It is also still a functioning Christian church with services.
Similar to how the California missions that are still parishes will continue to be complete. The ones that are museums will deteriorate.
The beauty of a building is more than just its physical materials but also those things for which it was built and those people who built it
This statement is kindof the whole point of the "ship of Theseus" thought experiment.
It’s not.
It’s a hypothetical designed to call attention to the exact thing you’re saying: that potentially identity is more than the specific physical parts.
Yes it's my take on the ship of Theseus problem.
In that problem we re asked to consider if a ship with all it's parts replaced is the same as the original..
My argument is that so long as the ship is being used for the same purpose by the same people then it is. Without a purpose, wood in the shape of a ship is not even necessarily a ship
Things are more than just their physical form.
What makes Notre Dame, is that people generally agree it is still Notre Dame. If hypothetically we were in a time of modernism craze, and that our government decided to rebuilt it in some modern style (there actually was proposals like that), it would still be the people who makes it Notre Dame de Paris or not.
This is demonstrably wrong, as we have many examples of old buildings and we know what people actually feel about them.
Consider two very famous examples of buildings that completely changed their purpose, but are still the same building: the Pantheon and the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. The Pantheon was a Roman temple to all of the Gods when it was built in 126, and became a Christian church ~400 years later, but everyone recognizes it as the same building. The Hagia Sophia was a Christian church built in 537, and 1100 years later became an Islamic mosque, but it is still the same building to everyone.
Then for the opposite example: St Peter's Basillica at the Vatican. This was built in 1506 on the site of a much older church, also called St Peter's Basillica (commissioned by emperor Constantine), which also served as a Christian church, was also used the parish of the Pope, was also the location of papal coronation and so on. And still, no one would say "St Peter's Basilica was built by Saint Constantine", because the current basilica is universally recognized as a new building, despite serving the same function.
A building is recognized for the beauty and specifics of its structural and painterly elements, not for its role. If it is destroyed and rebuilt in almost the same size and shape, then it is recognized as the same building; regardless of entirely changing its purpose.
Conversely, if a building is rebuilt into a completely different shape, even a universally admired as beautiful one, it is considered a different building, even if keeps serving the same purpose.
The Pantheon is a temple dedicated to all the ancient Roman gods. It cannot be both that and the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs. When the Church took it over, it ceased to be the Pantheon.
There's no doubt the building is the same, and we can argue about how 'true to form' it is. But that's the point. When it stopped being what it originally was, its 'form' is now a goal to never deviate from.
Whereas, the various depictions of the martyrs present within the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs, for example, has no such ideal yet. The Church can (and does) shift that around. However, if it were to stop being the church of st Mary and the Martyrs, then it would have an ideal form that any restorer may want to restore it towards.
It's difficult, if not impossible, for people to see architectural spaces in the way an animal or alien might see them. Even when the culture which built it is totally alien or unknown, that basic fact, plus the context in which it is seen by the observer (including how they arrived there), as well as typical architectural features (e.g. steps) imbue it with meaning that color everything about it. Our whole world is like that. Take, for example, a stop sign--we simply can't perceive that object, at least without effort, without the culturally imbued meaning. It's not just a red & white octagon with shapes in the middle; the meaning vastly overshadows its raw physical properties.
They were established in Charleston SC after Hurricane Hugo when it was discovered that the US did not have enough craftspeople to repair all the historic homes that had been damaged. You can get an accredited Bachelors degree in architectural ironwork, plastering, timber framing, and stone carving.
With a different spire. Notre Dame used to have a spire until it was removed early in the 19th century.
> Notre Dame has been restored. Not to how it was in 2018, prior the fire ... but to how it was intended when built, with a bit of sympathetic interpretation.
This is quite important. It was difficult to reconcile texts talking about how gothic cathedrals were full of light and colours with the aspect of a lot of these cathedrals, which felt dark and dull with their walls and windows blackened and covered in grime. The renovated interior is properly breathtaking.
> Well done!
Indeed.
Darker, different stones but incredible too
After 900 years of smoke from burning candles, and an oil furnace in the 20th century, the surface got pretty dark. The restoration was controversial because some people thought that we should either keep the "patina of age" or they thought that the patina was the natural color of the stone.
[1] https://francetoday.com/culture/chartres-the-famous-cathedra...
Yeah, I don’t buy the official investigation that concludes with spontaneous combustion.
> “The international competition will allow us to ask the question of whether we should even recreate the spire as it was conceived by Viollet-le-Duc,” [prime minister] Philippe told reporters after a cabinet meeting dedicated to the fire. “Or, as is often the case in the evolution of heritage, whether we should endow Notre Dame with a new spire. This is obviously a huge challenge, a historic responsibility.”
However, the senate passed a bill explicitly requiring that the traditional design must be used [3].
[1] https://www.archdaily.com/916723/the-peoples-notre-dame-cath...
[2] https://www.archdaily.com/915355/france-announces-competitio...
that's kind of the point with modern architecture. It's at best lame, often outright ugly from day one, and aways never age well. The only merit is that it is made of non-durable materials (concrete, glass and steel), so no one will look down on our civilisation in 800 years since there will be nothing left.
https://www.demilked.com/notre-dame-reconstruction-designs/
?
Because they are actually.. quite revolting. Even by modern standards, pretty disgusting. At that point you might just as well just bulldoze the whole building and put something new entirely there.
People don’t travel to Paris to see something that looks like a mall.
I prefer the approach taken at The Louvre and it’s pyramid of glass that is built next to the historical buildings without modifying them and giving a nice mix between history and modernity
This means that we get a mediaeval cathedral looking like it did when it was conceived and built (with an extra spire and a few other things). The colours are amazing.
Elderly churches, mosques and temples (int al) have a habit of losing their original colours and "feel" across the centuries. They change - age. Stone walls age and thanks to modern pollution darken. Pigments age, disperse and peel off.
Notre Dame has been restored. Not to how it was in 2018, prior the fire ... but to how it was intended when built, with a bit of sympathetic interpretation.
Well done!