The Spire of Notre Dame

In the real world, I have been a practicing aesthetican for half a century. I got paid for doing this stuff, especially in relation to National Register of HIstoric Places standards. I am not "anti-art" but I do have considerable dislike of some of the more exuberant Post-Modern excesses when they intrude into spaces already occupied by significant structures

.

I think that the argument that the Cathedral represents a medley of historical 'moments' is sound, and I would never have agreed to the purposeful destruction of the 19th c tower.

 

But the 19th c tower doesn't exist anymore because of the fire. I'm coming to feel that there should be no replacement for it; but if it must be, let's not "make it even more beautiful" in post-modern terms.

For an insight into the complexity of the problems faced in restoration design, consider only the issue of lead used in historic roofing and to protect wood in the spire. Today's public health and environmental laws almost certainly preclude the use of exposed lead, even in the interest of historic restoration. What to do? The designers will have to find a suitable substitute, which will come with its own complexities, opportunities, and limitations. This is but one of a vast array of issues and choices that will come into play in selecting a restoration/replacement approach.

 

the 19th c tower doesn't exist anymore because of the fire. I'm coming to feel that there should be no replacement for it; but if it must be, let's not "make it even more beautiful" in post-modern terms.

I couldn't agree more. However, as you well know, aesthetics are a slippery thing. Neither of us is likely to adore any replacement that is not historically referential, if not perfectly accurate to a previous installation, even if it wins accolades from the current crop of starchitects. This is one commission, though clearly desirable from a notoriety standpoint, that I would not want. Whoever gets it is going to face an extraordinary set of competing demands and mutually-exclusive criteria. It's going to be a political nightmare. Still, I can't be blamed for some wistful daydreams about the possibilities...:rolleyes:

I do have considerable dislike of some of the more exuberant Post-Modern excesses when they intrude into spaces already occupied by significant structures

Just for reference, what do you think of Pei's pyramid at the Louvre? (The same loaded question asked of Robert Langdon by police captain Bezu Fache in The Da Vinci Code.)

what do you think of Pei's pyramid at the Louvre?

 

It is in the courtyard instead of being installed on the palace proper. I am actually a fan of Pei, but I wish this one were farther away. I wouldn't take a sledge hammer to it, but it is a little "discordant"

Or as we say in the NR committees, it is 'intrusive", even "non-contributing".

 

I find, in looking over my files of architectural images from Paris, that it is telling that I did NOT take a picture of the pyramid.

It is in the courtyard instead of being installed on the palace proper. I am actually a fan of Pei, but I wish this one were farther away. I wouldn't take a sledge hammer to it, but it is a little "discordant"

Or as we say in the NR committees, it is 'intrusive", even "non-contributing".

 

I find, in looking over my files of architectural images from Paris, that it is telling that I did NOT take a picture of the pyramid.

 

Not knowing about the history of the architecture I did find the pyramid is out of place at the Louvre but I do like it.

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/

 

Shadow, I do not have anything against adding interpretation/improvisation in music, moreover, I'm greatly enjoying such approach as, for instance, Ravel's interpretation of the Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. We are not discussing this aspect of classical music here.

 

Many yars ago, when I was in a college, I have visited Kiev (Ukraine). I did not do my homework diligent enough. We did not have a guide or tourist information on hands, so when I saw the 17 centuries Ukrainian baroque domes on one of the church I was continue walking without paying more attention to it ( no offense to 17 centuries Ukrainian baroque - we did not have a lot of time on hands). Imaging my disappointment when later I found that we have missed Saint Sophia's Cathedral, the World Heritage monument founded in 11 century.

 

What I try to say is that preservation of the historical integrity during the restoration is the highest priority in this situation to me.

 

Cheers.

 

p.s.: I'm very arrogant photographer - I have my own style.

PN seems to be the place where older male photographers come to occasionally talk high and mightily about thinking outside the box while worrying endlessly about anything that actually might accomplish that. It now seems like a graveyard of nostalgia for pretty much everything, from gear to vision and style. The “worry” that is so often expressed often boils down to usually be about something simple ... change. For another recent example, read the AI thread. Oh, wait, you already have.

 

Yup.

This is worth a look:

 

Photos and Stuff: This Too Shall Pass

This is worth a look:

 

Is it?

Is it?

As much as anything in this thread.

Is it?

I read the entire article and some of the comments. I found it at odds with my own values and attitudes, and with what I believe is in the best interest of culture, society, human beings as individuals, and humankind generally. There are many apropos quotes enumerating the value of knowing history. My favorite is this from George Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Preserving, honoring, and occupying great architecture, like Notre Dame de Paris, can reinforce our sense of who we are and whence we have come, hopefully to remember and avoid mistakes of the past. But we're human, and to err is...

 

 

I posted some into "No words" while the fire was still going.

 

This is from 2008 with a D70s.

I read the entire article and some of the comments. I found it at odds with my own values and attitudes, and with what I believe is in the best interest of culture, society, human beings as individuals, and humankind generally. There are many apropos quotes enumerating the value of knowing history. My favorite is this from George Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Preserving, honoring, and occupying great architecture, like Notre Dame de Paris, can reinforce our sense of who we are and whence we have come, hopefully to remember and avoid mistakes of the past. But we're human, and to err is...

