WHEN TREE MEETS CAR

Tree usually wins.

Looks like it did in this case. But what an ugly tree, huh?

this poor tree got a double whammy. first it gets hit by a car, and now it has to suffer the indignity of being adorned with all of that clutter....

My guess is that someone died in this accident. I don't find the "adornment" undignified. Rather, I think, it is meant to be holy. And, whereas I might otherwise find religious decoration jarring and even annoying or laughable, in a case such as this I find it too personal and moving to pass such judgment.

 

The scene here doesn't strike me as being about the adornment. Of course, photography can always be about fascination, but it can serve sensitivity . . . either or both. This scene, to me, is not about the tree.

Perhaps I'm just irretrievably warped, but I find these roadside monuments to be many things. Some are poignant, some are tacky. I've seen funny and I've seen sad ones. There are all kinds of them. But in a larger picture (no pun intended), I think there are a lot of legitimate issues that may be addressed by such phenomena. First off, I don't think it is callous to photograph them if they are in public. Secondly, I find them to be a very interesting sociological occurrence. And thirdly, I generally do not approve of an individual or family of individuals expropriating public property for their own personal expressions (of grief or anything else).

 

These monuments both impromptu and publicly endorsed are in my opinion unsightly, unnecessary and indicative of a society in denial of death. As I drive along most any road now, I will see monuments similar to this, or the official ones dedicating this or that roadway to a fallen officer or fireman or a deceased politician. Does it not occur to anyone that eventually every square foot of every highway and byway will be covered with these memorials? Is that really the landscape we desire? And, is that really a meaningful expression of grief?

 

While I suppose there have always been a certain number of these monuments in our country and perhaps even more of them in other countries, it is only in the last twenty years that they have become so commonplace. I'm as sentimental as almost anyone (sometimes too much so), but I will never be convinced that these are appropriate responses to grief and accidental death. I know, I am not the "decider" of what is appropriate. I realize that my desires may not be the same as others, but I have to say that no matter how or when I go, I would be horrified if someone were to mark the spot with some maudlin display of sentimentality. They could take the time it would take to do it and spend it helping someone in need. They could donate the money used to make it to a worthy cause in my name. But NO monument.

 

Yes, I hear you saying that everyone has the right to express their grief in the fashion they deem appropriate, but not when it entails violation of laws, and that is exactly what this is.

 

So, as evil as that makes me, I'm opposed to more signs and more clutter. The only time it is worthwhile is when public safety demands it. I am sorry if I appear to be heartless on this issue, but I feel certain that you know I am not a heartless person.

While the story behind the memorial surely is sad, and none of us are big enough asses to laugh at that, I think we have to take a moment to laugh at an oversized novelty rose and its utter tackiness. Even though it may seem callous sometimes, it's easier to get through life by laughing than by crying, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Creating memorial tributes at accident sites is common and accepted throughout much of the world. It seems to me both a poignant and significant practice, infused with age-old symbolism.

 

Most such roadside memorials are made quietly and without publicity. They often just "appear."

There is little about such sites that implies a denial of death. On the contrary, most of the decorative items and religious tokens are clearly farewell offerings as well as symbols of grief. Unlike the bizarre balloons, teddy bears, and huge signs left for a dead celebrity, these simple accident memorials are usually created without fanfare and rarely name the accident victim(s).

 

I understand and appreciate your perspective, Dave, and I don't think it's "warped," particularly given the state of our national culture.

 

Perhaps I've been warped by covering too many accidents and other things. But when I look at an unpretentious memorial like this, I imagine a family and a small group of friends quickly creating what they can with what they have -- tacky or not -- creating something that in their minds says this is no longer just a tree, no, it is more than that now because a life ended here, a life that had meaning to us.

 

It is a way of paying attention, of acknowledging the loss, of saying we cannot accept the erasure of that life without taking note.

 

Because of that, I perceive an odd dignity in the memorial you've photographed, and I find it moving.

 

The picture was made with your usual skill and distinctive palette.

 

Warm regards...

Joe, you're absolutely right. Some years ago there was a very broad discussion over here if these small and often moving "monuments" should be allowed at all. The fact is however that it seems to help those who are left behind in their process of mourning. You're right also that it's age old symbolism. We seem to need that. In Japan, people put up a little altar in their homes after someone has died and every morning in passing they clap in their hands when passing it as if to say, you're still with us. It's something I very much relate too. These road signs are as much for remembering as they are a warning to others. Also they work. Who can drive passed them and not notice, they make you think of your own mortality.

