© J.S. Brand
“A totem pole? I’ve known you for forty years, and you never told me you were native.” Leon Bell stood, looking incredulously at the creation of his friend and neighbor Marshall Griffin.
“I’m not, but why can’t I have my own monument to the symbols that I consider important?”
“But this is a public park. You can’t just deface a tree…”
Marshall scowled up at his friend from his blue lawn chair. “What do you mean deface? This is art.”
“I guess I don’t know what art is,” Leon growled back.
Marshall smiled. “You’re the only honest person I know.”
I wrote this for Rochelle Wisoff-Fields’ photo writing challenge. The idea is to use the image above as the prompt for crafting a piece of flash fiction no more than 100 words long. My word count is 100.
I wasn’t sure what to make of the image. It vaguely resembles a totem pole, but the symbols weren’t what I’d consider traditionally first nations, so I pondered “cultural appropriation” and how to play that out. That’s when I came up with Leon and Marshall, two old friends who no longer have time for false politeness or illusions of propriety.
To read more stories based on the prompt, visit InLinkz.com.
poweredbyrobots.com 
Whether the carvings there qualify as “Art” or not, that tree has been killed. Artistry itself is no justification for doing so, though if the tree died from other causes the artistry may offer some redeeming value to the stump. I say only that it *may* possibly offer value, depending on an evaluation of the quality thereof. Personally, I can make no claim to place any positive value on any idol or simulacrum of one, even in the service of a disadvantaged culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No actual trees were harmed in the writing of this story. Also, I’ve been assured that the tree in the photo was already dead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leon and Marshall are great characters. I hope to see them return one day
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps they shall. Thanks, Neil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you do it in public and destroy a tree it might be considered art since it provokes people… or?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then again, it is the destruction of public property, Björn.
LikeLike
An interesting question – can others appropriate art, even just for the pleasure of creating? Or is that considered too offensive. When writing characters and plots novelists often inhabit characters not of their own race, background or culture. I think we would be poorer if we suddenly set boundaries that prevented us doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I recall, a non-indigenous person in my country cannot legally create art and call it indigenous art.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Art for art’s sake, hmm.
While I do not support the murder of trees, I find it impossible to argue against this time-honoured maxim.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Two strong characters and I like the appreciation of honesty.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good story! And a good question.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I like where you went with your take on the prompt photo. It was a fine bit of banter
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Michael.
LikeLike
Hmm, this reminds me of the question of whether graffiti is art or simply defacing the sides of buildings.
LikeLike
If someone paints designs on private property without the owner’s permission, it’s a crime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope he’s willing to face a hefty fine for the sake of his “artwork” 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are several tree carvings such as this in my area, always created from trees that have died.
Click to read my FriFic tale!
LikeLiked by 2 people
One man’s art is another man’s vandalism.
LikeLike
In this case, the law defines vandalism, so he could be in serious trouble.
LikeLike
I suppose you could be right, Sandra, depending upon where and how that art is practiced. Art upon a canvas is not likely to be challenged as vandalism, though it might be criticized for its symbolic content or accused of lacking any. Free-standing sculpture not constructed from stolen materials could be considered similarly safe. Unauthorized art upon a wall or other surface owned by the public or by someone other than the artist is most likely subject to criticism as vandalism, regardless of any artistic merit. A tree-stump in a public park would seem to fit that category as well.
LikeLike
Dear James,
I’m put in mind of one of my painting teachers at the KC Art Institute. Standing behind a not particularly talented student he quietly said, “I like what you tried to do.” Another honest man. 😉 Nicely sculpted story.
Shalom,
Rochelle
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yikes! Honesty is best shared between close friends. It stings when coming from a stranger, casual acquaintance or a teacher you don’t know well.
LikeLike
We both went the “cultural appropriation” route, though in different contexts.
Arguments that certain symbols are owned, or certain sectors of thought, literature and debate are off limits to those who have not “lived” them, I find short- sighted. I think that all people should be allowed to write, speak and create, however badly, on all topics. Let history sort out the important voices.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The appreciation of art, now there is a perplexing human condition.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed, James.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A great point well made, what exactly is art to one person and his friend? I think gForrest Gump may have said something like “Art is as Art does” something like that anyway…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Marshall is one tough cookie. Though he is right that many including his friend may not understand an work of art, does he have right to deface a tree?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, which is part of the problem. Thanks.
LikeLike
I enjoyed the dialogue between Leon and Marshall. It’s nice to have friends we can be completely honest with. Nicely written!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Brenda. Such relationships are exceedingly rare and, in my opinion, built up over the long stretch of time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting discussion here in the comments. I don’t know what I think. My personal taste don’t go to this kind of art, although I can certainly see the talent and ability of the carver. I guess it really is all about what you see 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
An interesting take on the prompt. I also felt ambiguous about whether this was art of desecration of nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
LikeLike
That’s the sort of comment I might make – tact is not one of my strengths!
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL.
LikeLike
Art is no excuse for mistreating public property.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True enough, Dale.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No art improves on nature, he shouldn’t have carved into a living tree
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, but then no real trees were damaged in the writing of this story. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
shouldn’t he have gotten permission first?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably.
LikeLiked by 1 person