Page 1 of 1

Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:30 am
by miwinski
Hello everyone,
My name is Mark Iwinski. First thanks ed for the reminder to post something, traveling a lot this fall with in laws moving here so computer time has been scarce.

Anyway, I am a visual artist. My work has looked at old growth and deforestation over the last 15 years. I had been briefly involved her back in 2012 I think but lapsed. I print old growth stumps when I can find them to bring awareness to the character and scale of the forest trees now mostly gone. My website is www.markiwinski.com if you are curious. For those of you in the North Carolina Triangle area please send a shout out.
Mark

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:35 am
by Larry Tucei
Mark- I remember your postings for 2012 welcome back. Larry

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:19 pm
by Rand
I was browsing through your site and found this composition
c-shot.png
It's a very popular photo with those trying to restore the American Chestnut, and is common example of 'how big they can get'. However, it appears the two foreground trees aren't chestnut (or they wouldn't still be there) Do you recall what type of tree they were?

Also, I'm curious how you were able to track down this location to start with.

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:55 am
by miwinski
It is a controversial photo. I have actually reversed it for the purposes of this image. But back to the controversy, the picture is part of a series taken by a a logging company (Whithead if I remember right) advertising their holdings in the January 1910 American Lumberman. I did some research at the Forest History Society here in Durham, NC. Most of the holdings soon after actually became part of Pisgah national forest in western North Carolina and what is now Joyce Kilmer Memorial Park where this rephotography was done. I researched the holdings through old maps and the original publication to determine where this was taken. Most researchers assume this picture was taken in the Joyce Kilmer area. The controversy centers around whether these trees in the original photograph were actually American Chestnuts or if they were actually Tulip Poplars instead! The bark of both mature trees is very similar. Joyce Kilmer Park features huge Tulip Poplars and these two leaning away from each other are well known and popular. Problem with saying they were Chestnuts in the photo is that there are no remains of American Chestnuts in Joyce Kilmer where the picture was supposed to have been taken. No stumps, no snags, rotting logs, nothing! When you visit old stands of American Chestnut you find huge old moss covered logs, snags, and the remains of huge stumps! Nothing like that here. The area was dominated by eastern Hemlock and Tulip Poplar. Sadly all the old growth Hemlocks are dead from the wooly adelgide and have been blasted away! I went down a small embankment from the trees and shot uphill to get the correct view. Now it is possible there is another site matching these trees that would have been chestnut but these old stands have not been found as of yet. By the way the original photograph does not label these as chestnuts. For the purposes of my artwork I rephotographed the image on this site with the Tulip Poplars. In essence it is an artistic fiction. If they are American Chestnuts in the original photo then they were not located in the area where the series was taken in the original advertisement by the logging company. If they were Tulip Poplar then these two trees at Joyce Kilmer are the prime candidates for the original photo. I hold out the possibility that with some extensive ground truthing one could find Chestnut remnants further afield that could match the original photo. More research needs to be done.

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:07 pm
by Rand
Thanks for the fascinating explanation. If they are in fact tulips, it's going to be hard to let that myth go.

Anyway, I have actually been to Joyce Kilmer before the adelgids, and do remember the size of those ancient tulips.

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:55 pm
by Lucas
Hmmm..

Suspicions of suspicions confirmed.

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:07 pm
by Matt Markworth
Mark,

I've hiked that trail and remember the two big tuliptrees side-by-side. With an unreversed historical photo and a current photo maybe we could do some tree bark "fingerprint ID."

Matt

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:18 pm
by Lucas
miwinski wrote:It is a controversial photo. I have actually reversed it for the purposes of this image. But back to the controversy, the picture is part of a series taken by a a logging company (Whithead if I remember right) advertising their holdings in the January 1910 American Lumberman. I did some research at the Forest History Society here in Durham, NC. Most of the holdings soon after actually became part of Pisgah national forest in western North Carolina and what is now Joyce Kilmer Memorial Park where this rephotography was done. I researched the holdings through old maps and the original publication to determine where this was taken. Most researchers assume this picture was taken in the Joyce Kilmer area. The controversy centers around whether these trees in the original photograph were actually American Chestnuts or if they were actually Tulip Poplars instead! The bark of both mature trees is very similar. Joyce Kilmer Park features huge Tulip Poplars and these two leaning away from each other are well known and popular. Problem with saying they were Chestnuts in the photo is that there are no remains of American Chestnuts in Joyce Kilmer where the picture was supposed to have been taken. No stumps, no snags, rotting logs, nothing! When you visit old stands of American Chestnut you find huge old moss covered logs, snags, and the remains of huge stumps! Nothing like that here. The area was dominated by eastern Hemlock and Tulip Poplar. Sadly all the old growth Hemlocks are dead from the wooly adelgide and have been blasted away! I went down a small embankment from the trees and shot uphill to get the correct view. Now it is possible there is another site matching these trees that would have been chestnut but these old stands have not been found as of yet. By the way the original photograph does not label these as chestnuts. For the purposes of my artwork I rephotographed the image on this site with the Tulip Poplars. In essence it is an artistic fiction. If they are American Chestnuts in the original photo then they were not located in the area where the series was taken in the original advertisement by the logging company. If they were Tulip Poplar then these two trees at Joyce Kilmer are the prime candidates for the original photo. I hold out the possibility that with some extensive ground truthing one could find Chestnut remnants further afield that could match the original photo. More research needs to be done.
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1 ... CF-GROWERS

http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1 ... &S=&P=7469

What TACF says.

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:02 pm
by Don
Mark-
I'm joining Larry Tucei and welcoming you back!
And wondering if you're familiar with the works of Bryan Nash Gill?
For an example that I particularly like, see:
https://www.amazon.com/Woodcut-Bryan-Na ... 1616890487
-Don

Re: Introduction from Mark Iwinski

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:04 am
by bbeduhn
Those trees don't have the telltale lower bark of tuliptrees. They were likely near where the Memorial Forest is now but certainly not in the actual Memorial Forest as these chestnuts would have been logged. These trees could have come from a nearby cove or further down in the Kilmer cove, which was logged. The bark pattern is more crisscossed than tulip. Tulip does have crisscrossed pattern but the dominant furrows are primarily vertical. The chestnut has more of an angle on its furrows. I don't see any controversy over the species ID. They certainly appear to be chestnut.