Notre Dame vs. Modern Architects
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Have you ever done something that at the time seemed like a good idea but then after the fact, you realized, not so much? Once you actually follow through with the thing that was tempting you and you get the full perspective of what the effects of that decision were, wisdom and experience rush to the scene to inform you that it was, after all, a bad idea.
This is how we learn from experience so that the next time a similar strand of logic proposes itself to us we can say, nah, that was a bad decision then which is why it will be a bad decision this time.
So, for example, the last time you went out on a drinking bender, you woke up the next morning with an awful hangover and some embarrassing experiences and so now you’re making all kinds of resolutions never to do that again because in this moment, you are of sober mind and the wisdom of experience is reinforcing this conclusion.
But, a few weeks go by, and the occasion to go and party presents itself again and there’s this little nudge saying, this time it will be different. This time it will be fun and you’ll be smarter about it, you’ll moderate yourself more.
And it’s in moments like this that you can stay true to the logical conclusions you made when your emotions weren’t rising up against you tempting you to betray your own commitments or you can discard the wisdom of your past experiences and break faith with what you knew to be true.
And I think there’s a similar pattern that persists in our culture as well and one of the easiest ways to see it for what it is, is by looking at fashions and trends we thought were heartbreakingly cool 15 or 20 years ago. They were new and novel and we hadn’t seen or heard anything like them before and we were mesmerized by them.
But with the passage of time and experience, wisdom sets in and we’re able to look back and see how vapid and empty those things were. And this pattern has been grown in prominence over the last 100 years. That’s not to say that trends and fashions didn’t always influence our culture, but there have been places and times when they took a backseat to more objective criteria - like beauty.
And so when we look back at what we were infatuated with 15 years ago, we feel a similar kind of pain of regret that we do after we’ve made a bad decision and wisdom sets in and I think it’s important to ask ourselves what that should teach us.
I think it should teach us a few things. The first is that our culture’s expressions of popular art, design, and fashion are predicated on arbitrarily defined criteria. They aren’t grounded in anything objective. Their appeal relies exclusively on the fact that they are new and different - in other words - novelty.
And novelty is not objective, and it isn’t good and that’s why it has no lasting quality. We take an interest in it because it’s a strange spectacle that is foreign to us and then once the novelty wears off, we lose interest.
And tragically, our culture has entirely bought into this as a means to producing and selling art to us. This philosophy dominates popular music, it dominates architecture, it dominates graphic design, and it dominates fine art. And sadly, those of us who hunger for objective beauty in the world, have to remain famished because the powers that be aren’t going to give it to us.
So what can we learn from this with respect to the Notre Dame fire and potential reconstruction? Notre Dame, and other buildings like it, are left over from an age that believed something fundamentally different about art and design. It believed that beauty is objective and timeless and so they sought to produce design that was commensurate with that attitude. And that’s why Notre Dame has had appeal to people of every generation and culture. It transcends fashion and trend in a way that novelty cannot.
The philosophy and culture that gave us buildings like Notre Dame were able to do so because the “times” it was built in took a backseat to the pursuit of objective beauty and the results speak for themselves. People from all walks of life and from every generation have travelled from around the world to visit sites like Notre Dame.
Nobody is designing buildings like that anymore. All we get are glass and steal monstrosities that pollute our field of vision and go out of style within decades at great cost to either consumers or taxpayers.
And now with calls for a design competition to rebuild the spire and roof of Notre Dame, the earliest proposals are already calling for absurd modern sensibilities that will do nothing more than desecrate a once heroic manifestation of beauty.
Nobody will go out of their way to visit Notre Dame if they allow this to happen except to stare dumbfounded at what happens when you let people who worship the current date simply because it is the current date come near something that is incomprehensible to them because it transcends time altogether.
Oh my please please dont let it be a modern design
I don't know how it could be a modern design. The roof burnt, and the 19th century spire fell. That's basically all that happened. The entirety of the stone structure remains, including the famous Western facade, as well as the transept that includes the gorgeous rose windows. Likewise, the interior survived -- the stone columns, nearly all of the windows, the high altar, etc. There is really no way for it to be "rebuilt," because most of it -- thank God! -- survived. There are significant repairs, but that's it, not a fundamental redesign.
Google image search "parasitic architecture".
Oh, I'm sure it will.
I'll never forget visiting Versailles and as we walked through these grand baroque rooms, there was a contemporary artist display scattered throughout. The artist built huge statues of items out of old cd discs. I'll never forget standing in Louis XIV's bedroom and I think it was a sculpture of a huge platform shoe a la Elton John in his heyday, bedecking the bedroom. All I could think of was how insulting it was to me, a visitor to Versailles, who is willing to pay to see this old, important, historic estate and then to force me to witness some artist's display of such a clashing, jarring exhibit that literally polluted my experience of the historic site. And honestly if the artist's work had been somewhere else more appropriate, I might of thought if it as fun and clever, but it was so out of place and actually so disrespectful to both the legacy of Versailles and to any visitor there, I found it appalling.
i find that appropriate to versailles considering all the rich assholes who lived there
It was the only way of getting dreadful "art"in front of reluctant viewers.
I'm thankful to have missed that spectacle! I visited in 1990, when it was preserved in situ (or more accurately, made to appear to be in situ).
@@justjacqueline2004 You have a point there: since present day "art" is unswallowable (been so since at least the 1920´s, but you´re a Nazi if you dare mention the phrase "entartete Kunst"), let´s put today´s trash into glorious buildings sure to attract big numbers of people!
It's all about the contrast. Versailles was built for men who considered themselves chosen by god to rule. They invested millions, maybe billions to truly emphasize their divine protection in the form of beautiful rooms, frescos and classical statues. To put a massive heap of shit resembling Elton John is just a creative way to show how far we've fallen in terms of decent looking art.
RECONSTRUCT Notre Dame ACCORDING TO ITS TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC GOTHIC DESIGN!
Perhaps next time you pray you can ask God to reveal to you where the caps-lock key is located or do you just like to appear that you are shouting?
YES
@@blindtruth4614 Nope... He dictates what I type... It's a freewheeling kind of DICTATE just as Noah did with the Ark, and Moses did with the Pharaoh and the People of Israel... They did as they were TOLD, and SAY WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY, emphasis as INTENDED!
Do you get the reason for the caps lock now? EMPHASIS!
Hehehehehehehe....
@@thevagabondsgambit OK THEN ASK YOUR GOD NEXT TIME YOU PRAY TO TELL YOU WHERE THE CAPS LOCK IS :D Did I emphasise it enough that time, the power should be in your words not in how loud you shout them.
