How absurd, and how trivial as well. Obviously the real conspiracy behind this fire goes back millennia, and affects the very soul of our culture. Dan Brown will be telling us all about it, in a year or two.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Notre-Dame de Paris - cathedral on fire!
- Thread starter Oystein
- Start date
How absurd, and how trivial as well. Obviously the real conspiracy behind this fire goes back millennia, and affects the very soul of our culture. Dan Brown will be telling us all about it, in a year or two.
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
But was there any damage to the football stadium? Why didn't Touchdown Jesus put out the fire?
In most Western cultures, the value in a historic building or monument lies primarily in its authenticity. A replica, no matter how faithfull, isn't the "real thing" and therefore a priori of lesser value.
There are, however, other aspects of cultural significance which have to be accounted for including historical value/associations, scientific values, aesthetic considerations, and social importance.
The assessment of these, and identification of ways forward, is set out in a series of charters by groups such as ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Other Sites) as well as national policy frameworks. It is a well understood process in heritage management circles.
By way of example, the recent destruction of Macintosh's GSA - one of Scotland's most import modern buildings, and of truly international value - has led to a debate about whether reconstruction would be appropriate. I argue, as do others, that it is not his fabric but his design aesthetic which is principal importance and hence substantial reconstruction is entirely appropriate.
In the case of Notre Dame de Paris, we now know that the larger part of the historic fabric - including, if photographs are to be believed, much of the upper stone vaulting - has survived the roof fire. We are therefore talking about a (substantial) repair rather than a rebuilding.
How that is implemented remains to be seen. There is a general presumption in favour of accurate reinstatement using traditional techniques, although SPAB and other groups influenced by Ruskin and Morris tend to whitter on about "honest repair" and nod in the direction of modern materials. You will rightly guess that I am not a fan of that latter approach.
In considering these issues, set aside considerations over WW2 reconstruction. Those were different times, with different pressures. Conservation practice and philosophy has moved on significantly.
If anyone is particular interested then take a look at the Illustrated Burra Charter, by ICOMOS Australia, as it will serve as a general introduction. If you can get a look at the original version of BS7913 that is also interesting, although the current update is less compelling as it trimmed out much of the detail.
There are, however, other aspects of cultural significance which have to be accounted for including historical value/associations, scientific values, aesthetic considerations, and social importance.
The assessment of these, and identification of ways forward, is set out in a series of charters by groups such as ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Other Sites) as well as national policy frameworks. It is a well understood process in heritage management circles.
By way of example, the recent destruction of Macintosh's GSA - one of Scotland's most import modern buildings, and of truly international value - has led to a debate about whether reconstruction would be appropriate. I argue, as do others, that it is not his fabric but his design aesthetic which is principal importance and hence substantial reconstruction is entirely appropriate.
In the case of Notre Dame de Paris, we now know that the larger part of the historic fabric - including, if photographs are to be believed, much of the upper stone vaulting - has survived the roof fire. We are therefore talking about a (substantial) repair rather than a rebuilding.
How that is implemented remains to be seen. There is a general presumption in favour of accurate reinstatement using traditional techniques, although SPAB and other groups influenced by Ruskin and Morris tend to whitter on about "honest repair" and nod in the direction of modern materials. You will rightly guess that I am not a fan of that latter approach.
In considering these issues, set aside considerations over WW2 reconstruction. Those were different times, with different pressures. Conservation practice and philosophy has moved on significantly.
If anyone is particular interested then take a look at the Illustrated Burra Charter, by ICOMOS Australia, as it will serve as a general introduction. If you can get a look at the original version of BS7913 that is also interesting, although the current update is less compelling as it trimmed out much of the detail.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Mainstream media article with a clickbait headline. Once again, the media is not our friend.
Belz...
Fiend God
Can someone explain why it's not a good article for us non-architects?
