A Proposal to The times/ Artangel Open Commission, 1998.

My idea is to build a replica of the remnant formation at Stonehenge within the distance of a daytrip from the original.

Snapshot, site visit, November, 2002.

HISTORY

‘... The earliest farmers of Britain, entering the island in the late fifth century, flourished during the course of centuries of occupation. Their population grew apace as they tilled small plots of land and herded the cattle. Organized tribally, they built great hill forts, corrals really, where they gathered their cattle each year to celebrate seasonal festivals of the harvest and perhaps, on the other side of the year, to the coming vernal season. Out of this activity there arose the political institution of chiefdoms and also the tradition of celestial observation. Both have to do with the building of Stonehenge ...’ ¹

MYSTICISM

‘... A more radical alternative, then and now, has been to abandon the settlers of Britain, and search farther afield for more distant and colorful architects. The further away they are, the less is known about them, and the more easily is the discrepancy between Stonehenge and a possible prototype evaded—for would not the shock of leaving its native land for the cold of the Salisbury plain modify any style of architecture? The ultimate personifications of this idea have been UFOnauts, infinitely remote, infinitely mysterious, infinitely capable; an earlier suggestion has been the people of lost Atlantis...’ ²

HERITAGE

‘... Issues of peoples’ rights and responsibilities remain unresolved and there has been a troubled history of alienation and confrontation around this very ancient monument which is a World Heritage site and continues to resonate as a central point in the spiritual history and in the regional consciousness of identity for people in these islands. One only has to mention topics like The Stonehenge People’s Free Festival, Religious Rights of Druids and Pagans, The Stonehenge Exclusion Zone, or New Age Travelers to find oneself in a region of seemingly irreconcilable controversy...’ ³

ECONOMY

‘... Ten years ago, three different opinion polls showed significant majorities in support of a Stonehenge Festival renewal. The F86 petition, from people residing within three-and-a-half miles of Stonehenge, was presented to the English Heritage and National Trust representatives. This petition included signatures of Amesbury business people who felt they were being denied their boost in trade, to which they had become accustomed to each June. Other local traders in support were those who did a lot of business on the site, such as in dairy and food products, chips and burgers, hardware, etc. They had all benefited considerably from the huge increase in spending money brought into the local economy....’ ⁴

TOURISM

‘... There is to be a performance of a Midsummer Night’s dream at the Stones on midsummer’s day. English Heritage pointed out that the £300 tickets were for a two-day holiday including the play, and that EH members would be offered some tickets at £15. The play is part of a trend. More and more, English Heritage is using its sites as venues for moneymaking historical theme events. Some of these seem harmless enough; at the Stones there will be, at normal prices: ‘Aubrey on Druids’, ‘Stories and mask making’, ‘Legends of King Arthur’, and ‘The History Man’. Then there are opportunities, at £12, to take photos in the Stones, or have a Sundowner drink...’ ⁵

ACCESS

‘... English Heritage intends to lift the four-mile exclusion zone for 100 Druids. The 10,000 other people expected for the solstice will still be excluded. The proposal to allow the Druids on the site was agreed at a meeting last week between the various religious groups, the police and English Heritage. It will go before Salisbury District Council for approval but the Home Secretary has a final say. Other quasi-religious groups that claim access were disappointed? Clew Everard, in charge of Stonehenge, appealed for all groups to accept the compromise. She said: “We are looking for a way in which we can allow access for all who want it.”’ ⁶

AUTHENTICITY

‘... In our more divided and diverse times, a growing range of views about Stonehenge compete and overlap. One can see in them not just the spirit of a confused age, but the backgrounds and the personalities of the individuals who propagate them. Standing back from that old Stonehenge and the separate New Stonehenge, looking at the spot in a wider landscape and a wider society, one must think also of a Before Stonehenge, an After Stonehenge and—many centuries later — a Discoverer of Stonehenge. Remembering that the word ‘Stonehenge’ is not the original lost name, but a creation from the time of Discovery, one might prefer to call this event, of which we are ourselves a late part, an Invention of Stonehenge.’ ⁷

REPLICATION

‘... It took an American, Col. Samuel Hill, to do the job properly with his full-size concrete Stonehenge, built by the River Columbia at Maryhill, Washington, in the Pacific USA, 1918–29, as a memorial to the thirteen war dead of Kickitat county.’ ⁸

1 — Leon E. Stover, Stonehenge ­ the indio-european heritage, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1978, pp181
2,4,5 — The Stonehenge Newsletter, 7/98
2,7,8 — Christopher Chippindale, Stonehenge Complete, Thames and Hudson, 1983, 1994, pp62;264;179
6 — Simon de Bruxelles, 'Druids allowed back for solstice at Stonehenge', The Times, April 15, 1998, pp9

A re-proposal in the form of a 3D scale model, presented at the exhibition ‘Publicness’, Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, January 28–March 16, 2003.

Map for model in progress, 2002.

PRESS RELEASE (excerpt)

‘... Aleksandra Mir will also present a scale model of Stonehenge II, a proposal for a work in a public space. Originally presented to the art-commissioning agency Artangel/Times commission in 1998 (and subsequently rejected), the proposal was to build a Stonehenge replica close to the original, to reduce the volume of pedestrian traffic and save this piece of cultural heritage from further destruction. To compensate for the necessary limited access to Stonehenge I, Stonehenge II would allow full access and promote a wide range of activities on its grounds. The project was proposed a second time to students on the Royal College of Art curating course, who were asked to join the artist in the production of the project over the summer of 2001. (Also rejected.) The scale model was constructed in 2002–3. Aleksandra Mir continues to further her ambition to realize this work and hopes to make contact with interested parties who wish to assist. Other projects developed by the artist specifically for the ICA, will also be shown in the space.’

texts on Stonehenge II:

Bollen, Christopher, Aleksandra Mir, The Believer, # 9, San Francisco, Dec 03/Jan 04.
Suchin, Peter, Publicness, Mute, # 26, London, 7 April, 2003.
Bradley, Will, Life and Times, Frieze, # 75, London, 2003.
Publicness, Press Release, Institute of Contemporary Art, London, January 2003.