@@blindtruth4614 He knows, hypocrite who thinks he can DICTATE TO GOD! Such a dumbass!
Hey, IMBECILE, when are you going to go back to your wife and children? GO, and do as you are told by my Big Boss! Don't even hesitate or you'll get your JUST DUE, you IRRESPONSIBLE and IRREVERENT father!
HOah! DO AS YOU ARE TOLD, stubborn mule! Deus Vult!
Joseph theVagabond,
Greetings from this Filipino Catholic who TYPES AS HE IS CALLED TO TYPE!
Comparing Gothic style architecture with modernist architecture is like comparing the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg, Russia with Soviet Era tenements. One is gorgeous and timeless while the other is hideous, forgettable, and depressing. This is what happens when you put utility before beauty.
Amen! Boy, you said it.
The really creepy, though, is that that soul-crushing is Intentionally looked for by the tyrants that push modernity in every aspect of our culture.
Maybe it seems that "some of us seem dead set on repeating the same mistakes over and over again", but in fact reconstructing beautiful churches in hideous modern style is not a mistake made again.
It is a deliberate act of destruction. It is desecration, and the people who do it know it.
That's true. It's part of an extremist assault on the judeo christian history and cultural foundation of the west. There is a group of people who are bent on erasing history and culture because they view it as evil and they are doing it by changing language, changing people and removing monuments.
@@yucannthahvitt251 not judeo Christian just Christian
Notre Dame was not built to be a tourist attraction or a French National Monument. It was built by Catholics for one purpose only: to house the blessed sacrament. All the beauty of that church is worthless compared to the Eucharist in the tabernacle. I hope the architects in charge of repairs will keep this in mind.
Shouldn't we desire a more beautiful and timeless design PRECISELY because it will house God Himself? The beauty and grandeur of the Church does not diminish God's glory but emphasizes it. People build castles for Kings, why not a majestic Church for the King of kings?
@@balintuna exactly, reread the comment
@@balintuna That is what I'm saying.
Unlikely.
The surname of the owner of the company entrusted with the maintenance work before this arson attack is Eskenazi. I won´t be surprised to learn that the rebuilding project is awarded to a Cohen or a Lewin or a Goldberg or a Mizrahi. So much for your phrase "I hope the architects in charge of repairs will keep this (the fact that the Cathedral´s purpose is "to house the blessed sacrament") in mind".
If Notre Dame gets a glass roof I'd sacrifice myself for the greater good and break it
count me in
@@Arominit And, the genius who proposed turning the cathedral into a giant hothouse will obviously not set foot in the martyr building in summer (or ever, for that matter). WHO THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE?
Don't go without me
If they agree on a shitty design, then people should protest
I am not going to jump through a glass roof but know that I will be there heavily nodding to approve.
When any work of art is restored it is never changed. Norte Dame is a work of historical art.
I'm an Atheist and I really hope that they won't turn Notre Dame into some sort of contemporary abomination. I donated for the rebuilding and I don't want to regret it.
@@gideonroos1188 Completely agreed! I specialize in photographing religious buildings and one of my avid followers is an avowed atheist. When people ask why he follows a religious project, he always says, "I don't have to believe in a religion to appreciate their artwork! If something is beautiful, it is beautiful, and when people put love into their art, it's going to show and I can admire that." He feels -- and I agree -- that anyone who can't appreciate gorgeous art and architecture unless they agree with the people who created it is missing out on some of the most amazing things in the world.
Thanks.
"Novelty cannot sustain our affections." Wow! You nailed it.
Agreed, powerful line.
If nobody loves Modern architectures, who builds them?
*The Modern Bourgoisie*
The burning and reconstruction of the Notre Dame feels like a perfect metaphor for spirituality in Europe. For centuries, Catholicism and Christianity in general have been an enormous part of European culture. However, recently Europeans have abandoned their faith, and burned it to the ground for its "hatred" and "bigotry". To replace what was lost, they created new false religions and modern recreations of Christianity, and now instead of a timeless religion that relies on objectivity, they're left with a mess that will age in a couple of years.
I wouldn't be surprised if God was trying to make a statement with this whole thing.
I read that the cross and the altar survived, and that made me think that that was a statement from God, with the building representing the Church and the altar representing Christ.
Considering that the spire fell through onto the ugly modernist altar, with the traditional high altar rising above the rubble from the back with the cross shining through the smoke, I wouldn’t be surprised 😉
It's not that we "hate" christianity. Lots of people are just fed up with the people in charge of the religious institutions ascociated with christianity. People mostly stick to their traditions even if they loose their faith.
Andrew Gould should submit a design! He is an orthodox Christian who designs for orthodox churches. His design would at least be closer to the original.
*Andrew Gould on traditional and modernist architecture:*
ruclips.net/video/1xOOtRJBNp0/видео.html
No thanks. Notre-Dame doesn't need non-Catholic foreigners. It's a French Catholic cathedral built by French Catholics. And we have excellent traditional architects here.
@@terioze9 I'm happy to hear that you have such wonderful architects in France. Just as an aside: you could have just written the latter part of your comment; no need to make unloving and unnecessary comments about others who may have different traditions, but nonetheless, believe in the one True God and His Messiah.
@@sterlingwalters I'm sorry if I'm fed up with the despicable arrogance of so many people (especially US Americans) on RUclips or Twitter when it comes to Notre-Dame
@@terioze9I am sorry. I wasn't aware I was being arrogant. I simply was offering a thoughtful suggestion based upon my limited knowledge architects doing traditional designs. I meant no offense. Pardonne-moi.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps there is no talent and ability or imagination in todays architects to replicate the beauty of the past.
Except that there IS. There are amazing restoration experts who know how to do exactly what should be done for Notre Dame. There are architects who LONG for projects exactly like this, as it's why they got into architecture in the first place.
I get what you're saying -- after all, we certainly don't see architects building like this today. But just as most "famous artists" in the world today are FAR from being remotely the best out there (or even really any good), the same can be said of architects. The good ones are out there, they're just harder to find because for some reason new buildings have to be built without any soul or interest whatsoever.
This is true for many architects, but only because any real passion and creative ability has been drilled out of them and replaced with the contemporary minimalist dogma that is taught like a religion in almost every single architecture school around the world. Most hardly, if ever, focus on classical techniques and styles except as a sort of history lesson or sketching assignment. Everything about design is taught through the lens of Modernist dogma. Contemporary architecture elites rule the schools and the curriculum, they teach no other way.
@@Moosemoose1 I agree mostly but I still think it's because they have no talent and it's labor intensive and they haven't got people with technical skills to recreate the architecture of the past.
@@lmarti204 no, they already tolled you, but believe whatever you want, surely you know more
@@ignacioclerici5341 Yep!.... and no one will convince me otherwise.
9:41 What is that? Do people want to turn the cathedral into a greenhouse?
Perhaps they wish to start more fires. A glass roof like that surely is a fire hazard.
@@HolyKhaaaaan I doubt France will pick that design, though. It just doesn't look good even by modern standards.
@Pro-Life Society I don't see that happening. French society is fairly antagonistic to Islam.
You core argument for why the restoration effort should not follow modern ideals is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that Notre Dame's design was not a product of its time. However, the actual facts appear to point in the EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION. Many European, and especially Catholic, buildings of that era have the same, or at least similar, design philosophies. Most historians and artist admire Notre Dame based on this exact fact, it is a product of its time and serves as a milestone in the development of western architecture.
Also, the argument of the museum and the legislature building is wholly unrelated. Museums do and always will change floorplan regularly. This is because different types of exhibits require architectural needs. So, if the museum starts to see more demand for exhibits that it was simply not equipped to handle, it can become too expensive to simply retrofit the old museum. This, of course, doesn't even account for changing safety regulations (50 years is a fairly long time, even for government).
Combine these with the fact that newer forms of art are often sneered at for a good long while before being accepted as "high art," see jazz, and modern architecture may in a few centuries be looked at how we see building like Parliament.
Even if the elements that went into notre damn were indicative of the trends of the time, the main goal was to make something beautiful. There are mathematical rules for what is aesthetically pleasing, and people have been following them for centuries. Modern architectures is rebellion against beauty. They are purposefully ugly, and their only appeal is that they are in opposition to what stood before. Anyone sane person can see that a building like notre dam is more artistic and beautiful that a concrete cube.
@@sebastianhauptmann4253 Wrong on a variety of levels.
If you plan on redesigning something that was originally kept around for so long for:
1. its brilliant design
2. its historical value
Then you're essentially getting rid of and painting over the entire point of its existence, and at that point you may as well just design a new thing instead.
There are countless old buildings in the world that have changed over time, often multiple times. A new design doesn't have to be a catastrophe if it's high quality, respectful and intended to last.
There is a high risk that those who will "rebuild" Notre-Dame will attempt to "reshape" her to serve a new ecumenical religion... the one our Lady warned us about. We should keep an eye on this, and do everything in our power to prevent something like this.
Source? I would think our own piety and prayer and reparations we make for others is what Our Lady would want most, compared to making sure Notre Dame is rebuilt right.
The suggested design placing a glass roof over Notre Dame in order to illuminate its interior (which requires demolishing the stone vault which seems largely intact) would destroy the experience of the sacred.
The interior shadow is cast by design. When you walk into a cathedral from the bright exterior, you’re almost blinded except your eyes catch the rose windows and the illuminated sacred, and as you move forward and your eyes continue to adapt to the darkness, it becomes increasingly bright. The initial experience is meant to invite the visitor to contemplate the sacred, while the second symbolizes moving from the darkness of sin towards the light:
"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for you are with me."
Worries me to think Notre Dame may lose this sacred message. The cathedral is state owned, but the French church and Catholic organizations have to do everything in their power to prevent this. Imho, a secularized or desacralized Notre Dame would be far worse than had it completely burned down.
the glass design would only serve for protection while not inducing any confusion between old and new. the vault would stay intact. but of course you knew that. and a last thing: Notre-dame is a secular building, state-owned, and its form and how it evolves should be dictated by the will and the need of the society at large. France isn't a theocracy, and i'm pretty sure a lot of atheists, muslims and others visit the building for it's architecture and historical message first.
arrachcoeur The vault could not remain according to the plan Foster originally revealed, but this may have changed since I last saw it.
Notre Dame isn't a secular building. That's not what state-owned implies in France, which you should know. State-owned places of worship in France have a religious destination. Notre Dame is legally a place worship and the Catholic Church its designated beneficiary. This legal designation is permanent, exclusive and guaranteed by the state. In order to decommission Notre Dame, the French state would require the written permission of the beneficiary (i.e. the competent ecclesiastical authority, the bishop). That's not in the foreseeable future.
The problem I pointed out isn't that, but the state can approve structural changes to its properties without respecting their character or religious purpose. Of course Notre Dame's legal destination would still be Catholic.
Modern architects should not be allowed anywhere near the Gothic masterpiece that Notre Dame was and is.
Yes! Let's remove all the additions of Eugene Viollet le Duc of the 1850's! Let's remove all Baroque art! Let's paint it in bright colors as it should be. Let's remove the rose windows! They are a modern addition from the Middle Ages against the original plan. Let's finish the towers as they did in Cologne!
@@dutchman7623 sh
@@dutchman7623 all those elements are classical/traditional elements. Modernist architecture is not 'modern', is simply something against classical architecture, what we have always done.
@@Fee581 Nope! The Gothic style was ultra modern when the Notre Dame was build.
The rose windows were modern when they replaced the traditional windows.
Renaissance and baroque additions were also modern at the time they were added.
And the 'Big Change' Viollet le Duc did to the interior and exterior made the Cathedral unrecognizable for the people of 1820!
His modern Neo-Gothic style ruined everything and even caused the disaster that happened to this church.
Every time has left its stamp on the Notre Dame, every scar on the original we learned to appreciate, some more than others, but we cannot turn back time.
The restoration of the twenty first century will leave its marks on the cathedral as well, and why not improve it with our architecture? Let future generations make up their mind whether is was good or less good. As it has always been.
@@dutchman7623 modernist architecture is not 'another style', it's a completely different way of approaching architecture. Those styles were 'modern' at that time but they were still influenced by classical architecture and they all adopted ornament. Modernist architecture is not simply 'modern', is a completely different way of approaching architecture and needs to be destroyed.
Since I'm not a Christian, I don't place value in the Notre Dame being a place of worship for Catholics, but rather (in adherence to my beliefs) I place importance in the fact that the building was built by Frenchmen throughout many generations, suffered many challenges, was built upon many architectual styles etc.
A modern architectural addition would only kill that French spirit which had been built upon the fundemental ephemeral nature of the building.
Also I've visited it so I want it to remain the same.
Well in 50 years if the Muslims of France want to replace it legally, what will you think? Most people aren't willing to admit that ethnic cleansing is happening to all western European countries and that soon all our history will be replaced and our homelands will be gone. Where will I go to find people that are like me? My children? This is evil.
@@Ryan-gz6ym M8 i have the same ideas as you. I oppose the Muslims as equally as I do modernists and Leftists.
@@siggy2609 You all do realize this contemporary bullshit we see everywhere is explicitly capitalist in nature, right? It's capitalist developer firms and architects paid by venture capitalists, banks, hedge funds and rich elites who build and design all these monstrosities. Why? Because Capitalism dictates maximum profit using the cheapest labor and materials possible to save money and minimalize externalities, it dictates not wasting money on "irrelevant" decoration and ornament (because it isn't something they can make money off of), on maximizing floor space (because square footage is dollars), and simple designs (for easy and rapid construction because time is money). Another thing about contemporary architecture: even though we have the capability to build structures that last centuries and millennia (we always have) contemporary structures are deliberately built with a set life span, much like many of our consumer goods - this is called "Planned Obsolescence". Why? Because this ensures continued profit with future construction contracts (in both the public AND private sphere) as buildings begin to wear down. These new buildings are not built to be repaired and maintained, they're built to fail and be replaced completely with a new development - this is consumer culture in architectural form. Not because of regulations, but simply because of money.
.
There is no room for sentimentality, feelings or notions of "beauty", as making as much money as possible is the sole goal of the capitalism today. Public opinion means nothing to investors who want to build a new luxury tower to sell condos to rich plutocrats for millions. Public opinion means nothing to a starchitect who wants to design a wacky, wild "NEW" building to attract as many investors as possible. Architects today cater only to the rich because they're the ones who can afford to build architecture, while architects are dogmatists taught only in Minimalism and Modernist thought. Their sole focus is on: investors, grant committees (filled with other elites), award committees, architecture critics/magazines (who make their works known) and wealthy elites they can profit from. This creates an insular community that recycles the same tropes and trends over and over and over again until the cash cow is dried and a new trend is discovered. Architecture today is designed almost exclusively to the tastes of todays wealthy elite who overwhelmingly prefer massive contemporary monuments to their wealth and ego. With the greater amount of tech bros becoming wealthy, this strictly efficient, "logical" culture is becoming even stronger, and is at even greater odds with old classical architecture than before, with techies more in favor of sleek, metallic, chrome, shiny, glassy, "futuristic" Jetsons-style architecture than classical designs. This "futuristic" vision of architecture is seen as "progress", even though this totally destroys the beautiful variety and cultures around the world and replaces them with a hideous monoculture of placeless, faceless, glassy, corporate money making machines. It threatens the beautiful Mosques of Iran, the temples of Mexico, Central America, Japan, India and Thailand, the grand Cathedrals n quaint towns and villages of Europe, the vernacular architecture of the USA, the indigenous architecture of Africa and Latin America, the palaces of China and Korea, our entire global history and culture. This is why leftists too hate architecture today. And I mean leftists as in ACTUAL leftists (Marxists/Anarchists, not liberals).
.
Now Minimalism was ALSO adopted by Socialism in the USSR for different reasons - ornament was thought of as decadent, and the focus was on creating "logical", "efficient" structures which could be quickly built to replace the buildings lost from the German devastation of their nations and provide standardized housing for all. There's a great video about Soviet planning and architecture that goes over in depth why architecture looked the way it did in the USSR (even though as a leftist myself I personally hate the soulless buildings). However, this Socialist style died out with the collapse of the USSR, everything built since then (which has been utter shit) has been since Russia adopted capitalism, which goes to show that this isn't STRICTLY tied to one or the other economic systems, however they do play a major role in what gets built and why.
It's not muslims, immigrants or leftists destroying our beautiful old cities and towns, for the past 100 years it's been capitalism focusing solely on efficiency and profit, seeing preservation as a "waste" of money, trying to mask their greed as "progress". I hope you can understand this, it's something we gotta fight together to preserve our histories, cultures and human diversity.
.
ruclips.net/video/JGVBv7svKLo/видео.html&ab_channel=CityBeautiful ---- Soviet planning
@@Moosemoose1 Again, like with the other guy I agree with you too. I'm not a fan of capitalism because I am a third positionist/tribalist.
Since the original comment my politics have developed drastically and with it, new perspectives. For example as you said, I have realised that all our problems don't come from muslims alone, in fact they are caused by capitalism which seeks to reduce us to soulless consumers and get the cheapest labour possible, hence why big companies are usually so supportive of erasing the idea of national/racial pride amongst Europeans and in pushing the LGBT community.
However that does not mean that migration to our homelands is desireable. At the end of the day Europeans, if this migration trend continues, will lose their ethnic homelands and their culture, unlike the migrants who will always have a Pakistan, India or China to return to, where everyone is like them.
Thanks for your comment and have a nice day : )
Full and complete restoration must surely be the only possible option. Anything else would be truly sacrilegious. Buildings like this are the result of generations of hard work and true devotion. They were given to us by our forefathers for safe keeping and we are meant to pass them on to coming generations. We should show gratitude and humility, not vanity and hubris.
I am not a Christian, but I think they should restore Notre Dame as close as the original was
Notre Dame needs to be rebuilt the way that it initially built. Gothic architecture is beautiful and thought provoking
The first 45 seconds just described post nut clarity
Bruh I finna smack you.
What? why are you here?
Im a landscape architect. The amount of hideous, boring, and bland buildings we have to constantly work with is incredibly disappointing. Modern Architects should stay the heck away from actual good, historic architecture. I remember seeing the initial proposal renderings that came out for Notre Dame after the fire. If I'm not mistaken, these renderings came out DAYS AFTER the fire. How the heck are you supposed to expect any where near a good design with an incredibly short amount of time to design, and model?? They just throw the most random ideas out there. And they SWEAR they are creating the most unique art and architecture out there. And with my experience in architecture school, EVERY professor is leading students towards the boxie, clean, bland look. Heck, even some ugly Frank Gehry type architecture. Yes, there are tons of factors that go into the business, and unfortunately, I don't think there'll ever be the opportunity to have the money, time, and talent to build cathedrals or buildings like Notre Dame ever again.
Modern Architects are just and not very good at designing buildings. They are not "modern, unique, or cool", just untalented.
I agree completely with everything in this video. Well said.
If you're interested in traditional architecture, look up the work being done by Duncan Stroik and McCrery Architects or the restoration work being done by Conrad Schmitt Studios.
As a Parisian I subscribe to many things in this video. However when ND was built it took time and it was a revolutionary building.
The arrow which burnt lately in the fire was highly controversial. It was a modern construction built in the Xix th century. Like Montmartre. And during the XX th century some people would judge Montmartre ugly. It's only now that Montmartre is starting to become attractive.
Modern "art" is not compelled to be always ugly. Some peaces will survive time as they are beautiful and will become history. That was the case of the Eiffel Tower that was not supposed to last...
