Don't dismiss some of the most brilliant examples of human ingenuity to grace the planet just because the car park is full, says Kevin Rushby
Spectacular disappointment? The glass pyramid at the Louvre. Photograph: Paul Hardy/Corbis
So, according to travel journalist Felice Hardy, Stonehenge is "an isolated pile of stones in a usually muddy field". And the Pyramids are presumably boring triangular stones in a dried-up field?
Hardy was quoted in response to a Virgin Travel Insurance poll which revealed that world-class sights, such as Stonehenge, the Pyramids and the Statue of Liberty, are over-crowded, overrated and disappointing. Well, that neatly dispenses with three of the most brilliant and impressive pieces of human ingenuity to grace this planet, doesn't it?
Is this some kind of joke? An elaborate hoax designed to make a little more space for the respondents' own next visit? There is a very good reason why lots of people choose to go to these places: they evoke powerful feelings about human dreams and ideals, about the universe and our place in it. We shouldn't be dismissing them just because the car park is full.
I will admit that the packaging might have to be ignored at times - I well remember, in an act of reckless youthfulness, dodging a guard to climb up the Great Pyramid on my first visit 25 years ago. How else to join the ghosts of Napoleon's men, Henry Morton Stanley and various Viceroys at the pinnacle, marvelling at this epic wonder?
Likewise, lots of British attractions require a little patience and strategy in avoiding the carbuncular growth of shops, visitor centres and interpretation facilities. Take Fountains Abbey, in Yorkshire, one of our World Heritage sites: you can start at the visitor centre and restaurant, setting yourself up for a growl at shuffling crowds and superfluous buildings, or you can slip in the side gate, down near the village of Studley Roger. The result is quite a different experience: acres of stately sweet chestnut trees, strolling herds of deer, then finally a glimpse of the evocative ruins across Aislabie's exquisite water gardens.
In some cases expectations may be unreasonable: the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain, for example. If you believe she was a saint, then a curvy horse trough might seem disappointing. But to cast down The Louvre (second worst), the Eiffel Tower (first) and The White House (seventh) in the same breath? Let's match visitors with their sites: art-lovers should avoid engineering triumphs and so on. Lady Diana folk should stay at home with the movie of the wedding and a box of Kleenex.
Where I'd agree with the survey is that the load of visitors could be spread. Recently I stood alone in front of Gauguin's masterpiece Nevermore in the Courtauld Institute for 20 minutes before anyone else came in the room. Try doing that with any famous painting in the National, let alone at the height of the tourist season. Well-known works in The Louvre and The Prado both suffer the same fate when there are smaller, less famous collections that could do with more visitors (I'd recommend trying the murals in the Ermita de San Antonio de la Florida in Madrid if you don't want to jostle for your Goya).
As for that boring pile of stones in a muddy Wiltshire field, I reckon it's wonderful, a miraculous place. Go at dawn and watch from afar as the sun rises over it. Or, to get a little closer, join the Druids.
What do you think? Overrated or undervalued?
