100ft Religious statue on top of Croagh Patrick?

Fear_an_tarbh

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17369:size-matters-for-sculptor-schmalz&catid=106:features&Itemid=100194

A Canadian sculptor wants to place a 100ft religious statue on top of Croagh Patrick. He has some strong ideas on how Irish people should accept their religious background.

Christianity is what changed Ireland in to the society that we know today. When St Patrick and the other Christian evangelists came to Ireland they were met with a culture that believed in human cannibalism, human sacrifice and glorified violence. We all are Christians here in the West whether we are practicing or secular Christians and we should celebrate it, not be ashamed of it.

What do people think of this? I'm amazed at his arrogance and don't believe Croagh Patrick needs such an 'improvement'. I like it and its history going back thousands of years just fine!

StudentDad

Fear_an_tarbh wrote: »

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17369:size-matters-for-sculptor-schmalz&catid=106:features&Itemid=100194

An American sculptor wants to place a 100ft religious statue on top of Croagh Patrick. He has some strong ideas on how Irish people should accept their religious background.



What do people think of this? I'm amazed at his arrogance and don't believe Croagh Patrick needs such an 'improvement'. I like it and its history going back thousands of years just fine!

No, it's bad enough that the church saw fit to put a church on the top of the mountain. The last thing we need is a monument. A monument saying what? 'We're the kings of the castle?' It is a devisive, exclusionary notion.

SD

PogMoThoin

FFS, Nimbyism at it's finest. He's a famous sculptor and it's free, he's seeking funding in the USA so it's not costing us anything. It'll be a gift, much like the giving of the statue of Liberty to the USA. His idea behind it is that Ireland doesn't have anything like it. I think it'll look great, it'll certainly be a lot nicer than some of the shíte art we've got scattered on roundabouts and road sides that cost a fortune and mean nothing.

Lucena

Who owns the top of Croagh Patrick?

uberalles

Better to swap it for the spike on O'Connell st?

rusheen

Lucena wrote: »

Who owns the top of Croagh Patrick?

I believe there is four groups of shareholders , Mayo Co Co , Murrisk Development council , the catholic church , and some local farmers who have grazing rights.

Thankfully I dont think all of them will ever agree to the his plan.

Seems he's just looking for a job ! not as if hes offering to pay for it !

hfallada

Americans arent the best for preserving and valuing heritage. I doubt he will get the funding for it. The Irish Americans don't have the desire anymore to feel Irish and throw money at the old country.

It will be highly unlikely to get passed an bord planala who pretty much block planning permission for the sake of blocking it

rusheen

hfallada wrote: »

Americans arent the best for preserving and valuing heritage. I doubt he will get the funding for it. The Irish Americans don't have the desire anymore to feel Irish and throw money at the old country.

It will be highly unlikely to get passed an bord planala who pretty much block planning permission for the sake of blocking it

True it will never happen .
Plenty of other more appropriate sites in Mayo

cursai

it looks grand. just cause anto hasnt written on it doesnt mean it won't be tasteful.

Just Like Heaven

As he says we are all Christians here in the west. Absolutely every single one of us. A 100ft statue is pretty good. They should put a church up there though, that'd be even better.

henryporter

Looks like St Patrick at a rave with some snakes! This guy is seriously confused. Is he American or Canadian? That's like the difference between English or French.

nuac

Gosh, is it April 1st already?

this will not happen because

1. Most of Croagh Patrick is held im commonage in undivided shares between local adjoining landowners. Majority of them strongly objected to goldmining proposals there some years ago. Government responded by banning gold prospecting there.

2. Planning permission would be required. Likely to be many wellfounded objections

3 Statue would be a hazard to helicopters.

Fear_an_tarbh

nuac wrote: »

3 Statue would be a hazard to helicopters.

I hadn't thought of that, they are quite busy on that mountain compared to other mountains, not sure if they land more on the summit or on the 'saddle' part of it.

tayto lover

Inda will want his statue beside it.

Lucena

nuac wrote: »

3 Statue would be a hazard to helicopters.

If it stopped rubbish being fecked down the back of the mountain, I'm all in favour of stopping helicopters.

I walked up to the top a few years back and the amount of rubbish down the back (opposite side to the bay) was unreal. I'm not talking water bottles here, this was heavy stuff (a few yellow Calorgas canisters and the like) that could only have come up by helicopter. This is why this country is a dirty sh1thole.
Firstly, the people who were given permission to bring all that stuff up shouldn't have done it in the first place.
And secondly the people that gave the permission should have made sure they took all their sh1te back down with them.

