Huge fire at Notre Dame cathedral, Paris
- Thread starter a_chap
- Start date
teuchter
je suis teuchter
It's also less sad than the various modern buildings which are deliberately torn down, with no hope of being saved by public outcry or fundraising. Buildings that in time to come would be just as important as cultural/historical/technological records of the 20th century as ND is of its time.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Fair play to the firefighters in Paris
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
You what?
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I'm sorry, I don't understand the difference between a building sponsored by the Catholic Church and ones sponsored by the likes of Andrew Carnegie. Can you explain the moral difference for me?
(However, I too would am sad then these buildings are demolished or repurposed. So far, the majority of them still stand. I grew up with a Carnegie library built in 1918.)
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
And in America, that's REALLY old
Lurdan
old wave
This reminds me of the Siege of Baghdad 1258. That's very sad and unfortunate. 900 years of history suddenly destroyed. They can repair it. They can rebuild. But it will never be like before.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Like the Death Star
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
TopCat
Are you making a particular case for the destruction of buildings of religious significance being rather more meh than that of secular buildings? Or is it Christianity in particular that makes it’s destruction a bit meh?
The Acropolis/ Parthenon. A religious temple, destroyed deliberately and by accidental disaster several times. Is it just a bit meh that this building was destroyed?
The Bamiyam Buddhas: is it just a bit meh that these were destroyed?
How about the unique acoustics of the Babri Masjid, only a story now. But maybe it’s just a bit meh to have lost that, because it was in a religious building.
What about the recent vandalism at the Ring of Brodgar? The Ring was built with a ritual or religious intent so the vandalism is just kinda meh. Is that what you’re saying?
What about the Mayan Codices? Not a building, but still a significant part of human heritage, lost now forever. But maybe it doesn’t matter because it was a religious tract...?
Does the loss of the Bonwit Teller building or the original Penn Station matter more because they weren't religious? What about the Great Pyramid at Giza? That was made because of religion and plenty died because of it: would you feel a bit meh if that was destroyed? It has no real meaning, so maybe it doesn’t matter matter if it exists or not.
So much of what we’ve made has its roots in religion (maybe less so and increasingly less since the reformation, since the WW1): do you really feel a bit meh about everything that sprung from this deep connection ? We’re less tied to religion these days, and that’s no bad thing. But in the past, when religion was so central and was intertwined with everything, it was necessarily one of the major wellsprings for the creative endeavour. Even in our secular age, architects and artists refer back to religious tenets when making new buildings or art. It’s part of what we are. We can’t realistically draw a boundary between achievements inspired by religious ideas on one hand, and secular ideas on the other.
How can you give value to one and not the other, based only on the underlying creative impulse? Surely it has to be about artistic and creative merit, no?
Seeing the artistic value doesn’t mean you automatically support the ideology behind it.
If you could even manage to make that distinction and create that boundary, then you have to dismiss as less significant any art, architecture, any other creative endeavour that’s been inspired by religion? That would include Bach’s music, the Ellora Caves, Agia Sophia, the Book of Kells, the Blue Mosque in Instanbul, the Chapelle du Rosaire de Vence, all that gorgeous Hindu sculpture...
Because these were inspired by religious belief, their destruction would be a bit meh...?
Are you making a particular case for the destruction of buildings of religious significance being rather more meh than that of secular buildings? Or is it Christianity in particular that makes it’s destruction a bit meh?
The Acropolis/ Parthenon. A religious temple, destroyed deliberately and by accidental disaster several times. Is it just a bit meh that this building was destroyed?
The Bamiyam Buddhas: is it just a bit meh that these were destroyed?
How about the unique acoustics of the Babri Masjid, only a story now. But maybe it’s just a bit meh to have lost that, because it was in a religious building.
What about the recent vandalism at the Ring of Brodgar? The Ring was built with a ritual or religious intent so the vandalism is just kinda meh. Is that what you’re saying?
What about the Mayan Codices? Not a building, but still a significant part of human heritage, lost now forever. But maybe it doesn’t matter because it was a religious tract...?
Does the loss of the Bonwit Teller building or the original Penn Station matter more because they weren't religious? What about the Great Pyramid at Giza? That was made because of religion and plenty died because of it: would you feel a bit meh if that was destroyed? It has no real meaning, so maybe it doesn’t matter matter if it exists or not.
So much of what we’ve made has its roots in religion (maybe less so and increasingly less since the reformation, since the WW1): do you really feel a bit meh about everything that sprung from this deep connection ? We’re less tied to religion these days, and that’s no bad thing. But in the past, when religion was so central and was intertwined with everything, it was necessarily one of the major wellsprings for the creative endeavour. Even in our secular age, architects and artists refer back to religious tenets when making new buildings or art. It’s part of what we are. We can’t realistically draw a boundary between achievements inspired by religious ideas on one hand, and secular ideas on the other.
How can you give value to one and not the other, based only on the underlying creative impulse? Surely it has to be about artistic and creative merit, no?
Seeing the artistic value doesn’t mean you automatically support the ideology behind it.
If you could even manage to make that distinction and create that boundary, then you have to dismiss as less significant any art, architecture, any other creative endeavour that’s been inspired by religion? That would include Bach’s music, the Ellora Caves, Agia Sophia, the Book of Kells, the Blue Mosque in Instanbul, the Chapelle du Rosaire de Vence, all that gorgeous Hindu sculpture...
Because these were inspired by religious belief, their destruction would be a bit meh...?
Last edited:
Sad to see a beautiful building burn, but Cstholicism 
Baronage-Phase
Well-Known Member
Sad to see a beautiful building burn, but Cstholicism
May as well bulldoze Stonehenge too....seeing as all religion is shite.
Wtf is going on with all the hate on this thread?
You going to start on Muslims and or Jews next? Or is it easier to direct hate at Catholics because they haven't been persecuted in a while so they deserve it now?
Sectarian bullshit.
Well said.
Yossarian
⏭️
It's sad to see a beautiful building like that go, although there's something sadder about the fact that fundraising to rebuild it seems to have immediately dwarfed fundraising for Mozambique or any other recent disaster appeals.
At least rebuilding it will keep the skills required alive or maybe even revive them - the Japanese custom of having a 1,500-year-old shrine that gets taken down and rebuilt every 20 years always seemed quite sensible, though it obviously isn't as solid a building as Notre Dame.
At least rebuilding it will keep the skills required alive or maybe even revive them - the Japanese custom of having a 1,500-year-old shrine that gets taken down and rebuilt every 20 years always seemed quite sensible, though it obviously isn't as solid a building as Notre Dame.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
I am so pleased that they seem to have saved most of it, as well as the contents, and are talking about re-building.
I've only skimmed read the last few pages, but I haven't seen any hate directed at Catholics, as in the people/followers, just at the church itself, the two shouldn't be confused. I suspect the Church of England, and others, are also hated, but again without hating the people/followers.
I've only skimmed read the last few pages, but I haven't seen any hate directed at Catholics, as in the people/followers, just at the church itself, the two shouldn't be confused. I suspect the Church of England, and others, are also hated, but again without hating the people/followers.
Fuck off
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Although myself an atheist, I am able to admire religious-inspired art. I listen to Bach’s religious music, Brahms’ requiem, Mahalia Jackson’s gospel singing, John Coltrane’s A Love Supreme, and on and on. But some people aren’t able to put aside the religiosity. I don’t think that makes it empty posturing. It’s just an outlook I don’t share. But it’s their outlook.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Some billionaire has already donated 100 million euros (£86m) towards the restoration.
Salma Hayek’s husband apparently.
Similar threads
