Sir Backpeddle of Postmodernia, your interpretation is as valid as anyone else's. (But he's king arthur really aint he).
I am of course all for a good story. And how romantic is the idea of king arthur and tintagel, pretty romantic. But how far are you going to push legends over what we can actually deduce happened at Tintagel. Are we only bothering to conserve it because of the association with King Arthur, is it actually quite dull otherwise? Or is the real story of the site quite interesting (and if you push the arthur angle, when do you stop and say "well actually that's all bollocks, and I'm now going to tell you what really happened...") It must be quite difficult to decide.
I went there as a kid and I imagine it was entirely because of the king arthur angle - also it was just into Cornwall and I had (and still had until I was disabused of it about 15 years ago) the idea that Cornwall was this hugely romantic albion-like place with tiny overgrown lanes (it still is a bit i admit). So I can see it's a massive money spinner, the king arthur thing will indeed pull in people from everywhere who aren't usually interested much in "heritage". I wouldn't go there now though, because I couldn't face the snowglobes. That's me liking the quiet life and having places to myself, I don't think I'm being a snob about it.
It's tricky. And I like art as well. But they >could< pop the sculpture next to the gift shop couldn't they. But they've chosen to put it somewhere else, somewhere where it's competing for your attention with experiencing Being There, competing with the landscape. So that's more than just supporting some artist, they are making a big statement about the site by putting it in such a prominent spot?
|
