UKC

Must say I quite like it...presumably free standing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-57169995

There was one of them on Carrock Fell a couple of weeks ago. Could see something unusual from a way off but couldn't work out what it was until quite close up. Impressive work.

They look like Andy Goldsworthy's stuff? Plenty of his creations all over Cumbria.

Bit torn on this one personally...

From the few pictures I've seen they do look like nice creations, and seem to fit in with the landscape relatively well, while using naturally occurring materials from each location which won't become litter if knocked over and won't look out of place. 

But on the other hand does having these creations up there maybe detract from feeling connected directly to the landscape? And will it encourage copycats who won't do such a good job of making something that fits in, particularly if it gets positive press? Are they really a necessary addition to the landscape? 

Maybe they sit in a category alongside cairns and shelters as structures built to benefit recreational hill-users, but instead of providing a practical use it's an aesthetic one. Will be interesting to see what the national park authority says about it. 

I think personally I'd prefer it if they weren't there, but then I haven't seen one in person and think I can see the appeal. 

Totally unnecessary. 

Yes, there is a fine line between environmental art and environmental vandalism. I'd rather have none of it - if any is accepted what is to stop anyone justifying building any old crap all over the place. The hills don't need "enhancement".

Honestly you guys, if you don't like it or it offends you, go push it over, you're completely within your rights. Maybe that's what the artist is hoping for anyway. Nobody's laid claim to the constructions, they've been well documented and splashed all over social media and achieved their recognition, which the artist doesn't seem to want anyway, and there's probably a good chance that the he/she wouldn't care anyway, they'll just go build some more. I bet there were plenty of grumpy Neolithic elders who were less than happy when the Leschaux caves started being daubed with stone age graffiti, but...

We're not talking about a natural wild landscape here; it's been formed and altered by humans acting solely in their own interests from a to z,  so go take part in the happening. Personally, I think the objects are technically very impressive and rather beautiful, and certainly on a different level to the daubings at the Roaches and elsewhere. 

Yes, but imagine the outcry - it would most likely be counter-productive. A bit like unilateral bolt chopping can be.

I think there is a big distinction between a landscape altered over millenia as a place where people live and labour for their livelihood and the egotistical imposition of an "artwork" by an individual.

I agree, but I just think it sets a dangerous precedent. Who is going to referee where the line is between acceptable "art" and what is just vandalism. Better to keep art out of beautiful landscapes - they really don't need it.

The concern is if a number of people start to emulate the 'artist'.

Jeez, someone has stacked up some rock in an aesthetically pleasing way and the 'protectors of the realm' are up in arms. Do you kick over sandcastles on the beach too because they ruin the landscape and wild experience you wanted?

It's not thin-end-of-the-wedge stuff, no one is going to see that and decide that spraypainting a wang on the Bowder Stone is fair game. 

Better go tear down those dry stone walls all over the fells, in case anyone gets any ideas about putting rocks on top of other rocks. 

I'm with you, and suprised, but interested, to hear quite a few disaprove of it.

How would those who dislike them feel if the artised demolished the pieces as soon as they had been completed and photographed? But took a more comercial approcah and sold prints for large sums of money?

How do you feel towards coastal pieces that are destroyed by the next incoming tide? Such as, to my mind, these beautiful works:

https://sculpttheworld.smugmug.com/Stone/

They're great! Next winter I'm going to pee in concentric circles in the snow and call it Pissolio Jaunio. The limited signed prints will go like hot cakes!

These are quite nice.

Is it thin end of the wedge stuff? I doubt it as these look to require more time & skill than stacking three or four stones on top of each other. Speaking of which I kicked over a couple on my way to Stob Ghabhar last weekend. 

I think its heavily context dependent and could, if done in the wrong place, be damaging to the environment, i.e. pulling up stones on an area of the Caringorms plateau versus using copious slate lying around in heaps or on shingle or stoney beaches where there are literally thousands of stones getting shifted around daily by incoming tides. Certainly in the remoter areas I would probably admire then destroy and my feeling would be that that would not be counter to the intentions of a thoughtful & considerate artist / creator.

You read all that into my rather restrained comment??