I find Lourdes Basilica built in the XIX th beautiful. Specially at night. Still for almost a century many people found it ugly.
The main problem with ND is, as the Cathedral is Republic property, Macron thinks he is in charge and plans to build a new arrow... in crystal to replace the controversial XIXth century arrow. And thanks to the money given by the whole world. And he claimed he has the ambition to build ND "more beautiful than before". Seriously ? What a ridiculous pride from a man who wants to print history through a multisecular cathedral and with the money of others. A collective Organisation should supervise the reconstruction specially as funds are coming from everywhere in the world. I am not really sure money givers from outside Western Europe would like to see Macron's dream of architecture modern innovations applied to ND. I wanted to give money for my beloved cathedral but I will hold until further development.
"Once that novelty wears off, we lose interest" - that's why no one queues up to see the Eiffel Tower anymore of course.
But to engage slightly more seriously with the argument: while I agree that we shouldn't embrace novelty for novelty's sake, especially when we are talking about such a timeless monument, we also shouldn't reject it per se. Gothic architecture in itself was novel and trendy. Some of the interior of Notre Dame is in a Baroque style that stands in stark contrast to the Gothic architecture, yet works beautifully well with it. I visited the cathedral often and remember how moved I was every time I looked down the nave to see the glorious Coustou altar piece at the end and being moved to tears.
While I agree with some of your general concept here, and trendy doesn't always have to be bad -- the difference is that both Gothic AND Baroque still operated on timeless ideals of beauty. The problem with modern architecture is that it abandons timelessness in favor of ONLY the here-and-now, with a desire to spit in the face of tradition rather than to honor it. Something can be both trendy AND timeless, provided it uses timeless principles in its creation. A good trend that utilizes something truly timeless and classic can end up becoming part of the overall art form itself. To me, THAT is what those who want to start trends should aspire to -- be a part of the form, not a rebel to it. Let them create something new and interesting, but building on what has already been proven through time to work, rather than as a slap in the face to it.
Agreed with everything he said. Most Catholic churches in my area are ugly either square or circular 1970s monstrosities. My home parish was built in 1985 and thankfully by then, Miami people were starting to reappreciate their forgotten Spanish heritage in architecture. Consquently my parish looks like a beautiful Spanish church on the outside and a circular evangelical gathering hall on the inside. Getting there but not quite, I guess. Hopefully they truly reconstruct Notre Dame and not try to add some modern innovations to it.
Devil's advocate: the Duomo in Florence got a new façade in the 19th century that is still absolutely gorgeous today in my opinion. Changing the look of an old building doesn't have to be a bad thing if it's done well.
That said: soulless, featureless modernist architecture on the Notre Dame would be a crying shame.
Tell you what they change it with modern features - it might just have another 'accident'
Brian, God bless you. This was a very good work.
You have no idea of what contemporary architecture isabout, every age has its vulgar examples.
Not your fault.
Its clear that we architects failed in the divulgation of "the state of the art" in our field and its also clear that the architecture universities also fail in making their students overcome the pulse for newness.
let me add that when talking about not substituting old buildings you put the example of st peter's basilica.
It was a controversial building that was one of the most modern of its time and substituted a paleochristian basilica built by emperor constantin.
far form respectuous to the past.
In fact the history of architecture is built on disrespectful restorations substitutions and additions,
Probably any masterpiece you can imagine is an example of this or has some of this examples in it. I dare you to tell me 5 that are not.
Notre Dame should NOT have a "modern" roof, the problem is that any roof that we build will be modern, it takes time for it to be old. modern doesnt bean glass, these are just examples of paper architecture, every age has had their own, these opportunities are allways stimulant.
but the roof will surelly be built discreet and respectfull, and modern
Beauty is objective! Everyone who says it's not probably wants to normalize bad taste. Subjective beauty would be liking brutalism.
A, church which was a small country church loved by the citizens was torn down 11 years ago. It was later said that nothing was wrong with the building. It was the common people's Catholic Church. There were 2 of them. Saint Mary's church ( a country church that was the one that was torn down) and Saint Simon's Church. Saint Simon's ( the rich people's church) is still there. Goes to show how modernists don't care about normal middle and working class citizens. I blame the archbishop who said it needed to be torn down. He said it needed to be torn down because of a statue which fell down.
He actually said that was the reason. Ever since then, the church has become sort of a poster child for beautiful buildings being needlessly torn down.
Fascinating take on modern architecture. Comparing it to the phenomenon of quickly regretting pop cultural decisions is a brilliantly simple and accurate perspective. Thank you.
not sure who you are or what you do, or why yt algorithm thought it would be a good idea to expose me to this video, but since I've endured it I feel justified in commenting. your understanding of modern architecture and architecture in general quite superficial and airing it publicly doesn't do much for your credibility. you're strawmaning the argument by a poor and lengthy preamble and also rather blatantly by using an anecdotal example of a provincial museum in Alberta to draw conclusions about modern architecture in general - about as ludicrous as judging merits of the gothic period by some random shack from 13th century Nowheresville. what you seem to forget is that there are plenty of examples of latter day interventions on historic buildings, such as baroque on romanesque or gothic which we now appreciate, as well as removals of some poor interventions and reverting to the original. what you conveniently omit is that, ironically, gothic style was named after Goths, a barbarous german tribe precisely because it was deemed ugly and monstrous by the contemporaries - at the time it was called modern and immodest. speaking of ugly, consider another parisian example- the Eiffel tower - it was thought of as an abomination, a metal specter looming over all of Paris, while now the very same public thinks it's the bee's knees.
yes our culture hyper produces and architecture as a discipline is in crisis, as are all the arts since there isn't left a single remnant of consensus of any sort about what is beautiful, what is art or what's it's purpose. but in historic terms, we tend to keep what is valuable and not keep what is not - your alberta musem is proof of this. rest assured, the architectural profession has a more sober acute sense of history and aesthetics than the armchair critics of the day who love today what they would have hated merely were they born a generation or two earlier.
Gothic art was new in its time. All innovations take a chance. Some provide abiding pleasure. But all creation is an attempt. Insist on certainty and creation stops and only copies. N.D. is traditional now but when it was built it was cutting edge. So whatever is done
a little understanding is not amiss.
But actually the Notre dame had throughout its life had seen renovations and redesigns of both interior and exterior in the act of keeping up with the times, and at one point was abandoned due to its perceived outdated ness that lead to the term Gothic architecture, barbaric or old.
No Brian, NSYNC will always be cool!! No shame! Haha! In all seriousness, completely agree with (everything else) you said! When was the last time we saw such awe inspiring architecture?
@Pro-Life Society Not sure that it constitutes a sin but I agree with the sentiment. Is there anyone in this world who can create such beautiful architecture again?
Thank you for revealing the band name LOL ... I think my daughter liked them, but I had no idea what they looked like. She was only 8 years old.
A narrative in some news sources points out that the destroyed spire is "only" about 180 years old and was not part of the original building. While true, the narrative here is that this can justify replacing the spire and roof with a Modern, Postmodern or Contemporary design. The difference of course is that the destroyed spire was style-wise, in continuity with the previous spire.
thank👏🏼you👏🏼
Now louder for the people in the back!
Hi Brian! I'm from Italy and here architectures are an everyday problem.
I agree with all what you have pointed out and want to add one thing: medieval newness is different from postmodern newness.
In fact, the Gothic style in general represent a form of innovation compared to the Romanesque style that preceded it that wasn't for innovation's sake, but for the sake of getting closer than the past works to a perfect idea of Beauty.
Keep the good work!
Well said.
Rapid demand for increased size of buildings also plays a role as well.
There are very few surviving intact medieval buildings let alone cathedrals in Europe. They were changed over and over throughout the centuries. For example, the Notre Dame spire destroyed in the fire had been built in the 19th century. There are loads of other examples from all around Europe where there were some "renovations' in the 19th and early 20th century when they in fact, rebuilt and substantially altered the original structures.
That said, I don't want some glass roof to be built for Notre Dame but I do not think it's a real threat
Well said man. Props from a Canadian living in Paris.
I think that we should re-think the way we build churches today. many of these objects are ugly. And the gothic or even romanesque ones are beautiful. The best would be to combine modernity with that what was beautiful in the past. At least until the time we figure something better out. Paris 1830, La Salette, Lourdes … and this is the result … I mean Notre Dame collapse.
The western European religious art was very ugly in the 60-90's. Now it's getting better.
I would agree that there can be benefits in the construction of new churches by combining Gothic and old Byzantine Christian style art with modern art in ways that are awe inspiring and beautiful (like the National Basilica in DC, that Cathedral is almost like slightly modern Byzantine style with Catholic art and it is absolutely gorgeous)
However when it comes to rebuilding Notre Dame, even aside from how it would be either sacrilegious or at least borderline sacrilegious to redesign it, from a purely artistic perspective it is INSANE to even think of redesigning such a beautiful feat of Gothic architecture. One of the reasons Notre Dame was and is such a feat of Gothic art and architecture is because of the consistency throughout the entire Cathedral which is almost unheard of (at the level that Notre Dame is at least) because with Cathedrals and buildings like that it takes multiple artists and architects to even complete it, so a lot of times they would be slightly mismatched and showing different time periods in different part of the building. However Notre Dame has always miraculously been the exception. To redesign the spire and roof would be a jarring disconnect from the Gothic architecture of the rest of the Cathedral and would be a devastating loss to just the artistic history and value to the Cathedral.
I hope that made sense 😂
@@littledrummergirl_19 of course. I didn't mean Notre Dame cathedral … Those were my "by the way" thoughts :)
Where can I find this interpretation of Kyrie Eleison? It's incredibly beautiful.
ruclips.net/video/E8Mf-1A6YtE/видео.html
This should seriously be proposed to your state representatives 😃
The introduction seems that you're talking about the episode 3 of season 8 of game of thrones hahaha
What do you think caused the fire. The wood framing would hard and hard to burn. The Electrical system had been redone within the last 10 to 15 years.
I saw a tweet from an employee that it was deliberate.
sue200012 I wouldn’t be surprised considering the fact that many hundreds of Catholic have been burned in Europe in the past several months, some of those hundreds in France. Not to mention none of the crew was on site anytime close to when the fire started really, as well as the fact that all safety requirements were met within their standards of working, and none of the electrical equipment was running or even on at the time if I’m not mistaken. Not to mention the fact that the media was so quick to say “it wasn’t arson!!” Within like the first hour or so that the Cathedral was burning. The fire wasn’t even out yet! Anyhoo that’s what I suspect lol I guess we’ll find out in the future unless they decide to sweep it under the rug 🤷🏽♀️
All the were all gobe for the day I believe they got off at about 530pm
@@littledrummergirl_19 I agree with you
@@littledrummergirl_19 I feel sure it was deliberate, Holy Week attack. I saw the employee tweet on vox cantoris blog.
You bring up real good points. Thx
Wow that was very interesting!
Someone is still building in that older style. It just happens to be mostly in Russia and not much in Europe and US.
I am not a Catholic, but seeing these monstrous design proposals makes my hair stand on end. In the nineteenth century, when Notre-Dame was in desperate need of a restoration, Viollet-le-Duc managed to add a new spire that, despite being built centuries after the Cathedral's completion, complemented the original design perfectly. Why can't we do that today? Also, a side note: Notre Dame was built by French Operative Masons working for the Catholic Church. Therefore, the symbolism of the design is distinctly Masonic - not Christian. You can argue with me all you want. I won't even try to stop you.
It is encouraging that there have been at least a few modern cathedrals built on large-scale medieval, Gothic lines, but they are already 50-100 years old, like Liverpool Anglican Cathedral, Washington National Cathedral in D.C., and the Cathedral of St John the Divine in NYC. We should look to these, no matter what the cost. These buildings are all Anglican, not Catholic. Why is Catholic architecture so regularly cheapened ? That is the question.
My one question is what constitutes objective beauty? I think I intuitively know it when I see it and I certainly want to believe it, but I'm confused as to how it's explained, defended, and understood. Having been raised in a modern culture, I know very few people who think this way and I know people close to me would reject the notion of objective beauty but I want to be able to defend it.
Daniel Ewens ...based on the proportions of the human body. Hence columns represent a standing man. The facade represents the face - so it must be symmetrical.
Sorry, you don't understand the nature of modern architecture which is based on rational form and geometry. It can be ornate and warm such as the works of Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright or it can be cold and rational such as the works of Le Corbusier and Mies Van der Rohe. There are many beautiful and enduring modern buildings such as NYC's Lever House or even the newest tower 432 Park Avenue. And there are many examples of 40-year-old neo-traditional buildings being torn down simply because they look old. If a building can make it pass 40 years and reach 80 years, it will (like people) stop looking old and become venerable. I agree that to inject the Cathedral of Notre Dame with the things being suggest are atrocious. But what is being injected is post-modern relativism, not modern architecture as practiced by the greats. There is room in the world for many styles of architecture: Greco-Roman; gothic; Modern Rationalism; Asian, etc. But all must be done by people who know what they are doing because they understand the philosophies and the technologies behind them.
