by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | May 25, 2023 |
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith et al. Art law and intellectual property law attorneys and scholars had been anxiously awaiting the decision, in hopes it would provide some guidance for the application of the fair use test (a test used to determine whether the use of a copyrighted work may be used without permission). For a background on other recent copyright matters, as well as a look at the lower court decisions in AWF v. Goldsmith, read this earlier journal article or the array of articles written about this long-fought battle.
Unfortunately, the high court’s opinion has not provided much clarification. One problem is that the facts here are peculiar, involving a photographer (Goldsmith) who provided a limited license through Vanity Fair that allowed another artist (Warhol) to use her photograph to create a silkscreen work. Unfortunately, Andy Warhol violated the terms of the license, and then decades later his foundation (AWF) sold one of the violating works (“Orange Prince”) to Condé Nast (Vanity Fair’s parent corporation). Condé Nast had licensed the photograph from Goldsmith. In essence, both Goldsmith and AWF were licensing their works to the same publisher (Goldsmith’s license was $400 while AWF charged $10,000). As such, the unusual facts lead to an unusual application of copyright law, not providing helpful guidance (except for the fact that artists should abide by the terms of their licenses).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The original Lynn Goldsmith photograph of the artist. Image by Lynn Goldsmith.
As the court aptly noted, the litigation is a dispute between two artists. One of the artists (Warhol) is well known internationally, perhaps one of the best-known artists of the 20th century. The other (Goldsmith) is a trailblazing female photographer, although not a household name. The court’s decision noted that Goldsmith was a rock photographer at a time that the field was dominated by men, and that Goldsmith had “few female peers.” Although not enjoying the same level of fame as Warhol, Goldsmith was an artist in her own right. And while Warhol received a license to use Goldsmith’s photograph of Prince for a single use, he violated the terms and created an additional fifteen works without paying any additional fees. Decades later, the photographer learned of the misuse and informed AWF of the infringement. Rather than seeking a resolution with the spurned artist, AWF sued Goldsmith, filing a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, or alternatively, fair use.
The Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for AWF, finding there was fair use because all four factors of the fair use test (described below) favored AWF. The Second Circuit reversed, finding that all four factors actually weighed in favor of Goldsmith. AWF applied to the US Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted. The only question before the Supreme Court was whether the first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” §107(1), weighs in favor of AWF. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court agreed with the Second Circuit: the first factor favors Goldsmith.
THE FAIR USE ANALYSIS
Fair use is an exception to copyright protection allowing someone to use a copyrighted work without receiving permission from the copyright holder. Fair use has generally been applied to uses for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. In determining, courts apply a four-factor analysis outlined in Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act:
“(1) purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” (17 U.S.C. §107.)
The challenge is that the fair use analysis involves subjective judgments, making some copyright determinations inconsistent.
LEGAL ANALYSIS IN ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION V. GOLDSMITH
Andy Warhol’s image of the artist. Image via Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.
In authoring the majority and dissenting opinions, the justices take off their gloves and grapple with the challenges inherent in the analysis of copyright law, balancing the benefits of incentivizing artists while not overly restricting followers to build off earlier artists. (One of our favorite jabs appears in Footnote 10, when the majority writes, “the dissent begins with a sleight of hand.”) But this goes to demonstrate the difficulty in making a ruling in this dispute. Fair use determinations have always been fraught with uncertainty, especially when relating to artists pushing the envelope, with appropriation artists creating particularly challenging scenarios.
Here, the justices had difficulty reviewing the first prong of the fair uses test. The majority ultimately balanced the degree of difference in character of the works (transformativeness) with other considerations, like commercialism. The Supreme Court dialed back the importance of “transformativeness” in the fair use analysis. A decade earlier, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that the most important factor in a fair use analysis is transformativeness. Essentially, in Prince v. Cariou, the Second Circuit made transformative use the primary test of fair use, allowing that consideration to outweigh the other factors in the four-part test. The decision was shocking at the time, providing more protection to appropriation artists, but leaving fewer options for those seeking the more traditional protections under copyright law.
