A word on design (warning: disjointed)

I've always had an interest in various forms of design. I love decorating (if I'd had the money, my home would be an eclectic blend of antiques, mediaeval and renaissance themes combined with peace signs from the 1960s - the homes I love best are those which express individuality.) I've been a calligrapher and Internet designer, the latter in the 'primeval' days of the Web, when beautiful sites were valued. My passion for all of the arts must be apparent. Yet, not only in the artistic but even the technical spheres (and also in the liturgy - you knew I'd get to that, did you not?), I often am amused at how trends, or design by those with a narrow if expert focus, can produce puzzling results.

Some years ago, I had a good friend, Richard, who was extremely gifted in anything related to home renovation. His abilities were vast - for example, I well remember when I gave him the present of a museum poster (Impressionist painting), and he not only designed a marvellous custom frame but somehow reproduced brush stroke effects, turning it into what looked like an oil painting. He personally remodelled a small, somewhat worn house from the 1850s with excellent results.

Richard's kitchen had a wonderful design. Since he installed the appliances and built the cabinets and shelving himself, it not only was attractive and made surprising use of space, but had a trait few kitchens have. Richard happened to be a very gifted cook - the sort who could enter that kitchen and emerge, in 20 minutes, with a full meal which a restaurant chef would envy. Being a rare combination of technically gifted and expert cook, the kitchen was designed to make anything one would need for various types of preparation at hand. I've seen some models for kitchens which are impressive on paper, or even which look stunning at first glance, but they seldom, if ever, are crafted for maximum ease and speed in meal preparation. Often, quite the contrary is true.

I'll give a brief space to how software programmes often can be puzzling! I was one of many who thought, logically at first glance, that changing margins in Microsoft Word would be a 'format' command - not 'print.' I worked in computing for a time, and I found that the best technicians often could not explain anything at all. Yet it would be logical, I suppose, for some who are technicians to place commands in spots which would hardly be the first to occur to people who actually use such software.

I have no background in architecture (though I think most buildings of recent construction are ghastly - no character, beauty, or charm). Still, one would think that architects, at the very least, have some experience of actually living somewhere. I could see, when space permits, having a bathroom separate from a lavatory - but, if having the tub in a separate space is a great idea, wouldn't it have struck the architect that the hand basin's being in another room would not delight those in the loo? (As an aside, I personally think the current fashion of having everything in neutral, dreary colours, and decorating that is dreary and intended to show nothing of the person, is miserable - but I know it's a hot trend.)

I remember, as a child and young adult, when many flats (and these in far from posh neighbourhoods) had very useful elements. The first example that comes to mind were the pantries often attached to good-sized kitchens. Highly useful, indeed - yet they'd probably be eliminated as 'old fashioned' were there remodelling. (This, of course, does not illustrate a purely new trend - lots of odd ideas were expressive of some status symbol or another even long before anyone alive today was born. I'll go to my death wondering how people, a century ago, painted over gorgeous woods with rich grains, just to show they were wealthy enough to afford the coloured paint which was new to the market then.)

Inevitably, considering the nature of the person, this post shall return for a moment to matters liturgical. I've had the privilege of reading modern works by great liturgical scholars. In doing so, I can see the richness of the 'sign and symbol' concepts, and equally recognise (with Bugnini's memoirs being a prime example) how very far the effects liturgical commissions envisioned are from the boring, trivial, childish, or even artificial reality in many parishes. I also can see, and this only with hindsight since, though it was 'under my nose' at the time, there were so many trends of which one heard at 'workshops' that it was easy to forget what was real, how frequently instructions which were perfectly suited (at least in theory!)to liturgical celebrations were taken out of context and stretched into norms for other areas.

Perhaps part of the problem was that, even if a parish/diocese/cathedral etc., had the good fortune to have a liturgical scholar at hand, he probably was a priest. The liturgical renewal coincided with trends towards 'the age of the laity' (not that married people ever denied their vocation or did not contribute to the church, but the clergy and religious feared both.) Embarrassment then over the 'male only' priesthood meant twists on the liturgy to bring about an effect of 'those poor women - just look at them giving communion and not being able to offer the Mass.' (I see no theological reason women cannot be ordained - nor did Paul VI - but I dislike 'stunts' of any kind.) Too often, those who were in charge of matters liturgical in parishes (and whose sole background in liturgy well might be highly slanted 'workshops, 'where those presenting were very convincing and sincere but either knew little or withheld 85% of what they did know to focus on an agenda) had been teachers of small children, and, knowingly or not, aimed everything at a child's level, hoping to bring in families.

There certainly are churches (Westminster Cathedral being the best example of which I know) which have huge appeal and attendance, even on weekdays, and have brilliant liturgy and music. I know, of course, that most places would not have budget and staff to meet such quality - but it does seem to me that a point would be well taken in that parishes do not need to be turned into intellectual and aesthetic wastelands for people to 'relate' to the offerings. Ironically, those whom I've known who want to turn church buildings into what resembles a public waiting room (...and I don't mean anticipation of the parousia), and to lower all liturgy to the level of an infant, often are the very same who will dismiss any complaint by parishioners about the poor quality with that the parishioners haven't had a 'sufficient educative process.'

Granted - I find some newly remodelled flats, with their neutral colours and blandness, to be very dreary and not at all homelike, where those who favour such trends might think my style to be 'old fashioned.' The colours I find vibrant they might think tacky. The same is true in every sphere. But, to be permitted to complete my loose association, people (of all levels of class or education) generally are not stupid or at a loss to grasp the aesthetic and transcendent. Many churches could use a bit more reasoned design.