If the interim relief application against the replacement of the stained-glass windows of Notre-Dame was unsuccessful (see the article), the judge did not rule on the merits of the case, which will be examined by the administrative court.
Among the arguments used by the public institution of Notre-Dame to justify this project, that of light is perhaps the most grotesque.
The lawyer indeed claimed that Claire Tabouret’s stained-glass windows comply with the chief architect’s heritage technical specifications concerning the current chromatic balance and the light of the same nature, colour and intensity that they are supposed to present [1].
One only needs to compare, bay by bay, Viollet-le-Duc’s stained-glass windows with those intended to replace them to realise that this assertion about colours and light supposedly respecting those of Viollet-le-Duc is pure fantasy, not to say a blatant lie.
Not only do the backgrounds, supposedly based on the framework of the 19th-century stained-glass windows, fail to respect their colours (except perhaps, and even then, the stained-glass window of the 7th chapel), but the figures added to them, which make up the essential part of the scenes, alter them even further. One would like to know how the light passing through these stained-glass windows will magically transform itself in order to recreate the light intended by Viollet-le-Duc.
As for the two landscapes — the only compositions showing a certain quality — only the one in the bay of the 5th chapel comes somewhat close to the current colours.
This is merely one additional lie used by the public institution and the prefect during the hearing, adding to many others.
Let us recall two of them. It was claimed that the law concerning the restoration of Notre-Dame deliberately made no reference to the Venice Charter, in order to allow it not to be respected. In reality, the amendment intended to make it compulsory had been rejected by the Minister of Culture, who explained that including it in the law was unnecessary, because the Charter was binding on everyone and would be followed.
Another enormous lie, repeated several times: the National Commission for Heritage and Architecture (Commission nationale du patrimoine et de l’architecture) had ultimately approved the replacement of the stained-glass windows. This is false, as the minutes of its meeting demonstrate (see the article), as several members of this commission confirmed (see the article), and as several newspapers (and AFP) acknowledged after having been misled by the Ministry of Culture (see the article).
One can only hope that the administrative court will not allow itself to be deceived by these blatant falsehoods.
Here, meanwhile, is the comparison between Viollet-le-Duc’s stained-glass windows and those by Claire Tabouret [2].
7th chapel on the right
5th chapel on the right
4th chapel on the right
3rd chapel on the right
2nd chapel on the right
7st chapel on the right
