Notre-Dame should not be a playground for the French President of the Republic or the Archbishop of Paris. No doubt they think they have some legitimacy in the decisions they take, but they have none. There are three main reasons for this. The first is that they know nothing about the history of architecture (and worse, they don’t care); the second is that they have to respect the spirit, if not the letter, of the protection afforded to historic monuments, which means that they have no moral right to come and put their stamp on them; and the third is that they have in no way been mandated to do so by the countless donors to the restoration of the cathedral, who want it restored to the state it was in before the fire, and which is the state it is in as a listed historic monument.
We know what happened to the stained glass windows in the chapels on the south side (see articles). They didn’t give a damn about the considerable opposition to the idea, which resulted in a petition, which has already collected 139 525 signatures since it was launched at the end of last year, Emmanuel Macron is continuing with his project as if nothing had happened, appointing the commission responsible for choosing the master glassmaker, and postponing until the autumn the consultation of the Commission nationale du patrimoine et de l’architecture (CNPA - National Commission for Heritage and Architecture), which is mandatory in the context of the ongoing work on Notre-Dame, so that it becomes a recording chamber for the choice that will be made, without giving it a second chance to express its opinion on the principle.
-
- 1. The choir organ before the fire (behind the stalls) in the case designed by Viollet-le-Duc
Photo: GO69 (CC BY-SA 3.0). - See the image in its page
It has to be said that the CNPA, although only consultative, is a small pebble in the shoe of those in charge of this project, which they would like to get rid of. And they have done so, in a matter that has so far not given rise to any criticism, because it is being carried out on the sly and without reference to the section of the CNPA responsible for developments affecting the architecture of the cathedral.
We are referring to the restoration of the choir organ (ill. 1), which unlike the great organ suffered from the fire, if not for its case (drawn by Viollet-le-Duc), which will be restored and preserved, but for the instrumental part. This will have to be completely rebuilt. To this end, a project has been devised by the archdiocese, with the participation of Philippe Villeneuve, chief architect of historic monuments, the DRAC Île-de-France and the public institution itself, which was represented at the time by General Georgelin, as the decisions had been taken before his death.
As this was an organ, it was the CNPA’s Organ Section (and other musical instruments) that was consulted. So far, nothing unusual. But rather than simply rebuilding the instrument in its case, the diocese wanted this to be "an opportunity to significantly improve the instrument in order to increase the repertoire it can play and to better diffuse its sound in the nave". To achieve this, he decided that, "given the cramped conditions of the organ case", "the desired improvements would lead to the creation of one or more extensions, installed in the choir loft".
This would not have been a problem if the extensions had consisted of recumbent organ pipes, which would not have been visible from the nave. This solution was possible, as a specialist confirmed to me, but it was not chosen. Because if you can’t see it, what’s the point of putting your mark on it? At the CNPA meeting, the solution was therefore chosen to develop this extension in height, with vertical organ pipes, which will be clearly visible and which will hide part of the architectural perspective on the stands.
The CNPA’s architecture section should have been consulted on this issue. Not only was it ignored, but most of its members are not even aware of the work to come, apart from its president, Senator Albéric de Montgolfier, who sits on both sections.
The Ministry of Culture replied with an authoritative argument: "The high quality of the debates demonstrates the expertise of this section in organ matters in particular, and allows a contradictory debate on the historical, visual, acoustic and musical aspects", and claims that this would be enough to authorise the examination by the organ section alone. However, the names of the different sections absolutely contradict this interpretation. While section 5 deals with "protection of and work on musical instruments", section 3 deals with "architectural projects and work on buildings".
Now, as we shall see, the extension of the choir organ does indeed involve work on the historic monument itself and does not just concern the existing instrument. The way in which the works section of the CNPA was bypassed is completely irregular: the CNPA must be consulted in the right section, and if organ specialists are to be consulted on the reconstruction of the instrument, it was the "architecture" committee that should have been consulted on the architectural issue, especially as it has a major impact on the monument.
-
- 2. One of the visuals presented at the CNPA on 13 October 2022
- See the image in its page
This time, the focus was not on Viollet-le-Duc, but on the medieval part of the cathedral. The visuals presented to the CNPA were staggering (ill. 2 and 3): organ pipes obscuring two arches overlooking the transept, as well as those facing the choir. A true negation of architecture. The specifications that have just been circulated are more moderate, as are the visuals (ill. 4 and 5). This time, it is requested that "the presentation of the façade pipes [be] modest, sober and discreet, without overly marked artistic intent". However, this must not "tumble into indigence" (sic). It is also requested that "the façade pipes should not rise to the top of the arch, so as to leave the vaults above the gallery visible". And to achieve this: "The drawing for these façade pipes will have to be conceived iteratively between the organ builder, Philippe Villeneuve, chief architect of the Monuments Historiques in charge of Notre-Dame Cathedral and project manager, Christian Lutz, consultant technician for the organs, sub-contractor to the architect, the project owner and the services of the DRAC".
