The value of cairns
Rob Haberfield
Studies degree at St Martin's, Ambleside, and after communicating with
various Mountain Rescue Teams and statutory associations i am now
interested in the views, or feelings, of the people who use the fells
day in and day out. Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
these navigational aids?' (cairns)
I have posted a similar message upon ukclimbing.com, received some
quality feedback and have been advised to air the same questio upon
your site. (Thanks for the tip, one Simon Caldwell!)
It is purely a qualitative thesis, so much of my research is on
opinion, there seems to be little written about cairns (still trying
to filter through the numerous issues of Angry Corrie for info) and so
far it has proved to be a quality disscussion. If you have any further
comments, or feel you don't want to air them on this particular site
my email is cairn...@hotmail.com
Any feedback is greatly appreciated and shall be used purely for this
assignment.
Cheers and see you at the crags
Rob H
Martin Richardson
Haberfield <cairn...@hotmail.com> writes
>I am currently in the midst of my dissertation, part of my BSc Outdoor
>Studies degree at St Martin's, Ambleside, and after communicating with
>various Mountain Rescue Teams and statutory associations i am now
>interested in the views, or feelings, of the people who use the fells
>day in and day out. Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
>these navigational aids?' (cairns)
>
>I have posted a similar message upon ukclimbing.com, received some
>quality feedback and have been advised to air the same questio upon
>your site. (Thanks for the tip, one Simon Caldwell!)
>
I think any person made construction above the intake wall is unwelcome
- particularly bloody cairns. If you want a fuller explanation I suggest
you look up cairns using the Google newsgroup thingy.
Occasionally a small well constructed cairn on the very summit is just
about acceptable. But otherwise - NO.
They are unsightly, unnecessary and probably dangerous if anyone was to
rely on them for navigation.
--
Martin Richardson
185/284 Munros 314/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls ?/? Deweys
89/100 English Marilyns over 400m
Richard Webb
Where else would we stuff our cans?
Richard Webb
Geoff Bowles
they'd be ideal for hiding a body. Who's going to go around dismantling the
hideous things when looking for a missing person!
"Richard Webb" <gri...@crux.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:3e516a36...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
escape
thank god for GPS.........:-)
"Rob Haberfield" <cairn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60ab5b18.0302...@posting.google.com...
Paul Saunders
> i am now
> interested in the views, or feelings, of the people who use the fells
> day in and day out. Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
> these navigational aids?' (cairns)
Firstly I should point out that cairns are not necessarily navigational aids
and you could get yourself into a lot of trouble if you make that
assumption. Some cairns may be navigational aids (ancient or otherwise),
many simply mark the position of a summit, some are positioned on crests
when the summit is out of sight, many ancient cairns form lines pointing to
specific locations (often these lines cross cliffs so it's not advisable to
follow them), some are ancient burial sites, some mark the top of descent
routes, while others mark the top of climbing routes (not recommended for
walkers) and many are built by idiots who simply think it would be cool to
build one, or dozens of them, in locations which make no navigational sense
at all.
The point is that you have no way of knowing what any given cairn's purpose
is or was, so to assume that it's a navigational aid is a very risky
assumption, and even if it is, cairns aren't directional, so how do you know
which way it's telling you to go? It's generally inexperienced walkers who
think that cairns are there to guide them. In this modern age it's far
better to simply use a "map AND (compass OR GPS)" rather than wander vaguely
around the hills following piles of stones which could lead you anywhere.
Anyway, we've discussed the cairns issue at length in the past so just do a
search on Google Groups to locate that wealth of information.
In the meantime, I did a poll on this, so check out this page to see how
over 200 people voted on this contentious issue;
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/polls.html
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Nick Kew
at the keyboard of "Geoff Bowles" <ge...@bowles.force9.co.uk> wrote:
> they'd be ideal for hiding a body. Who's going to go around dismantling the
> hideous things when looking for a missing person!
Hate to disillusion you, but they have dogs who can tell them if there's
a missing person (or part thereof) under any cairn without touching it.
Better a cairn than some ****** splashing paint around:-(
--
Wear your paunch with pride!
Graham Seed
"Rob Haberfield" <cairn...@hotmail.com> wrote >
Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
> these navigational aids?' (cairns)
>
> I have posted a similar message upon ukclimbing.com, received some
> quality feedback and have been advised to air the same questio upon
> your site. (Thanks for the tip, one Simon Caldwell!)
Ha ha! No doubt Simon was trying to think of a way to develop a rival thread
for Paul's G3 epic, but perhaps the cairn argument has had its day. In
defence of cairns I think they're brilliant surveying aids and build the odd
one in my spare time just in case I might want to observe it from somewhere
else. They also make good ornaments for the mantelpiece. (C'mon Ian.....help
me out here.......)
Graham
Peter Clinch
> I am currently in the midst of my dissertation, part of my BSc Outdoor
> Studies degree at St Martin's, Ambleside, and after communicating with
> various Mountain Rescue Teams and statutory associations i am now
> interested in the views, or feelings, of the people who use the fells
> day in and day out. Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
> these navigational aids?' (cairns)
The Big Problem with cairns is that it's often difficult to know *what*
they are. Some are, or at least were intended as, navigational aids
signposting strategic spots, but far more are just where a succession of
halfwits thought it would be nice to mark their presence.
