UKC

Fisherfield Wilderness Sculpture Park?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 stevesmith 18 May 2014

Can anyone shed any light on these stone constructions I came across last week in the Fisherfield wilderness?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/roofofeurope/sets/72157644775880513/

The disc was built into the beach at the SE end of Lochan Fada, and the pierced ring was just below Bealach Odhar, E of Beinn Tarsuinn.

Andy Goldsworthy, is this you?
Post edited at 20:57
 aln 18 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

The link you provided is asking me to log into a Microsoft account I don't have.
 Jasonic 18 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

That's interesting- thanks for the pics!
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

Putting such stuff in a place like that smacks of arrogance and vandalism. Out of order. I'll be in the area next month and might carry out some restoration.
 Cuthbert 18 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

It's not a wilderness at all but the pictures are interesting - thanks.
 Jack B 18 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

I came across a similar thing a few years ago on Ben Mor Coigach. Red sandstone in a circle filled with white quartz. Never did find out where it came from, but reckoned it must be some form of art.
 aln 18 May 2014
In reply to aln:

Got them this time. Lovely.
 DaveHK 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to stevesmith)
>
> Putting such stuff in a place like that smacks of arrogance and vandalism. Out of order. I'll be in the area next month and might carry out some restoration.

I'd say taking them apart smacks of arrogance and vandalism.

Local, natural materials used to create an interesting piece of visual art. What's the problem?

 Simon Caldwell 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

If it is Goldsworthy much of the point of his art is that it's temporary, so you'll be doing him a service
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

> Local, natural materials used to create an interesting piece of visual art. What's the problem?

Putting something intrusive in a beautiful wild place for, presumably, reasons of pure self indulgence.

 DaveHK 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> [...]
>
> Putting something intrusive in a beautiful wild place for, presumably, reasons of pure self indulgence.

The landscape of Scotland is very much a product of humans. We've shaped it and we are part of it. Small, subtle artworks made from natural materials like this don't seem intrusive to me. Rather than self indulgence I see artistic expression. Please don't take it on yourself to destroy them when from the comments above it seems that many people like them.

 kwoods 18 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:
I gotta say I find that really impressive. Not vandalism imo but something really beautiful.

The distinction I think is made in the use of natural materials.

@Robert Durran, I agree with Dave Kerr here, don't go take it upon yourself.
Post edited at 22:18
 Cuthbert 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

The place is still beautiful and this has added some extra interest.
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

> The landscape of Scotland is very much a product of humans. We've shaped it and we are part of it.

Yes, I agree, but the landscape has been shaped by people living their lives and making their livings in the landscape (even if some of the history is unfortunate), and I think there is a very big distinction between this and an individual imposing their self indulgent artistic expression on people.
 dek 18 May 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

> The place is still beautiful and this has added some extra interest.

It's beautiful! Do we know who the artist is yet?
 DaveHK 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

Vandalism is certainly the wrong word anyway. Vandalism is an act of senseless destruction. The sculptures are a thoughtful act of creation.
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

> The place is still beautiful and this has added some extra interest.

But how far should this sort of thing go? A Mt Rushmore style image of Alex Salmiond carved into Carnmore crag perhaps? Best just have none of it in my opinion. What if everyone started doing it? Who's going to arbitrate on what should be allowed to remain in place?
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

> Vandalism is certainly the wrong word anyway. Vandalism is an act of senseless destruction.

Fair point. Wrong word. "Misguided" is better.
In reply to stevesmith:

I'm caught in the juxtaposition of wondering how on earth someone can have a problem with something so beautiful, curious and unobtrusive (in the grand scheme of things), and also knowing that in reacting to their opposition to the sculptures existence that I am giving them exactly what they want in posting their reply.....a reaction
 aln 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Putting something intrusive in a beautiful wild place for, presumably, reasons of pure self indulgence.

You put yourself into that place. If there's a deeper meaning beyond self indulgence I'd love to know what it is.
 dek 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But how far should this sort of thing go? A Mt Rushmore style image of Alex Salmiond carved into Carnmore crag perhaps?

Don't be rediculous....Carnmore isn't Wide enough!

In reply to aln:

Well said
 DaveHK 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
> [...]
>
> But how far should this sort of thing go? A Mt Rushmore style image of Alex Salmiond carved into Carnmore crag perhaps? Best just have none of it in my opinion. What if everyone started doing it? Who's going to arbitrate on what should be allowed to remain in place?

That's a pretty poor argument. A small,temporary sculpture made from local materials is not the thin edge of a wedge that will lead to Wee Eck's image carved in crags.

 kwoods 18 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

You've opened a can of worms, it's the new bolts.
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

> That's a pretty poor argument. A small,temporary sculpture made from local materials is not the thin edge of a wedge that will lead to Wee Eck's image carved in crags.

So answer my question then. How far should this be allowed to go?
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to aln:

> You put yourself into that place.

And remove myself leaving as little trace as possible (such as putting the stones I used to hold down my tent back where they came from).
 DaveHK 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> [...]
>
> So answer my question then. How far should this be allowed to go?

I've already answered it. Small, temporary sculpture made from local materials.
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

> I've already answered it. Small, temporary sculpture made from local materials.

And would it be ok if everyone started doing it (often not very well), and, if it's temporary, can we expect the "artist" to take responsibility for its removal (and after how long)?
In reply to Robert Durran:

Do you have a similar opinion of the pyramids, cave paintings in Australia and even cup & ring marks here in Scotland?
 kwoods 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

And are you trolling
 DaveHK 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> [...]
>
> And would it be ok if everyone started doing it (often not very well),

We'll deal with that when it happens which is of course highly unlikely.
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to tallpaulselfridge:

> Do you have a similar opinion of the pyramids, cave paintings in Australia and even cup & ring marks here in Scotland?

It is, I admit, a tricky question.

The motives in individual cases are certainly relevant as is the culture within which they are produced. These ones certainly run completely counter to a culture of "leave no trace".
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to kwoods:

> And are you trolling?

No, not at all. I think it is an interesting discussion. I am genuinely amazed that I am so far a lone voice in this thread!

 kwoods 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

Fair enough. I genuinely think the amount of thought and care put into them actually in some way validates them, and I think this is probably how everyone else feels. I think if it were using anything other than natural materials found at the site it would be entirely unacceptable and I'd completely agree with you in taking it away. (Equally if they started cropping up on every summit it'd be a different case again. These are obviously sculptures made with care, placed out the way and not publicised as far as I can tell.)

