The Miraculous Resurrection of Notre-Dame

https://www.gq.com/story/the-miraculous-resurrection-of-notre-dame

by divbzero • 2 years ago

91 64 2 years ago

cmpalmer52• 2 years ago

Damn, that article was interesting, but too hard to read on my phone with the ads jerking it around.

I don't know how people accept to brows the web without an ad blocker, especially on a small phone screen where ads are just invasive…

allenrb2• 2 years ago

Since I’ve made pihole a part of my home infrastructure, using this same phone away from home is noticeably much more painful.

thrance6• 2 years ago

As a parisian, I'm still a bit sad the conservative opinion won and that the roof was rebuilt exactly as it was before the fire.

It wasn't even the original roof! It was rebuilt with little concern over faithfulness to what existed before, not two centuries ago by Viollet le Duc.

After the fire, they were some neat proposals for a glass roof, or some wild ideas like a walkable, vegatalized one. But even without going there, nowadays it seems like old stone is sacred and we can't touch it anymore, ever.

We would never have had the glass pyramid in front of the Louvres or the Eiffel Tower with this mentality.

littlestymaar3• 2 years ago

I'm really glad de didn't go for the monstrosities that where proposed after the fire.

I'm was not against making something new (like what Violet le Duc did), but everything was so lazy and dull I'm really glad they got dismissed.

We would never have had the glass pyramid in front of the Louvres

This is big misunderstanding: the glass pyramid wasn't built by replacing parts of the Louvre: it was built in place of the parking lot of the ministry of Finances! (And yet, to say it was controversial back then is a massive understatement)

Also Parisians now aren't against new things, we've been numerous to sign a petition to make the Olympic flame aerostat a permanent feature of the city.

jim-jim-jim• 2 years ago

everything was so lazy and dull I'm really glad they got dismissed.

The McMansion Hell lady introduced me to the idea of "PR-chitecture." You'll see it everywhere once you're familiar with it, including many other fields of design.

TacticalCoder• 2 years ago

After the fire, they were some neat proposals for a glass roof, or a walkable vegatalized one.

We're talking about a medieval catholic cathedral.

How many cathedrals in the world have glass roof or walkable garden?

Do you think a walkable garden at the top of a cathedral would be respectful of the christian faith or do you think only other religions deserve respect? Put it this way: you put your walkable gardens on top of christian cathedrals, I build up tennis courts on top of mosques and swimming pools on top of synagogues.

seszett2• 2 years ago

That cathedral is property of the state and the Catholic church is only allowed to use it for its office, to be clear.

Private (owned by the church) churches, synagogues or mosques are not under that statute. But then they have to pay the maintenance themselves.

Notre Dame is paid by public taxes so its fate and purpose are decided by the French public, not by the church, although of course its opinion is taken into account.

It's the same reason many churches in other countries and up transformed into apartments, libraries or destroyed altogether when the Church can't pay for them anymore. It's not a question of "respect" for a religion or another.

CogitoCogito• 2 years ago

Do you think a walkable garden at the top of a cathedral would be respectful of the christian faith or do you think only other religions deserve respect?

Personally I find nothing disrespectful about putting a walkable garden on top of a cathedral.

Put it this way: you put your walkable gardens on top of christian cathedrals, I build up tennis courts on top of mosques and swimming pools on top of synagogues.

I don't understand what you compare a hypothetical walkable garden on a cathedral to a tennis court on a mosque or a swimming pool on a synagogue. I think it better to compare a walkable garden on a cathedral to a walkable garden on a mosque or a walkable garden on a synagogue. Whether that is disrespectful is up to the individual.

krapp• 2 years ago

Put it this way: you put your walkable gardens on top of christian cathedrals, I build up tennis courts on top of mosques and swimming pool on top of synagogues.

Sure, why not? They're just buildings, and that sounds like fun.

And I'm pretty sure that as far as the Christian faith is concerned, one isn't supposed to put value in the temporal universe or its constructs, and a grand cathedral is as meaningless to God as a mud hut.

thrance6• 2 years ago

Why try to frame me as some rabid anti-christian?

I respect the opinion of the majority which clearly wanted to keep it as it was, I am merely expressing a slight disappointment over the final decision.

