Notre-Dame’s New Windows Are Dividing France
They survived the fire.
They were restored afterward.
And now they may still be removed.
That single fact explains why a quiet exhibition at the Grand Palais has turned into one of the most divisive heritage debates in France since the reopening of Notre-Dame.
What is being shown at the Grand Palais
Inside the Grand Palais, visitors can see full-scale mockups of six new stained-glass windows designed by contemporary French artist Claire Tabouret.
These are not sketches or concept visuals. They are shown at real size, exactly as they would appear inside Notre-Dame.
The windows are intended for the south chapels of the cathedral. They are meant to replace six existing 19th-century windows that were not destroyed in the 2019 fire and were restored as part of the wider reconstruction work.
This detail matters more than anything else.
How this decision came about
After the fire, the French state took direct control of the reconstruction of Notre-Dame, working closely with the Archdiocese of Paris and the Ministry of Culture.
Early on, a key choice was made: the cathedral would not reopen as a strict historical freeze.
The official argument was this: Notre-Dame has changed many times over its history. Each era has left its mark. The reconstruction, they argued, should also reflect the 21st century.
To make that happen, the Ministry of Culture launched a national artistic competition. Several artists were invited to submit proposals for new stained-glass windows.
In late 2024, Claire Tabouret’s project was selected. The theme chosen was Pentecost, a central moment in Christian tradition.
The project received backing from both political authorities and church leadership.
Immediate backlash
For many heritage experts, this was not a neutral artistic choice. The six windows targeted for replacement were intact. They had survived the fire. They had been restored. They were part of the historical fabric of a listed monument.
Under standard conservation principles, intact historical elements are preserved, not swapped out.
Several advisory bodies raised objections. Architects, historians, and preservation specialists spoke out publicly. Large petitions circulated. The criticism focused less on Tabouret’s work itself than on the precedent being set.
If undamaged elements can be removed here, critics ask, where does it stop?
The idea that “they will be stored, not destroyed” has not eased concerns. For opponents, removal alone already alters the meaning and integrity of the building.
About Claire Tabouret
Claire Tabouret is a major figure in contemporary French art, with work shown internationally. Her selection followed the rules of the competition, and there is no suggestion of irregular process.
Supporters argue that her expressive style and focus on human presence bring a modern spiritual reading that fits the cathedral’s long history of renewal. They see the project as continuity, not rupture.
Critics respond that the issue is not the artist but the choice to intervene at all in this way.
Project status
In practical terms, the project is advancing. Design work is ongoing, and production is underway. If nothing changes, installation is planned around 2026.
At the same time, opposition has not disappeared. Legal challenges are still discussed, and the controversy remains very much alive in public debate. This is not a settled issue in the court of public opinion.
Grand Palais Exhibition
The Grand Palais exhibition is not just an art event, it places the future windows in front of the public at full scale, making the project tangible and immediate.
Supporters describe this as transparency. People can see exactly what is planned, rather than reacting to descriptions or renderings.
Opponents see something else: a way to normalize a contested decision by presenting it as already part of the cultural landscape.
Either way, the exhibition has shifted the debate from abstract principles to something concrete and visual.
What this debate is really about
This is no longer just about stained glass, it’s about who gets to decide how far restoration can go, how much room contemporary expression should have inside historic monuments, and whether survival should ever give way to symbolism.
Notre-Dame has always carried meaning far beyond Paris. That is why this decision, and the reaction to it, has struck such a nerve.