The people who built Notre Dame tore down what to them would have been ancient history. Those other buildings were hundreds of years old by the time Notre Dame was built. 800 years ago, Notre Dame was the change that destroyed a 700 year old historical building. And the new construction was built in a super-modern style. They didn't try to make it look like the old building they tore down, they built it with the most modern techniques in a super trendy style.
Much like death and rebirth are cornerstones of the Christian religion that Notre Dame represents, death and rebirth are fundamental to Notre Dame itself.
What makes monuments like Notre Dame or the pyramids special is that they DO imbue this sense of continuity. Everything else in our lives comes and goes, but a few things we as a society come together collectively to say "This is special and worth preserving." There is a special feeling of connection one gets from that sense of unity across time. These are the things that give us a sense of shared history and a shared future destiny. And it has the effect of simultaneously making you feel individually small and insignificant, but also important and part of something grand.
The first time I visited Paris I remember one of my most dominant thoughts was that nothing like this will ever be built again. There is so much in the art and architecture that, by modern standards, would be deemed wasteful and extravagant and a suboptimal use of resources. We don't value aesthetics in the same way. So when these things go, they're gone forever. Even if remade they will only ever be an imitation of a way of thinking and a way of life that has gone extinct.
They won't even serve to remind us of those old ways because the gestalt you get from layering generations of use and the peculiar artifacts of the material culture that created it will be gone. That's why people mourn. It's not just about the building, but the fact that the building anchors them to a sense of tradition and continuity.
And it's not the first time these things happened. It was mentioned that before it was a Christian church it was a temple to Jupiter in that location. Removing the old pagan monuments was a conscious effort to FORCE just such a break from the past. To say the old pagan ways are over and to sever any sense of continuity with that old culture and their old Gods. I'm sure it was just as troubling or traumatic then too.
We still have some collected myths and stories from the Romans and the Norse and so on, but a lot of these were written by Christian converts who were sad that the stories they heard on their grandparents' knees were going to disappear. They may have converted, but they felt like this was something important that needed to be preserved.
We have Roman myths as written down by pagans pre-Christianity.
But our records of Norse myths were written down around 1200 AD, a couple of centuries after Christianity became the official religion in Scandinavia in 1000 AD. It is hard to say how much modification there was between those points.
The biggest change is that Odin/Wotan finished his long journey from being recognizably Mercury when the Romans met the Germanic people to absorbing a lot of the character of Tyr (aka Mars) and then becoming king of the gods. The historical root survives in language, Wednesday is still named after Wotan in English, and after Mercury in various Romance languages.
There is reason to believe that during Viking times, Thor was (like his analogs Jupiter and Zeus before) still the king of the gods. And therefore Odin's role as patron of kings and poets both was responsible for his elevation in the version of the myths that got written down.
Out of curiosity, what are the arguments that Thor was considered the highest of Gods originally? IIRC many of the ceremonial items they found on the boats were dedicated to Odin weren't they? (Though I suppose that being an analog to Mercury, he would make a lot of sense for voyagers to adopt as a patron).
Historical accounts such as Adam of Bremen describing Thor as the main god at Uppsala, the frequency of Thor's Hammer versus other religious symbols, the many references to Thor in Icelandic sagas.
However Tacitus did describe Mercury at the chief Germanic god. So maybe Odin was the chief god after all.
The popularity of Odin could also be a reflection of their social roles. Consider the Lay of Harbard: https://thenorsegods.com/the-lay-of-harbard/. Elsewhere in the myths, Odin gives Harbard as one of his names, and it is believed that Harbard in this lay is actually Odin. Reading that, you'll see why the average peasant would be more interested in asking for Thor's help than Odin's. Conversely you'll see how a war leader would be more interested in Odin's help than Thor's.
Get tickets well in advance.
Buildings now show incredible material science, technological development; but rarely the decades of learning of human craft directly applied to materials.
I think if we were going from rough-hewn to well-faced stonework, opaque windows or simple slits to translucent radiant glasswork, from flat ceilings to intricate vaulting, etc.. that we too would make that leap.
We are so much richer, we can afford to keep old stuff, hoard it even, and still have resources a'plenty to keep warm, feed everyone, and build glorious buildings.
It could almost be called a “brief” history of Rome.
But then, maybe San Clementes history IS the history of Rome.
If you can suffer through Quora, some answers there:
- https://www.quora.com/How-were-ancient-cities-built-on-top-o...
- https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-ground-level-of-Ancient-Rom...
In many cases, that's much of Paris, too - including underneath Notre Dame.
A 3D rendering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTkk2P0KabA
A picture, google image has more, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sint-Lambertuskathed...
