,
17 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I think a glass roof in the style of the old wooden one would be -- rather interesting. I think a lot of the folk decrying the idea of _any_ changes forget this isn't the first go-round for the great old lady. It STARTED by knocking an older church to rubble to rebuild.
The transepts were knocked down and remodelled in an entirely different style in the 13th century. No clinging to the past for the sake of the past, there.
The flying buttresses, the most iconic part of the architecture from afar? Add-ons. Not original. A major architectural change mainly just because they wanted to make the OTHER walls taller and thinner and needed more support.
From 1500 - 1750 or so there were a tonne of modifications and remodels that hit Notre Dame, because someone in power wanted to spend money lavishly and look trendy.
For myself, as a godless atheist, it was the rededication to the Cult of Reason in 1793 that was the most meaningful change. Beheaded statues, Mary replaced by Justice. That was a pretty big change, not just architecturally but spiritually. Possibly an improvement.
But in 1803 that notorious Catholic, Bonaparte (he says with some irony) decided that what people wanted was a big ol' church in the middle of Paris, so it was heavily renovated and partially rebuilt again. Mostly with the design turned up to 11 and with a bigger spire.
1944? Bullets blew out some stained glass windows and they were replaced, not by painstaking recreations but the work of new artists.
Look, I have absolutely no dog in this hunt. I'm neither French, nor Catholic, nor Parisien. But the vast reactionary hyper-conservative response to the idea of changing even the smallest jot or tittle of Notre Dame? That's just stupid and ignorant.
The big old building is just a big old building, one that's been torn down, rebuilt, restructured, remodeled, and rededicated multiple times over the last several hundred years. Not only is it NOT the same building it ever was, it NEVER was.
If you're a Catholic and you believe that the Holy Spirit of God dwells within – then it would seem to be heretical to suggest that little fire could burn it out and that the Holy Spirit is more a respecter of places that it is of people.
If you're a classicist and you believe that the locus genii, in an abstract sense, should be preserved in historical architecture – then recognizing the frequent and aggressive remodeling of Notre Dame would seem to be the classic position to take.
If you just believe that nothing should ever change and no one should try to change things – then there are a couple of words for you and I will leave it to the rest of the Internet to come up with what they are. Hint: They are derogatory.
All that said, I don't believe it's the place of the State (in this case France) to pay for the rebuilding of the Notre Dame Cathedral. If God can burn it down, He can provide for raising it up again. The Catholic Church has a few bucks and could use the good PR.
Ultimately, it's a pile of rocks and melted sand. Any greater value that it possesses is given to it by the eyes and minds of man, and the recognition of the transitory nature of the world would seem to be important to both.
Put a broad glass roof and a Babel spire on it. Build a retractable roof so that those attending Sunday Mass can stand directly beneath the all seeing eye of God. Build it out of ancient timbers long planted at Versailles.
Sooner or later, it will go away again, by act of God or act of man. It will change. It will not be the same. It will be a different pile of rocks and metal and melted sand, in form if not function.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
The things of this world are transitory. An obsession with holding on to the things of this world is unhealthy.
I think both Christians and atheists can agree on that.
The things of this world are transitory. An obsession with holding on to the things of this world is unhealthy.
I think both Christians and atheists can agree on that.
