Security, Me, Mixed Media, 2018Submitted by Stickfigurewisdom t3_10k8028 in Art
Stickfigurewisdom OP t1_j5p1g5f wrote
Reply to comment by BackRowRumour in Security, Me, Mixed Media, 2018 by Stickfigurewisdom
Thank you for your feedback. Imagine what it must be like to be a kid today. I can’t, but when I showed this in LA, some high school students really responded to it.
Stickfigurewisdom OP t1_j5p281s wrote
It’s supposed to be more about innocence than kids, and the loss of any sense of security for children who face school shootings while the adults do nothing
SplodyPants t1_j5p61rg wrote
You can always tell someone who's confident in their work by how they take criticism.
Stickfigurewisdom OP t1_j5p79fl wrote
Thank you, I think 😊 It’s not easy, but I’m trying
SplodyPants t1_j5p8d0j wrote
NP! I meant it as a compliment. The execution was well done and not everyone is gonna like it no matter what you do. You read the criticism and explained your intentions with it. I wish more people were like that.
Stickfigurewisdom OP t1_j5panxp wrote
Thank you so much! I was hoping that’s what you meant, and tbh, it’s been a long road to get here. I really appreciate it!
sleeper_54 t1_j5s35hh wrote
Taking criticism, well thought out or not, gracefully is a good skill on reddit or anywhere online.
OP seems to have it mastered.
crankyape1534 t1_j5pw20z wrote
Well to be fair. School shootings occur (in part) because they are gun free zones. The people that want to make impact choose schools because they know they are poorly defended, and full of innocence. The killers know they will get the public attention with kids and they know hardly anyone if at all will be there to stop their plans.
I feel for kids period because they end up being the target of issues beyond them. Not even speaking to the point of gun rights etc.
Djinnwrath t1_j5q0sog wrote
When there are "good" people with guns there, they still don't stop anything.
crankyape1534 t1_j5q3vp1 wrote
Well takes more than just good people with guns. Takes action. Leadership. Courage. That which is lacking.
Djinnwrath t1_j5q4n23 wrote
Correct. Which means until we address those issues, harping about guns is pointless.
crankyape1534 t1_j5q4qq8 wrote
Well said. So this art piece is useless. It’s about the gun. Guns aren’t the issue. People are.
Djinnwrath t1_j5q4yln wrote
No, guns absolutely are the issue, because solving a wide spread behavioral cultural negative is far more difficult than removing physical objects.
It's the gun owners who are harping.
crankyape1534 t1_j5q5mex wrote
Gun owners are “harping” in what way? What do you mean by that? If you mean by discussing guns? I’d say both gun owners and those who don’t want firearms, discuss guns with similar energy. Just differing viewpoints. This art implies guns seem to be the root cause of the issue. Robbing children of their innocence. I say the root issue is people. The mental health of America. Good people doing the right things with guns is great for America. Bad people doing hurtful things with guns is bad for America. Blaming guns doesn’t solve the problem.
Djinnwrath t1_j5q63n3 wrote
The root issue is easy access to guns.
And yes blaming guns doesn't solve the issue, removing them would.
crankyape1534 t1_j5q7i9p wrote
Removing all guns or removing easy access? It’s a fundamental right in America to be able to bear arms. That said some mentally unhealthy individuals have the means to access weapons. Most cases of masa shooting the guns were purchased legally, but most actual criminals with guns don’t acquire theirs in that same way. Criminals will always get guns, and so will the police etc. law abiding citizens shouldn’t lose guns because the system allows for mentally unwell people to purchase weapons. A lot of mass shooters have been warned about before. A lot even have been tipped off the the FBI. When mentally ill people get weapons and the “good guys” don’t act to prevent violence then bad things happen. If you take guns, mentally ill people will still find ways to get attention and hurt others. Only difference would be law abiding citizens would have their rights and guns taken needlessly. Again. It’s a mental health issue. Not a gun issue.
Djinnwrath t1_j5q9cdr wrote
It's only a "fundamental right" because right wing extremists employ purposeful misinterpretation of the second amendment.
