Re: Pick the bones out of this | Forum

Stonehenge 181

Image by jimit

Pick the bones out of this

Littlestone Feb 4, 2006 18:19:23

Replying to nigelswift

>Whether it would be worth accommodating those who arrive purely as pedestrians by erecting a perimeter fence round parts of the outside and charging them a couple of quid... or simply having honesty boxes or just letting them walk in free I don't know... but I'm sure it wouldn't be a major problem and wouldn't prejudice the main exercise.<

Yes, in the grand scheme of things these are details that can be mulled over at a later date - the important thing is to get something <i>better</i> up and running as soon as possible.

This is also a bit of a detail but on a personal note I'd prefer not to have a Foamhenge-type reconstruction close to the original (valuable though the recent Foamhenge reconstruction for television was). Stonehenge, as it appears today, has been painted by Turner and Constable and many others, and written about by Blake and other poets. It now has a certain mystery, a brooding pathos, which is perhaps best left alone. Let visitors recreate their own interpretation of Stonehenge rather than spelling out to them in detail, "Look, this is how it was, and this is how it looks now..."

nigelswift Feb 4, 2006 19:09:25

Replying to Littlestone

"FREE ACCESS TO THE WHOLE STONEHENGE LANDSCAPE"

I agree wholeheartedly too. It puts a whole group of potential critics firmly on our side. It also obviates the need for any perimeter fences at all and castrates at a stroke any who are prone to control freakery!

And actually, if the shuttle buses call at half a dozen points round the periphery the loss of revenue through people walking the whole distance to view the stones will be pretty minimal I'd have thought.

Best of all, it keeps to the second slogan, KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!

I also agree that Stonehenge and Phoneyhenge (NB the date, this is my attempt to get in the OED) shouldn't be intervisible. I'm a big fan of the reconstructed version but I would think seeing it in any form of juxtaposition with the original gnarled one would be so aesthetically crass as to make one weep.

I ALSO agree about the look of the landscape. I think generally the look of it now is fine other than anything twentieth century should be removed whenever the opportunity arises. We could argue forever what's "appropriate" - and what's there is obviously not the original, but I bet if it was put to a vote most people would like to see a bit of an open downland/windswept heath/Turneresque effect. I'd vote for that for sure.