Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanJones
As I read though others replies I find myself agreeing with all sides of the discussion. So my views are as follows;
Is/was Notre Dame an exquisite example of gothic architecture ? I'd say no. But I would also say it has archtecural significance in its place. Do I think it can now be recreated with respect to its original form ? I'd say almost certainly not. I would argue that the craftsmanship used to join the timbers alone would now no longer pass building codes, despite standing for 100s of years. The irony of that can't be missed  . So my question is if it can't be built exactly the same, then where is its significance ? I must then agree that a modern reconstruction is the way to go.
Nicks comments have really struck a chord with me also and he voices a belief that I've been developing my self a lot recently. I think we concentrate, in all facets of life, far too much on either the preservation or a return to the past. Moving forward and creating new history should be our concentration if we wish to continue to evolve as a species.
Finally to Ron. I'm sorry but this is one comment I can't agree with. Unless you are living in self imposed poverty until the poor folk in Africa are on a level playing field then please be careful where you throw stones in your glass house. It is mearly a nice thought to think that Africa could be saved by money alone. I would argue that 99% of " money " given to Africa is given to make the payer feel good about them selves rather than the recipient. No different an ego driven behaviour than building an extravagant monument to celebrate a belief system that professes to care for all man kind. |
I would love to know how you come to your 99%?
The difference between the people and the stone,is one is a living breathing creature not an inanimate object.