Very sad news. It's home to many priceless artefacts and artworks, including woodwork that dates to the 13th century. It's believed to have started due to the current construction work.
If there's one small, silver lining, it's that we'll probably take extra precautions when renovating the House of Commons.
It's deeply unfortunate, but it wasn't it more or less a ruin 150 years ago? I'm sure it'll bounce back. It's not like any proper history got burnt anyway, just some fancy trinkets.
>>19062>>19063 Written records, archeological evidence, first hand accounts, that sort of thing. I'm not saying marvelous paintings and saintly relics aren't important. I don't see why that's "edgy", I'm not chuffed it's happened or anything.
>>19065 Surely those things are proper history as well though no? Our art and relics can tell us about ourselves in a way that written records and archeological evidence can't. And vice versa obviously.
>>19065 You made the statement that it is not proper history and just fancy trinkets.
How is a 12th century cathedral not 'archaeological evidence'? What exactly is it that makes you think anything about the cathedral wasn't 'proper history'? You've made a value judgement and I'm curious to your logic.
How much of it was still original anyway after all this time? Surely after the amount of wars, revolts, revolutions etc Paris has seen it can't have been in perfect nick.
Apparently the stained glass windows are all fucked and that does sadden me. That sort of thing is one of those like, genuine links to the past. Documents and paintings and such are one thing but I think there's something about the level of craft that must have taken all those years ago that makes it genuinely heartbreaking.
>>19066 They do to an extent but the insights they give are more limited than the things I mentioned earlier. I consider the knowledge we have about the things that have taken place there to be more important than the building itself, if we start thinking otherwise then we're going to have to keep every ruin around forever and patch them up indefinitely everytime a bit of plaster chips off. Which, just to clarify once again, isn't me having a bout of iconoclasm, but an acknowledgment that we don't need to rebuild Hadrian's Wall to know why it's there or what's taken place around it. And yes, I know archeologists sometimes rebuild things to better understand the construction methods etc, but I'm already well over my 120 character limit.
>>19067 The reason I pointed out it was a ruin during the 19th century, which was overstating it a bit in hindsight, was to highlight this wasn't the first time Notre-Dame had gone to the dogs. They rebuilt the spire back then and they'll do it again now. The building hasn't been sat under a giangantic glass dome for the past eight centuries.
>>19072 Is this the Muslamic equivalent of white people trying to one-up eachother on how anti-racist they are? Now I know how ridiculous it looks to the other side.
>>19074 You're overthinking it, Kassam is just another hot take Heinrich. I feel bad for even having posted it now, but I did it anyway so that means nothing.
I did see President Frog on the news saying he's opening up an "international fund" fir the repairs. I thought that was a bit cheeky. You have an international fund when there's a natural disaster, not because your favourite church set on fire, sacre bleu.
I did see President Frog on the news saying he's opening up an "international fund" fir the repairs. I thought that was a bit cheeky. You have an international fund when there's a natural disaster, not because your favourite church set on fire, sacre bleu.
>>19080 France has a pretty large diaspora. It's probably a way of expediting donations from wealthy French-Americans and what have you. I mean, billionaires are lining up to fund the restoration anyway so why not help things along? Good for the public purse and all that.
