The Spire of Notre Dame

Here is a picture of the spire of Notre Dame.

This was designed in the reign of Louis Phillippe - that is to say, French Victorian Gothic.

It is not and was not an actual Gothic (12th - 16th c) part of the cathedral.

Still worse, replacing it with some sort of "Cirque du Soleil" modern structure would be intrusive in the worst sense.

 

IMHO

In a recent article in the Guardian, you can practically see contemporary architects drooling over the opportunity to immortalize themselves. Few seem to be concerned with historical integrity.

I think a lot of contemporary architects simply see the world differently than the gothic Victorians did. I’m sure some of them drool over their own immortality, some of them are probably negative Nancy cynics as well, but many would have a sincere desire to crown the cathedral with something uplifting and worthy.

Two recent renewals to older structures in my home town of San Francisco (where nothing comes close to the age of Notre Dame) are the new span of the Bay Bridge and the recent addition to SFMoMA. Each relates beautifully to the already-existing structure while also being forward-looking and fulfilling a more contemporary aesthetic.

Over time, historical integrity recognizes marriages of eras and styles and the present can pay homage to the past by harmonizing its vision with the past without necessarily imitating it.

In any case, having read the brief article, none of the architects giving their thoughts on the spire, which were varied and thoughtful, came across as drooling over the chance to immortalize themselves. Not at all.

My big concern about rebuilding Notre Dame is that it's going to look like George Jetson lives there - too futuristic:

George Jetson - Wikipedia

I am old, but not an "older male photographer". I am just a retired archaeologist for whom the concept of integrity (historical or otherwise) is important.

I don't know where gender or nostalgia comes into it at all.

If being old, grumpy, and nostalgic is involved, then there are other old men on P.net who just go mean as they age.

none of the architects giving their thoughts on the spire, which were varied and thoughtful

You think? Not my reading.

the concept of integrity (historical or otherwise) is important.

Right on! We don't need another abomination like the "pyramid" next to the Louvre.

does religion have integrity?

LOL! :):):)

does religion have integrity?

At least insofar as its historical content goes. A statement that Jesus became the son of god because he failed as a basketball player lacks historical integrity.:D

Well, here’s a quote from each of the architects in the article which seem to show just what I said, thoughtfulness and variety.

Notre Dame Cathedral is the ultimate high technology monument of its day in terms of Gothic engineering. Like many cathedrals, its history is one of change and renewal. Over the centuries, the roofs of medieval cathedrals have been ravaged by fires and replaced: for example, Chartres in 1194 and 1836, Metz in 1877. In every case, the replacement used the most advanced building technology of the age – it never replicated the original. In Chartres, the 12th-century timbers were replaced in the 19th century by a new structure of cast iron and copper. The decision to hold a competition for the rebuilding of Notre Dame is to be applauded because it is an acknowledgement of that tradition of new interventions. —Norman Foster

I suppose people are saying now it’s burnt down, you’ve got to put in something contemporary. Bollocks! It is not a building, it’s a cultural artefact. It’s a symbol of Frenchness. Architects get this silly idea that because technology changes, therefore architecture always ought to reflect those changes. But culture – how we think of ourselves, how we identify ourselves – does not move quickly; it moves very, very slowly in fact. And to confuse these two things is a serious mistake. They should do what they did at York [Minster, which suffered a similar fire in 1984] and put it back so that people wouldn’t actually notice. —Robert Adam

But in a way, restoration is a form of destruction. In restoring buildings, you destroy the history that has gone before. What the people of Paris should now do is something of this time and this culture, and adds a new chapter to that chronology which is enshrined within the historic building fabric of the cathedral. It is an opportunity to do something which is deeply contextual, very dignified, very appropriate, very spiritual, but different. —Martin Ashley

History never stands still. Notre Dame took centuries to build. The fire is now a part of that history. In a sense the identity of Notre Dame is more located in the two towers, the rose windows, the gargoyles – and therefore the spire is a natural position for something that is expressive and symbolic of something else. —Amanda Levete

Seeing those images of the cathedral with no roof also reminded me of Coventry Cathedral: there was something extraordinary about having sight of the sky. I think today you could do something very light and transparent with the roof, which would have its own potency. All kinds of qualities would emerge. Whatever is built, there has to have incredible lightness, an incredible economy of means, so doing something with almost no material, which is very much the challenge of our age, even in the broader sense of frugality and resource scarcity – but also to have a luminosity to it. It needs to be a kind of beacon. —Stephen Barrett

Then finally we’re left with the whole question about the spire. To me, it’s a slightly deeper question than putting something in and making it a statement of modern thought; I think it’s also tied to the functionality of that roof void. You could make something rather amazing in there that explains the whole story of the fire and reveals something about the Gothic vaults. —PtolemyDean

Now, what would be great, JDM, is if you could highlight the words spoken by these architects that you found to be “drooling over the opportunity to immortalize themselves.” Please be specific and reference the particular phrases that are evidence of that intent. This will help us to understand just how you interpret what you read.

• "The decision to hold a competition for the rebuilding of Notre Dame is to be applauded because it is an acknowledgement of that tradition of new interventions"
  
• "very spiritual, but different."
   
  
• "the spire is a natural position for something that is expressive and symbolic of something else. —"
  
• "there has to have incredible lightness, an incredible economy of means, so doing something with almost no material, which is very much the challenge of our age"
  
• "You could make something rather amazing in there that explains the whole story of the fire and reveals something about the Gothic vaults"
  

Guess who is going to do these new interpretations!

(from that, I infer the 'drooling'. )

This is not a trivial case of nostalgia but the repair of a World Heritage artifact. Lesser structures can "take" a sympathetic addition, but this deserves work that keeps the original intact in some sense.

