Just because a building subjectively appears attractive or impressive, does not mean it is art. It may contain elements of design borrowed from artists works, but does that make it art?
I don’t know the answer, that’s why I said I am not sure.
It is a great shame to see Notre Dame burn, but the event is of no great significance in the grand scheme of things. The world has much, much bigger problems.
Agreed.
But the pictures and sculpture are not required to function, in the way that a building is.
Unless it’s a folly?
I was jolly pleased that this functioned the day I climbed up the inside of it
Then again, I suppose we could argue that it’s a building …
VB
I thought about follies whilst typing, but I still don’t recall an example with no doorway.
They do generally provide a viewpoint.
Edit - as does the Statue of Liberty.
Carsten Höller’s slides at Tate Modern
VB
Wowee! My turn next!
I recall being taken to endless Good Friday services as a kid where our church’s precious items were brought to the congregation to be venerated & kissed (with a brief wipe) between each set of lips. Amongst those was supposedly a fragment of the cross. Even as a youngish child I was highly dubious of the provenance of this item wondering about the likelihood of it surviving & then making it to a quiet Birmingham suburb. I was amused to hear that Notre Dame also had bits of the cross as well as the crown of thorns amongst it’s collection. It must’ve been a hoot being a purveyor of religious artefacts in the distant past. Someone could make a very funny film about it.
Or they could make a moderately amusing (but better than the rest of the series) episode of a sitcom.
The OED defines art as
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Churches, especially Cathedrals were definitely designed for their beauty and emotional power
A tragic loss. I’ve been to Notre Dame a few times and it was a spectacular place.
Definitely art.
I have been once, like many great buildings it had an impact on me. I agree, art.
It turns out that the Cathedral is owned by the French people and not the Catholic Church.
Found this online
The cathedral is currently owned by the French state, but a 1905 law helped establish that the state would be neutral when it comes to religion and the public would have freedom to carry out their beliefs.
This meant that the Catholic Church became the designated beneficiary and were able to use the cathedral exclusively to practise the religion.
This also means that the archbishop is responsible for paying employees of Notre Dame, including security and cleaners, while it must also remain open for people to visit for free.
Some first class content in here.
Good work chaps. 
Witchcraft!
It’s surely a miracle although also curious how God allowed it to happen in the first place. Obviously one of his many days off.