Try navigating across the shoulder plateau on Schiehallion using cairns
and you could be up there for years! There's scores of the damn things,
and that sort of thing renders potentially useful ones pointless. Tip
for potential cairn constructors: please don't, there are too many already.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Guy Austin
"Nick Kew" <ni...@fenris.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:4f3s2b...@jarl.webthing.com...
> In article <cGe4a.3770$Lq.377578@stones>, one of infinite monkeys
> at the keyboard of "Geoff Bowles" <ge...@bowles.force9.co.uk> wrote:
> > they'd be ideal for hiding a body. Who's going to go around dismantling
the
> > hideous things when looking for a missing person!
>
> Hate to disillusion you, but they have dogs who can tell them if there's
> a missing person (or part thereof) under any cairn without touching it.
>
Yuk
Duncan Irving
Tip
> for potential cairn constructors: please don't, there are too many
> already.
>
This seems to be a widely held sentiment....I was wondering if anyone out
there would confess to demolishing cairns? This raises the problem of how
to make the area look "natural" again with a load of dirty angular blocks
lying around.
Duncan
Peter Clinch
> This seems to be a widely held sentiment....I was wondering if anyone out
> there would confess to demolishing cairns?
Oh yes!
> This raises the problem of how
> to make the area look "natural" again with a load of dirty angular blocks
> lying around.
Not generally a problem, as they're usually built where there's a ready
supply of said blocks to hand, So if you kick[1] down the cairn and
spread the rocks a little you're usually back to "natural".
Pete.
[1] one thing where boots are clearly better than sandals...
KRO
are the obvious top, the cairn itself is the "top", but the problem
is that cairns are not official or designated, so they do not
represent a safe navigational route or a fixed point.
As for spoiling of the hills, I spoil them every time I go up by
my very presence, my boots cause erosion.
So, are humans natural?
KRO
Adrian Tupper
> Studies degree at St Martin's, Ambleside, and after communicating with
> various Mountain Rescue Teams and statutory associations i am now
> interested in the views, or feelings, of the people who use the fells
> day in and day out. Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
> these navigational aids?' (cairns)
>
> I have posted a similar message upon ukclimbing.com, received some
> quality feedback and have been advised to air the same questio upon
> your site. (Thanks for the tip, one Simon Caldwell!)
<sniggers>
>
> It is purely a qualitative thesis, so much of my research is on
> opinion, there seems to be little written about cairns (still trying
> to filter through the numerous issues of Angry Corrie for info) and so
> far it has proved to be a quality disscussion. If you have any further
> comments, or feel you don't want to air them on this particular site
> my email is cairn...@hotmail.com
I can't get excited about them one way or the other. A pile of stones is a
pile of stones.
--
Adrian
Phil Cook
>Try navigating across the shoulder plateau on Schiehallion using cairns
>and you could be up there for years! There's scores of the damn things,
>and that sort of thing renders potentially useful ones pointless.
They could always dismantle them all and use the stones to build the path.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Roger Chapman
from Duncan Irving <duncan...@NOSPAM.man.ac.uk> contains these words:
Martin is already well known for demolishing cairns.
I actually think summit cairns make a point and the odd cairn on an
anonymous hillside used to be an aid to easy navigation in fog before
the days most walkers essential equipment included a 1:25,000 map and/or
a GPS.
Unfortunately most cairns are built to further erode and disfigure well
worn paths that can probably be observed from outer space in clear
weather. The remainder are positioned seemingly at random although the
odd few could possible have a use like the one that was until a few
years ago on the West Wall Traverse (Scafell) at the point where the
traverse leaves the gully in descent. Also it used to be the case (and I
haven't been there since the 70s) that the few cairns found on the
Cuillin Main Ridge were a reminder not of a blindingly obvious way
forward (as found particularly in the Lake District) but that the best
route was not immediately obvious (to say the least).
--
Roger
Looking North over the Aire Valley (and Marley Gasworks) to Rombolds Moor
Peter Clinch
> I actually think summit cairns make a point and the odd cairn on an
> anonymous hillside used to be an aid to easy navigation in fog before
> the days most walkers essential equipment included a 1:25,000 map and/or
> a GPS.
Quite so. And if that's all they'd remained, I wouldn't be bothered by
them. I'd never take down a cairn where one would be generally expected
through potential usefullness and/or historical precedent (i.e., a
summit, or marking what strikes me as a safe descent point), but the
others are fair game IMHO.
Richard Webb
Not demolishing, but removing. Yes!
Too often they are newly built and have greenery under them. You have
a duty to put the stones back in their holes and save the vegetation.
Sometimes I have rebuilt cairns. Summit cairn of Blochnie Fiold
(Rousay) was kicked all over the ground a few days earlier. Quite fun
rebuilding it.
