Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cheetah, Apr 15, 2019.
The 800-year old north rose window was lost. Apparently we cannot replicate the glass even today.
Is Notre Dame to be held in stasis forever? The damn spire is from the 19th Century. It's not original. Cathedrals get rebuilt, expanded on, and modernized all the time; Lincoln Cathedral of now is not the same as when it was founded.
Holding things in stasis for - what? 'Aesthetics'? can easily become a chagrin. If the spire has collapsed and the wooden roof a problem, then what harm is there in modernization and replacement? Sure, we can mold it to look Gothic - and don't tell me you think that Spire seemlessly blended in with the rest of Notre Dame because let me tell you, it didn't, hell just by looking at it, the color was darker and the details smaller - just think a bit outside of the box.
Notre Dame will cease to be, one day. So will Paris, so will France, just like all things. Remember that as well.
Such an extraordinary window.
Renovations and additions can be okay (but often aren't, especially to very old buildings). 'Modernizing', on the other hand, is always a desecration.
Making a historic work of art into a modernist horror definitely constitutes harm. Even the smallest step towards it is harmful.
But it won't actually... be Gothic.
I see that, and it should have been removed.
Ah, so you simply want to get the process over with so that it can be turned into a museum showpiece. At least you're honest in your intentions.
To the biggest extent possible, yes
Sure we can. Medieval stained glass is very well studied and has often been repaired. France has people quite capable of replacing those windows as they were. If only they don't make a modernist abortion of it, but don't think there is any risk of that.
Not 'Modernist', no, but just 'modernized' or a modern attempt at Gothic. And the Cathedral already was, basically, a museum showpiece under the French government. It was a tourist attraction drawing in 12 million a year. Making the spire into something people can pay to get into, making the second roof something accessible (on top of being built with modern materials and safety precautions) might be something they'll end up doing anyway, don't you think? Especially with the sudden, massive money intake they're going to get. Wanna bet in a year we get articles about the French government handing out feelers to firms and architects for a 'rebuilt' and 'modernized' Notre?
Why? It's probably easier to name the Cathedrals that haven't changed in their lifetime. The Notre Dame itself got that spire in the 1800s. Things change. Holding ourselves to some mish-mash of frozen timepieces does what? I'm not proposing we raze it and turn it into an office bloc - Notre Dame will probably stand as long as Paris does - and any additions will probably fit in almost seamlessly due to care, computation, and intent. Imagine a Notre Dame whose outer roof is a huge canopy of glass, intersped with columns, to allow a huge viewing gallery of the city; imagine it from the inside and out. From the outside, if the glass is of a blue color or some tint, one could barely tell the difference, I would reckon. Stuff like that.
I do not accept the distinction.
But it was the actual thing, not a copy.
I think that's unlikely, but France is a disgusting country that I wouldn't put any horror past.
Why would you say that? It's a lovely country; is there something about the people you don't like?
As the son of an architect, I have to disagree. Bringing electricity and climate control to an older building makes it far more useful. Adding elevators, safety rails and wheelchair access is also important. Buildings are meant to be used.
However, putting a modern styled addition directly next to a sharply different older style is sloppy work. Harmony of the whole is always important. Just as buildings can blend into nature, so they can blend periods. It just takes more design work.
Having seen the restored glass windows at Saint Denis, I'm quite confident that in a few years there will be some beautiful new ones in Notre Dame.
"Buildings are meant to be used"
In general yes, but this Notre Dame is much more than a building. It is not something to be merely used by us.
For many it is overwhelmingly bigger than us in ways you cannot describe in words, making you feel the puny passer-by you are in time, immersing you in living history, connecting you with all those people in history that were there before you, and had the same humble feeling once long time ago.
For many restoring by avoidable modernising is staining and thinning that chain of connection to all those forebearer, is disrespectful, is a desecration.
Restoring by doing everything within your means to bring it back to how it was a homage to your culture, and all the people who contributed to it.
The thing is, the fire was on the roof, and heat goes up. So the inside that was a few metres below the fire should be mostly intact except in the places where debris fell.
The worst disasters visible for now are the loss of a roof that was made of trees which had started to grow during the Charlemagne reign (that keeps it in perspective...), the damage to the organ and the stained glasses.
From what they told on the radio, the firemen took heavy risks and kept tems inside the towers to contain the fire and prevent it to spread there. That was a pretty close call, as yes, the north tower had started to catch fire, but they managed to fight it off - that was probably a matter of minutes away from losing the battle.
For preservation, duh. That's the whole point. It's not about replicating something, it's about it BEING the thing itself.
Yeah, but that wouldn't be the original ones, dating all the way back from the early XIIIth century...
Based on the information yesterday it sounded like the roof itself had collapsed and the inside was fully ablaze. Thankfully it wasn't nearly that bad. The losses are still pretty severe, and I feel particularly sad about the beautiful windows. Hopefully they manage to restore them to look like they did, more or less -- but it won't be the same. It's not just about the look, but about the history and age, having lasted for almost 800 years. A connection to a time and people long gone.
Wow, that sounds incredible and very heroic. Many medals will be handed out in due time. Fantastic that they managed to save the two towers, it sounded pretty grim yesterday.
All in all it looks like the Notre Dame came away from this much better than we feared. The restoration work will be gigantic and equally costly -- but we're looking at restoration and not a rebuild.
yes, you never get back the original glass, that's gone
What we can do is to make the new pieces of glass with the same techniques as the 13th century, using the same ingedients, the same sand, the same wood for the pot ash, the same colouring minerals, etc.
Much of that was monk and guild trade secrets, a lot of re-engineering needed, experimenting again the alchemy. But we do have the modern technologies to measure if we got the right composition.
It is not that easy to reverse engineering ancient technologies. Things as heavily studied and analysed as damascus steel or roman cement cannot be exactly replicated yet. We can probably do it better now but not exactly the same.
And this fire a good incentive to go with the fine-toothed comb through the many chronicles we have and experiment.
Just trying to do it delivers info how practical craftsman of the past could have done it. Much knowledge was very much empirical in them days. The Edison method.
That Roman cement showing that we can at least now measure (except over time effects from the ageing of concrete in relation to moisture surrounding etc).
and some things are hard to find out.
To that damacus steel: for example one of the ways to improve your cutting edge sharpness and hardness, without making it too brittle, is to alloy steel with a little bit of nitrogen. Today we can do that in controlled ways. In medieval time some swordmakers gave iron/steel chips to chickens through their food, and collected them again in their manure, enriched with a tiny bit of nitrogen from the urea.
Wise advice from the emperor:
"So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!"
That had stinguished the fire probably, but several tons of water falling at 300 km/h hiting weakened roof and walls could have demolished the whole thing. The rubble had been saved though.
That depends upon how fast the water is released.
A fixed wing tanker with a stall speed must necessarily fly by and
empty it quickly, with a resultant risk of collapse from the impact.
However a hovering helicopter could release the water more slowly,
the problem being to hover over the target despite the upodraft..
Some good news this morning : the three "rosaces", the main glass windows, are not damaged
Separate names with a comma.