February 25, 2011
50 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Montana Outdoors
I say far, far ahead!
LikeLike
Comment by kcjewel — February 25, 2011 @ 10:45 pm
I would guess that they were much easier on the land.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 25, 2011 @ 11:04 pm
It is hard to say. (I grew up that way…and I’m still trying to figure it out.)
LikeLike
Comment by kateri — February 25, 2011 @ 10:51 pm
Your position is more interesting because you have a choice. From reading your blog, I think you have chosen most of the best from both times.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 25, 2011 @ 11:13 pm
It is probably very old and still standing (somewhat). The homes that are built today will not last that long, I fear.
LikeLike
Comment by Roberta Warshaw — February 26, 2011 @ 6:38 am
I suspect that many of the newer homes would not last that long without constant repair, which that one didn’t have. Makes me wonder just why it was abandoned.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 26, 2011 @ 10:15 pm
Perhaps a clue to the answer can be gleaned from an observation offered by Thoreau in the early pages of “The Maine Woods.” He noted how the further he traveled from the city the smarter the people he encountered.
LikeLike
Comment by Dave at collinda — February 26, 2011 @ 8:28 am
I think there is a lot of wisdom in what he said, particularly when you propel yourself into the future and look back at the lives people lead. I have a small sign over my tool bench that ways “the man who dies with the most tools wins!”. I personally think that if that were paraphrased inserting “money” instead of tools, it would cause many people to wonder about it.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 26, 2011 @ 10:19 pm
Hmmmmm. Good thought to ponder! Though from the looks of things – it reminds me of what I perceive to be a simpler time… (key word – perceive!) ;o)
LikeLike
Comment by Stacey Dawn — February 26, 2011 @ 10:17 am
In most ways, yes, a simpler time and one with more understanding of the earth and far less stress than most of the more “modern” life styles. I can’t help but think that God looks favorably upon those who understand and love this planet of His creation and whose steps upon it are light ones.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 26, 2011 @ 10:40 pm
my uncle is convinced we are moving backwards….
LikeLike
Comment by silken — February 26, 2011 @ 11:54 am
I also think we are, in very many ways. It depends on how we measure ourselves and what we believe to be important.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 26, 2011 @ 10:42 pm
My kind of photo-scene! Goodness, that was rustic and rough living. One time, hopes and dreams and a fire in the hearth were in that homestead.
LikeLike
Comment by Anna — February 26, 2011 @ 12:17 pm
“Hopes and dreams and a fire in the heath” meant a lot then and went a long ways toward happiness and contentment and peace of heart.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 26, 2011 @ 10:44 pm
I say ahead, too. When I see an old homestead like that, my mind goes into immediate settler mode. Right down to the flowers.
LikeLike
Comment by sandy — February 26, 2011 @ 4:11 pm
And many folks would love that mode: others would be afraid to leave the city.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 26, 2011 @ 10:46 pm
Hi Montucky, Here in TN we have many old old homesteads. Some are in ruins such as the one you have photographed. Some of the ancient log cabins around here look like they could be used as homes today. Have a super day tomorrow!
LikeLike
Comment by wildlifewatcher — February 26, 2011 @ 7:46 pm
I always yearn to know the history of those places and wish I could read the stories that were written there.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 26, 2011 @ 10:48 pm
It seems like the more gadgets we have to make life “simpler,” the more complicated and time-consuming it gets. I think there’s a lot to be said for living simply; however, I don’t really.
LikeLike
Comment by Candace — February 26, 2011 @ 10:58 pm
Living simply is more natural in a rural setting and I think nearly impossible in a highly urban one.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 26, 2011 @ 11:19 pm
Well, You made very good question. I guess that there are two correct answers and I give the far ahead.
About photo: Very nice wintry landscape.
LikeLike
Comment by sartenada — February 27, 2011 @ 12:47 am
I agree, there is more than one correct answer, and as Stacey mentioned in her comment, it depends upon one’s perception. As I consider my own answer, I am reminded of the great short story by Leo Tolstoy, How much land does a man need?.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 27, 2011 @ 1:33 am
I think they were far, far ahead.
LikeLike
Comment by Jack Matthews — February 27, 2011 @ 9:46 am
I do too Jack. Responding to our innate discontent we make some things better yet stand to lose the things that are most important.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 27, 2011 @ 7:51 pm
Great capture,,
LikeLike
Comment by Ali Radwani — February 27, 2011 @ 10:02 am
Thank you Ali! And thanks for visiting!
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 27, 2011 @ 7:52 pm
Far ahead, I would think. Nice photo.
LikeLike
Comment by knightofswords — February 27, 2011 @ 12:29 pm
I was pretty sure how you would look at it Malcolm. There was a wrong turn there some place wasn’t there!
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 27, 2011 @ 8:13 pm
Sad to see this place in such disrepair. What a great find!!!
LikeLike
Comment by Marcie — February 27, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
Old places like this take me back into the history that produced them and I wish I could read all of the stories that were a part of them.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 27, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
A question that will elude me for my life, I think.
LikeLike
Comment by Tammy McLeod — February 27, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
Perhaps not a total commitment to either era? I think that is a very good thing!
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 27, 2011 @ 8:31 pm
Sad to see this place in such disrepair…but what a great find for you -as the photographer!
LikeLike
Comment by Marcie — February 27, 2011 @ 12:31 pm
Yes, it just demanded to be photographed!
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 27, 2011 @ 8:25 pm
Not sure if I would have lasted in the good ol’ days, such as the folks whom lived here did. They had plenty of food for all the creatures and water from all the rivers and streams. Still, what a rough life…
LikeLike
Comment by Preston — February 27, 2011 @ 9:20 pm
I wonder if those old folks, if they could see the city life of today, might consider it a rough life too. Lots more stress.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 27, 2011 @ 11:37 pm
Isn’t that amazing… I wonder how old that structure is…
LikeLike
Comment by Tricia — February 28, 2011 @ 8:52 am
I don’t know its age, possible from the ’20’s.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — February 28, 2011 @ 7:49 pm
Great shot – I love photographing old, crumbly places.
LikeLike
Comment by Mike — February 28, 2011 @ 8:33 pm
They make interesting subjects, don’t they! I wish I knew their history though.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — March 1, 2011 @ 12:34 am
Their lives were certainly much simpler! My younger sister, while still at preschool age, would refer to such structures as “ruined up shacks.” This one is a very nice subject for a photograph and is particularly nice with the snow on and all around it!
Off topic, an interesting tidbit, maybe, about “my” Mahonia when compared to the one you know as Oregon Grape… mine is Mahonia bealei, is not native to this country and is considered invasive due to rampant spreading in forests in the South… there are apparently several species of this plant native to the US and Mahonia aquifolium; aka Oregon-grape is one of them according to Wikipedia.
LikeLike
Comment by Victoria — March 1, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
The blossoms look very similar. I wonder if the fruit of others are a sour as these.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — March 1, 2011 @ 9:15 pm
Your words got me thinking. I wonder the same thing.
LikeLike
Comment by Ratty — March 1, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
Maybe there was a fork in the road some place and most folks took the branch that led to the city.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — March 1, 2011 @ 9:16 pm
Relative to the natural world-ahead. Relative to what is good for the planet-ahead! Relative to human comfort-behind. Relative to the greedy nature of human ecology-behind!
It is a matter of perspective, but as you say, in the final analysis, I have to go with what is good for the planet.
LikeLike
Comment by Bill — March 2, 2011 @ 10:56 am
I certainly agree about going with what is good for the planet. With the sudden and dramatic shifts in politics, I am very concerned for the protection of the environment here in the west. It is under direct and concentrated attack to “develop” our natural resources. Never did understand why there isn’t a reasonable middle ground.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — March 2, 2011 @ 12:01 pm
Beautiful photo.
And a wonderful caption. I have the same thought on a daily basis.
LikeLike
Comment by frisky lisp — March 10, 2011 @ 10:56 pm
Those who lived there had cares, but I doubt that they had the same stress levels and frustrations that are so abundant today, especially in the cities.
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — March 10, 2011 @ 11:01 pm
I wouldn’t mind simplifying our lifestyle and living in a log cabin..
LikeLike
Comment by mitambien — March 15, 2011 @ 7:23 pm
After many years of wishing, we have now done essentially that. Simple is very satisfying!
LikeLike
Comment by montucky — March 15, 2011 @ 8:13 pm