Historic Resources Committee

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Historic Resources Committee and Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art, & Architecture .
-------------------------------------------
Chartres Cathedral, one of the most celebrated sacred sites on earth, is undergoing a makeover. While the French government claims historical accuracy for the changes, others, most notably architecture critic Martin Filler, have taken the French to task and have pronounced the "new" Chartres a scandal of historic proportions.
What do you think? Should Chartres be left as it is (seems too late for that) or restored to how the French government argues its original builders intended it to be? The two links below will take you to Filler's article, the second to the French response.

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/14/scandalous-makeover-chartres/
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/17/new-chartres-exchange/

-------------------------------------------
Michael Crosbie FAIA
Editor-in-Chief
Faith & Form
Essex CT
-------------------------------------------

I visited Chartres Cathedral at the end of last September and was shocked and puzzled by the new paint job. It certainly was brighter than when I last visited 40 years ago but I can't say that that was necessarily an improvement.  Having now read the New York Review of Books postings, I am even more puzzled and shocked that this so-called "restoration" was allowed to take place. The response and justification by  Caviness and Hamburger is self-contradicting by suggesting that the recreation of the "early modern" faux marble in the choir was a sound restoration strategy "no matter how much it distorts the medieval arrangement." How can the recreation of a negative be a positive? The fact that there were fires in the building doesn't justify the jumbled painting concept.  They are also wrong about the lighter paint colors enhancing the stained glass, as anyone can see by comparing the windows in the choir with those in the unpainted nave and transepts. This fanciful painting scheme is ill-conceived and a regrettable miss-treatment of this venerable structure. I am surprised that there hasn't been a more outspoken response.  
 
-------------------------------------------
George Bryant
Philadelphia PA
-------------------------------------------

The Profession of Architecture offers fore-sight & hind-sight, how grand that is.  My honeymoon was spent in and around Paris and standing inside Chartre was more than a book image.  The dark interior against the streaming natural lighted windows inspired us to worship.  Can color okra do the same?

It is a pleasure to read the starting comments about "should have, will have, must have" etc. and I look forward to visiting Chartre soon to experience the change.  Just as impressive as the interior was the approach and arrival from the distance.

What will we say when pyramid Khufu is restored?  My own opinion is if proper researched by professionals and they understand the history of the project and give us revived beauty, I am pleased.

-------------------------------------------
Carl Myatt AIA
Owner
Carl Myatt, Architect
Greensboro NC
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 12-26-2014 10:27
From: George Bryant
Subject: ARE THE FRENCH DESECRATING CHARTRES?

I visited Chartres Cathedral at the end of last September and was shocked and puzzled by the new paint job. It certainly was brighter than when I last visited 40 years ago but I can't say that that was necessarily an improvement.  Having now read the New York Review of Books postings, I am even more puzzled and shocked that this so-called "restoration" was allowed to take place. The response and justification by  Caviness and Hamburger is self-contradicting by suggesting that the recreation of the "early modern" faux marble in the choir was a sound restoration strategy "no matter how much it distorts the medieval arrangement." How can the recreation of a negative be a positive? The fact that there were fires in the building doesn't justify the jumbled painting concept.  They are also wrong about the lighter paint colors enhancing the stained glass, as anyone can see by comparing the windows in the choir with those in the unpainted nave and transepts. This fanciful painting scheme is ill-conceived and a regrettable miss-treatment of this venerable structure. I am surprised that there hasn't been a more outspoken response.  
 
-------------------------------------------
George Bryant
Philadelphia PA
-------------------------------------------