How the restoration of Notre Dame also subtly changed the building | DW News

[@jasatx2024]

Probably this is the most impressive Restoration project done in our era. The level of craftsmanship and professionalism is outstanding. Bravissimo! 👏

[@kibun1]

No. Look for the Frauenkirche in Dresden.

[@erikamustermann6783]

@@kibun1 I think they‘re both impressive!

[@ticoss]

​@@kibun1 it's impressive, indeed, even in ~10 years. The most important thing for me is to see that this knowledge is still mastered by men, and I hope that these talents will continue to be present in the future.

[@ДарьяВолкова-ш4ш]

Do you remember that this restoration and rebuild became necessary because of lack of professionalism of workers and poor working conditions?

[@valeriebianco4505]

@@ДарьяВолкова-ш4ш Qu'est ce que vous en avez Monsieur le spécialiste?

[@BlueHooloovoo]

The brightness of the stone is what a person from the medieval period would've seen. Although much of the columns and ceiling would've been painted in bright colors.

[@trulsdirio]

Well, it most likely isn't. Gothic cathedrals were vividly painted most of the time and from what I could gather Notre Dame was as well.

[@BlueHooloovoo]

@trulsdirio However, if there was exposed stone, it would have looked much like it does in the restoration.

[@florianartus3231]

Actually, no evidence of paint have been documented on ND ceiling, excepted what has been retituted in this restoration. So it is probably now very fair to the builder's intentions.

[@sandranlembosantamarina6227]

@@trulsdirio not this one .stone work was shown over the hundreds of years . Just look at pictures . Norte dame was never painted ..only a politician that doesn’t respect culture art and it’s significance can do such a damage .to a heritage site . Ona can look at what he was proud off , the Olympics . That is Macron .

[@normanchristie4524]

The last time I visited ND it was pretty grotty inside and there was netting on the North to collect stone fragments. The interior is clean, the stained glass is also being cleaned and restored to historical curated standards. The lighting much improved. Initially the gilding will look gaudy, the newly flagged floor will dim.

[@jokerace8227]

Did we forget the entire point of buttress style architecture was to make large windows possible, so more daylight can come into the building? If it looks even lighter brighter inside than before, excellent.

[@dutchman7623]

All the soot and wax from centuries of candles has been removed. The windows are sponged. So we see a ceiling where endless greyness once ruled.

[@eldermillennial8330]

@@dutchman7623 Fascinating cleaning process. It looked like this when new. Well, apart from the heretical alter. The rest is great.

[@gregorioeduardo]

the entire point of buttresses was for height, to be " closer to God" and NOT to make bigger windows. LMAO

[@jorgeburke3465]

@@gregorioeduardoit’s really for structural support.

[@P_NG]

​@@gregorioeduardoButtresses make it higher, flying buttresses make the structure more penetrable to light, as opposed to massive regular buttresses. Só indeed, it was the entire point of this architecture

[@neilsarfati3334]

As a Parisian, I can confirm that it was extremely dark and covered with soot. Indeed the contrast is now huge but it doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. Anyway, light will be dimmed later, so there’s no need to be upset!

[@jodystepnowski695]

Didn’t people fuss when the Sistine Chapel ceiling was cleaned years ago,too?

[@goldflo91]

Except for some stained glass windows that were intact and will be replaced by "modern" ones, as president Macron wishes 😉😡

[@marnatz5]

​@@goldflo91Do you if Macron is a practicing Catholic? If so, what is the name of the parish church and town where he goes to Mass on Sundays?

[@sbalman]

I visited France and you are so right. The cathedral was very dark-walled. I loved everything about it but would love to see it cleaned. I cannot wait to come back to your beautiful city and country.

[@BeardedApostle]

People complaining that it should have been restored to original, are being somewhat dishonest. They want it to look how it did after 800+ years of dirt, grime, wear, and tear. When it was brand new, it probably looked more like it does now, than it did before the fire.

[@FreeRadical09]

People also complained when the Sistine Chapel was restored because the frescos looked "too bright and colorful" but they didn't take into account that they looked pale and dark because of all the soot and grime accumulated over centuries. For the first time in a a very long time, people can enjoy a close approximation of the cathedral as it was when it was originally built, and that can't be a bad thing. I will make it so to be there at some point in my life and delight in the spirit of persistence and renewal of the French people and their history.

[@virginiaensinck5828]

You're absolutely right about the same thing happening after the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. I had forgotten about it (shame on me!), but I visited it before the restoration and I remember being shocked by the amount of colour afterwards. I couldn't believe it was the same chapel!

[@davidsider6548]

The same was/is true of the restoration of La Fenice in Venice, where all original details and colors were restored. Going there after its restoration was seeing it the way people did when it was new.

[@reginaldforthright805]

It’s hideous

[@rkr9861]

People are used to things as they experienced them, not as they were before they had that experience. I know that if the Statue of Liberty was de-oxidized from its current green to it's original shiny copper most Americans would lose their minds.

[@jdos5643]

I just don’t get the same awe with the cathedral as I do at Peter basilica. And I haven’t been to neither. So if I planned a trip I probably would go to Italy.

