Panopticon - source?

Acrylic-bob · 03-04-2005, 09:28

In view of the recent discussions on this forum concerning the Panopticon proposals for the Coppice perhaps it might be of interest to take a look at where Peter Beard Has taken some of his influences from. This evening at 11:00pm ITV will show a South Bank Show documentary about Charles Jencks and his Garden of Cosmic Contemplation. This should give you some idea of the full expression of the idea of Land Sculpture and why the sample that we are being asked to accept just won't do.

WillowTheWhisp · 03-04-2005, 09:31

Thanks A-b I'll make a note of that and certainly watch it. I just can't help asking why it has to be a land sculpture anyway. What's wrong with a good old fashioned statue or something? I got a PM last night from someone who said he'd asked exactly the same question.

Acrylic-bob · 03-04-2005, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I got a PM last night from someone who said he'd asked exactly the same question.

Care to share..?

removal-man · 03-04-2005, 19:23

past my bedtime, and it would only send me to sleep if it wasnt.

Doug · 03-04-2005, 23:44

Sod it, I missed it. Was it any good?

WillowTheWhisp · 03-04-2005, 23:49

I've just watched it, despite the fact that it was on later than advertised. I can see similarities between "high form" and some of the features in Charles Jencks' garden but the shapes and forms in the latter flow beautifully in harmony with organic shapes and although I found some of it a bit too much with all the references to DNA and "Life, The Universe and Everything" I can accept that because this is his own personal garden for his own personal pleasure. I love the bridges. I love the water features, especially the small lakes/ponds with the paisly type forms with spiral pathway/mound rising above. I can see that Peter Beard may have been influenced by this to create "high form" but the concentric circles idea is far more rigid and geometric. It doesn't have the same appeal.

Also of course this is a garden and not created out of a rough moorland hill with tough old grassland. It's a private garden and that avoids the problem of vandalism as it's only open to the public once in a blue moon.

Another thought came to mind when I was looking at the man made paths spiralling the mound - if people continually walked between the two spirals or from one to the other then the form would eventually be lost as new pathways became worn. I then transferred this idea to "high form" and realised that even if it was created perfectly shaped (which given the raw materials there to work with wouldn't be easy) it could very soon change shape if people chose to walk up and over the same part of each ridge to get to the centre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Care to share..?

It was Gobsmacked who said he'd had the same opinion that I'd expressed in the other thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobsmacked

I cannot see that an earthwork on top of the Coppice which would be invisible from ground level would encourage any future visitors to go up there as they probably wouldn't be aware of it once the novelty had worn off and it no longer featured in local press.

Having said that, if you are trying to attract people to the area would it not make more sense to have something which can be seen and which people would notice and hopefully subsequently talk about? (Like the Angel of the North which has been mentioned elsewhere.) Even a piece of modern sculpture at the front of the Coppice on a level with the monument would seem more sensible than mounds or circles of earth visible only from above.

Acrylic-bob · 04-04-2005, 07:37

I think the point about Charles Jencks' Garden of Cosmic Speculation is that it was clearly thought through, at every stage he was able to point out the thinking and references behind each feature. It may have been a little incomprehensible to some, I myself felt it was a little heavy going at times, but that in no way diminishes the achievement.

If you compare and contrast what Gayle Knight and Peter Beard describe as the "rationale" behind the Panopticon -ripples etc.- you can clearly see that reasoning and meaning have been added as an afterthought rather than being the starting point from which the design flows naturally.

The thinking behind this project is as shoddy and as superficial as their attempts to convince us of its potential value to the community.

lindsay ormerod · 04-04-2005, 19:05

Have to agree there A-B;thought the "tagged on" reference to the 11th Battalion was just laughable;who do they think they are fooling with all this rubbish?