X Close

Paris should remove Olympic rings from Eiffel Tower

Should a global symbol go on a national monument permanently? Credit: Getty

September 12, 2024 - 4:30pm

France has enough controversy and conflict to deal with at the moment. So the last thing it needs right now is a blazing row about the Eiffel Tower. But unfortunately Anne Hidalgo — the socialist Mayor of Paris — has had an idea. She wants to turn the Olympic rings currently adorning the landmark into a permanent installation.

Her plans have provoked a growing backlash. According to a Bloomberg report, those expressing displeasure with her decision —and the way it was made — include Culture Minister Rachida Dati, as well as Gustave Eiffel’s great-great-grandson, Olivier Berthelot-Eiffel. The critics are right to be concerned.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with displaying the logo for the duration of the 2024 games. As a temporary fixture, it’s a fitting tribute from the host city — even if it’s not quite as iconic as the equivalent installation for the 2012 games in London.

But think how weird it would be if the London rings were still hanging from Tower Bridge 12 years later. Though we have fond memories of 2012, most of us have moved on. What’s more, the Olympics have moved on from us. The internationalism of the modern games depends on the fact that no one nation — not even Greece — has a permanent hold upon them. To keep displaying the logo so prominently on the Paris skyline looks like a refusal to let go.

In any case, is it really appropriate to fuse this most global of symbols to a supremely national monument? The Eiffel Tower is gloriously, unmistakably French. It may be a modern, secular and republican response to its Parisian contemporary, the basilica of Sacré-Coeur but, together, the two buildings embody the soul of France. As such, the tower exists to uplift the nation, not to provide an internationalist coat-hanger.

Sadly, conserving our cultural inheritance does not satisfy the postmodern ego. The idea that we might just allow the achievements of previous generations to echo down the ages doesn’t compute with the chauvinists of the present. What survives of the past cannot be allowed to speak for itself: it must be forcibly stamped with contemporary symbols, meanings and values.

This narcissistic impulse finds many expressions. Some can be undone, like the fatuous attempts by right-on curators to “re-contextualise” museum exhibits. Others can leave more lasting scars: the ugly architectural impositions on Liverpool’s waterfront, for instance, or the staggeringly aggressive extension to the Royal Ontario Museum.

Crucially, the cultural narcissists can be resisted. When fire ripped through the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris, there were those who saw an opportunity to insinuate the banalities of contemporary architecture into this precious remnant of the Middle Ages. Luckily, the glass roof merchants did not get their way. Traditional restoration triumphed over gimmicky renovation and Notre-Dame will continue down the centuries as itself.

Hidalgo’s plans for the Eiffel Tower are not as bad as the calls to “update” the cathedral. Nevertheless, Paris does have another battle on its hands. There is a principle at stake here, which is that some things are more important than the passing fancies of the present day. The iron tower may not be sacred, but it does deserve our respect.


Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

6 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
William Amos
William Amos
27 days ago

Perhaps the Eiffel Tower itself should be dismantled and the steel used to reconsturct Les Halles in facsimile. It was the first of the great secular trivialities to herald the approaching materialist-consumerist age. What is it? What does it mean? What does it do?Is it Mammons Steeple or merely a glorified fair-ground attraction, surely?
Parisians of the 1880’s are said to have been almost unanimous in their revulsion at the erection which they saw as a humiliation and a mockery of their great city.
A circular letter of the period, headed by Charles Garnier, architect of the Paris Opera asked

“Will the city of Paris continue to associate itself with the baroque and mercantile fancies of a builder of machines thereby making itself irreparably ugly and bringing dishonor to itself? Because the Eiffel Tower that even the commercial Americans didn’t want, will without a doubt dishonor Paris.”

I believe Guy de Maupassant had it right. He dined in the restaurant at the top of the tower every day for many years. When asked why he favoured the spot so much he is said to have responded that it was simply “the best view in Paris – because it is the only place one cannot see the Eiffel Tower.”.
We, in London, were subjected to this same humiliation-by-commitee by Mr Blair when the ‘temporary’ ferris wheel he rigged up on the South Bank was left to permanently obscure Ralph Knott’s magnificent County Hall and overwhelm the timeless view Westminster which Wordsworth knew.
I often think of Maupassant’s ringing words when I walk north over Westminster Bridge and have my view of those immortal ‘temples domes [and] theatres’ loomed over and bisected by the spokes of the London Eye.

El Uro
El Uro
28 days ago

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
28 days ago

I disagree about the Liverpool waterfront. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with how its evolved. It’s no longer a working seaport in that section of city (there are ongoing docks elsewhere) and the architecture is just fine, creating a blend of the old with the new.
UNESCO haven’t got a clue about how something which is still part of a modern city environment should evolve. Let them pontificate on ancient ruins; that’d be fitting for the people in charge.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
27 days ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Fully agree. It’s still very impressive, especially if you take the option of the ferry from Birkenhead or Wallasey. There’s still a lot of run down areas, of course, and the city should be allowed to develop again.

John Murray
John Murray
27 days ago

It is such an obviously terrible idea I cannot believe it will last.

mac mahmood
mac mahmood
27 days ago
Reply to  John Murray

The tower itself was thought to be a bad idea prior to its construction and afterwards. Moves were afoot to demolish it. Only the arrival of wireless telegraphy saved it for posterity. I myself have no desire to go anywhere near it other than for the purpose of examining the nuts and bolts as an engineer. That purpose however, is not sufficient to induce me to take a journey to the site.