On Notre Dame (2)

Yesterday, I began to write about the proposed renovations to Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. This is going to take two more posts, simply because it’s more readable that way.

As I said, I took some time to go through, not just through news reports, but the presentation made about the proposal, which is available on Youtube here. It is just the presentation to a group, not the whole proposal, but you get the idea. In this post, I’m going to give you, to my best understanding, what is being proposed, and then share some thoughts in a follow-up.

Yes, there are more important issues facing the world. Of course there are. But this is important for a number of reasons, not least for the conversation it can prompt, not only about the purpose and nature of religious, specifically Catholic structures, but also a pretty basic question: what is Catholicism, how do we tell people about it…and why?

So, to recap. As we know, a terrible fire struck Notre Dame in April 2019. The roof and upper level of the structure sustained the most serious damage. Inside, the organs were damaged, but not irreparably. There was, of course, damage to the interior, but not nearly as serious as what happened at higher levels.

The structure is, of course, owned by the French government, which is in charge of repairing the exterior, but the Archdiocese of Paris has responsibility for repairs to the interior. There is apparently not damage enough to call what is proposed a repair. The situation seems to be more that…well, since we’re in here and working on this…might as well make some changes.

The purpose of the proposed changes, as articulated by Father Gilles Drouin, who is charge:

He said the objective was to preserve Notre-Dame as a religious place that can better welcome and inform the public “who are not always from a Christian culture”.

“Chinese visitors may not necessarily understand the Nativity,” he said.

The lesson from the cathedral’s existing chapel dedicated to 19th century Chinese martyr Saint-Paul Tchen is that visitors from that country will stop and light candles because there are banners in Mandarin, he added.

One major change for visitors will be that they enter from the large central door, rather than the side entrances.

The altar will remain in place but other items such as the tabernacle and baptistery will be rejigged, while most of the confessionals will move to the first floor, leaving only four in the main section.

Side chapels, which were in a “terrible state” even before the fire, will be entirely renovated with a focus on artworks including “portraits from the 16th and 18th century that will be in dialogue with modern art objects.”

He said this would include a “cycle of tapestries”, without giving details.

“The cathedral has always been open to art from the contemporary period, right up to the large golden cross by sculptor Marc Couturier installed by Cardinal Lustiger in 1994,” he said.

All right, let’s get to it. Screen shots are from the presentation, which can be viewed here.

The basic idea is to create an intentional, educational flow for the visit, that begins with a series of displays (in former side chapels) on the “promises” of the Old Testament off the north side aisle, takes one up and around to the sanctuary, and then back down the south side aisle through another set of remade side chapels that present a sort of fulfillment of the “promises” of the opposite side.

So first, here’s the best map I could find of…sort of…the present layout of the church, even though it’s from the 19th century.

For reference, the left side is north, and the right is south.

The bulk of the changes – the most controversial changes – involve the chapels off the nave, below the transept.

Now, here are a couple of shots of the proposed changes. My sense is that there will be a general straightening up and decluttering, but of course, the major structures and artifacts will remain. I think a baptistry is to be added.

(You can click on the images for a larger view)

• 

• 

As you can see the original chapels (which are not exactly “original” – but that’s the nature of building) were dedicated to saints and were, as you would expect, supported by donations by the wealthy. I’m going to show you more on this at the end, but I do want to say now that these chapels off the nave are not any kind of precious architectural gems. Some are well-fashioned, but others really have become, it seems, almost closets for stashing random objects. Not that this is a bad thing, as I’ll talk about in the following post. I’m just trying to explain the rationale behind this, as best I can – because I do think the coverage of this has been (surprise!) shallow and overheated. Not that I’m a fan of this proposal, but I do believe in a fair hearing, in all things.

Anyway, here’s the list of the proposed chapel replacements. My assumption is that they are arranged to be in conversation or response – to match and expand thematically across the way. I guess.

North Side	South Side
The Way of Promise	The Way of the Saints
“Cold tones”	“Warm tones”
“Abstract”	“Embodied”
Genesis: Creation	Creation Reconciled
Abraham	Mission
Exodus	Hope
Africa	Asia
Prophets	Charity
Song of Songs	Mystique
Wisdom	Faith and Reason

Note that the order of visit would have you begin with Genesis, and then end back with Creation Reconciled.

At present, these chapels contain some random objects, including statues unrelated to the dedicated saints and confessionals – which I’m going to guess are not used. There are other confessionals in the church in more prominent areas. They also contain large paintings, some seating – although the gates to some are closed and so are not accessible – and a bank of votive candles outside each chapel.

The proposal is to strip all of these side chapels and redo them, with a bench and either a painting or a themed stained glass, and perhaps projected words and images on the wall.

The image on the left is the design if the stained glass windows are removed and scenes are projected on them. On the right, if the glass remains, the scenes would be projected on the wall.

My understanding, though, is that the French government has already ruled out the removal of the stained glass windows, so the wall it is, for the moment.

The rebuilding of the cathedral is the occasion for a fruitful dialogue between contemporary creation and the Church. The diocese thus wishes to reconnect with its centuries-old tradition of commissions from artists of its time in order to shape the biblical themes of the chapels of the nave to include them in a catechumenal journey of invitation and initiation into the Christian mystery. Each chapel will be the subject of an iconographic program recorded in specifications so that the artists can best understand the challenges which underpin the imaging of the different themes and episodes. The chromatic ranges present in future works will be based on a newly developed color chart listing all the colors present in the cathedral.

In the chapels of the North axis, these colors will be mainly in cold tones, while in the South, the warm colors of the color chart will dominate. A tension between abstraction in the North and embodied figures in the South will be present in the chapels of the nave. The selection of artists that will be made will take into account the specificities of each approach and the way in which it can enter into dialogue with the framework defined by the specifications.

The schema as expressed in the “Exodus” chapel:

The Word, creator from the start, becomes liberating. Men’s infidelity locks them into slavery from which they alone cannot free themselves. Each time we need the intervention of God who responds to their cry with a Word which recreates them by freeing them. The divine Word opens a breach, a path in the midst of human dead ends. At the precise point where he once again wanted to emancipate himself by his own strength, man discovers, by experience, that his freedom believes in the measure of his confidence in his God.

There are other interesting aspects to the proposal, but I think this is enough for now. As I said, I have thoughts which I will (I promise) share later today. I think some of this is silly, some opaque (although that could just be a language issue on my end), some is just wrong, but I am not totally unsympathetic to the issue being addressed – even though I think the “solution” falls short, to say the least. But I just wanted to put this out there.

One more thing. The news reports that all of us have read about this accused the plan of being a “Disneyfication” of the space – which led me to believe the proposal was for a total makeover of the interior with light shows and animatronics (I kid, but…).

I’m going to argue that the Disneyfication characterization is wrong, but also correct. It’s wrong in that the proposed elements utilizing technology would not dominate the interior space. But it’s correct in another sense – in that the proposal is for, above anything else, a clean, managed, controlled experience – and that, I’d say, is a spot-on description of the essence of Disneyfication.

And is, I’ll argue, the most counter-Catholic aspect of the whole thing.

As I said, I visited Notre Dame in 2012, but have no recollection of the side chapels. I went online to look for visuals, and this walk through is actually very helpful.

Part 3 – Is the catechesis in the clutter?