EU Notre-Dame Restoration: Macron’s Betrayal
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
Arlos
Sad Monarchist
Yeah, Macron has been pretty firmly placing his goons where he wanted them in the Army, it has been so since the De Villiers scandal. Nothing new here.
I dont see Macron lasting too long at the rate he's pissing off the French people.
Arlos
Sad Monarchist
People from the big city, or at least the gentrified part of it that is becoming ever larger support him, since he play into all the stuff they like, « modernism », « liberalism », and making it easier for people who have lot of money to make more. Some of them are starting to rethink it though, as they see the sheer amount of brutality happening under his presidency. Musulmans support him as well, for somewhat obvious reasons; he just acknowledged that integration was a failure and that we should accept communitarism.
Everyone else hate him though, it has been pretty obvious that its more about the money than the country with him.
He's a centrist! 
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I'd like to say that this is a surprising level of arrogance from a European government official, but it isn't. What we have here is a Patrician chewing out a Pleb for daring to not immediately submit to the will of his betters; or at least, that's what European politics seems to have devolved into. One wonders when the modern-day Caesars will make their ambitions known throughout Europe.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Well, they do at least maintain the illusion that they actually care for the "plebs" and that their opinion "matters"
Basically almost all their "help" is Bread&Circuses whilst they secretly feast as Rome dies
Power can be had and attained, even when one is ruling over a decaying society or even a decaying corporation, so long as everybody else is decaying too
Floridaman
Well-known member
Good thing I attended mass there before it burned down then.
How was that?
Navarro
Well-known member
Looking at the crimes against architecture that have been proposed, it's safe to say that this represents a loss of immeasurable value to future generations. Hopefully they eventually have the good sense to demolish the "contemporary vision" of the new Notre Dame spire and put back the old one in its place.
Last edited:
Edgeplay_cgo
Well-known member
Ugh. We may live to regret that they saved the building.
Floridaman
Well-known member
It was very nice, beautiful cathedral, and the hymns were the ones I knew so I could fully participate.
Edgeplay_cgo
Well-known member
It was beautiful. It was one of my favorites of my favorite genre of architecture.
D
Deleted member
Guest
As long as the restoration work preserves the primary stone structure, some future France which has reclaimed her heritage as the eldest daughter of the Church can always make it right. However, to get the right look, they should just cover the new roof in blue plastic tarpulins to acknowledge the fact it's temporary.
To be honest, I suspect it would look better converted into a mosque than it would with any modernist art tacked on...
Part of my thinks this is heresy most foul.
But another part acknowledges Islamic architects and artisans may actually produce a more faithful restoration than 'modern' artistic architects.
D
Deleted member
Guest
If we ever get Constantinople back, the Hagia Sophia will be a perfectly beautiful church again.
Argent
Well-known member
I have to think that this would hurt tourism.
Historic buildings are weird in how the are handled. The insurance that you buy considers this and large companies like Allianz even offer special programs just for historic buildings that cover everything from hotels to Willaimsburg.
They do things like offer programs will they find wood that matches the same look as older banned wood. They also will provide money to hire craftsmen to do fancy stone and wood work.
The reason for this is that when people visit historic palces they want the original look that came with them. In other words they want New York Centeral Station not New York Penn Station.
They understand that the value and draw of historic places is that they are historic.
Personally I would expect that Notre Dame will see a drop in tourism if they go though the proposed changes. People visit to seen Cathedral built at the height of the churches power in France. They visit to see a bit of history not some modern made building that they could see at home. I know that would avoid it. There are other things and places I could go visit to get my history fix.
Historic buildings are weird in how the are handled. The insurance that you buy considers this and large companies like Allianz even offer special programs just for historic buildings that cover everything from hotels to Willaimsburg.
They do things like offer programs will they find wood that matches the same look as older banned wood. They also will provide money to hire craftsmen to do fancy stone and wood work.
The reason for this is that when people visit historic palces they want the original look that came with them. In other words they want New York Centeral Station not New York Penn Station.
They understand that the value and draw of historic places is that they are historic.
Personally I would expect that Notre Dame will see a drop in tourism if they go though the proposed changes. People visit to seen Cathedral built at the height of the churches power in France. They visit to see a bit of history not some modern made building that they could see at home. I know that would avoid it. There are other things and places I could go visit to get my history fix.
Navarro
Well-known member
Personally, in my own right I can't decide which of the proposals is more monstrous - the giant white plastic pillar, the glass prism, or the bronze "flame". It's telling too IMO that none of them is summitted with the Cross.
Floridaman
Well-known member
Isn’t altering historical monuments also frowned on by UNESCO, you think they would say something.
Argent
Well-known member
It depends on the alterations. Doing something like adding new wiring but keeping plaster walls is usually seen as a good thing. Even adding a gaint glass pyramid to a courtyard with a new modern entrance is normally a neutral act. But I would assume that changing things like the main spire of a Cathedral would effect its status with UNESCO.
I do not really have knowledge of the standards that UNESCO uses since I have only felt with the National Register of Historic Places and simlar state level organizations. But a large change like that would threaten a building place on a historic list in America. Large visable changes tend to be more frowned upon then internal or hidden updates.