And as you point it out we don't think much about it these days (for better or worst).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Si...
I think it's this one:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Si...
Anyone have any other thoughts on this current Zeitgeist?
I say all of this in contrast to e.g. tearing down the Notre Dame and putting up some real estate development that rents out stalls to merchants. Say the economy takes a hit and the owners start considering selling the land, only for the structure to be torn down again.
My point is that it'd be a tragic misuse if the structure fell into the hands of those solely seeking a profit from the structure/land.
If you look at the last major restoration "Once the project was approved, Viollet-le-Duc made drawings and photographs of the existing decorative elements; then they were removed and a stream of sculptors began making new statues of saints, gargoyles, chimeras and other architectural elements in a workshop he established, working from his drawings and photographs of similar works in other cathedrals of the same period." "Other craftsmen made stained glass windows in Gothic grisaille patterns designed by Viollet-le-Duc to replace the destroyed medieval windows in the chapels of the ground floor of the nave of the cathedral." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Viollet-le-Duc#Not...
Artists across France should be engaged to submit works with the promise that effort will be made to preserve them for centuries, if their work is chosen for inclusion. Even the stuff that doesnt make the cut could end up somewhere.
This suggests it was supposed to be fashionable. But fashion in the modern world is "trendy" we build in an attempt to court popularity. I'd imagine Notre-Dame adopted the style it did as part of the linear architectural development, constrained by Church tradition, and needs, and liberated by new building techniques. Not built for fashion, but for longevity and utility as a place of Worship. Perhaps that's why it centred around a traditional (in C11) Romanesque cruciform plan with tower. Indeed the initial build - I gather - didn't include the flying buttresses that enable the "opening" of the walls to far more glass usage.
IMO Notre-Dame de Paris represents something of a pinnacle of Church architecture inasmuch as we don't devote that much manpower or that many resources to buildings nowadays. That's right morally, I think, but means short of Gaudi's ongoing build such opulent Church architecture is firmly fixed in the past for Europe at least(?).
It would be fascinating to see a Gothic cathedral built in modern Europe, do we even have the craftsmen to accomplish it?
TL;DR I'm not convinced.
Except those tourists were called, "pilgrims". The money they paid to enter the building was what was used to fund the cathedral itself. See also, the Holy relics, like the Crown of Thorns. It's like a roadside attraction, except there's the hope of escape from earthly damnation and enter into everlasting peace in Heaven. Which I mean, that's a nice bonus. Such promises were made to those who worked on and/or financed the cathedral's building.
That whole system isn't in play anymore (The Catholic Church just doesn't have that power, or Monopoly over things like intellectual property like books and people who can read those books) and places like Notre Dame are in serious disrepair (before the fire). That's sort of the real tragedy: this fire probably could have been avoided if the money was there to spend.
This rebuilding would be a great opportunity to document that.
FTFY
I foresee a similar thing happening here. A 1000-year old roof is an architectural treasure, but it's also a 1000-year old roof, with all its attendant challenges. The church will (someday) be rebuilt in a grand old classical style, but with a soupçon of modernity added as well. I think will be in some sense better off as a result.
It has been done for prehistoric caves for instance. For a whole building it's more tricky, but it could be fine to have it on a remote part of the city, and let people experience it as it was before.
That would also allow to do representation or over more risky uses that could damage the historical monument but would be fine in a replica.
Which is to say a roof without leaks, walls without holes, and a foundation with good drainage.
However, I think that from an architectural and art historical perspective, we can do more than just reconstruct the Cathedral exactly the way it was. Art and architecture always change with their cultural and historical context, and I think it's one of human kinds biggest strengths to create something new out of old or destroyed artwork.
A great example is the Cologne Cathedral Window, which the German contemporary painter Gerhard Richter designed in 2007, long after the window had been destroyed in World War II: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/12/many-colored-g...
He was rather proud that they destroyed the station and missed the Dom.
[Greetings to the early-internet archaeologists of the 29th century, btw.]
Though seeing those first pictures yesterday, with the cross glowing as it was, gave me a sense of okayness. "We" responded quickly to a super-unfortunate accident and I believe, based on several sources of comments/Twitter that I've been reading, that we'll be able to rebuild it.
I strongly believe that two-hundred years from now the history books will refer to "The fire of 2019" as a powerful entry of resurrection in the long history of the Cathedral.
I will add one quick thing: if that's true the initial wall is lost (obviously), old craftmanship is not lost. There is an organisation in France called "Les Compagnons du Devoir" [1] that does exactly this: (re)build things the way we built them centuries ago.
This organization has stonecutters and carpenters that could help a lot redo what was destroyed last night, with the know-how of the past.
