4 ms·

> The entire thing can be rebuilt and it will still be the real Notre Dame de Paris. It'd have to stop being used for the original function. This is demonstra

> The entire thing can be rebuilt and it will still be the real Notre Dame de Paris. It'd have to stop being used for the original function. This is demonstrably wrong, as we have many examples of old buildings and we know what people actually feel about them. Consider two very famous examples of buildings that completely changed their purpose, but are still the same building: the Pantheon and the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. The Pantheon was a Roman temple to all of the Gods when it was built in 126, and became a Christian church ~400 years later, but everyone recognizes it as the same building. The Hagia Sophia was a Christian church built in 537, and 1100 years later became an Islamic mosque, but it is still the same building to everyone. Then for the opposite example: St Peter's Basillica at the Vatican. This was built in 1506 on the site of a much older church, also called St Peter's Basillica (commissioned by emperor Constantine), which also served as a Christian church, was also used the parish of the Pope, was also the location of papal coronation and so on. And still, no one would say "St Peter's Basilica was built by Saint Constantine", because the current basilica is universally recognized as a new building, despite serving the same function. A building is recognized for the beauty and specifics of its structural and painterly elements, not for its role. If it is destroyed and rebuilt in almost the same size and shape, then it is recognized as the same building; regardless of entirely changing its purpose. Conversely, if a building is rebuilt into a completely different shape, even a universally admired as beautiful one, it is considered a different building, even if keeps serving the same purpose.

anon291 2y ago
The Pantheon no longer exists. It is now the church of St Mary and the Martyrs. And this is the difference I'm getting at. The Pantheon is a temple dedicated to all the ancient Roman gods. It cannot be both that and the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs. When the Church took it over, it ceased to be the Pantheon. There's no doubt the building is the same, and we can argue about how 'true to form' it is. But that's the point. When it stopped being what it originally was, its 'form' is now a goal to never deviate from. Whereas, the various depictions of the martyrs present within the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs, for example, has no such ideal yet. The Church can (and does) shift that around. However, if it were to stop being the church of st Mary and the Martyrs, then it would have an ideal form that any restorer may want to restore it towards.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  You could try doing a search for the Pantheon vs the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs to see which is alive in the general consciousness and which isn't. Ultimately, the Pantheon is not a temple to the Roman gods, it's a particular building in Rome. It used to be a temple, now it's a church, maybe 100 years from now it will be an exhibition space. It will still be the same building. And the building is far more culturally important then the current parish inhabiting it.
  - matt-attack 2y ago
    For what’s its worth, this conversation has been a treat to read. Not sure who I agree with.
    - wahern 2y ago
      IMO, they're both right, but for anon291's reasons. tsimionescu's perception of The Pantheon is reflective of a shared cultural consciousness, albeit one that's cosmopolitan and intellectual. He and anon291 (maybe) see different buildings because they either have different cultural perspectives--i.e. perhaps anon291 is a practicing Catholic (or esoteric pagan?)--or at least anon291 is cognizant that many people would see a space with a meaning quite distinct than tsimionescu's. The Hagi Sophia is great example--most foreigners see one building, local Eastern Orthodox see another, and local Muslims a third. It's difficult, if not impossible, for people to see architectural spaces in the way an animal or alien might see them. Even when the culture which built it is totally alien or unknown, that basic fact, plus the context in which it is seen by the observer (including how they arrived there), as well as typical architectural features (e.g. steps) imbue it with meaning that color everything about it. Our whole world is like that. Take, for example, a stop sign--we simply can't perceive that object, at least without effort, without the culturally imbued meaning. It's not just a red & white octagon with shapes in the middle; the meaning vastly overshadows its raw physical properties.

anon291 2y ago

The Pantheon no longer exists. It is now the church of St Mary and the Martyrs. And this is the difference I'm getting at. The Pantheon is a temple dedicated to all the ancient Roman gods. It cannot be both that and the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs. When the Church took it over, it ceased to be the Pantheon. There's no doubt the building is the same, and we can argue about how 'true to form' it is. But that's the point. When it stopped being what it originally was, its 'form' is now a goal to never deviate from. Whereas, the various depictions of the martyrs present within the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs, for example, has no such ideal yet. The Church can (and does) shift that around. However, if it were to stop being the church of st Mary and the Martyrs, then it would have an ideal form that any restorer may want to restore it towards.

tsimionescu 2y ago
You could try doing a search for the Pantheon vs the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs to see which is alive in the general consciousness and which isn't. Ultimately, the Pantheon is not a temple to the Roman gods, it's a particular building in Rome. It used to be a temple, now it's a church, maybe 100 years from now it will be an exhibition space. It will still be the same building. And the building is far more culturally important then the current parish inhabiting it.
- matt-attack 2y ago
  For what’s its worth, this conversation has been a treat to read. Not sure who I agree with.
  - wahern 2y ago
    IMO, they're both right, but for anon291's reasons. tsimionescu's perception of The Pantheon is reflective of a shared cultural consciousness, albeit one that's cosmopolitan and intellectual. He and anon291 (maybe) see different buildings because they either have different cultural perspectives--i.e. perhaps anon291 is a practicing Catholic (or esoteric pagan?)--or at least anon291 is cognizant that many people would see a space with a meaning quite distinct than tsimionescu's. The Hagi Sophia is great example--most foreigners see one building, local Eastern Orthodox see another, and local Muslims a third. It's difficult, if not impossible, for people to see architectural spaces in the way an animal or alien might see them. Even when the culture which built it is totally alien or unknown, that basic fact, plus the context in which it is seen by the observer (including how they arrived there), as well as typical architectural features (e.g. steps) imbue it with meaning that color everything about it. Our whole world is like that. Take, for example, a stop sign--we simply can't perceive that object, at least without effort, without the culturally imbued meaning. It's not just a red & white octagon with shapes in the middle; the meaning vastly overshadows its raw physical properties.