4 ms·

I mean you're entitled to your opinion but I'm not sure I can really understand this one. Should the Romans build a nice glass dome over the colosseum, maybe re

I mean you're entitled to your opinion but I'm not sure I can really understand this one. Should the Romans build a nice glass dome over the colosseum, maybe rebuild part of it with steel? What about the parthenon? I'm fine with building new stuff in new styles, but would rather we preserve historical works the best we can.

seszett 2y ago
It's a bit different I think because the roof itself was never "preserved the best we can", it's "just" a sort of fantasy roof built at a time when Violet le Duc rebuilt many monuments using his imagination and fantasy with little historical basis. I can't really say which would be best myself, but the point is since the roof is already the not historical part of the cathedral, it makes little sense to rebuild it exactly in that precise not historical way. Instead, it could keep being the one evolving part of the building.
thrance 2y ago
Yeah, you have the right to your opinion too, and you're clearly in the majority so I respect that. The last time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, by Viollet le Duc, it had been left in ruins for over a century and was redesigned as an idealized version of what it never was. So we are only preserving this version of the past by rebuilding it this way. Also, a glass dome over the collosem would be hideous, which I think is reason enough not to do it :)
ccppurcell 2y ago
I don't think it's obvious what it means to preserve historical works. A really clear example of my point is the Cerne Abbas Giant, a chalk figure on a hill in England. For a long time the idea was to try to leave it untouched. Adding chalk was seen as something like touching up the mona Lisa. But it was in danger of being lost and if memory serves it was discovered that when it was made people would refresh the chalk regularly. It's inherent to the work that it is maintained. Let's say this giant is at one end of the spectrum, and the Mona Lisa is at the other. Its subjective where you place cathedrals, but certainly the builders intended it to be an operational building, and throughout its history there have been additions and modifications.
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
Notre Dame had multiple accidents over the centuries. Every time something was rebuilt there was a war against changes. And yet many things changed - what you see is not what it looked like before the incident. What exactly is different this time so that we do not leave a piece of contemporary history in Notre Dame? Context: French, huge amateur of Middle Ages history.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  For one thing, the contemporary architecture of today sucks and the contemporary architecture of that day was actually good. It's very unlikely you would get a good result if you rebuilt the roof today.
  - PetitPrince 2y ago
    > the contemporary architecture of today sucks Don't be so quick to judge your contemporaries, as today's turd may very well be tomorrow's jewel. The Eiffel Tower was considered a useless monstrosity back then, with many people (including famous authors, artists, and architects) opposing its construction.
    - AStonesThrow 2y ago
      Beauty is, in many respects, an objective quality, especially regarding colossal architecture. Geometry doesn't change. Perspective and proportion are enduring qualities, and all humankind hold these in common. Furthermore, some architects and engineers are deliberately provoking ire by designing ugly and offensive structures. I mean, in what reality would someone enjoy having their eyes and senses brutalized by a Brutalist? It's sadomasochism on a civic level. Eiffel strikes me as sort of a utilitarian skeleton piece; a proof of concept that made Lady Liberty a reality. But yeah, the tower itself is still kinda ugly, especially in comparison to the graceful and sinuous surroundings it was plopped into. I must admit that any true fan of Erector Sets would find it somewhat cool. Notre-Dame, as a building, embodies Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, just as her faithful people do, and the edifice stands to project the Gospel of truth. I'd never object to a veggie garden, but perhaps let's not encourage gardeners to clomp around on the sacred roof. John 20:15
majormajor 2y ago
Historically the answer was "yes, rebuild the Colosseum with different materials," it's not just a modern thing. The desire to make it more original is stronger now than ever before in many places IMO.
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
Would the glass dome merely be a curiosity, or would it restore it to a functional building that's used for more than historic tourism?

seszett 2y ago

It's a bit different I think because the roof itself was never "preserved the best we can", it's "just" a sort of fantasy roof built at a time when Violet le Duc rebuilt many monuments using his imagination and fantasy with little historical basis. I can't really say which would be best myself, but the point is since the roof is already the not historical part of the cathedral, it makes little sense to rebuild it exactly in that precise not historical way. Instead, it could keep being the one evolving part of the building.

thrance 2y ago

Yeah, you have the right to your opinion too, and you're clearly in the majority so I respect that. The last time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, by Viollet le Duc, it had been left in ruins for over a century and was redesigned as an idealized version of what it never was. So we are only preserving this version of the past by rebuilding it this way. Also, a glass dome over the collosem would be hideous, which I think is reason enough not to do it :)

ccppurcell 2y ago

I don't think it's obvious what it means to preserve historical works. A really clear example of my point is the Cerne Abbas Giant, a chalk figure on a hill in England. For a long time the idea was to try to leave it untouched. Adding chalk was seen as something like touching up the mona Lisa. But it was in danger of being lost and if memory serves it was discovered that when it was made people would refresh the chalk regularly. It's inherent to the work that it is maintained. Let's say this giant is at one end of the spectrum, and the Mona Lisa is at the other. Its subjective where you place cathedrals, but certainly the builders intended it to be an operational building, and throughout its history there have been additions and modifications.

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

Notre Dame had multiple accidents over the centuries. Every time something was rebuilt there was a war against changes. And yet many things changed - what you see is not what it looked like before the incident. What exactly is different this time so that we do not leave a piece of contemporary history in Notre Dame? Context: French, huge amateur of Middle Ages history.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
For one thing, the contemporary architecture of today sucks and the contemporary architecture of that day was actually good. It's very unlikely you would get a good result if you rebuilt the roof today.
- PetitPrince 2y ago
  > the contemporary architecture of today sucks Don't be so quick to judge your contemporaries, as today's turd may very well be tomorrow's jewel. The Eiffel Tower was considered a useless monstrosity back then, with many people (including famous authors, artists, and architects) opposing its construction.
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago
    Beauty is, in many respects, an objective quality, especially regarding colossal architecture. Geometry doesn't change. Perspective and proportion are enduring qualities, and all humankind hold these in common. Furthermore, some architects and engineers are deliberately provoking ire by designing ugly and offensive structures. I mean, in what reality would someone enjoy having their eyes and senses brutalized by a Brutalist? It's sadomasochism on a civic level. Eiffel strikes me as sort of a utilitarian skeleton piece; a proof of concept that made Lady Liberty a reality. But yeah, the tower itself is still kinda ugly, especially in comparison to the graceful and sinuous surroundings it was plopped into. I must admit that any true fan of Erector Sets would find it somewhat cool. Notre-Dame, as a building, embodies Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, just as her faithful people do, and the edifice stands to project the Gospel of truth. I'd never object to a veggie garden, but perhaps let's not encourage gardeners to clomp around on the sacred roof. John 20:15

majormajor 2y ago

Historically the answer was "yes, rebuild the Colosseum with different materials," it's not just a modern thing. The desire to make it more original is stronger now than ever before in many places IMO.

BeFlatXIII 2y ago

Would the glass dome merely be a curiosity, or would it restore it to a functional building that's used for more than historic tourism?