The goths were passionate people. They believed in overlooking the pursuit of self gratification and materialistic thinking. A few reasons why gothic architecture is an ideal form to look at is because of its transcendent application of design principles, ornamentations and motive behind its creation. We are nothing and nowhere compared to the Goths or even the Romans or Greeks.
Gothic architecture isn't actually from the goths though, is it?
Elijah Clubb Technically evolved from Romanesque architecture. In old English their people were called “Goeths” or Göths”. They began their period with the pursuit of acknowledging god which influenced their arts and architecture.
To give modernists a fair shake, I think there's more to it than mere novelty. The simple, sleek form-follows-function design is meant to represent the efficiency that science provides. To leading physicists, the idea of a simple equation is beautiful. And this is a great thing in many ways.
The problem is that meaning works like poetry, not an instruction manual.
Kindly teach this in school, kindly show this on TV, kindly LEARN A LESSON MODERN ARCHITECTS
Does this apply to the TLM as well? The NO is no longer new so it’s loosing its appeal?
Im sorry folks but Parisians HATED the Eiffel Tower before it was build! And now? Paris is unimaginable without it! And People are not traveling to see modern architecture? What about Bilbao, the whole reason that city is a tourist atraction is the Bilbao Museum by Gehry. Dont get my wrong I like classical architecture aswell but to dismiss every contempory piece of architecture is just too easy.
When Notre Dame de Paris was build, it was top notch modern architecture. Nothing before had ever been build in this style.
And there were a lot of protests against it's modern style. All that glass, all those colors! Would it be stable? A lot of cathedrals collapsed at that time, with worshipers in them. Only good design survived, the others were given up, unstable, too much maintenance to keep them upright and those were replace by hyper modern building during the renaissance.
The spire at the crossing was very small, you could hardly see it. In the 1850's Eugene Viollet le Duc replaced it with a modern one, in neogothic style, which was very popular at the time. There were many protest at the time. Why put such modernistic spire on an old cathedral? It is too heavy and will cause structure problems to the 700 year old building. And they were right! This modern spire caused the downfall of the Notre Dame only 150 years later. The building had survived 700 years without it, and now, because of using a lot of wood, it almost burned down the cathedral and collapsed on it destroying the entire roof.
If they replace this awful modern addition with something like it, they'd better use material that doesn't burn!
About Viollet-Le-Duc, Architect of Notre Dame's Spire.
It always makes me wonder why people in their armchairs feel qualified to coach sporting teams, and how people who don't paint feel qualified to critique art. I enjoy traditional architecture in ways some people can not begin to understand or appreciate. But art is on a continuum. And those proposing new ideas for Notre Dame Paris have certainly studied its milieu, its historical origin and context, its original design, and its proportions and symbolism more than the avid home "you tube" video viewer. So grant this first.
As for the loss of Notre Dame Paris, it is profound and arguably symbolic. But from a technological, rather than spiritual, perspective, it could have certainly occurred at much * worse * points in history. By the early twenty-first century, the building has been explored and documented by uncountable contractors, engineers, technicians, academics, and students, and the current collective knowledge of the physical plant of Notre Dame is likely unparalleled by any other point in history. What was broken can assuredly be rebuilt. Mr. Macron's sense of urgency is political, as expediency will not really aid the process. But if his words can raise larger funds faster, then they may not be ill-spoken.
As for the rebuilding of the spire, this is not a bad idea either. The original was removed in 1786 because winds threatened its collapse. Eugene Viollet-Le-Duc won a design competition (sound familiar?) to design a new spire. Here was a guy who claimed to be an historic preservationist, but always hustled for his own creative aims to be implemented in the old buildings he restored. In your ample free time, read Volume 8 of his "Dictionnaire (etc)." He played fast and loose with original architectural fabric, and his designs would NEVER pass the (U.S.) Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings.
I have experienced and admired architecture all over the world, but agree that Notre Dame Paris has a specific meaning and is of a specific time, place, and style. The design of the new spire should be wholly Catholic...abundantly French...and triumphantly Gothic. Should it be designed by a French Architect? I'm not sure about that. French architects will certainly be involved, and undoubtedly will be the Architects of Record (responsible for the construction documents and local permitting).
Great perspective!!......It seems to be everything modern that is being thrown on the garbage pile. Why are bands from the 60's-70's just as popular today as they were back then, while today's new music is thrown on the trash heap next week. Same with old cars, old homes, old traditions. They were built on passion, love, craftsmanship, culture, not on ego, profits, perversion, and attention seeking.
There is a project to turn not only Notre-Dame but all of the island of l'ile-de-la-cité into a tousistic/luxe center. The presence of the Church and of several administrations in the island is an obstacle to the greed of the multinational groups behind the project.
The 3 administrations are the hôtel-Dieu hospital (currently on strike), the Palais de Justice (main Paris court of justice) and the Prefecture de police (police headquarters). Police and Justice will obey the orders if asked to move elsewhere. The doctors and the priests are not.
The priests are gone now. The Church is not the owner of Notre Dame, it's the state. Priests are only users.
The doctors are the next target.
For those who doupt, google "mission ile de la cité".
Dude the spire that fall recently was a reform made by Violet Le Duc in the XIX century, that guy was obsessed with novelty it became a classic with time! It's like the Eifel tower, it was hated by the people of that time, it was bold and experimental and the people thought that it was horrible. Today it's loved and admired worldwide. The criteria that artists use to judge pieces of art it's not arbitrary it's just very complicated and highly contested. It would be great if we all just analyze each work of art and judge it based on its merits instead of making this kind of generalizations. Edit: Ey I just remembered, even gothic architecture was really crazy for its time and kinda hated for a while! Art its always changing, just enjoy it. Ps sorry if I make some mistake, I'm not a native speaker this is my way of practicing.
Our Catholic parishes all need to hear this logic as well. Thanks for sharing!
When people come to a buying homes many are prepared to pay 1000s extra to get a Georgian or victorian building as opposed to modernist design. Buildings of the past are more beautiful and timeless. Plus back at that time they had the philosophy of having things that last and to fix things, now we have lost that as a society, while I try to keep that philosophy in my life, it's only going to come back into society if more people do so. Part of the beauty of notre dame was the fact that it was dark on the inside, surely a glass roof would destroy that? Another point, why are we building things with glass? it makes places unbearably hot (surely not ideal when temperatures are rising?) I've never liked floor to ceiling windows, I don't like having widows instead of walls.
i was just lamenting earlier today how drab and insipid the my local catholic church looks which also happens to be a national shrine and was built in a modernist style during the 1960s. Just steel and unadorned granite blocks, completely uninspired stained glass window designs. blah!