Someone demolished the hideous cairns between Carnedd Llewelyn and Pen
yr Ole Wen. Who ever you are .....
Thank You!!!
Richard Webb
Paul Lydon
Haberfield) wrote:
[snip]
>Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
>these navigational aids?' (cairns)
IMHO cairns are acceptable if:
1) They are ancient (eg Men of Gragareth in Yorkshire Dales).
2) They mark the beginning of a descent route, a summit or serve some
other navigational purpose.
All the rest are unnecessary and ideally I would like to see them
disappear altogether.
--
Paul Lydon
Winster, Derbyshire, UK
(Remove the 'DELETE' in email address to reply)
Martin Richardson
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>The problem is ignorance and stupidity, not cairns. I get very annoyed
>by people who think they ought to destroy things which could mislead
>the ignorant and stupid. That sort of attitude lost us the Library of
>Alexandria.
>
So a scruffy pile of stones is equivalent to an Egyptian or Greek work
of literature? I think not.
--
Martin Richardson
185/284 Munros 317/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls ?/? Deweys
Martin Richardson
g...@NOSPAM.man.ac.uk> writes
it?
Simon Caldwell
<ge...@bowles.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>Who's going to go around dismantling the
>hideous things when looking for a missing person!
>
I can think of at least one person ;-)
--
The York Alpine Club at http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Outdoor photographs at http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
--
A door is what a cat is perpetually on the wrong side of.
- Ogden Nash
Simon Caldwell
<r...@gseed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ha ha! No doubt Simon was trying to think of a way to develop a rival thread
>for Paul's G3 epic, but perhaps the cairn argument has had its day.
I'd never be that rash - is that thread still going, I killed it long
ago to save on download times! I think I actually suggested that the
OP search for u.r.w. on google rather than reposting the question, but
I may be wrong, it was a few days ago now ;-)
S.
--
The York Alpine Club at http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Outdoor photographs at http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
--
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
- Oscar Wilde
Simon Caldwell
<pa...@palydonDELETE.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>IMHO cairns are acceptable if:
>
>1) They are ancient (eg Men of Gragareth in Yorkshire Dales).
>
Strange how standards (and I include my own here) change if something
is old enough. Cairns for certain purposes (or lack thereof) are
totally unacceptable if built now; but if built sufficiently long ago
they're OK. Where's the cut-off I wonder? Does 'ancient' include
Robinson's Cairn on Pillar or the Westmoreland cairn on Gable?
Graffiti is similar - if I carved my name into a crag tomorrow I'd be
in trouble, but somehow the names at Almscliff, going back over 100
years, are OK. Or if I carved a face into the middle of Black Slab
I'd probably get lynched, yet the faces at Armathwaite in the Eden
Valley are historical and therefore a good thing.
S.
--
The York Alpine Club at http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Outdoor photographs at http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
--
Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake when you make it again.
- F. P. Jones
Paul Saunders
> As for spoiling of the hills, I spoil them every time I go up by
> my very presence, my boots cause erosion.
> So, are humans natural?
Yes, humans are natural, but the things they build aren't. I make a
distinction between building cairns and erosion from walking. The former is
by design, the latter is incidental. Therefore the former is unnatural,
cairns don't come into existence by accident.
Paths do come into existence by accident, the accident of where a sufficient
number of humans happen to walk in a short enough period of time, just as
sheep tracks are created by the accident of where sufficient numbers of
sheep choose to wander.
It's important to note that one human walking up a hillside does not create
a path, so the idea that every time you go out walking you create erosion is
nonsense. There are certain trackless places in the hills that are
favourites of mine, which I've visited many times. There were no paths there
originally and there still aren't. Clearly my individual visits are not
sufficient to erode paths there, so I'm not causing erosion in those places.
It's all a question of threshold. You walk over a patch of grass and it
springs back afterwards, but if a sufficient number of people walk over the
same patch of grass in a short enough period of time, the sheer quantity of
boots flatten the grass faster than it can spring back. Once that threshold
is exceeded a path begins to form. The path isn't created by any one
individual, it's created by the accident of a large enough number of
individuals walking over the same patch of ground and thus exceeding the
threshold.
This can be seen in places which border the threshold. Over wide areas
there may be no paths, but when a bottleneck is reached, such as a narrow
ridge or a gap between obstacles, a path is formed. So these "bottleneck
paths" can seemingly originate out of nowhere and fizzle out into nothing on
the other side, due to walkers being concentrated into a small area then
spreading out again.
So the relationship between walkers and erosion is not straightforward. A
given number of walkers do not produce a specific amount of erosion, it all
depends on where they walk. If they all walk in the same place they will
cause a lot of erosion, whereas if they all walk in different places they
will cause no erosion.
The best way to minimise the cause of erosion therefore, is to spread out,
to walk over fresh unwalked grass that will spring back quickly, but simply
walking either side of an already eroded path will just spread the erosion
further, because too many other people do that, it still exceeds the
threshold. You need to walk far away from the eroded paths for this to
work. However, bottlenecks are unavoidable, particularly on ridges and
summits.
Ideally it's best to visit different places at different times. It's the
honeypots that are the main problem, too main people visiting the same
places at the same time.
I'd argue that the "peak baggers", who make a point of visiting different
hills every time they go out, cause far less erosion than the tourists,
challenge walkers and summer walkers who gravitate toward the main
attractions every weekend and visit few other hills.
As someone who likes to spread his walking around, I prefer to visit the
honeypots at times when few others are there, although once the grass has
been worn away, further erosion is unavoidable.
I do at least like to choose interesting routes though, often over trackless
ground, rather than automatically following existing paths. I guess many
people have a path-following mentality, but just because a path exists
doesn't necessarily mean that it goes where I want to go. Most paths tend
to follow the "path of least resistance" from A to B (typically car to
summit) but often I prefer to take the "scenic route". Many paths bypass
good photo viewpoints, you have to go out of your way to get to them, and
doing that often takes you away from well-worn paths.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Paul Saunders
> >IMHO cairns are acceptable if:
> >
> >1) They are ancient
> Strange how standards (and I include my own here) change if something
> is old enough. Cairns for certain purposes (or lack thereof) are
> totally unacceptable if built now; but if built sufficiently long ago
> they're OK.
But ancient cairns were generally built for a reason, even if we don't know
what that reason was. Most ancient cairns are so big that a considerable
amount of time and effort must have been put into building them, unlike
these annoying tiny cairns that idiots build in just a few minutes.
I don't have a problem with summit cairns though, ancient or otherwise,
because arguably there is a logical reason for building them there, and one
cairn per hill is not an excessive amount. Besides which, many summits
already have ancient cairns on top so there aren't many opportunities to
build new ones.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Gordon
>
>I actually think summit cairns make a point and the odd cairn on an
>anonymous hillside used to be an aid to easy navigation in fog before
>the days most walkers essential equipment included a 1:25,000 map and/or
>a GPS.
>
working if you dropped them and and and . . . .
--
Gordon
Chris Gilbert
> I can't get excited about them one way or the other.
> A pile of stones is a pile of stones.
You know, Adrian, that couldn't cairn less attitude of
yours really annoyes me sometimes.
;-)
Chris
Paul Brown
news:60ab5b18.0302...@posting.google.com...
>
> I am currently in the midst of my dissertation, part of my
> BSc Outdoor Studies degree at St Martin's, Ambleside,
You can do degrees in Outdoor Studies *and* they are based at Ambleside?
Cool. Wish they'd been available eight years ago when I was looking out for
courses. :-|
--
Paul Brown
[melt the ice to reply]
zbb...@fsmail.co.uk
The Outdoor Pursuits course at St Martins was set up 25-30 yrs ago by
Colin Mortlock and to the best of my knowledge has run continuously
ever since
Pete
do...though freely confess to kicking over irritating modern cairns lining
paths. But if someone wants to build an interesting pile of stones
somewhere...good one yer.
Pete
Rob Haberfield <cairn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60ab5b18.0302...@posting.google.com...
> I am currently in the midst of my dissertation, part of my BSc Outdoor
> Studies degree at St Martin's, Ambleside, and after communicating with
> various Mountain Rescue Teams and statutory associations i am now
> interested in the views, or feelings, of the people who use the fells
> day in and day out. Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
> these navigational aids?' (cairns)
>
> I have posted a similar message upon ukclimbing.com, received some
> quality feedback and have been advised to air the same questio upon
> your site. (Thanks for the tip, one Simon Caldwell!)
>
> It is purely a qualitative thesis, so much of my research is on
> opinion, there seems to be little written about cairns (still trying
> to filter through the numerous issues of Angry Corrie for info) and so
> far it has proved to be a quality disscussion. If you have any further
> comments, or feel you don't want to air them on this particular site
> my email is cairn...@hotmail.com
>
> Any feedback is greatly appreciated and shall be used purely for this
> assignment.
>
> Cheers and see you at the crags
>
> Rob H
Gordon
>I am currently in the midst of my dissertation, part of my BSc Outdoor
>Studies degree at St Martin's, Ambleside, and after communicating with
>various Mountain Rescue Teams and statutory associations i am now
>interested in the views, or feelings, of the people who use the fells
>day in and day out. Simply the quesiton is 'what are your views on
>
They are too small to be considered dangerous, but can be a nuisance
yapping round your heels.
--
Gordon
Simon Caldwell
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>But ancient cairns were generally built for a reason, even if we don't know
>what that reason was. Most ancient cairns are so big that a considerable
>amount of time and effort must have been put into building them, unlike
>these annoying tiny cairns that idiots build in just a few minutes.
So Robinson's and Westmorland cairns are OK, because they're well
built (rebuilt in the case of Robinsons) and built for a purpose (to
mark a viewpoint). Would the same apply if they were built today?
What if I went out at the weekend and spent a lot of time and effort
building a cairn to mark one of my favourite views, would that be OK?
And if not, why not?
S.
--
The York Alpine Club at http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Outdoor photographs at http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
--
He had the look of one who had drunk the cup of life, and found a dead beetle at the bottom.
- P G Wodehouse
Richard Webb
The hill and your knees will thank you for it.
Richard Webb
Paul Saunders
> So Robinson's and Westmorland cairns are OK, because they're well
> built (rebuilt in the case of Robinsons) and built for a purpose (to
> mark a viewpoint).
Not familiar with those.
> Would the same apply if they were built today?
Don't know, but surely the most deserved locations already have cairns on
them?
> What if I went out at the weekend and spent a lot of time and effort
> building a cairn to mark one of my favourite views, would that be OK?
A single person couldn't build the sort of thing I'm talking about in just
one weekend. I'm thinking of those really big suckas, like on Drygarn Fawr,
Y Gamriw, Garreg Lwyd and Garreg Las.
It's not just a question of piling up the stones, you'd have to collect
enough of them, and for cairns that big you'd have to do an awful lot of
walking to get enough, there just wouldn't be enough lying around in the
immediate vicinity. In the case of the first two I mentioned, they're on
grassy, boggy moorland, there are hardly any stones in the vicinity.
Probably take a large number of people many weeks or even months. On the
other hand you could get the military in to do it. It shouldn't take too
long with a company of men and a bunch of helicopters ferrying in the
stones.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Fran
> In article <b2tn8i$nl1$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
> >The problem is ignorance and stupidity, not cairns. I get very annoyed
> >by people who think they ought to destroy things which could mislead
> >the ignorant and stupid. That sort of attitude lost us the Library of
> >Alexandria.
> >
> So a scruffy pile of stones is equivalent to an Egyptian or Greek work
> of literature? I think not.
Depends what it's original purpose was I suppose. Burial
cairns are OK by me - they've been there for goodness only
knows how long and were once very important things. OTOH
there's that bloody thing on the top of Snowdon, which is
IMO a total waste of space and an eyesore to boot. Oh, and
if it ever had a useful purpose I can't imagine what it
might have been :(
--
Fran
Fran
> Nobody in this thread seems to have said they like a good sculpture. I
> do...though freely confess to kicking over irritating modern cairns lining
> paths. But if someone wants to build an interesting pile of stones
> somewhere...good one yer.
I love a good sculpture, and have often visited collections
of them in order to look at them and, if permitted, touch
them. However, we were talking about cairns, not the Turner
Prize.
--
Fran
Boo
> ago to save on download times!
Well you've missed a wide-rangeing and interesting thread. The topic drift
got as far as goldfish and the end is not yet in sight !
--
Boo
Hal Murray
>enough of them, and for cairns that big you'd have to do an awful lot of
>walking to get enough, there just wouldn't be enough lying around in the
>immediate vicinity. In the case of the first two I mentioned, they're on
>grassy, boggy moorland, there are hardly any stones in the vicinity.
What keeps a big pile of stones from sinking into the muck forever?
Is there something solid down a few feet?
--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Hal Murray
>there would confess to demolishing cairns? This raises the problem of how
>to make the area look "natural" again with a load of dirty angular blocks
>lying around.
Carins seem to like the growing conditions in the Sierra. If you
go off trail you are likely to encounter flocks of them. The old
guidebooks (Roper) often said nasty things about them. I generally
agree.
I'm talking about a small pile of rocks, typically just 3 or 4, say
a foot high. Not a major engineering feat.
Many people make a habbit of kicking them over when they don't make sense.
I've helped, maybe even done my share by now. No problem making things
look natural. Lots of rocks all over the place. The residue blends in.
I'm happy with carins to mark a hard to follow route, or mark a
point where a turn would be easy to miss. The ones I'm talking about
kicking over are the sort of places where there are 73 ways to go,
they all work fine, but 37 of them have carins.
David Laight
> IMO a total waste of space and an eyesore to boot. Oh, and
> if it ever had a useful purpose I can't imagine what it
> might have been :(
Something better than the cafe/boarding house that used to be
right on the summit...
David
Arnaud
"Fran" <u...@ynys.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.18be118bd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Pe...@mossy4.freeserve.co.uk said...
>> I love a good sculpture, and have often visited collections
> of them in order to look at them and, if permitted, touch
> them. However, we were talking about cairns, not the Turner
> Prize.
> --
Yes, far to many work involved in a cairn to be worth of selection for the
Turner Prize. A single stone rough from the hill and a tag saying "Miss
Marple eating a hot-dog" should suffice.
A.-
Chris Gilbert
> Nobody in this thread seems to have said they like a good sculpture. I
> do...though freely confess to kicking over irritating modern cairns lining
> paths. But if someone wants to build an interesting pile of stones
> somewhere...good one yer.
Check out Andy Goldsworthy's work. Some of his installation stuff
is inspirational.
http://www.hainesgallery.com/AG.work.html
Chris
Arnaud
"Simon Caldwell" <simonjc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2rm75vci8mvn9vnvt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:42:08 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
> <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> So Robinson's and Westmorland cairns are OK, because they're well
> built (rebuilt in the case of Robinsons) and built for a purpose (to
> mark a viewpoint). Would the same apply if they were built today?
> What if I went out at the weekend and spent a lot of time and effort
> building a cairn to mark one of my favourite views, would that be OK?
> And if not, why not?
>
name on rock and 15 years ago it was OK to carve "Jimmy Luvs Berta" with
your pen knife on tree trunks or to leave you sardine's tins in a hole under
a boulder, now it's not. And I don't think anyone needs a cairn to
appreciate a view. If so, the Disneyland maybe a better option.
A.-
Mike Chetham
do so religiously then in no time at all the UK will have mountain ranges to
rival the Alps in size. Give it a few years and permanent ice cap will
return and solve all this global warming palaver.
Build a cairn - build a better future for Britain!
--
Regards
Mike
Remove PANTS to e-mail
---
no-one is completely useless - they can always serve as a bad example
---
"Chris Gilbert" <chris_...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9b6b9d38.0302...@posting.google.com...
Simon Caldwell
<a.ga...@mitsumist.ac.uk> wrote:
>And I don't think anyone needs a cairn to
>appreciate a view. If so, the Disneyland maybe a better option.
>
I agree - so no objections then if I kick over some of the cairns?
Robinsons/Westmorland to start, then maybe the ones on Wild Boar Fell,
Nine Standards Rigg, ......
--
The York Alpine Club at http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Outdoor photographs at http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
--
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
Martin Richardson
<simonjc...@ntlworld.com> writes
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:39:18 -0000, "Arnaud"
><a.ga...@mitsumist.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>And I don't think anyone needs a cairn to
>>appreciate a view. If so, the Disneyland maybe a better option.
>>
>
>I agree - so no objections then if I kick over some of the cairns?
>Robinsons/Westmorland to start, then maybe the ones on Wild Boar Fell,
>Nine Standards Rigg, ......
>
>
--
Martin Richardson
185/284 Munros 317/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls ?/? Deweys
89/100 English Marilyns over 400m
Martin Richardson
Gilbert <chris_...@ntlworld.com> writes
Martin Richardson
chetham.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Has no-one thought that if we all contribute to the building of cairns , &
>do so religiously then in no time at all the UK will have mountain ranges to
>rival the Alps in size. Give it a few years and permanent ice cap will
>return and solve all this global warming palaver.
>
>Build a cairn - build a better future for Britain!
>
I used to tell my kids not to throw stones into ponds and lakes because
if everyone did it there would be no ponds or lakes left.
Sean O.
> What keeps a big pile of stones from sinking into the muck forever?
> Is there something solid down a few feet?
More cairns!
(All the way to the centre of the Earth.)
Sean
x
Ian Dainty
news:b2sp0s$g6h$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk
> Ha ha! No doubt Simon was trying to think of a way to develop a rival thread
> for Paul's G3 epic, but perhaps the cairn argument has had its day. In
> defence of cairns I think they're brilliant surveying aids and build the odd
> one in my spare time just in case I might want to observe it from somewhere
> else. They also make good ornaments for the mantelpiece. (C'mon Ian.....help
> me out here.......)
>
> Graham
I don't have a mantelpiece so i am unable to offer an opinion.
Myself and Graham met by chance the other day in Lincoln. I'm not
suggesting it counts as an expedition. But I think it must be quite
unusual for contributors of this ng to bump into each other? Neither of
us were wearing a URW cap. But we recognised each other. I could tell
his writing anywhere.
Ian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Graham Seed
"Ian Dainty" <jeff_...@hotmail.com>
> I don't have a mantelpiece so i am unable to offer an opinion.
>
> Myself and Graham met by chance the other day in Lincoln. I'm not
> suggesting it counts as an expedition. But I think it must be quite
> unusual for contributors of this ng to bump into each other? Neither of
> us were wearing a URW cap. But we recognised each other. I could tell
> his writing anywhere.
>
I shall be there again this afternoon. I was lucky enough to get a nice
young lady person. I'm going again tomorrow, Sunday (if they're open),
Monday, the whole of next week, and any time she's not busy. Costing a
fortune :-) BTW, I may well wear my cap on the off chance she's into
recreational walking within the UK.
Graham
Fran
> I shall be there again this afternoon. I was lucky enough to get a nice
> young lady person.
>
--
Fran
Roger Chapman
from "Ian Dainty" <jeff_...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
> Myself and Graham met by chance the other day in Lincoln. I'm not
> suggesting it counts as an expedition. But I think it must be quite
> unusual for contributors of this ng to bump into each other? Neither of
> us were wearing a URW cap. But we recognised each other. I could tell
> his writing anywhere.
You think that unusual? Bill Grey made unintended contact with an old
friend of mine on the summit of Fan Brycheiniog merely by reciting a
mystical incantation and then adding my name. :-)
--
Roger
Looking North over the Aire Valley (and Marley Gasworks) to Rombolds Moor
Graham Seed
Graham
Paul Saunders
> >It's not just a question of piling up the stones, you'd have to collect
> >enough of them, and for cairns that big you'd have to do an awful lot of
> >walking to get enough, there just wouldn't be enough lying around in the
> >immediate vicinity. In the case of the first two I mentioned, they're on
> >grassy, boggy moorland, there are hardly any stones in the vicinity.
