Lobby Groups WAS Daily Telegraph letter

[Andrew Cairns]

I guess we have to be realistic; this is SPAB's position and they are going
to argue it whether we think it is reasonable or not. Is the CCCBR the best
organisation to represent our position? Lets leave aside what many see as
the deficiencies of the CC. EH and SPAB are consulted on many different
aspects of our heritage and not just bells (obviously). This inevitably
gives them a sense of importance that the CC does not and will never have.
Could there be some sort of organisation that might represent a broader
group and so have more influence? At a church level there are similar
problems faced by organists, choirs and congregations who want to either
replace irrepairable organs or modernise church buildings to keep them in
use. 
 
Andrew


From: John Harrison
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Daily Telegraph letter 
 
> SPAB's manifesto:-

>  <http://www.spab.org.uk/what-is-spab/spabs-purpose/>
http://www.spab.org.uk/what-is-spab/spabs-purpose/

Interesting reading:

'Repair not Restore'
'Although no building can withstand decay, neglect and depredation
entirely, neither can aesthetic judgement nor archaeological proof justify
the reproduction of worn or missing parts. Only as a practical expedient on
a small scale can a case for restoration be argued.'

That suggests that a block of masonry that has weathered away should not be
replaced with new stone, and that if it is, it should not be carved to
match the profile of the piece being replaced. Yet from my observation,
that is standard practice on most cathedrals with heavily eroded stonework.
 



  
.
 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5029388/grpspId=1707285820/msgId
=15960/stime=1256251296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> 


           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20091023/dd150686/attachment.html>