So yes indeed, nothing is "lost", this is just another part of the cathedral's history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_du_DevoirModern construction techniques are of very little use to repair a building which was itself built over the course of 150 years.
“Modern” gets you the $200mm staircase to nowhere at Hudson Yards in NY.
The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original?
The reconstruction should be the life’s work of a great master (or several great masters, when you consider the art and ornamentation that goes along with the architecture).
Do we still even do that sort of thing anymore?
Arguing that cathedrals' wooden roofs are built to last while we don't know how to build longer-lasting work is a very curious take on the situation.
I'd wager yes, this probably woke people up that they've let their country's icon crumble, and money (and time) will now be no objects.
Something like 10 hours ago I was seeing a headline that €650 million had already been pledged for rebuilding from various private sources, so, yeah, I think it's reasonable to think that the money will be there.
The roof that burned was called the Forest because it was made from 13,000 whole oak trees (the number varies depending on source) spanning 52 acres of forest.
a) Replace like with like (don't change materials or construction techniques)
b) Make any repair work obvious (don't try to pass new fabric off as original)
c) Repairs should be reversible.
It's a complicated field, but the general spirit is that when a building needs to be repaired, you try to make the new elements match as closely as possible to the way the structure was when it was first built. You don't say "we know better than the medieval masons, so we'll use reinforced concrete instead of stone" because that wouldn't be a restoration. It would turn the building into a hybrid of old and new technology, when what everyone wants is to experience the old way of building.
There's also an element of arrogance in trying to improve on medieval architecture—most people would agree that architecture, as an art, isn't something that progresses inexorably like science. The cathedrals are already as good as architecture gets. "Updating" a medieval structure to use the trendy structural technologies of the 21st century is a barbaric idea, because it is literally a case of destroying or interfering with an irreplaceable artefact.
Obviously, not every old structure has to be treated with kid gloves as a priceless artefact. But I hope you can see what I'm getting at when I say that "best practice" in building conservation means not acting as if you know better than the original builders. It's a case of respecting the original design and not messing with it for the sake of employing modern technology.
>b) Make any repair work obvious (don't try to pass new fabric off as original)
>c) Repairs should be reversible.
I don't think everyone agrees to this. At least, I don't. It's absurd to put a wooden roof back onto a structure seriously damaged by a roof fire. Whatever goes up there should be non-flammable. At minimum something that won't crash in the roof again in case there is a fire. Rebuilding it in the same fashion would be monumentally stupid.
Setting aside the safety issue, I go back and forth if it should be restored in exactly the same way. Notre Dame has been modified and improved over time and I don't necessarily think it needs to go back exactly the way it was. Like the glass pyramid in the Louvre perhaps modern materials can be an improvement.
That's part of the building's history now, for better or worse. I expect Viollet-le-Duc's work will be restored, even if some people think he was crass.
This whole issue isn't something that can be resolved easily. It's important not to look down on the activities of repair and maintenance. They might not be as glamorous as artistic creation, but obviously there's love, skill and creativity involved in repair as well. We need more of that.
A bad intervention by a currently successful artist or architect would be nothing to be proud of in future years. "Move fast and break things" is not appropriate in this situation. It's not as if a repair job involves pure boredom, imitation and humility—those craftsmen will be expressing themselves and their passion just fine.
The 19th C fixation on romantic originality, on the heroic artist? We don't need that. Not to be cynical about the state of architecture, but we can't match even Viollet-le-Duc's iffy work now. We need to shift into a different mode with more emphasis on preserving building skills and historical artefacts than on altering them to suit the whim of the people who happen to be alive now.
Music is the same, painting is the same. A piece of medieval music can be perfect on its own terms. It wouldn't make sense to say that electronic music is better because the tech is more advanced. Artistic value and technology are totally separate issues.
Painting materials have evolved and become cheaper, making art more accessible to the average person, expanding the artistic landscape.
These things have not stayed the same. It's odd that you think they have.
What I'm saying is not an unusual opinion. I mentioned electronic music, so it should have been obvious that I'm aware that "things have not stayed the same". But the point I'm trying to allude to is the fact that art is an expression of the human spirit, and because of that, it doesn't advance like science or technology.
Here's an example of someone writing in the Guardian:
"It was a year of revelations. The oldest portrait in the world – carved out of mammoth tusk 26,000 years ago in Moravia – had a long slender face, almond eyes and a rueful half-smile: just like a Modigliani. She came to the British Museum along with Ice Age drawings and sculptures so superb they have never been surpassed, proving once again that there is no progress – only change – in art."
From https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/dec/22/art-review-2...
Or, on a slightly different point: "It is obvious that art cannot teach anyone anything, since in four thousand years humanity has learnt nothing at all." (Tarkovsky)
Tarkovsky obviously isn't denying the growth of scientific knowledge. He just thinks there are aspects of human nature that only change slowly, if at all, and that those aspects are more significant than the accumulation of scientific knowledge and all the changes that brings about.
Progress in nuclear physics hasn't got a lot to do with progress in human politics and (dare I say it) justice/peace.
Construction technology is similar vis a vis architecture. Revit, 3D printing and advanced materials aren't an automatic ticket to making architectural work that's as good as or better than Angkor Wat. I mean, just what materials you build something out of, and what technologies you use, both obviously contribute to the particular artistic problem that the architect solves. But someone working with very limited technology can produce a fully developed artistic masterwork under those constraints. That's just something we know empirically from looking at the art of the past.
So this is more about never being complacent that what's being made today will match or surpass the artistic high points of the past. That's what the "no progress" concept means to me. There's a level playing field—none of us has any kind of technology that means we can unthinkingly produce work that compares well with renaissance masterpieces. The real picture is quite a bit more depressing that that...
There is beauty in reconstruction, and calling it 'fake' misses the point.
Egad, I hope one of them was that modern architects shouldn't be allowed near a building project. To see the ruins of that beautiful old cathedral next to that atrocity against beauty is almost physically painful.
Exactly! Time and physics doesn't care about history. Wood will rot, metal will corrode, stone will weather. Hell, the earth itself is undergoing continuous reshaping every single day. This rebuilding is just another chapter in the cathedrals history.
Besides, think of how prestigious it sounds to say you played a role in the reconstruction an 850 year old national landmark. I know what jobsite I'd like to work on if I were a master carpenter.
In a child age I weaved a spider from wire. It was a state of the art toy, I used techniques of making wire toys I learnt from others and extended them futher with my own inventions. And I remember how I played with that "robotic spider with computer mind" by chopping it with a knife and then fixing damage done. (It was like spider got a serious fight and was damaged) Every iteration was a fun and in a very short time my spider become a battered and somehow much more valuable for me. It was so much fun that I almost chopped off my own finger accidently.
I mean, this is somehow an inherent property of a human perception of things: past events connected with a thing cast a shade on that thing and with a time passing the thing becomes a container of the memory for all that events, and for all the times when events took their place.
It reminds me the project of rebuiling Tally Ho[1]. You can change all the wood the boat was made of, but it would be the same boat. Moreover, the ongoing project of rebuilding Tally Ho enriches history of Tally Ho beyond imaginable, maybe all the previous 100+ years history of Tally Ho is being outshined by the current events in her life.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB00JHoTw1TeX82Qw8hoF...
I think what hurts really is the fact that a cathedral that took 200 years to be built, and had been standing there for 800 years can burn down in a single night. It makes one wonder about the vanity of many of the humanity's achievements and it's a harsh reminder that everything eventually comes to an end.
The debate was, of course, whether this project was a restoration or a replication. I don't think there's a difference.
A few years ago I visited a hangar in Everett where some enthusiasts had borrowed an Me262 from a museum in order to take it apart and produce mechanical drawings of everything. Then they built flying replicas from the ground up and sold them. Some changes were made for safety and practicality reasons.
So were they real Me262s or not? I'd say they were real. I wished I could have bought one.
The market certainly distinguishes replicas from originals, even in situations such as you describe. For example, modern replicas of 19th century firearms can be 10x cheaper than the originals, even if they are perfect reproductions down to materials used. So, whatever the reason, people do care on average.
Exactly. There aren't many old structures that don't have a history littered with damage or complete destruction and rebuilding. Natural disasters, invaders, accidents. I like to think that those events are becoming less frequent with increasingly better tech and a more civilized world. This one was an anomaly I think. It will be interesting to learn the cause(s) and see what practices might be put in place to avoid them in the future.
At least, this is implied by the signs saying 600 year old temple, when in fact the current building was built 150 years ago.
But information can be destroyed permanently. And that is what was lost.
I am very unhappy that Notre Dame burnt. Having said that, I don't see it as "oh no, history has been destroyed" but rather as "this is the history of the Cathedral". If it's still standing (and it seems like it will be), people will talk about this fire for hundreds of years, the same way we talk today about how it survived the French revolution.
Douglas Adams has a great quote on how a building its more than its materials, which you can read in [1]. If we use 3D scans and modern technology to reconstruct the Cathedral to the way it was, I wouldn't see it as "Disneyland" (as the article puts it) but rather as an example of how far we have come and what we can do when we put our minds to it, and how the story of our civilization is written not by design, but rather by accident.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/742883-i-remembered-once-in...