You're right, you know, in a sense. One might call this a church of natural religion – certainly less plainly visible than, say, a Buddhist temple, Jewish synagogue, gothic cathedral, or Anasazi kiva. But it had a great vogue from the mid-1700's thru mid-1800's – a house of worship, one might say, for both the Deist and Romanticist faithful. Many poets described its architecture (think Wordsworth, etc.) and many painters depicted it (think Frederic Church, etc.). Photographers soon followed, as we all know. Then and now, it might be best to use Emerson's "transparent eyeball" to see this church in every detail, but seeing it is no more an advantage than seeing, say, brick-and-mortar or adobe churches. As this thread testifies, all of them make for great images when the light is good!
Bookmarks