Ephemeral letters, numbers and other markings are easy to miss, camouflaged by time; these markings are most probably Naval, dating from the 1800's. The ambiguity I feel in relation to the rights and wrongs of graffiti on trees still nags at me. At once engaged by their presence, intrigued by their story and yet still not certain it's right to mark a tree; whilst at the same time arguing internally as to whether or not I should add to the forests graffiti, something I have a desire to do. But what would I carve? Although most of the forests graffiti would have been carved on a whip, an act of spontaneity or functional, cut for forestry purpose, I over think what I would write and so mire myself in indecision.
Interesting dilemma regarding the graffiti.
ReplyDeleteOn the plus side it doesn't seem to harm many of the trees that it appears on - not immediately anyway, although who knows what the long-tern effects of this scarring are.
On the minus side I'd say that much of the graffiti I see has little or nothing to say, so if you (one) have nothing to say then don't be tempted to display that fact on a tree, go tag a bus stop or something! :-)
I think I comprehend the motives of wartime troops exercising or being stationed in the Forest prior to D-Day, anxious to make their mark or even to relieve tedium mixed with stress. However, if all people have to say is 'Fuck' or something equally crass then I struggle to understand the need to express that on a tree.
Personally, I'd leave 'em alone.