Is Paris Burning?

[ursus arctos]

It could have been so much worse.

https://twitter.com/GuillaumeDaudin/status/1118180980341334017

[Nocturnal Submission]

Absolutely.

Mind you, as anyone connected with the Glasgow School of Art can attest, if the first refurbishment fire doesn't get you, the second one probably will.

[Lang Spoon]

The first GSA fire was the result of a degree show using flammable foam near a fuckin projector. In an area where there wasn't supposed to be funky degree show installations.

There are a whole whole bunch of questions as to the governance of the GSA restoration, like the decision not to use a temporary fire suppression unit, in case it damaged the refurbed library. That worked well.

hopefully Muriel fuckin Gray won't be involved in the restoration works in Paris.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Do you apply that logic to football clubs as well?

Weird question. But yes.

[DCI Harry Batt]

What do you find tedious about a faithful restoration?

Faithful? Interesting.

It seems a bit sad and a bit fake, to me, I guess. You can't build a mediaeval building now. I don't get the point of it I suppose.

The thing where it was a building that took 700 years to become what it was, but now must be preserved exactly as it was yesterday. Weird, to me, that

It's not my building and I'm not paying for it, so who cares what I think?

[Nocturnal Submission]

For probably the first and last time, I have sympathy with TonTon's point of view. I suppose I think that if something glorious has been destroyed why not try to replace it with something equally as glorious, but different. Unless what was lost was so astonishing that an attempt to recreate it is at least worth trying, a facsimile of something that was made centuries before seems, well, fake.

[ad hoc]

All of these things get rebuilt and added to over time. Look at any one of little info plaques at the entrance to any church in Europe and it will tell you that the original church was built in 11 something and then destroyed by fire and rebuilt and sacked by the tatars and rebuilt again and so on. There's a logic to starting anew and making something modern and in theory I agree. But I prefer Samarkand to the new half of the Sagrada Família

[San Bernardhinault]

If it had been destroyed, I'd totally be on board with TonTon's position. Start again with something modern. The images I've seen make it look mostly like they just need to rebuild parts of the roof, and that most of the cathedral is basically fine, and then you're just fixing broken bits in the style that fits with the rest of the building. I'm sure they don't need 700 year old french oak to do it sympathetically, mind you.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

The glass pyramid entrance into the Louvre comes to mind here. I remember people lining up to decry that as an abomination, now you won't find a postcard or holiday snap of the place without the pyramid in proud position.

[WOM]

Faithful? Interesting.

Indeed.

It seems a bit sad and a bit fake, to me, I guess.

There is no 'real'. There is no 'fake'. But aside from that, something very treasured was lost, and unless that loss is recovered, people will not be happy. No way, no how.

You can't build a mediaeval building now. I don't get the point of it I suppose.

Because this loss will be profound for many people. And nothing short of an exact replacement will fill that void.

It's not my building and I'm not paying for it, so who cares what I think?

Why would you invest time elucidating your opinion and then distance yourself from it?

[Bruno]

I would doubt there will be an effort to preserve it "exactly" as it was. Keeping it Gothic seems reasonable. But if people are attached to something the way it is, I don't see the point of bitching about it.

[ursus arctos]

I would doubt there will be an effort to preserve it "exactly" as it was. Keeping it Gothic seems reasonable. But if pe aople are attached to something the way it is, I don't see the point of bitching about it.

There already is among French politicians and the media

[Bruno]

I know some people have suggested it. I meant I doubt that such a plan would be greenlighted as such, i.e. once the effort is underway. "Exact" isn't really a possibility anyway.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Faithful? Interesting.

It seems a bit sad and a bit fake, to me, I guess. You can't build a mediaeval building now. I don't get the point of it I suppose.

The thing where it was a building that took 700 years to become what it was, but now must be preserved exactly as it was yesterday. Weird, to me, that

It's not my building and I'm not paying for it, so who cares what I think?

I agree. Though I wouldn't say copying it was it was "fake," a replica, or reproduction, are kinder terms. There's no way it has the same meaning or relevance for anyone today — Catholic or not — that it did during the time it was built. You either leave it the way it is now, as an artifact, or — and this is the bolder move — rebuild/renovate/repair it in a way that's congruent with our time.

Edit: How come em and en dashes in postings don't show up right away? Question for snake I guess.

[WOM]

Never. Gonna. Happen.

[Bruno]

the bolder move — rebuild/renovate/repair it in a way that's congruent with our time.

Not sure how that could go well, given that most of the Gothic structure is intact. Unity is a first principal of design for a good reason.

[Hot Pepsi]

All of these things get rebuilt and added to over time. Look at any one of little info plaques at the entrance to any church in Europe and it will tell you that the original church was built in 11 something and then destroyed by fire and rebuilt and sacked by the tatars and rebuilt again and so on. There's a logic to starting anew and making something modern and in theory I agree. But I prefer Samarkand to the new half of the Sagrada Família

Yeah, it seems that even in this country, every "old" building is actually the second version or a renovated version because the original had a fire at some point. In a world of candles (and then gas lights), mostly wood buildings, and no plumbing, everything burned sooner or later. So while it is upsetting that something that has withstood a few revolutions and the Nazis burned now, it might just be regression to the mean.

I think in this case, they'll probably want to go with more of a restoration than something new, because so much of the original structure is still intact. It wouldn't look right to have, for example, a big glass and steel spinny thing coming out of the middle.

[Hot Pepsi]

The glass pyramid entrance into the Louvre comes to mind here. I remember people lining up to decry that as an abomination, now you won't find a postcard or holiday snap of the place without the pyramid in proud position.

I still think that looks naff.

[Nocturnal Submission]

Yeah, it seems that even in this country, every "old" building is actually the second version or a renovated version because the original had a fire at some point. In a world of candles (and then gas lights), mostly wood buildings, and no plumbing, everything burned sooner or later. So while it is upsetting that something that has withstood a few revolutions and the Nazis burned now, it might just be regression to the mean.

I think in this case, they'll probably want to go with more of a restoration than something new, because so much of the original structure is still intact. It wouldn't look right to have, for example, a big glass and steel spinny thing coming out of the middle.

Probably worthwhile saying that I'm not for some sort of modernist make-over of Notre Dame, just beautiful original wood carving, glassware, stonework etc. that is sympathetic to the superstructure and layout but not an attempt to exactly replicate what was there before.

[ursus arctos]

It wouldn't look right to have, for example, a big glass and steel spinny thing coming out of the middle.

The Marlins still haven't found a buyer for the "home run feature", have they?

[Fussbudget]

There is no 'real'. There is no 'fake'. But aside from that, something very treasured was lost, and unless that loss is recovered, people will not be happy. No way, no how.

That loss can't be recovered. Whatever is built to replace the 'original' (I know) won't be the same whether or not it looks the same.

[Bruno]

If someone built a Gothic cathedral from scratch today that looked exactly like it would've looked new in 1200, I'd think that was cool. Why throw away an old architectural style if it's good? Its age isn't why it's good.

[DCI Harry Batt]

I dunno WOM. I should stick to bitching about it.

[WOM]

That loss can't be recovered. Whatever is built to replace the 'original' (I know) won't be the same whether or not it looks the same.

Understood. But that will certainly be the goal. Nobody is going to have heart for some 'contemporary interpretation', now way, no how. Imagine if the White House burned down (again). They'd build a replica that was accurate to the nail head. National psyche would demand it. Same of the Notre Dame. Any less will be seen as a blaspheme and all that business.

[WOM]

I dunno WOM. I should stick to bitching about it.

Well, I for one like your opinions and would like to subscribe to your crackpot lefty newsletter....