"There is an historical account from the 15th century that says that in 1378, a Sufi Muslim leader named Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr destroyed the nose out of anger when he saw people practicing idolatry to the sphinx. Fortunately, that vandal got what he deserved and was hanged for his crime."
Drawing from 1755, before Napoleon was born. Great Sphinx of Giza - Wikipedia
Drawing from 1755, before Napoleon was born. Great Sphinx of Giza - Wikipedia
Last edited:
My sisters and I travelled with an uncle and grandmom from Prague to Dresden in 1967, thence on to Berlin. Somewhere I have Kodachromes of the trip. We (wifey and me) were back two years ago. Dresden was a mess two decades after the war, today it is a beautiful 17th C city.
I am certain that there will be a scramble to build a skeleton of some kind within the nave -- these buildings were very finely tuned -- even the finals on the butteresses had a specific purpose in damping vibration. The buttresses press upon the walls of the nave and with so much roof material removed, one wonders whether a severe windstorm wouldn't bring the entire structure down.
Visit Cathedrale St. Pierre de Beauvais --
Visit Cathedrale St. Pierre de Beauvais --
Good point.
And what about all the water from fire brigades. Steal & iron were used for stone reinforcement in the original construction of ghotic cathedrals! One can worry about rust and walls integrity in the future and how this steal has resisted to the fire heat when close to the roof...then to the cooling of the water.
Roof support structure is imho less important worrying vs stone structure damages due to fire + water. There will be certainly a time race between investigations, evaluations and the need of a temporary structure to proof from rain, snow, wind, drones.
And what about all the water from fire brigades. Steal & iron were used for stone reinforcement in the original construction of ghotic cathedrals! One can worry about rust and walls integrity in the future and how this steal has resisted to the fire heat when close to the roof...then to the cooling of the water.
Roof support structure is imho less important worrying vs stone structure damages due to fire + water. There will be certainly a time race between investigations, evaluations and the need of a temporary structure to proof from rain, snow, wind, drones.
Nicely done, sir - and the gauntlet is thrown for the next pun.
pano, does a truncated pyramid have no point, or 4?
and indeed not just the Notre Dame de Paris, but many others - Reims comes to mind, also severely damaged by fire in WW1, is not alone in the list of cathedrals on France still standing.
List of cathedrals in France - Wikipedia
None of which answers the questions of - in what form should this rebuild take, how long, will be the final cost? I’m thinking at least 10yrs, and a billion Euros, or what the prevailing currency might be.
Last edited:
How about an audio perspective - Notre Dame can be rebuilt, but its unique sound may be gone forever - Los Angeles Times
Well, if you call for an international competition for a new spire, you can be sure it will NOT be a replica! The only question will be: what style the replacement will be.
And all those famous international design bureaus will be hell-bend on something spectacular, one way or another.
Jan
Last edited:
You may be right, if so we have to hope it will not ruin the aesthetic.
French president as all the countries leaders like to mark their reign with huge construction to enter in the Hystory, often because they did not so much for their own people, you can be sure the build will always be huger than their own talent.
And it's not always for the good they mix modern and vintage. I think the debate will be hard,
Montparnasse tower is for example an ugly tower than waste the Paris skyline.
Their Big Bibiothec made by an ancient president is so so...
Bastille area in Paris with the new Opera is ugly as well...
This is ugly not because it's modern (many towers in the world are beautifull), it's ugly just because the drawings were chosed by people without good tastes.
And it's not because one clame Art is an alive thing you can do always such mistakes.
But everyone has his own tastes, so it's hard to choose. I don't like so much The Louvre Pyramid having seen it. I don't like Koons for instance but a modern thing like the aluminium buble in the center of Chicago would have been somethingpositivly amasing (but again this Museum is not for modern Art, there are some other in Paris for modern Art)
Imagine just something ugly which could waste for example the Royal Green House in Belgium ? Mixing things have sometimes no sense at all.
The bad thing of it if everyone has an emotional talk (me the first) because it has just happen. The good thing is this sad event seems to moves closer the people from each other.
Often strangers may have more good tastes. Americans gave a lot for the conservation of Art french Heritage for instance and always conserved things as at Versailles, Reims Cathedral and so on.
I just hope they will choose the Notre Dame project with care and not in the emotion. I heard there is always a project of a huge big glass building in Paris which seems to be polemic as well. Architecture is a complex thing as the building is not just for its own but modify all what is around, even when not seen directly by eyes.
French president as all the countries leaders like to mark their reign with huge construction to enter in the Hystory, often because they did not so much for their own people, you can be sure the build will always be huger than their own talent.
And it's not always for the good they mix modern and vintage. I think the debate will be hard,
Montparnasse tower is for example an ugly tower than waste the Paris skyline.
Their Big Bibiothec made by an ancient president is so so...
Bastille area in Paris with the new Opera is ugly as well...
This is ugly not because it's modern (many towers in the world are beautifull), it's ugly just because the drawings were chosed by people without good tastes.
And it's not because one clame Art is an alive thing you can do always such mistakes.