Unlike the Second Circuit in Prince v. Cariou, the Supreme Court noted that the fair use test is a 4-factor balancing test, with transformativeness itself not enough to justify fair use. The Court remarked that “‘transformative use’ would swallow the copyright owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works…” The majority opinion also noted that Warhol’s silkscreen did not comment on Goldsmith’s photograph (commenting on the photo itself would likely be parody and considered a fair use), but rather, Warhol used the photo simply because it was helpful in the creation of the secondary silkscreen work. This was not enough to allow fair use because Goldsmith’s photo and Warhol’s silkscreen had similar commercial uses, illustrating a magazine story on Prince.
The Court instructs that fair use must balance between original and secondary works based in part on the purpose and character of use, including whether it is commercial and why there was copying. The Court warns that Goldsmith’s works are entitled to copyright protection, “even against famous artists.” As such, the Court held that it would be beneficial to require AWF to pay Goldsmith a fraction of the proceeds from its reuse of her copyrighted work, in part because these payments are incentives for artists to create original works.
The concurrence (authored by Gorsuch and joined by Jackson) agrees that the undisputed facts demonstrate that AWF used the silkscreen image as a commercial substitute for Goldsmith’s photograph.
THE FIERY DISSENT
The majority’s opinion is somewhat defensive while the dissent is fiery and oozes with art historical references. The majority jabs the dissenters by accurately (and painfully) stating, “The Lives of the Artists undoubtedly makes for livelier reading than the U. S. Code or the U. S. Reports, but as a court, we do not have that luxury.” However, the dissent seemingly enjoys this opportunity to reference art, music, and literature to argue that artists have always copied others.
Kagan’s dissent is artful and insightful with its impassioned pleas and fear for the future of the art world. She argues that the case “will stifle creativity of every sort. It will impede new art and music and literature. It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer.” It is true that art history is full of creators building upon the work of others, and there is some fear that the holding in this case could stifle creativity, especially with appropriation art. However, the Court’s finding here is not a bar against appropriation art, but rather a decision deeming it unfair when the commercial purpose is so closely aligned between the original and secondary works.
The Copyright Act was passed to provide an author with a bundle of rights that includes the right to reproduce the work and create derivative works. This is balanced by the fair use test (17 U. S. C. §107), a 4-factor balancing test, that allows artists access to the use of an underlying work, under certain circumstances. But the fair use analysis does not allow other creators a free-for-all. (It’s also important to note once again that Goldsmith did not only rely on the Copyright Act to protect her rights, but she also negotiated and contracted to provide Warhol with a limited license to create one image. It is reasonable to assume that Andy Warhol could have complied with the terms of his license or paid an additional fee for the use of Goldsmith’s photographic works.)
It should also be acknowledged that Goldsmith did not initiate this lengthy legal battle. When she confronted AWF, the Foundation could have addressed the issue with the photographer, rather than filing for declaratory judgment.
At the end of the day, the Supreme Court itself struggled in the battle between transformativeness versus commercialism, something that has long faced judges in applying the fair use analysis.
by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | May 19, 2023 |
We are pleased to share our founder’s most recent scholarly publication, “Kings, Treasures, and Looting: The Evolution of Sovereign Immunity and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,” published in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. The paper examines the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in fine art and antiquities case, including examinations of the Guelph Treasure case, the Woman in Gold litigation, and her work representing Italy and Greece in the US. The paper is dedicated to her late friend Oscar White Muscarella, an inspiring person who battled to protect cultural heritage. You can read Leila’s paper here: https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/article/view/11238/5583
by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | May 18, 2023 |
Maria discussing art and the law
Last week, associate Maria T. Cannon presented a lecture in Asheville, N.C. about the rise of celebrity art. Her presentation featured the work of the artist Alphonse Mucha. He is one of the first artists whose career trajectory was shaped through his depiction of a famous actress in his work. Today, artists commonly feature celebrities in their artwork, but this was not the case in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, time has shown that the use of celebrity images in artwork often increases the market value of the work. In response, laws have developed to protect celebrities and artists from exploitation.
Maria’s presentation began with the story of Mucha’s life and his relationship with the fabulous Sarah Bernhardt, the first modern celebrity. Maria then examined the legal framework that artists navigate today when they wish to feature images of celebrities in their artwork.
Thank you to the entire Deerfield Community for welcoming our associate to her first speaking engagement. And congratulations Maria!
by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | Apr 22, 2023 |
Anyone who has been a student knows that the fastest way to capture someone’s attention in a noisy cafeteria is to start a food fight. Last summer and fall, something similar happened in the art world, as museums became the backdrop for messy protests. Now, after a short repose, the culprits are at it again. This time, the action is taking place in Italy, with the most recent attack on art having occurred on March 17th in Florence.
Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, Italy. Image via JoJan through Wikimedia Commons.
Wait, What’s Going On?
The targets are priceless pieces of art and cultural heritage. The culprits are climate activists from several distinct groups with the same singular message: pay attention to climate change. The settings are (formerly) peaceful, as in this last attack in Florence.
In Florence, climate activists disrupted an ordinary day by spraying paint over the outer walls of Palazzo Vecchio. That attack on cultural heritage comes on the heels of the destructive actions taken against artwork in museums around the globe. Soup, cake, ink, and even super glue have been haphazardly applied to the most famous works of art in museums’ prized collections within the past year.
Many of these attacks occurred last summer and fall. Then, around the New Year, there was a brief repose. Art world insiders were optimistic that this trend would stop entirely. Time Magazine reported earlier this year that one major group, Extinction Rebellion, had announced a shift away from flashy civil resistance tactics to gain support for their cause. Instead, the group stated their plan to devote energy to large-scale protests that do not break the law. If other climate change groups followed suit, this would mean a dramatic departure from the ink-splattering and soup-slinging tactics directed at fragile pieces of art and cultural heritage.
Unfortunately, a change in tactics does not seem to be the cards. Not only was the fear that these attacks would continue realized by the recent protest in Italy, a quick check-in with the notorious Just Stop Oil climate activist group – of art attack fame – confirmed their general intention to carry on with the practices of last year. The group, in response to Extinction Rebellion’s statement, promised to “escalate” their actions of civil resistance and public disruption. The group even threatened to begin slashing famous paintings – yikes!
First Rule of Fight Climate-Change Club: Talk as Much as You Can About Fight Climate-Change Club
Van Gogh, Sunflowers, 1888. On view at The National Gallery, London.
The purpose of these art attacks is to get people talking. One recent attack last November was from a group called Last Generation Austria, in protest of Austria’s reliance on fossil fuels. Two activists threw black liquid (presumably representing oil) at the delicate 1915 painting Death and Life (1915) by Gustav Klimt. One activist was promptly removed from the scene by security. The second succeeded in gluing his hand to the glass panel encasing Klimt’s valuable painting. This gluing action was a serious risk both to the safety of the dizzyingly priceless piece of cultural heritage behind the glass, and to the climate activist’s personal hand health. It seems the activist cared very much for climate change, but very little for his hand.
The above attack was likely inspired by the group that finds itself the major instigator of this global operation. Just Stop Oil (the O.G. art attack tribe of climate protestors) has been at this game since earlier last summer. The most publicized attack by Just Stop Oil featured a pair of activists throwing tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers. During the attack, two 21-year old activists leaped over the velvet ropes stationed in front of Van Gogh’s painting, removed their jackets to reveal matching “Just Stop Oil” t-shirts, and slapped soup onto the painting. Not only is this display of wanton disregard shocking, but it boggles the mind that the target of the soup-based attack was not a Warhol work!
The attack seems to be connected to another recent event of art vandalism that took place that same month in the National Gallery of Australia. That incident involved members of a different group, Stop Fossil Fuels, scribbling ink on Andy Warhol’s screen prints of soup cans. The similarities cannot be ignored, as they follow a similar attention-mongering logic. However, why Just Stop Oil applied soup to varnish, while Stop Fossil Fuels applied varnish to soup, is a total mystery.
The above examples are merely a sampling of the demonstrative protests that have occurred in major museums since the beginning of the summer. They all follow a similar pattern: either a defacing with food or liquid, or protestors gluing themselves to a frame or glass. The latter is an imitation of the form of “locking” protest, in which activists will chain themselves to a stationary object to make it more difficult to be removed by authorities.
