Mustard wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
Perhaps the same case of validity can be made for modern stone circles – ie it is the ‘quality’ that matters not the ‘validity’ (though please don’t ask me to define quality :-)
This is the problem. In terms of a subjective aesthetic experience, you could certainly argue that modern stone circles are "valid". But in terms of whether they have the same cultural significance as something that's woven into thousands of years of written and oral history.... then probably not so "valid".
Perhaps this (subjective aesthetic experience) is actually the point not the problem (the old what is art question :-) Most of us like some sites more than others, perhaps because we find their surroundings, or the way the stones, mounds etc are positioned, more pleasing than other sites.
‘Valid’ is a tricky word though – valid to whom when? Perhaps ‘quality’ is something a little more tangible. You can feel quality in a good piece of cloth or a well-bound book. Taste it in home-grown tomatoes. And I think you can also see it in some stone circles as well. And although some will disagree on political or ethical grounds the The National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, though only a few years old, has succeeded in bringing together architecture, landscaping, history and respect in a way that its older cousin the Whitehall Cenotaph has failed to do.
No doubt (if it’s still there) the National Memorial Arboretum will be more valid in a thousand years' time than it is now due to its age; while the quality of its original concept will always be appreciated for what it was and is.