Even as an atheist, i think that Notre-Dame must be rebuilt with "the worship of god" as main concern, as this is, i think, the real purpose of this building. Don't let modern artists anywhere near Notre-Dame.
As a lifelong Catholic, I never got to see Notre Dame, but if it was anything even remotely comparable to the grand cathedrals of Italy (which I did get to see), than it was a tragedy of heavenly proportions.
Gothic architecture was considered heterodox to the current standing Romanesque aesthetic in church design, so I wouldn't be hasty in calling nouveau fashion in architecture wrong. What made Gothic style architecture awesome was the fact that they where pushing the boundreys of what is possible with stone, reaching for a majesty worthy of being called a house of God, and that these were multi generational projects so a half baked idea wouldn't cut it, no something ornate that truly exemplifies the house of God is necessary for a project on such a scale. That's what makes gothic churches beautiful. If you where to take these sensibilities and apply them with modern construction materials I'm sure that it to would show a majesty worthy to be called the house of God, sadly it seems such reverence is not the focus in more modern designs as there is not a focus on pushing engineering to its breaking point to construct a beauty that will last 1000 years, but instead a focus on finishing this commission so that I can get my payday and move onto the next project.
While I disagree on the hatred of modernist architecture(1940s-1970s). I do agree that modern day architecture is terrible and should never be close to Notre Dame.
Uh... Wat...they aren't going to just rebuild it as it was??
Only acceptable change would be fireproofing
Wolf's Den exactly
Who is to say what is absurd? I can have my perspective and you can have yours. I accept yours but retain my own, they can both be truth at the same time.
I believe you touched on the true cause as I see it and your key word in here to me was "pretentious". I believe that explains a lot in the world and that we do ourselves a disservice. I believed for the longest time that my opinion held greater weight than others and became lazy in my mind which manifested as refusal to accept opposing opinions instead of accepting them and considering. I was lying to myself and once I saw it in myself I saw it everywhere else. Some is necessary, telling myself absolute truth is painful and exhausting so I can't do it for long. To tell it to others unfiltered is irresponsible, many have already found a good balance. I can only offer my perspective but those always need to be met halfway. Taking the easy way out isn't just physical to me and I think influencing attitudes is a better approach. I don't want or need to change your mind, I only try to give a gentle nudge to attitudes.
I do not judge, I am better than no one and wish you kind regards. I think I have gotten this comment right in a way acceptable to myself. I am still coming to terms with my new self, your thoughtful video helped me.
First of all its not Birming-HAM its pronounced Birming-HUH-M. I should know I am from and live in England, UK. Secondly, its definitely due to the rise of liberalist values and moral relativism that pervades western society particularly in the US. The culture that produced notre dame believed in moral objectivity as well as beauty.
I studied restoration of art, specificaly that out of metal. While it's important to change the work of art as little as possible, it is sometimes inevitable to prevent further degradation. There is always the question of wheter you prefer authenthicity or practicality. You can for example change metal pads that are not visible if they create a galvanic cell and would eat up the orginal metal. If I were to apply this to the Notre Dame, the goal should always be to restore its original look. However, using steel supporting structure is not out of the question if it would lead to better stability and lower risk of catching fire.
Great video; I had never considered a link between beauty and sustainability.
Those who preceded us achieved such heights of skill and beauty in the arts that a generation arose who looked on those works and, being unable to surpass them, despaired. Turning from that impossible task, the sought their own hill to climb in mere novelty at best, and negation and desecration of their predecessors idea of beauty at worst.
Well the one small bit of good news is that the tower that fell was a repro. from the time of Napoleon II -- be that as it may,we must all be on guard that the French government does not try to turn the greatest Christian church in France into a secular humanist monument to co-existence...even if people have to chain themselves to the ruins.For history and culture and the Christian God, not exclusively Catholic either,it is as as good a cause to die for as any..--
hope they don't screw this up and go with some hideous modern design. could they actually be that stupid and careless? we all know they certainly could.
It is popular to desecrate certain faiths and cultures, while carefully preserving other faiths and cultures from desecation or offense. We need to be honest about why this is so.
I think I can't agree with you. Yes modernist design right now is considered autdated and need time to become histrical and can be considered valubule to our heritage just like architecture in the past. When modernist came they didn't considered Art Nouveau a worth saving people i renesans called mediviel dark ages. You're saing that old architecture is better but the truth is every thing that we see today was cosindered worth saving that's why we only see the best of it. We need to give modernism time to let it sink.
It depends what N’sync song you are talking about. I want you back has aged well. I know that’s far from your point here. I think you hitting on the trendy ness of boy bands at that time then there put them they’re in again. Not so with more timeless works.
It depends what N’sync song you are talking about. I want you back has aged well. I know that’s far from your point here. I think you hitting on the trendy ness of boy bands at that time then there put them they’re in again. Not so with more timeless works.
Notre Dame is an amazing work of art and changing it would be like drawing glasses and a mustache on the Mona Lisa or adding 808s to the Minecraft music
Faith is not a path to knowledge, it is however a remarkably good way to stay wrong forever and never admit it even to yourself.
You are amazing ✝️❤️
They should redo it, one corner an Islamic prayer centre. One corner a Hindi temple. The middle section a Pride celebration and a new spire with a giant screen on top beaming out holocost images.
This is really well thought out!
I wonder what they teach architects... I normally walk around the streets of my city and new houses are so boring.
I don’t agree. Your video also doesn’t look very reliable. You are right about the museum. But not about notre dame.
I don't mind modern architecture but dont you dare put that on Notre Dame. The church was extremely beautiful before the fire and i want it to stay like that
Why I feel it's going to be 10:42 minutes of bla bla bla and nothing useful ?
I correct myself, it was in did 10:42 minutes of bla bla bla, but actually also interesting
Okay, but as long as they don't make it a Mosque.
On a more serious note, I am curious what your opinions are on art outside of architecture?
What do you think the Church or the Laity need to do to bring back the Michelangelos and Donatellos that gave beauty to the faith?
We need to get our own house in order first. It's been chaos and confusion for the better part of the last century. We need to establish harmony and reclaim our own understanding of beauty as objective.
@@BrianHoldsworthexcellent point.
Back in the day the temples were the places to exhibit art to most people, and also one of the most ambitious architecture projects, those circumstances have changed, so I don't think we will have anything groundbreaking in the art on the temples. Best case scenario, we will have new buildings imitating the old architecture than will not stand out over their older predecessors rather than new styles focused on beauty.
I see more potential in movies, music or maybe even paintings (due to the fact that that media can be broadcasted to more people).
Just looking at it gives a sense of the divinity of man , unfortunately demons now rule the world.