 

David,

Referring to the article, these are the same tone-deaf arguments we often read on the internet, like someone characterizing black and white photography as devoid of colors, or characterizing poetry as just clever jugglery of words. The author called Notre Dame as something like 'carefully arranged pile of stones', which actually says a lot about his attitude towards the subject. According to him, people who maintain and restore Sistine chapel are obsessing over preservation. Then he brings in Instagram (!#@!!!) and how a posted picture with a half life of a few hours gives enjoyment to a few people, and thats whats substantial to him! In his mind, thats how art should be experienced - seen, forgotten and moved on from. No need of preservation, and the energy and money to be spent for the betterment of the current population. In his mind, no art deserves to be saved for future generations, which is kind of selfish.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Supriyo

Rooftop pool? Notre Dame proposals defy traditionalists

 

I told you so!

Rooftop pool? Notre Dame proposals defy traditionalists

 

I told you so!

 

Hmm... bunch of idiots...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Rooftop pool? Notre Dame proposals defy traditionalists

 

I told you so!

 

While that is just plain silly, they [French Government] have pushed through a law allowing them to essentially ignore planning regulations and, especially, those concerning "les Batiments de France", the body that normally oversees all works on historic buildings. I think they want to get it finished before the end of Macron's presidency.

 

A particular blow for my local economy, as previously, all slate for the roof of Notre Dame had to come from the Travassac slate quarry (also an UNESCO WHS), but it would probably take them 20 years to make enough slate for the whole roof, by hand...

Without reading every comment in this thread, I get the feeling that this has become an argument for or against the inevitable: change. In this specific case, the inevitable change of a World Heritage Site. I'm not typically a doom sayer type, I'm more on the page of "wait-&-see". I accept change as something I cannot control; the "new" Notre Dame I find to be among the things I have less than zero control over. I value historic architecture, to a point, but embrace change as well. My personal sensibilities notwithstanding, I have hope for something beautiful to replace (yet. again, apparently) that old spire. Beauty, however, is found most often in the eye of the beholder; it is entirely subjective. In the end, there will no doubt be haters as well as lovers of the *new* design. Will it totally ruin (or completely enhance) my little bit of the world? Probably not. Life, in the end, goes on, with -or without- us.

The spire is (was) a very visible part of the cathedral and no doubt a part of what makes Notre Dame one of the symbols of France (with Mont St-Michel and other icons), however Violet-le-Duc lived in the19th century and undertook many restoration-reconstitutions of French heritage sites, often using neo-Gothic or neo-whatever as part of the reconstitutions. The essence of the cathedral apart form its religious importance is its medieval architectural heritage and excellence. I hope that the major part of the building, the other destroyed elements, are restored or reconstituted to maintain the best of the original character. that wil take time and money of course.

 

New architecture is I believe best on its own where it is not attached directly to the original structure. A good example of this is the pyramid at the Louvre, independent (except for underground access) of the various period surrounding structures.

 

Norman Foster is a great architect, but I believe he and other contemporary architects are best in applying their art to greenfield structures where their uniqueness can be appreciated.

 

I have no unique photo of the spire to offer. Sorry. But I do not think the reborn cathedral necessarily needs a 19th century add-on, however interesting.

 

I wish I had images of the evolution of the disappeared timber framing in the transepts. Those structures, conceived by trial and error before the age of mathematical structural mechanical design were things of beauty, albeit hidden from most visitors. They are a great loss, but one that can be replicated more easily and economically with modern framing, without taking away from the visible beauty of a restored structure. It is to be hoped that the French traditional architecture experts who will intervene for the cultural ministry will be allowed to restore-reconstitute as faithfully as possible this icon of French society and leave new magnificent architecture to deal with other contemporary needs.

 

An approach like that of the medieval castle style being built at Guedilon not far from Chablis, using ancient methods, is obviously too extravagant in method for Notre Dame, but some aspects of the reconstruction would be worthwhile to emulate, as France has the traditional craftsmen.

Nice to hear from you Arthur, it has been a long time.

Thanks, Allen. Sentiment reciprocated.

You can't make this stuff up folks!

 

Eiffel Tower revamp to turn roads into garden in heart of Paris

I wish I had images of the evolution of the disappeared timber framing in the transepts. Those structures, conceived by trial and error before the age of mathematical structural mechanical design were things of beauty, albeit hidden from most visitors. They are a great loss, but one that can be replicated more easily and economically with modern framing, without taking away from the visible beauty of a restored structure. It is to be hoped that the French traditional architecture experts who will intervene for the cultural ministry will be allowed to restore-reconstitute as faithfully as possible this icon of French society and leave new magnificent architecture to deal with other contemporary needs.

 

An approach like that of the medieval castle style being built at Guedilon not far from Chablis, using ancient methods, is obviously too extravagant in method for Notre Dame, but some aspects of the reconstruction would be worthwhile to emulate, as France has the traditional craftsmen.

 

Timber framing is alive and well, at least here in the USA where trees are plentiful. I'm sure it would be no mean feat to replicate the timber frame aspects of the structure in any new design. Admittedly, some architects don't understand traditional timber framing and its symbiosis in structural integrity. It would take a special level of vision, indeed, to include timber framing into any modern redesign of this ancient structure- although I. believe it is totally doable... if not more expensive than modern trusses or framing using modern composite-type structural lumber products. Below is a link article with photos of some of the wooden framing.

 

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/nortre-dame-fire-oak-wood-trnd/index.html.

You can't make this up folks:

Seven alternative designs for the new Notre-Dame spire

You can't make this up folks:

May I give my official, architect's professional and technical response to the proposals: Gag me with a spoon!