[Stones] So, is this what some think of our heritage?

[Ric]

Hi,

please let me clarify my position, here?

in this discussion, i am using the term 'art'
subjectively, in it's broadest meaning. and i am
speaking from the standpoint of the 21st century. for
me, architecture falls under this broad
meaning-category, because it is a form of *design* - i
might call it 'applied art', or great or mediocre art,
but it is still 'art' to me, and this is the analogy i
draw between megalithic structures and modern concepts
of architecture-as-art

i further believe, from a modern perspective, that
there is an element of sculpture or three dimensional
art, within the neolithic - Silbury Hill being an
example, falling under the late 20th century category
of 'land art'

at the very least, an observation "it's a work of art"
is a modern idiomatic expression of awe and respect
for the creator or creators of something we
subjectively value - past or present -

so, for me Avebury and Stonehenge are both 'works of
art'

i find the prospect of them staggeringly beautiful, to
a modern sensibility, when completed - through many
stages - now they are fragmented ruins, fragments of
their former selves, as their builders never intended
them to be, or to be seen: the modern concept of
'inbuilt obsolescence' is not something which can be
applied to megaliths: Avebury would be practically
intact today - after 4000 years - if ignorant people
hadn't severely vandalised the monument in the Common
Era.

i personally view the 'moratorium' on the restoration
of Avebury as a direct perpetuation of the vandalism
visited on the monument during the 14th and 18th
centuries; with little doubt, the Establishment now
has the technology and expertise, to a great extent,
to reverse the depredations of antiquity, and restore
to us our heritage for posterity: however, they do
next to nothing at Avebury

Silbury is being (internally) restored; West Kennet
Long Barrow was completely restored during the 1950's;
Wayland's Smithy long barrow has been restored, the
Nine Maidens stone circle in Cornwall has been newly
restored; Newgrange - restored; but, Avebury? no. why?


Ric


--- Thelma Wilcox <thelmawilcox at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>  
>    
>   
> Andy Norfolk <andy.norfolk at connectfree.co.uk> wrote:
>    
>   built them certainly took an artistic approach to
> their construction.
>    
>   This is an interesting discussion but art, or its
> interpretation, is very subjective. How, for
> instance, can you justify the above without knowing
> the intention of the people who constructed it. 
> Both Avebury and Stonehenge have several stages of
> development, not immediately apparent today. 
> Stonehenge is an imitation of a timber circle,
> beautifully crafted in its final form.  Avebury
> stones are on the whole 'undressed' stones, pulled
> down from Fyfield Down.  They have in a sense been
> quarried for their suitability, this may be to
> represent a female/male personage or just as large
> imposing entrance stones, or for the long Avenues.
> These are the thing we see today but what about the
> 'obelisk' and the three circles in the centre, that
> no longer remain.  
>   What we see today, and 'feel' about these places
> can be put in a modern context as a feeling of awe
> and wonder and also I think an undefinable spiritual
> need to see things as beautiful and aesthetically
> pleasing - but this belongs to us not to the
> original construction of the monuments.  
>   BUT how to define art is beyond my capability ;)