>
> What keeps a big pile of stones from sinking into the muck forever?
> Is there something solid down a few feet?
Well the surrounding land is grassy, boggy moorland, but the actual summits
are made of something harder, that's probably why they're the summits...
;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Paul Saunders
> Check out Andy Goldsworthy's work. Some of his installation stuff
> is inspirational.
>
> http://www.hainesgallery.com/AG.work.html
Wool throw? Is this supposed to pass as art? Give me a break...
Can people really get away with this rubbish? If he's going to sell prints
of his "work" you'd think he'd get a half decent photographer to take the
pictures at the very least.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Mark N
I was totaly inspired by "St George and the Dragon"
http://www.hainesgallery.com/exhibition.future.html
Totally insprired to stick 3 old tin trays to the wall and sell it for a
fecking fortune ;-)
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b42717$348$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Paul Saunders
> I was totaly inspired by "St George and the Dragon"
>
> http://www.hainesgallery.com/exhibition.future.html
>
> Totally insprired to stick 3 old tin trays to the wall and sell it for a
> fecking fortune ;-)
Yeah, that's just what I need in my daily contemplative practice, a deeply
resonant abstract portal. ;-)
Look, I'd just like to clarify my point of view on modern art here.
Firstly I admit that I don't understand what most of it is supposed to be
about, so I accept that there may be many interesting things that I'm
missing, and I genuinely would like to know more about these things to gain
a better understanding and appreciation of it all, so I do have an open mind
on these matters.
On the other hand, I'm deeply suspicious and sceptical about a lot of it,
feeling that much of it has no real value at all and only gets into
galleries due to hype and bullshit.
Of course we can get all philosophical about the issues, saying that art is
about "provoking a response" and that it doesn't necessarily have to be good
to be art, or that you don't necessarily have to like it to be art, and so
on. All of which raises the never ending question of "what is art anyway?"
These modern ideas that art doesn't have to be good and you don't have to
like it - it simply needs to provoke a response - makes me wonder what the
point of it all is. I mean, what is the point of art if you don't like it?
So it provokes a response? So what? Walking down the street and seeing a
dog turd on the pavement provokes a response! Does that make it art? Does
that give it any value?
Of course, if someone encased it in glass and put it on display in a
gallery, suddenly that dog turd would indeed become art, simply because of
the artist's decision to do that. People would look at it, they'd ponder
the metaphysical implications of the response that it provoked within them,
and art aficionados would discuss "the work" at great length using
pretentious terminology that normal humans can't understand.
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if I don't like it then it has no
value. Okay, so bad art is still art. So what? Why should that give it
any value? Claiming that something has value simply because it provokes a
response, even if negative, and hyping the fact that something is "art",
whilst dismissing the issue of whether it's any good as being somehow
irrelevant, is to me completely missing the point.
To draw a relevant comparison to another art form, there's good and bad
music. Just because some music is bad doesn't mean it isn't music. But
just because it's music doesn't necessarily mean it has any value either.
Each different style of music has its good and its bad music. Within any
particular style, people don't like the bad stuff. It may provoke a
response, but have you ever heard any experts discussing the merits of crap
music simply because it provokes a negative response in them?
No, bad music is just dismissed as rubbish, but bad art somehow seems to be
elevated to a higher plane where only the enlightened can appreciate it's
value, even if they don't actually like it!
In my defence, and just to prove that I do like some modern art
(specifically photo art) here's a website I found which has some superb
modern photo art on it. I'm not saying I like everything on this site, but
most of it is extremely good indeed, well worth a long leisurely browse.
In my opinion, in order for art to have any value, there needs to be a
reasonable amount of skill and effort involved in its creation. It seems to
me that a lot of modern art doesn't have much of either.
Now this is what I call art!
http://www.pixiport.com/photo-art-gallery-1.htm
http://www.pixiport.com/gallery.htm
http://www.pixiport.com/gallery-l.htm
And just to stay on-topic, there are some excellent arty landscape photos on
that site.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Ken Saunders
....Paul...market forces will decide the value of art.If people
will buy dog turd paintings or whatever,then that is what
artists will deliver...and to stay on topic, whilst out walking.
I trod...
The Reids
>I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if I don't like it then it has no
>value. Okay, so bad art is still art. So what? Why should that give it
>any value?
call me a cynic, but painting etc seems to have gone off the rails
about the time photography came along to replace its bread and butter
function. I notice the ex chairman (?) of the ICA was on the radio the
other day saying most modern art was overhyped rubbish.
--
Mike Reid
Land of roast meat "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/castile.htm"
(see web to email)
Martin Richardson
you something to do for exercise if the walk up the hill was not enough
to help build your upper body muscles.
