July 13, 2008: Kelburn Castle

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

It's an idea wrapped up as an higher thought. Like: Why don't we just leave McDonald's wrappers on the Moon. We would call it trash. Some crack pot would call it urbanizing.

Which in itself raises an interesting point. Not re the moon, as no-one owns that. But how much you can treat something of (potentially) public value as a private commodity. And if it is of public value, how much the public should be responsible for its upkeep.

This is a private house. It is in fact of note because it is a private house. To protest - albeit in a subdued way - about how the owners choose to treat that house, especially if they are doing so to prvide funds for its upkeep is surely unreasonable.

However, if everyone with Roman remains on their land decided to build swimming pools/ extensions/ new houses/ supermarkets on them, then where would the rest of us look for heritage?

But then should the rest of the world have to support countries with many items of historical/ architectural interest like Egypt, as they do not have as developed an economy...?

To my mind there should be some national intervention (we have the horribly ineffective & political and bribe-suspected English Heritage). But then we're spoiled by a wealth of history and know we can happily bulldoze plenty without many people being any the wiser. What we got rid of in the 60s! Woooo-eeeee! Progress? Nope. It all had to be rebuilt in the 90s anyway.

I ended up falling in love with the biggest eyesore in my home town. I'd join any campaign to keep it if they suggested pulling it down now. Let it serve as a warning. But if they decided to paint it like Kelburn Castle? Yay! You'd need a few more buckets of paint though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

snip~ And if it is of public value, how much the public should be responsible for its upkeep.

This is a private house. It is in fact of note because it is a private house. To protest - albeit in a subdued way - about how the owners choose to treat that house, especially if they are doing so to prvide funds for its upkeep is surely unreasonable. snip~

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So the Earl and his Mrs, got permission from Historic Scotland to bring four (in)famous graffiti artists from Brazil, and paint the place.

Does Historic Scotland provide help for owners of this type of property, or just watch them to make sure they don't mess up historical properties?

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Which in itself raises an interesting point. Not re the moon, as no-one owns that. But how much you can treat something of (potentially) public value as a private commodity. And if it is of public value, how much the public should be responsible for its upkeep.

This is a private house. It is in fact of note because it is a private house. To protest - albeit in a subdued way - about how the owners choose to treat that house, especially if they are doing so to prvide funds for its upkeep is surely unreasonable.

However, if everyone with Roman remains on their land decided to build swimming pools/ extensions/ new houses/ supermarkets on them, then where would the rest of us look for heritage?

But then should the rest of the world have to support countries with many items of historical/ architectural interest like Egypt, as they do not have as developed an economy...?

To my mind there should be some national intervention (we have the horribly ineffective & political and bribe-suspected English Heritage). But then we're spoiled by a wealth of history and know we can happily bulldoze plenty without many people being any the wiser. What we got rid of in the 60s! Woooo-eeeee! Progress? Nope. It all had to be rebuilt in the 90s anyway.

I ended up falling in love with the biggest eyesore in my home town. I'd join any campaign to keep it if they suggested pulling it down now. Let it serve as a warning. But if they decided to paint it like Kelburn Castle? Yay! You'd need a few more buckets of paint though.

I think it is not unreasonable private or no to mantain the integrity of an castle for future generations and for all time. It is cultural property and when I went google snooping I found a very interesting article. It states it is an 'International standard' regarding the preservation of cultrual property. It may not include Scotland but I am sure Scotland follows the same bylaws.

That said. It is just an opinion. I know it isn't permanent which is part of the reason the petition to paint it was accepted otherwise I guarantee it would have been denied. The Earl and his ms have every responsibility to maintain the integrity of the original structure.


There is a difference between progress preserving heritage. I guess it's just a musty ole building to some. Better buldoze it for progress sake? Maybe that's not what you are saying SG. Either way I am done talking about it.

Cheers!

Recommendation concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private works
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-U...CTION=201.html