Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
slinkydevil

Three Legs on North Barrule

Recommended Posts

I agree with Rushen Spy  the three legs symbol is milked to death on the Island to the point of paranoia. Credit to this guy's enthusiam but if it gets painted it will become a maintenance issue and eventually an eyesore for the lack of it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

 Credit to this guy's enthusiam but if it gets painted it will become a maintenance issue and eventually an eyesore for the lack of it.

god almighty, a bit of perspective here.

It gets painted white, and then there's a "maintenance issue", paint gradually flakes off, eventually goes back to stone colour. Big deal. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

I agree with Rushen Spy  the three legs symbol is milked to death on the Island to the point of paranoia.

Not sure you can "milk" a symbol. But if our identity is being subsumed by the comeovers then perhaps it's needed more than ever!

However PE and PSM have their proms decked with flags, which obviously have a cost, which has nothing to do with symbolism and everything to do with being jolly. Maybe the recent furore with Rushen over paying for what are essentially shared amenities was driven by flag envy....

Have to say that the pattern adopted in 1931 would appear to be arse about face.

Edited by P.K.
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

I agree with Rushen Spy  the three legs symbol is milked to death on the Island to the point of paranoia. Credit to this guy's enthusiam but if it gets painted it will become a maintenance issue and eventually an eyesore for the lack of it.

I'll no doubt get lambasted but quite frankly I think it's nothing short of vandalism; rural graffiti.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

god almighty, a bit of perspective here.

It gets painted white, and then there's a "maintenance issue", paint gradually flakes off, eventually goes back to stone colour. Big deal. 

Ok then why bother proposing to paint it in the first place? Leave the stones in their natural state unless there is an intention to make it permanent in which case it will become a mainetnance issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If it doesn't stand up in it's natural state, it lessens it's value as a piece of art.

Maybe if Stonehenge (or whatever) was painted flourescent dayglo green it would get seen by more people? A daft extreme example I realise but I hope it makes the point.

 

eta: it's an ok idea and all that, but more thought should have been put into it. It should have been built in a clearer area away from all the other stones. More work humping the stones of course, but probably less work in the long run. 

eeta: And to take this a bit further, it could have allowed for perspective so that it could be seen clearer from a particular vantage point. In much the same way that football pitch advertising does. 

Edited by gettafa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

Ok then why bother proposing to paint it in the first place? Leave the stones in their natural state unless there is an intention to make it permanent in which case it will become a mainetnance issue

If he want's to get off his arse, lug himself over 40 times up the side of a big hill, rearrange some stones that are there already to create an "art installation" which generally celebrates the Island he loves living on and is his way of giving something positive back and he wants to paint it white, so what?! 

I find it extremely hard to see how anyone can view this as offensive (OK, it's "art" and I realise that's subjective) Do you object to the stone "nipple" on top of Cronk-ny-Arry-Laa ?

It's not harming anyone or anything, isn't offensive, hasn't cost taxpayer anything and certainly provides a talking point.

We should all be thanking our lucky stars that DfE have had nothing what-so-ever to do with this.

I think it's ace. Good on him.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gettafa said:

If it doesn't stand up in it's natural state, it lessens it's value as a piece of art.

Maybe if Stonehenge (or whatever) was painted flourescent dayglo green it would get seen by more people? A daft extreme example I realise but I hope it makes the point.

 

eta: it's an ok idea and all that, but more thought should have been put into it. It should have been built in a clearer area away from all the other stones. More work humping the stones of course, but probably less work in the long run. 

eeta: And to take this a bit further, it could have allowed for perspective so that it could be seen clearer from a particular vantage point. In much the same way that football pitch advertising does. 

White horses and giants carved in chalk hillsides need regular clearing, cleaning and whitening. Which makes the opposite point.

Im relaxed about it. Good on the guy, his family and friends.

Is it any different to cairns and tumuli?

As for the direction, there isn’t an official one. It’s been represented both ways, as have most sun symbols, including swastikas and flyflots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

White horses and giants carved in chalk hillsides need regular clearing, cleaning and whitening. Which makes the opposite point.

Im relaxed about it. Good on the guy, his family and friends.

Is it any different to cairns and tumuli?

As for the direction, there isn’t an official one. It’s been represented both ways, as have most sun symbols, including swastikas and flyflots.

Pedantry alert John - it’s ‘fylfot’ not ‘flyfot’ and a swastika is a fylfot, not distinct from one. A three branched symbol (derived from a sun symbol) is a triskele, a four-branched symbol (ditto sun), swastika included, is a fylfot.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Haha, whinge whinge moan moan. I like mad old people doing odd shit.

It's OK. It doesn't do any harm. It's not even the first time it's been done. Same thing and all the same bollox spouted about it a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Grounds Keeper Willy said:

 I’d have perhaps preferred a pagan symbol with a big willy for the irreverent novelty factor but this is ok I suppose. 

Presumably there would then be a rush of young women sitting on it knickerless in the hope of it enhancing their fecundity, as is the tradition with such artifacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, gettafa said:

Who's going to be the one to tell him he's put the legs going in the wrong direction?

The flag, with its eternal controversy about which way the legs should face and whether the lower leg should kneel or stand, is perfectly representative of not being able to make up one's mind about anything.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Pedantry alert John - it’s ‘fylfot’ not ‘flyfot’ and a swastika is a fylfot, not distinct from one. A three branched symbol (derived from a sun symbol) is a triskele, a four-branched symbol (ditto sun), swastika included, is a fylfot.

Quite right with spelling. A fylfot is a reversed swastika, or vice versa, ie going the other way. It’s a tetraskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, woolley said:

The flag, with its eternal controversy about which way the legs should face and whether the lower leg should kneel or stand, is perfectly representative of not being able to make up one's mind about anything.

 

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

Quite right with spelling. A fylfot is a reversed swastika, or vice versa, ie going the other way.

I bet you'd have got into a lot more bother in 1930s Germany for getting the swastika the wrong way around than you ever would here for inflicting similar indignity on the triskelion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...