Notre Dame and Preserving Heritage, yay or nay?

preserving heritage?

not nay. YAY

"modern twist" are scary words. I'd be open to see what those would be, but find it hard to believe that it could be a good thing. Bottom line is that the people who pay for it should decide.

Interesting choices, a few out there (swimming pool). I would vote for the semi-original Spire if i had a vote.

If I had a vote, I would say no spire, go back to original design with whatever modern safety measures they could implement without changing the appearance too much.

I'd vote for the original Gothic design, with the 13th century spire, not the 19th century spire. Some of the news reports seem to not realize that the 19th century spire is not part of the original design.

According to the BBC, "The cathedral's first spire was built in the 13th Century, but due to extensive damage it was removed in the late 18th Century. Its replacement, designed by architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, was built in the mid-19th Century."

This is a rather confusing BBC News article. The title is: "Notre Dame: Cathedral's spire will be restored to 19th Century design."

But, below the picture of the spire burning, it says: "The spire of Notre Dame cathedral, which was destroyed in a fire last April, will be restored according to the original Gothic design."

Which is it folks?

It was already announced on last night's French news broadcast that the 19th century spire will be the one built.

I seem to recall a similar discussion here, not long after the fire. I'd prefer to see either of the previous spires restored, rather than a "modern twist" ( whatever that might be). I don't see the point of change just for the sake of change.

It was already announced on last night's French news broadcast that
the 19th century spire will be the one built.

You're right, updated article. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/notre-dame-reconstruction-1.5644634

But to a point Nancy made, here's a piece from the article I've linked.

The reconstruction plan presented Thursday says the project will replicate original materials "to guarantee the authenticity, harmony and coherence of this masterpiece of Gothic art."
Those materials included tons of lead, which is raising concerns among health and environmental groups. Lead particles released during the fire forced schools in the area to close and prompted a lengthy, painstaking cleanup effort of the cathedral's historic neighbourhood on an island in the centre of Paris.

I'm hoping brighter minds than mine are thinking this through, because this seems to be taking a restoration project too far backwards.

swimming pool

?????

Rebuild it "cosmetically" to appear exactly the way it was prior to the fire, but use modern fire proof materials and add hidden fire suppression systems. People then would have the same "experience" other people had before the fire. No one, but architectural history buffs, would know, or even care about the hidden differences. To rebuild it exactly the way it was built, seems like an almost impossible, and extremely expensive option. I would rebuild the spire, but not out of lead clad, timber framing. What ever happens, I hope the French don't hire some "Modern Architect," to re-define the visual aspects. :)

I don't like the approach they took upon. The building is/was, itself, an amalgamation of many structures build from the 14th to mid-19th Centuries. In such case, a re-interpretation of the spire with modern addition would fit well the place.

I am also, in general, not a fan of 'historic reconstructions' such what they have done extensively in Postdam, Dresden and now with the Humboldt Forum in Berlin. The Notre-Dame is a slightly different case because the place has not sat in ruins or destroyed for decades.

Yet, I'd have preferred a modern, otherwordly structure on the roof. At least Paris has its decent share of modern architecture, whereas certain European capitals are lagging in new bold modern projects right now.

Ufkak, so maybe the next time the White House needs a refurb, they should take it back to what it looked like in Aug 1814 after it was burned? Or maybe Buckingham Palace's Royal Capel should be stripped back to what it looked like after being bombed in 1940? What is wrong with attempts at maintaining places of historic and architectural importance? Rather than tearing them down in favor of some sterile, soulless modern building. Those who love modern architecture are free to build on fresh ground or replace buildings of no architectural or historic relevance.

Who cares. I've never understood the misty-eyed reverence for buildings. "Preserving heritage" is typically a dog whistle, anyway. A nice little trope to trot out when people feel uncertain and threatened. So if we are preserving heritage, why don't we restore it to its burnt out, looted state after the French Revolution, and use it as a warehouse? Or maybe we recreate the dirty, un-loved, un-restored version from the 1960s? Of course not, we need the scrubbed, shiny white pristine heritage, the idealized one.

