Monuments in Wedding Photos

[Bryan_C]

This past Saturday, I visited the War Correspondents Memorial in Gathland State Park near Burkittsville, MD. Though I've been to Antietam numerous times and also Monocacy and Harper's Ferry, it was my first visit to the memorial. Anyway, I googled for pictures of the War Correspondents monument and I see that it, like some other monuments, is being used by some people as backdrops to their wedding pictures.

So I was just wondering how people here felt about the use of memorials in wedding photos. Do you think it's appropriate?

A bride and groom at the District of Columbia WWI Memorial. The names of the 499 DC citizens who died in the war are at the base of the monument.

 

[Allie]

It does seem inappropriate. I think those involved are probably thinking more of the architecture than the meaning - most people would not take a wedding photo in front of the Vietnam memorial or in a cemetery.

Edit - what do I know? These people got married in front of the Vietnam memorial in their town. I can see doing that if a parent or grandparent's name was on a monument and you wanted to symbolically allow them to be present, but not just because it's a pretty setting. It makes no sense to me. "When I picture our future together, I think of violent death!"

http://www.elisebeallphotography.com/blog/?p=2761

 

[MRB1863]

When I observe a memorial, I think it to be a permanent structure honoring a particular person, action or event. I am not, however, convinced that marriage is always as permanent. Maybe a beautifully landscaped gazebo in a park, stream-side in nature, or for the urbanites - in a taxi may be a more appropriate choice. You just don't see many wedding photos showing divorce court in the background. That may be all too truthful.