Children and Guns - Photojournalism

[Alan Goldhammer]

This week's The New Yorker has an interesting photojournalism article that features children with their guns:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/26/the-gun-owners-of-the-parkland-generation  I post this not to incite various readers of the Coffee Corner but to point to an interesting set of images, a couple which I find troubling.  Let's not start a flame war about the US Second Amendment but just take in the pictures for what they are (I hope that everyone can access them; I have a subscription to the magazine and do not know whether one needs one to open the link).

[RSL]

Which ones do you find "troubling," Alan?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I post this not to incite various readers of the Coffee Corner..l

Lemme go make some popcorn ...

[Alan Goldhammer]

Which ones do you find "troubling," Alan?

most of the ones with semi-automatics.  In a way they look like troubling Diane Arbus images.

[RSL]

Which ones do you think are not semi-automatic (other than the shotguns)?

[32BT]

Which ones do you think are not semi-automatic (other than the shotguns)?

Why are you trying to make this about guns? It was meant to be about the pictures, no?

[RSL]

You need to read the title, Oscar. It's about "children" and "guns."

[Chris Kern]

This week's The New Yorker has an interesting photojournalism article that features children with their guns

The increasing reliance on digital distribution by "legacy" publications like The New Yorker is ushering in a new golden age of photojournalism.  I suspect this is partly because arresting pictures attract readers to the publications' websites and partly because it's now much easier to publish photographs than it was in the print era.  The New Yorker also offers a photo booth compilation of its picture essays.  The Atlantic brands its frequent photo essays "In Focus."  And the New York Times' publishes a well-curated "Lens Blog" of photographs by its staff and contract shooters as well as selections from other publications.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why are you trying to make this about guns? It was meant to be about the pictures, no?

Well, pics are pretty unremarkable. Broad daylight, frontal, point & shoot (no pun intended) style. Perhaps that's why Alan found it "troubling"? I would.

[32BT]

I was able to acces and view the imaes here in NL, no subscription required.

The images and persons depicted didn't really disturb me. Most looked like they do indeed observe safety measures and were probably taught responsible gunning. (Is that a correct word:gunning?). I believe if you learn about safety measures around any hobby or activity then it will help you in other activities or life in general, regardless of the inherent danger of the activity itself.

What i find far more troubling for example to view is part of an episode i saw on Discovery, which is about first-person view of some US military operations. At some point they have to deal with a severe injury. While they deal with it professionally, adequately, and promptly (unsurprisingly, since they probably wouldn't air failure), the impact on the soldiers is quite evident. And the calousness with which they handle their arms right after the incident seems something to ponder.

And i find it especially disturbing, because those people are the ones that potentially form a problem in the future. Highly and correctly trained individuals that lose grip on reality later in life because they suffer very impactful psychological trauma at some earlier stage.

Which brings us to these images: in howfar can we view a handful of what appear to be responsible teenagers as in any way representative of the collective teenage formative years of the current generation of kids?

[32BT]

Well, pics are pretty unremarkable. Broad daylight, frontal, point & shoot (no pun intended) style. Perhaps that's why Alan found it "troubling"? I would.

True, art it ain't.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, pics are pretty unremarkable. Broad daylight, frontal, point & shoot (no pun intended) style. Perhaps that's why Alan found it "troubling"? I would.

Much of Diane Arbus's work was in a similar style and is highly regarded.

[Rob C]

Much of Diane Arbus's work was in a similar style and is highly regarded.

Yeah, but by whom?

Rob

[Alan Goldhammer]

The increasing reliance on digital distribution by "legacy" publications like The New Yorker is ushering in a new golden age of photojournalism.  I suspect this is partly because arresting pictures attract readers to the publications' websites and partly because it's now much easier to publish photographs than it was in the print era.  The New Yorker also offers a photo booth compilation of its picture essays.  The Atlantic brands its frequent photo essays "In Focus."  And the New York Times' publishes a well-curated "Lens Blog" of photographs by its staff and contract shooters as well as selections from other publications.

Quite right.  IIRC, the first photographs to appear in The New Yorker were those taken by Richard Avedon.  It's good to see the Internet being used for photojournalistic purposes.  The Washington Post had a nice set of the Mississippi River a couple of weeks ago (I should have posted the link at that time but we were in Oakland CA visiting our daughter):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2018/03/14/a-photographers-7200-mile-journey-following-americas-longest-river/?utm_term=.27b9b9b3f63b

[RSL]

Okay. I'll say it. Every one of those kids is handling his weapon correctly. It looks as if they're being well trained. Instead of "troubling" I'd call it encouraging. We need more people who understand guns and who are trained to handle them properly. At the moment we have loads of articles in our news media written by people who obviously haven't a clue about guns, but who pontificate about them in profound ignorance, ignorance that's immediately obvious to anyone actually familiar with the subject. I'd guess the editors of the New Yorker were sure they were terrifying their urban readers with these pictures, and in the vast number of cases I'm pretty sure they were right.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Yeah, but by whom?

Rob

There have been exhibitions of her work in major galleries and there are books of her work still in print.  There was also the dreadful film starring Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr.  I'm not a fan but did go to the retrospective here in DC a number of years ago. 

[Two23]

Most of the photos are of kids shooting skeet/trap with shotguns.  A few of the others are kids with a target-type .22 pistol or rifle.  In the Midwest, this is a family activity like riding snowmobiles, little league baseball, or riding on the bike trails.  I.e., this is entirely normal and I've never heard of a single problem.  When I was in the 6th grade, i.e. 11 years old, I was allowed to save my money and buy a .22 rifle.  I would go out after school and shoot rabbits and squirrels for dinner on our farm.  Other kids I knew did the same.  Parents were relieved we weren't doing something harmful like smoking dope or cigarretes.  I taught both my kids how to load and fire shotguns and .22 rifle/pistol when they were 12 years old, the year they were eligible for a hunting license.  It's entirely normal here.  And because there is a dad in the home involved with the kids, it doesn't cause problems.  The article seems to be pretty balanced, and to be candid that surprised me.


Kent in SD

[Rob C]

There have been exhibitions of her work in major galleries and there are books of her work still in print.  There was also the dreadful film starring Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr.  I'm not a fan but did go to the retrospective here in DC a number of years ago.

That's a side-step; it does not qualify but simply confirms numbers.

;-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

Okay. I'll say it. Every one of those kids is handling his weapon correctly. It looks as if they're being well trained. Instead of "troubling" I'd call it encouraging. We need more people who understand guns and who are trained to handle them properly. At the moment we have loads of articles in our news media written by people who obviously haven't a clue about guns, but who pontificate about them in profound ignorance, ignorance that's immediately obvious to anyone actually familiar with the subject. I'd guess the editors of the New Yorker were sure they were terrifying their urban readers with these pictures, and in the vast number of cases I'm pretty sure they were right.

Yes, they are correctly handling the weapons.  I have no issues with this and I think the accompanying text is value neutral (you might disagree).  Pistol, shotgun and rifle shooting are all participatory sports at the Olympic Games level (I used to do a fare amount of skeet and trap shooting many years ago and enjoyed it; you might be surprised that I also did a lot of bird hunting which was very enjoyable and I cooked what I shot).  19 year old Virginia Thrasher won a gold medal in Rio two years ago.  I'll go out on the tightrope to say I don't see the point about assault style rifles either for sporting or target use.

[Alan Goldhammer]

That's a side-step; it does not qualify but simply confirms numbers.

;-)

One might say the same thing about some of Helmut Newton's works of which I am a fan.