4 ms·

Please let hem build their own cathedral somewhere else. Nobody needs a glass roof so bad that it should ruin the the cultural wonders of the past. There is a

Please let hem build their own cathedral somewhere else. Nobody needs a glass roof so bad that it should ruin the the cultural wonders of the past. There is a general pattern that I unfortunately see too often with this kind of "post-modern architecture": *it cannot stand on its own*. Usually it just falls to the lazy stance of " asking questions", which means that some shallow, non-artisan disharmonic contraption has to be splattered on top of something that is unapologetically beautiful, just to gain any quasi-relevance. I will tell you a secret: nobody is interested in that glass roof, except the jet set in Dubai. Those insecure nihilistic bullshitters are bored and it shows because what they create is usually very boring. Art is hard and in a century there are only a few that can find a new voice. A medieval cathedral is not a play ground for anyone, let alone some commercial studios. Artists need to learn to stand on their own.

thrance 2y ago
You chose to ignore the fact that each time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, it was done in a way that reflected the era. Why should we attempt to preserve the last version, that only dates back to the 19th century, and is a fantasy of what it never was? Why not contribute to this piece of art? Be it a glass roof or something less controversial. To me, merely repairing is like admitting the building is dead.
- exceptione 2y ago
  If you are curious about the answer, you will find mine below: At that very time there was a sudden break with the times before. With the industrial revolution, man's environment began to change in such a way that poets and writers romanticized nature, as well as the past. Romanticism had begun. Young fields such as Psychology, Archaeology and Biology took off. New materials such as concrete and steel provided a break with the past in terms of possibilities and forms of expression. People in that century who were on the cusp of a new age for men; where the cityscapes of Van Eyck disappeared on the horizon. The restorations in the 19th century were indeed not informed by sufficient knowledge, it shows how people thought what it should have been originally or how it should have been completed. In Europe, many of the 19th century restorations were undone where they could, when one could find out what it had been like, for example. As an example, many changes to dispositions in church organs have been undone in this way in more recent times, based on historical-scientific insights. Often nineteenth-century changes turned out not to be an improvement but a fad. Later, with the flight of the scientific method and appreciation for objective knowledge came the realization that if we want to preserve valuable things from the past, we will have to conduct research so that we can restore in a responsible way. So for the same reason, we will not modify the Night Watch to suit our current tastes, thankfully. The Night Watch is not dead, quite the contrary.

thrance 2y ago

You chose to ignore the fact that each time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, it was done in a way that reflected the era. Why should we attempt to preserve the last version, that only dates back to the 19th century, and is a fantasy of what it never was? Why not contribute to this piece of art? Be it a glass roof or something less controversial. To me, merely repairing is like admitting the building is dead.

exceptione 2y ago
If you are curious about the answer, you will find mine below: At that very time there was a sudden break with the times before. With the industrial revolution, man's environment began to change in such a way that poets and writers romanticized nature, as well as the past. Romanticism had begun. Young fields such as Psychology, Archaeology and Biology took off. New materials such as concrete and steel provided a break with the past in terms of possibilities and forms of expression. People in that century who were on the cusp of a new age for men; where the cityscapes of Van Eyck disappeared on the horizon. The restorations in the 19th century were indeed not informed by sufficient knowledge, it shows how people thought what it should have been originally or how it should have been completed. In Europe, many of the 19th century restorations were undone where they could, when one could find out what it had been like, for example. As an example, many changes to dispositions in church organs have been undone in this way in more recent times, based on historical-scientific insights. Often nineteenth-century changes turned out not to be an improvement but a fad. Later, with the flight of the scientific method and appreciation for objective knowledge came the realization that if we want to preserve valuable things from the past, we will have to conduct research so that we can restore in a responsible way. So for the same reason, we will not modify the Night Watch to suit our current tastes, thankfully. The Night Watch is not dead, quite the contrary.