[csurfleet]

Pic of it being carved here:


So its off the climbing, and on part of a wall, I'm not too fussed TBH...

[SA Chris]

Someone should carve a limerick into his drive. See how he likes it.

I can't find anything to rhyme with Armitage.

[Ruarl]

There once was a poet from Marsden
Who wanted a stone to carve words on
His poems were shit
They ruined the grit
So he can fuck off

Inspired...

[danm]

You miserable gits! Ra-ra-ra get oorf my grit! You sound like Farmer Palmer. Please allow me to retort:

There once was an internet climber
Who was a continual whiner
He didn't like art
So he ripped it apart
He'll never be cool like Grimer.

 

[Gus]

I quite like some of his poems, especially the one about the sperm whale. Would be psyched if that was there to greet me every time I walked up to the roaches!!!

[Percy B]

I quite like some of his poems, especially the one about sperm. Would be psyched if that was there to greet me every time I walked up to the roaches!!!

Whatever floats your boat 

While he's at his chipping, can he do a short poem in block capitals along the left arete of Jason's roof at Crookrise........Ta

[Tom de Gay]

Infidel!

[Will Hunt]

Having had the initial knee-jerk reaction I have to say I think I agree with JamieG. So long as this is done sensitively then I think there is a place for it. I remember being quite pleased when I stumbled across the 'Lady in the River' on Ilkley.

Problems:
* What Dobbin said. This shouldn't be a common practice.
* I don't like they way they say the landscape is "enhanced". Some people's experience of the landscape may be enhanced but not everybody's. In fact some will think quite the opposite.
*"Giving poetry back to the landscape". Perhaps I'm a Philistine but could somebody explain what the frig this means? I'm not sure anybody ever took poetry away from the landscape. Why can't these pretentious prats speak plainly? Ooo, sorry. I must not be 'deep' enough 

[Baron]

Do you think he carves his work on his gritstone phallus too?

[Jim]

I bet he polishes it smooth tho so he doesn't have a misfortune like someone else

[PATRuL]

Poetic licence ....

[blacky]

 

[Adi Gill]

Ilkley quarry was one of the initial locations for a poem, not sure if its still the case, perhaps a one liner beneath Superset could give me something better to stand on with plenty of "T"s "L"s and "Z"s, and a letter "W" for the starting hold so there's a good choice of crimps.

[Robbo]

Some BETA chiselled beneath probs might be more practical than poems?

[Bonjoy]

A little more objectively, I think any hubris here is being shown by climbers, who have already chipped fuck out of yorkshire's crags whether intentionally (Ilkley, Caley etc) or not (Bridestones), or leave more obvious graffiti in the form of chalk, 'temporary' though it may be.

Or you could imagine a situation where a bunch of landscape poets are presented with a climber's proposal to place over a thousand metal eyebolts into national treasure Malham Cove - just to make things a bit safer for themselves. Fair enough?

Edit: just had confirmation that the BMC's rep for the area was aware of the first one. Not sure if this extended to a consulation but watching that vid it seems placed on a spot not valuable to climbers - perhaps no coincidence. Will update if I get more info.

So it's ok to carve graffiti in the rock so long as you're middle class and call yourself a landscape poet? And it's hypocritical for a climber to be critical because idiots years ago chipped some holds and because we place bolts on limestone? Bolts aside, do two wrongs make a right? Even if climbers didn't have a collective leg to stand on it wouldn't make this any more right or sensible in my (miserable whiner's) book. As someone else pointed out this could plausible encourage more graffiti by non-middle class non landscape poets.

[PATRuL]

Perish the possibility ...
... but lets not bring class into it.
Its soo passe man.

I'm orf for another glaaaass of port daaaarling x

[yorkshireman]

suprised there are many rocks left to carve in yorkshire

that was my initial worry.as ive stated,if its done as in the picture on a bit of rock thats not likely to be climbed on,or away from a main climbing area then i dont see much of a problem but you would have expected something that permenant to have invited some consultation from other users of the moors

[Danny]

A little more objectively, I think any hubris here is being shown by climbers, who have already chipped fuck out of yorkshire's crags whether intentionally (Ilkley, Caley etc) or not (Bridestones), or leave more obvious graffiti in the form of chalk, 'temporary' though it may be.

Or you could imagine a situation where a bunch of landscape poets are presented with a climber's proposal to place over a thousand metal eyebolts into national treasure Malham Cove - just to make things a bit safer for themselves. Fair enough?

Edit: just had confirmation that the BMC's rep for the area was aware of the first one. Not sure if this extended to a consulation but watching that vid it seems placed on a spot not valuable to climbers - perhaps no coincidence. Will update if I get more info.

So it's ok to carve graffiti in the rock so long as you're middle class and call yourself a landscape poet? And it's hypocritical for a climber to be critical because idiots years ago chipped some holds and because we place bolts on limestone? Bolts aside, do two wrongs make a right? Even if climbers didn't have a collective leg to stand on it wouldn't make this any more right or sensible in my (miserable whiner's) book. As someone else pointed out this could plausible encourage more graffiti by non-middle class non landscape poets.

I understand the point you're making, but the general climbing populous does have a somewhat esoteric view of what constitutes environmentally sound practice.

