IF the Glasgow School of Art is rebuilt, will it still be the Glasgow School of Art? Or rather, will it still be Charles Rennie Mackintosh’s school of art? Or will it just be a facsimile thereof. A cover version, if you like.

This week’s report into the fire that destroyed one of the jewels of Scotland’s architectural heritage in 2018 (for the second time in four years) could not come to a conclusion on the ultimate cause of the fire. The destruction was too great.

But it remains a thorough, and at times surely damning piece of work. Fire warning systems were inadequate, as were fire mitigation measures, and there were no working sprinklers

That the report by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service suggested any rebuild of the Mackintosh building should appoint “competent persons with the appropriate skills, knowledge, qualifications and experience to ensure the existing regime of health and safety legislation and regulations are appropriately applied” does appear to be casting more than a little shade on those responsible for the reconstruction efforts between the first fire and the second. Or am I reading too much into that?

But the question now – over and above who should take responsibility for the failings identified – is should the Mack be rebuilt?

The school of art has restated its commitment to a “faithful reinstatement of the Mackintosh Building” as far as practicable.

Not everyone agrees. Professor Alan Dunlop, an architect himself and a long-time outspoken critic of the art school, has argued that 21st-century building and fire regulations would inevitably compromise Mackintosh’s original designs and as such faithfulness is not possible.

In the past he has also called for a new building to take the place of the Mack, a new art school for the 21st century that could be as inspiring as Mackintosh’s original.

Set aside the slightly inconvenient fact that we’ve already got a 21st-century art school in the Reid Building, just across the road from the Mack, and I can see the appeal of Professor Dunlop’s argument. A new building that speaks to Scottish creativity now. But then I’m partial to the shock of the new and have no particular sentimental attachment to the Mack.

But I wonder, in this case, if sentiment isn’t key for once. Because before its destruction the Mack was not just an art school. It was more than that. It was a piece of built heritage, a creative and historical moment frozen in time via stone and wood and glass. In that sense it belonged to the world, not just Glasgow.

As such, shouldn’t it be seen as on a par with Notre Dame in Paris currently being reconstructed after a devastating fire in 2019?

There are valid questions as to how you go about it, of course, and about the costs it will entail. And what will be built won’t be the Mack but a recreation. A tribute, if you like to the original.

But that’s something, isn’t it? A reinstatement of a structure that has drawn people from all over the world to Glasgow, a tribute to its creator and a reminder, however compromised, of his genius.