Why stop there? Why not bulldoze out of existence every man made structure ever built?

As to the topic, If I were in charge, the restoration would use modern fire resistant materials used in a manner to achieve the 'classic' look and bring in more light.

Past spires would be used as an inspiration for the replacement.

Some seem to forget the 19th century spire was 'modern' when it was installed on a centuries old building. I fail to understand why a new interpretation for the spire is greeted with horror or revulsion by some.

Alas, or fortunately, depending on your view, I am not in charge

Would be interesting to see what I .M Pei would have designed.

No it wouldn’t. Way beyond his talent set.

I fail to understand why a new interpretation for the spire is greeted
with horror or revulsion by some.

My feelings as well. I visited the Stained Glass Centre in Chartres, France last year where they have copies of painted glass with modern bible interpretations that have been used in newly built churches, and some were outstanding. But I overheard a comment by a couple saying it was disgusting that religion was being interpreted in such a modern way. It made me wonder if some people during the Renaissance felt the same way about those young whippersnappers painting those religious portraits.

I saw several of the modern proposals last night on TV and they were wonderful enhancements. After seeing them, going back to the 19th century spire is a missed opportunity.
I doubt anyone would have objected once in place.

Sorry Ufkak, but those of us you seem to decry as too traditionalist would be clamoring for it to return to it's origin as a Catholic cathedral. It remains to be seen whether anything will be physically altered.

Going back to origins, both the Hagia Sophia and Notre Dame de Paris were built over pagan sites. Let's at least acknowledge our pagan heritage.

Maybe if people cared less about symbols and building and more about
human beings we wouldn't be where we are at in this country.

You might consider that not all of us are in your country. Bulldozing buildings won't erase your history. Better to learn from it or as the saying goes, be doomed to repeat it.

It seems likely to me that the collective "we" do in fact have a vote and have exercised it. I bet most tourists want to see it the way they've seen it in their lifetimes, and Paris will be happy to continue to collect the fee to climb the tower. I believe that would have been a large factor in France's decision - keep them tourists comin'.

Me, I'm more inclined to to say move on. Take it back to an integrated architectural whole (~13th century) if you want heritage, or make it more modern if you want "the progress of man" version. Don't go halfway (19th century) and stop. Either way, yes it's absolutely a monument to white male privilege/power of the church but it's still beautiful and an important part of European history as so strongly defined by the Catholic church.

that's a whole nother issue.

What is a "nother"?

If it’s not one thing, it’s your mother...

Hah, hah! NYC has been building new building, tearing them down and building new buildings since It was New Amsterdam! Sometime they are good decisions. Sometimes they are bad decisions. And sometimes it is terrorism. Interesting article here if you want to read about the last decade.

Having the building restored to its pre-fire appearance will buttress Paris.

It is what it is.
All historic buildings face issues due to maintenance, damage, deterioration, etc.. It's a classic debate whether to restore with something new or adhere to the original design.

Buildings change. Buildings need people to take care of them.

@ Cyn

Having the building restored to its pre-fire appearance will buttress Paris.

I almost reported your post for excessive cleverness.

I guess we can all judge for ourselves if these 'modernizations' worked or not. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/beautiful-examples-historic-modern-architecture-come-together

James, are you an architect? Based on your expertise, I'm curious of your vision on a project like this and what thought processes go into it.

I say Yay, keep the heritage. Keep the history as much as possible.

As for cheering turning Hagia Sophia back into a mosque, I say nay. Of course, I am not the President of Turkey. Hagia Sophia was properly a museum for many decades thanks to Ataturk. Now, Turkey is turning back the clock.
Are the uncovered frescoes of the original building going to be plastered over like they were when it was turned into a mosque 500 years ago?

As for the pyramid at the Lourve, it seems to work OK, but it is not my style.

