Notre-Dame Cathedral is Burning

[coconut]

Use the various photos and laser scans, offer a prize to duplicate the exact colors (different prize for each color) it will get done. Yeah, the exact materials used might be different - but the results are replicable.

If you're referring to the Rose Windows then yes what few glass pieces that were lost can be replaced since they are quite high up the wall so no one would notice assuming the colors matched the rest of the window. With stained glass of great age like the Rose Windows the pieces of glass over time flow under the effect of gravity so they will be thicker at the bottom than at the top. That they apparently mostly survived is incredible.

 

[Akrasian]

If you're referring to the Rose Windows then yes what few glass pieces that were lost can be replaced since they are quite high up the wall so no one would notice assuming the colors matched the rest of the window. With stained glass of great age like the Rose Windows the pieces of glass over time flow under the effect of gravity so they will be thicker at the bottom than at the top. That they apparently mostly survived is incredible.

I mean whatever effects they want to have, modern scientists IF incentivized can end up doing it. It won't be cheap, but they will have a metric shit-ton of money to do it. Offer prizes for the best matching of whatever they want to match, and there will be a bunch of young Phds looking to make their reps competing. It's actually easier than some of the things they try to do. Not impossible.

 

[IowaRam]

I'm sure they can copy whatever they want

just not the same though

like owning the original copy of the Mona Lisa and owning a photocopy ,

sure , it looks the same

but it's not

 

[coconut]

I mean whatever effects they want to have, modern scientists IF incentivized can end up doing it. It won't be cheap, but they will have a metric crap-ton of money to do it. Offer prizes for the best matching of whatever they want to match, and there will be a bunch of young Phds looking to make their reps competing. It's actually easier than some of the things they try to do. Not impossible.

Phds? No. Its the lack of artisans that is the issue. Much of what they are looking to do cannot be replicated in material and quality. That is why it is considered a loss. I'm certain the roof is the least of their problems.

 

[IowaRam]

The roof

held up by timbers that were 700 years old , or something like that

but they say France no longer has tree's large enough to produce timbers that size

 

[Akrasian]

Phds? No. Its the lack of artisans that is the issue. Much of what they are looking to do cannot be replicated in material and quality. That is why it is considered a loss. I'm certain the roof is the least of their problems.

It has to be glass with certain additives in the end. Scientists can replicate it, if motivated. The exact chemical additives are lost, but if the goal is to find the exact coloring in a lead glass base, that can be done. It just has to be worth grad student's time. In the end, being able to list that you were one of the ones to recreate the stained glass (and get a financial reward besides) will motivate a large number to work towards it. PhD candidates are desperate to find projects, especially ones that the University will support.

 

[coconut]

It has to be glass with certain additives in the end. Scientists can replicate it, if motivated. The exact chemical additives are lost, but if the goal is to find the exact coloring in a lead glass base, that can be done. It just has to be worth grad student's time. In the end, being able to list that you were one of the ones to recreate the stained glass (and get a financial reward besides) will motivate a large number to work towards it. PhD candidates are desperate to find projects, especially ones that the University will support.

I wasn't talking about glass. No one will ever get close enough to the Rose Windows to notice assuming the colors are close. Although even if the colors are identical now - that doesn't mean they will continue to match over time. Time is the ultimate ingredient that cannot be duplicated.

I'm more concerned about the artisanal endeavors such as woodworking (not the roof nor its internal support), sculpture, among others- all the items large and small that add up to make an interior unique to a place and period of time. Or in the case of Notre Dame periods of time.

 

[Akrasian]

I wasn't talking about glass. No one will ever get close enough to the Rose Windows to notice assuming the colors are close. Although even if the colors are identical now - that doesn't mean they will continue to match over time. Time is the ultimate ingredient that cannot be duplicated.

I'm more concerned about the artisanal endeavors such as woodworking (not the roof nor its internal support), sculpture, among others- all the items large and small that add up to make an interior unique to a place and period of time. Or in the case of Notre Dame periods of time.

