• lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    It makes me wonder where the cutoff is for maintaining old things. Obviously pyramids fall on the “leave it alone” side because they’re about the oldest buildings in existence, but I wonder about, say, Renaissance-era buildings.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’ve seen the occasional controversy about restoring medieval castles. This one comes to mind as a particularly unusual and controversial case - the remains of the original castle were so badly degraded that there wasn’t really much left, so the restorers built obviously modern-looking walls that had the original castle’s fragments embedded in them held up in the correct places and shapes. Sort of like a reconstructed dinosaur skeleton where a bunch of the bones were missing.

      Putting the original limestone cladding back on the pyramids would be interesting, it would probably “look fake” because the original pyramid cladding was extremely smooth and clean much like a modern concrete structure would appear. People don’t expect it to look that way. Sort of like how a lot of the old marble statues and architecture from ancient Greece and Rome used to be brightly painted, but those wore off and now everyone thinks of pure white stone when they imagine what an ancient sculpture from there is supposed to look like.

      Edit: In violation of the norms of social media, I read the article. The plan with the pyramid wasn’t even as drastic as I thought, apparently for the pyramid that they were considering doing this to the original cladding is still available. It’s just fallen off and is lying around the pyramid’s base.