- Facade of the basilica of Saint-Denis
Photo : Zairon (CC BY-SA 4.0) -
See the image in his page
The record of the Saint-Denis spire is absolutely astounding. Two letters that we have just read testify to this.
The first is the resignation letter of Jean-Philippe Garric, professor of contemporary art history at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, from the “Scientific Council for the reconstruction of the West Tower of Saint-Denis” that he just posted on Facebook. After having underlined in particular his interest in the architect François Debret “ unjustly sacrificed at Viollet-le-Duc », He explains why he made this decision. It clearly calls into question the operating methods of the council, for two main reasons. Let’s quote it here in extenso « the first is due to its nature and its functioning: gathered in a very erratic way, without a scientific file sent in advance, it appears as a simple authority of legitimation, external to the reflections and foreign to the decisions, like an alibi that one brings together in a hurry, to the rhythm of the oppositions that are expressed. The second motivation for my turnaround is the nature of the funding. Originally announced as linked to the tourist operation of the site, it now appears to come from the state budget, and what troubles me even more, from the budget of the Ministry of Culture. However, I do not believe that culture in France is so rich, that it should finance what does not come under its domain, but that of the Minister for Tourism. I believe this last question symbolically fundamental at the point where we are, that is to say at a time when an ever increasing part of the heritage is delivered with eagerness and voluntarism to the commodification of tourism. ».
To summarize: the scientific commission is therefore only a phantom body whose only objective is to legitimize the operation. This therefore confirms what one could fear, on the part of a project led by the chief architect of historical monuments Jacques Moulin: it will have nothing scientific. This also ties in with the analysis that we have always made of this project, while the second motivation also confirms what we were announcing: far from being a project that will cost nothing to heritage, it will be almost exclusively financed by public money and, more seriously, by the Ministry of Culture. This ministry is therefore the accomplice of a dubious operation, without scientific or heritage justification, and which will use budgets that could have been used for real restorations of historical monuments.
The second letter is the one that the Director General of Heritage, Jean-François Hébert, sent last September 8 to Mathieu Lejeune, one of the two initiators of the text opposed to this reconstruction of the spire, which appeared in Point and signed by 128 specialists (see article). The latter defends the project staunchly using very specious arguments. But most shocking is the extreme bad faith he shows in two of his claims. He firstly justifies the work that will require the construction of the spire on the facade by ” weakening of the western massif intended to support tower and spire »That a study would have shown. A way of proceeding which suggests that the work that this will entail to remedy this fragility would be inherent in the monument and not only due to the construction of the spire … But it is still nothing compared to its second assertion. If we do not wish to overwhelm the current director of heritage (much more present on the files than his predecessor), we can only be amazed by reading it. He indeed dares to write that ” Moreover, this project cannot be considered to have been rejected by heritage professionals sitting on the National Commission. The National Commission decides by a majority of its members present or represented. 8 members voted against this project, 6 for, and 2 abstained. No majority therefore emerged among the members. ».
So strange concept of a democratic vote to claim that 57.1% of the votes cast does not represent a majority! Getting the National Heritage and Architecture Commission to say the opposite of the opinion it expressed – a bit like the redevelopment of Notre-Dame de Paris (see the article) – is a very clever way. not to follow it while pretending that we are listening to it. It is unlikely that its members will taste this way of proceeding.
–