The great cathedrals of Europe are not really religious centers any more. Not in the same sense as when they were first constructed. In the 21st century, they are mostly tourist attractions. Being atheist, I still put a Five'r or a 5 Euro note in the offering bin just so they can be maintained, even if entrance was free. Yet there is this nagging feeling, each time I do that, that some how I'm supporting this or that Church System.

The French are a bit apoplectic, in trying to figure this out as to how Notre Dame shall be rebuilt. They have an entire bureaucracy that is designed to maintain "French Culture." Seriously, there is a publicly funded unit in France that does nothing but decide what is "French" and what is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Culture_(France)

Francis,
I find your comment interesting. The churches have become both religious sites and tourist attractions. Churches are owned by religious institutions which maintain control over funding, maintenance, and use. I am not quite ready to throw them into the tourist attraction category just yet. But, I have had similar thoughts of them slowly morphing into "attractions" and museums.

Churches stir a variety of perspectives. They bring both positives and negatives into society. So, it's natural to have mixed feelings about them.

Historically, churches functioned as an early form of government and community organization as meeting houses. But, where there's power and money - there's bound to be corruption.

James, Notre Dame is owned by the Catholic Church.

James,
It would be an interesting conversation to have. The Catholic Church struggles in so many ways.
When hoards of tourists are roaming around and some Catholics are praying in their midst - you get a mixed atmosphere. The church does continue to have services and closes the church at times to visitors for the sake of those who wish to attend services.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/notre-dame-has-no-insurance-policy-2019-04-16

According to the above, this statement " Notre Dame is owned by the Catholic Church.", is incorrect

I would take exception to Francis's assertion that European Cathedrals are no longer religious institutions. While they may attract tourists because of their architecture or artwork, they are still a place of worship, and still provide the sacrements to both local and visiting worshippers. But since Francis is an avowed atheist, this ignorance is perhaps excusable. Barely.

I'm glad Joe posted the link explaining France's unusual situation of dual administration of the Churches and Chapels (built before 1905?). The State has authority over the building itself, while the Church has authority over the day to day operations within it. And not surprisingly, friction between the two is not uncommon.

I'm not aware of another country where this duality exists.

Joe32,
I had no idea that the French nation owns the building of Notre Dame and allows the Catholic Church to use it! Strange arrangement compared to all other countries where the Catholic Church owns its own buildings.

Cost of renovation - there will be donations pouring-in from all over the globe to help preserve Notre Dame. Example - the USA donated a big chunk of funds to St. Francis of Assisi Basilica in Italy after an earthquake destroyed its dome. (Some of the funds extended into the community to help others affected by the earthquake as well.)

Then, the country of France (due to government ownership) will be contributing as well.

My husband just told me that during the French Revolution the French government seized all property from the churches and outlawed religion.

James E.,
You like Hagia Sophia being turned into a mosque.

The Blue Mosque is a couple of hundred yards from Hagia Sophia and larger than Hagia Sophia. So why reverse decades of religious toleration that Ataturk started?
Turkey is now going back to the past where Islam and state policy are the same, instead of separation of religion and state like most modern countries have.

Sun-baked, The government has owned all religious buildings since the Revolution.

Oh, I see above where you got that info.

CJean, the rate of believers/practitioners in France is 5% today--probably higher once the practitioners of Islam are added.

There is also a priest shortage, so local priests circulate within regions, leading mass in different towns each week. Also, many priests come from other countries.

It's very different from North America in many ways culturally.

Given those 2 choices....mais, bien sur, yay....no doubt about it!

https://aleteia.org/2020/07/16/the-american-who-restored-the-priceless-mosaics-of-hagia-sophia/

We've been touring long enough to see how much handheld audioguides have evolved into smartphone-like devices, so I imagine that with the rollout of 5G and better goggles/glasses, long before the architectural restoration is done we will be able to view any version of Notre Dame at any level of reconstruction or from any period of its history that digital designers can program.
And augmented reality will allow us to populate those virtual spaces with any choir or service we choose, just like you can choose the celebrity voice that gives you traffic info and directions in your sat-nav.

Fascinating discussion.