[@Anubis81]

People got pissed when Le Duc added elements that were never there and people got pissed when Marc Chagall added modern windows to Reims cathedral after it burned out in WW1. But a gothic cathedral is always evolving and is never really "finished". Every century makes it's own contribution and it shows the love people have for the edifice.

[@sbalman]

I agree completely.

[@СветланаЧерняк-ц2д]

"...он никогда не бывает завершенным..." потому что не просто так горит.

[@eldermillennial8330]

@@СветланаЧерняк-ц2д Yeah, Jacobins desecrated it, and I’m convinced the fire was deliberate but Marcon hasn’t the balls to deal with that properly. Thousands of other churches have burned by vandalism yet this was “just an accident”? 🙄

[@seward9]

Thank you, a lot of people needs to read this !!

[@seward9]

@@eldermillennial8330fake news… seriously… 🙄 Macron is a piece of trash, we agree on it. And he is a pyroman for all the french society, but it wasn’t his wish to see that place burning.

[@JeffBilkins]

The artisans did a top-notch job, and can be proud their work is now part of a chain of craftspeople going back to the 12th century and into the future.

[@reginaldforthright805]

Disgraceful job. They should be ashamed

[@EthanRom]

@@reginaldforthright805 Artisans that use old construction methods are incredibly rare so there are only so few people who could work on this project

[@lysgauty1]

c'est fatiguant de lire des commentaires stupides....la Cathédrale Notre Dame a été restaurée à l'identique/ les travaux ont été réalisés par les compagnons du devoir et des artisans travaillant avec les mêmes outils et méthodes qu'au Moyen Age. tous les vitraux anciens ont été nettoyés, restaurés et remis en place. c'est un cas unique dans le monde, pour la première fois ont a fabriquer des outils semblables a ceux utilisés au Moyen Age pour travailler le bois et la pierre.... le résultat est spectaculaire, la Cathédrale a retrouvé sa splendeur . Elle est sans aucun doute plus belle qu'avant l'incendie. la cathédrale n'avait pas été nettoyé depuis 170 ans . la pierre à retrouvé sa couleur naturel et donne un éclat délicat à l'intérieur de ND Dame. les éclairages ont été également adaptés à l'ensemble.

[@cronobactersakazakii5133]

Bah vous savez, c’est tellement plus facile de dire de la 💩 que d’agir. J’imagine l’exaltation des artisans qui auront eu cette opportunité unique dans leur vie de reconstruire dans les règles de leur art un tel édifice ! (Sans oublier le talent des ingénieurs et ouvriers "modernes"). On peut aussi mentionner la reconstruction de Dresde et de la Frauenkirche. Allez, ne vous en faites pas pour les médisants, les pierres traversent les siècles et ne les entendent pas.

[@carollollol]

Thanks for the info. I thought the video was lacking so much info. And just about whining and pointing fingers. :S Why can't they make descent informative video about the topic with facts :S

[@breatharian2009]

J'espère que vous dites juste.

[@lysgauty1]

@breatharian2009 ça fait 5 ans que nous suivons les artisans compagnons sur le chantier de notre Dame....

[@jeremymazon6437]

C'est bizarre vous oubliez de parler des vitraux alors que c'est le centre du sujet pour ceux qui sont en colère!

[@josephbrandtner7713]

When I saw the fire on the evening news in Pittsburgh, PA, even though I'm not Roman Catholic, I broke down and cried. I find the restoration a resurrection!

[@reginaldforthright805]

Get a grip. It looks absolutely hideous

[@andrewjones-productions]

I'm not quite sure what Elisabeth Moutet was expecting. The cathedral, as mostly all churches and cathedrals, have had changes made them to during various eras. Notre Dame wasn't modernised for the sake of it, it suffered a massively destructive fire and it has been typical, even traditional, that the rebuilt, revamped or restoration structure be done so in a way that reflects that particular era. In time, the additions made in the 21st century will themselves be historic and ancient. The 21st century is no less important or superior to any other prior century. I thing that they have done a remarkable job on the restoration and the additions are tasteful and do not detract from the splendour of Notre Dame.

[@eldermillennial8330]

Well, not to the point of heresy. That alter is hideous. The TRUE alter is intact, still beautiful but ignored by the New Order, as usual.

[@williamwaldenar5174]

@@eldermillennial8330 There is no TRUE altar. TRUE is an adjective which is meaningless in the present case. Eventually you could have said ORIGINAL. But even that is very far from the historical truth.

[@lindacondray7918]

Well put.

[@claudinehale-woods]

@@eldermillennial8330 No, the old altar was crushed under the Metallic "flèche". I like the simplicity/purity of the new altar and in a century it will be old!

[@claudinehale-woods]

@@williamwaldenar5174

[@Andre-kg6fu]

What does it matter? Heard a BBC interview with one of the carpenters who worked on the project... Were they supposed to restore the grime and soot?

[@aracelychavezp]

clickbait, turn out beautiful imho.

[@keithgiblin2636]

That's not what she meant. Clearly the reporter did not want to focus on the changes.

[@Andre-kg6fu]

@@keithgiblin2636 I didn't watch the video, to be fair - limited data.

[@josephshields2922]

@@keithgiblin2636 It's the modern furnishings and futuristic altar. It's like putting a flat screen tv in Washington's Mount Vernon.

[@keithgiblin2636]

@@josephshields2922 ikr What was wrong with the historical ones? Did you see the conspicuously placed fonts? Uninspired post-modernism is already everywhere else...

[@al3220]

Restoration looks respectfully thought out. Lady needs to chill.

[@erics670]

Agree - the place burned - can't really do much about that

[@Tindog81476]

So as someone who is not from Paris nor Catholic, I had to look up what she was complaining about. I did see that the podium was a modern design and the chairs, but it was like... what is the deal with the stain glass? So I looked it up basically back in the 1700's the original stain glass was destroyed and in the 1800's it was replaced, but people didn't like it, so in the 1930's it was replaced again with a design people hated even worse, and after WW2 the 1930 version was never put back so the 1800's stain glass was put back instead, but people have never really liked it because it doesn't match the rest of the cathedral. So when Notre Dame burned down there was the idea put down by Macron to just replace the window once and for all with a modern design. The reason people don't like the north stain glass is it's too simple and white compared to all the other stain glass windows. The reason for this is being on the North side it doesn't get a lot of sunlight so the 1800's design was brighter and clearer to allow for more natural light, but that makes it look weird compared to other windows. As for the podium and chairs... honest this may just be my opinion but I think it looks better than the old design. The old design had a very 1920-1930's feeling to me and it felt a bit out of place for example the chairs were gold and red, which didn't blend in as much, and the podium looked almost like a soviet era design. Maybe I'm misguided in that, I'm not from the area I'm just looking at pictures online. Now I would agree the extreme modern design does look a bit weird especially when close up, but they for sure got the colors right. It stands out and blends in very well. In that way I think it does work better because it gives the cathedral a focal point, which it didn't really have but should have had. I'm not really a fan of modern styles and I think a half circle is a bit weird, but it does kinda feel louvre-ish. Which feels very french to me, so I don't hate it. One of the biggest changes that wasn't mentioned is the chairs in the main hall are getting replaced, the original ones were dark wood and the newer ones are light wood, this will help the light penetrate around the room better and is actually more similar to what would have been there originally (lighter wood). Even if the design of the chairs is modern. It will make the cathedral feel less like a cellar. As for the (baptismal fountain?) at the entrance, it's probably the thing I like the least... However I have seen those in other catholic buildings, and I really can't see what was there originally or what the original one looked like. Apparently, the reason for it is the way you move around the building was changed a bit to allow visitors a much easier path to walk around while separating the visitors from those going to worship. This way everyone just uses the front doors instead of the side doors. This also I believe moves the gift shop outside the building (which given this is a church first and foremost I think is a wise move) the museum and gift shop are going to be under the plaza in front of the cathedral along with items removed from the cathedral during renovation. So I'm not sure how I feel about it we will have to see how the changes are made once it opens. Overall I think they did a really good job, and I am in agreement you shouldn't just put things back the old way for the sake of it being old. Sometimes modernizing something is what is best (for example old buildings never had indoor plumbing but I think all buildings should as we are never going back). The window things was interesting, not sure how I feel about that, maybe if you looked at it it would make more sense, but it's always been controversial so that hasn't changed. Modern design... eh I don't like it as much but I think they got the colors right. So overall I think it's really good given the level of destruction. I like how the modern update really emphasizes that it was a building meant to bring light in.

[@Arkelk2010]

Thank you for that detailed comment. The modern half circle (is that supposed to be an altar?) and baptismal font look wrong, but I am iffy on modern styles. I look forward to seeing for myself. In 2004 I found the cathedral to be gloomy; I'll be excited to see her full of light.

[@eyesofivy]

I personally really hate all of the new additions added by Guillaume Bardet (the designer for the modern furniture pieces you have described), I find the dark colour domineering next to the now bright restored walls and the modern style of these various pieces rather uninspired. I'm sure they wanted to put some modern stank on it but I just think these pieces look weird and out of place in a way that does not add to the space.

[@kaythegardener]

I like your historical & aesthetic comments very much!!

[@jenniferadam8052]

I appreciate your insight into what was going on with the stained glass windows. I have to agree with the other posters though - the modern furniture looks completely out of place. I have a feeling it will be chucked down the line!

[@Tindog81476]

@@jenniferadam8052 Give it 40 years it will hit the 40-year out-of-date rule. Then we can throw it out.

[@williamt.little1972]

This Cathedral is a living being - which grows and changes with time. It is not, nor should it be, a static structure. What a magnificent repair/restoration - an effort about which France can justly be proud! We look forward to our visit to see and worship in January!!

[@Gary-z5y]

And what do you think Jesus would think?

[@gljm]

@@Gary-z5y What do you think he thought about the vast changes made to the Medieval Cathedral in the 19th century?

[@Gary-z5y]

@@gljm “for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?” For the believer, the temple is the body because in it indwells the Holy Spirit.

[@Sorunia]

​@@Gary-z5yIf you think Jesus cares about a building, you have entirely the wrong idea about Jesus and what Christianity means. It's about your relationship with God and others, not about some old stone and wood.

[@lesliepropheter5040]

Should the Americans stop using the White House?

[@reelreeler8778]

Not a Catholic and from USA here. Donated to the rebuilding fund for the Cathedral. Joyous to see it rebuilt! Yes, some interior things are different and modern-style, but that is an issue that can be dealt with later. Just be happy for now!

[@ultramet]

Mistake? The cathedral was on the brink of being lost forever. Of course it won’t be covered by centuries of pollution and some of the interiors won’t be the same but that in no way should detract from the magnificent restoration here. Some people will always complain. The thing was basically lost for eternity!!!

[@theblade9024]

Stop whining! You can see a face? Leaving because I am tired of yours.

[@thierryrebillard6432]

Anne-Elisabeth Moutet aged 65 is a French writer journalist born near Paris about 15 km from the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris she is based in Paris and works among other for the British newspaper The Daily Télégraph . This "miss" Moutet is a political opponent of President Macron , it is therefore not abnormal that she finds an angle of attack against Emmanuel Macron.

[@sophiegoarin2903]

N’importe quoi

[@salahidin]

​@@sophiegoarin2903 Il a raison. Le French bashing est d'ailleurs une des grandes spécialité du Telegraph, qui ne se prive jamais rabaisser tout ce qui peut venir d'outre manche.

[@didou2a981]

Pire que ça, cette journaliste française dans toutes les émissions de tv auxquelles elle participe est toujours très critique avec la France et toujours très positive avec la grande Bretagne...lorsque il s'agit de comparer les 2 pays. . CF Les émissions c dans l’air au moment du brexit!

[@untitledjuan2849]

And, perhaps more important, she is not an architect, she is not a historian, she isn't an expert on how Medieval Gothic cathedrals look. The Notre Dame that could be seen before the fire had centuries of dust accumulated on it's walls, which were cleaned as part of the restoration. It is now more similar to how it looked like centuries ago. But I guess this journalist can't see beyond her own temporal lifetime due to lack of knowledge.

[@grgr3074]

En effet qu'est ce qu'elle a, à pleurnicher ?

[@harperwelch5147]

its not a mistake to restore a painting to bring it back to how it looked originally. its not a mistake to do the same with a building.

[@tjr-007tt]

I’m so glad I got to see it before the fire.

[@douginorlando6260]

Yes. Me too. Macron used the fire to erase 800 years of French history. I’m not surprised, he’s into erasing the historic France

[@ronaldnorris873]

Unfortunately it’s not a restoration but more of a renovation. I’m glad I got to see the cathedral in its original glory.

[@straightarrow372]

It's a living cathedral. It doesn't have to be static. The spiritual energy that makes that place has been there since prehistoric times and will remain.

[@lours6993]

Lady needs to chill; The 19th century restoration changed MANY things.

[@josephshields2922]

She's right, It is not a hotel and Macron is not Napoleon.

[@Austin8thGenTexan]

​ @josephshields2922 But...the French State owns every Catholic building in France. The church is a tenant since the Revolution. Would someone kindly explain this arrangement ? 🤔

[@JeffBilkins]

like a Ship of Theseus situation it is still the same cathedral all this time.

[@Koresos.]

Of course, but it’s not as if the 19th century isn’t notorious for its ruthless way of dealing with architecture. They didn’t give a damn about historicity back then haha. Should one now follow this example or perhaps at least maintain the minimum level of professionalism which amounts to “as little as possible but as much as necessary”?

[@lawriefoster5587]

As did I...in 1969!!

[@scottguy5452]

Hopefully they installed some fire suppression systems as well

[@wpontius4355]

Yes I know they did in the roof\forest, unsure about anywhere else.

[@sharonl.chandler8428]

A restoration is supposed to be a restoration of the original, not let's make it modern and different .

[@danoakes4071]

Restoring the petina of centuries is in the too hard to do box. No matter what they did, someone would kick. I think it looks wonderful.

[@AleadaA]

Restore to it's former glory - respect it's history - modernize a hotel or workplace - hands off historic buildings - Macron!

[@jimpie231]

My wife and I were in Notre Dame in April of 1984. We had notgone to Mass that Sunday, we were tourists at the time. We walked into the cathedral at 2:45pm and there was an Organ concert at the time. It was beautiful and the place was filled (5000 people). The concert was finished and a mass started that we attended. It was concelebrated by 7 priests, but only about 20 people stayed for the mass, I was shocked. The interior was pretty dark, and I wondered if anyone even used the place for what it was made for?

[@barnarus2547]

France has gone pretty secular, FWIU. Hope they will turn back to the One for Whom the edifice was made.

[@StarskyBuba]

So please they saved the building but now it looks incredibly sterile and corporate

[@peterfranc6370]

It looks beautiful, but I agree with Moutet in the interview. If they had intact original stained glass, it doesn't make sense they didn't put them back in place only to "modernize" the cathedral.

[@Odin029]

I understand her concerns, but if she goes down the road to St. Denis, which I'm sure she has before, she'd see that even in the medieval people updated their cathedrals with the times.

[@neilhemsworth148]

Elisabeth Moutet is entitled to her own personal opinion. Given her personal negative remarks, it is lamentable why she was given a chance to say those destructive remarks that might otherwise affect other people's expectations and excitement on a restoration the whole world had waited for five years! I hope you delete her remarks! As an architect who specializes in classical art and involved in design and restorations, I would have done the same thing too had I been given the chance to spearhead the restoration. Kudos and bravos to the architectural team of Notre Dame! They've done a MAGNIFICENT JOB! The interplay of light coming from the stained glass windows is AMAZING giving DRAMA to everything! The CLEANING of the entire ceiling, walls and floors together with the additions of a high tech LIGHTING SYSTEM greatly lightened the humongous interior of the cathedral which used to be dark and gloomy. Any modern additions to the cathedral's interior should not be viewed as offensive and negative. They have been thoroughly thought of and has a very important purpose. Innovating the designs of the Mensa, the baptismal font, the bishop's high chair and the congregation's benches is a summation of our generation's contributions to the growth and history of Notre Dame. Hundred years after, they would become valuable and intrinsic in the cathedral's interior design. I personally would like to commend the architect's avante garde design of the MENSA, BAPTISMAL FONT and the BISHOP'S HIGH CHAIR. They are superbly modern and VERY RELEVANT in our modern times. The great artisans who labored so hard to recreate an ART that has gone to ashes are truly the heroes here. Yes, they got paid though but their God-given talents and their dedication to their craft were the decisive edge that made the difference. The Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral would always remain as a symbol of RESILIENCE and the DEDICATION of the FRENCH PEOPLE to PRESERVE their rich religious culture and their MAGNIFICENT CHURCH OF WORSHIP! It has fallen and has RISEN! Their FAITH is IMMEASURABLE! CONGRATULATIONS! A JOB WELL DONE!

[@JaimeAlvarez-r9u]

Well the cathedral should be reviewed by a practicing CATHOLIC. As for myself I would say the modernist editions are lame and make the rest of the buliding look bad but overall its decent.

[@k.v.7681]

The thing is, the State is proprietor of the place in the sense that such buildings are legally considered national heritage. And most people did not want a modernization. Removing the soot is part of the restoration, yes, but entirely changing the design of pieces that were preserved was NOT wanted. In France, there have always been multiple schools of thought when it comes to preservation of sites of historical relevance (preserve, don't restore, slow it down, maintain it at all costs, etc). The most accepted stance in the country is that our own contribution should be new and separate to preserve places like Notre Dame. Replacing elements means removing elements that might be of great importance to future generations. A lot of people were for even a reversal of the 19th century changes. It was decided against with the consideration of "what is done is done and part of history". But additional changes are disputed because it implies we are the arbiters of what should be historically relevant to future generations. And there are modern churches, even built with concrete (and surprising beautiful) that are given special regards and help for their maintenance so as to leave a mark.

[@erikamustermann6783]

@@neilhemsworth148 well said!

[@erikamustermann6783]

@@k.v.7681 oh, get a grip! A building like Notre Dame is forever evolving because of the need to renovate and restore. To demand a historical restoration is impossible. What version of the building is historical enough for you. Should they also take out modern amenities like heating and electricity to get a crispy 12th century feeling? It looks stunning and glorious and it is open again for people, religious or not to be admired.

[@MewDenise]

People do realize that dust, grime and soot is not gothic style. This is probably how the stone looked when it was first built

[@akr01364]

The reason why the old windows had to be replaced is that the masonry around them was damaged. It's not the hardest stone in the world and was used in the glazing for the fact that it was easy to work into complex shapes. The old windows were conserved and will be used in the cathedral elsewhere. But, it was deemed better to move them for different glass so that new stone that wasn't worked to fit just those, hand made panes could be used.

[@ursuladeubel3293]

They also cleaned up the dirt and pollution from hundreds of of years, looks beautiful now inside and outside. What a beautiful cathedral it is now.

[@missmayflower]

Oh good grief. How can you complain about the restoration of a cathedral that was almost lost. Wa wa wa.

[@amysill3815]

Because the new furnishings are hideous and inappropriate.

[@visceratrocar]

​@@amysill3815 You mean different.

[@hofmannwaves1525]

yes, she doesn't speak for parisians

[@christiancris8252]

Je pense que c’est magnifique. Un travail extraordinaire de centaines d’artisans venant des quatre coin du pays. La seule chose que je regrette ce sont les vitraux ( fenêtres) modernes. Je n’aime pas. Merci aux donateurs. Savez vous que des gens ont donné un ou plusieurs arbres ( chêne) centenaires qui étaient sur leur terrain pour faire la charpente ? Quel beau cadeau…

[@duskkittywalks2852]

I’m so disappointed with the modernization inside. I’m glad they added fire protection but

[@jeffhampton2767]

Many millions of dollars were donated from the United States ❤🇺🇸🙏🏻👍🏻

[@TheRandompaint]

Spending tax dollars on a palace of vanity doesn't sit right.

[@grahamwalker2312]

It's certainly much lighter inside. The glass & artwork are stunning. Would I be correct that this much restoration work has been a catalyst for the training and promotion of craft skills into the next generation.

[@sloth9669]

Humanity at its finest. Creating and not destroying.

[@Elo-hv3fw]

Carpentry and engineering at its finest !!!! "Restoring" means using the same lumber from the same century. France has done excellent work.

[@tettazwo9865]

Humanity would feed the poor instead.

[@RJM56]

@@tettazwo9865 humanity can do both with the will. The restoration was funded by donations. Meanwhile the amount spent over the five years of restoration is about what Russia spends on its war on Ukraine *every day* .

[@vidarodinson5246]

​@@tettazwo9865that's what the Church already do for long time while restoring a Cathedral at the same time.

[@vidarodinson5246]

​@@RJM56true

[@AlyMolly]

If you expect Elisabeth Moutet to be happy about anything that even remotely involves Emmanuel Macron… you can wait. Forever.

[@stelios5314]

I totally agree with her and Im neither French nor a Roman Catholic. You cannot "throw away" existing parts of the temple just to replace them with sth new. We are talking about a monument. If Macron wants to have a modern church he can build another one.

[@AlyMolly]

@ I do not agree with the idea of replacing existing 19th century stained glass windows with contemporary ones. But for the rest, I find her criticism of the interior unfair. « A luxury hotel » ? Really ? This is the same cathedral just a lot cleaner. It was not modernized. Also, the new furnishings were commissioned by the archbishop.

[@HWY66]

☑

[@Geoplanetjane]

@@stelios5314nope. Cathedrals are always changing. Not ever meant to be static

[@scottread]

​@@stelios5314oh don't be so silly.

[@DavidMaurand]

It's gorgeous.

[@TheRandompaint]

Nothing like praying for the poor in a $500,000,000 building.

[@samuelbowlby1202]

Lots of armchair carpenters who haven’t lifted a hammer in their lives lol

[@untitledjuan2849]

She also thinks she is an expert on Medieval Gothic Histort and Architecture, which she clearly isn't

[@maniniescobar244]

​@@untitledjuan2849she is

[@PierrotHG]

Cathedrals were designed to be luminous, color-filled spaces, the opposite of Romanesque architecture. The word “Gothic” does not mean obscure or dark. The work that has been accomplished is quite simply extraordinary.

[@brucetominello7440]

Since none of us were here 800 years ago who can say that it hadn’t changed in all those years? I have been there dozens of times and look forward to returning in 2025.

[@stelios5314]

This doesnt legitimize throwing away existing parts of a historical temple just to replace them with sth that will look out of place

[@brucetominello7440]

@ I agree. I don’t approve of changing the windows if they were not destroyed nor any of the other items that were spared from the fire. When Le Duc did his restoration in the 19th Century he made many changes to what was originally there as well and I have not seen any criticism of that yet I’m sure there was some. The important thing is that the cathedral will stand for another 800 years or more thanks to these efforts.

[@stelios5314]

@@brucetominello7440 So we both agree that replacing the surviving original windows was a bad desicision. People in old days didnt always percieved the historical originality as sth worth retaining. Our appreciation of history has supposedly lead us to understand some more things now. So, even if Viollet de Luc did sth we would currently consider wrong if happened today doesnt mean we should repeat this error. At least Viollet de Luc made nice looking changes that could adapt to the architecture of the building. Minimal elements like windows will instead create imbalance to the building. Anyway, of course I'm happy too for the restoration overall!

[@thierrybidault5837]

Who is that st..id French journalist woman? What did she do to help in restoring Notre Dame? 97% of the restoration respects the original; 2 or 3 little touches of modernity are not bad, on the contrary. By the way, despite what she said, without "politicians" the restoration could have taken 12 or 13 years. The day after the destruction, Macron said "We have 5 years to rebuild it". They did it! Congrats to all workers! It is an impressive and magnificent work!

[@stelios5314]

She didnt disrespected the workers. She talked about some specific political decisions. And I totally agree with her, despite not being French nor a Catholic. Its absurd to "throw away" existing and SURVIVING parts of the monument just to "modernize" it. Not to mention that these new windows will probably look 1) Out of place in comparison to the rest, and 2) simply uglier and more "minimalistic". If you want a modern touch guys, go build another cathedral. I would bet a modern architecture cathedral would fail to meet the beauty standards of Notre Dame.

[@marnatz5]

​@@stelios5314Totally agree with you!

[@Xerxes2005]

@@stelios5314 Each time Notre-Dame had been restored, it has been modernized. Louis XIV changed the sanctuary and "modernized" it. Violet-Leduc also modernized the cathedral. I'm pretty sure that, in 150 years, when the restore it gain, some will complain that the beautiful baptismal font of the 21st century had been replaced...

[@Jesus-The-Everlasting-Father]

@@stelios5314 There was no existing parts 🤣. Almost 80% of everything got burned down.

[@Jesus-The-Everlasting-Father]

@@Xerxes2005 Is that what Google had told you??

[@chevyyyyyyy]

Yes, the minimalist, kind of 70s style of furniture does not match stylistically at all. A disgrace and subversion of the original vision.

[@fastwheels195]

I agree with her. I also feel that any modernization that should be done is fire suppression systems like sprinklers and fire retardant on the wood portions of the structure

[@DavidS5118]

For all the grand work all the guest can do is whine, what a shame. Paris and the World will love the grand dame as they always have done.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Actually the guest was quite impressed with the overall project and the donations from all over the world that helped make it happen. Her only criticism was with some aspects of the interior. So your whining misses the point of what she had to say. And by the way, everyone is entitled to their opinion. You don't have to agree with what she said, but you could at least give a more balanced opinion yourself. imo

[@goldflo91]

They will enjoy, except for the contemporary stained glass windows 😉

[@Geoplanetjane]

@@goldflo91 They are NOT contemporary, they just have new glass

[@Iceageonmars]

It’s wonderful that it was saved and Thank you from me in Ireland for all your work.

