F*ck. Mark S'll sort'em out.
'Little bastards' sums it up pretty well. But at least one of the little bastards had the imagination to do the eyes, rather than just scrawl c**t.
It beggars me that someone hauls themselves all the way to the Roaches just to scrawl some graffiti. What the hell's wrong with the car parks round Leek?
And cue the morons piping up about 'art' and 'what about that Simon Armitage if he can do it?'
I don't see what's moronic about debating the subject of art vs vandalism.
As I said elsewhere, my local crag has only appeared on UKC logbooks recently'. It has previously been the venue where a largely unknown sculptor practises his art. He seems to have a lot more talent than the daubers at the Roaches but the principle is the same, only the environment is different. The carvings in the quarry and elsewhere in the area are very well liked and people often incorporate them into their walks but if he moved to a more established crag , exactly the same work would be seen as vandalism.
I'm not in favour of painting our crags but to dismiss discussion as moronic is unhelpful.
As a starting point, when does a crag become out of bounds to chisellers and painters?
> I don't see what's moronic about debating the subject of art vs vandalism.
One of the things we are supposed to be capable of, as human beings, is understanding nuance and not having to turn every debate into a black and white, binary decision.
There is no "dividing line". This is criminal vandalism. That does not mean that no graffiti ever has artistic merit, but this, fairly clearly, does not.
> I don't see what's moronic about debating the subject of art vs vandalism.
> As I said elsewhere, my local crag has only appeared on UKC logbooks recently'. It has previously been the venue where a largely unknown sculptor practises his art. He seems to have a lot more talent than the daubers at the Roaches but the principle is the same, only the environment is different. The carvings in the quarry and elsewhere in the area are very well liked and people often incorporate them into their walks but if he moved to a more established crag , exactly the same work would be seen as vandalism.
> I'm not in favour of painting our crags but to dismiss discussion as moronic is unhelpful.
> As a starting point, when does a crag become out of bounds to chisellers and painters?
OK. This scrawl is utter and complete sh1te. I've set out my opinion. Would you like to take up the debate?
> I don't see what's moronic about debating the subject of art vs vandalism.
It's not the debate that's moronic, it's the context! This act of vandalism will be seen by 100% of people as "vandalism" and 0% of people as "art".
> I don't see what's moronic about debating the subject of art vs vandalism.
I would have thought that the location defines whether it is vandalism, whether it counts as art or not. If Leonardo had somehow turned up and painted a masterpiece on this bit of rock it would still be vandalism.
I do think that this whole business of "environmental art" is highly problematical (I'm not saying this graffiti is art at all), because if it's ok for talented people to do good art, what is to stop the untalented littering the environment with crap?
> There is no "dividing line". This is criminal vandalism.
There is a dividing line. It is just that this clearly lies far to one side of it.
Yes, realistic comment.
And if the great man had turned his creative attention to Stannington Ruffs?
I think they were inspired by Jean Verame, similar colour scheme.
> I do think that this whole business of "environmental art" is highly problematical (I'm not saying this is graffiti is art at all), because if it's ok for talented people to do good art, what is to stop the untalented littering the environment with crap?
I see what you're saying, but I'm not one for hard and fast rules, nor slippery slope arguments. I would say "if this piece of public art will be enjoyed by the vast majority of people, but it might be seen by a handful as "littering the environment", then I'd be happy with it, personally. I really like a bit of Andy Goldsworthy. I think "thou shalt not do art anywhere except an art gallery" would serve only to deprive us all of some great art that would have enriched our lives.
> There is a dividing line. It is just that this clearly lies far to one side of it.
Yes, certainly a better way of putting it.
Looks like the same bunch o'.... who vandalised Giants Hole recently. Thankfully they put it all on youtube, so they stand a good chance of being caught.
https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=27385.0
Luke may be getting a knock at the door..
> I see what you're saying, but I'm not one for hard and fast rules, nor slippery slope arguments. I would say "if this piece of public art will be enjoyed by the vast majority of people, but it might be seen by a handful as "littering the environment", then I'd be happy with it, personally. I really like a bit of Andy Goldsworthy. I think "thou shalt not do art anywhere except an art gallery" would serve only to deprive us all of some great art that would have enriched our lives.
I don't mind the sort of environmental art that is photographed and then dismantled or left to melt or rot or whatever, but if its effectively permanent, who is to say what is ok when it is a matter of taste? Look at the trend for littering nice places with armies of little cairns? What about the stuff on Mingulay - beautifully done but arrogant and out of place in my opinion. Same with the stuff on the beach at the end of Lochan Fada. Is it ok to destroy this stuff ( I do so with the cairns)? How do we decide what goes and what stays?
Apparently they saw loads of white smears and tick marks all over the rock and thought they could do a better job.
> I don't mind the sort of environmental art that is photographed and then dismantled or left to melt or rot or whatever, but if its effectively permanent, who is to say what is ok when it is a matter of taste?
It comes out in the wash, basically. If someone commissions something like Simon Armitage's "Stanza Stones" and everyone hates it, then they won't do it again. But if everyone loves it except a few rock climbing nerds, then it's been a success. The argument "but people will see it and take a chisel to the crimps on The Joker" is fallacious - there's already monumental quantities of chipping and carved graffiti all over the place, and some poetry which has been really deeply considered isn't going to change the behaviour of those who chip rocks.
> Look at the trend for littering nice places with armies of little cairns? What about the stuff on Mingulay - beautifully done but arrogant and out of place in my opinion. Same with the stuff on the beach at the end of Lochan Fada. Is it ok to destroy this stuff ( I do so with the cairns)? How do we decide what goes and what stays?
Not aware of the Mingulay one but the Lochan Fada was the circles on the beach, right? Andy G? I thought it was beautiful, and part of the work is its impermanence, although it will be relatively slow to return to it's "natural" state.
If you come across such a piece of art and you really hate it, then you're welcome to kick it over, I doubt there's anything stopping you. Should you? Not for me to say.
> The argument "but people will see it and take a chisel to the crimps on The Joker" is fallacious chip rocks.
Maybe, but what about this "stone balancing" "art". It seems to have led to a proliferation of visually intrusive cairns.
> Not aware of the Mingulay one.
A stone "dish" in the ground near the beach, a stone shelter near the Geirum Walls amongst others. The work of an artist who was resident on the island one summer.
> ........but the Lochan Fada was the circles on the beach, right? Andy G? I thought it was beautiful, and part of the work is its impermanence, although it will be relatively slow to return to it's "natural" state.
I thought it was totally out of place there - very arrogant appropriation of a wild, remote and beautiful place. There was actually a thread about it on here in which I expressed my disgust and, greatly to my surprise and disappointment at the time, most people argued against me. I made the point that I often have D of E groups in the area who are, obviously, told to leave no trace - what would I say to them if they decided to imitate it clumsily? I did think the riposte of a giant relief penis on the beach was quite astute and amusing though.
> If you come across such a piece of art and you really hate it, then you're welcome to kick it over, I doubt there's anything stopping you. Should you?
As I said, I do so with the cairns. I'm sure destruction would lead to the same absurd stuff you get in bolting debates: "They shouldn't have been placed, but chopping them without a full debate is as bad as the placing of them".
^^This.
We are all right to call out the vandalism/graffiti but the state the we climbers leave some boulder problems (trad routes seem to be relatively unaffected.. less traffic? Sport routes I've no idea) leaves us open to hypocrisy. A walk around any popular bouldering destination to the average Joe is likely to produce similar levels of tut. Earlier this year someone had been writing on the walls at New Mills in chalk, could only have been a climber. Just names thankfully, nothing as offensive as here but that's beside the point. Aside the rare 'respect the rock' rehash, I'm amazed the conversation is never had. Climbers are responsible for a hell of a lot of visual damage to rock around the Peak and no one seems to want to talk about it, even less so do anything about it.
National monument or vandalism on a grand scale? Discuss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rushmore
"For 14 years, Borglum blasted, chiseled, and filed the faces of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln in the granite bluff. For the Lakota, this was just one more violating act of colonization. While these presidents were leaders of the United States, each with notable historical significance, their faces on a sacred mountain was a final act of conquest. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Roosevelt coined the phrase: “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” While Lincoln, on the day after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, ordered the execution of the Dakota 38+2 at Fort Snelling in Minnesota.
