Nature & Art

[Heron]

A while back I heard that someone was thinking of creating a sculpture on a beach near me at Borth where the remnants of a forest lie beneath the sands and where tree stumps and stretches of forest floor (now peat) are exposed to various extents depending on weather conditions and the tides. The sculpture is intended to commemorate the forest and be an artwork in its own right like similar statues created by Anthony Gormley elsewhere. My initial reaction to the idea was positive as such things have a devotional aspect to them, even where this is not a specific intention of the artist. This beach is significant for me, and I know for others here, because of its legendary associations with the lost realm of Cantre’r Gwaelod and with Gwyddno Garanhir.

So I awaited further news. This arrived recently with an e-mail inviting me to sign a petition to oppose the project. The originators of the petition say that such a statue (which is apparently to be made of metal) is out of keeping with the natural environment of the beach and the submerged forest. Other reasons given include “safety issues for bathers, surfers, kite surfers, sailors and other water craft” and that “the installation works would involve significant and unwarranted damage to the submerged forest, and disruption of the beach due to the use of heavy machinery”. I think these other reasons have been added for the sake of a comprehensiveness and the main objection is that such a statue doesn’t belong there. But the beach already has several human-made constructions such as wooden groynes, marker posts and flood-defence mounds in addition to the artificial reef constructed recently further out, also as part of the flood defences. These latter works involved diggers and other heavy vehicles working on the beach continually for about 18 months. So what would be needed to put up a statue should pale into insignificance by comparison.

And yet, I do sympathise with the point made by the objectors that natural environments should be protected and I’m aware that if the project was for something I considered more frivolous, or to commemorate something or someone I didn’t approve of, I would have signed the petition. It is likely that the objectors think the proposed statue is frivolous. It certainly would be a human imposition on the beach but it seems to me that such expressions of empathy with natural objects or environments, shaped in human terms, are, as I said above, commensurate with our desire to celebrate the significance of landscapes or natural objects and are in their own way devotional activities.

So I haven’t signed the petition, though I will keep an eye on developing proposals to see if the dangers of damage to the sunken forest might actually be an issue. But I want to raise here the more general question of the balance we need to achieve between respect for the landscape and our participation in shaping it in a devotional way as part of our human presence within it.

What do people think?

[wolfgrin]

In my person opinion, I would probably sign it. Here's why:

I totally agree with their environmental and safety concerns, plus the potential of damaging the very objects which the sculptures are trying to commemorate is probably more likely than not. That said, I would probably try to find out some info about the artist, contact them with my concerns (either yourself or by proposing it to the petitioners), and see if they might be willing to propose a new piece with the concerns of the public in mind.

With regards to seeking that balance between respecting nature and shaping it for devotional purposes, I think that intent and procedure can go a long way into making certain that any shapings done are respectful, safe for everyone/everything involved. For example, I recently harvested a young cedar to make into a staff which will likely be used in ritual. So I made an offering to the tree prior to its harvesting to thank it for the gift of it's life, while also promising to make it a thing of beauty so that it's life wouldn't be wasted.

I guess what I'm trying to say is... Damage to the ancient forest would be devastating. Harmful, potentially unsafe art would be just as bad. But, I also see the importance of honoring a significant landmark and piece of history, as well as a source of your personal spirituality. There's probably a better way than the current project.

[lorna]

I like Gormley's work and love his haunting sculptures on Crosby Beach. I also like the Sea Swallow sculpture on Cleveleys promenade which is based on a book by a local author and celebrates our local heritage. Such artworks bring nature and myth and landscapes and people together.

My support for a statue on Borth beach would depend on what it was and where it was placed. As it will be designed to commemorate the forest I'd support that. If it was on the promenade or on an area of beach prior to the sunken forest I would be supportive and rather excited about it. However if it was placed further out to sea and posed a risk to the sunken forest I would not support it.

I'd probably ask the spirits of the beach for their opinion before making a decision.

[Heron]

More on this HERE: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-42181213

[lorna]

I really like it and think it would be an excellent way to draw attention to the ancient forest and to rising sea levels. My only concern would be that it does like it's quite close to the petrified remains so care would need to be taken not to disturb them.

'A life threatening danger to swimmers and those (idiots) wishing to climb the sculpture'... WTF! That is Health and Safety gone mad.

[wolfgrin]

Dec 4, 2017 19:34:18 GMT -1 lorna said:

'A life threatening danger to swimmers and those (idiots) wishing to climb the sculpture'... WTF! That is Health and Safety gone mad.

I thought the same thing. That, and that it was a shame that the municipality was having to bear the financial burden of buying insurance to protect stupid people from themselves... Especially for a piece of art that is being donated (as far as I can tell, anyway)!

[Lee]

i really like the idea. a nice mirror to the petrified remains, having it emerging out of the water when the tide is in is another nice touch compared to the remains only being visible at low tides. really nice

in bronze it links to the fact its a bronze age forest.

the H&S objections are absurd.

as for damaging the peat..tough call. the remains are continually being destroyed by the tides and elements. part of me thinks that if there is a small amount of damage to a small area of what is in fairness a pretty extensive exposure, compared to the prospect of many people coming to view and think about the tree of bronze and the stumps of wood would be price to pay. it is the sort of thing i would go see as part of devotional practice.