[@lisanester3338]

Why would you even try to modernize one of , if not the most important cathedral in the world?

[@evelynpretty2231]

She’s upset because the inside was extensively cleaned?!? The stained glass was not modernized. Get over it lady!!!

[@jorgemonserrate7070]

A big mistake would’ve been to demolish it, and build a new one. They did a lot of restoration that wasn’t fire related but was necessary so the cathedral didn’t look like a “Frankestain” upon reopening. “France” did an AMAZING job, and the Notre Dame looks much better than before, without the soot and grime covering it for centuries.

[@CinestirFilms]

I also visited it in the 90's and it was the dimmest, sootiest cathedral I visited in Europe. It looks much better now!

[@isaacliu896]

Nothing stays the same forever. One day people will look back on the changes we made to the cathedral today as historic, as we look back on the changes made in the 19th century!

[@daviddelgado6090]

Hundreds of years of soot. LEDs instead of incandescent lights. Like the cleaning of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

[@goldflo91]

Why not LEDs, if they can lower the church's energy bills ?

[@Geoplanetjane]

@@goldflo91yes. It’s not as if they were replacing 12th century incandescents.

[@judyc9380]

What an accomplishment, and honor for the craftspeople!

[@Mr.Chezzz]

Proud of the Mexican Architect Alejandro Arredondo who helped rebuild this. 🇲🇽❤️🇫🇷

[@jenniferfitzgerald1796]

Put the right windows back in and those are horrendous looking chairs.

[@benedictmarshall7031]

My impression on visiting many moons ago was that the interior was rather dark and brooding. I much prefer the renewal.

[@Misswiskers4]

They restored a magnificent structure , and added an improvement to open to appreciation , visual grandure , that was originally not available to appreciation in the time it was built. That's just my impression.

[@jibeji]

Why always try to create controversies? To get your moment of glory? The restoration is magnificent, whatever these poor journalists think

[@rich40701]

It looks amazing; in another 50 years most of us above 40 will be gone and for the majority this will be the Notre Dame they have always known.

[@MK-rt2gm]

I am not keen on the modern alter, but let's all be thankful it still stands.

[@CarlavanVeenendaal]

Just shows you what a difference 900 years worth of layers of dust and grime and soot makes. Remove it all and one has the shimmering light again, as originally intended.

[@pie.lot.bliksem]

1:01 The most beautiful picture and work of art I have ever seen😍

[@tino92vk]

People Said the same Thing about the Eiffel Tower when it was just build and look at it now Standing proud and Tall

[@marshabailey1121]

I'm not sure I agree with her. The cathedral has changed over the centuries; it is a living thing, not a museum. I think part of the challenge was to figure out what period to restore features to, which century. She talks about the 19th century windows; I'll bet people were peeved about that back in the day.

[@nibiruresearch]

I remember from many years ago that the interior of the Notre Dame was very dark There for the stained glass windows were spectecular. It looks very clean to me today.

[@MarvinClarence]

I wouldn't complain too much about that, the new altar, however, would concern me.

[@richardwebb2348]

A petulant political broadcast by Elisabeth Moutet, on the occasion of the first look at the restored interior of the cathedral, used to criticize President Marcon. He made sure that the restoration would take place, and his liking or disliking of the design of the font and furniture etc is, at least for me, of little importance. To suggest that somehow 'France' made a mistake in how the cathedral was restored is an insult to the many who worked on the restoration and saved the cathedral. I presume that her use of 'France' referred to Marcon, not the other 68 million in the country. I live in California, and have no view about French politics. I think the restoration is a wonderful achievement, and for Moutet to suggest that people visiting may have to overlook the unfinished work on the roof is regrettable.

[@salahidin]

Plus, the furniture was chosen by the Church...

[@assassinb460]

Is as if the Pyramids of Giza were destroyed and then rebuilt, giving it a "modern" appearance. They are historical buildings preserved to remind you of the past as they were originally envisioned. Changing them for political whims is a disservice to the historic remembrance of humanity. I agree with this woman that the changes destroy the whole point of the archeological preservation of this building.

[@salahidin]

@@assassinb460 and how do you know how they were originally envisioned? The dearth of documuents regarding the cathedral's construction make "perfect" reconsitutions impossible.

[@brt5273]

Reminds me of when they restored the stained glass at Chartres Cathedral and people got upset because the cleaned glass caused an overall color shift to a warmer tone.

[@Geoplanetjane]

Did they restore it or just clean it?

[@loganleroy8622]

Chartres is just beautiful. Visiting it while they were halfway done you really got to see the difference. It’s so much brighter and nicer.

[@selectooldave]

I think it is a very tasteful restoration. To make it look just like before would have been impossible.

[@MyNLR]

I agree with her. Should have redone it just like it was. A gothic midevil cathedral should not be modernized.

As an atheist, I am thrilled to see this gorgeous structure restored!

[@ItsJustaMeNow]

It seems I will now never get the chance to see the Notre Dame I wanted to see. I'm just a random nobody, but for what it's worth I swear I will never set foot in that building as long as it proudly displays it's modern scars.