"Ah shur f*uck it, it'll be grand", it's what made Ireland great!

nuac

Lucena wrote: »

If it stopped rubbish being fecked down the back of the mountain, I'm all in favour of stopping helicopters.

I walked up to the top a few years back and the amount of rubbish down the back (opposite side to the bay) was unreal. I'm not talking water bottles here, this was heavy stuff (a few yellow Calorgas canisters and the like) that could only have come up by helicopter. This is why this country is a dirty sh1thole.
Firstly, the people who were given permission to bring all that stuff up shouldn't have done it in the first place.
And secondly the people that gave the permission should have made sure they took all their sh1te back down with them.

"Ah shur f*uck it, it'll be grand", it's what made Ireland great!

Helicopters usually fly on CP to evacuate those hurt on the mountain.

I think the Calorgas containers are more likely to have been brought up there by those supplying hot tea etc to pilgrims.

Solair

I'm not so sure about plonking some structure on top of a scene of natural beauty.

Do we know what this statue will look like ?!

PogMoThoin

Solair wrote: »

I'm not so sure about plonking some structure on top of a scene of natural beauty.

Do we know what this statue will look like ?!

Yes, see here http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17369:size-matters-for-sculptor-schmalz&catid=106:features&Itemid=100194

Lucena

nuac wrote: »

Helicopters usually fly on CP to evacuate those hurt on the mountain.

I think the Calorgas containers are more likely to have been brought up there by those supplying hot tea etc to pilgrims.

I had thought of that alright, just wanted to rant at seeing a beautiful site destroyed by rubbish.

Solair

Hmm... I don't really like the look of it.

Also, I'm not overly keen on the idea of massive pieces of religious art in the 21st century.

Yeah, Ireland has a lot of Christian heritage and its covered in churches, statues, place names that have religious names etc

However, there's a lot more to Irish culture than that.

The early church actually kinda merged into Gaelic culture in a kind of symbiosis and adapted many old traditions, symbols and festivals.

I think it's the height of arrogance to just cast that civilisation aside as a bunch of barbarians !

The Christians also did their fair share of barbarism - inquisition, burning at stakes etc etc

Ireland's a big melange of ancient cultures, not just one.

nuac

Solair wrote: »

Hmm... I don't really like the look of it.

Also, I'm not overly keen on the idea of massive pieces of religious art in the 21st century.

Yeah, Ireland has a lot of Christian heritage and its covered in churches, statues, place names that have religious names etc

However, there's a lot more to Irish culture than that.

The early church actually kinda merged into Gaelic culture in a kind of symbiosis and adapted many old traditions, symbols and festivals.

I think it's the height of arrogance to just cast that civilisation aside as a bunch of barbarians !

The Christians also did their fair share of barbarism - inquisition, burning at stakes etc etc

Ireland's a big melange of ancient cultures, not just one.

Yes - when St Patrick got to Mayo he "took the high ground". Mountains in most countries hav e attracted worshippers of various faiths or of none.

Pagans at the time used to climb that mountain to worship Cromdúbh, god of fertility and other matters. The various holy wells around the area were probably also pagan sacred places.

Solair

You also have to remember that history is very much written by the victors. It's very easy to write off ancient civilisations when viewing them through the prism of church or colonial historians.

Also, I'd add that western civilisation - roads, architecture, writing, maths, concepts of cities, government systems, legal systems etc etc almost all stem from Ancient Rome and the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece with various local influences.

Christianity actually spread through that already established globalised structure and pretty much merged into it.

The civilisations predate the religion by a very long time.

I'm not trying to diss Christianity but, I just think it would be rather revisionist to ignore our Celtic, Gaelic, Viking, Pictish, Roman, Norman and umpteen other influences that ultimately convolved into what made us Irish.

We're not ignoring our Christian heritage either but we are maybe placing it into context more than we have done in the past.

There was a rather crude attempt to erase many aspects of culture here eg forcing the use of saints names and attempting to make traditional Irish names disappear etc etc

Ireland is a very ancient place, with a very rich and complex history and structures that predate the pyramids in Egypt!!

Something we should take huge pride in rather than just discount as ancient barbarians!

nuac

I agree with a lot of that.

Many of our traditions are pre-Christian.

