|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Alexander Keiller's Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Jan 23, 2013, 23:42
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: It's funny, in this discussion the system (EH here) is being seen by some as obstructive and fuddy-duddy, preventing Avebury being restored to it's rightful glory whereas a lot of my time I'm thinking the system is a soft touch and too weak in the face of developers. Perspective, as you say. It's good to see you've got some.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 24, 2013, 09:20
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: Mustard wrote: Harryshill wrote: Littlestone wrote: Harryshill wrote: Littlestone wrote: The only rules that are relevant are ones pertaining to the above question... You really have to understand that here, you are nothing more than anybody else. You don't own me. I don't have to follow your rules. I don't recognise your authority,. I don’t have any authority here. You, however, may have a responsibility to justify your opinions. No I don't. And there we have it. All mouth, no contribution. Trolling. Actually, I think that might be you. If you look back on your post to me, you asked how adding more stones would enhance Avebury. Seems like you forgot what side you was on. I think you're getting confused. But then I've made contributions to TMA over the years, so I have a track record, unlike some.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Edited Jan 24, 2013, 09:37
Jan 24, 2013, 09:36
|
||
Just sort of moving on a bit, assuming that the Sanctuary is now pretty well dug to extinction with little or anything more to gain from it, would you like to see it re-instated with new stones to give it a similar look to that of Aubreys days to make it more visually satisfying?
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 24, 2013, 09:48
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Just sort of moving on a bit, assuming that the Sanctuary is now pretty well dug to extinction with little or anything more to gain from it, would you like to see it re-instated with new stones to give it a similar look to that of Aubreys days to make it more visually satisfying? Based on the above assumption, then yes.
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Jan 24, 2013, 09:55
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Just sort of moving on a bit, assuming that the Sanctuary is now pretty well dug to extinction with little or anything more to gain from it, would you like to see it re-instated with new stones to give it a similar look to that of Aubreys days to make it more visually satisfying? Based on the above assumption, then yes. Big assumption there, it isn't dug to extinction, but to play the game anyway: Removal of concrete pods - yes, a hologram that appears from my watch phone that reveals what it might have been like - yes, a handful of tma-ers wanting to fake prehistory - no! Piggott called Keiller's Avebury 'megalithic gardening, Ruskin stated that restoration was 'a Lie from beginning to end.' I'm with them!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 24, 2013, 09:56
|
||
|
Well I think I'm right that both the law and EH are more pro-development these days (they've even changed the definition of conservation to mean managing change). EH is the (unwilling) creature of the Govt. after all, not an independent champion for heritage, and the govt.'s will is to downgrade heritage. On the other hand, I'm glad they haven't had to become "progressive" over the Avebury issue. They oughta be fuddy duddy and take decades to mull over any changes. And don't forget, unlike the stick 'em all up now party or even "The People" they're tied in to international charters, documents that say things like "A monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness" which can be interpreted several ways with no Case Law to guide them, and "restoration must stop at the point where conjecture begins".
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Jan 24, 2013, 09:56
|
||
|
VBB wrote: Mustard wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Just sort of moving on a bit, assuming that the Sanctuary is now pretty well dug to extinction with little or anything more to gain from it, would you like to see it re-instated with new stones to give it a similar look to that of Aubreys days to make it more visually satisfying? Based on the above assumption, then yes. Big assumption there, it isn't dug to extinction, but to play the game anyway: Removal of concrete pods - yes, a hologram that appears from my watch phone that reveals what it might have been like - yes, a handful of tma-ers wanting to fake prehistory - no! Piggott called Keiller's Avebury 'megalithic gardening, Ruskin stated that restoration was 'a Lie from beginning to end.' I'm with them! Contributed merely to stop the endless 'you-said-I said' above - pointless!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 24, 2013, 10:05
|
||
|
Now we're getting to thew nitty gritty. "Ruskin stated that restoration was 'a Lie from beginning to end'" BUT all but dry purists are grateful to Keiller for his big lies.... BUT he did enough. It's the second best WHS on the planet, it impresses, it gives at least an approximation of it's true self. More lies (with the risk of mistakes, loss of info and future regrets) are simply not needed. "Avebury Complete" would not be a better Avebury yet it WOULD be a bigger lie.
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Jan 24, 2013, 10:11
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Now we're getting to thew nitty gritty. "Ruskin stated that restoration was 'a Lie from beginning to end'" BUT all but dry purists are grateful to Keiller for his big lies.... BUT he did enough. It's the second best WHS on the planet, it impresses, it gives at least an approximation of it's true self. More lies (with the risk of mistakes, loss of info and future regrets) are simply not needed. "Avebury Complete" would not be a better Avebury yet it WOULD be a bigger lie. Fair enough. What Ruskin said: ‘Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a Lie from beginning to end. You may make a model of a building as you may of a corpse, and your model may have the shell of the old walls within it as your cast might have the skeleton, with what advantage I neither see nor care: but the old building is destroyed, and that more totally and mercilessly than if it had sunk into a heap of dust, or melted into a mass of clay: more has been gleaned out of desolated Nineveh than ever will be out of re-built Milan. But, it is said, there may come a necessity for restoration! Granted. Look the necessity full in the face, and understand it on its own terms. It is a necessity for destruction. Accept it as such, pull the building down, throw its stones into neglected corners, make ballast of them, or mortar, if you will; but do it honestly, and do not set up a Lie in their place.’
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 24, 2013, 10:11
|
||
|
VBB wrote: a handful of tma-ers wanting to fake prehistory - no! I don't see how "faking" it in THIS particular context is in any way worse than a bunch of concrete slabs in a field.
|
| Pages: 77 – [ Previous | 1 … 42 43 44 45 46 47 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
