolism that laces the art and literature of the world, I certainly appreciated all of obvious influences, references, and blatant copies that I found throughout my wanderings of the McKim building. The one aspect I did not appreciate as much was the never-ending stream of religious paintings that seem to be a requirement of any building built before 1900. If I've seen one Crucifixion of Christ, I've seen them all. Please, stick to the clever personifications of great over-arching terms like "Art" and "Science." Kthxbai.

I should clarify. I'm not anti-religion or anti-Christianity, but I always enjoyed the mythology and symbolism associated with ancient Greek and Roman societies so much more because there was so much more to pull from: gods, goddesses, demi-gods, heroes, titans, satyrs, nymphs, and so on. When I studied early Christian art, however, I saw the same twelve scenes or so repeated over and over again and quickly grew bored with the subject matter. Also, gruesome pictures of a crucified Christ do not really seem appropriate in a place of research, which is not a place of worship.

The last building I would like to share with you today is across the square from the Old South Church and is where I would like to stay when I am a wealthy doctor married to a man who has more money than either of us would ever know what to do with. My friends and I originally (and quite literally) stumbled into this building when one of us announced that we needed to use the ladies' room sometime soon or Bad Things would happen. Imagine our surprise when we walked through the doors of what looked like a normal, though not cheap, hotel, and were greeted with the below sight:

Everything in white marble and gold leaf... rugs that probably cost more than my yearly salary... chairs that might be actual Louis XV chairs from the time of the old French king himself. For someone who considers freshly laundered sheets a luxury, I certainly was impressed. My eyes were bugging out of my head, my jaw had dropped onto the ground, and my mind was desperately trying to not calculate how many lifetimes my family would have to work to afford what was in the lobby alone.

This is the Fairmont Copley Plaza. The hotel's architect was Henry Janeway Hardenbergh, the same man who designed the Plaza Hotel in New York City. The hotel opened in 1912 to host more than 1,000 guests, some of whom had had to make reservations for the hotel up to sixteen months in advance for a room. Currently, the hotel has 383 rooms that range in price from $259 per night to $3,500 per night. Among several of its impressive facts and anecdotes, this hotel was the first to be completely air conditioned and was the first to accept credit cards. The Fairmont, which was built on the original site of the Museum of Fine Arts, has been the hotel of choice for nearly every president since William Howard Taft, as well as several foreign dignitaries, celebrities that attract paparazzi like carcasses attract flies and maggots, and various royalty.

And if that doesn't impress you, then consider this: they have a hotel WITHIN the hotel on the fourth floor, open to a "selection of like-minded guests," where "your individuality is valued, your room preferences are honored, and your arrangements for a quick and effortless departure are anticipated." This is all taken directly from their website. They not only arrange your limousines for you, but even provide you with a bottle of mineral water to go along with your bath. Oh, and just to remind you, this is a common sight in the ballrooms:

Meanwhile, this is their bar/lounge:

Feeling outclassed yet? I definitely had a Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman moment when I stepped into this place, and had another one while I was doing the research for this entry.

Awesome.

So that's all for now. More soon. Peace, love, and pandas!

3 comments:

  1. monthly is not acceptable when you get to france. Not acceptable at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I noticed all the Christian paintings too- it seemed a little out of place, though the paintings were lovely. I think so much of the study of Christian art (and thus, for me, most of the enjoyment of it) was understanding the history of the depictions. I did a project last school year on renditions of the Trinity in Orthodox paintings, and there are literally centuries of discussion, squabbling, banning, and occasional excommunications, over how you depict the Trinity. It can become absorbing on its own merits.

    I wonder if the interior art was meant as a compromise. It's all done in a lovely Romantic style, something that would really be suited to the lush fantasies of Greek and Roman art, but it's Christian subjects. Maybe the artist had to satisfy several people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Alice - I will do my best to keep it to weekly updates. Or updates whenever I find something worth sharing. Promise.

    @Beanie - Perhaps if I knew more of the history behind the art, I would appreciate it more. All I know is that it is not, for me, the most intriguing of subjects in art. I wonder if the interior was meant as a compromise as well. It would make a great deal of sense if that were the case. Or perhaps the artists behind the building were attempting to have a wide range of subjects protrayed in an effort to show the depth and range of the library's collection: "Look, we know about all sorts religious symbols! We're educated!"

    ReplyDelete