The Shadow

This is a conspiracy theory based on no evidence whatsoever, folks. It is pure ad hominem conjecture with no basis in fact. It is worthless claptrap.

Well, let’s see. You “liked” Pavel’s post where he incorrectly stated that no one would like to hear a Stravinsky sentence on Bach, so I thought it was relevant to point out the piece where Stravinsky directly writes his own sentence on Bach. As to the relevance to the thread as a whole, since Pavel brought music into it, I thought it would be illustrative to bring up a few examples where a more contemporary artist directly reimagined what a prior century’s musician had done and how that could apply to a contemporary architect reimagining the more than century-old Notre Dame spire. I can’t help whether you see the relevance or not ... and don’t particularly care.

It will be nice if Pavel and Ed take this opportunity to learn a bit more about music. I’m not asking that you like the idea of a more contemporary approach to the Notre Dame spire. But I would like to ask that you not make false claims about musical history. The piece above is a Stravinsky transcription and arrangement for orchestra of a Bach keyboard piece, pretty much precisely a Stravinsky sentence written on a Bach story. Granted, in this case, Stravinsky didn’t impose much of his own style onto Bach and kept it more in Bach’s voice than his own. So, one might next consider the well-known Tchaikovsky sentence written on a Mozart story, where Tchaikovsky took several of Mozart’s solo piano pieces and orchestrated and arranged them in very much Tchaikovsky’s own style while still paying homage to the originals. Moving on, there’s the very popular (people loved and still love hearing it) “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows,” a sentence by musician Harry Carroll written on the story of Chopin’s Fantaisie-Impromptu, here performed by the legendary Jo Stafford. Again, it’s certainly fine to have your own taste in architecture and music and to be a traditionalist or not in certain instances, but let’s not deny that many people love the updating, recreation, and reimagining of all sorts of art. I leave you with a much more controversial piece from Chinese artist AI Weiwei. Im not advocating for his art, just pointing to its existence and the fact that many do love what he’s doing, though many also hate it. https://publicdelivery.org/ai-weiwei-dropping-a-han-dynasty-urn/

Ask and ye shall receive ...

No. As far as I can tell, no one has yet submitted a design or plan, and I’d wait to see those before recommending someone. I do like what Stephen Barrett had to say about the sight of the sky and light and transparency. His idea of luminosity and his mentioning the feeling of a beacon intrigue me as well. I’d be very interested in seeing a more specific, detailed proposal from him. There are plenty of other great architects who I’m sure will submit worthwhile proposals.

Please try harder not to misquote people. I did not ask this question. The OP asked it and I later gave a response. [An easy way not to misattribute quotes is to use the REPLY button in the lower right hand corner of each post. That will automatically quote the post and attribute it to the person who wrote it. If you don’t want to quote the entire post, you can simply delete the text you prefer not to include once it’s been quoted, but you won’t risk getting the person who said it wrong, which you often do.]

Of course, I’ve already taken that into account and know the difference between someone disagreeing with me and someone being anti-art. You, for instance, often disagree with me but I’ve never thought of you as anti-art. On the other hand, there are members who consistently put down art, the art world, and art criticism. Thanks for asking.

I guess I can own that. Part of it is getting older and a bit crusty. Part is disappointment with less and less artistry and artistic takes on PN, more and more overtly anti-art sentiment, and a noticeable turn toward traditionalism which sometimes seems downright reactionary, especially when it comes to photography, art, aesthetics, and acceptance of the new and as yet untold. This arouses my passion.

And who here is drooling over the Immortality of a thing, the spire itself, and the style of that spire which was a bolder departure at the time than many seem able or willing to imagine? Might as well pay homage to bold departure as to historical fidelity since, in this case, they seem to go hand-in-hand.

As I said, it’s ironic that some seem to be demanding a faithfulness to historical accuracy when recreation of this particular spire will be faithfulness to what was considered by many at the time a presumptuous departure from the original state of the cathedral. Wrap your aheads around that for just a bit before claims the high ground.

There’s nothing to restore. It’s been destroyed. They may try to recreate it, and some may convince themselves that’s a restoration, but it seems from these articles as though it is as likely to be replaced with something different as mimicked for historical accuracy and faithfulness not, of course, to the original architecture of the building but to a much later addition to it.

At the point you determine. This is probably not unusual but still worth rethinking. As gender stereotypes conform less and less to old paradigms, I’m not sure most men or women would want to be treated with such pre-determined differences as much as they’d want to be dealt with as individuals. I suspect there’s a coming together of sensibilities in this realm where you’re likely to find women not adverse to being seen for the character and life experience written on their faces and likely to find men with the desire to soften that. i think it’s as much about the kind of photo I’m looking at or making.. I’ve done photos that lend themselves to a lot more softening and processing, photos that emulate more of a Hollywood glamour style. They’re personal portraits that can still bring out character but not by intervening less but rather by intervening more. I’ve done weddings where I’ve felt obliged and also more naturally-inclined to flatter the subjects, make and female. Street portraits I’ve done tend to get little touch-up. As far as touch-up being noticed, probably a good start is toward refinement and subtlety as long as you keep in mind that sometimes more obviousness can be expressive and may be just the ticket for a given shot. Bruce Gilden and even Avedon in some instances exaggerated what some might call flaws. Others went to great lengths to mask them. There’s room for both approaches, especially in different circumstances.

One of the things that preceded you and will live after you is the constancy of change. Well worth cherishing are your children and future generations who learn from you and will ultimately break free of your constraints. So will thought, art, and convention. Stubbornness is not a substitute for wisdom. The spire is gone. Permanently. Cherish that as you cherish a dead parent. Most things gone don’t demand or even deserve resurrection but rather provide an opportunity for acceptance.

A pivotal and telling quote from the second article JDM linked to. This need for certitude certainly helps explain religion. It also helps explain iconic churches and the desire for traditions to hold onto. It doesn’t explain a lot of art, a lot of mystery, ambiguity, and some of the risk and driving force of the relished lack of certainty in a lot of forward-looking vision and thought.

Enjoy life while you can. Don’t try to control too much from beyond the grave.