Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris | 15th April 2019

Classical Mechanic said:
Examples?
Click to expand...

There are none that I want to publicly pull out I'm afraid; although I disagree with the proposed solution and where the logic has taken them, I do think they're making an important point about some of the discourse around (deliberately) exclusionary spaces, the association of these sites with violence to marginalised groups, and how well meaning eulogies to buildings like these can play in to the the tropes deployed by the far right.

If I see anything designed for a more public audience, I'll share it.
 
2cents said:
Here’s a quote: “White Heritage Sites in flames i'm not mad.”
Click to expand...

NinjaFletch said:
There are none that I want to publicly pull out I'm afraid; although I disagree with the proposed solution and where the logic has taken them, I do think they're making an important point about some of the discourse around (deliberately) exclusionary spaces, the association of these sites with violence to marginalised groups, and how well meaning eulogies to buildings like these can play in to the the tropes deployed by the far right.

If I see anything designed for a more public audience, I'll share it.
Click to expand...

I'm not doubting it. I'd just like to have a read.

I don't agree with their point of view either.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I'm not doubting it. I'd just like to have a read.

I don't agree with their point of view either.
Click to expand...

Nah, I know that. It just seems mean spirited (to me at least) to take things designed for a semi-public audience and airing them to the wider world given they have no means to reply or explain.
 
I've seen some really odd stuff over the last day or so, that just about epitomises where society is at at the mo. Desperate to be annoyed and denounce people for caring about the building. People connecting it to mosques being blown up by white people (was aimed at recent war, not NZ), and the Grenfell Tower, as if it's not entirely different. I even saw someone share something about how the news barely covered Grenfell but Notre Dame was all over it (which is a weird point considering how much Grenfell was on the news). Others bringing up the history of it too as if it's a reason to not care or for it to be destroyed entirely. While the history of it is important, that's in the past. The emotional connection people have made with it, purely because it is an incredibly awe inspiring building and impressive connection to a time past, regardless of what happened surrounding it, is very much in the present.

The only real worthy point I've seen is that they don't need donations to fix it. Even then I've seen many ask why they're not giving it to the homeless. While there's a point there it doesn't take a genius to work out why. Fixing the Notre Dame has a satisfying end and you can see what the money has done. Donating it to the homeless just sees it disappear, at least on the face of it.
 
Some really angry people here in France (not least my French gf) who are livid that Macron’s speech about acting on the Grand Debate just gets pushed, yet within hours of the fire he’s out there asking all French people to help with donations. Also that hundreds of millions suddenly appear from the same rich people Macron eased taxes on, yet there’s never anything to help those in poverty.
 
Loublaze said:
Good post and I mostly agree. I love history, but as someone who grew up Catholic and became an atheist in adulthood I just feel really indifferent about this and I think its important for people to acknowledge the dark history of these structures more.

The construction of religious buildings like this for an institution which still largely refuses to own up to its past, recent and probably even ongoing misdeeds just served to further strengthen the indoctrination of believers with long lasting implications on modern society.

I also think of all the wasted resources that could've gone to technological advances. Its partly because of useless structures like this that we're so far behind in our progress as humans. The opulence and the beauty doesn't negate that for me.
Click to expand...
1) the building didn’t do anything to anybody

2) I don’t see how you can say buildings like that were wasted resources or held us back as humans, when the architecture and engineering that went in to building them are both signs of major scientific advancement from earlier Middle Ages periods.
 
Loublaze said:
Good post and I mostly agree. I love history, but as someone who grew up Catholic and became an atheist in adulthood I just feel really indifferent about this and I think its important for people to acknowledge the dark history of these structures more.

The construction of religious buildings like this for an institution which still largely refuses to own up to its past, recent and probably even ongoing misdeeds just served to further strengthen the indoctrination of believers with long lasting implications on modern society.

