In reply to StuartG:
> I always find climbers objections to these things ironic. To believe that climbing has no negative impact on wild areas is naive in the extreme.
Indeed - in this case it's more than ironic, it's absurd. This is an area which isn't a wilderness, it's a landscape characterised by the interaction of people with the natural, wild environment. It's also one with a lot of chalk, chipping, erosion and litter!
> They just don't want anyone affecting THEIR enjoyment.
> We don't own it and shouldn't act as though we do.
Well said. It seems to me that people perceive public art (or maybe Simon Armitage's poetry specifically) as 'not their thing', while climbing and wild landscapes are 'their thing'. So maybe it feels like an unwelcome intrusion of something other people connect with and enjoy into the climber's territory.
I think public art is really important to us a society - it shows that there's more to us than function, making the economy work, and buying stuff. Art gives many people what climbing gives to climbers. And with art, you have to see quite a lot before you find something that you like, or that connects with you (well I do anyway). If it's all in art galleries, it's tucked away in a corner that people only look into if they consider themselves 'arty' - and the point of public art is try to introduce people to something they might enjoy, that might make their day memorable. I don't like every bit of public art I see, but I really like the odd thing. And seeing the odd thing I like means that I take more of an interest than I otherwise would in art generally. This adds something to my life, and I'm only one of millions of people who see those works.
This thing is going to be enjoyed by an awful lot more people than the chalk-plastered eliminates on the Back of the Calf. Seems to me it's a lot less like vandalism too.