--
Martin Richardson
199/284 Munros 326/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls ?/? Deweys
Paul Saunders
> Actually I have thought of a value of cairns - dismantling them gives
> you something to do for exercise if the walk up the hill was not enough
> to help build your upper body muscles.
There you are Roger! That's what you're doing wrong on your walks, you
aren't dismantling enough cairns!
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Roger Chapman
from "Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Actually I have thought of a value of cairns - dismantling them gives
> > you something to do for exercise if the walk up the hill was not enough
> > to help build your upper body muscles.
> There you are Roger! That's what you're doing wrong on your walks, you
> aren't dismantling enough cairns!
That's because I spend at least the odd hour or 2 most weeks building or
repairing dry stone walls. Out on the hill I like to get away from
shifting stone. :-)
--
Roger
Looking North over the Aire Valley (and Marley Gasworks) to Rombolds Moor
Top Posters killfiled on sight
Paul Saunders
> call me a cynic, but painting etc seems to have gone off the rails
> about the time photography came along to replace its bread and butter
> function. I notice the ex chairman (?) of the ICA was on the radio the
> other day saying most modern art was overhyped rubbish.
Yes, I'd agree with that. The problem is that "realistic" art (or whatever
it's called) is pretty pointless now that you can just point a camera at
something and get a better result with virtually no effort.
What I like best is Salvador Dali type stuff. Much of his work is
"realistic" in style, but of completely unrealistic things. In other words,
he painted crazy stuff but in a realistic way, so there was still plenty of
skill involved.
I thought that was one of the advantages that art still had over
photography, but now that we've entered the digital age, this is no longer
the case, now we can do crazy stuff with photos!
One photographer who's particularly good at simulating art with photography
is John Chang McCurdy. I just did a web search to find some examples of his
photographs and found a page on your site! It seems you have that book too!
Good, isn't it?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Chris Gilbert
Paul Saunders wrote
> Yes, I'd agree with that. The problem is that "realistic" art (or
whatever
> it's called) is pretty pointless now that you can just point a camera at
> something and get a better result with virtually no effort.
I agree
> I thought that was one of the advantages that art still had over
> photography, but now that we've entered the digital age, this is no longer
> the case, now we can do crazy stuff with photos!
You differentiate between art and photography ? Not me, they're
just two strings on the same instrument.
Thing is, if it aint science then it's art. If it's art then there are no
rules
to define its correctness and whether you like it or not is purely
personal. Something that you may not like will do it for someone
else. A lot of art 'opinion' is complete bollox and isn't worth the
medium used to communicate it. Its value is entirely up to the viewer.
Chris
Paul Saunders
> > I thought that was one of the advantages that art still had over
> > photography...
>
> You differentiate between art and photography ?
Yes, in some ways.
> Not me, they're
> just two strings on the same instrument.
The have similarities and differences. In some ways they are the same, in
others they are different. My comment above simply made a distinction
between the practical differences of drawing/painting and using a camera.
As for the age old arguement of whether photography is art, I would say that
some of it is and some of it isn't. It depends on the purpose of the
photographer. A lot of photography is just "record" photography, it just
records a visual record of something and isn't intrinsically artistic (this
applies to most "snapshots").
Photography can be artistic though, if the photographer specifically has
that in mind. Art is a creative act, and you can be creative with a camera
if you put creative thought into the way you take photographs, but many
snapshooters don't. It's the difference between "taking" a photo and
"making" a photo.
> Thing is, if it aint science then it's art. If it's art then there are no
> rules to define its correctness and whether you like it or not is
> purely personal.
It's not really the "correctness" that concerns me, but the quality. I'm
not saying that bad art isn't art, I'm just saying that bad art isn't good.
It seems to me that there are a lot of bad artists who are trying to imply
that their art is good "because it's art". So even bad art is arguably good
in a sense, because it "provokes reactions" etc. And even if you don't like
it that doesn't matter because "that's not what it's about" and so on. Do
you see what I'm getting at?
> Something that you may not like will do it for someone
> else. A lot of art 'opinion' is complete bollox and isn't worth the
> medium used to communicate it. Its value is entirely up to the viewer.
Fair enough. But I still don't see how something can have any real value if
no real skill has been used to create it.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pp/pp.html
Chris Gilbert
Paul Saunders wrote
> I'm just saying that bad art isn't good.
> It seems to me that there are a lot of bad artists who are trying to imply
> that their art is good "because it's art".
....and there's usually some gobsh!te 'art' critic around the corner
willing to back their case as well.
I do sympathise with your view. The Turner Prize is a good example.
Yes, I understand it but that doesn't necessarily make it worth
getting out of bed for.
> Fair enough. But I still don't see how something can have any real value
if
> no real skill has been used to create it.
Well, something dropped on the floor can achieve a form of
appeal merely by chance. The mistake is made in trying to pretend
that you meant it to happen that way :-) Equally, something pains-takingly
constructed can elicit zilch emotional response in the intended audience
and that's just tough. Your chosen language may be the perfect vehicle in
which to communicate all that is beautiful and good in the Universe but
if nobody else in existence speaks your language then you may as well
keep your gob shut ! :-)
Chris