3 ms·

What does 'original style' means, though? Notre Dame was refurbished and changed in the 19th century (and at various other times) . For example, the famous gar

What does 'original style' means, though? Notre Dame was refurbished and changed in the 19th century (and at various other times) . For example, the famous gargoyles are not 'original' at all but date from that time.

javagram 7y ago
The 19th century restoration had a goal of restoring the original style and character of the church. The 19th century spire, for instance, was a replica of the one that had to be removed in the 18th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Viollet-le-Duc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Viollet-le-Duc “Their project involved primarily the facade, where many of the statues over the portals had been beheaded or smashed during the Revolution. They proposed two major changes to the interior: rebuilding two of the bays to their original medieval height of four stories, and removing the marble neoclassical structures and decoration which had been added to the choir during the reign of Louis XIV [. . .] Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.”
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  I always like when people ignore the comment they are replying to... If you want to restore the original style then we should remove the gargoyles, as mentioned, but also other elements that were added. Even the spire was not a 'replica' as it was taller than the original. There is no point seeking to restore "as it originally was" for an 800 years old building. Certainly not using any lead anymore would be welcome. it's also debatable whether timber should be used at all as it's not even visible to anyone. There's another very old building in Paris that was recently refurbished (collège des Bernardins). They remade the roof using steel and titanium tiles. It's lighter, does not burn, and will last centuries without any problem.
  - javagram 7y ago
    I was not ignoring you. My point is the 19th century changes were made in a spirit of restoring the church to its original design. The current gargoyles may have been carved in the 19th century but gargoyles were placed on cathedrals starting in the 13th century and certainly fit well with the medieval gothic style. The original gargoyles of Notre dame, according to Wikipedia, were removed in 1726 so again this is an example of the 19th century changes being a restoration to the original state. Bolting on visible concrete, steel, transparent glass is a clear discontinuity from the medieval design.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      This reminds me the outcry that followed the 'bolting on' of visible concrete, steel, and transparent glass in the middle of the Louvres... Which is now one of the most striking and famous view of the city.
    - detaro 7y ago
      Isn't the article mostly suggesting to replace not commonly visible roof structure with concrete/steel?
      - javagram 7y ago
        Yea the article is fine, replacing non-visible materials with improved modern materials is great I think.
deogeo 7y ago
> What does 'original style' means, though? Classic 'this concept cannot be 100% unambiguously defined, therefore it is entirely meaningless and anything goes' argument. There are no definite boundaries between colors - they blend into each other continuously, and there is never a sharp transition as you move from white to beige to red to blue in color-space. So why not paint your office and house, inside and out, bright red? After all, the current color has all sorts of pigments, so you can't really say the 'original' color wasn't retained!

javagram 7y ago

The 19th century restoration had a goal of restoring the original style and character of the church. The 19th century spire, for instance, was a replica of the one that had to be removed in the 18th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Viollet-le-Duc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Viollet-le-Duc “Their project involved primarily the facade, where many of the statues over the portals had been beheaded or smashed during the Revolution. They proposed two major changes to the interior: rebuilding two of the bays to their original medieval height of four stories, and removing the marble neoclassical structures and decoration which had been added to the choir during the reign of Louis XIV [. . .] Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.”

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
I always like when people ignore the comment they are replying to... If you want to restore the original style then we should remove the gargoyles, as mentioned, but also other elements that were added. Even the spire was not a 'replica' as it was taller than the original. There is no point seeking to restore "as it originally was" for an 800 years old building. Certainly not using any lead anymore would be welcome. it's also debatable whether timber should be used at all as it's not even visible to anyone. There's another very old building in Paris that was recently refurbished (collège des Bernardins). They remade the roof using steel and titanium tiles. It's lighter, does not burn, and will last centuries without any problem.
- javagram 7y ago
  I was not ignoring you. My point is the 19th century changes were made in a spirit of restoring the church to its original design. The current gargoyles may have been carved in the 19th century but gargoyles were placed on cathedrals starting in the 13th century and certainly fit well with the medieval gothic style. The original gargoyles of Notre dame, according to Wikipedia, were removed in 1726 so again this is an example of the 19th century changes being a restoration to the original state. Bolting on visible concrete, steel, transparent glass is a clear discontinuity from the medieval design.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    This reminds me the outcry that followed the 'bolting on' of visible concrete, steel, and transparent glass in the middle of the Louvres... Which is now one of the most striking and famous view of the city.
  - detaro 7y ago
    Isn't the article mostly suggesting to replace not commonly visible roof structure with concrete/steel?
    - javagram 7y ago
      Yea the article is fine, replacing non-visible materials with improved modern materials is great I think.

deogeo 7y ago

> What does 'original style' means, though? Classic 'this concept cannot be 100% unambiguously defined, therefore it is entirely meaningless and anything goes' argument. There are no definite boundaries between colors - they blend into each other continuously, and there is never a sharp transition as you move from white to beige to red to blue in color-space. So why not paint your office and house, inside and out, bright red? After all, the current color has all sorts of pigments, so you can't really say the 'original' color wasn't retained!