Death and resurrection of an archetype. The cruciform plan in 20th century religious architecture

Abstract

An overall look at the religious architecture of the 20th century reveals that there are hardly any cruciform buildings. Looking at the most significant collections of works, we can see that the cruciform churches are only a few and have little testimonial value. Clearly, the cross has been the most widely used plan in the history of Christian architecture, and has become a kind of archetype. It is equally obvious that the reasons for this have become blurred during the 20th century, and today only a few could tell whether it was a merely symbolic question or there are other arguments that justify it. In recent years we have witnessed a flourishing of the cruciform plant. The reasons are varied and apparently much more dependent on the personal strategy of each author than on some sort of ecclesiastical rule. To illustrate this issue we visit some works of Grassi, Mansilla and Tunon, Blacam and Meagher or Moneo. One may wonder whether this is a fashion now resurrected or the cross is really an essential element of Christian religious architecture that was momentarily left aside. An analysis of various manuals for the design of churches helps to clarify this issue. Thus, this article aims to explain the disappearance of cruciform religious architecture in the 20th century, investigating both the reasons given by the architects as well as by the churchmen who commissioned the works.

Key words: cross, archetype, architecture, religion, 20th century.