“Change” at Chartres

At Chartres, darker hues fashioned by time (left) change to lighter hues. (Hubert Fanthomme/Getty Images)

At Chartres, darker hues fashioned by time (left) change to lighter hues. (Hubert Fanthomme/Getty Images)

Chartres Cathedral. (lifeofanarchitect.com)

Chartres Cathedral. (lifeofanarchitect.com)

That change is the only constant is one of my least favorite aphorisms. And it is among the least inimical of lessons to be drawn from the ongoing “restoration” of Chartres Cathedral, off the west coast of France. The job arguably restores one of the world’s great works of art and architecture to its supposed original look, but the result is bathed in a level of artificial lighting that would never have been experienced by its original users. The work bears the mark of modernism’s quintessential attitude of change for the sake of change – and to hell with l’art pour l’art!

I thank Robie Wood for posting the fascinating piece by Martin Filler, “A Scandalous Makeover at Chartres,” in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books. Since my link tool is still broken, here is the full link:

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

The overall impact is to lighten an interior long darkened by the smoke of candles and other environmental effects. It is a misconceived version of the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. The impact of the change at Chartres – accomplished by painting the interior walls in hues of white garnished in garish colors – reduces the awe-inspiring contrast between the darkness and the brightness of the cathedral’s famous stained-glass windows. Filler quotes one of the few critical articles on this co-called restoration, by Adrien Goetz in Le Figaro: “[T]he new effect is like ‘watching a film in a movie theater where they haven’t turned off the lights.’ ”

Of another famous artifact of the cathedral Filler writes:

The Black Madonna, before (left) and after. (NYRB)

The Black Madonna, before (left) and after. (NYRB)

Whenever and however Chartres’s Black Madonna acquired its mysterious patina — through oxidation or smoke from candles and incense — it was familiar as such to centuries of the faithful until its recent multicolored makeover, which has transformed the Mother of God into a simpering kewpie doll.

This appalling project should be of concern to all, but in particular it highlights the flaws of current preservationist orthodoxy. It buys into the same modernist ethos that heaps vast expenditures on cultural institutions. Great museums have been turned into circuses that appeal to those with little genuine interest in cultural artifacts, including additions erected in order to exhibit the egos of deep-pocket money bags whose donations pay for the work but serve mainly as excuses to further degrade institutions, further inflate the already inflated staff and salary of administrators, and raise the cost of admission. Truly necessary upgrades are drowned in a cesspool of money. It is the “popularization” of culture to benefit the one percent. It is change for the sake of change.

Modern architecture has been the brand of this ethos for years. If you can’t put an ugly, arrogant addition on Chartres, then at least you can reinterpret, reconceptualize and discombobulate the experience of millions who visit, whether as tourists or congregants. Modernism has severed the connection between beauty and time. What results is propaganda and publicity. This is what is being done at (or to) Chartres. Filler ends by urging that the changes be reversed. I hope this is possible. Anger at the idea of skyscrapers in Paris should be matched by anger at the desecration of this monument, which is (or was) on my bucket list.

Here is a rebuttal to Martin Filler and Filler’s counter-rebuttal:

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

 

About David Brussat

For a living, I edit the writing of some of the nation's leading architects, urbanists and design theorists. This blog was begun in 2009 as a feature of the Providence Journal, where I was on the editorial board and wrote a weekly column of architecture criticism for three decades. Architecture Here and There fights the style wars for classical architecture and against modern architecture, no holds barred. My freelance writing and editing on that topic and others addresses issues of design and culture locally and globally. I am a fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts, and a member of the board of the New England chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art, which bestowed an Arthur Ross Award on me in 2002. I work from Providence, R.I., where I live with my wife Victoria, my son Billy and our cat Gato. If you would like to invest your prose with even more style and clarity, please email me at my consultancy, dbrussat@gmail.com, or call 401.351.0457. Testimonial: "Your work is so wonderful - you now enter my mind and write what I would have written." - Nikos Salingaros, mathematician at the University of Texas, architectural theorist and author of many books.
This entry was posted in Architecture, Architecture History, Other countries, Preservation and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “Change” at Chartres

  1. Pingback: Critics Attack France’s Largest Ever Restoration Work: The Majestic Chartres Cathedral | FrenchNewsOnline

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s