But everyone has his own tastes, so it's hard to choose. I don't like so much The Louvre Pyramid having seen it. I don't like Koons for instance but a modern thing like the aluminium buble in the center of Chicago would have been somethingpositivly amasing (but again this Museum is not for modern Art, there are some other in Paris for modern Art)
Imagine just something ugly which could waste for example the Royal Green House in Belgium ? Mixing things have sometimes no sense at all.
The bad thing of it if everyone has an emotional talk (me the first) because it has just happen. The good thing is this sad event seems to moves closer the people from each other.
Often strangers may have more good tastes. Americans gave a lot for the conservation of Art french Heritage for instance and always conserved things as at Versailles, Reims Cathedral and so on.
I just hope they will choose the Notre Dame project with care and not in the emotion. I heard there is always a project of a huge big glass building in Paris which seems to be polemic as well. Architecture is a complex thing as the building is not just for its own but modify all what is around, even when not seen directly by eyes.
Last edited:
I agree that Tour Montparnasse is not pretty. It neither fits in nor enhances the skyline. The Opera Bastille is not pretty either (I worked there briefly). Too cold and it doesn't fit it with its surroundings. At the time of construction of the new opera, a friend and architect told me that large modern projects are chosen by scale model. What looks good on a model? Cool colors, bold straight lines, not too much fine detail. All the things that make a real building seem cold and isolated.
Hopefully these days we have better visualization techniques and will be able to better choose something that will fit in.
If you look at the recent drone footage of Notre Dame, what is mostly missing is the roof and the spire. The roof should not be difficult to blend in visually. The spire was 19th century decoration. No reason it can't be replaced with 21st century decoration.
Hopefully these days we have better visualization techniques and will be able to better choose something that will fit in.
If you look at the recent drone footage of Notre Dame, what is mostly missing is the roof and the spire. The roof should not be difficult to blend in visually. The spire was 19th century decoration. No reason it can't be replaced with 21st century decoration.
Analog_sa,
I agree.
It seems they didn't learn from what happened 4 years ago : Fire engulfs Basilique Saint Donatien in Nantes | The Independent
@Pano : 19th century spire is not really 19th aesthetic; it was more an interpretaion of what Gothic was. And indeed despite some choices are conterversal, it's very near while the technic was modern inside (not made of stones). But well you're right,we can make everything today, why not gargoyles with water falls from their mouth ? Could be prevent from futur fires? Or mini Liberty statues instead saints (well Viollet Le Duc already putted his face on a statue at the base of the spire looking at it (staues were removed for conservatory works before the fire I have read.). Yes we can always inovate, but only if aethetic is good and proof aging which indeed nobody knows as we live less than a century. But you can be sure when ugly you can see it immediately !
I like what they did for the Tahaj Mahal : restored with identical aesthetic with a mix of ancient and modern technic: indians made a beautifull job here.
Improvment for improvment is a disease of today, why change a beautifull thing when it's already beautifull ? Would you like to botox Mona Lisa painting ? Nah.... Would you improve something which is more dynamic as a museum, garden, city (Paris had massive changes in th e19th century by Hausmann engineer for the best : all big avenues you can see in Paris is from this man), answer is Big YES!
I agree.
It seems they didn't learn from what happened 4 years ago : Fire engulfs Basilique Saint Donatien in Nantes | The Independent
@Pano : 19th century spire is not really 19th aesthetic; it was more an interpretaion of what Gothic was. And indeed despite some choices are conterversal, it's very near while the technic was modern inside (not made of stones). But well you're right,we can make everything today, why not gargoyles with water falls from their mouth ? Could be prevent from futur fires? Or mini Liberty statues instead saints (well Viollet Le Duc already putted his face on a statue at the base of the spire looking at it (staues were removed for conservatory works before the fire I have read.). Yes we can always inovate, but only if aethetic is good and proof aging which indeed nobody knows as we live less than a century. But you can be sure when ugly you can see it immediately !
I like what they did for the Tahaj Mahal : restored with identical aesthetic with a mix of ancient and modern technic: indians made a beautifull job here.
Improvment for improvment is a disease of today, why change a beautifull thing when it's already beautifull ? Would you like to botox Mona Lisa painting ? Nah.... Would you improve something which is more dynamic as a museum, garden, city (Paris had massive changes in th e19th century by Hausmann engineer for the best : all big avenues you can see in Paris is from this man), answer is Big YES!
Last edited:
Although I admire his pointed technical ability, I have never cared for the work of Jeff Koons. Too kitsch, too corporate and inevitably costing rather pointless amounts of money. Tricky times we live in now. We cannot go back and cannot seem to collectively point ourselves to move sharply forward. It may mean a long wait to find an individual artist/architect/designer who can come up with something so radically shocking, that it becomes immediately embraced and universally accepted by everyone. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Point is, it might even happen! Let's hope it is not a pointless waste of time, money or talent, although I am sure political points will be made out this self-confessed and particularly pointless pontification.
Another fine day here. ToS
Another fine day here. ToS
; audio reproduction or cookcing is also art according my own valors...
Meanwhile, another cathedral, happily located in a more vigilant location
Man caught with 2 gas cans entering St. Patrick'''s Cathedral in NYC, police say | Fox News
Man caught with 2 gas cans entering St. Patrick'''s Cathedral in NYC, police say | Fox News
Last edited: