Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. | Forum

N

nigelswift Nov 2, 2013 09:55:25

Replying to PMM

I didn't say damage wasn't important, I was just expressing that the fact this stunt causes no damage wasn't the point, it was the fact it was legitimising other stunts which might cause damage.

What happened to the "leave only footprints" principle? I'd have thought NT would have wanted to keep to that.

I don't think monuments should be kept behind glass either and I agree with you that "if it's possible for people to interact with our heritage without damaging it, then that seems far healthier than removing them from public contact" But whether it's possible should be determined by one thing only - whether they will be damaged.

M

Mustard Nov 2, 2013 12:39:41

Replying to PMM

PMM wrote:

I don't agree that these monuments should be preserved behind glass. If it's possible for people to interact with our heritage without damaging it, then that seems far healthier than removing them from public contact.

I agree. But there's the worrying trend of dumbing down our heritage, which now seems to only be valued if it's "fun" or "suitable for family days out". You only have to look at the promotional literature and see how every bloody photograph has kids in it having "fun". Now I think it's great to get kids engaged with our heritage, but I think it's possible to do that without patronising them, playing to the lowest common denominator, and Disneyfying everything. And as has been pointed out, the problem here is that the message the NT are sending is that it's OK to dick around (pardon the pun) with our monuments because that's just having "a bit of fun".

S

Sanctuary Nov 2, 2013 14:47:35

Replying to PMM

PMM wrote:

Of course damage is important. Why for example, do people get upset about Silbury Hill being climbed? Is it because it's damaging the structure? Or because they think it should be fenced off from the rest of society, so that it can only be viewed from behind a velvet rope.

I don't agree that these monuments should be preserved behind glass. If it's possible for people to interact with our heritage without damaging it, then that seems far healthier than removing them from public contact.

I agree as long as it is well planned, no damage being caused and it awakens peoples awareness of testicular cancer or something just as life-threatening. I see it at being no different to wreaths being laid sympathetically on a cenotaph and removed afterwards.

H

harestonesdown Nov 4, 2013 02:26:24

Replying to PMM

PMM wrote:

Of course damage is important. Why for example, do people get upset about Silbury Hill being climbed? Is it because it's damaging the structure? Or because they think it should be fenced off from the rest of society, so that it can only be viewed from behind a velvet rope.

I don't agree that these monuments should be preserved behind glass. If it's possible for people to interact with our heritage without damaging it, then that seems far healthier than removing them from public contact.

I've no problem people with an interest interacting with the sites, but this was whoring the man for publicity, nothing more. These people wouldn't even click to sign a petition if he were facing destruction.

They pimped the man.