Needless to say, Mount Rushmore [Six Grandfathers Mountain] is known as a shrine to democracy. Its image is synonymous with freedom and patriotism; however, the other side of its story demonstrates the lack of understanding and respect shown to the Native people who inhabited Paha Sapa for generations prior to European arrival."
https://blog.nativehope.org/six-grandfathers-before-it-was-known-as-mount-r...
> Maybe, but what about this "stone balancing" "art". It seems to have led to a proliferation of visually intrusive cairns.
So what, kick them over if you don't like them.
> A stone "dish" in the ground near the beach, a stone shelter near the Geirum Walls amongst others. The work of an artist who was resident on the island one summer.
Hard for me to comment without seeing them, or knowing who they discussed it with before they made them. Doesn't sound like something that would upset me though.
> I thought it was totally out of place there - very arrogant appropriation of a wild, remote and beautiful place.
That's a completely valid point of view. Others might feel that the artwork was so beautiful and respectful of the landscape that it enhanced it. I guess I would value your opinion highly because you clearly know and love the place, but I'd also value the opinions of others equally, or more invested.
> I made the point that I often have D of E groups in the area who are, obviously, told to leave no trace - what would I say to them if they decided to imitate it clumsily?
I don't like slippery slope arguments, and I also don't like "what am I going to tell my child" arguments (the best response is usually, "kill your shitty child"). In this case, I don't see what's wrong with having exactly this discussion with them, and saying that you believe that in landscapes like this, leaving a visual impact for others to see is in general wrong. Then kick their shitty stones at their faces while yelling "instagram this!".
> I did think the riposte of a giant relief penis on the beach was quite astute and amusing though
Ha, yes fair response I guess.
> As I said, I do so with the cairns. I'm sure destruction would lead to the same absurd stuff you get in bolting debates
Doubt it. People care about bolts, no one cares about specific little cairns.
"And if the great man had turned his creative attention to Stannington Ruffs?"
Like most rock there It would soon be strewn with rubbish and suffer vegetation growth and would probably erode away in a few decades.
> Doubt it. People care about bolts, no one cares about specific little cairns.
There has actually been quite a lot of debate about their proliferation in Scotland. For some reason I feel sort of guilty when I kick them over even though I am restoring the place - a bit weird.
> There has actually been quite a lot of debate about their proliferation in Scotland. For some reason I feel sort of guilty when I kick them over even though I am restoring the place - a bit weird.
Don't feel guilty. If someone's allowed to build them anyone else has the right to knock them down. I've destroyed hundreds of little cairns built by people who think our wonderful "natural" wild places would be improved by their pathetic little structures. Spent about an hour once destroying a host of them that were adorning those little knolls at the top of Wrynose Pass.
A very pragmatic point, but the principle remains the same.
> I don't see what's moronic about debating the subject of art vs vandalism.
> As a starting point, when does a crag become out of bounds to chisellers and painters?
When it is not privately owned on private property.
>if it's ok for talented people to do good art,
Unilaterally defacing public land? It isn't, I cannot imagine why anyone would seriously contend that it is.
It does not stop being vandalism because someone likes it.
> Looks like the same bunch o'.... who vandalised Giants Hole recently. Thankfully they put it all on youtube, so they stand a good chance of being caught.
> Luke may be getting a knock at the door..
Im not local so cant help clean up unfortunately. Is it just me who finds it strange that rather than discussing this and how best to clean it up or resolve the problem most people want to divert the topic into "what is art and what is graffiti", and "but chalk is graffiti so we are just as bad". Some folks priorities are a little skewed I think.
I noticed a few days ago that the Eagle Stone at Baslow had been visited by a Luke, seems to be quite prolific.
Hear, hear !
Within hours of the news becoming public, members of the caving community (including forum members of UKCaving & local instructors) had visited Giants Hole and started work to remove the graffiti ...
I suspect some members of this forum will still be debating whether it is art or not weeks from now.
Sad ...
The "art vs graffiti" discussion came before any mention of cleaning so it wasn't a diversion.
It's a perfectly valid response because if a piece of graffiti was deemed to be art and worth keeping then the question of cleaning would become redundant.
Less charitable people than I would look at your profile and tell you to get back in your cave......
> It's a perfectly valid response because if a piece of graffiti was deemed to be art and worth keeping then the question of cleaning would become redundant.
That has nothing to do with the graffiti in question though does it?
A picture of FB shows the boulder looking pretty much like new - a great effort by those involved, especially getting it sorted so quickly,
Chris
Insofar as no-one has yet thought it worthy of being called art, yes, I agree.
But if I paint a perfect rectangle 2mx 1.5 m in a vivid ultramarine on the Embankment tomorrow, will that be art?
Great effort by the climbers involved, much faster response than the cavers!
> Is it just me who finds it strange that rather than discussing this and how best to clean it up or resolve the problem most people want to divert the topic into "what is art and what is graffiti", and "but chalk is graffiti so we are just as bad".
Because a few hundred variations on "this really boils my piss" is not really much of a discussion. That's what FB is for.
>Is it just me who finds it strange that rather than discussing this and how best to clean it up or resolve the problem most people want to divert the topic into "what is art and what is graffiti", and "but chalk is graffiti so we are just as bad". Some folks priorities are a little skewed I think.
UKC threads can bifurcate in all sorts of weird and wonderful and interesting ways. Why should that be a problem?
Do we know who was responsible for the clean-up? Absolute heroes, I would like to send them a few quid for a pint
He does have a point about Bojo though. I thought the eyes and angry face were quite amusing on their own, in a different time and place they might even become an accepted part of the landscape, a local mini-landmark, but yes probably best not to encourage that kind of thing.
It really doesn't. One is a very popular public open escarpment with famous walking climbing and bouldering, the other is none of that. It's like equating grafitti under motorways with that on a national architectural monument.
Good to hear it's gone but Roaches rock depends more than most on it's hard surface for intensive climbing without damage so I hope this doesn't become a regular problem.
> Good to hear it's gone but Roaches rock depends more than most on it's hard surface for intensive climbing without damage so I hope this doesn't become a regular problem.
Yes, one of my favourite problems, so let's hope so.
Some years ago I developed an obscure bouldering venue in the North Tyne valley, a small sandstone crag, with perhaps 30 problems. The best of which was up an undercut, thin prow. Loca to me it was a fun place to visit occasionally, but not worth documenting.
On a subsequent visit, I discovered that the crag had become an 'installation' for a sculptor who was a 'resident artist' at the old shooting lodge on the other side of the valley (It is in itself an artist's retreat). Runic whorls redolent of the many neolithic carvings in Northumberland were scattered around the rocks and a large hole was being bored through 'my prow!'
My obscure bouldering venue had become an obscure art installation. I'm sure the sculptor will have had no idea that anyone but him had an interest in these small bits of sandstone. I suspect I am one of the few people ever to have seen the work!
Thankfully the artist's retreat isn't in sight of Bowden Doors, otherwise, it could have ended badly.
So is it art, or chipping on a grand and stylish scale? And yes the hole was bored through my prize 6c 'The Hand Axe'.
> A picture of FB shows the boulder looking pretty much like new - a great effort by those involved, especially getting it sorted so quickly,
> Chris
https://www.facebook.com/HighPeakLive/photos/a.149743565668221/748096769166...
https://www.facebook.com/AMIprofessionals/photos/p.3937881479578467/3937881...
It's probably an intersection of lay lines and an energy focus point that he can become one with and increase his aura.
Are they his lumps of rock? Probably not, it's vandalism.
So someone's hobby is balancing stones on one another, a relatively benign activity with little environmental impact and our is climbing rocks where we leave chalk, bolts (sometimes) litter, poo, tickmarks, lost wires etc.
What makes our activity more valid than theirs?
How would you feel if got to the top of a trad route and someone had removed the stake you were expecting to belay from, after all, if we're allowed to put them in...
Well done to the team who cleaned the graffiti off the Roaches btw. Sterling job.
Did he have permission from the landowner? Probably. It's not vandalism.
So how would your reasoning work with a sort of halfway house venue, like Horseshoe or Running Hill Pits?
By my reasoning the principle is the same, whereas you will have to decide what makes them more worthy than the Ruffs and less worthy than the Roaches. Popularity and volume of traffic is not necessarily a criterion of quality, as you probably know with your experience.
