Discussion about this post

User's avatar
The AI Architect's avatar

Brilliant piece connecting place theory to rocks. The idea that stones could "die" when removed from their orignal location is wild but makes perfect sense through the lens of categorization. I've noticed similar thinking plays out in how we talk about invasive species, where the "error" is just being somehwere unexpected.

Edge notes for patchy places's avatar

Hi Tim,

I enjoyed reading your post very much. It made me think of vising the Met Cloisters on the tip of Manhattan last year. As you might know, it’s constructed from the cloisters of five European Mediaeval churches, shipped by an American collector, George Barnard. It’s likely that those churches were built with local stone and, at the time, I wondered how those stones felt at being uprooted and reassembled so far from home. The building also struck me as a bit of an erratic, perched high up in Fort Tyron Park, out of time and now a spectacle of sorts, as some geological erratics become too.

I’ve been thinking (and writing) about stone and mobility this week – about sandstone in Edinburgh in the context of memory and ageing. Can the grains of sand from spalling rocks be considered erratics? They wander and drift and settle in landscapes, at a different pace and scale, but the process is much the same. If things get categorised according to where they are, then are they in place, because erosion is inevitable, or out of place, because they’ve eroded? If you have time, I’d be pleased to hear your thoughts on what I wrote. The piece is called Spalling.

Edi

No posts

Ready for more?