For me, the most fascinating part was the way some of the comments got personal. Maybe this derives from the fact that so much of the architecture of Europe that we visit and admire is older than our New World nations and any of the structures we've built here. If we are of European descent, we feel like these edifices are part of our heritage. And structures like the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde (which are much older than our nation) aren't our heritage unless we are of indigenous descent.

I understand why people want to preserve this heritage. But I've also seen fantastic examples in Europe where the modern has replaced the ancient, to excellent effect. Coventry Cathedral in England immediately leaps to mind: it's one of the most moving places I've visited in Europe. Rotterdam is another great city where the old was replaced with something completely new. And in Paris, the Pompidou Centre

Ufkak, I also get where you're coming from. There is often a silly desire to preserve heritage, as if what something used to be is somehow better than what we could make it today. And the fact is that throughout history, that kind of reverence for the past was not of particular value. Architectural updates were frequently made in the style of the present day. This is why you have many cathedrals in Europe with various styles. If you've been to Lisbon, you may have seen the cathedral there, with elements of Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, and Rococo architecture. Does that make it any less authentic, or any less beautiful?

I happen to think the alternative designs depicted in this article are fantastic. (Well, the swimming pool idea, maybe not so much; I mean, you wouldn't even be able to see it from the ground...) We don't need to be iconoclasts, but we also don't need to cleave to orthodoxy.

I'm open to change. But I also think architecture, like painting and sculpture, is worthy of preservation, restoration, and admiration.

This -

“I'm open to change. But I also think architecture, like painting and sculpture, is worthy of preservation, restoration, and admiration.”

Yes! (so yay to the initial question)

And on the Hagia Sofia, I heard somewhere that the mosaics would not be plastered over with the conversion to a Mosque ...

Architectural updates were frequently made in the style of the present
day.

I think of Chartres Cathedral. It's been rebuilt 5 times due to fire and war and when it was rebuilt it didn't look the same, they also used modern materials to improve on the original building. There is a light show in the evening and part of that show depicts the cathedral as it used to look when it was painted. Maybe it should be painted again to preserve its heritage.

How about the Colosseum and Forum in Rome? The Vatican pilfered all the marble for St Peter's Basilica, maybe the Vatican should give it all back and make those other two sites look similar to what they did.

we typically get the past totally wrong and what we preserve and present is more a commentary on our times and a distortion of past times than anything else.

This is certainly true, but I don't see how it applies to the restoration of Notre Dame. This is simply a question of what the French people want this landmark to look like after it is restored. Everyone knows the spire was not original. And the French have been willing to combine the old with the new before (case in point: the Louvre pyramids, which I should have mentioned in my previous comment).

It's good to debate this. It's part of why art exists: so we can have reactions, which may include joy, tears, laughter, anger, or just some ineffable aesthetic experience. There's no right answer. And that's a good thing.

The Louvre Pyramid was built under President Mitterand who had higher approval ratings than M. Macron. IMHO, M. Macron decided not to rock the boat because he has other problems to deal with.

Yay, otherwise you might end up with something like this in the 4th arrondissement:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_-_ON_-_Ontario_College_of_Art_&_Design2.jpg

Interesting article I saw posted on facebook today.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/analysis/where-we-are-now-with-the-restoration-of-notre-dame-after-the-rejection-of-modern-architectural-gestures?utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=3b42877ca9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_17_02_55&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c459f924d0-3b42877ca9-60869073&fbclid=IwAR2Ku-HWZauKzTh0DpEC4UlALY77MPrQ-ZSsUXvAA0UcftPWhfV13OTCjus

I was hoping for something new and different. If for no other reason than Parisians could complain about it non-stop - like the Eiffel Tower or Louvre pyramid - before eventually deciding it's a masterpiece. I would have enjoyed that.

Bets,

Higher approval ratings than Macron?

I'm not sure most people on this sight would understand just how low both numbers are? This would be a good entry for a dictionary definition of damning with faint praise. ;-)

Among other sites historical and cultural, Notre Dame is identified with Paris...unthinkable not to restore Notre Dame.