On the contrary I of course agree with your ethic of 'leave no trace'. If that stone circle had been built on grass (thus killing it to leave a permanent mark) and not bedrock it would have been a different case altogether. The beach circle is hardly a big issue to me. So it doesn't quite cross the line imo but I see where you're coming from. (Tho using Mt Rushmore to make you're point is taking it a bit far!)
 aln 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah right enough. Put all those stones back in their rightfull place. Not a centimetre out here or there. That'll preserve our mountain heritage.
 aln 18 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

. I am genuinely amazed that I am so far a lone voice in this thread!

That's coz you're over reacting and talking sh1te
 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to aln:

> That's coz you're over reacting and talking sh1te

If you are too dim to see that there is a genuine debate to be had here, maybe you should just shut up.

 Robert Durran 18 May 2014
In reply to kwoods:


> On the contrary I of course agree with your ethic of 'leave no trace'. If that stone circle had been built on grass (thus killing it to leave a permanent mark) and not bedrock it would have been a different case altogether. The beach circle is hardly a big issue to me. So it doesn't quite cross the line imo but I see where you're coming from.

The only examples I've seen of this sort of thing before were on Mingulay. There was a large stone lined bowl cut into the turf. That certainly wasn't easily reversible. But yes, I do agree that if they can be removed by simply redistributing the stones back into a river or whatever, then no real harm has been done. But the question is whether this will actually happen, and, if so, by whom and after how long, and is the person who removes them going to get criticised for doing so? And ironically perhaps by people who defended the things in the first place because they were reversible!
In reply to stevesmith:

I'm with Robert. Restoration required.


jcm
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:
I agree that there is a genuine and interesting discussion to be had here.

> But yes, I do agree that if they can be removed by simply redistributing the stones back into a river or whatever, then no real harm has been done. But the question is whether this will actually happen, and, if so, by whom and after how long, and is the person who removes them going to get criticised for doing so? And ironically perhaps by people who defended the things in the first place because they were reversible!

You might interpret these kind of pieces as being about entropy and the gradual disappearance of created structures through the tiny random changes in everything natural. So this, I imagine is how they're intended to reverse.

You imply that the artist gave no thought to the ideas of imposing these works on the landscape, but I would be surprised if precisely the opposite wasn't true. You're making a 'thin end of the wedge' argument and it doesn't hold: this isn't introducing a lack of respect for the landscape that others will be tempted to follow for their convenience. Quite the opposite, it is doing something that others don't have the time and imagination to do.

I think that a utilitarian view leads very quickly to the conclusion that these works of art add valuable experience to many with almost no damage or risk: a small minority of people such as you not enjoying them is the sum total of the harm, which in the balance is not significant.

The same thing came up with some poetry carved on stones on the moors in Yorkshire, including at Ilkley. Our relationship with the landscape is such that these pieces of art are extremely rare, and are deeply considered. There is no trend towards more of it, and poorer quality. Even if you don't like this kind of thing, the opportunity to experience it, and react to it, and think about it has given you something you didn't have before. What has it taken away?
Post edited at 00:31
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> You imply that the artist gave no thought to the ideas of imposing these works on the landscape, but I would be surprised if precisely the opposite wasn't true.

I'm sure they gave plenty of thought to it. I just think they are sadly misguided. I really don't think they have the right to impose their art on us in such remote places. There is probably a place for this sort of thing but it is, in my opinion, probably pretty much roadside.

> Even if you don't like this kind of thing, the opportunity to experience it, and react to it, and think about it has given you something you didn't have before.

What a daft argument! If this is the artist's justification then it is an extremely arrogant motivation. Maybe I should go and do a really "meaningful" little mural on their front door; they might mot like it, but it would certainly give them something to think about.

For the record, I do quite like it; I just think it's in the wrong place.
Post edited at 02:08
 Steve Perry 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

I think RD is asking the right question here - where do we draw the line? If there is no answer to this then its better not to start doing this sort of thing in the first place. I like art but I love the hills as they are a whole lot more, please leave them be.
 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

Funny. My gut reaction is to agree with RD - they shouldn't really be there. I think that's partly because of the provocative thread title, though...

They're a small imposition, tastefully done, and these ones at least are probably going to weather away and become hidden. If these are bad, most cairns and trig points are quite a bit worse - and as I quite like summit cairns, I can't really argue against these artworks.

I'm sure I've seen these elsewhere, but I can't remember where. It may have been at a beach.
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> What a daft argument! If this is the artist's justification then it is an extremely arrogant motivation. Maybe I should go and do a really "meaningful" little mural on their front door; they might mot like it, but it would certainly give them something to think about.

I'm not saying that's their motivation, I'm saying that in the context of moving some stones around in a public place, nothing is taken away and the art gives everyone who finds it the chance to react.

> For the record, I do quite like it; I just think it's in the wrong place.

Fair enough, I can see what you're saying a bit, but I don't think there's any damage done and I don't think the art would be the same were it elsewhere (although it could still be worthwhile).

 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Steve Perry:
> I think RD is asking the right question here - where do we draw the line?

Why do we need to draw a line? There is no wedge for this to be a thin end of.
Post edited at 09:58
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to skog:
> They're a small imposition, tastefully done, and these ones at least are probably going to weather away and become hidden.

I wonder though. It might take until the next ice age - unless passers by give the stones the odd kick

When I see glacially deposited rocks in the hills, I sometimes find myself pondering how many thousands or tens of thousands of years they might have lain there undisturbed in precisely the same position (a little "Robert Macfarlane moment" and just one of the many small pleasures of being out in the hills). The point is that I like these things to be natural rather than man made "art". If I want art I can go to an art gallery or a sculpture park.

> If these are bad, most cairns and trig points are quite a bit worse.

The motivation for cairn building is very different and it is a separate issue.

I think it is the implied assumption by the artist (which to me smacks of arrogance) that we want to come across these things in the hills that really grates with me.
Post edited at 10:04
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm saying that in the context of moving some stones around in a public place, nothing is taken away and the art gives everyone who finds it the chance to react.

And I might well do so with my feet

 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> nothing is taken away

I don't agree with this - it assumes there was no merit in the way the stones were before, and there is no value to the natural appearance of a pebble beach or a slab of rock.

There's probably no permanent damage done, though. I think the way these are done with local materials, with no chipping, carving or cementing, probably makes it OK. As long as they aren't too numerous, or too large.
 butteredfrog 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

How do we know the "artist" was human?

 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> I don't agree with this - it assumes there was no merit in the way the stones were before, and there is no value to the natural appearance of a pebble beach or a slab of rock.

Absolutely.

> As long as they aren't too numerous, or too large.

Care to give us an acceptable density and size then?



 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> I don't agree with this - it assumes there was no merit in the way the stones were before, and there is no value to the natural appearance of a pebble beach or a slab of rock.

No it doesn't, it assumes that the way the stones were before has not been taken away.
 Cuthbert 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

How do you feel about the notion of repopulating glens which were once lived in by people. Places where there ruins in right now?
 Ramblin dave 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Absolutely.

