Best Of

As @Richard_Tyndall has explained, one effect of the Climate Change Act is that, instead of drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, we import it instead. That is perverse.

Not at all, the legislation's working exactly as intended.

May got to feel self-righteous. The current Government gets to feel self-righteous. We outsource the pollution, and the profits.

It's entirely against the national interest, of course, but that's not the purpose of the legislation.

It's almost the legislative equivalent of when someone buys you a birthday present, only they've given a donation to charity instead and just add your name to it with a tag of: "Your gift is a donated school desk to a third world child". With the potentially dubious charity taking a nice fat cut.

JD Vance calls Canterbury Cathedral exhibit 'ugly'
...
Mr Vance said: "It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring 'marginalized communities' by making a beautiful historical building really ugly."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly64e0v34jo

Trendy vicar.

He is actually right though, it looks absolutely hideous. Shockingly inappropriate and utterly without any feeling for the building.

I mean, I don't know that somebody who has a face like a smacked arse and the soul of a Mafia Don is in a position to lecture. But he does, for once, have a point.

JD Vance sounds quite like Mr Bufton-Tufton mowing his lawn in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday afternoon, harrumphing in time to the Flymo. But I don't think he likes his Christianity escaping from the small box where he keeps it, and asking him awkward questions; we've seen that before with him. (Side note: that's a human characteristic, we all do it, and we all need challenging sometimes.)

I think it's a fascinating exhibit. I'm in that part of Kent for a few days in December, and I'll go and have a look. A cathedral is a place where it is appropriate to ask questions about God, and cathedrals are - and always have been - buildings for everyone, so I think it's a great idea to poke some assumptions. Some people will huff and puff, and others will have think a bit more deeply.

It was Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who famously said "The duty of the church is to comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable", which is hackneyed but a good aphorism.

We seem quite happy with Sheela-na-gigs, and this is far less provocative than those. I'd frame it far more as a Cathedral doing what cathedrals have always done.

Is this one of those exhibitions that tours round most cathedrals? Is each instance unique? How do they get the paint/medium off the stone?

(Addressed to anyone who knows, not to you specifically.)

I wonder how they'd feel if some unauthorised artist plastered graffiti on the outside walls!

The cathedral's page about it is here, but does not explain afaics:
https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/news/posts/delight-and-displeasure-art-installation-s-questions-to-god-divide-public-opinion/

I'd guess that it will be some peelable surface - which could be paint on or stick on.

I have used paint-on protection to pre-protect walls against graffiti (so you can just hose it all off and repaint to protect for next time), or once to waterproof a shower set against a stone house wall.

Amuses me that the link shows the explanation about the exhibition directly underneath their welcome to Sarah Mullaly, rather giving the impression that the exhibition is to welcome her.

Be interesting to hear if the exhibition does go on tour. Some of the exhibitions that tour cathedrals are amazing. I remember one about the moon.

FPT - I was startled to see in my Aeroplane Monthly that Rochester Cathedral recently put on show a locally made Shorts floatplane, showcasing the plane restoration volunteers' efforts and more generally engineering in the area (evidently from a local historical but also educational perspective with family activities, which usually means stuff for children).

https://www.rochestercathedral.org/floatplane

They thereby helped out the plane restorers by giving them a display venue to make their work known. Which is nice.

More generally a key point about temporary exhibitions is that they will not be there for long. Another point is that they exist to do different things, sometimes experimental. So grumping about them is pointless, especially if it is to do with the Christian message anyway.

JD Vance calls Canterbury Cathedral exhibit 'ugly'
...
Mr Vance said: "It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring 'marginalized communities' by making a beautiful historical building really ugly."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly64e0v34jo

Trendy vicar.

He is actually right though, it looks absolutely hideous. Shockingly inappropriate and utterly without any feeling for the building.

I mean, I don't know that somebody who has a face like a smacked arse and the soul of a Mafia Don is in a position to lecture. But he does, for once, have a point.

JD Vance sounds quite like Mr Bufton-Tufton mowing his lawn in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday afternoon, harrumphing in time to the Flymo. But I don't think he likes his Christianity escaping from the small box where he keeps it, and asking him awkward questions; we've seen that before with him. (Side note: that's a human characteristic, we all do it, and we all need challenging sometimes.)

I think it's a fascinating exhibit. I'm in that part of Kent for a few days in December, and I'll go and have a look. A cathedral is a place where it is appropriate to ask questions about God, and cathedrals are - and always have been - buildings for everyone, so I think it's a great idea to poke some assumptions. Some people will huff and puff, and others will have think a bit more deeply.

It was Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey who famously said "The duty of the church is to comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable", which is hackneyed but a good aphorism.

We seem quite happy with Sheela-na-gigs, and this is far less provocative than those. I'd frame it far more as a Cathedral doing what cathedrals have always done.

Is this one of those exhibitions that tours round most cathedrals? Is each instance unique? How do they get the paint/medium off the stone?

(Addressed to anyone who knows, not to you specifically.)

I wonder how they'd feel if some unauthorised artist plastered graffiti on the outside walls!

Graffiti is odd. Drop into Salthouse church on the north Norfolk coast, where centuries ago people - probably small bored boys - carved graffiti of sailing ships in the choir stalls. Pompeii has lots of carefully preserved graffiti. So does the Tower of London, Carlisle Castle and many more.

But I still dislike most modern graffiti as much as everyone else. And I fear that the cathedral is engaged in an exercise more carefully controlled than it cares to think.

(Vance's performance earlier this year towards Zelensky was a piece of aural graffiti hard to erase).

I like murals, but not usually graffiti; as art on hoardings around building sites is one exception. There's an argument for it in Penge, however.

Canterbury Cathedral do a "Historical Graffiti" tour !
https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/visit/explore-discover/historic-graffiti/

I'll make one my piccie for today: