3 ms·

There is definitely something very odd about French culture at the moment, as this has become a left vs. right political issue. As it was burning, I caught a re

There is definitely something very odd about French culture at the moment, as this has become a left vs. right political issue. As it was burning, I caught a reporter say that they'd overheard people in a case saying "good, let it burn," that "isn't France anymore." I thought this was odd, but has since proven to be emblematic of the prevailing opinion. “We mustn’t say to ourselves, by dogmatism, that we must absolutely redo the cathedral as it was. We won’t decide to do something modern or something new just for the sake of it." - French culture minister Franck Riester Macron himself has decided to hold an architecture competition to redesign something "even more beautiful," which belongs to all of France/the world. Attempting to preserve the cathedral is now actually an explicitly conservative position. “Before proclaiming ourselves builders, let us recognize first that we are inheritors. Notre-Dame de Paris does not belong to us. We are the first to see it burn: Our only duty is to restore her." - Right-wing candidate for the Republican Party François-Xavier Bellamy Now, I'm by no means a traditionalist or conservative, but there is something very off-putting about the attitude of those attempting to reimagine the structure. I think the thing that bothers me the most is that it's just another skin-deep tribalist gesture of identity, that we must visually reimagine a Catholic icon, because it's important that it belong to "everyone, everywhere." But that's precisely the problem, because it already DID. Notre Dame has been a global icon for hundreds and hundreds of years. I'm neither French nor Catholic, and have always been in complete awe of that structure. Who is looking for Angkor Wat to be reimagined in a modern style for the sake of global identity? Nobody, because Angkor Wat is a part of our global identity exactly as it is. I had a friend share something on Facebook that absolutely blew my mind. It effectively stated that "if you think the Notre Dame burning is bad, you have no idea what Muslims have gone through by seeing ISIS destroying Assyrian artifacts." I thought that this was an absolutely insane position to take. Those Assyrian artifacts were priceless to all of humanity. I am exactly as devastated at the loss of Assyrian artifacts as I am with the burning of the Notre Dame, even more-so because it was done intentionally, but I can't help but feel that the people who are ostensibly attempting to take a globalist perspective are revealing to the rest of us that they have been internally nationalizing cultural achievements this whole time.

crooked-v 7y ago
> Now, I'm by no means a traditionalist or conservative, but there is something very off-putting about the attitude of those attempting to reimagine the structure. Notre-Dame has been "reimagined" repeatedly throughout history. For example, fron 1857 to 1864, the inside and outside were heavily refurbished, including many new decorations put in placee, entire sets of supports and walls replaced, and a brand new and taller spire designed from scratch to replace the previous onee. From 1991 to 2001, many of the exterior stone blocks, turrets, and gargoyles were replaced again, as industrial pollution had caused them to erode at an accelerated rate.
- ralusek 7y ago
  I'm aware, it's also been constructed and reconstructed over centuries. Don't be pedantic, you understand that I'm talking about the two general attitudes/positions being put forward. If the reconstruction internally used a stronger concrete or something while still trying to recapture the essence of the cathedral, that is not the same thing as wanting to reimagine it for the sake of dismantling its identity. And that's not catastrophizing or making assumptions on their behalf, that is literally what they are saying.

crooked-v 7y ago

> Now, I'm by no means a traditionalist or conservative, but there is something very off-putting about the attitude of those attempting to reimagine the structure. Notre-Dame has been "reimagined" repeatedly throughout history. For example, fron 1857 to 1864, the inside and outside were heavily refurbished, including many new decorations put in placee, entire sets of supports and walls replaced, and a brand new and taller spire designed from scratch to replace the previous onee. From 1991 to 2001, many of the exterior stone blocks, turrets, and gargoyles were replaced again, as industrial pollution had caused them to erode at an accelerated rate.

ralusek 7y ago
I'm aware, it's also been constructed and reconstructed over centuries. Don't be pedantic, you understand that I'm talking about the two general attitudes/positions being put forward. If the reconstruction internally used a stronger concrete or something while still trying to recapture the essence of the cathedral, that is not the same thing as wanting to reimagine it for the sake of dismantling its identity. And that's not catastrophizing or making assumptions on their behalf, that is literally what they are saying.