As an aside, I was giving evidence at a public inquiry last year (well, two actually...but that's another story) and in both cases the "Ship of Theseus" issue arose. Here it is sometimes referred to as "George Washington's Axe" or, for those Brits of a certain age, "Trigger's Broom". It's a fair point, and one oft discussed in heritage circles. At what point does the artefect being repaired actually cease to be the original article? This is one of the reasons there is a presumption of minimal intervention.
There is a good quotye from Sir Bernard Fielding, the great engineer responsible for York Minster repairs (amonst other things), to the effect that all buildings fall down eventually - all we are doing is prolonging their life as sympathetically as possible, for as long as practicable.
There is a good quotye from Sir Bernard Fielding, the great engineer responsible for York Minster repairs (amonst other things), to the effect that all buildings fall down eventually - all we are doing is prolonging their life as sympathetically as possible, for as long as practicable.
Last edited:
Over simplification of the development of vaulting, which is quite complex and occurs across an extended period, together with a failure to understand the extent to which it may (or may not) have minimise damage to the fabric during collapse of the roof structure. Barges into issues around potential rebuilding techniques which cut right across well-established good practice for dealing with World Heritage Sites and similar protected structures.
At the risk of an appeal to authority, trust me - I'm trained in this specific area.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,829
I don't know how it started, but all I can think is, what was the reaction of the person who started/discovered it.
How do you say "Oh ******" in French?
Belz...
Fiend God
It's not that I don't trust you. I just like to have more detailed explanations from people (in this case you) know what they're talking about.
Belz...
Fiend God
Depends what the asterisked word is.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What if the worker responsible neither knows nor cares?
Lads, lads, lads.
Fires happen on sites for all sorts of reasons. Generally speaking electrics and hot works are most common, at least in my experience, but there can also be issues around discarded cigarettes or the like. We may never find out, given the level of damage.
Fires happen on sites for all sorts of reasons. Generally speaking electrics and hot works are most common, at least in my experience, but there can also be issues around discarded cigarettes or the like. We may never find out, given the level of damage.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Well, to be fair, it crossed my mind too. Last time my sister was in Paris a bunch of Muslim guys did shoot up the place.
Maybe if we can choose which human lives to lose, as Belz... would prefer, instead of Notre Dame we can choose a few Islamic terrorists.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I can't lie here, but that is a cool picture. Where are Iron Maiden or Spinal Tap when you need an impromptu metal concert with a cool backdrop?
How about we sell off all those collective works of art and culture and use the proceeds to save some lives. I heard mosquito nets in Africa are a pretty good return on investment for $ for lives, coming in at around $5000/life, IIRC.
I think you have a good point about deciding how others should spend their lives, but the idea that a building isn't worth a human life is hard for me to square with the fact that we really are in a situation where money can be spent to save lives, and we are faced with decisions about how we do or do not spend it.
Belz...
Fiend God
Why do people keep assuming that I'd like to pick someone to die? Are you just having a bit of fun with me? Because what I said is that I'd prefer one outcome over the other. That's it.
angrysoba
Philosophile
You're saying you would prefer that people had died instead of the building burning down. I'm saying, sure if we can choose those people and they happened to be Islamic terrorists. For example, say you have some Islamic terrorists on their way to burning down the cathedral, we could make the choice in such a situation to kill them before they burn down the building. I would take that choice.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
You mean you don't want to select your victims, you'd prefer them to be random? I applaud your bold choice to not choose, because it combines the elements of chaotic uncertainty with the bloodlust and human sacrifice. If it must be done-- and it seems clear you feel it must be done-- then let it be done with gusto! Embrace the night! Blood for the buildings! Sacrifice to architecture! I'll join you, and together we'll save the cathedrals until we're apse-deep in blood!!!
Yes, we're just having fun with you.
I've read that one of the firefighter's priorities has been to save the belfries so as to avoid their collapse (with the bells) and the collapse of the towers which could have destroyed the whole structure, so they acted to stop the fire of the roof before it reached the belfries. It seems that it was too late for the spire and the main roof anyway.
Last edited: