(April 19, 2019 at 5:57 am)Belaqua Wrote:(April 19, 2019 at 4:46 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: It wont be the same 850 year old building but a modern copy in the same place.
I work next to HMS Victory and so much timber has been replaced in it over the years that I doubt any of it is original.
Its effectively just a big model using some metal from the real one.
Not that it makes the fire any less disastrous, but Notre Dame de Paris has been continuously restored over its history. When Viollet-le-Duc did a major overhaul in the mid-19th century, contemporary critics said he had ruined it -- modernized its look to the point of fakery.
We might get some purists coming along saying that the fire gives us a good excuse to restore it to how it was supposed to be.
Then there's the whole question of what the REAL thing is -- whether it is the decayed version of itself, or whether rebuilding it is necessary to keep it itself.
Europeans often tend to go for preserving ruins, for example at the Parthenon. But Japanese people completely rebuild the Great Shrine at Ise every 25 years, and say it's necessary to rebuild to maintain it as the same building. A decayed Great Shrine is not really the Great Shrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Excellent point. Even Stonehenge, as rubbishy as it looks now, has undergone restoration.
Pre:
Post:
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson