RichardHowe.com – Voices from Lowell & Beyond

Endless Courage

Diane & Leo (the author) on her 48th birthday

Endless Courage

By Leo Racicot

26 February 2026. On this date, a year ago, I lost the best part of me. Whereas I am flighty, my sister was practical. Where I struggled to learn common sense and logic, she seemed to have been born with both. Where she was pleasing to look at, I was not.

I’m the first to admit I took the wayward brother bit way too far. I was forever getting myself in one mess after the other, to the point of ridiculousness. Diane would always, with unquestioning swiftness, race to rescue me.

I marveled at her strength; Life dealt her one lousy hand after another. Rather than whine, sulk and pout (my years-long chosen M.O.), she got down to the business at hand, playing each round, overcoming the odds, often winning.

There was a fearless aspect to her character, a pit bull quality. One time, I remember, she found a thief trying to break into the house. The guy had to be 6′ 4″, if he was an inch.  Tiny Diane, 5″ 4″, cornered and confronted him. I couldn’t believe the speed with which this guy, his rear end full of verbal buckshot, took off, a fox caught.

Diane’s stubborn streak saw her through myriad hospitalizations, myriad calamities. untold disappointments, unexpected heartbreaks.

Ours was never an affectionate family — few kisses, fewer embraces. How I wish I’d told her how much I loved her.

When the time came that it was clear her time in this world was coming to an end, I tried as hard as I could to keep her from leaving.

I don’t know where we end up when we go: whether we become a part of the celestial ether, whether worm food and ash. My beliefs tell me she is surely in a better place, free of her lifelong suffering.

A year on, every day is a struggle. But I’ve learned that it’s selfish wanting to keep our loved ones beside us forever when they decide to journey on…

Seen & Heard: Vol. 19

Event – Doors Open Lowell – On Saturday, May 9, 2026, I joined hundreds of people in exploring some of the 29 historic buildings that were open for public viewing. The event was well organized with a shuttle bus making the rounds, distinctive signage at the entrance to each venue, and knowledgeable guides inside, dressed in branded yellow t-shirts. My first stop was the First United Baptist Church on Church Street. It’s the white wooden church that sits amidst the parking lot of the Central Plaza retail complex. Like Lowell, the church celebrates its bicentennial this year. I had never been inside and learned much from my visit. My next stop was the Whistler House Museum of Art on Worthen Street. I’ve been there many times before but each time I go, I see the place and the amazing art inside in a new way. The Smith Baker Center was on the list so I went there hoping to see the inside but there was only exterior viewing with a small canopy tent at the entrance with some interior photos on display. I crossed the street to the Pollard Memorial Library to pick up some books I had ordered. Although the library wasn’t an official Doors Open location, they had a self-guided art and architecture tour map available so I wandered around and was reminded of what an impressive library we have. My last two stops were outside of downtown. First was the Transfiguration Greek Orthodox Church which is next to the North Common. I had never been inside before and was very impressed with the artwork, the interior architecture and decoration, and the religious icons that fill the church. My final stop was the Stone House, most recently known as Bachand Hall, on Pawtucket Street. Before Lowell was incorporated this building was an inn with a tavern attached, then it became the home of James C. Ayer who became fabulously rich selling medicine, and since then it’s been used for various social service purposes. So congratulations to the organizers and participants of Doors Open Lowell, another great event in the city. 

Obituary – “Dean Tavoularis, 93, Oscar-Winning Production Designer for Coppola, Dies”by Richard Sandomir, New York Times, May 5, 2026. Tavoularis won the academy award for production design for Godfather II but also handled production design for all of the Godfather movies, for Apocalypse Now, and for many other films directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Mr. Tavoularis was born in 1932 in Lowell where his parents rented an apartment in Pawtucketville from the parents of the late former Lowell School Superintendent George Tsapatasaris. However, the Tavoularis family left Lowell for Los Angeles where Constantine, which was Dean’s given name, studied art and architecture. He was then hired to work in one of the old time movie studios. While there, he was hired by the director of Bonnie and Clyde to handle production design for that film which is how he got his start. This made him a “bridge” figure between the old studio system and the young new directors who revolutionized American cinema in the 1960s and 70s. Tavoularis retired from movie making in the 1990s and settled in Paris where he worked as an artist which he said was his dream job. 

Article – “Hope for print, in an unlikely place” by Aidan Ryan, Boston Globe, May 4, 2026. With each day seeming to bring news of the demise of another longtime print publication, this article provides a welcome counterpoint, the story of two print publications that are thriving in the digital age: Yankee Magazine and Old Farmer’s Almanac which are both published by Yankee Publishing of Dublin, New Hampshire. Notably, the company is now employee owned after the family that owned it forever decided to sell it to the employees rather than to some private equity firm that would liquidate it for spare parts. Although both publications are thriving in print – This year’s almanac has sold 1.2 million copies and Yankee has 220,000 subscribers – the company “uses technology for things technology is good at” and humans “for things that should be outputted by humans.” I used to subscribe to Yankee but let it lapse since I have so much else to read. I do buy the almanac every year, almost as a marker that spring is on the way after a long cold winter. I was happy to read that according to this article at least, I’ll be able to keep buying it in the years to come. 

Art Criticism – “At the Venice Biennale, Playing It Safe” by Jason Farago, New York Times, May 9, 2026. My first-ever visit to an art museum came as a senior in college on a class field trip. As life went on, I didn’t avoid art museums, but they weren’t a top priority. That changed about a dozen or more years ago when I suddenly enjoyed seeing works of art in person. Perhaps it was Lowell’s pivot to the cultural economy in the early 2000s and the arrival here of hundreds of artists who have since made our city their home. In any case, I am now a regular museum-goer but I also enjoy art vicariously through the writing of art critics. I’ve never been to Venice and likely never will, but I’ve become aware of a huge art festival held there every other year called the Venice Biennale. As I understand it, there is a huge international pavilion that becomes home to a curated exhibition of contemporary art from around the world, but there are also several dozen permanent national pavilions that each host a display by the country that owns the pavilion. As is the case with much of our government-sponsored art and cultural activities, the current US regime threw out existing plans and instead limited works to those that “reflect and promote American values” (as defined by the regime) and don’t involve DEI. The Times’ critic was not impressed with the result: “The State Department named the Mar-a-Largo-going owner of a Florida pet food store as the pavilion’s commissioner. The honor (or former) honor of representing the United States eventually went to Alma Allen, a competent but hardly compelling sculptor of bronze and marble plaques and curlicutes. The 2026 U.S. Pavilion offers a twinned sensation of outrage and exhaustion. The government’s selection process has debased what was once a major stage for American art . . .”

To replace or not to replace? That is the question.

To replace or not to replace? That is the question.

By Louise Peloquin

Six photo-illustrated pieces, posted between April 4, 2023 and May 5, 2025, covered the restoration of Notre Dame de Paris. (1) This top tourist attraction still makes the news as thousands continue to visit the “Limestone Ph0enix.” A giant crane towers over the majestic church since outside consolidation is ongoing, funded by single coins as well as by multiple-digit bank transfers.

A three-year-old debate about whether or not to replace grisaille panels is popping up in the media once again. (2) Signed by the Paris regional prefect, an administrative document announcing window replacement work has been posted directly on the cathedral. This is setting off proceedings in matters of administrative law and is marking the start of legal action. The Sites and Monuments Association has announced that opponents to the project can take legal action by filing an appeal at the administrative court. A debate of ideas is becoming a legal battle whose consequences will concretely impact the future of Notre Dame cathedral.

Behind the posted document is a very specific project. It entails removing the 7-meter by 4-meter (22 feet and 11.5 inches high by 13 feet and 1.5 inches wide) 19th-century medieval-style stained glass windows in six chapels south of the nave and replacing them with modern  creations. Contemporary artwork is not in itself problematic. However, its insertion into an already structured and coherent gothic cathedral is widely discussed because the 19th-century windows are deemed to be an integral part of the architectural ensemble.

Side chapel original windows

The new window project was initiated in 2023 by Laurent Ulrich, Archbishop of Paris. That year, on December 8, he invited President Emmanuel Macron to the cathedral renovation site. The President immediately gave his full support to bringing a “contemporary contribution” to Notre Dame. An official call for public procurement contracts was launched. One hundred and ten proposals were examined. French-born artist Claire Tabouret’s dossier was retained. (3) The Regional Directorate of Cultural Affairs endorsed the choice by stating that the new windows would be “a contribution from our era” to a monument built over the course of several centuries.

One of Claire Tabouret’s 6 new windows

One may ask why the project has triggered strong opposition given that history has already shown additions to the cathedral, for example, Viollet-le-Duc’s spire. (4) Opponents point out that this project is fundamentally different. It is not about adding something but rather about replacing elements which still exist. The 19th-century windows were not destroyed in the 2019 fire. They were dismantled, protected, cleaned and restored. In other words, they are perfectly preserved. Consequently, the question is: why dispose of something that works, is protected and is part of the history of the cathedral.

Original blue and grey window

Notre Dame is listed as a historic monument and so are its components. Windows are  not merely elements of decor but are just as protected as the heritage site is. This fact reinforces the legal constraints surrounding their modification or replacement. The opponents’ argument is that replacing these windows is aimed neither at conservation nor at restoration. The official mission of the public institution in charge of Notre Dame is precisely to preserve and restore the cathedral. Therefore, window replacement is considered acting outside of the legal framework. This will be the main argument for legal action. Opponents are also quick to point out that Claire Tabouret is a friend of First Lady Brigitte Macron.

A first legal procedure was initiated concerning the question of the legitimacy of the public institution to carry out this operation. The procedure was lost at first instance but is currently under appeal. Opponents particularly criticized the decision because of its failure to take the heritage aspect into account.

A second, more direct legal front opened, that of the project itself. Heritage experts find this point very interesting because the National Commission for Heritage and Architecture has twice opposed dismantling the 19th-century windows. Therefore, opposition is not just marginal. A real disagreement exists between the political project and part of the historic heritage world. Despite this, the decision to go ahead with the project was upheld. The experts’ opinions were not followed. The polemic is no longer just an artistic or a heritage discussion but seen as a political choice which disregards specialists’ recommendations.

Top section of an original window

Top section of Claire Tabouret’s window

     The project is moving along despite reservations and this is precisely what is feeding the polemic because opponents are not only contesting the final result, they are also contesting the way in which the decision was made. They find it to be a forced choice disregarding technical views. Some associations are even talking about a dangerous precedent for the future protection of historic monuments. If this type of replacement can be approved, the broader question comes up of who decides about the evolution of a monument such as Notre Dame.

In 2023, a petition was launched against the project. On April 28, 2026 it had 302,935 signatures, a considerable number for a question of heritage. It shows that the issue goes far beyond just specialists. It concerns the public which holds dear the integrity of the monument.

The project is also generating interest. Models of the new windows, illustrating the theme of Pentecost, were exhibited at the Grand Palais from December 10, 2025 to March 15, 2026 and attracted approximately 325,000 visitors.

Models of Claire Tabouret’s windows exhibited at the Grand Palais in Paris

Public opinion remains divided. One point comes up frequently in the discussion and that is cost. Some people find it shocking to spend nearly 4,000,000 euros ($4,694,668  – May 1 exchange rate) to replace windows that have already been restored (for a cost of several million euros) and are in perfect condition. Opponents feel that French taxpayers’ and donors’ money is being used to satisfy an aesthetic vision imposed by what some call a “presidential whim.” They maintain that replacing restored, intact windows by contemporary artwork is transforming not preserving. Therefore, beyond budgetary considerations, the issue remains whether or not to impose a new interpretation of the original windows.

What are the precise criticisms of the new windows? They represent Pentecost figures with a figurative, contemporary approach. Opponents insist that it is not just a question of taste. They put forward two main arguments. The first is linked to the idea of architectural coherence since the current windows are part of a progression of color and therefore, replacing risks upsetting visual balance. The second is an argument of principle. When working on historic monuments, adding, not removing, is acceptable.

Finally, some specialists bring up technical characteristics. For example, the new windows do not take into account the tracery (5). There are problems with delineating the characters depicted in the glass.

Detail of a Claire Tabouret window

It is really not a question of rejecting contemporary art at all. Some completely agree that contemporary art can have its place in the cathedral. Take, for example, the tapestries now hung in some of the side chapels. (6) The root cause of the problem is not integrating something new but rather replacing something sound.

Controversy over replacing stained glass windows at Notre Dame has already triggered controversy. An exhibition, held from June 22, 2024 to January 5, 2025, in Troyes, a city in the Champagne region, presented an ensemble of forgotten windows conceived for the 1937 Paris World Fair. Stored in the rear of Notre Dame’s south nave, they were rediscovered in 2019. They were created by twelve master glass-makers to replace Viollet-le-Duc’s grisailles. Louis Barillet, emblematic figure of Art Deco, was project manager. In 1934, he began working with eleven other master glass-makers to create a series of windows for the Pontifical Pavilion at the 1937 Paris World Fair. (7) When the fair ended, Louis Barillet sought to ensure the future of the creations because selling them was forbidden. In 1935, at a time when Viollet-le-Duc’s grisailles were judged to be “too dull”, Barillet offered the Historic Monument Commission to replace the old windows with his new ones by insisting that the latter were less outdated and more in keeping with medieval polychrome windows. The Historic Monument Commission gave the green light without making the initiative official.

Detail of Paul Lousier’s 1937 window of Saint François de Sales

Detail of Valentine Reyre’s 1937 window of Sainte Foy de Conques

The Pontifical Pavilion was conserved after the 1937 Paris World Fair and it was only at the end of 1938 that the new windows were finally installed, on trial, inside Notre Dame. A heated polemic ensued. The question of placing modern artwork inside an ancient monument divided art specialists, historians and the general public. It was the course of history, with World War II looming, rather than the artistic controversy, which ended the 1938 window replacement project.

In 1939, by precautionary measure, Louis Barillet’s workshop removed its windows, stored them in straw-filled crates and reinstalled Viollet-le-Duc’s grisailles. Seven of the Barillet workshop panes were recuperated by their master glass-makers and five were lost.

In 2019, just after the Notre Dame fire, the 1937 windows briefly came back to center stage. Recuperating them for the renovated cathedral was not seriously considered.

This whole debate ultimately goes beyond the question of window choices because it raises the question of whether or not we consider cultural heritage as something we receive and pass on or as something we adapt to our time.

Today, there is no consensus about the Notre Dame window project. What is certain, however, is the fact that the decision to be taken will be a landmark. It will serve as a reference, a precedent for other projets. Beyond the windows, a certain conception of cultural heritage is ultimately being played out.

The question remains: to replace or not to replace?

Keep the old or bring in the new – what do you think?

1) “Notre Dame de Paris, an Update” – posted on April 4, 2023

https://richardhowe.com/2023/04/03/notre-dame-de-paris-an-update/

“Gift-wrapped in Steel Notre Dame’s New Spire” – posted on December 18, 2023

https://richardhowe.com/2023/12/18/gift-wrapped-in-steel-notre-dames-new-spire/#comments

“Spire Update” – posted on February 2, 2024:

https://richardhowe.com/2024/02/21/notre-dame-of-paris-spire-update/

“Notre Dame the Limestone Phoenix” – posted on December 4, 2024

https://richardhowe.com/2024/12/04/notre-dame-the-limestone-phoenix/

“Notre Dame Inauguration New Flash” – posted on December 7, 2024.                        https://richardhowe.com/2024/12/07/notre-dame-inauguration-news-flash/

“Notre Dame Revisited” – posted on May 5, 2025

https://richardhowe.com/2025/05/16/notre-dame-revisited/

2) “Grisailles” are stained glass windows characterized by a non-figurative ornamental design painted in black lines on colorless glass. Small quantities of color were later introduced. This technique, which means, “paint in grey shades” was principally used to create contours and shadows. Many French cathedrals have grisailles, for example, Chartres, Beauvais, Tours, Troyes and Paris.

3) Born on September 25, 1981 in Pertuis, Vaucluse, in the Provence region, artist Claire Tabouret, admired by contemporary art collectors, is living and working in Los Angeles. The six large windows she designed are supposed to be installed in Notre Dame de Paris in December 2026.

4) See the 2nd and 3rd links of footnote #1 for information on Viollet-le-Duc’s spire.

5) “Tracery” is the intricate decorative framework that supports and divides the panes in medieval stained glass windows. Begun as simple plate tracery, it gradually became more complex and further enhanced both the structural support and aesthetic appeal of large windows.

6) See the second photo in:

“Notre Dame Revisited” – posted on May 5, 2025

https://richardhowe.com/2025/05/16/notre-dame-revisited/

7) The eleven master glass-makers who worked with Louis Barillet from 1934 to 1939: Jacques Le Chevallier, Valentine Reyre, Jean Hébert-Stevens, Louis Mazetier, Jacques Gruber, Rev. Marie-Alain Couturier, André Rinuy, Max Ingrand, Joseph-Jean-Kef Ray, Jean Gaudin and Paul Louzier.

A Trump trompe? Echos from the past? by Marjorie Arons-Barron

The entry below is being cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’ own blog.

The Order of the Day by award-winning French novelist and film maker Eric Vuillard is a well-researched and creatively presented story of the Anschluss, Hitler’s move to take over Austria and incorporate it into Germany. It is a brief cautionary tale in narrative non-fiction form.

Where direct quotes are available, Vuillard uses them. Where they are not, Vuillard draws on memoirs, journals, court testimony, interviews and photographs to create conversations as he imagines them to have taken place. We see the gestures and personal peculiarities of the speakers, their clothing styles, the interior designs of halls where high-level meetings were held. We feel characters’ anxieties, fears, and frustrations.

The book opens in 1933, when then-Reichstag President Hermann Goering gathers 24 corporate chieftains (think Krupp, Siemens, Opel, BASF, Telefunken, Reichsbank) around a table to lay out the urgency of Hitler’s plan to consolidate power. The upcoming elections are important, he tells them, to ward off the Communist menace, end trade unions, and consolidate their own power as mini fuehrers in their own companies. Goering even jokes that these may be the last German elections for a century. A reader can’t help feeling that the invitees look very much like today’s oligarchs, captains of industry like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, and others. They go where the power is and fork over the money to ensure their personal success.

As if to make the point, Vuillard observes that “corruption is an irreducible line item in the budget of large companies, and it goes by several names: lobbying fees, gifts, political contributions.” The corporate types who had funded Hitler’s electoral success not only stood by as he executed his evil plans, but, by using concentration camp prisoners as forced labor in their factories, they became even wealthier.

The major focus of this short (140 pages) book is March 12, 1938 when Hitler marched into Austria, having bullied then-Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg to sign a document agreeing to be absorbed by Germany, having threatened military action if Austria failed to comply. Leading up to that day, Vuillard describes British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy and the denial and timidity of the rest of European leaders. None of them was unaware of the Nazis’ brutal actions: the burning of the Reichstag, opening up of Dachau, sterilization of the mentally ill, the many atrocities to achieve racial purity, the purge of political opponents.

Vuillard cinematically describes a confrontation between Hitler and Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg, who tried to stave off the inevitable by persuading the Germans that he has always maintained policies friendly to the Reich. Hitler screams his disagreement. Then the Fuehrer’s mood becomes childish and he tells Schuschnigg that he, Hitler, is going to build the largest bridge in the world. He goes on to say he’ll put up the tallest buildings, bigger even than America’s.  (Sound like any official that you know?)  Vuillard calls Hitler as “virulent as a gob of phlegm,” which kind of sticks with the reader. Hitler, he writes, is beyond any objections of constitutional law.

Other major characters are Nazi war criminals Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who shares Hitler’s talent for blunt threats and repetitious propaganda, and Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, who just happened to rent a flat from Neville Chamberlain in London.

Nowhere does Vuillard say that Trump is a Hitler, nor does he specifically warn of events in our own day. But it’s impossible not to see parallels to some of Trump’s behavior: the authoritarian actions, megalomania, braggadocio, thirst for revenge, and disregard for constitutional precepts, values, and norms.

Also resonant are the appeasers, the oligarchs, the sycophants, and, yes, those who shut their ears and eyes and hunker down in the comfort of their daily lives.

Written in 2017 and winner of the Prix Goncourt, France’s most prestigious literary award, Eric Vuillard’s book stimulates pressing questions about how far down the road to authoritarianism the United States has already traveled and who is leading us down that path to the detriment of democracy. Readers may balk at the author’s preachy inserts, but there is a much-needed sermon in the story he is telling.