An originalist reading of 2A by a court that isn't compromised politically in no way guarantees private individual ownership.
crankyape1534 t1_j5qb95f wrote
There is no misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. It is the right to bear arms. We have that right not for hunting or just personal protection. It’s there incase our government is corrupt and takes too much power. We can use guns for hunting etc which is also within our rights, but it’s not a right wing narrative. It’s just the constitution and those who appreciate the rights given. It’s not a right or left things. That’s partisan politics and party line drawing. I know democrats with guns and republicans.
Djinnwrath t1_j5qblat wrote
You are incorrect. I will explain.
The whole sentence only makes sense if you read it in it's entirety (you know like a sentence is supposed to be read). If they were separate things as right-wing activists argue then they wouldn't be in the same sentence.
As for the rest of it if you aren't familiar with what surplusage is (how they said the entirety of the first part of the sentence is irrelevant) and how that flies smack dab into the face of the Constitution as it has been read since at the latest 1803 in Marbury v Madison then...
To show what I mean
[[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..., shall not be infringed.]]
See now people owning arms for personal use argument doesn't work for you. You just interpret it your way because you like the right-wing activists ruling. This reading doesn't make any less sense. You don't get to just cut up a sentence to suit your views which is exactly what the right wing activists did.
It's not because if we act like they're separate things then the first part says nothing, does nothing.
[[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,]]
If they were separate things this is all the first part says. It says nothing. It's surplusage. That flies in the face of the way the law (all law [except for right-wing activists who read what they want]) has been read since 1803 in Marbury v Madison.
If you read the amendment in a non-right-wing activist fashion as it was in Miller (the way it had been read in the US up until right-wing activists in 2008) it's a collective right not an individual one. Which would mean the Guard is largely what the 2nd it talking about and the Feds can't stop states from having their own militia and arming/training it.
Grammatically two separate non-linked ideas should not be contained in the same sentence without semicolons or coordinating conjunctions.
crankyape1534 t1_j5qdx9d wrote
Second amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”It’s just that simple. Read it how your mind likes and it still doesn’t change the text.
Regardless if you believe in the right or not, it’s still not about guns. Criminals break laws and don’t give two craps about constitutionality. It’s mental health that is the issue. Not right or left. Not guns. Mental health. Until that’s addressed issues will still arise no matter the variable. Even if you did take guns.
Djinnwrath t1_j5qe7wl wrote
You need to learn English better
crankyape1534 t1_j5qh9aw wrote
Lol even if I do, doesn’t change my point which you can’t refute. Mental illness is the issue. It’s damaged hurt angry people acting out, and yes guns can be used by them to hurt people, but it’s not the guns killing people it’s the damaged people killing people. You want to pin it on guns. It wont change that mental health in America is slipping and people will still find ways to act out or do violence.
sleeper_54 t1_j5s3tfg wrote
"Removing guns" will do nothing to remove guns from those who would do evil.
Djinnwrath t1_j5s3wq9 wrote
He said while ignoring every other developed nation on the planet.
BackRowRumour t1_j5p2mny wrote
I totally agree it must be hard. Depends how you work, but you will find quite a bit of hard hitting information on growing up with threat over time if you check the journals for child PTSD in Ukraine and Israel. I'm more of an academic than an artist, so I thought it might give you more insights to work in.
On a positive note I didn't give you enough credit for clarity and composition, looking at it again. Appreciate the discussion.
Stickfigurewisdom OP t1_j5p7heo wrote
Thank you.
BackRowRumour t1_j5p8nm0 wrote
You're welcome. I love it when r/Art treats artists like kindergarten kids. I'm being downvoted hard.
Discussion is more valuable to artists than a pat on the head. Even if they don't agree, which OP is welcome to do.
Stickfigurewisdom OP t1_j5pa5wj wrote
My favorite joke: An art critic asks an artist, “Do you want to hear my opinion of your art.” The Artist replies, “Sure.” The Critic says, “it’s worthless” “I know, but tell me anyway.”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments