I wonder what that was _actually_ like given that it took 200 years to build. A lot less pollution so maybe it really did look _all_ shiny and new :-)

As sibling-comment said, no LEDs back then. They probably used soot-billowing torches, 200 years of that means the building must've looked pretty shabby already when done. So the state it currently is in is unrealistic after all.

medieval builders would have relied on the use of flame and natural light.

I think it all looks great with the exception of white-spectrum LEDs as far as the eye can see; the natural lighting of the past Notre Dame during early morning was special -- maybe it still is , but the white LEDs everywhere make it look 'clinical' to me.

Not sure but I think these lights are temporary the time for the ceremony, I would be very surprised they keep using them while other French cathedrals don’t.

I wouldn't say "not allowed" because art is subjective, but there's a certain awe in visiting a place that shows clear signs of being many centuries old.

I obviously haven't visited Notre Dame yet, but when I visited the fully rebuilt Berlin Palace last year I did get an impression of "this place needs to age a couple hundred years before it's done".

I have complete trust in The Guardian to publish incorrect opinions on this matter.

The Notre Dame is a historical building. It's not meant to look like "new".

That’s the purpose of a restoration, like la gallerie des glasses à Versailles or Le Louvre and many other monuments in France.

The same applies to paintings