Antoni Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia

Do cropforce and wo wrench force view art formulateistic pieces differently? When we consider legion(predicate) articles environ Antoni Gaudis architectural wonder Sagrada Familia, is there a balance between the expression men and women view this piece of history. In the articles we are to analyze, we find that women are more subjectively critical than men who are somewhat more objective in the perceptions. In a architectural piece, the standpoints are leaded because they are readily visible to the public regardless of whether or not you want to jut it.Gaudis ostentatious Gothic facade has acquired admiration and criticism over the years and we discuss this criticism of his work with reference to various articles figuren from the viewpoint of twain genders in order to ascertain whether there is indeed a diversity between the genders perceptions. Heresy or Homage in Barcelona was scripted by Margot Hornblower in clipping magazine and is dated 28 January 1991. Hornblower describes the Sagrada Familia as sensual, spiritual, whimsical, exuberant (Hornblower, 1991).In this description, she seemingly spares no time in making the piece seem irresistible. Furthermore, she insists that the building symbolizes the city of Barcelona in a track that few former(a) buildings do (Hornblower, 1991). Hornblower is complimentary of the piece of architecture that at times has been seen as gauche and over-the-top, she explains that very sprint of the building is almost a mockery of modern architecture (Hornblower, 1991). Although this in itself is not complimentary of the heraldic bearing it h obsoletes in Catalina, just the way Hornblower has compose it, claims it seem awesome in its give birth way.She does, however make it known that the fact that the Sagrada Familia was never completed poses a problem for many another(prenominal) critics. The problem it appears, according to Hornblower is who bequeath be seen as fit to complete the work considering the i mmense esteem in which Gaudi was held? (Hornblower, 1991). The article was written prior to the 1992 Olympic Games and dissention was caused surrounding the people chosen to complete the piece. Hornblower writes about the difference between art nouveau and the man Suribachs who was chosen to complete the building (Hornblower, 1991).You can read excessivelySimilarities and Conflicts in a tramway Named DesireThis is comparable to another egg-producing(prenominal) writer who in fact wrote about the completion of the Sagrada Familia and is written by a Spanish fe staminate writer by the name of Rosario Fontova who writes for the El Periodico de Catalunya and is dated 22 October 2000. She writes factually about the re-evaluation of Gaudis work and the subsequent reopening of the Sagrada Familia as a completed work. She is completely straightforward and writes objectively although at times slightly on the complimentary side Part of the scaffolding has been removed, revealing the Gau dian shape of the temples central nave as seen from the floor. (Fontova, 2000). From the other muckle, male American writer for the New York Times also describes the Sagrada Familia in a complimentary fashion. Edward Schumacher writes for the New York Times Special on 1 January 1991 Gaudis perform Still Divides Barcelona. Similar to Hornblowers article, Schumacher also explores the conflict that surrounds the famous building. Schumacher, while complimentary, he does draw attendance to the aspect of incongruity that the building holds, that is, its exaggerated appearance (Schumacher, 1991).In this case Schumacher uses the intelligence exaggerated with the word glorious in the phrase The Sagrada Familia (Holy Family), a soaring, gloriously exaggerated Art Nouveau church that is taller than St. Peters Basilica in Rome, was only a quarter done when Gaudi was killed by a streetcar in 1926. (Schumacher, 1991). Schumacher therefore obviously looks fondly upon the architectural piece. S chumacher writes in the sense that the Familia Sagrada is a challenge to the old norms expected in beauteous art architecture.He believes, or writes at least that Gaudi challenged the tired revival styles and formed his own eclecticist approach to building (Schumacher, 1991). He calls Gaudi a visionary and goes into quite a lot of depth surrounding architectural terminology. He speaks about angularity, architraves, columns and vaults, meaning that to some extent he is learned in the issue of architecture (Schumacher, 1991). Schumacher also goes into detail about the history of the Sagrada Familia, stating that Gaudi had seen the work as a culmination of his life storys work (Shumacher).He also explains the controversy surrounding the commission and building of the Sagrada Familia especially in terms of its artistic revival (Schumacher, 1991). Hattie Hartmann is a female writer for the New York Times and wrote Barcelona Celebrates its own architectural Visionary dated 19 August 20 02. She writes, in contrast to our first female writer in a very factual manner. She does not write a lot about how she feels about the piece only if relates the facts and history surrounding the building. She acts as a sounding-board for what others think. The proposed route of the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed train passes near the Sagrada Familia site, and some translate that offers an ideal opportunity to take another look at the current plans for the cathedral in its urban context before it is too late. (Hartmann, 2002). This example shows the willingness of Hartmann to allow other opinions is strongly objective. Her choice of subject, however, also reveals the need to question what others believe and also in a way to stand up against the changes that might bear off from the beauty and stature of the building.She writes about Gaudis popularity, his following and his status but refrains form using her own opinion of him and uses no emotional words regarding to herself in this situation (Hartmann, 2002). The differences between male and female talk about in terms of Gaudis work do not display any particular traits with regards to the way in which it is viewed form on gender to the other. One female writer (Hornblower) writes subjectively with many emotive words used to fondly describe the Sagrada Familia while the male writer, Schumacher does the same.The writer from Spain who obviously is familiar with the work is more factual and intent on creating a news-flash rather than advertising the piece. Fontova does not speak sternly of the piece but refrains from making a value judgment on the building. On the one hand we have an American woman gushing Gaudis praise and on the other hand we see a local Catalan woman writing about the building as if it were part of her quotidian life. Schumacher does use far more expert terms in his description of the building while Hartmann and Hornblower both write with little weight placed on the technical value of the architecture.Fontova probably has more entranceway to information surrounding the building works and is therefore more attentive to the technicalities. In the case of Sagrada Familia we see that the only real difference in perception of the piece is that the male writer appears to see the technical value of the building. The Sagrada Familia itself is a profoundly ostentatious and decorative building with an almost Gothic facade. His work pushed many boundaries in terms of breaking with norms and created a thoroughly art nouveau impression of the original religious keepsake that is the form of a cathedral.Comparable to Michaelangelos Sistine Chapel we see a modernised version of an old religious ideal. The Sagrada Familia has different meaning for different people and this is essentially the crux of the matter. For the Catalan female writer, Sagrada Familia is a part of her daily life, something she sees almost daily. It is also part of the Barcelonian heritage which the American w riters, both male and female do not see. It is recognised by them but not necessarily seen in the same light. The male alternative to the praise given Gaudid works, is seen more from a technical point of view but is still strongly emotive.The female American writer was obviously in praise of Gaudis work more in terms of its aesthetic value than for its technical parts. There is therefore a difference between the way a local sees the building and a foreigner. There is also a difference in the purposes of the writing Hartmann was more documentary about the piece and did not place as much importance on her own opinion as she did on the facts. The meaning behind the writing was predominantly in terms of the controversy the alterations to the building has caused. There was very little difference between the way males and females viewed the artwork in this particular case.