-
- 3. One of the visuals presented at the CNPA on 13 October 2022
- See the image in its page
At the Commission, two inspectors of historic monuments shared their expertise. They were more than reticent, pointing out that there had been no heritage specifications! The "proposals from the programme of the assignataire [the diocese] appear to be disproportionate to the task of rebuilding the choir organ destroyed by the fire and to the architectural layout of the cathedral. The question of the architectural impact of this new project is therefore at the heart of the Heritage Inspectorate’s concerns". They added "that the two symmetrical sideboards on the transept galleries will be immediately visible from the central nave and will play a major role in the way the building is perceived. The architectural integration of these new structures raises questions".
-
- 4. One of the visuals presented in the specifications, more moderate than those presented to the CNPA, but which do not show the glass cases containing the pipes.
- See the image in its page
While it’s true that the new visuals are less shocking, no doubt to appear to take these comments into account, they are no less regrettable. Above all, they do not reflect what we will actually see. At the CNPA, the representative of the DRAC Île-de-France (the regional branch of the Ministry of Culture), obviously in favour of the project, stated that "only the pipes will [be] visible from the cathedral floor". This is untrue, as a reading of the technical and particular clauses of the specifications clearly explains: these pipes will be set into glass sideboards to "allow the light to circulate", which are not shown in the images. They will nevertheless be highly visible: "the side walls and glass ceilings, insofar as they allow light to pass through, will be able to extend beyond these constrained volumes. It is even desirable that the ceiling is not too close to the upper ends of the pipes and that the interior volume of the two sideboards is not too small, for the sound to be properly diffused". Glass is transparent, of course. But it’s not invisible. So it will be pipes in two large glass boxes that will be seen from the nave and transept, interfering with the perception of the medieval architecture. All without any real necessity.
-
- 5. One of the visuals presented in the specifications, more moderate than those presented to the CNPA, but which do not show the glass cases containing the pipes.
- See the image in its page
Not only was the "architecture" section of the CNPA not consulted, but even the "organ" section, which voted in favour (albeit with four oppositions and four abstentions), was treated very badly, and without respecting the customs of this institution. The representatives of the contracting authority, i.e. the diocese and the public institution, remained present throughout the meeting without leaving, as is normal during debates and especially during votes. Here again, the Ministry of Culture asserted that this practice was normal: "Article 19 of the CNPA’s rules of procedure states that a meeting may be held in camera ’if the chairman so decides, either on his own initiative or at the request of the majority of members present’. There was no request for the meeting to be held in camera on 13 October 2022. For the record, the 5th Section has never been held in camera since 2017". If this procedure is authorised by the rules of procedure, it is clearly not acceptable, as the vote of such a committee, which should always be by secret ballot, which it almost never is, must leave the members free to vote as they wish, particularly the representatives of the administration, who may be subject to pressure from their superiors. During votes in the "works" section, and often even during deliberations, the project sponsors are not present.
Finally, what can be said about the project management entrusted to the public establishment responsible for the conservation and restoration of Notre-Dame? Its name is clear: it has no role in any work that does not fall within the scope of restoration and conservation. If it had been a question of restoring the choir organ, as was the case with the great organ, it would have been legitimate. In this case, however, it’s not just a question of restoring the choir organ, it’s also a question of creating a new, much larger choir organ, which is therefore outside the scope of the project. Once again, the Ministry of Culture is trying to justify this by referring to the missions of the public institution as they appear in the law, which says nothing other than what we have just written. And it concludes that: "as this instrumental extension is included in the overall operation to restore the choir organ, it can be carried out under the sole project management of the public establishment". Everyone will be able to judge these arguments, which we find totally unconvincing.
As for the financing of the organ (diocese? Ministry of Culture? with or without money from donations?), the ministry left it up to the public institution to answer our questions. It didn’t find the time to do so in the few days we gave it.
While the work itself is progressing remarkably well, with in particular the completion of the spire and the restoration of the roof currently underway, the restoration of Notre-Dame could have been spared these matters of stained glass, the organ, or archaeological destruction (see article), not to mention the scandal of the failure to continue excavations in the choir (see article)...