You're not heartless. I find your reaction curious and surprising. But that's fine. I respect you just the same.

I think there's a photographic and a photographically-related moral issue here.

When I saw this photo, I also thought of your photo, HOMAGE TO THE PASSING OF ANOTHER YEAR. Both seem morally harmless. With HOMAGE, I was upset by what I considered to be callous and unenlightened commentary following an image of walking aids for the elderly and disabled. After a time, I stepped in and tried to steer the reactions and conversation in a different direction, toward the strength and dignity these devices offer rather than the amusement that most people were finding. Likely that amusement was more a sign of their own discomfort, but it seemed a bit of consciousness-raising was in order. I think a great aspect of photography and art is in its awareness-raising potential (among other things, of course).

David, you are putting out strong images. I was moved by your abilities and consistency of vision when scrolling through your portfolio to find HOMAGE. You do seem very objective and I think some of that is by design but I'm not sure to what extent your impersonal stance is intentional. You expressed your feelings passionately in your response to me above about this image. I did not see that passion in the photo itself. Why? The photo is a presentation without a personal characterization. Do you just want to ask the viewer's opinion and perspective, or just simply show us something? Maybe so. The only hint I get of your take on things is in your title, which seems tongue-in-cheek.

Doug may be more charitable than I am in saying that none of us are big enough asses to laugh at what is not really funny. I've seen a lot of assinine comments. I did on HOMAGE, and it made me sick, especially because I know and love a lot of people using those walkers who are dignified and strong people, thankful to use them in order to have some kind of a life. I was worried that the commentary here might become a Saturday-Night-Live-like skit about Man vs. Tree, which would have been less stimulating than the discussion of the subject that's come about.

I think that the socially conscious among us and those who are putting out images which inherently make statements about societal issues -- yours do, even if they don't always take a particular stand one way or the other -- do have a certain amount of responsibility or else we're just shooting snapshots. And I don't think you are just shooting snapshots.

Word *Phenomenon* seems to be an eloquent reference to this ever growing occurence. Monument or not, personal grief remains unchanged and I see no reason for those cultural manifestations, which in my opinion - on psychological level - go beyond demonstrations of sorrow becoming a symbol of solidarity among class of people who apparently are in need of this type of visual assurance of their unity. I am against personalizing of public space that belongs to us all. To me it is not much different from graffiti... those "artists" are also motivated by emotions... :)

After reading Fred's fine comment just above, I was moved to go back and take another look at your Homage to the Passing of Another Year. And I was surprised at how unfeeling the comments now seem, including my own.

 

The pathetic truth is that I actually did think those devices were baby strollers used by parents while shopping. (Most of the little stores out here don't supply walkers, and I hadn't yet taken a close look at a modern one. I was used to seeing the upright, boxy versions.)

 

But when I read the other comments and did realize what the devices were, I responded with a feeble attempt at wit and failed to support Fred's point about the nature of the comments being written.

 

Mea culpa.

 

That aside, my point here is that I think Fred has again raised a significant issue. But, as he made very clear, it is not about the nature of your photographic work. And although I, too, disagree with some of the tnings you wrote, my reaction was simply that -- disagreement. I didn't find your remarks in any way callous or lacking in sensibility.

 

On the contrary, I believe that your photographs are consistent and eloquent testimony to your ongoing and honorable engagement with social questions.

 

Warm regards...

First, let me say thanks to you Fred because you are so wonderfully adept at questioning my assumptions and beliefs and forcing me to dig deeper than my intellectually lazy brain normally does. I really appreciate that. It's hard to know where to begin with so many interesting comments from everyone.

 

My basic position is still one of disapproval of this type of display. As Ton pointed out, in Japan the acknowledgment of the passing of someone is done in the privacy of individual homes where they can create any memorial they desire and be constantly reminded of a deceased love one. He also states that these public memorials serve as a reminder and warning to all of us. The effect of endless displays like this is to cause one to ignore them. The more there are, the more they will not be seen. So for me that is clearly a false assumption.

 

If it is okay for someone to put up a memorial to a deceased relative or friend in any public location, is it also alright to post advertising? Graffiti? Where shall the line be drawn? (Yes, I know that sounds insensitive). Nevertheless, are we or are we not a nation of laws and rules? (And, yes, I'm a firm believer in civil disobedience.)

 

As our population grows, and with the passage of time presaging more and more of these displays, will we simply watch our roadsides be more and more adorned with these monuments? Am I the only one who believes in leaving our mountains, our trees, our pastures, etc. as natural as they can be?

 

In my portfolio you will see a whole folder dedicated to these roadside monuments. Three of the images are of the same monument taken over a period of years. Those three and the yard sale one all were designed to suggest that there is no more respect in death than there is in life. They show that life goes on, sometimes with little regard for tragedy, death, or other circumstance. Am I belittling the monument makers? I'm not sure. And (Fred forgive me) I'm not sure it matters.

 

Joe, you made some distinction between celebrity displays and these simple more impoverished attempts. Why should there be a distinction? They both emanate from the same sincere and grief stricken feelings. I fail to see the difference. And I do not argue with the fact that whoever made this monument or any other was driven by a deep sense of the loss of a loved one. It is the medium I object to. Not the sentiment.

 

Fred, I find your comment about my objectivity to be truly interesting. I generally do not feel that I am an objective observer. As you know, I frequently mock religion. I love to skewer human frailty and/or stupidity, and I am not above portraying the worst in human behavior. I'm not sure how that can be objective. I don't object to being seen that way, I just never thought it applied much to me. Your comment about Homage To the Passing of Another Year, is also quite interesting. I was intending it to be lighthearted. As Doug said, if we do not laugh at that which we cannot change, we are in trouble. I'm of an age, where I could be using any of those devices before long. It scares the crap out of me. So I can only make the best of it and to me that means taking what comes with good humor and grace whenever possible. Why not laugh at our demons? It doesn't mean we are laughing at those who have been victimized by the demons does it?

 

This has been a bit of a long ramble, so I'm hoping it makes some sense.

Janusz, thanks for coming along for the ride. I think I agree with you to a certain extent. It is probably unfair, however, to suggest that graffiti is as strongly motivated by feelings as these monuments are.

 

Joe, I'll go back to what I said. If we cannot laugh at ourselves and our human frailties, then where will we go? I'm not saying we have to accept all of them and not make an effort to change what we can, but there is still a point at which we simply must let go. Laughing does not hurt as much as crying. And it's a damn fine antidepressant.

Fred, I would like to say that I do truly understand your feeling of exasperation in seeing something that you perceive as dead serious that is treated in a flip and insensitive manner. This image was terribly disheartening to me, yet evoked lots of guffaws from others: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7028094

My disgust over this image's lack of respect made me so angry that I think I considered taking a break from Pnet.

 

Another one that struck me that way was the one of my grandchildren behind the jail bars. But in my saner moments I realize that not everyone has my world view, and that at my age I should have long ago come to grips with that situation.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, David. I took a look at Jack's photo and empathize with your feelings. Sometimes, people just don't get it, whatever "it" is! I think you make some valid points about the monuments and I understand where you're coming from.

"Why not laugh at our demons? It doesn't mean we are laughing at those who have been victimized by the demons does it?"

Laughing to get by and laughing at our demons is fine by me and often cathartic. I appreciate Doug's point about that.

I've read and reread the comments on Homage and think some are a case of what Doug is talking about. I also think some are juvenile and some are insensitive and hurtful. I'm not sure whether anyone was laughing at those affected, but it struck me that some were laughing at what was neither funny nor cathartic. Some of these comments were made by people who I know are good and well meaning, so I don't think the statements were malicious but I do think they were stupid. I'll stand by that assessment.

I will say I thought Joe's comment was just a matter of an understandable visual error.

Joe, I so appreciate your words. They are sincere and connect with me the way I hope to connect through art and photography and life. Thanks.

(P.S. I wonder if living in a city like San Francisco makes me feel the way I do. Some graffiti, for example, bothers me, and some I love for its color and expressiveness in the otherwise dismal urban environment of gray concrete and wire fences of some neighborhoods. The city is abuzz with expression of all different kinds, most of which brings it alive and stimulates my senses. Skyscrapers claim what used to be wide open sky. Boom boxes wail. Cell phones impose. Cars emit their exhaust fumes and with that the drivers tacitly express their disdain for the environment and their lack of attention to the rising cost of oil and their own role in it. Billboards tell me to buy something but also add color and flavor. Neon invades my sensibility and sometimes delights my senses. The smell of pastry baking and the smell of urine offending intermingle. The sight of homeless people are an expression that either they, themselves, are the problem or else they are the result of a government and society that has gone awry. Army recruiters annoy me and Castro Street hunks turn me on. Whether these various things are legal or not doesn't much affect my reaction to them. The monuments we're talking about, to me, are just part of the hum.)

Gentlemen, this has become quit a discussion. Given the statements you make I feel the need to react to some of them. First of all there is nothing that can't be photographed, secondly there is nothing and I do mean nothing that is beyond making fun of.

