4 ms·
Cathedrals are alive. At the scale of centuries, change is a constant for them. A great deal of Notre Dame is not "original" anyway. For instance, those famous
by sopooneo 7y ago
Cathedrals are alive. At the scale of centuries, change is a constant for them. A great deal of Notre Dame is not "original" anyway. For instance, those famous gargoyles, I was surprised to read are actually pretty recent additions (relatively).
All that said, I do agree with you for the most part. Let's not have some arrogant hotshot architect do his flavor of the day on and add the "nosql" of architecture on there.
- bitL 7y agoNoSQL has its use, but architects do ugly things to advance their personal brand and market themselves; old buildings that can't protect themselves are wonderful hosts for their agendas.
- bobthechef 7y ago> Cathedrals are alive. Perhaps still technically alive, but comatose and strangled. Buildings are manifestations of purpose, and France, given its post-Revolutionary secularism, no longer shares in the purpose that drove the life and development of the building. With the purpose gone, the cathedral, while technically still operating as a cathedral, has been drained of much of its life force and essential importance. French society values the building for its mere historical importance and so as with an ancient Greek ruin has preserved it like a cadaver, either resisting any changes so that nothing is lost (thus tacitly admitting its impotence), or, as some propose, wish to make changes that aren't rooted in any essential function or purpose of the building. Unable to repurpose it, they are left to superficial architectural infiltration. Still others may wish to abolish the building altogether.