Fortunately, it seems that the works involved were unharmed, since they are protected by glass and other protective casings applied by art conservators. In the case of Just Stop Oil and Sunflowers, it was publicly known that the tomato soup would not damage the painting (according to Emma Brown, the founder of Just Stop Oil). Brown asserts that her group’s motivation has never been to destroy art. Rather, it is to engage in a conversation about why damaged artwork incites rage, while news reports of climate change do not.
Andy Warhol, Campbell’s Soup Cans (1962). Image via AP News.
This is not an illogical question, when framed in the proper context. However, when news reports of food being thrown in national galleries are splayed across individual computer screens, the intentions of Just Stop Oil’s efforts are lost in the absurdity of the situation. Food throwing, it seems, is better left in the era of summer camp hijinks.
It seems that the message may have been lost on the public, and that the method of protest may be too radical. In this way, they may be ostracizing potential friends of the cause by turning them off with their flamboyant and messy displays of passion. This would result in the activists seeming to be more like vandals to be avoided, rather than potential friends to be admired.
In fact, these stunts create animosity with museums and the public. By using art to stage protests, museums are now heightening security, leading to a less personal experience at art institutions. Increased security measures and the temporary removal and cleaning of artworks is an added expense for our public institutions. After significant drops in revenue during COVID pandemic, the last thing museums need is to waste funds cleaning up after these messy stunts.
Iconoclasm and Art Vandalism
Just Stop Oil’s flashy protests are not the first instances of art vandalism, nor will they be the last, as art vandalism has a long history of activists using destruction to send a political message. Dr. Stacy Boldrick, author of Iconoclasm and the Museum, explores the history of iconoclasm, which she defines as “image-breaking.” Public perception of iconoclasm influences how the broken image enters a culture’s consciousness, which can result in an almost secondary, separate work of art that begins a life of its own. Even if the piece is restored to its original glory, photos of the work in its defaced form become famous symbols of a particular political movement.
An example of this is none other than the famous Rokeby Venus, and its slashing by suffragette Mary Richardson in protest of the oppression of women. Readers of the blog will recall our firm’s piece on work (for a refresher, click here), and its haunted provenance. The history of the work influenced newspapers of the time to claim Richardson was acting from psychosis induced by Venus’s beauty. Boldrick, on the other hand, makes an argument for Richardson as a legitimate defender of the rights of women, though one who took her message to the extreme. Setting Richardson’s mental state aside, the images of the slashed Rokeby Venus are nearly as impactful as the restored version. The photos of the slashed painting draw the eye toward the ostentatiousness of Venus’s body, framing the voluptuous woman in a context of forced femininity.
The slashed Rokeby Venus. Image via artinsociety.com
Another example of a defaced work sparking its own conversation occurred following artist Tony Shafrazi’s 1974 defacing of Picasso’s Guernica. Shafrazi strode up to Guernica and spray painted “KILL LIES ALL” across the piece, in protest of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Fortunately, the painting itself was protected by a heavy coat of varnish. Museum curators were able to quickly clean off the spray paint. Even so, the photos of the defaced work, prior to the cleaning, became political messages. Moreover, Shafrazi himself went on to use the fame garnered by his demonstration to fuel his own artistic career. He is currently still doing well as a successful gallery owner and art dealer in New York.
Shafrazi proves that images of defaced art can send a cultural message by spreading the agenda of the activist who vandalized the work. However, sending a message does not always result in actual change on an individual level. If activists truly desire to change public behavior, there are more effective ways to evoke such action – ways that do not involve defacing fragile, famous works of art. Additionally, museums themselves can take action to promote sustainable, collaborative conversations with activist groups, all while keeping the art safe (and away from tomato soup).
Special Exhibitions
The North Carolina Museum of Art put on an exhibition this past summer that would have appealed to Just Stop Oil’s team of activists, because the show featured artists whose work brings attention to the dangers of climate change. The show, Fault Lines: Art and the Environment, featured artists such as Willie Cole, who did a site-specific installation of a chandelier made entirely out of single-use plastic water bottles. Another artist, Richard Mosse, exhibited works that used infrared technology applied to aerial photographs of geological locations to raise awareness of issues such as deforestation. Featured works of Mosse included: Aluminum Refinery, Paraguay; Burnt Pantanal III; Juvencio’s Mine, Paraguay; and Subterranean Fire, Pantanal.
