Modern Synagogue Architecture

Chapter 17 Modern Synagogue Architecture

Samuel D. Gruber

Synagogue architecture during the twentieth century reflected the great trans- formations of Judaism that were taking place, as Jews of all religious streams modernized and adopted ambient monumental architectural approaches to their houses of worship. During the early 20th century and even in the interwar period, there were many art and architectural styles that were widely con- sidered “modern” though we do not see them as part of the modernist canon today. In the decades prior to the Holocaust, the choice of architectural style often played a role in furthering religious, political and community agendas, including Orthodoxy, Progressive Judaism (called in North America Reform and Conservative Judaism), Zionism, and nationalism. In the post-Second World War period, modernism per se was taken on as Jewish vernacular architecture.

1 Pre-World War II

In Europe after World War i, traditional (Orthodox) congregations quickly adopted simple functional modernism and rejected ideas of representations of Jewish exoticism as presented in Moorish, Byzantine and other “Orien- tal” styles, while in America, historicist architecture remained popular for all branches of Judaism through the 1920s.1 Some (often smaller) Reform and Pro- gressive congregations in Europe shifted from a preference for imitating na- tional styles of their home countries to more innovative designs linking them to culturally and politically progressive movements. Zionism was reflected in synagogue architecture in different ways. In the late 19th century and continuing well into the 20th architects attempted to link synagogue design to the architecture of the biblical Temple, which could be interpreted in many ways.2 By the 1920s, European synagogue architects were

1 The best overview of European synagogue architecture for all periods remains Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 331. To this have now been added many more specific studies. On 20th-century American synagogues see Samuel D. Gruber, American Synagogues: A Century of Architecture and Jewish Community (New York: Rizzoli, 2003). 2 Sergey R. Kravtsov, “Reconstruction of the Temple by Charles Chipiez and its Applications in Architecture,” Ars Judaica (2008), 25–42; and Dominique Jarrassé, “Orientalism, Colonialism,

308 Gruber finding inspiration in the vernacular architecture of Palestine and also the new Bauhaus-inspired architecture of Jewish Tel Aviv and other pioneering (European) Jewish settlements, where they sometimes found employment, too. Major synagogue competitions after the turn-of-the-20th century attracted proposals with a variety of shapes and decorative styles. Central-plan domed synagogues modeled on Hagia Sofia were extremely popular for synagogue and church design, and domed variations continued to be proposed and built through the 1920s, even when such projects adopted a more stripped down “modern” look.3 Domes on synagogues were not entirely new. Interior cupolas were familiar in many Polish wooden synagogues, and Progressive Jews has built their Temple in Lemberg (Lviv) with a great hemispherical dome in 1846. Domes were in evidence in many variations of historic styles in the 19th century, though with the exception of Lviv – a synagogue that was violently pro- tested by segments of the traditional community – large central domes did not begin to define the form and identity of synagogues until the early 20th century. An additional model, and a likely reference, were the domes of the Hurva (1874) and Tiferet Yisrael synagogues in Jerusalem (1872), which were widely reproduced in Jewish art of the period, and themselves were in visual competition with the Dome of the Rock and the domes of the Holy Sepulcher on the skyline of Jerusalem.4 The well-documented design competition for the suburban Vienna-Hietzing synagogue in 1912, suspended and then renewed in 1924, provides one of the best views of the diversity of newness, or the multiple modernisms of the early 20th century.5 Designs submitted in 1912 mix historicism, including awareness of medieval synagogues, with elements of Art Nouveau and Viennese Succes- sion style. Submissions to the 1924 competition include more radical designs, especially that of Richard Neutra (Fig. 17.1), as well as the winning design of Artur Grunberger, a style we might call “modernism-lite,” in that it presents simplified forms, but can’t relinquish decorative prettiness. Neutra’s design would have more influence in 1940s America than in interwar Europe. Some architects, like Vienna’s Hugo Gorge, had denounced the cross plans and dome for separating officiant from congregant.6 The resilience of the dome, however, can be seen in a conventional project for an Antwerp synagogue

and Jewish Identity in the Synagogues of North Africa under French Domination,” Ars Judaica, 7 (2011), 83–104. 3 Robert S. Nelson, “Hagia Sophia, 1850–1950: Holy Wisdom Modern Monument,” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004). 4 See the article by Reuven Gafni in this volume. 5 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 195–199. 6 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 195–196.