I would guess that the vast majority of Joe public would be somewhat bewildered that we (as a broad group) vitriolically condemn "chipping" in, say, Shipley Glen on the one hand, whilst happily taking a big fuck off drill to do pretty much the same thing on another kind of rock.

It is, unfortunately perhaps,  a very fair point indeed.

[Bonjoy]

 I already acknowledged this point in what i said. Yes climbers put bolts in crags. Personally I don't think climbers' bolting precludes us from having an opinion on this or any other activity seeking to change the landscape (which is what I meant by two wrongs not making a right). Where does this differ from objection to 4x4 use or Burbage zip-wires, neither of which is considered hypocritical because of bolting?
 My statement that this is hubris has nothing to do with rock climbing or anything rock climbers do. To me as a human being it seems hubristic for someone to think that stamping their utterances upon the landscape for all eternity will somehow add value. Personally I think the landscape speaks well enough for itself, it doesn't need 'the man' to re-interpret it.
In the grand scheme of things I can see that the BMC are probably best giving a nod and a wink to this given their role and the importance of cosying up to the National Trust. It does surprise me that so many people seem to think it's a good idea though.
Consider this. A year or two back a local lad committed suicide by throwing himself off the top of Wimberry. In memorial to his life his friends carved RIP Danny and cannabis leaf symbols all over the base of the crag. Personally I though that regardless of the sentiments behind it this was an ugly mess which should not have happened, most climbers where of this view. How could i possibly object to this if i didn't object to some random guy being paid to chip graffiti at other crags for much less worthy reasons?

[Danny]

...which is all eminently sensible...

and yet, in principle, the "mess" you mentioned at the top of Wimberry is no more, or less, objectionable than carving a poem, or drilling limestone (something which you yourself have done IIRC?)

These are all instances of people making fairly minor alterations to rock, ostensibly for the benefit of a few, and probably to the mild, or more serious, disapproval of a few more. They are issues pertaining to the "micro-aesthetics" of an area and I would venture they're not particularly comparable to the larger scale issues you mentioned. Though many will rightly disagree with that statement - its not black and white.

As climbers I think that our main objections to rock damage are first and foremost ethical ones, secondarily aesthetic (why, otherwise would we be happy to bolt some crags but not others?) and only very marginally environmental. In fact, I reckon that most of our "environmental" concerns are very much nimbyistic. Invoke when it suits, sack it otherwise.   

I don't think that's a harsh judgement of our lot, but I think it does pay to step back a little and accommodate another point of view or two, even if it does jar our initial instincts.   

[PATRuL]

from where i sit most climbers, actually this can be extended to the human race per se (just incase anyone is worried i include my selves), can't see the wood or the trees ...
... just look at the mess of all kinds at popular crags (and the quiet ones too) and other landscapes too.
If a craving (or rock painting) adds beauty to an area then what's the problem?
Crap art (graffiti or whatever it is is crap - pretty easily identifiable in my opinion (just ask me ; ) if you're unsure)...
                         its the difference between the artist having an open heart/mind and not.  SOme acts are done consciously and so much many more are the working of the unconscious.
And we all know what the unconscious looks like, don't we Patrul?
Yes, gollum.
Rabbit.

             Its the difference between love and war.
 

[yorkshireman]

If a craving
 

a craving for chiselled rock?

i dont necessarily think anyone has the right to say someone can or cannot do these types of poetry carving,i just posted the topic to let people know what was going on whohadn't heard about it and hoped to get more information from people in the know.i think its more about finding a common ground through consultation with relevant parties i.e. the carver and the bmc so some common ground can be found.life works so much better through co-operation

[Bonjoy]

...which is all eminently sensible...

and yet, in principle, the "mess" you mentioned at the top of Wimberry is no more, or less, objectionable than carving a poem, or drilling limestone (something which you yourself have done IIRC?)

That is exactly my point. If you are ok with the commisioned graffiti then you have little moral right to object to non-commisioned graffiti (big smiley face in the middle of Angel's Share anyone, it's for charity?). You're then into the murky business of making arbitrary calls as to what is worthy/unworthy and what is/isn't visually acceptable.

If a craving (or rock painting) adds beauty to an area then what's the problem?

Yes, if, but who decides if? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's meat etc. Poetry carved in wild places offends my aesthetics but not that of others on UKB. It strikes me as being like a tattoo which might seem like a good idea now, but who knows how it will be viewed in 50-100 years time.

[SA Chris]

In most cases the person with the tattoo will be dead in 100 years.

[Johnny Brown]

Just to be clear, I'm not personally enthusiastic about this in principle, nor are any of the other BMC access reps, or office as far as I'm aware. However I can think of a couple of spots where carved text does add something to the landscape though - Wizard's Well at Alderley Edge would be the best example.

You're then into the murky business of making arbitrary calls as to what is worthy/unworthy and what is/isn't visually acceptable.

Sure. Which means the only calls you make are the ones where its not so arbitrary. I think if you look at the photo above, the piece of rock being carved is not one its worth getting into a stink over, especially now its done.

I brought the bolt argument in because if I had to defend climbers to a poet, and they brought it up, I would have to concede the argument. Two wrongs may not make a right but you'd still look like a massive self-serving hypocrite.