Richard Mosse, Girl From the North Country, 2015. Image via artsy.net.
Also shown in the exhibit were works created by sisters Margaret Wertheim and Christine Wertheim, whose whimsical crocheted coral reef draws attention to the devastating impact of climate change and plastic trash on the lives of coal reefs. The sisters also did an installation called The Midden, which was constructed of the trash the duo collected walking on the beach over a period of four years.
This writer, a visitor of the exhibit, was particularly influenced by the Wertheim’s trash collecting piece and by the plastic bottle chandelier by Cole. As the writer herself was sipping from a single-use plastic bottle, she was made aware of her personal impact on climate change as a visitor of the exhibit. The writer immediately vowed to use reusable water bottles from that moment on. She joined others on the way out of the exhibit in pledging to reduce all single-use plastics by dropping a recyclable token into the glass canister provided by the front door.
The purpose of the exhibit was to use video, photography, sculpture, and mixed-media works to offer new perspectives in addressing urgent environmental issues. The exhibit highlighted the consequences of inaction, while providing opportunities for patrons to take their own steps towards sustainable environmental stewardship and restoration. This resulted in a celebration of the creation, rather than the destruction, of art in its fullest capacity to send a message to society. By focusing on creation, patrons were encouraged to be part of a constructive solution to climate change alongside the artist activists who produced the pieces shown in the gallery. When asked how about the public response to the exhibit, Virginia Ambar, Assistant Director of Ticketing and Visitor Experience at NCMA said this: “Many people commented on how important it is to highlight our collective roles in affecting our environment and that the exhibit did that in ways that were both startling and beautiful.”
Museum Joint Statement
One way museums have been guarding themselves against art attacks has been to increase private security methods on museum grounds. These increased security measures have taken the form of additional guards, added cameras, and metal detectors – which all come with their own costs. Increasing security is a pricey endeavor, and not one that most museums have the budget for, particularly coming out of the hardships museums faced during the pandemic lockdowns.
Another option is for major public institutions to continue releasing joint statements concerning these matters. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) released a statement signed by over 90 museum leaders. Included among the high-profile supporters were figures from the Prado, the Guggenheim, the British Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The statement explains the precariousness of the art being targeted, and highlights the vulnerability of delicate works of art, even when they are protected behind glass. While the statement does not address the issues raised by climate change, it does draw a clear line in the sand to draw attention to the riskiness of targeting these fragile and irreplaceable treasures.
Climate protestors march through city centers, causing traffic delays. Image via juststopoil.org
It is a showing of museum solidarity against protests. Its impact is yet to be seen, but there is hope that the statement will have an impact on protestors. The breadth of the ICOM statement, combined with the released statement by the American Association of Museum Directors on the same topic, last year, might speak to the protestors in a way that results in fewer art attacks. Taken together, the statements serve to highlight the damage caused by targeting art and the vulnerability of objects used in protests, without casting judgment on the protestors’ message. Rather, these statements encourage compassion on a global scale. Being good stewards of art and advocates for the environment both involve recognizing ways to nurture our shared humanity.
Conclusion
Collaboration is a better way forward than flashy protests. The lifespan of a shocking protest is only that of the flash-in-the-pan clickbait headline. As such, the political messaging of Just Stop Oil continues to be lost in the noise of the internet. Moreover, the fact of the matter is that throwing food at art to send a message is not sustainable. The shock value wears off eventually. It also wastes food and paint, not to mention the environmental impact of cleaning up the destruction. Remember the Italian climate activists’ recent activity in Florence? Ironically, even their spray painting seems to have caused more environmental harm than good. Nardella, the mayor of Florence, reported that “more than 5,000 liters of water were consumed to clean up Palazzo Vecchio” following the destructive protest.
Art, on the other hand, is constantly reinventing itself in sustainable ways that are fresh and exciting. Because of art’s evolving nature, activists who choose to work with artists and museums in a constructive, rather than a destructive, way, have the potential to sustainably effect real social change.
