There are some who think Northumberlandia is a pretty naff monument, a way in which a mining group avoided the expense of putting their slag back in the hole, and there are those who think decorating it in a particularly naff fashion (see A Landmark puts on a Bra for Charity) is no more than it deserves.
However, as our headline indicates (borrowed from here, with thanks), there are those (including us) who think it’s a bad idea. While 99% of people can see there’s a clear difference between using a public monument to make a point in a harmless way and doing the same thing in a damaging way… there are some who can’t.
The Heritage Journal 
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
10/07/2014 at 14:39
calmgrove
F4J could well be renamed Fascists for Justice for all that they care about anyone ekse.
10/07/2014 at 17:55
Weillington
Northumberlandia is a pretty naff monument.
How can you say that? It is beautiful and a fantastic piece of artistic architecture
10/07/2014 at 22:02
survivor
I came across your article on the cancer forum and i and others are disgusted that you think raising awareness of a horrible insidious KILLER disease is as you describe it – naff. How dare you ! Cancer kills thousands each year and causes untold pain on not just those unlucky to be ill but also misery stress and grief to friends and loved ones but you think that highlighting the cause is naff???? I hope you never have to go through what i and others do but if you do, consider then if it is naff to raise awareness.
10/07/2014 at 23:58
disgusted
Thoughtless selfish idiots
11/07/2014 at 04:59
heritageaction
Not sure why you would think we are less aware and less affected by cancer than you, but you are entirely mistaken.
We do have a right to an opinion though and ours is that the fact something is for charity doesn’t make it immune from criticism.
11/07/2014 at 08:16
Feona Bowey
I live in the town where Northumberlandia is located, I work in heritage and museums (EH, NT). I’m not sure how you define a monument, but Northumberlandia is a park sculpted following recent mining works in the area, I don’t think you can classify it alongside other NE monuments like Lindisfarne Priory or Warkworth/Alnwick Castle.
The land is still in the possession of Lord Ridley (Blagdon Estate). I don’t see anything wrong with it, and it raises the question once again ‘who’s owns heritage?’ (and I’m a firm believer that it is the public).
11/07/2014 at 08:40
heritageaction
Everything becomes heritage eventually. It will be scheduled in due course!
11/07/2014 at 08:43
disgusted
So no apology then? You are the one with naff opinions
11/07/2014 at 08:49
heritageaction
So no apology then? You are the one with naff opinions
None whatsoever. Did you not read what we wrote?
11/07/2014 at 08:52
Alan S.
Survivor: “disgusted that you think raising awareness of a horrible insidious KILLER disease is as you describe it – naff.”
Speaking as a survivor myself (I got the all clear in 2003), I think you’ve completely misread the article. At no point did it say that raising awareness of cancer is ‘naff’. It’s a laudable aim. However, the way in which the awareness was raised in this case was and is naff, and could have been better thought through. There have been several proven instances of ‘copycat’ desecrations of important monuments after such publicity stunts. It’s the use of monuments in a way that decreases respect for other monuments that is the point of the article.
11/07/2014 at 09:56
heritageaction
As another survivor (so far) and the author of the article, I concur Alan.
I’d also question whether, copycatting apart, decorating a hill figure is a particularly effective awareness-raising exercise. Some of those that do it (Bloodsports supporters, Big Brother TV programmes, Bookmakers and Fathers for Justice) are probably not the sort of groups a cancer charity would wish to emulate. There are very many other ways of raising awareness. This site has been “promoting awareness and the conservation of ancient sites” for a decade in many ways.
11/07/2014 at 20:56
will
Northumberlandia is not a monument and cancer awareness is not naff so I’m struggling to understand how your mind works.
12/07/2014 at 00:56
heritageaction
Probably because we didn’t say it!