> Care to give us an acceptable density and size then?

The relevant answer to that is "more and bigger than there currently are", surely?

I couldn't give an exact maximum acceptable density in "mili-artworks per square mile" for much the same reason that I couldn't give an exact number of carrots I'd have to eat to die of vitamin A poisoning - the important thing is that I don't think we're in any risk of hitting the maximum in the near future.
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think it is the implied assumption by the artist (which to me smacks of arrogance) that we want to come across these things in the hills that really grates with me.

I agree with you. If I want to see art I'll go to an art gallery. I don't want to see this in the wilderness.
 MG 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Care to give us an acceptable density and size then?

So they are still surprising when you come across them?
 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Care to give us an acceptable density and size then?

That's a very hard question, and I don't think I can. I still feel they're comparable to cairns on the hills, and I don't really have a problem with the odd one set up on a rocky slab - on the basis that I, or anyone else, can dismantle it if we feel it shouldn't bee there. So I suppose that sets the scale a bit - it should be possible for a casual visitor to take to pieces without leaving a mess.

I'm actually less happy about the one on the beach. I think it changes the feel of the whole beach, a feature in itself. I love looking at the way sediments have been deposited on beaches, trying to work out how rocks have ended up where they are and what has been rearranging them. And this isn't practical to undo, either.
 Ramblin dave 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:


> I think it is the implied assumption by the artist (which to me smacks of arrogance) that we want to come across these things in the hills that really grates with me.

Well, it appears from this thread that a lot of people do want to (very occasionally) come across these things in the hills...
 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> No it doesn't, it assumes that the way the stones were before has not been taken away.

This isn't possible, as far as I can see. What do you mean by it?
 Ramblin dave 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

Agree. Once it gets to the point where you think "oh, it's another piece of environmental art" there are probably too many of them, and they've basically lost their point anyway.
 MG 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The motivation for cairn building is very different and it is a separate issue.



I see your point of view but if you can tolerate cairns, paths, trig points, plantations, sheds, grouse butts etc. etc., drawing the line at very very occasional discreet pieces of art seems a bit odd to me.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> No it doesn't, it assumes that the way the stones were before has not been taken away.

Which it clearly has!
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

> How do you feel about the notion of repopulating glens which were once lived in by people. Places where there ruins in right now?

I would have a lot more sympathy with this (assuming it was done in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable way). As I said, it is really the motivations and assumptions of the artist which grates with me.
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> This isn't possible, as far as I can see. What do you mean by it?

It's temporary.

Also, the random positions of the stones exist everywhere else, the beach is still there as a beach, the stone slabs with other stones resting randomly on top are all around. Seems to me that the desire for the landscape to show no signs of people are contrived and illogical. Surely the question is whether the mark of people - be it the vegetation, a barn a footpath, a cairn or some stones that have been moved - detracts from the landscape the way a cement factory might, or is a part of it.
 MG 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It's temporary.


Not really. It will be there for decades if not centuries unless Robert passes by.
 tony 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I would have a lot more sympathy with this (assuming it was done in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable way). As I said, it is really the motivations and assumptions of the artist which grates with me.

And what were the motivations and assumptions of the artist?
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

Have you ever been to Scotland? Do you know what the weather's like up there?
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

> I see your point of view but if you can tolerate cairns, paths, trig points, plantations, sheds, grouse butts etc. etc., drawing the line at very very occasional discreet pieces of art seems a bit odd to me.

I don't like some of these thing either, but the fact that I have to tolerate them does not mean that I should also have to tolerate this art.

To repeat, it is as much the motivation behind all these things as their actual physical presence which effects my psyche when I am in the hills. For instance, a ruined shieling (much more visibly intrusive than this art), built out of necessity during someone's hard life hundreds of years ago, might give me a melancholy sense of history which adds to my day in the hills.

 MG 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Have you ever been to Scotland?

Spent about 20 years there.

Do you know what the weather's like up there?

I did notice the weather, yes. Didn't see any boulders being blown around though.
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

I didn't notice any boulders in the artworks. They won't be there in decades, left alone, they'll gradually lose their form.
 MG 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's a minor point but I think you are wrong. Dry-stone walls, which are much more precarious than these pieces of art, last for many decades.
 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Also, the random positions of the stones exist everywhere else

> the stone slabs with other stones resting randomly on top are all around.

Random? I think you -are- missing some of the merits of natural aspects of the landscape if you think this stuff is random.

> Seems to me that the desire for the landscape to show no signs of people are contrived and illogical. Surely the question is whether the mark of people - be it the vegetation, a barn a footpath, a cairn or some stones that have been moved - detracts from the landscape the way a cement factory might, or is a part of it.

Yes, i agree with that. But you seem to be missing some of what can be lost.
 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The weather isn't going to shift these, short of glaciation or landslides.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to tony:

> And what were the motivations and assumptions of the artist?

Either that other people would see and react to them (arrogant assumption that others would want to see them there) or that other people would not see them (misplaced self indulgence).

No doubt they were trying to make some arty "statement" about the universe as well either to others or themselves or to the cosmos in general, but this was not the place to do it.
 Cuthbert 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

Ok thanks. I can see your point but I don't have a big issue with it though. There is a great danger that people a long way from the place try and create a set of rules as to how that place should be managed without ever having to live by them themselves. I am not saying you are doing this btw but I think there would be a bit of resistance to repopulation of glens from the wilderness brigade.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> The weather isn't going to shift these, short of glaciation or landslides.

Yes, they are only temporary in the geological sense - or until I get there
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to skog:

Am I interpreting the photos correctly? Are these actually house sized boulders or something?
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

What if their assumption was that based on their career as an artist (if indeed it was Andy Goldsworthy who moved the stones) these would be found to be beautiful and interesting and in general add to people's day in the hills, except for a few people with very inflexible ideas about aesthetics.

Why would your ideas about the rights and wrongs of moving stones in certain places trump the motivation to create something that more people would appreciate? You saw the reaction on here, it would be interesting to find out what the proportions look like.
 MG 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:
I have an image of you madly throwing boulders left and right in incoherent rage. You should video it and submit it somewhere as art
Post edited at 10:49
 Ramblin dave 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Either that other people would see and react to them (arrogant assumption that others would want to see them there)

Whereas you want to destroy them because either you assume that other people don't want to see them (arrogant assumption that everyone thinks like you do) or you don't care what other people think (misplaced self indulgence)?
 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

No, you appear to be thinking that cobbles move around more than they do. This is a hill loch, not an Atlantic storm beach; there are plenty of sedimentary structures still in place from the last glacial period.

It's more of a depositional environment than an erosional one just now.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Why would your ideas about the rights and wrongs of moving stones in certain places trump the motivation to create something that more people would appreciate? You saw the reaction on here, it would be interesting to find out what the proportions look like.

It would be interesting. In the end if society decides that this sort of thing is acceptable, I have to sadly accept it. Just like I would have to sadly accept it if society saw fit to build a road across the Cairngorm plateau. This does not, however, mean that I should not argue against these intrusions in the hills and try to convince others of my point of view.

 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Whereas you want to destroy them because either you assume that other people don't want to see them (arrogant assumption that everyone thinks like you do) or you don't care what other people think (misplaced self indulgence)?

This reminds me of the fallacial pro bolting argument that, even if it was wrong to bolt the route in the first place it would now be equally wrong tom chop them because two wrongs don't make a right (even when they do, or at least restore the status quo until a proper debate has taken place).
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

> I have an image of you madly throwing boulders left and right in incoherent rage. You should video it and submit it somewhere as art

No, I woulk rearrange the rocks to make them look as "natural" as possible.

The artist should have built these things, taken lots of photographs for display somewhere suitable and then dismantled them, leaving no trace. This would seem like a good compromise to me.

 tony 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Either that other people would see and react to them (arrogant assumption that others would want to see them there) or that other people would not see them (misplaced self indulgence).

> No doubt they were trying to make some arty "statement" about the universe as well either to others or themselves or to the cosmos in general, but this was not the place to do it.

You've just made all that up haven't you. You don't know what the artist's assumptions and motivations were.
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to skog:

Think about what they'll look like in a year, then 5 years then 10 years. The form will be gradually lost by the small random movements, they'll become ruins long before they actually disappear - the one on the slab very quickly. This is part of the art.
 wintertree 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

I think they need a prayer windmill or two?

I like them - but like cairns you wouldn't want them multiplying out of control. There is an interesting science experiment in waiting to see how long it takes nature to disrupt the inlaid stones, and how long it takes nurture to disrupt the raised stones.
 Tom Valentine 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

I don't think any waller worth his salt would care to have his work described as "precarious".
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It would be interesting. In the end if society decides that this sort of thing is acceptable, I have to sadly accept it.

As I say, there is no wedge. The question is about what you think of these specific artworks, they are not part of a trend.

> Just like I would have to sadly accept it if society saw fit to build a road across the Cairngorm plateau.

Not really, that has a completely different set of values behind it.

> This does not, however, mean that I should not argue against these intrusions in the hills and try to convince others of my point of view.

No it doesn't, as I say, I think it's an interesting debate with fair points on both sides.

 Scomuir 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

Out of curiosity, have you ever added any stones to summit cairns? Ever moved any around to get a nice flat surface to sit on while admiring the view?

I am genuinely intrigued by what you would actually intend to do if you found these. Would you be able to put every stone back in the place that it came from? Of course not. By re-distributing the stones in a manner that suits your view, it could be argued that you are being arrogant and self-indulgent also...

I've seen a lot worse in the hills, and quite like them. I appreciate that by saying "I've seen a lot worse", that isn't a valid justification in itself, but there are things further up the list that I would be more concerned about first, such as littering, unnecessary cairns, memorial plaques, plastic bottles containing ashes, rotting prayer flag tat, etc...


 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Think about what they'll look like in a year, then 5 years then 10 years. The form will be gradually lost by the small random movements, they'll become ruins long before they actually disappear - the one on the slab very quickly. This is part of the art.

I question your timescales, but this is what will happen. The slab may actually be slower - it's unlikely to be affected much by water movements, relying on the movement of snow and ice (or people) to 'fix' it.

My point was that, while they do clearly add something, it is simply not true that they take away nothing.
 fmck 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

What annoys me the most is blasted hillwalkers building cairns the length and breadth of our mountains. These things are by far more charming than the primitive hillwalker jobs.
Anyone remember the stone sphere on Canisp? It was quite something but lasted only a winter or two.
 Coel Hellier 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> As I say, there is no wedge.

The first times people put memorial plaques and similar in the wilderness one could have said the same, that they were ok because on a small scale, and that there was no wedge (indeed a few historic plaques are now accepted for historical value). But, over time, the numbers doing have grown to the point where it is a significant problem, and something that responsible people should not do.

My attitude to these art works is similar. As a very rare novelty they are ok; but I do worry about the principle. I'm not sure of the lifetime of such works, but would imagine it to be long (decades). I don't think that wind will blow those stones around (though I could be wrong), which means that biggest source of disturbance could be occasional kicking by deer (and occasional kicking by Robert).
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> I question your timescales, but this is what will happen. The slab may actually be slower - it's unlikely to be affected much by water movements, relying on the movement of snow and ice (or people) to 'fix' it.

The deer will have the one on the slab pretty quickly I think.

> My point was that, while they do clearly add something, it is simply not true that they take away nothing.

Something that is so easily reversed is not, for me, taking something away. The landscape is still there, just as it was.
 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Something that is so easily reversed is not, for me, taking something away. The landscape is still there, just as it was.

I get that - but it's clear that we appreciate some different things, and perhaps different scales. You can't rearrange things without taking away their previous arrangement, and some of the stories told by it.

I do accept that these ones, on their own, are very small impositions. The one on the beach would detract from my experience there, but it wouldn't ruin my day!
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Scomuir:

> Out of curiosity, have you ever added any stones to summit cairns? Ever moved any around to get a nice flat surface to sit on while admiring the view.

Yes, and put them back how they were (and if I ever didn't I deserve a slap on the wrist).

> I am genuinely intrigued by what you would actually intend to do if you found these. Would you be able to put every stone back in the place that it came from? Of course not. By re-distributing the stones in a manner that suits your view, it could be argued that you are being arrogant and self-indulgent also...

This is an absolutely laughable argument. Of course I couldn't put the stones back where the artist found them; I wasn't there when the artist moved them. But I shouldn't have to do my honest best in the circumstances because the artist shouldn't have moved them in the first place.



 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to tony:

> You've just made all that up haven't you. You don't know what the artist's assumptions and motivations were.

I'm speculating. Do you have any better suggestions?
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But I shouldn't have to do my honest best in the circumstances because the artist shouldn't have moved them in the first place.

I still don't really understand why you think that the artist shouldn't have moved the stones.

The landscape is only there for us to enjoy, it doesn't have a mind or soul or anything of its own. We keep it the way we like it. If the reaction was universally negative, the way it would be if it was just vandalism or graffiti, then you would have a point: people's enjoyment of the landscape has been spoiled. But if you create something reversible with minimal impact on the landscape, which people with either like or not care for, then what reason lies behind the "should"?
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I still don't really understand why you think that the artist shouldn't have moved the stones.