 

That however is not what you did here. You put it in another context. I don't see how anyone could find that callous. For whatever reasons David you have an aptitude for social-documentary photography that is more often than not layered in more than one sense. That's something to be admired, I sure do.

 

We all have an opinion of the subject at hand. What we should not forget is that the way we react to that is defined, at least to a certain extent, by our own experiences. For example, I've been a nurse for the last thirty years and that probably means that I see this somewhat different than most of you seem to do. You're right David, death is the last taboo but it is something I'm quite familiar with, hence my opinion which differs from yours. Nothing wrong with that.

 

What I find a bit troubling is the fact that you both point to some other photo's and put some connotations on them that I think you should look at again for a number of reasons.

 

1. titles can be as usefull as they can be misleading

 

2. you look on them with hindsight which means it's possible you look upon them now from different angle

 

3. qualifying something dead serious vs. flip an insensitive is more a moral than a factual statement (in this case anyway)

 

4. "I don't think the statements were malicious but I do think they were stupid" Fred, I don't know how you can say that. Although not pointed at me I think that is a rather careless remark for all the above mentioned reasons. Also you don't allow for possible cultural differences and lastly there is no general truth.

 

Now, before you two get mad at me I want you to understand something very important. I don't fault anything you've written or expressed here. Also, Ive read enough of both of you in the last months to know the gist of what you're about. That's not sucking up, I think you both know me better than that.

 

About the photo of your grandchildren behind bars David it's quite obvious to me why people put different connotations on that as I'm sure is as obvious to you.

Jacks photo, although very different is also a layered one I think.

 

But to state, as you do Fred, that some people just don't get it, looking at some of those photo's or maybe just a particular one is way too easy for me.

Thanks for contributing and, of course, it doesn't make me mad. Please note that I didn't say the statements were stupid, I said "I think they were stupid." Like you, I am skeptical of general truth but I'm not hesitant to make personal moral judgments and make them known when I see fit. Others are welcome to disagree. That leads to dialogue which often leads to understanding. Silent nonjudgment of moral or ethical matters leads to apathy and gets us nowhere. As far as moral vs. factual statements, I'm well aware that I am in the moral, not the factual, realm here. Also, I want to be clear that I don't find any of the images in themselves callous. I am concerned about reactions to the photographs.

Finally, I might agree (would want to think it through more carefully) that anything can be made fun of, BUT only under certain circumstances that would not be acceptable under other circumstances. For instance, if an old-time Jewish comedian were making fun of medicines and medical aid devices to an audience of older Jews, using Jewish stereotypes in doing so, I could see them laughing it up. As a matter of fact, I probably have seen it. If a young non-Jew on TV were doing the same thing in front of a young audience, I could see it being offensive. A lot depends on context, intent, and mindfulness.

Fred, thanks for your swift reply. On your first line consider it noted although I don't think it changes the essence of what I was trying to say. Secondly, I was being careful. English not being my native language I just didn't wanted to be misunderstood (sometimes hard to formulate).

It's an interesting remark you make about making personal moral judgements. I don't have a problem with anyone doing that, let alone you and while I know I'm gonna skate on thin ice here I think it's a fact that there is a very different appreciation of morality between the USA and Europe for instance. While that can indeed lead to discussion (something we both value) and even understanding it can just as easily lead to polarisation which will lead away from the real point. Therefore I think we should include more than just our own moral point of view. Note also that I'm not saying that you don't do that but I just think it's important we all should be aware of that.

I don't have time to join into the conversation generated by this photo. Like many of the most meaningful of human experiences, there is usually a melding of tackiness and significance. When I see these sights, I always wonder about the "who" behind the plastic flowers, crosses, and streamers. And about the various "who's" who put them there. Like this photo, I see your work as a melding of opposites: respectful irreverence. I see you as a photographer who whistles in the dark.

This is one of the most interesting exchanges I've ever seen on PN. These sad little memorials are part of the landscape around here (and apparently many other places as well, but I only remember seeing them in the last few years, never saw something like this as a child.) At a local intersection where an elderly couple was killed a few years ago, the children keep an on-going memorial and change it for the holiday seasons. Actually had a sequined clover for St Patrick's Day. The two daughters make a family event in going to the death site to decorate. The children and grandchildren all go together. I suppose it is their way of including the deceased in their life. Another family went to the river and spray painted graffiti all over the rocks where their brother died in a drunken crash. I have some trouble with that, propping a flower arrangement against a tree is one thing, but defacing natural elements with spray paint is un-acceptable to me. Yet it was their way of dealing with it. To me these displays seem maudlin and a little like showcasing grief, and I think there are more productive ways of memorializing the dead. I suppose others think very differently. Thought provoking image, David.