Recent reactions to Bell Hagg show that opinions as to a crag's worth vary greatly; I used to think it an absolute jewel but some people seem to see it as not worthy of a 400 m walk from their house.
I wonder if the artists of Lascaux or Gilf Kebir had permission from the landowner.......
Yes you're right. Let's wash them off.
After you.....
> I wonder if the artists of Lascaux or Gilf Kebir had permission from the landowner.......
The biggest difference between the prehistoric cave painters is that they actually cared about their subject and had talent. Contrast this with the fukkoff attitude and total lack of talent of the Roaches perps.
> The biggest difference between the prehistoric cave painters is that they actually cared about their subject and had talent.
And they were decorating their own living room.
The fact that they have gone to considerable trouble to get to the roaches with their spraycans is the saddening part. As a kid I used to skateboard, mess about in abandoned buildings, set fires on wasteland, generally be a nuisance and did on occasion tag up the odd boarded up building or shithole. Spraying those boulders at the Roaches was a premeditated act with the intention of upsetting people.
Does anyone know how the graf was cleaned off? Presumably pressure-washed rather than chemicals? The rock looks a bit pink where it was, like when a hold gets a lot of traffic. Will this weaken the surface at all?
That block has always had a hint of pink to it, hence Pink Wall Traverse (f7A).
There's some pics on social media of two gents with a hand pump washer and brushes. No further details as to what was in it though.
> And they were decorating their own living room.
Not true. Altamira and Lascaux were run by stone age painter/decorators (the Cromagnon brothers). It's where you'd go to choose the latest themes for your own cave. Perhaps this year we'll have red mastodons?
The main thrust of conversation on UKCaving was that perhaps the graffiti perpetrators could be educated as to the error of their ways and welcomed into the caving fold. Utter bollocks and symptomatic of current thinking by a sizeable proportion of people about transgressors. It may not be their fault as they may be deprived, vulnerable or both, so no blame or recrimination. Perhaps send them on an outdoor course where they can communicate with nature as they contemplate the error of their ways, or more likely intimidate other hill users, dump litter, stone sheep, set fires and pull down walls etc. Will this COVID never end so that they can return to their natural habitats; pissed and sunburnt on the Costa Del Sol. A slight generalisation I know but The Peak is being vandalised and trashed at an alarming rate. If atonement just short of capital punishment was really required, then identify them on social media and claim they voted Conservative and BREXIT. Social outcasts for life and trolled to the ends of the Earth! Tongue in cheek?
I wonder if there’s a Stone Age dwelling somewhere with “Live Laugh Love” painted on the wall in an ancient language?
> I think the biggest difference is that UKC wasn’t around then.
UK Caving probably was. Some of the caves in the Dales have had folks poking around in them for thousands of years.
Cavers have been around since the dawn of time. It's in the book of genesis: "on the fifth day, God created perverts".
We don't like it when it spoils the look of our rock.
But folk are trying to justify https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/crag_maintenance_vs_landscaping...
Irony 11
I've never actually used the dislike button before. Congratulations for inspiring my first usage of it.
> identify them on social media and claim they voted Conservative and BREXIT. Social outcasts for life
I'm confused. Do you want people to take responsibility for their crimes or not? F*ck up Joe's arete and you'll get your head kicked in. F*ck up the whole country, well...
A slight generalisation I know
You think? You're patronising and condescending in the same paragraph. A pretty good score here on wanker bingo.
> ... I feel sort of guilty when I kick them over even though I am restoring the place - a bit weird.
Cameron "Cairn Kicker" McNeish would be so proud of you!
A very poor attempt at solving the dot to dot puzzle that the climbers left behind.
Tricky puzzle though with all those 1's drawn on, where do you start?
> We don't like it when it spoils the look of our rock.
> But folk are trying to justify https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/crag_maintenance_vs_landscaping...
> Irony 11
Are they? I've read that thread and the majority are (rightly in my opinion) very concerned at the destruction of the ground and trees below the crag.
> Cavers have been around since the dawn of time. It's in the book of genesis: "on the fifth day, God created perverts".
Oi! What's wrong with probing around in dark, dirty holes?
I should have said "some folk"; you're right - apologies
I bet Alan Hinkes wished there had been a big cairn on Cho Oyo!
That was f*cking funny!
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...