Because they are gratuitously (and I think arrogantly) imposing their will on the landscape (perhaps in an attempt to influence our interpretation of the landscape). I would rather interpret it myself in its raw form and see an artist's interpretation in a gallery or in photographs of temporary and immediately reversed art.
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

The crucial part is the effect that the artist imposing his will has on others, since the landscape itself isn't a thing that has rights or feelings. And if in general, people like it and believe it has value, then aren't we just back at the utilitarian/democratic principle?
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> The crucial part is the effect that the artist imposing his will has on others, since the landscape itself isn't a thing that has rights or feelings. And if in general, people like it and believe it has value, then aren't we just back at the utilitarian/democratic principle?

Yes, but ideally after proper debate Just like bolts really.
In the meantime I reckon I have just as much right to dismantle the art as the artist had to build it.
Post edited at 12:27
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

Why do you need a debate if it's reversible? What if the debate renders the art obsolete, because it's there to be discovered?
 tony 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'm speculating. Do you have any better suggestions?

Yes. You could just admit that you don't know.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Why do you need a debate if it's reversible? What if the debate renders the art obsolete, because it's there to be discovered?

You've lost me there.
 skog 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It isn't reversible - it's removable.

Sometimes that's a petty distinction, sometimes it isn't.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to tony:

> Yes. You could just admit that you don't know.

Well, they either did it for themselves or for others; I don't see any other alternative.
 tony 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well, they either did it for themselves or for others;

So you don't know which. It seems to me you're superimposing your own assumptions and ascribing values such as arrogance accordingly, without any knowledge of the artist.
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> You've lost me there.

If it's reversible, you can make the art and see if people like it. If they don't, move the stones back to random positions. You have the debate in a fully informed way rather than a hypothetical way, which is more effective.

And the artwork is different if you know about it beforehand because whether or not to create it was discussed at length and all of the issues about motivation and relationship with the landscape have all been dragged out beforehand. These pieces are there to be stumbled upon and to react to the their visual qualities. If you discuss it all at length before it even exists, then you lose the impact of the work.

I agree that such a discussion would be absolutely mandatory before creating something permanent. It's the temporary nature of these pieces that makes them what they are, which includes making them acceptable to create with consultation in my view.

 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to tony:

> So you don't know which.

No. I never said I did.

> It seems to me you're superimposing your own assumptions and ascribing values such as arrogance accordingly, without any knowledge of the artist.

To me it comes across as arrogance, though it may of course just be thoughtlessness.

I would be very interested to hear what the artist has to say for themselves.

 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If it's reversible, you can make the art and see if people like it. If they don't, move the stones back to random positions.

If we really think that is what the artists intends then it might be fair enough. I have my doubts though.

My own view is that I have just as much right to remove the stones as the artist had to put them there. I am very sure, though, that if I did so and reported back here, I would be given a very hard time indeed by many people who are defending the artworks on the precise grounds that they are reversible.

I do agree that the debate probably happen wouldn't happen without the artwork being done as a fait accompli, but the trouble is that reversal is always harder than prevention. It's pretty much like chopping retro-bolts -as I know all too well!
 MG 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:


> I would be very interested to hear what the artist has to say for themselves.

He's probably delighted that they have provoked so much discussion. Isn't that the aim of art?
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If we really think that is what the artists intends then it might be fair enough. I have my doubts though.

If this is Andy Goldsworthy, he can be confident that everyone, pretty much, will love it - they always do.

> My own view is that I have just as much right to remove the stones as the artist had to put them there. I am very sure, though, that if I did so and reported back here, I would be given a very hard time indeed by many people who are defending the artworks on the precise grounds that they are reversible.

Well you do have that right, but you would also have to consider what your actions meant to others. Most would see it as destructive, others would agree that you "putting things right" - they would be people with the same fixed idea of what is "right" when it comes to the landscape.

> I do agree that the debate probably happen wouldn't happen without the artwork being done as a fait accompli, but the trouble is that reversal is always harder than prevention. It's pretty much like chopping retro-bolts -as I know all too well!

It's absolutely unlike bolts, because bolts then determine how the landscape is used. Bolts have more in common with building a new footpath over a previously wild moorland. I don't think there is a good analogy for creating these temporary artworks in wild landscapes - it is what it is.

 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

> He's probably delighted that they have provoked so much discussion. Isn't that the aim of art?

Absolutely!
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:
> He's probably delighted that they have provoked so much discussion. Isn't that the aim of art?

If I went round shitting (artistically, of course, and in a way that could be readily removed) on peoples' doorsteps that would also provoke much discussion.
Post edited at 14:21
 Scomuir 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I went round shitting (artistically, of course, and in a way that could be readily removed) on peoples' doorsteps that would also provoke much discussion.

To quote you from above, "This is an absolutely laughable argument".

 MG 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I went round shitting (artistically, of course,...

You'd probably win the Turner prize provided a) you were well-known in the modern art world and b) you could come up with a paragraph of suitably long-winded bollocks explaining your "installation"
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Scomuir:

> To quote you from above, "This is an absolutely laughable argument".

No. It is just showing the way "art" is done cannot always be justified just because it provokes discussion.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

> You'd probably win the Turner prize provided a) you were well-known in the modern art world and b) you could come up with a paragraph of suitably long-winded bollocks explaining your "installation"

(b) would be easy (perhaps something about a metaphor for the bolting debate in climbing) and (a) would be easy the second time round.
 Ramblin dave 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

Fair point - it was a fairly specious argument (presumably knowingly so) on MG's part.

In any case, it's irrelevant since these art works do a lot more than just making you talk.

Re the comparison with bolting, the difference is that AIUI removing bolts cleanly requires quite a considerable investment of time, effort and equipment, whereas removing all trace of either of these artworks would take about twenty minutes.
 Scomuir 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

You expect others to be told that their arguments are laughable by yourself, but are not prepared to take the same criticism when you post something, well, "laughable". Interesting attitude.

For what it's worth, I do generally agree with your sentiment regarding some form of construction being imposed on the landscape, but I would hope that if you really did care (which I am sure you do), this would be so far down your list of things to put right, that you'd never get to it. An awful lot of windfarms visible from hilltops would be a starter for you. Far, far more visually intrusive than a few rearranged stones.
 Jack Frost 19 May 2014
In reply to MG:

> You'd probably win the Turner prize provided a) you were well-known in the modern art world and b) you could come up with a paragraph of suitably long-winded bollocks explaining your "installation"

Shouldn't that be Turder Prize?

I haven't reached an opnion on these installations yet. But have to say I would be mildly cross if the slab one was on a slab like this:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3265140

and used the boulders & pebbles that can only have got there thoosands of years ago by the work of ice & water.
OP stevesmith 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

My original post was to find out more about the origins of these constructions [or perhaps arrangements would be a better term]. However, no luck there. When I emailed the Letterewe Estate, they had no idea either.

As I seem to be the only one here who has actually seen them, may I pass on my thoughts? I came across the beach "disc" arrangement while walking in to our first camp site beside Lochan Fada. My companion walked straight past without noticing. So the beach disc is not intrusive, and indeed cannot be clearly seen from even a few meters away. The unknown artist had clearly been inspired by this lonely place, and I was impressed by the care that had been taken to produce a quietly beautiful artefact using locally found materials. I felt it was entirely in keeping with its surroundings. We found the "pierced ring" arrangement the next day on our descent from Beinn Tarsuinn, and once again, it had not been sited in a way that would attract attention. I liked the way that we had almost literally stumbled across them both. Previous contributors have made the important point that they are temporary arrangements, which I think is part of their appeal.

This thread has included a discussion about the nature of wild country, and what if any human influences there should be. I can't see that two small-scale, inconspicuous arrangements of stones in a 90 000 acre Highland estate constitutes arrogance, or vandalism, or a threat, or the thin end of a wedge. For me, they made the whole experience even more memorable.
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No. It is just showing the way "art" is done cannot always be justified just because it provokes discussion.

To say that the purpose of art is (or can be, or includes) to provoke discussion is not say that anything that provokes discussion is good. It doesn't imply that at all and you know that.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> To say that the purpose of art is (or can be, or includes) to provoke discussion is not say that anything that provokes discussion is good. It doesn't imply that at all and you know that.

Yes, obviously. I think that was my point though.
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Scomuir:
> You expect others to be told that their arguments are laughable by yourself, but are not prepared to take the same criticism when you post something, well, "laughable". Interesting attitude.

I genuinely thought your argument was laughable (and took the time to explain why) whereas that mine was making a valid point.

> I would hope that if you really did care (which I am sure you do), this would be so far down your list of things to put right, that you'd never get to it.

I probably wouldn't go out of my way to remove this stuff, but as I said, I have to be in that exact area next month for other purposes and if I come across them......

> An awful lot of windfarms visible from hilltops would be a starter for you. Far, far more visually intrusive than a few rearranged stones.

I think the whole thrust of my argument has been about the motivations for and context for putting things in wild places rather than the actual level of visual intrusiveness. Clearly this artwork and windfarms share nothing in the way of motivation. While I cannot think of an acceptable (in my opinion) motivation for the artwork I can see both sides of the windfarm debate. There are places I wouldn't want them, but I have yet to see any in places which bother me; indeed I generally quite like them. Anyway, that is beside the point; the point is that it is a separate debate.
Post edited at 15:20
 fmck 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:



> As I seem to be the only one here who has actually seen them,

How does the saying go regarding smelling a fart first?
OP stevesmith 19 May 2014
In reply to fmck:

Not guilty, yer honour! You clearly haven't seen my attempts at DIY.
 Ramblin dave 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I probably wouldn't go out of my way to remove this stuff, but as I said, I have to be in that exact area next month for other purposes and if I come across them......

That still seems to me like an incredibly arrogant and selfish attitude on your part, then. Most people posting on here seem to be saying that they'd be quite pleased to stumble across something like that, but you'd make a conscious effort to deny people that possibility because it doesn't fit in with your personal attitude to faux-wilderness. And you accuse the artist of arrogance!

> While I cannot think of an acceptable (in my opinion) motivation for the artwork

From the guy who actually came across them:
"The unknown artist had clearly been inspired by this lonely place, and I was impressed by the care that had been taken to produce a quietly beautiful artefact using locally found materials... For me, they made the whole experience even more memorable."
 Steve Perry 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith: The chances of randomly coming upon 2 small scale stone art arrangements in such a large area means there are probably a whole lot more.

 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> That still seems to me like an incredibly arrogant and selfish attitude on your part, then. Most people posting on here seem to be saying that they'd be quite pleased to stumble across something like that, but you'd make a conscious effort to deny people that possibility because it doesn't fit in with your personal attitude to faux-wilderness. And you accuse the artist of arrogance!

I don't think the artist had any right in the first place to put me in the position of having to choose between my conscience and the views of a few people on here.

It's a bit like if someone retro-bolts a perfectly good trad route and then a few sport climbers come along and say how they enjoyed it......

It certainly wouldn't be an easy decision. To be perfectly honest, I'd probably bottle it.

> "The unknown artist had clearly been inspired by this lonely place, and I was impressed by the care that had been taken to produce a quietly beautiful artefact using locally found materials..."

Motivation? Yes. Acceptable to act on it? Not in my opinion.
Post edited at 16:25
 CurlyStevo 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

I dislike all of these type of things. On arran on the way to kings cave there are literally hundreds of little stone towers people have made a foot or two high. On the 7 sisters walk there sisters near the start and end have chalk pebbles arranged like graffiti. To me all this type of thing detracts from the beauty of the place. I deliberately walk through these structures when I see them (if I don't have to go out of my way.

It only takes one idiot to start it off and then everyone is doing it!

http://www.ayrshirescotland.com/walking/0211-Arran-Stones.JPG
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5168/5228335697_27ddef61e3_z.jpg

etc
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> It only takes one idiot to start it off and then everyone is doing it!

It would certainly be hard for those who support this stuff now to object if it became popular (and generally poorly done) all over the mountains.


 Tom Valentine 19 May 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

I'm guessing you'd rather Nine Standards Rigg reverted to Hartley Fell?
 CurlyStevo 19 May 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Don't really know much about them to comment I'm afraid but ancient structures I do view differently especially to modern stuff that everyone copy cats. In general I'm not a big fan of cairns either, especially the unnecessary ones people randomly add to. Think what the landscape will look like in another 100 years.
Jim C 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> And remove myself leaving as little trace as possible (such as putting the stones I used to hold down my tent back where they came from).

Which was very possibly the top of a mountain .
Jim C 19 May 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

>


you can just about make out the face of Alex Salmond carved into the chalk .
llechwedd 19 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

I'm not averse to a bit of whimsy myself from time to time when out in the hills, but small scale and transient.
The Fisherfield structures are dull middle class shouty assertions of some existential crisis. Might even be the logo for the next owners of the estate.
They'd be fine in CenterParcs.
Just because you can impose something on a landscape, doesn't mean you should. Particularly where it serves no meaningful purpose.






 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It's a bit like if someone retro-bolts a perfectly good trad route and then a few sport climbers come along and say how they enjoyed it......

