Cathedral fire divides historical heritage specialists
The fire at Notre-Dame Cathedral immediately makes us think about the social meaning of heritage and public policies related to culture.
Within hours, more than 3 billion reais had been raised for its reconstruction through donations by business leaders and billionaires, including a Brazilian woman. This admirable gesture shows that, in a sense, elites abroad feel obliged to give back to art and culture in recognition of the socioeconomic position they have achieved.
There is no equivalent here. To give you an idea, to date the National Museum, also destroyed by fire in September 2018, has received a mere 150,000 reais in individual donations, or less than 0.005% of the sum donated to Notre-Dame in a matter of hours…
But we should not forget that a French law allows 60% of these donations to be deducted from income tax. This benefit is fundamental. It also draws our attention to the importance of laws such as the Rouanet Law, one of the targets of the attacks being made on artistic and cultural production in Brazil.
But once this money was raised, another controversy emerged: should the cathedral be rebuilt or renewed?
This issue divides specialists, and the controversy has older roots, since other architectural landmarks have already undergone such processes.
The discussion revolves around the notion of authenticity, since a contemporary approach to historical heritage also considers intangible aspects such as tradition, uses, or the function of a monument or listed property.
Reconstruction in pursuit of an original authenticity could paradoxically erase the layers of time, justifying projects that function more as postcards than as witnesses to the tangible and intangible culture they carry.
Access the playlist featuring all audio recordings of the column Ouvir Imagens broadcast on Rádio USP since March 2018 | Read all transcripts and posts.
Since September 2018, this column has also had a playlist on YouTube!
Listen and share.