But Antony Gormley just might decide to stand some vacant-looking ciphers in a line looking up at the pillar on Thornthwaite Crag.

Speaking as one who is rather prone to demolish random cairns I can’t say I really approve of these. The arch one, which looks like it’s on Castle Crag, is probably built within the quarry tips near the summit, and somehow that seems less of an imposition as it is an anthropogenic location. Now I know the landscape of the Lakes is almost entirely man made (give or take a few lava flows and glaciations) but I think such a construction as the “ring” is much more of an imposition, placed as it appears to be, on the summit of Thorneythwaite Fell above Raven Crag. That is, assuming the picture isn’t a photoshopped job, which it looks like it might be.

I started a thread here recently about “shared” music, where there are obvious parallels.

Have you seen the plague of cairn building (or "stone men") in Scotland? the horror of the "Fairy Glen" (horrible name) on Skye?

Daft comparison. Obviously.

You need to get up to date… go where the big money is - NFTs. 
https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-a...

Yes, I agree it's much better as "Faerie Glen".

Beat me too it. I love this sort of sculpture. I once had a group of kids, all  school refusals, and we did a week of land art around Grisedale. Best was an enormous stone snake with proper ziz-zag markings. It was part camouflaged on the path but stood out against the lush grass. Then using deer fencing as a support for woodland weaving. The possibilities for this kind of art are endless. No real damage to the environment either.

There was a path, part of the Walna Scar track, going around to Dow that was  all beautiful curves. So much nicer than a straight line across the hillside.

Yes, a terrible thing to have on an old scalpings heap from a disused quarry. The cheek of it!!

This thread is UKC at it finest!!

These ones have been removed and a small sign erected saying why. 

Can you put me down for one, if possible could you do me one for my wife, and sign it "For Emma"?

Yes, it is a genuine discussion about something which affects the places we love.

I am just genuinely astonished that anyone on here actually approves if this stuff. Just as I was astonished a few years ago when the stuff on the beach at Lochan Fada and in Being Tharsuinn was discussed. Whatever happened to "leave no trace"?

I just hope you removed it all and did your best to leave no trace.

🤮

That’s art, in a nutshell!

Personally I like these (going on the photos). Like much of Goldsworthy’s own work, the temporary nature of it is part of the point.

It's hardly "affects" anything does it?

A culture about 3 ft tall made our of the scalpings of an old mining scalping dump?!?!

God forbid!

Two  piles of stone that will most likely fall over in the next storm we have. Jeez!!

I love the Lakes too, I've been visiting  there for 50+ years, traffic is more of an issue than two temporary sculptures.

Yeah there are some right killjoys about. I had a quick search of the forums but there didn't seem to be any complaints about Stonehenge when it went up. 

Daft comparison again. Obviously.

It does if it becomes a plague of stuff done badly like the "stone balancing" cairn craze. 

I think it is just the sheer arrogance of imposing one's "art" on people visiting wild places which I find offensive.

Anything to oblige! I'm also considering artfully arranged 'faecal structures' carefully crafted from organic material found in the rural environment. Just random sh1te, but if it pays why not?

You don't come across as the arrogant sort, but when you go off jet-hopping around the world you'll agree that it's "sheer arrogance" that you impose the noise of your jet engines on the "quiet" fellside (the Lake District, for instance, is on quite the criss-cross of flightpaths)?

They're not wild places. If they were, there wouldn't be loads of people there and people stacking up stones. 

Why is comparing stacking of stones in various other formats a daft comparison? People have been doing it in numerous forms for millennia. Art, religion, way-finding, boundaries. 

How about Inukshuk? Another daft comparison? You going to go kick them over?

I love the sculptures in Grizedale and have spent many enjoyable days hunting them down armed with my old (2003?) paper map. Some of the older ones have virtually become archaeology and some have been totally obliterated by weathering and forestry operations. I think the hardest ones to find (apart from those not found) were those made by the artist Sally Matthews. Her structures are constructed from cement and twigs on wire frames and depict boars, wolves and dogs. Some can still be seen but you have to be persistent as they are quite elusive.

It is certainly fair to criticise noise pollution, but I don't think anyone would claim that it is enhancing the experience of being in the hills, so, although it is an issue, I don't think it is a fair comparison with setting out on purpose to impose one's ideas of "art" on these places.

Do you need an agent?

Random shite sound right up my alley.

As someone who has reinstated a cairn on my local moors I'm bound to be in favour of a bit of rock art. My cairn is over six feet tall and can be seen from the valley. In lockdown it became a bit of a local destination.

Don't be silly. Use another word then. So would you justify people doing whatever the hell they like to an environment which people come to enjoy if it takes their fancy. I'm not saying these particular "art works" by any means as offensive as they might be, but they set a poor precedent, especially getting coverage in national news, when people are rightly encouraged to leave as little trace as possible in the hills.

I think any of these things should be rightly questioned if done nowadays; in the past there was a different culture and far less pressure on the environment.

Grizedale Forest is a different kettle of fish altogether from those piles of stone you describe at Lochan Fada. There has been a tradition of commissioned public art in the forest for several decades and it's not a wildereness in any sense. I do agree with you about what I also see as inappropriate intrusions into a truly wild environment (as far as anything in Britain is 'wild').

It never really applied to climbing, at least, not since the first bolt was placed.

Yes, climbing is far from blameless, though bolts are really very unobtrusive and actually unlikely to be seen by anyone not looking for them (or even when they are!). I think there is a difference between bolts and "art" entirely intended to be noticed and to challenge.

You are Gilbert & George and I claim my £5

It's been replaced by 'bolt it in place'

Sally Matthews - thanks for the reminder! I remember stumbling across that Wild boar family group of hers and being really moved. 

If leave no trace is meaningful then it applies to small things as well as large. 

So are chiselled holds.

Yes, it took quite a bit of searching out to find them with my old location map featuring small photos of them in their prime. They are still there although I think some of them have weathered away. There's virtually nothing left of the similar Wolves apart from a few bits of chicken wire and metal rods. They were up on a very exposed ridge of Silurian slate nearby and would have been a really dramatic sight.

Yes. The arguments against both bolts and chipping are largely climbing ethics ones rather than anything environmental, though, in the case of bolts, the knock on effect of greater popularity of routes can be significant.

I started this thread because I liked the sculpture.....in fact I think it’s great.

But I was unsure if it should have been done. I’ve liked a couple of your posts because I’ve come round to your view.

That said as Cobra_head says, it’s just some old stones from a mine made into a lovely piece of art that refers back to the Victorian idea of a “viewing” station...it’s ephemeral and will be blown over in weeks.

I can think of plenty of routes where a few well placed chipped holds would increase the traffic on them.

Absolutely not. A natural crag environment doesn't have bolts on it any more then it has via ferrata ladders and cables.Size and visibility is not the issue. You are chiselling away at the principle of "leave no trace" by making exceptions for bolts. 

By all means, carry on bolting wherever it's allowed, but spare me the "leave no trace" guff if you're a sport climber.

That's quite a boast. I'd be impressed if you manage two circles. I'd pay good money to see three. I'd be looking for good strong lines with no spotty pointillist effects. No low-budget Pissarro please.

This the problem; it is good, but that doesn't excuse it.

Well obviously ladders have a lot more visual impact than bolts. Visually, bolts are neither here nor there in environmental terms.

I am as against bolts in most places as anyone, but not on environmental grounds.

The "leave no trace " ethic wasn't arrived at with just climbers in mind. 

It's either a philosophy worth adopting or it's not.

Half measures and get out clauses don't sit well with it.

Of course not, but since you mentioned bolts, it is worth noting that non-climbers are much less likely to notice them than climbers.

And it is also worth accepting that some things are worse than others.

I find the sculptures a lot less of a jarring imposition than the inverted commas you insist on putting round the word "art" just because you don't like them.

The sculptures were likely gone before you were even aware of their having existed and if the fells were likely to be choked and rendered impassable by installation pieces and natural sculpture it would have happened long before now - it's not like the Lake District is a secret.

But hey, at least we're talking about it.

Is chalk OK?