Well, as I said earlier - whether they want to recreate the art or do new art is a decision they have to make. They have a huge number of exact photos - they can recreate them if they so desire, and it won't be hard - especially ones that are kept a good distance from the people. But they have to decide what to do. I have zero doubt that they can recreate things to where it would take microscopic examinations to tell the difference. Whether they should is a different question.

 

[coconut]

The roof

held up by timbers that were 700 years old , or something like that

but they say France no longer has tree's large enough to produce timbers that size

Size isn't the issue although you're right true old growth forests in europe are nearly gone and would not be cut today. The Notre Dame timbers were old growth when cut in the 12th Century.

700 + 850 = 1550 years old.
Even if only 400 years old at time of cut that is wood of well over 1000 years old.

Old growth timber is essential (for strength and stability) in such a restoration and in europe it won't be found unless cannibalized from something else at great cost and loss of the item cannibalized.

 

[coconut]

Well, as I said earlier - whether they want to recreate the art or do new art is a decision they have to make. They have a huge number of exact photos - they can recreate them if they so desire, and it won't be hard - especially ones that are kept a good distance from the people. But they have to decide what to do. I have zero doubt that they can recreate things to where it would take microscopic examinations to tell the difference. Whether they should is a different question.

Yes I'm certain that will be the case for almost everything they do. That is why it is such a loss. No one goes to Las Vegas to see the Sphinx.

 

[Akrasian]

Size isn't the issue although you're right true old growth forests in europe are nearly gone and would not be cut today. The Notre Dame timbers were old growth when cut in the 12th Century.

700 + 850 = 1550 years old.
Even if only 400 years old at time of cut that is wood of well over 1000 years old.

Old growth timber is essential (for strength and stability) in such a restoration and in europe it won't be found unless cannibalized from something else at great cost and loss of the item cannibalized.

Why would they want wood? They can build stronger, fire resistant, replacements, perhaps with wood veneer. Stronger, cheaper, and as I said fire resistant so better to avoid such disasters as we just saw. 800 years ago they used the best materials they had - why shouldn't they do so now?

 

[Akrasian]

Yes I'm certain that will be the case for almost everything they do. That is why it is such a loss. No one goes to Las Vegas to see the Sphinx.

No matter what they do it won't be the 800 year old building. That's why I lean towards replacing the stained glass, which is easily done, and putting new masterpieces to replace the art.

 

[coconut]

Why would they want wood? They can build stronger, fire resistant, replacements, perhaps with wood veneer. Stronger, cheaper, and as I said fire resistant so better to avoid such disasters as we just saw. 800 years ago they used the best materials they had - why shouldn't they do so now?

Like I said earlier if you're not into antiques and historic building materials and techniques- then you can be satisfied seeing the Sphinx in Las Vegas. Perhaps Disney will build Notre Dame de Paris in Las Vegas to take up the slack?:baghead:

 

[coconut]

No matter what they do it won't be the 800 year old building. That's why I lean towards replacing the stained glass, which is easily done, and putting new masterpieces to replace the art.

The exterior walls will remain if still viable. They say the Rose Windows and the organ survived. You seem fixated on the stained glass. I'm not. The Rose Windows will likely be completely restored using as much of the original glass as possible. Though I'm not aware of such a restoration with such old glass subjected to such heat. We'll see. The other stained glass has been replaced over the years and though most certainly a loss where it still existed it doesn't compare to the Rose Windows.

There are no "new masterpieces" to replace the art. A "masterpiece" is unique as in singular. They will repair as much as they can but if anyone knows oil paintings the oil paints of old are not the oil paints of today and in painting can almost always be detected by the eye even when the big bucks are thrown at it. Plus there is the issue of time. Will the repairs age as the original? Usually that answer is no. The same goes for tapestries, sculptures etc. Time will tell.

 

[Akrasian]

Like I said earlier if you're not into antiques and historic building materials and techniques- then you can be satisfied seeing the Sphinx in Las Vegas. Perhaps Disney will build Notre Dame de Paris in Las Vegas to take up the slack?:baghead:

yes, but given what's happened - what are the best options? Replacing the understructure so that a minor accident doesn't burn it down seems wise - why use inferior materials to rebuild? Stained glass deteriorates over time, and sections are replaced because of breakage. We can match it - let's do so. The non-glass art - i.e. the paintings, we could match but that isn't quite the same as the others - it is likely necessary to commission other classic art. As you may or may not know, oil paintings and the like are not eternal anyway. Their demise was hastened by the fire - but "restorations" involve new paint, etc. anyway. The best options are likely recreate the stained glass, improve on the beams, and get new original artwork otherwise. Tragic in some sense - but necessary, and would have been required anyway.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Something beautiful and inspirational will grow out of this fire.

I find it strange to read this debate though about the value of Notre Dame not as a church of Christ but as an attraction like you’d find in Sin City.

But notwithstanind,
I do understand how a non-Catholic or Non-Christians would look at Notre Dame as an Historical attraction moreso than a part of Christ’s growing church, which is totally cool — but after reading these posts my question becomes how can someone attribute more value on the artistic contributions to Notre Dame just cause it’s older and somehow diminish the artistic contributions made to Notre Dame during more Modern times?

I don’t think you can if you are thinking critically.

For example,
let’s say it was last week and there wasn’t a fire that partially damaged Notre Dame.
And let’s say you were a visitor and the church was being restored - would you say the building was any less valuable to history or antiquity cause an artisan was doing plaster work, or if you saw an artisan doing some restoration or cleaning of a mural?
Of course not.
Cause you know that just cause something is old doesn’t mean that you don’t take care of it or modernize aspects of it - as long as it’s done by artisans with the goal of preserving its legacy and identity with integrity.

So now there is a fire.
And we know there was lots of damage, and some priceless art was lost. But guess what - it will get restored. New art will replace what is now ashes. And we will love and cherish it even more for what it represents. The damage that has occured doesn’t diminish the historical relevance. Nor will any of the decisions made that will fill the void that has been lost. It won’t be the same, but it will be better. Sure the some of the timbers aren’t ancient anymore. But now modern man will mingle ever more closely with the men from ling ago hewn those timbers with more antiquared technology. The old and new will be one and the same.

Nothing about this fire changes for a moment the value of Notre Dame or any ancient structure for that matter. Beauty is timeless. And Notre Dame lives on.

 

[Riverumbbq]

Something beautiful and inspirational will grow out of this fire.

I find it strange to read this debate though about the value of Notre Dame not as a church of Christ but as an attraction like you’d find in Sin City.

But notwithstanind,
I do understand how a non-Catholic or Non-Christians would look at Notre Dame as an Historical attraction moreso than a part of Christ’s growing church, which is totally cool — but after reading these posts my question becomes how can someone attribute more value on the artistic contributions to Notre Dame just cause it’s older and somehow diminish the artistic contributions made to Notre Dame during more Modern times?

I don’t think you can if you are thinking critically.

For example,
let’s say it was last week and there wasn’t a fire that partially damaged Notre Dame.
And let’s say you were a visitor and the church was being restored - would you say the building was any less valuable to history or antiquity cause an artisan was doing plaster work, or if you saw an artisan doing some restoration or cleaning of a mural?
Of course not.
Cause you know that just cause something is old doesn’t mean that you don’t take care of it or modernize aspects of it - as long as it’s done by artisans with the goal of preserving its legacy and identity with integrity.

So now there is a fire.
And we know there was lots of damage, and some priceless art was lost. But guess what - it will get restored. New art will replace what is now ashes. And we will love and cherish it even more for what it represents. The damage that has occured doesn’t diminish the historical relevance. Nor will any of the decisions made that will fill the void that has been lost. It won’t be the same, but it will be better. Sure the some of the timbers aren’t ancient anymore. But now modern man will mingle ever more closely with the men from ling ago hewn those timbers with more antiquared technology. The old and new will be one and the same.

Nothing about this fire changes for a moment the value of Notre Dame or any ancient structure for that matter. Beauty is timeless. And Notre Dame lives on.