You keep saying that but the analogy doesn't hold. Bolting a trad route destroys the trad route so it can no longer be enjoyed, and changes the character of the crag and how people behave there. Because these artworks are so unobtrusive, it's an absurd suggestion that they can spoil enjoyment of the landscape: just step a 2m to the left or right and it'll be out of your central vision and unnoticeable.

If they were obtrusive blots on the landscape, you'd have a point, but they're not and your point seems to be one of principle - which makes it nothing like bolts which have actual impact.
 Jon Stewart 19 May 2014
In reply to llechwedd:

> I'm not averse to a bit of whimsy myself from time to time when out in the hills, but small scale and transient.

> The Fisherfield structures are dull middle class shouty assertions of some existential crisis. Might even be the logo for the next owners of the estate.

> They'd be fine in CenterParcs.

> Just because you can impose something on a landscape, doesn't mean you should. Particularly where it serves no meaningful purpose.

Is this meant to be full of contradictions?
 Robert Durran 19 May 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You keep saying that but the analogy doesn't hold.

It's certainly not by any means a perfect analogy in many ways, but where I find the situation similar is in the presentation of a fait accompli which changes the status quo and whole responsibility for action onto the person who was in favour of the previous status quo; rather than defending something one values one suddenly has to risk being branded a "vandal" or whatever just to revert to the natural state one previously (and perhaps naively) took for granted.
 Tom Valentine 19 May 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

Presumably the ancient structures you are referring to weren't always ancient, unless I've missed a trick.

As for "think of what the landscape will look like in another 100 years", my main worry is that the moors that I love will be covered in f*cking trees again.
 kinley2 21 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

I wonder what people would say if Banksy did a 150ft mural on the cliffs of Coire an t-Sneachda using paints that would weather away in 10years.

A good thing?

It may be a very nicely worked and crafted signature at Lochan Fada....but at its root it's just another graffiti tag.
 fmck 21 May 2014
In reply to kinley2:

This ran out of steam two days ago Kinley. Things have a wee bit of a pulse here compared to the old tired site.
 kinley2 21 May 2014
In reply to fmck:

Presumably that's why it was right at the top of the Hilltalk forum Fraser.

Still as bilious as ever I see....worse than a jilted ex.
 fmck 21 May 2014
In reply to kinley2:



> Still as bilious as ever I see....worse than a jilted ex.

That's not very nice. There's me just pointing out that the heated post had it seemed died out.
Along came a(banned from Walkhighlands) troll looking to start it up again.


 kinley2 23 May 2014
In reply to fmck:

Self referential posting? Suits you Fraser.
 fmck 24 May 2014
In reply to kinley2:

Mine was a leaving ceremony with a bit of fun. Selling economy deer stalking packages to hillwalkers was surprisingly popular
I remember your leaving being kicked oot the door protesting. No style pal!

having just visited the site and read the photograph caption post I remember the reason why. You really cringe with embarrassment for some of these folks. You might want to read it.



 gilliesp 26 May 2014
In reply to kwoods:

I agree. The word wilderness is relative. Without engaging my brain to much my first reaction was that they are fine. On engaging my brain they are still fine. Humans have an innate need to daub pictures on walls and make works of art wherever the go. What constitutes beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find Mount Rushmore intrusive. No doubt someone will kick them over. That's also in our nature. Sheneval is more of an intrusion. I would leave them alone personally. Going in there soon so it'll be interesting to see if they are untouched.
 digby 26 May 2014
In reply to llechwedd:

> I'm not averse to a bit of whimsy myself from time to time when out in the hills, but small scale and transient.
> The Fisherfield structures are dull middle class shouty assertions of some existential crisis. Might even be the logo for the next owners of the estate.
> They'd be fine in CenterParcs.
> Just because you can impose something on a landscape, doesn't mean you should. Particularly where it serves no meaningful purpose.

Partially agree. I think this sort of simple pattern making is dull in the extreme. If you are going to do something with natural materials in the landscape at least make it genuinely creative. And if you have nothing original to say, don't bother to pick up the stones.

 Tom Valentine 26 May 2014
In reply to digby:

Genuinely creative? How would you define that? Tracy Emin as an adviser, perhaps?
 Tall Clare 26 May 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

There's more to art than Tracey Emin and there's more to land art than Andy Goldsworthy.
 DaveHK 26 May 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> (In reply to digby)
>
> Genuinely creative? How would you define that? Tracy Emin as an adviser, perhaps?

I had very similar thoughts on that post. If all art had to be 'genuinely creative' or original it would be stifling, elitist and you'd need an objective standard.
Post edited at 18:54
 Robert Durran 26 May 2014
In reply to gilliesp:

> The word wilderness is relative.

That is a tired argument that can be wheeled out to justify just about anything.

> Humans have an innate need to daub pictures on walls and make works of art wherever the go.

Maybe so, but that does certainly not justify always satisfying that need.

I am going to be in the area in a few weeks with some D of E groups. Suppose they come across these art works and, inspired by them, the youngsters decide to try their hand at something similar at the campsite that night. Do I forbid it? Do I let them do so but insist they are removed afterwards? On what grounds? Well, I certainly wouldn't allow them to remain (being, of course, very strict on the "leave no trace" approach). So do I say that "good" art is ok in the mountains, but theirs is not? Who am I to be the judge of that?

No, this sort of thing is not acceptable in the mountains.

> What constitutes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Whether they are beautiful or not is irrelevant. They are in the wrong place.

> No doubt someone will kick them over.

I hope so (careful restoration rather than random kicking might be preferable though).
 Tom Valentine 26 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

By the same token, Stonehenge has no place, or the cairns on Nine Standards Rigg. Or does antiquity in itself excuse their presence?
 Robert Durran 26 May 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:
> By the same token, Stonehenge has no place, or the cairns on Nine Standards Rigg.

I think that the motivation behind them and the context and culture within which they are constructed is relevant, so I don't think it is necessarily by the same token.

> Or does antiquity in itself excuse their presence?

Our relationship with wild land has certainly changed since antiquity.
Post edited at 19:23
 malky_c 26 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:
You are Sheldon Cooper and I claim my £5!
 Robert Durran 26 May 2014
In reply to malky_c:

> You are Sheldon Cooper and I claim my £5!

I am flattered, but afraid not.
llechwedd 26 May 2014
In reply to gilliesp:

> I agree. The word wilderness is relative... Humans have an innate need to daub pictures on walls and make works of art wherever the go.

'Need', no. Desire, yes.
Desires are often selfish.
The tag 'wilderness' may be relative. The fact that the majority of visitors drive as close as they can to this 'wilderness' does not detract from the reason they undertake their journeys.
An entry in the bothy book is sufficient to mark the passage of most visitors.