It’s a framework for elevated discourse. It smells like progress, not tomato soup.
by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | Apr 13, 2023 |
At 6:30pm on Monday evening, April 15, 2019, the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris began to burn.
Notre-Dame Cathedral’s spire on fire on April 15, 2019. Image courtesy Antoninnnnn via Wikimedia Commons.
Considered a jewel of Gothic architecture, the inferno began in what has been referred to as the “forest” of wooden beams inside the Cathedral’s roof. These beams caught fire and collapsed – a big issue, because the wooden forest of beams had provided much-needed support for the entire structure. After the beams disintegrated, the Cathedral crumbled. Onlookers, who yearned for the building to be saved from disaster, lost hope. As the Cathedral sank, smoke and dust rose to overtake the horizon.
Four years later, the darkness has cleared and hope abounds. The shock felt by millions around the world has softened, and the Cathedral’s on-going renovation is chugging along like the Little Engine that Could.
The inner framework of Notre-Dame, just months before the 2019 fire. Image courtesy SamuelPrr14 via Wikimedia Commons.
However, this chugging along is certainly that – a slow, steady pace. Originally, an anticipated re-opening date was set for April 19, 2024. This date would have been ideal as it is the fifth anniversary of the fire. Yet, due to delays, that plan has been scrapped. Several things have gotten in the way of the original timeframe (two major ones being a global pandemic and the outbreak of war in Ukraine).
Renovators, seeing that the finish line was not quite in sight to make that deadline, made adjustments. “Plan B” was to have the project finished by the summer of 2024. This would have meant that the reveal of refreshed cathedral would coincide with Paris’s highly anticipated 2024 Summer Olympic Games. Unfortunately, that plan has also been scrapped and tossed in the rubble. The newest official re-opening goal date is set for December 2024.
However, it is important to understand what “re-opening” entails. December 2024 is unlikely to mark the completion of all necessary renovations. Total completion by this date is not the goal; rather, it is to have the space ready to celebrate Catholic Mass by that time. As Culture Minister Rima Abdul-Malak explained, while tourists will be able to visit the site in late 2024 and attend Mass, renovations will continue into 2025.
Does it seem strange to celebrate Catholic liturgy in a half-finished construction site? Perhaps, but the French are the ultimate authority on the “chic, messy effortlessness” that results from a project left not-quite-done. Plus, those feeling impatient may quench their thirst for Notre-Dame de Paris by arriving in Paris, post-haste! A new exhibition has opened, entitled “Notre-Dame de Paris: at the heart of the construction site.” Visitors can expect to reap the inside scoop of the on-going renovation, plus view some remains from the fire, as well as salvaged artwork from the Cathedral.
In truth, the delays that have pushed back the opening, and made the aforementioned exhibit possible, are likely a good sign. The extended time for renovations signifies the seriousness and care being put into this renovation by the expert team on the ground in Paris. This is not surprising, seeing that the Cathedral is a highlight along tourists’ itineraries, and the structure has inspired generations of artists and writers.
The situation is as poet Mary Oliver wrote: “Things take the time they take. Don’t worry. How many roads did St. Augustine travel, before he became St. Augustine?”
One of the classic gargoyles atop Notre-Dame, photographed in 2016. Image courtesy Marcok via Wikimedia Commons.
Who is the genius leading this team of experts? The man entrusted with this special renovation project is none other than famed architect Philippe Villeneuve. According to Paris’s Official Tourism site, Villeneuve’s plan from the get-go has been to “rebuild the cathedral identically, including the spire.” The architect’s mission to retain the building’s original structure seems to be the foundation from which all other decisions are made. Even so, some of the plans have departed from the Cathedral’s original design. This has caused quite a bit of drama. The reason for the drama is that, unsurprisingly, there have been a lot of opinions about how the phoenix of Notre-Dame de Paris should rise from the ashes.
The online rumor mill has added fuel to the fire. Last year, rumors surfaced regarding plans to depart from the Cathedral’s original plans, sacrificing austerity for new tech and additional features. This caused widespread concern among art experts and historians that the Diocese of Paris was attempting its own “woke Disney revamp.” Plans to create features such as “emotional spaces” and “a discovery tour” sparked French academics to doom the proposals as an example of “inanity [meeting] kitsch.”
A contemplative gargoyle on the North Bell Tower in 2018, perhaps foreseeing the coming fire. Image courtesy Mari Doucet via Wikimedia Commons.
The “woke Disney revamp” comments ironically threw serious shade on the media powerhouse that brought new fame to Notre-Dame in the 1990s with the release of the animated film The Hunchback of Notre Dame. When approached for comment about the unfavorable comparison, Mr. Mickey Mouse chose not to respond. Those familiar with the matter claim that Mr. Mouse had suggested sending a “poop emoji” to the art historians’ to counter the vitriolic attack, but was dissuaded by publicity experts from doing so.
Despite criticism of any change from the original design, France’s National Heritage and Architecture Commission has approved several proposals integrating modern updates. These include installing modern lighting and contemporary works. Strong adherents to the traditional Gothic integrity of the space oppose such changes; on the other side, the Cathedral’s pastoral staff claim that some changes to the original plan will make the experience of visiting the Cathedral more enjoyable overall.
Additional controversial proposed changes favored by the Diocese include moving the tabernacle and other sacred objects. The purpose behind these changes is to encourage more of a dialogue between the visitor and the Gothic architecture of the sacred space when walking through the space. French authorities hope that these changes will retain the traditional feel of the original layout, while “bringing more a little more sense to the visitor.” As these changes seem directed at easing crowd flow for when the Cathedral is once again a major tourist site, they have faced fewer critics.
Lookout for the Spire
When word broke loose that there were plans to significantly change the monument’s overall architecture, the French Government got involved, to make sure that crucial elements of the Cathedral remain the same. At one point, a change to the iconic look of Notre-Dame was suggested in the form of a new, more modern spire. In response, President Emmanuel Macron intervened. He had been approached by cultural heritage experts who convinced him that a dramatic overhaul in design would drastically alter the integrity of the globally recognized monument. Macron stepped in to nix the change and prevent the 19th-century spire from being replaced with a more contemporary update. Reconstruction of the spire did not start until last year, because the monument itself had to undergo significant reconstruction to be able to support the 315 ft spire. True to his word, Macron has ensured that the new spire will match the one lost by fire. Those scanning the Parisian skyline will once again see the fabled towers in renewed glory.
A History of Renovations
Many people will be surprised to learn that the so-fought-for spire was not, in fact, part of the original 12th century Gothic design. The iconic Notre-Dame de Paris spire that the world knows and loves was added in the 19th century, by architect Eugène Voillet-le-Duc. Voillet-le-Duc’s involvement was the result of a major renovation effort at that time, spurred into life by renewed interest in the Cathedral following Victor Hugo’s famed tale.
Notre Dame Rose Window in 2014. Image courtesy Jeremy Hylton via Wikimedia Commons.
That effort led by Voillet-le-Duc marked the most recent major renovation of Notre-Dame de Paris, but not its first major revamp. In 1699, the Cathedral received a major facelift in 1699, courtesy of the redecoration effort led by Hardouin Mansart and Robert de Cotte. Prior to that, several reconstruction and renovation efforts occurred, including the installment of the north and south rose windows.
In fact, the entire conception of Notre-Dame de Paris as we know it was the result of a major reconfiguration of sacred space. The original construction of Notre-Dame de Paris, commissioned by Bishop Maurice de Sully in 1163, replaced a demolished 4th century Cathedral of Saint Étienne. In that sense, one could argue that Notre-Dame de Paris has been an HGTV special from Day One.
The Future of Notre-Dame
Will this next reveal mark the final glow-up of this storied monument’s life? Or is this version of Notre-Dame de Paris simply another notch in the belt of this hero’s journey? If anything, this is a cathedral that has proved it knows how to reinvent itself and start anew. Plus, with the aid of new technology, the state-of-the-art Cathedral will be even more regal than before. Hopefully, 2019 was the last time Notre-Dame de Paris will face a fire. A renewed and refreshed cathedral will be worth the wait – and will stand for many centuries to come as a symbol of courage and resilience in the face of inferno.