I've tended to worry more about earthquakes destroying these ancient historical monuments, not so much considering fire and religious zealots like ISIS, it's actually pretty amazing that several centuries old construction methods have persevered and stood the test of time as well as they have when considering how fragile we all are once mother nature expresses her wrath.
When it comes to reconstruction and the mixing of ancient artistic architectural wisdom from yesteryear with the modern techniques now practiced, while I may feel a historical loss today, once the restored project is completed, so will be the healing process. The old artisans and the new will all be deservedly celebrated, and history will once again be amended. As an atheist myself, I want these historical buildings preserved & restored whenever and wherever possible, religion has nothing to do with any of it from my viewpoint. If I had a vote in it, Rome would be competing with Greece in restoring the Coliseum & Parthenon as we speak, piece by bloody piece, using both the ancient and modern, and let them live on for another millennia or ten ...

 

[coconut]

Something beautiful and inspirational will grow out of this fire.

I find it strange to read this debate though about the value of Notre Dame not as a church of Christ but as an attraction like you’d find in Sin City.

But notwithstanind,
I do understand how a non-Catholic or Non-Christians would look at Notre Dame as an Historical attraction moreso than a part of Christ’s growing church, which is totally cool — but after reading these posts my question becomes how can someone attribute more value on the artistic contributions to Notre Dame just cause it’s older and somehow diminish the artistic contributions made to Notre Dame during more Modern times?

I don’t think you can if you are thinking critically.

For example,
let’s say it was last week and there wasn’t a fire that partially damaged Notre Dame.
And let’s say you were a visitor and the church was being restored - would you say the building was any less valuable to history or antiquity cause an artisan was doing plaster work, or if you saw an artisan doing some restoration or cleaning of a mural?
Of course not.
Cause you know that just cause something is old doesn’t mean that you don’t take care of it or modernize aspects of it - as long as it’s done by artisans with the goal of preserving its legacy and identity with integrity.

So now there is a fire.
And we know there was lots of damage, and some priceless art was lost. But guess what - it will get restored. New art will replace what is now ashes. And we will love and cherish it even more for what it represents. The damage that has occured doesn’t diminish the historical relevance. Nor will any of the decisions made that will fill the void that has been lost. It won’t be the same, but it will be better. Sure the some of the timbers aren’t ancient anymore. But now modern man will mingle ever more closely with the men from ling ago hewn those timbers with more antiquared technology. The old and new will be one and the same.

Nothing about this fire changes for a moment the value of Notre Dame or any ancient structure for that matter. Beauty is timeless. And Notre Dame lives on.

I left religion out of this discussion since simply the "stuff" comprising Notre Dame de Paris is irreplaceable from the materials, craftsmanship etc. None of it is present on our continent. Then there's the art and the historic documents spanning the history of Paris and the ascendancy of western civilization. These attributes bring many people who are not Catholic to visit it.

I certainly disagree with your view that anything "priceless art" lost "will get restored". Sure time has wrought changes both beneficial and detrimental to NDdP but this is something far more than has been seen in the previous 200 years as well as over the entire 850 year history considering the gutting of the structure. I'm very glad I was able to visit it and on my terms.

BTW I am Roman Catholic.

 

[dieterbrock]

1. 

 

[Riverumbbq]

A few months back I had started a thread about "what was going on with the Catholic church" that got deleted. I think this thread will have the same demise. But it's a fair question.............what the hell is going on inside the Catholic church?

Remember the Boy Scouts scandal of the 80's/90's?

And we have had PSU, MSU and OSU and probably others.

Predators like these need to be put to death.

Yeah, it's going to be impossible to debate this subject on this forum, even in an 'Off Topic' thread.

This matter goes well beyond male clerics molesting little boys, discussion should also include forced slave-like labor imposed on the young wards of the church who got there by means of orphanage, abandonment or parents believing a strict Catholic upbringing would be in their 'best interests'. The cruelty of nuns operating sometimes deadly sweat-shop conditions on children supposedly went on for centuries under the direction of church elders. This is a classic example of the privileged few sponsoring an activity where 'business' self-regulates with little to no outside oversight. Humans are a corrupt species, it's government and law that keeps us from the collapse of civilization and the return to barbarism.