I am a big fan of Modern style, but neither it nor post-Modern interpretations can enhance a treasure that belongs to the world, not just 21st c. France.

Here is Richard Meier's Athenaeum at New Harmony IN - one of my favorite buildings.

it is appropriate because it represents our time and place and does not intrude into the 1820s historical spaces there

I am old, but not an "older male photographer". I am just a retired archaeologist for whom the concept of integrity (historical or otherwise) is important.

I don't know where gender or nostalgia comes into it at all.

 

If being old, grumpy, and nostalgic is involved, then there are other old men on P.net who just go mean as they age.

 

 

"Get off my lawn!"

May be you can clarify some facts for me. Was the spire always there from the 1300? Was it added on or was it a replacement of an older spire? If so how are they different?

The first spire was destroyed and and others built, although at times the cathedral had no spire at all. The 19th c spire was particularly "Victorian" in character. Frankly, it compromised the Gothic character of the cathedral as a whole. That's one reason the best pictures of Notre Dame are from close to the front where the spire can't be seen. I'm only partly joking.

Sort of like the 'best view' of Niagara Falls is from the tower, because you don't see the tower from there.

The first spire was destroyed and and others built, although at times the cathedral had no spire at all. The 19th c spire was particularly "Victorian" in character. Frankly, it compromised the Gothic character of the cathedral as a whole. That's one reason the best pictures of Notre Dame are from close to the front where the spire can't be seen. I'm only partly joking.

 

Sort of like the 'best view' of Niagara Falls is from the tower, because you don't see the tower from there.

No surprise to me JDMvW! I was at the Notre Dame in 2013 and I didn't notice the spire and my photos didn't show the spire either. Since the fire I have seen a lot of photos with the spire and in my opinion it does look out of place.

New story in The Guardian (LINK) dealing with the issue raised here:

But does our 21st-century genius really measure up to Notre Dame’s medieval builders? Are we that arrogant to think we can add to her magnificence and rebuild something, as Macron declared, “even more beautiful”?

New story in The Guardian (LINK) dealing with the issue raised here:

That "even more beautiful" is a scary idea. Your "drooling" comment is highly appropriate.

Arrogance and art often go hand-in-hand,

Luckily, Stieglitz was arrogant enough to think that photography could hang side by side with paintings in museums. And then he had the further arrogance to think that he could reject the Pictorialist style that got photos into museums and explore photography for its own unique qualities rather than those more traditional qualities he’d originally drawn out.

Luckily, Douglas Sirk was inspired enough to think he could take two great John Stahl films of the 30s, Imitation of Life and Magnificent Obsession, and reimagine them in 50s potboiler melodramatic technicolor to make two gorgeous, lush movies, which I imagine people with more traditional sensibilities resented.

I suppose there was some degree of arrogance in Wendy Carlos reimagining Bach on an electronic synthesizer and I’m sure there are curmudgeons around the globe who find it distasteful.

And I wonder what some thought of Picasso for daring to have enough arrogance to include a cubist Pietà in Guernica? Heavens to Betsy.

I’m not sure Macron put it as artfully as he might have, in that I don’t think most architects would think in terms of creating something “more” beautiful than the original, a needlessly competitive way to see what happens when artists build on the past with more contemporary approaches to iconic images and structures. I’m thinking that most of the artists I referenced weren’t trying to improve on the past but instead using their imagination and skill to re-envision something that had already shown great power.

Artists tend not to take hands off approaches.

As to this being a photo site, I’ve got plenty of pictures posted in threads throughout the site and often illustrate points I make with them, but I certainly don’t feel in any way obliged to do that, especially in a casual conversation thread. I’ve actually not taken a photo of the new Bay Bridge yet, though I suppose you could google it and find one that shows the new span and the old span and how well the more contemporary design of the Oakland side harmonizes with the much more traditional design of the San Francisco side. I could also take some pics at Grace Cathedral, the majestic French gothic revival centerpiece of SF’s Nob Hill, complete with a contemporary AIDS chapel heavily influenced by Keith Haring’s design, but I wouldn’t want anyone here to faint from the sacrilege of it all!

Any more images of the spire?

Arrogance and art often go hand-in-hand,

which was exactly my point! There are good reasons not to let artists handle someone else's art.

"Switched on Bach" didn't destroy the originals, BTW.

which was exactly my point!

Only in part. The rest of your point was to address a negative, cynical, and self-interested side of that artistic arrogance. Whereas the point of my response was to address the more positive, inspirational side of artistic arrogance, or at least so-called arrogance.

There are good reasons not to let artists handle someone else's art.

Thankfully, it’s rare that artists are “allowed” and not “allowed” to do what they want in terms of their own takes on what’s come before.

"Switched on Bach" didn't destroy the originals, BTW.

And these architects aren’t destroying the Notre Dame spire. The fire did that. And, btw, there are plenty of traditionalists who would accuse Switched-On Bach of destroying Bach.

from that, I infer the 'drooling'.

Without foundation, however. You’re entitled to your reading, of course, but your reading shows a sad degree of cynicism that sees drooling for self aggrandizement instead of what’s actually being expressed, which is excitement about possibilities and nothing that even hints at personal immortality, a far cry from your unfortunately and unnecessarily sinister read.

I don't know where gender or nostalgia comes into it at all.

I was referring to PN’s demographic which, judging from the names and pictures people supply, is overwhelmingly older and male.

I am just a retired archaeologist for whom the concept of integrity (historical or otherwise) is important.

Integrity would involve reading carefully what these architects have actually said and not projecting motives onto them that are not clearly stated, let alone hinted at. Why not start there if integrity is so important to you? Or does this integrity only extend to the physical design of iconic structures? And regarding such structures, is it a lack of integrity that would cause someone to be excited about modernizing? Are there not other possibilities which integrity might suggest be considered?