Also, why would adding more modern features to the church be disrespectful to christians??

And no, the church has been rebuilt many times since the middle ages. Each time differently, reflecting the era.

thegrim33• 2 years ago

I mean you're entitled to your opinion but I'm not sure I can really understand this one. Should the Romans build a nice glass dome over the colosseum, maybe rebuild part of it with steel? What about the parthenon? I'm fine with building new stuff in new styles, but would rather we preserve historical works the best we can.

seszett2• 2 years ago

It's a bit different I think because the roof itself was never "preserved the best we can", it's "just" a sort of fantasy roof built at a time when Violet le Duc rebuilt many monuments using his imagination and fantasy with little historical basis.

I can't really say which would be best myself, but the point is since the roof is already the not historical part of the cathedral, it makes little sense to rebuild it exactly in that precise not historical way. Instead, it could keep being the one evolving part of the building.

thrance6• 2 years ago

Yeah, you have the right to your opinion too, and you're clearly in the majority so I respect that.

The last time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, by Viollet le Duc, it had been left in ruins for over a century and was redesigned as an idealized version of what it never was. So we are only preserving this version of the past by rebuilding it this way.

Also, a glass dome over the collosem would be hideous, which I think is reason enough not to do it :)

ccppurcell• 2 years ago

I don't think it's obvious what it means to preserve historical works. A really clear example of my point is the Cerne Abbas Giant, a chalk figure on a hill in England. For a long time the idea was to try to leave it untouched. Adding chalk was seen as something like touching up the mona Lisa. But it was in danger of being lost and if memory serves it was discovered that when it was made people would refresh the chalk regularly. It's inherent to the work that it is maintained.

Let's say this giant is at one end of the spectrum, and the Mona Lisa is at the other. Its subjective where you place cathedrals, but certainly the builders intended it to be an operational building, and throughout its history there have been additions and modifications.

BrandoElFollito2• 2 years ago

Notre Dame had multiple accidents over the centuries. Every time something was rebuilt there was a war against changes. And yet many things changed - what you see is not what it looked like before the incident.

What exactly is different this time so that we do not leave a piece of contemporary history in Notre Dame?

Context: French, huge amateur of Middle Ages history.

majormajor• 2 years ago

Historically the answer was "yes, rebuild the Colosseum with different materials," it's not just a modern thing. The desire to make it more original is stronger now than ever before in many places IMO.

BeFlatXIII• 2 years ago

Would the glass dome merely be a curiosity, or would it restore it to a functional building that's used for more than historic tourism?

failbuffer• 2 years ago

My cynical take (as an American) is that anything but the previous design would have been subject to politicization and protracted decision-making. Donors would have been more fickle, stakeholder groups would have mushroomed, and reconstruction probably wouldn't have even started yet. From a project management standpoint, the decision to keep it the same was as absolute win.

thrance6• 2 years ago

Yes for sure, I never had much hope for any kind of change because of the reasons you gave. I think it's quite telling of our time how we cling to some idealized idea of the past.

samatman• 2 years ago

As a resident, your opinion trumps mine. But mine is that the Louvres would be much nicer without that pyramid. I don't care for the aesthetics of it, nor the mentality it represents.

Arainach• 2 years ago

the mentality it represents

Could you share more about what you mean by this?

bane• 2 years ago

I'm really torn on the movement the Pyramid seems to have started. I absolutely hate how obstructionist it is presented at the Louvre - annihilating every sight line and demanding everybody pay attention to what's basically just a covered escalator to some ticket booths.

But on the other hand I'm totally unbothered by the Royal Ontario Museum, or the big symbolic "wave" crashing down on a Japanese colonial building that makes up the shape of Seoul city hall, or the Union of Romanian Architects building.

and I'm in love with the L’École de Musique et de Théâtre in Louviers because it was used to extend and enhance the beauty of the original.

Basically, it can go really wrong or really right.

We know that the previous construction of the Notre-Dame was beautiful, but we don't know what kind of nonsense we could end up with with some really over eager starchitect trying to make a point.

II2II• 2 years ago

I'm totally unbothered by the Royal Ontario Museum

I loved the design when I originally saw the architectural drawing and models. The blend of modern with traditional. The way the crystal reflects part of the museum's mission.

