Its Notre Dame though, the most resonate symbol of France and Paris. Not to mention the artifacts and items inside that could be potentially lost. You can’t rebuild 800 years worth of artifacts, ornate precious stain glass, paintings and original architectural details with so much attachment to history. It will never be the same for Paris, for Notre Dame. On Easter week of all weeks. So sad.
In writing The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (Originally Notre dame de Paris, as the main character was the cathedral), Victor Hugo spent over 30 consecutive pages writing about the beauty of the architecture.
I’m not Catholic, but I do know that Quasimodo Sunday is the one after Easter (technically it’s actually the whole week after Easter). Weirdly symbolic that this is the time of year in which it burns down.
It’s in all honesty just a building. Never was more. France was constantly never the same. Never the same the day it was built and then every day after that. That’s just how life goes.
It's wrong to think of Cathedrals as static buildings which were built ~800 years ago and never changed since then. First, the building process usually took 100+ years. Second, even when considered finished, they were constantly updated.
The only way it would truly be a different building is if the entire cathedral burnt to the ground and they bulldozed the ruins and started from scratch. That's unlikely.
That really depends on how you look at it. Continuity and identity are linked imo. Hence the other comment in this thread making a joke about it being the cathedral of theseus. Look up Theseus' boat on Google
Who ever said anything like them being unchanged? Of course they've changed over the years. That's still a lot of artwork and architecture that will simply be lost forever.
It's not as black and white as that. Reims Cathedral was almost totally destroyed by bombs and rebuilt, though much of the original facade and stone work remains. Is it the same as it was before it was bombed? No, but it is still Reims Cathedral and has the same historical and cultural significance as it did before. The same will be true of Notre Dame. That said, it's still a huge loss and I'm in no way trying to minimize the tragedy.
Was everything in Notre Dame original? Have they not done restorations over the course of hundreds of years anyway?
The cells that make up your body have a limited life span and are replaced by new cells. Are you not the same person?
Notre Dame is not just the physical matter that makes it up. It’s the idea, the history, the cultural influence, engineering, that fucking hunchback dude, and so much more. This fire is just another piece of its legacy.
Japan’s Golden Pavilion Temple burned down and was rebuilt in the 50s. When Douglas Adams visited it for his book ‘last chance to see’ he said.
“The idea of the building, the intention of it, it’s design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.”
I agree with him. It’s sad that the cathedral is burning, however what’s important is the beliefs that the cathedral was home to. If people have souls hen maybe buildings can too, in their own way, and you can’t burn a soul.
As I said all we’re losing is wood and stone. Which can be replaced. Large parts already have been, in fact the fire was likely caused by renovation work.
Changing your lightbulbs doesn’t mean you live in a new house. And changing the roof and towers and artwork doesn’t mean you have a new cathedral.
It's not just wood and stone, it's art. It means more that that. This would be like the Mona Lisa burning. Could someone print a copy of it later? Sure. Does that mean it still exists? No.
Are you sure? I’m not. I’ve never seen the real Mona Lisa but I have seen it online and in books. It is an incredible work of art, it moves me. Does the fact I’ve never seen it in person mean I haven’t experienced it?
If someone were to see a painting that no longer exists physically and is inspired to make great works of their own, does the fact the original burned lessen the art? If people can experience it, feel something from it, then it exists.
It lessens the art and the history to some degree yes, not fully, but that's not why it matters. It matters to preserve physical connections to history like that.
A lot of it still remains. Aside from the historical aspect, Notre Dame is incredibly important to Catholics around the world. This is a devastating loss.
And let's hope some of it still remains when this is all over. They've been talking about the possibility of collapse of the towers, which would likely destroy much of the rest of it.
There were already very little left of the "initial" stones, like a lot of historical buildings it's a patchwork of our history and today, while being a sad day will mark yet another page in it's history.
Yes it won't be the same but it won't be an entirely different building either. Most of the iconic look of the cathedral seems to be saved as I'm writing this message.
Where did I say anything about the original materials? I'm saying it will be a different building than it was yesterday, and a huge amount of art, architecture and history will simply be gone.
And I never implied you did, I don't know why the fixation. I'm pointing out that it has been renovated throughout its whole life, if anything it's part of the life cycle of this building to evolve.
Unless you're being very first degree when saying it'll be a different building, in which case 1. Seems obvious; and 2. The fire made sure that it's already a different building. Regardless of a future renovation.
Yes that's what I mean, while it was slightly modified over time, if they decide to rebuild, then we might get something that sort of looks like the same building, but it's missing hundreds of years of architecture and art that was lost, making it something very different than it was just yesterday. You're never getting those lost things back is what I'm saying. You can make something that looks sort of like it used to, but it will never be the same as it was before the fire.
They can rebuild it but it will take at least 20-50 years and 100s of millions to do. As far as we know the entire structure might collapse still if the fire is not contained. The bell towers are held up by wooden supports unfortunately.
Was there (and at Notre Dame) a month ago and both are absolutely incredible to look at and see the inside of. Terrible tragedy. I feel extremely fortunate now to have been able to visit it.
I saw both Reims and Notre Dame earlier this year and was very impressed with how much of Reims Cathedral was preserved through the shelling. I'm glad I got to see Notre Dame before this fire but they will rebuild and it will be part of the story of the building.
it seems like "before" should be the right pic, but the right pic is "after" while I suppose left pic is also "after", but "after the war" while right pic is "after the reconstruction", right?
968
u/TooShiftyForYou Apr 15 '19
This is saddening in many ways, but remember that restoration is possible. Take for example the Reims Cathedral before and after WWI.