4 ms·
Very sad. While a different cathedral, it reminded me of Orson Welles' soliloquy in "F for Fake" on Chartres (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksmjh8LL2zA https:
by berberous 8y ago
Very sad. While a different cathedral, it reminded me of Orson Welles' soliloquy in "F for Fake" on Chartres (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksmjh8LL2zA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksmjh8LL2zA):
“And this has been standing here for centuries. The premier work of man perhaps in the whole Western world, and it’s without a signature: Chartres. A celebration to God’s glory and to the dignity of man. All that’s left, most artists seem to feel these days, is man. Naked, poor, forked radish. There aren’t any celebrations. Ours, the scientists keep telling us, is a universe which is disposable. You know, it might be just this one anonymous glory of all things, this rich stone forest, this epic chant, this gaiety, this grand, choiring shout of affirmation, which we choose when all our cities are dust, to stand intact, to mark where we have been, to testify to what we had it in us to accomplish.
Our works in stone, in paint, in print, are spared, some of them for a few decades or a millennium or two, but everything must finally fall in war or wear away into the ultimate and universal ash. The triumphs and the frauds, the treasures and the fakes. A fact of life. We’re going to die. ‘Be of good heart,’ cry the dead artists out of the living past. Our songs will all be silenced — but what of it? Go on singing. Maybe a man’s name doesn’t matter all that much.”
- stcredzero 8y agoIn one Scientific American article, the top contender for the building which would remain longest if people suddenly disappeared would be the bottom pillars of the St. Louis Arch. Reinforced concrete sheathed in stainless steel. The central arch is just steel, so it would corrode and collapse faster. The remaining pillars would persist for many thousands of years just on their own.
- reubenswartz 8y agoI guess they are counting the Arch, but not the great pyramids, as a building?
- stcredzero 8y agoFrom what I remember of the article, the pyramids would be right up there, but they're subject to wearing of the exposed stone. (Also, as another analysis I came across mentioned, they'd be buried by the desert sands.) The combination of stainless steel with reinforced concrete makes a big difference.
- oh_sigh 8y agoWhat about the great pyramids? They've been standing for 5000 years already without any kind of maintenance or upkeep.
- stcredzero 8y agoAs I mentioned in the cousin comment, I think the pyramids came in 2nd or tied, depending on how you count "standing." Their exposed stone is wearing much faster than the St. Louis Arch pillars sheathed in stainless steel, while they are also being buried by the desert. On the other hand, there's a lot of the Great Pyramid. At some point, however, the Pyramid is going to look like a big pile, while the pillars are still going to look like pillars. This article predates the fall of the World Trade Center, so my memory of it might not be 100%. EDIT: I couldn't find the Sci-Am article, but it's interesting that the timeline of the Life After People television show, the middle of the St. Louis Arch is supposed to fall after 250 years, which matches the prediction of the earlier Sci-Am article. However, in the same timeline: 2000 Years: As it was after the ice age, Phoenix again becomes a vast savanna. Dolphins still remember their encounters with humans. Because it is basically held together by gravity, the medieval Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris may still stand and be recognizable.