I am willing to stand corrected, but it seems to me that most man made structures in remote areas, if they are seen as picturesque or aesthetically pleasing, derive part of that quality from stories, real or imagined, to do with their construction.
Generally they are embedded in the link that local communities, workers, and proprietors had with that land. The structures are often utilitarian but not always (e.g. Glenfinnan).
The Fisherfield impositions serve no useful purpose. To paraphrase the man on 'Grand Designs', they have no integrity.

Where I live, in the slate quarrying district of N.Wales, there are structures in the landscape called 'rock cannon' (see wikipedia).
On one level, these structures made by the quarrymen of the 19th century seem like a reworking of the ancient cup and ring markings. Whatever the story, the construction required an in depth understanding of the geology by people who occupied the land over many years. There is a huge chunk of social history behind them.
The Fisherfield stuff, if it says anything, it is probably ' I got a grant to do this' .
Underlying them is the crassness of their installation.
Hmmm, thousands of years of land use have shaped this spot of land. In today's crowded world, such a place is a rare commodity. People come from across the globe to experience it. Apart from internet trip reports and path erosion you wouldn't know they'd been. But I'm going to change all that... I'll start by fecking up a shoreline that's been formed over millenia. Right, what else can I impose?
 gilliesp 27 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

They really don't bother me. Perfectly lovely to see after a day on the hill. I commend their builder and hope a trend has started. My old D of E kids would have had their trip enriched undertaking such projects.
 Robert Durran 27 May 2014
In reply to gilliesp:

> I commend their builder and hope a trend has started.

This comment genuinely appals me. Others have attempted to defend these ones by claiming that they will remain isolated examples. You apparently would be happy for them to appear all over the hills.



 Tom Valentine 27 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

In the general scheme of things they are fairly low profile affairs and the one with the inlaid stones on the pebble beach is particularly subtle, so much so that I would like to know at what distance it actually becomes discernible to the naked eye?
 digby 27 May 2014
In reply to Tom Valentine:

No, me! Put me in charge!! Yes!!! Bwah haha haaaaaaaa! I'll weed out the chaff!!
 digby 27 May 2014
In reply to llechwedd:
> The Fisherfield stuff, if it says anything, it is probably ' I got a grant to do this' .

Nonsense. It would not get a grant. It's simple pattern making, collection and arrangement of 'pretty things'
However people do buy kitsch and cr*p by the bucketload. Though obviously this is unsaleable, though it is removable - by the bucketload.
Post edited at 11:32
 gilliesp 27 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

Truthfully, Robert, I would not approve of the proliferation of these stone 'sculptures'. I was bivvying on a col under Sgurr nan Clach Geala in the Fannaichs two nights ago and I slept on flat stones perfectly laid on west side of a huge boulder. Round the side someone had prepared two more bivvy areas. Up the slope was another walled shelter with a stone seat/table. Next morning I traversed several Munros and encountered paths, cairns, shelters, metal fence remnants and down below various buildings, argocat tracks and high deer fences. From my position on the col it looked as if I was in a wilderness. I wasn't! There is evidence of estate use and now recreational use (Munro baggers) across our own wee wilderness. The Fisherfields are actually relatively busy and Sheneval bothy plays a significant part in attracting folks in. Set against this I would have found these isolated stone 'artworks' interesting, taking a pic or two and moved on. However,I would not have kicked them over.
 digby 27 May 2014
In reply to stevesmith:

Equally annoying thing:
People spelling out names and messages in stones on the grassy area below Arthur's Seat and on the Pentland hills.

Much worse thing:
Forest felling in wildy areas. Yes I know they are unavoidable commercial operations, but it does make a terrible mess of the landscape. Way worse than a wee arrangement of stones.
 Robert Durran 27 May 2014
In reply to gilliesp:

> Truthfully, Robert, I would not approve of the proliferation of these stone 'sculptures'. I was bivvying on a col under Sgurr nan Clach Geala in the Fannaichs two nights ago and I slept on flat stones perfectly laid on west side of a huge boulder. Round the side someone had prepared two more bivvy areas. Up the slope was another walled shelter with a stone seat/table.

If these are built by walkers, then they should remove them after use.

> Next morning I traversed several Munros and encountered paths, cairns, shelters, metal fence remnants and down below various buildings, argocat tracks and high deer fences. From my position on the col it looked as if I was in a wilderness. I wasn't.

We all know it's not really a wilderness and some of the stuff in it is ugly and could do with tidying up, but at least, for better of worse, these things serve a purpose or have done so in the past. The art serves no purpose; it simply doesn't need to be there.

> The Fisherfields are actually relatively busy and Sheneval bothy plays a significant part in attracting folks in.

I think there is good case for demolishing Shenavall. It's not really a traditional small, sustainable, bothy, gets horribly busy and the area around is probably (and certianly is in my imagination) horribly polluted. There's plenty of good camping along the Glen if people want to spend the night in the area.

 gilliesp 27 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

I am with you in principle regarding your last point but I believe Sheneval is an estate property which is not available during stag stalking season and has just had a refurbishment. So it looks like it's staying.

My final comment on the 'stones' is that those particular ones don't bother me - just a harmless (I know that is a provocative word to use) piece of amusement to the builder and spectator when set against the proliferation of wind farms, power lines and ugly deforestation (and now the rise of UKIP).
 Robert Durran 27 May 2014
In reply to gilliesp:

> Just a harmless (I know that is a provocative word to use) piece of amusement to the builder and spectator when set against the proliferation of wind farms, power lines and ugly deforestation (and now the rise of UKIP).

All of which pale into insignificance when compared with the hydroelectrification of the glens in the 50's and 60's........

Anyway I quite like wind farms. I find them rather magnificently beautiful, though, like art, there are places I'd rather not find them. None have spoilt a day in the hills for me yet and I enjoy the ones on my local hills where I run. They are certainly better than power lines, though there is something impressive about the big new ones through Drumochter.......

 kinley2 29 May 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think there is good case for demolishing Shenavall. It's not really a traditional small, sustainable, bothy, gets horribly busy and the area around is probably (and certianly is in my imagination) horribly polluted. There's plenty of good camping along the Glen if people want to spend the night in the area.

I hope Not! It does a splendid job channelling the red route herds around the "Big Six/Five" and leaving much of the rest of Fisherfield the quieter for it (other than the odd stravaiging environmental artist/vandal).
 Robert Durran 06 Jul 2014
 allanscott 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

The penis builder is a dick (very weak joke) but I have to say that I think these sculptures are quite interesting and I know nothing about art and care even less. Estate tracks and windfarms have a visual impact far, far greater than than this. That and disputed and/or restricted access to ''wild land'' are much more worthy of debate. Leave these structures in place I say. I'm just surprised the tabloids haven't done an ''alien signposts to the stars found in remote Highland glen'' expose after all this fruitless chit chat.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...