[@evillcowboy]

Oh, I was going to see it next year. Now. I’ll just go to Barcelona. Thank you for your honesty….it looks like it sucks.

[@maninthemiddleground2316]

It looked “clean” and it’s bright.

[@kibun1]

That’s not a good thing for a historic building. So it failed?

[@maninthemiddleground2316]

@ been there pre-fire back in 2019 … what made it look old also gave it character. Don’t like personally but it is what it is and just happy that it’s open again. 😊

[@a.t.c.3862]

A huge thank you to the craftshumans who made this possible. 🙏

[@shelbynamels7948]

I see what you did there. I hope you are trying to be sarcastic.

[@jshepard152]

Craftsmammals. Sheep who provided wool might be offended.

[@BridgetWoodhouse-z2x]

I agree, very sad to modernise this.

[@cserd8734]

People will complain about anything…

[@tellyboy17]

Disneyfied rather than dignified.

[@1romans122]

It looks so light and airy now.

[@BorGia-d2r]

Дух захватывает от такой красоты❤ Париж всегда был мировой столицей красоты, изысканности, шарма, богатства❤ И теперь возродился Нотр Дам❤это праздник Души❤

[@susanhawkins2386]

Be thankful its being rebuilt stop moaning about things .

[@fkhdls]

Moutet is absolutely right. It looks nice but something important has been lost. A sense of history and continuity. And macron's insistence that you have to add modern touches is insane and betrays his lack of sophistication. I've been there dozens of times and this is not the cathedral I loved so much. Maybe in 100 years it will have some of its character back, but right now it's sterile and pretty uninteresting.

[@gljm]

She reminds me of the people who criticized the restoration of the Michelangelo frescoes in the Sistine Chapel who said that the bright colors made the frescoes look like cartoons, when we know from accounts from the time the frescoes were done that many people wrote about how bright the colors were and how beautiful they looked. The fact that the grime is gone and that the Cathedral looks clean and bright gives one a sense of what it must have looked like centuries ago. And a church is not a static thing. Every church evolves and picks up things from the current century as time passes.

[@peterpluim7912]

Actually, gothic cathedrals were painted from top to bottom. :)

[@KandeShack]

When the sphere came down, my heart broke!

[@Geoplanetjane]

Sphere? Do you mean spire?

[@misscatalina711]

They modernized it? That’s a crime!

[@SamAdams-cw7ew]

It should have been restored as closely as possible, it wasn't changed due to anyone wanting it to be changed, it was changed due to a fire. It should've been restored properly and people should've gone to prison. Instead its been modernised, and looks bland and tasteless.

[@kantsagurung175]

Please learn to appreciate other's good work 😊

[@RadicalcenterCN]

God bless Notre Dame, French people and people of faith.

[@jchambers5668]

It does not bother me one bit that the interior is not "exactly" like the interior. The whole building could have been lost forever! I am just very grateful for this wonderful restoration.

[@jaapfolmer7791]

Why this woman gets to spil her (political) bile is really beyond me. The place looks stunning. Well done, France!

[@hamodalbatal464]

France being proud of its Christianity ❤

[@voyd1507]

Is Its Woke Presidet though.......???

[@ElProfe78]

Unfortunately only once by Mac(a)ron

[@backintimealwyn5736]

@@voyd1507 Macron is everything but woke. Misconception that people have for some reason. France was actually quite spared by the woke madness compared to the anglo world and although I dislike macron very much, I tend to think that he resisted it as much as possible.

[@marnatz5]

France has beautiful churches with alot of empty pews. Need to make those churches alive again by returning to regular Catholic worship as their ancestors did and using it for the real purpose that it built for.

[@missmayflower]

😂😂😂😂. Nope. Proud of their architecture.

[@imrytebeehyneu]

Damn, it's like them saying " Oh thank you, you shouldn't have.." Is really " Thank you but no, you SHOULDN'T have.." Dafuq?

[@briansullivan7398]

A restoration became a remodeling. There was no reason to remove /change ancient details especially the alter, the focal point of the entire cathedral..... A sad commentary that windows in place for 900 years are not being returned to their places.

[@CarolElliot-c4e]

Beautiful,amazing to look at what has been done,we should be applauding them all for their hard work.Well done.❤

[@lasseien4743]

Cleaning it, makes it less gothic in my opinion. The darkness before the fire gave it a sense of the history from the dark ages. "Gothick, belonging to or redolent of the Dark Ages; portentously gloomy or horrifying: 19th-century Gothic horror".

[@untitledjuan2849]

What you describe as Gothic is a modern invention, the original Gothic architecture of the Middle Ages was full of color and full of light. It's structural innovations allowed for huge windows and the possibility of light of multiple colour to fill in the space. Moreover, the Middle Ages were far from being a "Dark Age", that's another "modern" myth of the Renaissance to claim that they were better than their ancestors.

[@lasseien4743]

@@untitledjuan2849 It was very dark when I visited and now it looked very bright. I was thinking about the the dark interior and the dramatic lighting that evoked a sense of awe and mystery. Thank you for your opinion.

[@kfh123]

Just don't take a look at St. Hedwigs cathedral in Berlin. It's now so modern, it looks like a new IKEA warehouse, all white. Horror.