My recurring subjects in my photographs are the trees. This addiction was not something obvious to me but something that slowly grown in my series. Maybe this inclination is due to my ecologist view but I think there is a kind of ambiguity.
Perhaps I bumped into the same differences between the work of Ansel Adams and Robert Adams. Grandiose versus banality, Ansel was more into incredible landscape where Robert focuses more than uncommon places.
On the above picture trees, it's a very common image, you can see this while being in a train. When I took the picture, I wanted to get a set of trees with the passenger being lost in thoughts. The idea is to get the opportunity to think about banality but especially our estrangement from the nature, the trees and our inability to see the importance of nature.
Otherwise in trees2, I was waiting for the mist and the sun to give an overall impression of majesty in the trees. Even if the trees are very close to a huge chemical industry, the message is more about the flamboyant existence of these salix than the destruction of nature.
The subject (the trees in such case) are not meant to be a common vector of passing an ecological message. But they provide a reference point where it's becoming a more fundamental way of thinking our role in the society, the geography and our direct surroundings. Some of my set of trees are even more going into the abstraction of the world or its scientific and mathematical representation (e.g. fractal trees).
Maybe my addiction is just due to the trees being the roots of many topics.