I also think of all the wasted resources that could've gone to technological advances. Its partly because of useless structures like this that we're so far behind in our progress as humans. The opulence and the beauty doesn't negate that for me.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's true. Humans aren't robots or insects. We need culture in order to achieve a societal balance to make those technological advances and integrate them. A society solely focused on efficient technological progress with no leisure or culture sounds like a nightmare sci-fi movie not a desirable society to live in.

A non-sports fan could make the same argument you made about Spurs new stadium or Emirates or Old Trafford.

There is a reason that even non-Buddhists were horrified when the Taliban started destroying centuries old Buddhist statues.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I don't see how that's true. Humans aren't robots or insects. We need culture in order to achieve a societal balance to make those technological advances and integrate them. A society solely focused on efficient technological progress with no leisure or culture sounds like a nightmare sci-fi movie not a desirable society to live in.

A non-sports fan could make the same argument you made about Spurs new stadium or Emirates or Old Trafford.

There is a reason that even non-Buddhists were horrified when the Taliban started destroying centuries old Buddhist statues.
Click to expand...
Outrage tends to be subjective to how invested a person is culturally in the building or architecture, one man's history is anothers bricks and mortar. Take the case of the Keriya mosque in Xinjiang which was as old as Notre Dame, it was bulldozed to the ground a few months back by Chinese authorities. I don't blame anyone for not knowing about this though as it most likely wasn't culturally or aesthetically relevant to them.
 
Reminiscent of Fahrenheit 451 - 'burn all the culture'.

RedTiger said:
Outrage tends to be subjective to how invested a person is culturally in the building or architecture, one man's history is anothers bricks and mortar. Take the case of the Keriya mosque in Xinjiang which was as old as Notre Dame, it was bulldozed to the ground a few months back by Chinese authorities. I don't blame anyone for not knowing about this though as it most likely wasn't culturally or aesthetically relevant to them.
Click to expand...

All of its awful. Still can't believe Saddam destroyed the Garden of Eden in order to flush out a rebel group.
 
RedTiger said:
Take the case of the Keriya mosque in Xinjiang which was as old as Notre Dame, it was bulldozed to the ground a few months back by Chinese authorities. I don't blame anyone for not knowing about this though as it most likely wasn't culturally or aesthetically relevant to them.
Click to expand...
That was on the news.
 
RedTiger said:
Outrage tends to be subjective to how invested a person is culturally in the building or architecture, one man's history is anothers bricks and mortar.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also the closer to home it is, the harder it hits. That's just natural but people love to chastise others about caring less when something happens further away.
Some people won't give two shits about impressive architecture, but it resonates with many, and a lot will have visited this place, whereas they won't have visited somewhere in China, or a mosque in Iraq as I've seen someone say.
If people don't really care, that's fine, but it's that they want to make daft comparisons and strange points to make others feel bad about doing so.
 
Loublaze said:
Good post and I mostly agree. I love history, but as someone who grew up Catholic and became an atheist in adulthood I just feel really indifferent about this and I think its important for people to acknowledge the dark history of these structures more.

The construction of religious buildings like this for an institution which still largely refuses to own up to its past, recent and probably even ongoing misdeeds just served to further strengthen the indoctrination of believers with long lasting implications on modern society.

I also think of all the wasted resources that could've gone to technological advances. Its partly because of useless structures like this that we're so far behind in our progress as humans. The opulence and the beauty doesn't negate that for me.
Click to expand...

A very bizarre view, even the atheist in me must disagree but the Engineer in me is too busy laughing his ass off to let him out.

Buildings like Notre Dame challenged what we could do with the materials available to us and the desire to go taller and thinner that was epitomised in the construction of practically all cathedrals culminating in the gothic masterpieces led to our present understanding of structural mechanics and the need for full understanding of both the material and the form to ensure safe and economical structures are built. Without the money available from the church, deluded as the donors may have been and corrupt as the organisations behind them, we would still be sitting in single storey mud huts.

The church was a major backer and supporter of much of mankind's development through to the renaissance and other than the odd episodes like disputing evolution or questioning Galileo's hypotheses has never really stood in the way of technological advancement.
 
Carolina Red said:
1) the building didn’t do anything to anybody

2) I don’t see how you can say buildings like that were wasted resources or held us back as humans, when the architecture and engineering that went in to building them are both signs of major scientific advancement from earlier Middle Ages periods.
Click to expand...

1. It didn't, and I do appreciate the craft and the beauty of it but I can't enjoy it solely for its splendor without thinking about the things i've outlined already. That's just me.

2. I agree, but if the church didn't suppress the science community and engineers were given more resources to build and innovate in areas outside of worship and building of imposing religious edifices we could have made more advancements earlier.
 
Bury Red said:
A very bizarre view, even the atheist in me must disagree but the Engineer in me is too busy laughing his ass off to let him out.

Buildings like Notre Dame challenged what we could do with the materials available to us and the desire to go taller and thinner that was epitomised in the construction of practically all cathedrals culminating in the gothic masterpieces led to our present understanding of structural mechanics and the need for full understanding of both the material and the form to ensure safe and economical structures are built. Without the money available from the church, deluded as the donors may have been and corrupt as the organisations behind them, we would still be sitting in single storey mud huts.

The church was a major backer and supporter of much of mankind's development through to the renaissance and other than the odd episodes like disputing evolution or questioning Galileo's hypotheses has never really stood in the way of technological advancement.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Though it will take a few years to rebuild, sounds like there already is a billion available.
 
That'sHernandez said:
Do you think they’d be donating the same sums of money to the families who lost their homes and loved ones in a fire in a Parisian tower block?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. It’s hardly the same though. It’s sad, but an iconic building like that is always going to be looked on more fondly than a high rise full of the common person.
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
I genuinely don't understand the appeal in architecture and buildings, when we went to la rambla my other half was so enthusiastic and passionate about it, I just couldn't replicate that feeling at all. It's just some buildings, I feel like I'm missing something :lol:
Click to expand...
I'm a Catholic convert. When I go to Loreto and touch the plain, ancient walls of the Holy House, I can feel something - and so can the other people who go there. I actually don't worry if it's really the Holy House or just another old building, because for hundreds of years, millions of believers have placed their hands on those walls in faith and prayer. For a believer, it's very powerful and moving.

We build beautiful churches to praise God. Notre Dame is one of those beautiful churches, but even if the religion means nothing to you, the ingenuity of the builders and the building's physical presence is still awe-inspiring.
 
Penna said:
For a believer, it's very powerful and moving.
Click to expand...

I'm not religious but I'm constantly moved by communal expressions of devotion. I think the modern-day atheist brigade are missing something at the heart of the human experience by dismissing these experiences.
 
Loublaze said:
1. It didn't, and I do appreciate the craft and the beauty of it but I can't enjoy it solely for its splendor without thinking about the things i've outlined already. That's just me.

2. I agree, but if the church didn't suppress the science community and engineers were given more resources to build and innovate in areas outside of worship and building of imposing religious edifices we could have made more advancements earlier.
Click to expand...
1) That’s a needlessly conflicting way of looking at buildings.

2) With whose money?
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
I genuinely don't understand the appeal in architecture and buildings, when we went to la rambla my other half was so enthusiastic and passionate about it, I just couldn't replicate that feeling at all. It's just some buildings, I feel like I'm missing something :lol:
Click to expand...
It’s a monument to the human intellect and to human engineering. Look at what they did with so much less technology than we have.
 
Carolina Red said:
1) That’s a needlessly conflicting way of looking at buildings.

2) With whose money?
Click to expand...

1. Its not necessarily conflicting. Inanimate objects and structures can stir up all kinds of emotions in humans for different reasons, not all pleasant.

2. The feudal lords, the church and the state who of course controlled and had all the wealth could've allocated funds for such projects easily but they were greedy. A huge source of funding for those building came from indulgences, controlling the people with the fear of hell and dipping into their pockets for deliverance. What grand purpose did these cathedrals serve the peasants in medieval times but remind them of their lowly station in life? Did their God require them to give all they had for those lavish buildings? There was no rational economic reason for the building of cathedrals.
 
Loublaze said:
There was no rational economic reason for the building of cathedrals.
Click to expand...
False.

The building of a cathedral like Notre Dame de Paris served as a source of lucrative work for literally generations of stonemasons, carpenters, artists, glass makers, engineers, laborers, quarrymen, plasterers, etc.

If you’ve got access to JSTOR, I highly suggest you read this article, and others on the subject.

The Economic Legacy of Gothic Cathedral Building: France and England Compared
Virginia Lee Owen
Journal of Cultural Economics
Vol. 13, No. 1 (June, 1989), pp. 89-100
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41810419?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 
Carolina Red said:
False.

The building of a cathedral like Notre Dame de Paris served as a source of lucrative work for literally generations of stonemasons, carpenters, artists, glass makers, engineers, laborers, quarrymen, plasterers, etc.

If you’ve got access to JSTOR, I highly suggest you read this article, and others on the subject.

The Economic Legacy of Gothic Cathedral Building: France and England Compared
Virginia Lee Owen
Journal of Cultural Economics
Vol. 13, No. 1 (June, 1989), pp. 89-100
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41810419?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Click to expand...

Do you think that was part of the original motivation to erect these structures or was it just a result of unscheduled/unplanned time frames for completion, changing of design, continual additions and shortages of funds that delayed work? It took 182 years to 'complete' the Notre Dame from the time work began in 1163, and construction work wasn't continuous during that time. Hagia sophia in Instanbul took only 5 years.
 
Loublaze said:
Do you think that was part of the original motivation to erect these structures or was it just a result of unscheduled/unplanned time frames for completion, changing of design, continual additions and shortages of funds that delayed work? It took 182 years to 'complete' the Notre Dame from the time work began in 1163, and construction work wasn't continuous during that time. Hagia sophia in Instanbul took only 5 years.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t really matter. There was clear economic interest in becoming a cathedral city. Read up on it.
 
Welles' famous words about Chartres seem appropriate here:
Orson Welles said:
You know it might be just this one anonymous glory of all things, this rich stone forest, this epic chant, this gaiety, this grand choiring shout of affirmation, which we choose when all our cities are dust, to stand intact, to mark where we have been, to testify to what we had it in us to accomplish.
Click to expand...
 
Carolina Red said:
It doesn’t really matter. There was clear economic interest in becoming a cathedral city. Read up on it.
Click to expand...

One thing that always amazes me is how people will disregard evidence and facts when it conflicts with their world view.

In other words CR, I wouldn't hold your breath.
 
Kinsella said:
One thing that always amazes me is how people will disregard evidence and facts when it conflicts with their world view.

In other words CR, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Click to expand...


Im assuming you're refering to me, since the post you quoted was a response to one of mine. So im curious, what facts and evidence have I disregarded? I don't disregard anything by default or automatically without dissection.
 
Last edited:
Even though the motivation behind the donated money doesnt change it's value, it's easy to see that altruism isnt the main one. Obviously billionaires are lining up to add their name to the storied history of the world's most famous church.

I mean, it doesnt matter since it's still money. Just human nature is a silly thing. I do however think it's good that they put effort in restoring it though. Even, as some so atheist I carry a fire exstinguisher inside a church in case I catch on fire, the cultural and historical significance is not lost on me. And without it, where would all the Asian tourists go.
 
Penna said:
I'm a Catholic convert. When I go to Loreto and touch the plain, ancient walls of the Holy House, I can feel something - and so can the other people who go there. I actually don't worry if it's really the Holy House or just another old building, because for hundreds of years, millions of believers have placed their hands on those walls in faith and prayer. For a believer, it's very powerful and moving.

We build beautiful churches to praise God. Notre Dame is one of those beautiful churches, but even if the religion means nothing to you, the ingenuity of the builders and the building's physical presence is still awe-inspiring.
Click to expand...

Carolina Red said:
It’s a monument to the human intellect and to human engineering. Look at what they did with so much less technology than we have.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate it from an engineering point if view certainly, but as for beauty, not so much for me. Wish I did but I just don't see it.
 
VeevaVee said:
I've seen some really odd stuff over the last day or so, that just about epitomises where society is at at the mo. Desperate to be annoyed and denounce people for caring about the building. People connecting it to mosques being blown up by white people (was aimed at recent war, not NZ), and the Grenfell Tower, as if it's not entirely different. I even saw someone share something about how the news barely covered Grenfell but Notre Dame was all over it (which is a weird point considering how much Grenfell was on the news). Others bringing up the history of it too as if it's a reason to not care or for it to be destroyed entirely. While the history of it is important, that's in the past. The emotional connection people have made with it, purely because it is an incredibly awe inspiring building and impressive connection to a time past, regardless of what happened surrounding it, is very much in the present.

The only real worthy point I've seen is that they don't need donations to fix it. Even then I've seen many ask why they're not giving it to the homeless. While there's a point there it doesn't take a genius to work out why. Fixing the Notre Dame has a satisfying end and you can see what the money has done. Donating it to the homeless just sees it disappear, at least on the face of it.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to care about it but the overreaction towards this and complete lack of coverage towards more historical buildings is just an indication of the naive and selfish outlook western media/societies have.

Also the fact that billionaires rushed to give I dont know how much money to France but not even 1/8th of the amount would go towards a historic nation that cant afford a rebuild (Yemen or Syria) speaks volumes.

I knew this would happen. As soon as the thing caught fire I was sad but told my friend just watch how western media spins this as some sort of mass murder.
 
VeevaVee said:
Agreed. Also the closer to home it is, the harder it hits. That's just natural but people love to chastise others about caring less when something happens further away.
Some people won't give two shits about impressive architecture, but it resonates with many, and a lot will have visited this place, whereas they won't have visited somewhere in China, or a mosque in Iraq as I've seen someone say.
If people don't really care, that's fine, but it's that they want to make daft comparisons and strange points to make others feel bad about doing so.
Click to expand...

It's not daft comparisons its facts that youd be willing to ignore. If you think the donations towards notredam is justified then you are in my books either ignorant, naive or selfish.

One French guy described it as their 9/11 on TV.
 
shamans said:
It's not daft comparisons its facts that youd be willing to ignore. If you think the donations towards notredam is justified then you are in my books either ignorant, naive or selfish.

One French guy described it as their 9/11 on TV.
Click to expand...

If you've seen the stuff being shared then you'll realise it is daft. If you don't think so then I have no words.

I also said the complete opposite of it being justified in the other post you quoted. I simply said I understand why it's happening. Come on, comprehension before trying to call me out.

Not sure what the last bit has to do with what I said either, other than it's another stupid comparison.
 
shamans said:
It's one thing to care about it but the overreaction towards this and complete lack of coverage towards more historical buildings is just an indication of the naive and selfish outlook western media/societies have.

Also the fact that billionaires rushed to give I dont know how much money to France but not even 1/8th of the amount would go towards a historic nation that cant afford a rebuild (Yemen or Syria) speaks volumes.

I knew this would happen. As soon as the thing caught fire I was sad but told my friend just watch how western media spins this as some sort of mass murder.
Click to expand...

Rich French people donating money towards the restoration of a French landmark is hardly shocking news. You may as well be expressing surprise and disappointment at the news that water is wet.

The fact that they have also means that the money won't come out of state coffers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.