Placement and Interpretation

Placement, the church in its surroundings

One of the most ordinary things about a building is its placement. It often is placed strategically, so that the usage of the space will be optimal. There are certain trends in placement of churches in historical Christianity. In many cases we see a church built on high ground, causing good visibility. This has been interpreted as a sign of victory of the Christian religion, as a flag posted on the ground, declaring the area under the sovereignty of a certain ruler, in this case, Christ.

        But how deliberate is the placement? Who decides where a church is built? Are the individuals involved in the process conscious of history, meaning and interpretation? Could it perhaps be the fact that someone donated land; or someone had their own interests in mind for placement? Is it the architect or the church council who decides? By what means of instruction do they act?

       Naturally, in a modern city space is scarce and expensive. What liberties do we have to choose a desirable spot? Is it not better to create a meeting place for believers for the purpose of worshipping God together, than to seek and create a monument for the sake of art, or for the sake of making a statement? Of course it is. My question is still, how do I interpret this building, its choice of placement and its function, its statement to the surroundings? Why, may you ask, should I want to interpret this? Is not the pragmatic reason good enough? Does a building need interpretation beyond its purpose?

       Here, I think, we often miss the obvious. A building is. It is in a certain place at a certain time in history. The mere fact of its being there demands of me a response. I can not simply ignore it. It is there. On a practical level of experience, I may have to go around a block to avoid crashing into it; or I may go inside it, perhaps also through it. But I can not ignore it. Secondly, the built environment influences us. It causes us to act in certain ways (like walk the block). What kind of influence might it have on me?

       In many cases, we are not particularly aware of the silent influence buildings have on us; so much as we negate the fact that they have any at all. I wonder, then, why so many feel so different when they come out of the towns and cities and into nature...

        Back to the question of interpretation: by what do I seek to interpret a building's placement, when it possibly had no intended meaning at all? In literary criticism we have various trends relating to interpretation and meaning. One ignores the author, and says the author's intention is irrelevant to my own interpretation in meeting the written work. Would this attitude work for buildings? Are there any measures for right or wrong interpretation?