Sorry. I actually do like them. I just don't like them being there.

If they were only ever intended to be temporary and basically in a quarry rather than the environment the photos suggested, then obviously that is not so bad after all.

Worse than bolts environmentally. But it does stop me slipping off holds and dying.

It is fine to question both bolts and chalk, but there is difference between their incidental impact and the deliberate setting out to impose artworks on others.

Why does the intent matter? No trace is no trace - it's not accidental, it's incidental - you know you're going to leave chalk on the rock. You didn't have to climb - you chose to. You are guilty of the environmental damage, and you don't even need to bring vicarious liability into it.

You said yourself, some things are worse than others. You just happen to think that a few stones stacked on top of eachother is worse than the things you do purely because you find something unpleasant about how other people view things - but objectively you're wrong. Do you often struggle to understand other people's emotions towards things?

If the sculptures were demolished and left lying around they would over time  just become part of the landscape. If you debolted a route and left the resultant metal scattered around the base of the crag it would remain forever  alien and never be assimilated into the natural environment, any more than would an abandoned car or a flytipped fridge.

It is all very well to say what about bolts, chalk, aeroplane noise, Stonehenge (!) etc. and all these issues are worthy of discussion, but I am addressing something about this art which is not a factor in these other things.

All I am saying is that I object to the idea of going to a place which others visit and love for its natural beauty and building something for the sole purpose of imposing it on those other peoples' experience of the place. Some may have their experience enhanced, others not (and that is fine), but I just find the presumptuousness somewhat arrogant.

Separately there is the issue of proliferation of the copy-cat behaviour we have seen with "stone-balancing" cairn building and so on.

Given that nobody debolts crags and leaves the bolts lying around, I've no idea what your point is! 

Stone is a part of the crag/ mountain environment. Metal is not.

Ha ha so, as long as you think it's OK, or something you want, then it's fine, otherwise....

What is this "imposing art on others" that you keep on repeating? It's the most miserable, patrician reading of public art you could possibly come up with.

"Which bastard egotistically left this art here?"

I'm shocked and surprised that no has realised the truth.  It's an alien signal.  Crop circles weren't being listened to and neither were the pyramids so this is the next natural step.  

Get with the truth, sheeple.  Invasion imminent.

Oh FFS, stop being so childish. I made a case against environmental art. You can either agree with it or not. That's fine. Perhaps even debate it in an intelligent way (as I am trying to do) if you don't.

To me "public art" is something agreed upon by some community process and put in some shared civic place or public park say. I think that is different from an individual unilaterally deciding to put their environmental art in a wild place.

Put like that, it is a fair point.

If he managed 5, that would be Olympic quality...

Well that's all of human pre-history and history on the shitlist then.

If there are to be designated art-free spaces, why do you think you should get to decide what they are?

As I said earlier, culture changes and pressures on the environment change.

FFS. You too. See my last reply to Cobra. 

I thought the whole point of Grisedale was the 'Land Art'. It all degrades over time anyway. Even the Borrowdale sculptures will degrade just like the stone walls that are a man-made structures⁷. Again the other approach in sensitive locations is to photograph the land art and dismantle. Obviously it would then only be possible to view in exhibitions or book form. It just goes to show that you can't please everybody. 

Is exactly my view on the matter. Can I paint my portrait on Napes Needle for example, or would I just be an egotistical arse? 

There's too many people, too much pressure on our tiny hilly areas for this crap to be deemed acceptable. 

Sorry, yes, I didn't know that. 

Yes, to me this is the acceptable way of doing it. No worse than putting up a tent and camping for the night, then leaving no lasting trace.

The only thing that annoys me is that people compare these constructions to Banksy's graffiti - because it is so artistically illiterate it makes my brain boil.

Although, it's not as bad as Lankyman's "Italian" (...?) which sounds more like Pisolino Giano (Janus Snooze... ?) rather than Yellow P*ss (Pipì Giallo)

At it's best it's beautiful and much better than Banksy. Thank goodness he sticks to urban stuff and doesn't paint rocks in the hills!

Thanks for proving that, as low as the bar is set, it's always possible to go lower!

How about climbed Napes Needle? That's a non-essential imposition in a natural environment that anyone there would have to see and be reminded of humans.

Just the crap you enjoy. Cool.

Well, again, you're just making an arbitrary ruling where art should and shouldn't be. Where humans go art goes. There's tens of thousands of years of weight behind that. Having to set up an easel/camera and take the art away is paradoxically both a pretty old-fashioned idea yet an idea so modern in the context of art as to be the anomaly.

Not a ruling, just an opinion for which I have argued my case.

As I said, I think it is a modern, enlightened approach in line with modern pressures on the environment.

A tiny neolithic population painting rocks had a tiny effect on the environment. Nowadays, it would be unsustainable. A bit like we have controls on hunting animals which neolithic people did not. Times change.

I think there is clearly a difference between leaving a painting on Napes Needle and climbing it then leaving it the same for the next people that come along.

By all means make a case for limiting access to the mountains, but I don't think it makes sense to conflate it with the issue being discussed.

On a related theme, there's been a trend for leaving painted stones on hilltops over the past couple of years - I've seen plenty of these in my own patch of the Ochils and have come across a few elsewhere. They appear to divide into three categories: some have pictures and personal messages (often cryptic) on them, and I'd imagine are left (and probably photographed for Facebook etc) by passing visitors, quite possibly of the younger generations. There are also stones with political messages painted on them - I have no compunction about bringing these down, and would do so regardless of the cause they espoused, but thus far every one I've encountered - plus little laminated plastic cards - has been arguing for Scottish independence.

And specific to the Ochils, a chap has been systematically leaving stones painted with hill names (not always correct) and grid references on the various summits, and has put together quite an extensive website about it:

https://afspowage.wixsite.com/myochils400s

I know that some of the Ochil regulars are unhappy about this, and regard the painted stones as intrusive and basically a form of litter. My own feeling is that I wouldn't mind so much if they were being left for a limited period and on just a few summits, but it appears they're intended to be there in perpetuity (and are being replaced by new ones if removed) and are on pretty much every damn hilltop. I haven't (as yet) brought any of these down, but I am fed up with seeing them all over the place.

Indeed litter. 

From the website 'For whatever reasons, some Stones have been going missing.'

Only Siward suggested painting Napes Needle, which is obviously different to making a temporary shape out of objects found at the site. Climbing Napes Needle makes a temporary installation of items brought from outside the environment and is visually striking to onlookers. What if they just wanted to see the Needle unadorned with ropes and metal?

You've failed to provide evidence that these temporary arrangements of rocks put any additional pressure on this environment than you or I pursuing our hobby. 

"Would be". We're talking about a couple of rock arrangements with no inkling or suggestion that this is going to snowball into an Easter Island style epidemic of rock sculpture in the hills. I don't think there's enough artists for a start.

They could wait or come back another day. Maybe not ideal, but better than a permanent intrusion.

I have already mentioned the proliferation of "stone balancing" cairns in sone places. The potential problem is not so much artists but the normalisation of this sort of stuff so that loads of people do it. Better just to leave the hills be.

I'd say remove the lot. Eventually, Mr Stone Painter will get the message and desist. I'm not keen either on the memorial plaques that are increasingly being fixed to rocks in the hills. Grief is understandable but foisting it on others up there isn't on.

Yes, best that all this sort of thing is nipped in the bud.

I tend to leave a few footprints and nothing else. These 'installations' aren't temporary in the way that a sandcastle is, they can endure for many years. The more there are the more likely they are to proliferate I think. Take them down. 

What a weird "game" and website.

Lets all make a point of checking for and removing these stones.

”There are also stones with political messages painted on them - I have no compunction about bringing these down, and would do so regardless of the cause they espoused, but thus far every one I've encountered - plus little laminated plastic cards - has been arguing for Scottish independence.”

This has the potential to turn into one of the all-time great UKC mash-up angry threads!

So where does place John Redhead's painting on the Indian Face?

Litter, vandalism, leave the Lake District alone, nature did a good job here, get rid of them.

