The sterile and absurd controversy over the restoration of Notre-Dame is starting again, on a smaller scale and this time in Bordeaux, for the door of the town hall (Palais Rohan)! The city’s mayor, Pierre Humic, tweeted that he would ask the people of Bordeaux for their opinion on how the gate should be restored. Or rather, if it should be restored. Here are the three choices that the elected representative is proposing to the population of the city:
– Scenario 1: rebuild it identically
– scenario 2: consolidate it and keep it with this aspect
– scenario 3: a contemporary creation following an artist’s competition.
-
- 1. Door of the Bordeaux City Hall (before the fire)
Photo : Chabe01 (CC BY-SA 4.0) - See the image in its page
Of course, the mayor was more nuanced before his city council on April 4. He explained that the options he would put to the vote would first have to be validated by the DRAC (i.e. the ministry of Culture) and that they would have to be "compatible with the heritage constraints". Why then does he immediately tweet about these scenarios?
-
- 2. Door of the Bordeaux City Hall (after the fire)
Photo : Thierry Meneau - See the image in its page
Let us note that, like the President of the Republic with Notre-Dame, the Mayor of Bordeaux never uses the term "restoration", which is nevertheless the appropriate one here. It is indeed a question of restoring the portico of the town hall, of which the gate is a part. As for the latter, it is first necessary to know whether it can be restored. Has the fire damaged the wood beyond repair, or do some of the reliefs still exist and can they be restored or partly restored directly to the original structure?
-
- 3. Door of the Bordeaux City Hall (after the fire)
Photo : Thierry Meneau - See the image in its page
The real questions, of course, are only questions of restoration professionals in which the vox populi has no real place. Thus, the solution must be one that meets the requirements of the law (the monument is listed), the deontology (Venice Charter) and the actual state of the door.
– either it can be restored, and it must be,
– or it is not, and there are two choices:
* We keep it as it is,
* we make an identical replica that replaces it, the original door being long-term loaned in a museum (obviously the Musée d’Aquitaine).
-
- 4. Door of the Bordeaux town hall (after the fire)
Photo : Thierry Meneau - See the image in its page
But the question actually arises in a more global framework: the door is an element of the Palais Rohan, as the spire was of Notre-Dame. It is indeed the Palais Rohan that is being restored, and there is no hypothesis as to its state before the fire, the door being - one hopes at least - perfectly documented.
The restoration of the Palais Rohan, a historic monument, must therefore be carried out in the documented state in which it was before the fire. And in the latter case, the door must be restored to its original state.
More serious. If the DRAC Nouvelle-Aquitaine (antenna of the ministry of Culture), which we questioned on this subject, answered us quickly, which must be emphasised because not all of them are so reactive, its answer is, given the circumstances, unacceptable. We transcribe it in full: "The Mayor of Bordeaux, Pierre Hurmic, announced at the City Council that this vote would be submitted to the people of Bordeaux and specified that it would be submitted to them taking into account not only the conclusions of the study underway by the heritage architect (intended to evaluate the precise sanitary state of the gate and to develop a methodology for intervention), but also the prior close consultation already underway with the State services.
This intervention methodology offers, at this stage, 3 technical possibilities as reported by Europe 1 [1]: "consolidation of the door in its current state, a complete redo [i.e. identical restitution], or another project" including a creation. The DRAC did not put forward one solution over another. Furthermore, we are working with the city services and the architect to trace the precise history of this door in the archives.
After the architect’s conclusions, and when the project is ready, the DRAC will be asked to authorise the work. We will examine the relevance of this project and its quality, as well as compliance with the legislation (including the Venice Charter), taking into account the historical, material and symbolic interest of the gate. None of the three hypotheses mentioned is therefore ruled out at this time and we will continue to work closely with the city at every stage".
Once again, therefore, the Ministry of Culture seems to find it legitimate to consider replacing part of a historic monument with a contemporary creation, in clear violation of the Venice Charter (see this article). It is almost certain that, even if this solution were proposed, the people of Bordeaux (as if only the inhabitants of this city were concerned by the fate of a listed historic monument...) would vote in large numbers against an ’architectural gesture’. The mere fact that this could be envisaged, even by those theoretically in charge of heritage protection, is inadmissible.
There is no place here for a "contemporary creation", even "following an artist’s competition". To go against this reasoning would not only be a new aggression against this burnt building. It would be a clear call from the Ministry of Culture to attack historical monuments that one would like to garnish with a contemporary gesture, since a fire would be enough to achieve one’s ends.
Let us note two more points. First, concerning this infamous vandalism, the main suspect (who, according to the press, confessed to his act) is under investigation for "damage to public property" and not for "damage to a listed monument". The penal code is more lenient in the first case (article 322-3: 5 years imprisonment and 75,000 euros fine) than in the second (article 322-4: 7 years imprisonment and 100,000 euros fine). We would like to know why the degradation, close to destruction, of this door is not qualified as it should be. We asked the public prosecutor. Here is the answer: "They have been indicted for damage by dangerous means, an offence punishable by 10 years imprisonment". So they risk more than the seven years for degradation of a historical monument, but it might have been useful to add this charge, which makes the accusation more cumbersome and difficult to be lenient.
Finally, we would like to know the cost of organising this vote desired by the mayor of Bordeaux: doesn’t he have better things to do for his city’s heritage than to ask his constituents for their opinion in a way that is more than questionable and with an expensive procedure?