[task_queue]

> Notre Dame is an original, irreplaceable structure.

And, from it's original state, it is gone. We cannot replace the irreplaceable, but we have the opportunity to modify it. Such is life.

[theoh]

This is gobbledygook. You say that the irreplaceable thing is gone and cannot be replaced, but also that somehow we now have an opportunity to modify it?

The cathedral is mostly intact. This is a repair job, just like a repair to an Old Master painting damaged by a vandal. A restorer wouldn't use the latest and greatest synthetic painting materials (acrylics or paints with synthetic binders) to repair an old master. They might use some new technology in the process, but they wouldn't treat the job as an opportunity to indulge their personal creative vanity and leave their mark on the painting. There is more than enough creativity and self-expression in the task of restoration.

[dragonwriter]

> The cathedral is mostly intact.

The original is not.

What is arguably largely intact (though, per TFA, that's true superficially but not structurally) is the result of multiple changes over a long period for a variety of different reasons (often in the context of repairs, but the past repair efforts weren't with an attitude of “restore the original with no artistic changes”.)

> just like a repair to an Old Master painting damaged by a vandal.

Except it's not like an Old Master painting, as the pre-recent-damage condition was he result of many different artistic visions at many different times, unless you are comparing all the past innovation to the work of vandals, not just the recent damage.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

I'm not sure why you've been downvoted for this. Notre Dame isn't just any old building, to carry on the art analogy it's in the same league as the Mona Lisa or Sunflowers etc.

Thankfully the French do have a very strong sense of tradition and cultural identity, something that's sadly being lost in most of the rest of the western world.