12/07/2014 at 21:30
Wahid
Selfish bigots
13/07/2014 at 13:26
a7corsair
Putting aside the cancer debate, Northumberlandia is NOT a monument.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/monument
noun
1A statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a notable person or event: ‘a simple stone monument marked the nearby crash site’ ‘a monument to Magellan is in the main square of the city’
1.1A statue or other structure placed over a grave in memory of the dead: ‘a handsome monument of granite is placed over the grave’
More example sentences‘’
1.2A building, structure, or site that is of historical importance or interest: ‘the amphitheatre is one of the many Greek monuments in Sicily’
On that basis, Northumberladia is nothing more than artistic landscaping and therefore you cannot claim that by adorning it, it is damaging a monument or acting as a an example of bad practise that may harm ‘real’ monuments.
13/07/2014 at 13:39
Pat
First, any prominent public landscape feature ends up as a monument, given time. I’d say Northumberlandia is halfway to being a monument already and indeed, given another few years it will become a fully fledged scheduled one. It’s how the landscape develops.
In any case, whether it is a “monument” or not is hardly the point, is it? In the eyes of a not-very-smart bloodsports supporter looking to make a point, Northumberlandia and Uffington are equally suitable locations.
13/07/2014 at 14:08
a7corsair
Halfway to being a monument? Since it is only 2 years old then that is a rather bold statement since you inply it will be a monument in 2014 and then scheduled -as what?, I can’t be scheduled as an ancient monument can it?
To be eligible for scheduling, a monument must be demonstrably of (in the terms of the 1979 Act) “national importance”. Non-statutory criteria are provided to guide the assessment. In England these are:[3][23]
Period – meaning the length of time it remained in use; significant sites are often multi-period
Rarity – monuments with few known comparators are more likely to be scheduled
Documentation – information from earlier investigations at a site can inform on its significance
Group value – where a monument forms part of a wider geographical landscape of important sites
Survival/Condition – the degree to which the surviving remains convey the size, shape and function of the site
Fragility/Vulnerability – threats to the site from natural agencies, tourism or development can lead to a monument being scheduled for its protection
Representivity – how well the monument represents diverse similar types and/or whether it contains unique features
Potential – its ability to contribute to our knowledge through further study.
As can be seen, it cannot be scheduled as a monument unless we wait for a few hundred years at least.
As for your statement that whether it is a monument being ‘hardly the point’, well yes it is as you article clearly hinges on and tries to support itself on this very point you make. It is clearly not a monument so whatever the owners and any other groups decide to do with it is their choice and by definition, it is not sending out the wrong message re monuments since it clearly is not one. The point you make may well be a valid one, the example you cite is a poor and obviously invalid one.
13/07/2014 at 14:44
Pat
it is not sending out the wrong message re monuments since it clearly is not one.
Gosh this is hard work. Decorating an unscheduled prominent landscape feature is likely to lead to copycatting on similar scheduled prominent landscape features and is therefore potentially damaging, OK?
13/07/2014 at 16:30
Dotty
As someone originally from Northumbria I LOVE IT!!. What a wonderful way to celebrate womanhood through the development of the landscape environment and as for decorating it, a worthy cause for women and one that generate awareness harmlessly.
14/07/2014 at 06:30
heritageaction
“generate awareness harmlessly”
We’ll have to differ about that!
14/07/2014 at 18:18
Race for life
Perhaps upon reflection you might want to reconsider your stance on Cancer awareness. It beggars belief that your organisation can be so insensitive and crass.
14/07/2014 at 18:36
heritageaction
Alan S has said it best:
“Speaking as a survivor myself (I got the all clear in 2003), I think you’ve completely misread the article. At no point did it say that raising awareness of cancer is ‘naff’. It’s a laudable aim. However, the way in which the awareness was raised in this case was and is naff, and could have been better thought through. There have been several proven instances of ‘copycat’ desecrations of important monuments after such publicity stunts. It’s the use of monuments in a way that decreases respect for other monuments that is the point of the article.”
Plus, as another survivor myself, and the author, I concur with his view.