Can Notre Dame Be Saved From Architects, Politicians and Political Correctness?

French President Macron has promised that Notre Dame Cathedral will be rebuilt in only five years and “even more beautifully” than before.

Already, billions of Euros have been pledged by the extremely wealthy.

And a design contest is already under way.

What does a design contest mean?

It means that restoring the building to the Gothic masterpiece that it was is not an option.  Architects will vie for the opportunity to showcase their modern reinterpretation in the most showy and extravagant, all-inclusive ways possible.  No longer will it be a Catholic or Christian cathedral, as many are arguing that it should be secular and not a showcase for religion.

In Domus, an architecture and design magazine, Architect Tom Wilkinson observes that President Macron’s desire for a more beautiful building “…raises as many questions as it answers. By whose standards of beauty?”  He then argues that Notre Dame might better be a “monument to truth, rather than beauty.”  Under that scenario, the truth could be political truth.  Here’s the danger that Wilkinson sees:

“To rebuild ‘even more beautifully’ in this regard could mean, for instance, transforming Notre-Dame into a memorial to the generations of peasants who were exploited to fund it, and the heretics murdered by its client. Or, if the barbarism of which this building is a document has grown too cold to trouble us, why not a monument to a more up-to-date form of political truth? How about, in this instance, a monument to le gilet jaune inconnu [translation: unknown yellow vest, Ed., Mr Evil], complete with a dayglow spire? Or if that seems a little frivolous, what about the approximately 100 Algerians who were killed by the French police while protesting the Algerian War in 1961, many of them thrown into the Seine at the foot of Notre-Dame? These victims of the state could be memorialised by replacing Viollet-le-Duc’s flèche with – why not? – a graceful minaret.”  — Tom Wilkinson in Domus

While others in the media are quoting Wilkinson as promoting a minaret, I think this is his dry way of warning what a can of worms a liberal reinterpretation of Notre Dame might come to.  Or he might be serious.  His editorial style leaves one to wonder, but once you start making changes and reinterpretations, where do you stop?  Maybe you just go wild and show your flair for modern design and whatever is on your political mind. After all, you’ve got billions of Euros to play with and liberal politicians who will let you get away with it.

Notre Dame is a Christian monument and should remain so.  It should be restored to it’s Gothic splendor without making politically correct accommodations to Muslims, Buddhist, atheists and others.

I’m certainly no great architect like Mr. Wilkinson. However, for those who think the addition of a minaret is appropriate, let me suggest some equally sane and equally appropriate architectural ideas:

• Add graceful giant golden arches and a drive-thru.
• Add a graceful giant statue of Colonel Sanders, holding a chicken leg in one hand and a French baguette in the other to symbolize the acceptance of both French and American cuisine.
• Build a graceful megalithic nose sculpture to celebrate French snobbery toward Americans (you know, the same Americans who saved them from Nazism in WWII).

If we can’t have the real Notre Dame, I would much rather see the golden arches there instead of a minaret!

Here’s the link to Mr. Wilkinson’s article in Domus.

–Mr. Evil