I.e. we still have bonfires in the West of Ireland on the feast of St John ( about 23rd of June ) Tradition associated with bonfires i.e. taking embers home to re-light the homefire are said to be pre-chistian.

then there are the Sheila-na-gigs etc

Dudda

Ignoring the aesthetics, religious views, impact on landscape, planning permission etc. and looking at it from a practical point of view I can't see how you'd generate 10 million for this. I also think it would cost a hell of a lot more. It's an incredibly tough site. The spire in Dublin is just a metal pole and on a very flat O'Connell street that the trucks could drive up and the crane lift into position. You can't do that on Coragh Patrick with a statue like this.

About two years ago they recorded mass on top of Coragh Patrick on Reek Sunday and they had a nightmare bringing a generator and camera equipment to the top. Three helicopters were damaged trying to land on the Reek (two small local and then an army helicopter which was too big to land), a bulldozer with track tyres couldn't find grip and started sliding down and in the end the equipment was dragged up by local donkeys.

You'd need to build a road that would zig-zag up the side of the mountain to construct something like that which would have a far greater impact on the mountain. You'd end up digging away half the mountain to make the road and dig the foundations for a statue that size. That type of road/construction site entrance would cost over a million and then another million just to remove it.

Putting aside aesthetics I don't think anyone has though this through from a practical point of view.

dharma200

regardless of the cost and practical implications, this project is cultural tourism at its worst... someone (regardless of how talented) thinking they can make something, and have it displayed in peoples faces, only to up and out back home, pleased with himself and another notch on the cv... I would hope that at best this is a publicity stunt... has no one taught this sculptor the notion of respect for local heritage, culture and history? Very inspired (not) to stick a large, religious inspired lump on top of this mountain. Very very rude, ridiculous.. and I am sure worthy of the upmost vandalism should it see light of day.

Mayo Miss

Hmmmmmm a big sculpture on top of a hill in Mayo.......


I wonder has he been in contact with Joe McNamara (Achill-henge) :rolleyes:

opinion guy

Eh....human cannibalism and human sacrifice ???
I don't remember that chapter of Peig

nuac

opinion guy wrote: »

Eh....human cannibalism and human sacrifice ???
I don't remember that chapter of Peig

Don't know about cannibalism, but I heard that Cromdúbh demanded the sacrifice of virgins.

The all night pilgrimages ran up to about 30 years ago. It is alleged that some lost their virginity on the Reek on pilgrimage nights

Mayo Miss

nuac wrote: »

Don't know about cannibalism, but I heard that Cromdúbh demanded the sacrifice of virgins.

The all night pilgrimages ran up to about 30 years ago. It is alleged that some lost their virginity on the Reek on pilgrimage nights

Up until recent years the tradition for some was to go straight from the pub/disco to the reek and have it climbed before you'd sober up, so I'd say there was a bit more than prayers going on alright.

opinion guy

Right well it has to be a giant monument then I propose we put a giant 100ft high silicon chip in Leixlip. That is a better reflection of modern Ireland.....and would give one a reason to go to Leixlip

yop

Mayo Miss wrote: »

Up until recent years the tradition for some was to go straight from the pub/disco to the reek and have it climbed before you'd sober up, so I'd say there was a bit more than prayers going on alright.

Ummm, I can put my hands up for that "trick"

There was wall to wall 3somes, 4somes and snackboxes

nuac

Mayo Miss wrote: »

Up until recent years the tradition for some was to go straight from the pub/disco to the reek and have it climbed before you'd sober up, so I'd say there was a bit more than prayers going on alright.

Yes there was an urban myth in Murrisk ( if you excuse the oxymoron ) that if you could get as far as the back of Owen Campbells without falling, that that qualified as a pilgrimage. You could then wait in the bar f or the returning pilgrims.

Further due to an ancient tradition which had no statutory authoriity all pubs in the Westport to Lecanvey stayed open all night on Reek Saturday to refresh the pilgrims

Lucena

yop wrote: »

Ummm, I can put my hands up for that "trick"

There was wall to wall 3somes, 4somes and snackboxes

I call shenanigans. The snackboxes would be cold by the time you get to the top.

Notch000

thye should go for the biggest christ statue ever while there at it.
the biggest one is only 112 Ft tall (Christ cochabama Bolivia), Be a shame to wast the opertunity. Id would definetly become an instant attraction for foreign visitors, even more so than croagh patrick is already

yop

Notch000 wrote: »

thye should go for the biggest christ statue ever while there at it.
the biggest one is only 112 Ft tall (Christ cochabama Bolivia), Be a shame to wast the opertunity. Id would definetly become an instant attraction for foreign visitors, even more so than croagh patrick is already

Jaysus your cocky aren't u, better than CP itself!

Irishgoatman

1/ I feel quite sure that there's no proof that Patrick ever climbed the Reek.

2/ Drove the snakes out of Ireland from the top of what is really only a large hill? I don't think so.

So just leave it as it is. In any case, it's wearing away so fast that it will probably be worn down in a few years.:)

nuac

Oh ye of little faith!

'tis local tradition ( for a start )

and there are no snakes in Ireland since QED

Fear_an_tarbh

And its all over....he's pulling out due to 'hateful opposition':D or what you and I call well-articulated, reason-based criticism.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17430:sculpture-plans-tumble&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

PogMoThoin

Fear_an_tarbh wrote: »

And its all over....he's pulling out due to 'hateful opposition':D or what you and I call well-articulated, reason-based criticism.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17430:sculpture-plans-tumble&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

Nimbyism is the word

Neyite

Fear_an_tarbh wrote: »

And its all over....he's pulling out due to 'hateful opposition':D or what you and I call well-articulated, reason-based criticism.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17430:sculpture-plans-tumble&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

I cant even see how that statue would last a winter in Mayo with the gales coming straight in off clew bay and the atlantic. Croagh Patrick does not need to attract tourists, its got a steady stream all year around and thousands in July and any more than would further erode the paths and rubbish pollute the place.

biko

Now, I'm an atheist but it'd be kinda nice with a statue.
Maybe not that tall but twice the height of the church or so.
It is Patrick's hill after all.

There is one at the bottom but a large one up top would be ok for me.

Just Like Heaven

Aww... As much as I hate the thought of there being another religious statue anywhere in Ireland, I do love the thought of there being a 100ft tall anything in Mayo.

Mickeroo

It's a mountain at the end of the day, a natural area, something that should be protected. I think its enough of an eyesore up there with the litter strewn across the cone, the scar from the erosion that's visible 20 or 30 miles away and the church on top of it without adding another to it. I'm not trying to diminish it's cultural significance or anything but we'd be better off preserving whats there rather than trying to add stuff to it imo.

oscarBravo

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's a mountain at the end of the day, a natural area, something that should be protected. I think its enough of an eyesore up there with the litter strewn across the cone, the scar from the erosion that's visible 20 or 30 miles away and the church on top of it without adding another to it. I'm not trying to diminish it's cultural significance or anything but we'd be better off preserving whats there rather than trying to add stuff to it imo.

I can see where you're coming from, but by the same token, should the Christ the Redeemer statue not have been built in Rio? Should there be no railway to, or gift shop on top of, Pike's Peak?

Stuff gets built on top of mountains all the time.

Neworder79

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's a mountain at the end of the day, a natural area, something that should be protected. I think its enough of an eyesore up there with the litter strewn across the cone, the scar from the erosion that's visible 20 or 30 miles away and the church on top of it without adding another to it. I'm not trying to diminish it's cultural significance or anything but we'd be better off preserving whats there rather than trying to add stuff to it imo.

Well said. He didn't do his case any good with that tacky, kitsch, fugly celtic cross muppet show mish mash of a "design" either.

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from, but by the same token, should the Christ the Redeemer statue not have been built in Rio? Should there be no railway to, or gift shop on top of, Pike's Peak?

Stuff gets built on top of mountains all the time.

Considering Christ the Redeemer was built within a national park it most certainly should not have been built at all imo and would not be permitted to be built today if it were proposed. I wouldn't agree to the stuff on pike's peak either, but a great deal of that stuff has been there over 100 years at this stage.

Just because stuff is built on mountains all the time doesn't mean it should be. The reek, much like the places you mentioned, is famous for it's history and what is already there, putting a statue at the top is completely pointless and would be more akin to putting a top-hat on christ the redeemer rather than it's inital construction imo.

oscarBravo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Considering Christ the Redeemer was built within a national park it most certainly should not have been built at all imo and would not be permitted to be built today if it were proposed. I wouldn't agree to the stuff on pike's peak either, but a great deal of that stuff has been there over 100 years at this stage.

That's pretty much just an argument that people shouldn't go to the tops of mountains, tbh.

The reek, much like the places you mentioned, is famous for it's history and what is already there...

What is already there shouldn't be there, by your argument. In fact, your argument would suggest that people shouldn't climb the Reek at all.

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's pretty much just an argument that people shouldn't go to the tops of mountains, tbh. What is already there shouldn't be there, by your argument. In fact, your argument would suggest that people shouldn't climb the Reek at all. What is already there shouldn't be there, by your argument. In fact, your argument would suggest that people shouldn't climb the Reek at all.

Seriously? How does not agreeing with statues, gift shops and railways being built on top of mountains equate to people should not climb mountains? The stuff you mentioned was all built prior to the environmental movement even existing for the most part (the christ statue even predates the national park it's in), different times different standards.

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying any of the stuff shouldn't be there now, I was expressing my opinion that I would be against developments like that in a nature reserve if they were to be put forward now, as would a lot of people I would imagine. What I was also trying to say is that the likes of christ the redeemer, pikes peak and the reek all have cultural significance now due to their history and fame, they are all national monuments in their own right and I don't see why anyone would want to alter a national monument from it's current state.

oscarBravo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Seriously? How does not agreeing with statues, gift shops and railways being built on top of mountains equate to people should not climb mountains?

You also mentioned the "scar from erosion" on the Reek. That scar is a result of the mountain's current status as a visitor attraction. If you don't want a visible footpath on a mountain, you can't let people climb it.

The stuff you mentioned was all built prior to the environmental movement even existing for the most part (the christ statue even predates the national park it's in), different times different standards.

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying any of the stuff shouldn't be there now, I was expressing my opinion that I would be against developments like that in a nature reserve if they were to be put forward now, as would a lot of people I would imagine. What I was also trying to say is that the likes of christ the redeemer, pikes peak and the reek all have cultural significance now due to their history and fame, they are all national monuments in their own right and I don't see why anyone would want to alter a national monument from it's current state.

Does that mean you wouldn't have the same objection to a large statue (not necessarily of St Patrick) being built on top of Neiphin, along with a road leading up to it?

I'm not arguing with you because I necessarily disagree with you; I'm ambivalent about the idea and using you as a sounding board for teasing out my feelings on the matter. I've been to Christ the Redeemer and been wowed by the view over Rio; I've been to Pike's Peak and frozen inside a cloud (but would have been wowed by the view over the Rockies if I could have seen it).

As you say: different times, different standards. If the standards you now want to enforce were in place at the time, I wouldn't have had that view of Rio or enjoyed a fantastic railway journey to a 14,000'+ peak.

PogMoThoin

Indeed, I took a train to the top of Snowdon in Wales, the view is breathtaking, you can see Ireland on a clear day. There's even a post office at the top http://www.visitsnowdonia.info/

It's typical nimbyism to turn away something like this. It could have been a big attraction.

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

You also mentioned the "scar from erosion" on the Reek. That scar is a result of the mountain's current status as a visitor attraction. If you don't want a visible footpath on a mountain, you can't let people climb it. Does that mean you wouldn't have the same objection to a large statue (not necessarily of St Patrick) being built on top of Neiphin, along with a road leading up to it?

I'm not arguing with you because I necessarily disagree with you; I'm ambivalent about the idea and using you as a sounding board for teasing out my feelings on the matter. I've been to Christ the Redeemer and been wowed by the view over Rio; I've been to Pike's Peak and frozen inside a cloud (but would have been wowed by the view over the Rockies if I could have seen it).

As you say: different times, different standards. If the standards you now want to enforce were in place at the time, I wouldn't have had that view of Rio or enjoyed a fantastic railway journey to a 14,000'+ peak.

I'd probably object even more to a statue on Neiphin than I would to one on the Reek since neiphin is still a lot more untouched than the reek.

There's not much that can be done about the erosion now apart from maybe put in an actual trail with proper measures to try and stop it getting any worse. Would be money better spent than shelling out to get a statue up there. Most countries i've hiked or climbed in would have done that decades ago to prevent the state it's currently in but then again it's been a pilgrimage site for so long the path had probably been worn in long before that kind of thing was common practice.

I get what you're saying about your experiences and thats great, I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone (a train up wouldn't appeal to me personally though), like I said, those things are there now and are famous the world over. For me though a statue on top of the reek isn't going to make the view from the top any better or the slog any more rewarding, nor will it add any more cultural significance to the mountain than it already has, so why put it there?