This bloke:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...2jPJgg4URo#t=1
Printable View
This bloke:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...2jPJgg4URo#t=1
I had a listen to his interview and didn't hear anything to indicate what we are talking about. Maybe I missed something.
You certainly did mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearman
I was TALKING TO BILL on the phone this afternoon trying to get some info for the OP.
Steve
Isn't it a protected historical site? Restoration would reduce its originality so unlikely to be allowed I would think.
Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
The dig tree though is a historical site, not a blazed tree as a result of survey, I'm not sure what the curator of a survey museum really would have to do with anything in this regard.
Martyn
I don't want to push a point but Bill's museum has in it's possession the first photo taken of the tree which shows the original palisade around it. Bill has been out there several times. He is a very interesting man & does talks about our early pioneers, history & surveyors. I honestly think he would know as much about the Dig Tree as anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushie
Steve
I've been there and it's all part of one site. Wouldn't the whole site, including the three trees, be in the historical site?
You can't restore a historical item without losing its originality and making it into a mere replica, which is less valuable the the original.
Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
How is restoring the blaze different to a Curator restoring an old masterpiece or the Sistine Chapel for example
Because its no longer the work of the original artist. Also, it may not be restored properly. If its not done right, then the original is ruined. Is it worth the risk? Sounds like the Mr Bean movie where he ruins the original priceless painting and substitutes a print, hoping no-one will notice.
I guess its like the argument about whether vehicles should be restored or just maintained. Some restorations make the object better than the original. That's OK to some people, but to others its no longer original, so they think its actually lost value. Which would you rather have - an original, maintained but battered series 1 or something which has been totally restored and is maybe better than when it left the factory? Personally, I'd rather have one which has been maintained, but not restored. Others might disagree.
Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
I think it would be a great shame for the inscriptions in the wood to be lost forever, which they will be soon unless the bark is re-opened whilst the positions of at least a couple of the blazes are still distinguishable. The tree is not, in my opinion, of historical value in and of itself except for the fact of the inscriptions that were made in it under circumstances so significant to the nation. In a few years the tree will be just another coolibah along the Cooper, in fact let's face it some time in the not-too-distant future it will probably be just another dead tree along the Cooper then just another rotting log. If there was a program of periodically re-opening the blazes, not damaging or 'restoring' the inscriptions themselves, it would at least remain a significant historical feature for the life of the tree.