I called your attention to "I think the statements were stupid" because you suggested I was making a general truth which I was not. I was offering my opinion. I don't think everyone will or should feel as I do. I ask people to think, not necessarily to follow my thinking.

I believe I was allowing for cultural differences in suggesting being more tolerant of these memorials, because I think it is a cultural matter. I don't understand your suggestion that I was not taking culture into account. Of course, allowing for cultural differences depends on context and specifics. If someone were to say, "My culture won't tolerate homosexuality", I wouldn't tolerate their culture's teaching. I'm not that liberal. I have bottom lines.

Please remember that I was not suggesting that anyone was stupid because of their opinion of a photograph. I was suggesting that their reaction to the subject matter was stupid.

American chauvinism can be shameful. But morality is tricky. I try to be understanding of others' morality yet, as I said above, I have bottom lines. When another's morality offends me, I may have to do two things: try my best to understand it and put it into context and also speak out against it. I don't believe I have to tolerate everything just because it is someone's morality.

As for dealing with morality the way I have, I prefer to be specific rather than hypothetical. While there may be a bit of tension (in my mind, not a bad thing), I think what has followed my initial comment is productive and has led to greater understanding and not to polarization so I see the encounter, including everyone's comments here, positively.

The American government's myopic foreign policy is one where the administration lies to justify its actions and promotes self interest and knows only force and not reason. I believe I remained truthful about my feelings and promoted the interest and point of view of the disabled, the elderly, and the grieving. None are groups that I am a part of and I offered reasons, not lies, for my feelings. I believe my comments, particularly on the HOMAGE photo, sought to enlighten, not to bludgeon.

i have followed this discussion, and i still stand by my original comment, even though i was being rather flip at the time. yes, it is tragic that somebody died here, and a family is grieving a very real loss. but what about the tree? it was there before the roads were built around it. it has to suffer breathing exhaust fumes all day and night. someone accidentally crashed into it and died in the process. now it has stuff nailed into it, further injuring the tree. i am sure that the family who lost their loved one believes that a person is more valuable than a tree, and if it were my daughter who died there, i would feel the same. however, so many of us go through life with no thought of how we impact the world around us. i try to live gently, and i am a kind and caring person even though i do not like seeing a bunch of plastic hammered into a tree.

"Note also that I'm not saying that you don't do that but I just think it's important we all should be aware of that" I hoped that would make it clear that it was a generalisation and not directed at you (damn, see what I meant about formulating in a different language). I also said I noted your first comment, so just let's leave it at that shall we.

 

Your opinion on morality I agree on, unconditionally. Apart from that I like you to be specific. So am I and although I get often enough confronted about it (outside PN, in the real world) I will stay true to myself. And of course there is a bottom line. From what I gather we are not that far apart either. Although I'm not a homosexual I feel fortnunate to live in one of the most liberal countries in the world.That and my upbringing has lead me to have a liberal outlook myself. I grew up in a little village where there was a fairly large population of Creoles. The first racist remark I ever heard was when I was in my teens and it came as quit a shock. Different skin colours were and are quit natural to me and as such have never been an issue to me nor have different lifestyles. So I'm rather sensitive about racist remarks in any shape or form. So much concerning my bottom line.

 

About American chauvinism (bigger, better and so on, which I think is rather funny) just remember we can be rather dense too. There is also no general truth here.

 

Let's be clear again about one thing. For me this exchange has been a positive one as well! I just wanted to say that not everyone is as level minded as we are. In such case there IS a danger of polarisation.

 

Fred, like I said before. I've seen and read a lot of your comments. I know you to be truthful and although it hasn't come to pass yet feel free to bludgeon me anytime (over a photo that is)

 

 

 

I'm babysitting, so I must necessarily be brief. Ton, you hit the nail on the head in suggesting that this is a positive, rational and entertaining discussion, and it is so nice that nobody has been flamed and we can maintain our separate opinions without malice. Fred has been the lightning rod for many a fine discussion. He is brutally honest, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Bless him and all of you who contribute and make this more than just a scrapbook site.

wondered what kept you. Yes, it's been fun and why should anyone get flamed. Get together a few honest guys with outspoken minds and discussion is assured. Since there is genuine respect and opinions don't differ on the real important things it can only be fun. You've put that better than I ever could Fred when you talked about creating greater understanding. The only thing I miss here is an open fire and a few beers.