That said, the resulting building is hideous when seen at street level. The finish of the structure makes it look like a tornado dropped an oversized aluminum garden shed on the museum, then they never bothered to clean up the mess.

Architects can design some really beautiful structures, but it can go really wrong for reasons other than over eagerness to make a point.

(Or maybe I was bitter about them dropping the free Tuesdays around the same time. Not only was it an affordable night out, but the museum was much more lively with the visitors and special events.)

prewett• 2 years ago

I think I would be fine with a modern roof that respected and blended in to the Gothic style. But the designs I saw were all frankensteins of the elegant Gothic original and a completely unrelated style. The stained glass idea was interesting, but it and several other designs drew the eye's focus to the roof, rather than the main body of the building. It's sadly out of fashion, but I definitely think that architecture needs to blend in to its surroundings, which in the case of the roof is the rest of the building.

(Of course, I'm not French, so my opinion has no weight in the matter)

tomcam• 2 years ago

    We would never have had the glass pyramid in front of the Louvres or the Eiffel Tower with this mentality.

I love Paris and Parisians (especially Parisiennes ;). I hate the pyramid.

dyauspitr• 2 years ago

A glass roof? I personally would have hated it. I don’t want the inside of the Notre Dame to be well lit and airy.

ekianjo• 2 years ago

glass pyramid in front of the Louvres

thats not exactly what success looks like. making a pyramid is super low effort architecture wise.

exceptione2• 2 years ago

Please let hem build their own cathedral somewhere else. Nobody needs a glass roof so bad that it should ruin the the cultural wonders of the past.

There is a general pattern that I unfortunately see too often with this kind of "post-modern architecture":

    *it cannot stand on its own*.

Usually it just falls to the lazy stance of " asking questions", which means that some shallow, non-artisan disharmonic contraption has to be splattered on top of something that is unapologetically beautiful, just to gain any quasi-relevance.

I will tell you a secret: nobody is interested in that glass roof, except the jet set in Dubai.

Those insecure nihilistic bullshitters are bored and it shows because what they create is usually very boring. Art is hard and in a century there are only a few that can find a new voice. A medieval cathedral is not a play ground for anyone, let alone some commercial studios.

Artists need to learn to stand on their own.

thrance6• 2 years ago

You chose to ignore the fact that each time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, it was done in a way that reflected the era. Why should we attempt to preserve the last version, that only dates back to the 19th century, and is a fantasy of what it never was?

Why not contribute to this piece of art? Be it a glass roof or something less controversial. To me, merely repairing is like admitting the building is dead.

amadeuspagel5• 2 years ago

These ideas are simply inappropriate for a church, a sacred space. The fact that such ideas are seriously considered is also why we can't rebuild the roof in a different way today anymore. In the past, when people rebuilt the roof, there was some consensus on what a church should look like, today people have to rally around rebuilding it exactly, or have it become a playground for bored starchitects.

The glass pyramid in front of the Louvres and the Eiffel Tower are separate buildings. A better example would be the Bundestag, but that's a secular building and the glass dome here is a message of renewal and transparency.

falcor842• 2 years ago

These ideas are simply inappropriate for a church, a sacred space.

Why? On a conceptual level, wouldn't a glass roof allow the people to feel closer to the heavens, while still enclosed by the holiness of the cathedral?

AlotOfReading2• 2 years ago

Why shouldn't churches reflect evolving ideas of how "sacred" looks? The Sagrada Familia doesn't feel the same as the old Notre Dame or Milan, but it's no less sacred for it. The Crystal cathedral and Thorncrown Chapel don't reflect traditional ideas about what a sacred space should look like either, but it's hard to deny that they reflect something sacral even if you don't like them.

susiecambria• 2 years ago

https://archive.ph/IdCwK

Aeolun• 2 years ago

Opening this page lights my phone on fire.

It’s absurd that opening a news website is more intense than running a game with a million baloons on-screen at the same time (without any slowdown).

grishka2• 2 years ago

It's just a reminder to install an ad blocker. Before I saw these comments, I had no idea there are ads on that website.

The Miraculous Resurrection of Notre-Dame

Related Stories