May 24, 2011 News+Opinion » News Shorts

First Look: The Angel Oak nude shoot 

Photographer releases TreeSpirit image

by Greg Hambrick
Angels_TreeSpiritProject_1200p_WEB.jpg

Photograph © 2011 Jack Gescheidt, TreeSpiritProject.com

California photographer Jack Gescheidt has offered the City Paper a first look at his work from a recent attention-grabbing nude photo shoot at the historic Angel Oak on Johns Island.

Gescheidt recently brought his lens, a documentary film crew, and nearly two dozen naked people to the centuries-old tree as part of his TreeSpirit Project. The photographer has spent the past few years pairing ancient and often threatened trees, which usually draw attention for their own splendor, with a dramatic draping of nude models.

The portraits provide an interesting intersection of art and activism. Gescheidt says the TreeSpirit mission is "to raise awareness of the critical role trees play in our lives, both globally—think global warming—and also personally—for the serenity, happiness and inspiration trees provide us on a daily basis."

Environmentalists believe the small, isolated Angel Oak Park is being threatened by a nearby development that could impact the health of the tree and the overall experience for visitors.

The picture can be purchased, with the proceeds going toward future TreeSpirit projects. We'll have more on the unique shoot later this week.

Tags:

Comments (12)

Showing 1-12 of 12

Add a comment

Brings new meaning to "Tree Hugger".. :)

report   
Posted by StarMommy77 on May 24, 2011 at 11:29 AM

I think this is truly a beautiful display of love, respect and support for the Angel Oak. While some may feel threatened by the nudity or "law breakers", it is important to realize the real threat to the tree - Development!

Robert DeMoura is greedy and careless in trying to build 600+ housing units right next to this magnificent tree, and Mayor Riley is just to blame in allowing (no,facilitating) this to happen!

Remember why these people got naked in the first place... to help PROTECT the Angel Oak. SPEAK UP and please do not let the City allow a private developer to profit from the destruction of the Angel Oak's livelihood.

report   
Posted by Golden Ratio on May 24, 2011 at 12:14 PM

It's all well and good that Mr. Gescheidt feels so strongly about trees and it's also fine and good that he's probably making a decent living out of these photo shoots.

But the fact is that he's managed to create some bad publicity for his cause by refusing to simply schedule his shoot at a time when the park could be closed down, in the name of "freedom of expression" or "art", or "preservation".

After all, there was a P&C photojournalist on the scene at the time (http://www.postandcourier.com/photos/galle…) and he also had an ACLU lawyer present. He knew what he was doing was going to create a problem and yet he did it anyway.

He should have presented his idea to whoever runs the grounds and let them make a decision and then, should they reject it, possibly involve the ACLU (I am not even certain if this is a public or private space - can anyone clear that up?) but instead, he chose to go with a cheap publicity stunt.

report   
Posted by mat catastrophe on May 24, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Mat....if you want to call this "bad publicity" that is your decision but I question your priorities if you think raising awareness about a proposed development that would destroy the surrounding forest is "bad". And I know for a fact that the City of Charleston (owner of the Angel Oak land) would not allow the photographer to schedule this photo at any time (after hours or not) within the public park. Of course the photographer knew that doing the photo would likely ruffle some feathers... Its a fact of reality that people have "problems" with nudity and are not so accepting of it, even when simply displaying the natural human form in a peaceful, supportive, artistic fashion.

report   
Posted by Golden Ratio on May 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

To paraphrase Ogden Nash: I think I shall never see, an ass as lovely as a tree.

report   
Posted by arty on May 24, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Golden, most of what you say is spot-on but you have the issue a bit backwards. This isn't the Sixties and people aren't quite as "shocked" by nudity as you might think.

But, it shows a great deal of disrespect to the community that you wish to educate by deciding to ignore that communities standards of decency. Again, if the purpose of Mr. Gescheidt is to raise awareness by photographing trees and nude humans together then that is fine. It's a bit cliche, but whatever.

But if he wishes to do the education in a respectful, intelligent, and thoughtful manner then he might reconsider just contacting the local paper and ACLU and saying, "Hey, I'm going to ambush a public park with a couple of dozen naked people and take a picture of it." Again, artists who have a deeper social purpose must respect the society they wish to enlighten. In this case, the effort could easily have been made to contact the City and ask for permission and, *IF* denied that permission, contact the ACLU and allow them to pursue, through proper channels, permission for the shoot.

And then, if still denied, the time might be right to stage a shoot as an act of civil disobedience.

But doing it just for the hell of doing it and "shocking" people shows a remarkable lack of tact.

report   
Posted by mat catastrophe on May 24, 2011 at 8:10 PM

The removal of such an ancient tree should far surpass the fau pas of a little nudity in public. We, as Americans being so uptight about a little flesh is a problem. If you were to spend a little time in Europe, you would see nudity everywhere, including commercials in between precious television time. If it were something that were exposed to all along we would be desensitized and it wouldn't be such an issue.

report   
Posted by Rotten Ryan on May 24, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Arty:

The poem "Trees" was written by Joyce Kilmer, not Ogden Nash.

report   
Posted by schymist on May 26, 2011 at 8:58 AM

I was told there is at least one NUDE child in this pic......... Someoene is scrouched down and hugging the NUDE child. I am blown away that who took the pic that contains NuDe children and then posting on internet, isn't locked up for exploitation of a mior aka perv porn. I am not looking at the pic, I live here and have many memories and photos with The Angel Oak. If this is true, Sick.

report   
Posted by PamelaRose on May 26, 2011 at 10:29 PM

OK, seriously? You cannot tell the difference between child porn and the picture THAT YOU HAD TO LOOK AT IN ORDER TO POST YOUR RETARDED, SIMIAN BULLSHIT?

report   
Posted by mat catastrophe on May 26, 2011 at 10:48 PM

The tree is beautiful .See IT. Nude bodies are what YOU see in them. Only perverts see indecency in the Natural world.

report   
Posted by Gentle bee on May 28, 2011 at 1:02 AM

It is a very interesting photo. And to those who are offended by the children, or fear they will be offended by naked children -- do not be -- they are toddlers being sweetly held by their mama's, merely showing little naked bums. Your parents probably have photos of you running around at that age with nothing on as well. Nothing unnatural/perv about the photo, only your reaction is unnatural.... maybe that is what you truly fear, your reaction to seeing the children. Well then, seek help dears.

report   
Posted by ianyna on June 15, 2011 at 12:26 AM
Subscribe to this thread:
By Email
With RSS
Showing 1-12 of 12

Add a comment

Classified Listings
{ more } Recent Comments
{ more } Reader Reviews

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2012, Charleston City Paper   RSS