DC

I bring down the political ones and the silly (to my eyes) personal ones. With regard to the "game" ones, I'm a bit wary of doing too much for various reasons, one being that the chap who puts them there appears to be a former Deputy Lord Lieutenant of the county, and who knows where that might lead? Plus he's not in great health and I'm not looking to upset him. But I have referred the matter to some people with more local clout than I have, and who appear to be very unimpressed by the plethora of painted stones, so in due course they might well do something.

I don't think it really works for trad climbers either, since the "natural crag environment" has often been made suitable for climbing by extensive gardening, cleaning and sometimes trundling. I've spent two solid days digging out a single obscure route at Tremadog, for instance. Didn't The Ocean on Lundy take five days to clean? It seems to me this changes the natural environment pretty dramatically. Obviously, I don't have a problem with this personally, but I don't claim to be leaving no trace. 

The only hill top where I've come across painted stones was Mungrisdale Common (!). It was almost comforting to know that this was the actual top as there was b-all to tell otherwise. I don't think it had a political (or any) message on it.

The thing that really gets on my tits are rolls of Himalayan prayer flags, I doubt it's Gurkhas doing it.

Ultimately, "leaving only footprints" is not quite "leaving no trace".

I think most climbers would accept that gardening still leaves a route in a natural state in that there are no man made adornments fastened to the rock when it's been done.

I actually made the second ascent of The Ocean and was very grateful for the hard work the pioneers had done!

I've always wanted to get on The Ocean, so I would be similarly grateful if someone fancied giving it a serious wash and brush up some time before I return to Lundy in September of next year. As I said, I have absolutely no problem with extensive gardening and have done a fair bit over the years. I do sometimes worry that I might have exterminated some rare moss species for the sake of a four move boulder problem no one else may ever climb  - eg on out-of-the-way crags on Skye. Personally, I do think that I've changed the natural environment even though I've removed rather than added stuff.

I rather like the "artworks" and think it's a bit of a stretch to characterise the English Lakes as "wild." I've encountered more people on walks of the popular big rounds than I would in my local park.

I'm not sure wildness is a function of number of people. After all, lots of us seek out wildness; the trick is to find wildness without rather than with other people.

I’m a bit late to this party but my 7 year old daughter is really into Andy gold worthy art at the moment (more the stuff with sticks and leaves it is to be said) so I walked up carrock fell this morning as a recce with the intention of walking up with her on another day.

Once at the top I found that it’s fallen down. At first I was a bit annoyed by but then I decided that the impermanence of this art was something that I really liked about it so couldn’t help but laugh at my own annoyance!

I’d not like it if the fells were filled with this kind of thing, that would just devalue it as art and devalue these wild places but I reserve my right to judge things on an individual basis and on that basis I loved this.

On a completely different topic, a great day on the fells, the wind and showers are keeping it nice and quiet (at Carrock at least!)

He seems to be playing his own private version of geocaching.  He seems now to be leaving stones marked only with a small white dot. In his own words:

" hopefully invisible to tourist souvenir hunters and unobtrusive enough not to offend the aesthetic sensibilities of other walkers. I do appreciate that it would not do if everyone decided that they wanted to leave painted rocks strewn around the countryside."

If he can confine himself to that it seems harmless enough, although it's not my patch so I really have no say in the matter.

Indeed, and I had a conversation with someone a few weeks ago where the similarities to geocaching came up. I don't know much about geocaching, though - is not the idea there that the things get moved about periodically? Both that and the Ochil stones have elements of a treasure hunt, but the Ochil stones aren't exactly hard to find (especially if one checks the website first).

I've yet to see any of the new white-dot stones - so perhaps they are indeed less obtrusive - but the obvious bright painted versions are still very much around. There's been one (with yellow/greenish stripes) in the cairn on top of Ben Ever until recently - I'm up there around 50 times a year and it's been hard to miss.

I disagree - you do have a say and just because it's my patch doesn't mean I have an extra say! (I agree it's pretty harmless, but it is annoying quite a few people.)

Came across this yeaterday and thought of you immediately   

The b*ggers are breeding!

Awful. Where is it? Need a good kicking.

Lindisfarne. I don't think the day trippers would appreciate your input.