Global Heritage, Art Law, and Ethics: On Notre Dame

I. Requested Action 

On April 15th, 2019 historic Notre Dame cathedral in Paris went up in flames, destroying its roof and causing other significant damage to the cathedral. International headlines took this event and ran with it, and the story and “tragedy” were a sensation, later coming to demonstrate the power of crowdfunding. However, numbers aside, the Notre Dame reconstruction committee will be forced to navigate difficulties in their quest that no dollar amount can be attributed to…  One such difficulty will be the very question of how and to what extent should the 2019 fire be incorporated into the reconstruction or commemorated. In my own opinion, evidence of the fire, being a part of the cathedral’s lifecycle as a monument, must be included in the reconstruction. The best way to achieve this acknowledgment, free from rewriting or romanticizing, is to leave part of the site as it is– neutral and untouched with room for reflection. 

II. Identified Need 

In the case of all world heritage sites, monuments of civilization and other treasured attractions, conservators are faced with difficult decisions regarding the acknowledgment of aging/passage of time, intentional destruction in the cases of war or terror, and the ways in which all of the above factors contribute the narrative of a particular site. There are many so-called camps of thought regarding particular stances on such issues that have changed throughout history. Notre Dame cathedral makes a compelling case that warrants a compelling federal investment because it’s perceived in the public eye as emblematic of western civilization and the glory of France and as a Catholic place of worship. The church as it stands now is in crisis, and if not readily addressed will remain in such a state until nature (and the forces of physics) make a decision before man. 

III. Specific Requested Action.

In terms of what’s been done so far on the building, work teams have reinforced the flying buttresses with tailor-made wood support systems,  and robots have been used to clear the nave of some rubble. The rebuilding of the roof is necessary, but as far as how this will be done there is debate. French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe suggested considering innovative designs for rebuilding but others prefer an “exact” Medieval rebuild. At the moment, the cathedral and those working on it remain in the “restoration, stabilization and rescue phase.”
I believe that once this stage is complete, at least part of the roof must remain there as-is, as evidence of the fire, and to differentiate between the phases of the monument’s lifecycle. Today, part of the wonder of Notre Dame is that it has stood nearly 900 years. Under the right circumstances, it will last 900 more and any work that is done on it now would be glorified by time and Riegl’s so-called “Age-value”  as well, but this will only be possible if the cathedral is interfered with and reinforced. 

After reinforcing the roof and the remainder of the cathedral by whatever manner and in whichever style is eventually agreed upon, a small area of the roof and any other area that suffered significant damage should be left as is, perhaps encased in transparent protective glass – so long as its being left as is doesn’t threaten the structural integrity of the rest of the rebuilding. I propose calling such sites “windows to the past.” These windows, beyond just showing the damage of the 2019 fire,  will also allow for the “skeleton” of the building to be revealed along with the essence of the “Anima Loci”, the place soul. They will allow for contemplation of the passage of time, the strength of fire, and the perseverance of the monument over the elements with the assistance of technology (or perhaps for the religious, divine intervention). 

IV. Institutional Uniqueness.

As a specialist who has studied various aspects of the principles, practices, and debates surrounding cultural preservation, and being contacted by the Notre Dame reconstruction committee, I feel uniquely qualified to make this request. 

V. Conclusion

Notre Dame, despite her damages, is a place of wonder. Her treatures and relics, the crown of thorns and tunic of St.Louis among them, survived the blaze. Time is the ultimate equalizer, and it feeds our egos to believe that our present interference in the lifecycle of the cathedral will be so consequential. After all, parts of Notre Dame’s roof that burned in the fire were only completed in the 1850s, far from being 850 years old. The cathedral saw a 25-year restoration under the reign of  King Louis Phillippe, the nineteenth-century addition of an organ rebuilt 6,900 new pipes added to the 900 pipes from the previous design, and the twentieth century has seen electric motors installed to ring the bells… What is done will ultimately become a part of the tapestry of the site’s history and another patch in the patchwork of its existence. The addition of my proposed, “windows to the past” will create visibility free from rewriting or romanticizing, that neutral and untouched with room for reflection. Religious spaces are spaces of contemplation and strengthening one’s correspondence with a site through facilitating greater considerations will strengthen a visitor’s relationship to this monumental site. 

Works Cited

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/notre-dame-fire-what-was-damaged-n995371