'On Break from Basic Training'

Children imitate elders, television, movies,friends, and whatever else

they see; it helps them prepare for adulthood. After a day of hard

play,this weary young soldier leans both on mom and his toy assault

rifle to steady himself. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve

my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john

Note: Please excuse the cut-and-paste comment.  For the moment I'm using attributed ratings but not offering critiques since some members have stated they would welcome such attributed ratings rather than anonymous ratings, regardless of carefully considered critiques or generic comments such as "Great capture!", "Well seen!" or any use of the word "Congrats!" without regard to elements such as careful planning, effort expended or pure serendipity.  This is merely an experiment and nothing personal.  If you would like a critique please feel free to e-mail me: lexnotlex2 at netscape dot net.  I will make a sincere effort to respond to all such inquiries.  Regards, Lex.

You have very special status with Photo.net and your word has high status as well as your ratings.

Rather than 'anonymous ratings', having a rating attributed to you, and really knowing what you think about a photo is a boon, since your rating has (to me) real meaning.

Your explanation was a little difficult to wade through, but I got the point, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Maybe others will do the same.

john

John (Crosley)

Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. I didn't see if you actually did leave a rate (I hope you did, there were some very low raters).

It certainly was meant as a thought provoker; I think some raters missed the point.

(or maybe they're arms merchants?)

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

(I almost never look at rates until after I've replied to a comment - keeps my replies honest and unaffected by rates.)

jc

If this photo interests you with its subject, a child and a gun, you might comb my portfolio for another photo, in the black and white, then to now, folder, entitled 'The Right to Bear Arms' showing a child pointing a rifle to the sky while people are walking to his right and left, nearly in his line of fire (if it were a real gun.)

No longer in the USA, I think; I think they no longer sell toy guns in the United States by law, or at least certain states like California, but in other countries, it's almost a crime not to sell those as toys.  Kids like 'em.  I had my toy gun and my own toy bow and arrow and I didn't grow up to be a crazy guy who 'went postal' when bad things happened, and even vowed never to serve in the Armed Forces if it meant killing someone (I still went to Viet Nam, but with a camera).

john

John (Crosley)

Persuaded by a gun advocate father-in-law who foisted guns off on me, I owned a .38 caliber revolver once.  I thought of it in anger once, and immediately took a hammer and smashed it to pieces, throwing the pieces into far places.

He also 'rescued' a special edition Smith and Wesson 'rare' shotgun for me, which he insisted I buy when his relative who owned California's then oldest business, a gun shop, died (his nephew found a real machine gun in the attic, presenting a problem since his nephew later became a federal judge.)

I accepted the shotgun, but never knew where the buckshot was for it, didn't know how to load or fire it, and when I got divorced, it went back to him.

Good riddance, from my point of view. I lived in an urban area and a gun was nothing that I wanted; police were nearby and could be called (we had an alarm system that was very sophisticated and monitored and lived in an extremely safe neighborhood.

I had already been shot, and through experience, I have learned that the people most likely to be shot or victims of violence are those who (1) own guns or other weapons and (2) are friends of acquaintances of violent people, or (3) involved in quarrels with household or family members and a weapon is nearby which someone can use to 'settle someone down' or 'settle an argument' but which can be struggled over, and discharge.

I've been shot, as i said, and it changed my life.  It hurts like hell!

I almost died from it.

I lost my college degree on schedule from that wound, lost my law school I had chosen because of that, (later I went to another, far later), and everything in my life was changed.

If I had a gun, I would certainly have been killed then even though the other guy had a gun.  It had been to my advantage to be unarmed.  To 'fight back' then would have been my death sentence.

In Viet Nam, it was kill or be killed, and all for a war that had no real reason for the US to be involved in (source, former Defense Secretary McNamara who spent the last part of his life apologizing for his part in maintaining and escalating what he and others revealed was a war that was 'cooked up' because of the now discredited 'domino theory' or the spread of Communism in S.E. Asia.

Yes, this is a thought provoking photo for me.

And I grew up playing with guns, even BB guns and pellet guns.

The pellet gun a neighbor aimed at my stomach and said he'd pull the trigger because he 'knew it was empty' - I fought like hell to keep him from testing it on my stomach. 

Later with that same 'empty gun' he shot a bird out of a tree a lot and a half away.  That would have shot into my gut with great force and sent me to the hospital, at least, if he had fired, mistakenly believing it WAS empty.

john

John (Crosley)

This is a meaningful photograph from a social point of view - what a documentary is supposed to be. I also appreciate the expression, the composition , the DoF and the tones. I suppose I am going to remember this photograph for long. Best regards.

If what you  wrote were absolutely true, than I as a boy who played with toy guns, would be one who believes and reassures the values you decry.

In fact guns are also used to defend valuable rights when aggressors try to take them away.

I was reared after World War ii (The Great Patriotic War to you) and Americans saw it as rescuing the world from totalitarianism, and the same for the Cold War from the Totalitarianism Communists who told everybody what to do through blunt force militarily and economically through their central planning economics.

So,I have a slightly different and more neutral outlook on guns.

Israelis have heavy emphasis on use of guns; women are soldiers and bring them home for meals.  A young woman's assault rifle on a table or in a family room is not uncommon I have seen in photos from Israel, yet when the Israelis use their force, they only use it to protect their own territory, and when they take other territory as they have taken vast portions of the Middle East when other countries have attacked them, they have given it back.

The US, the Allied forces of the West (Britain, France and the US.) and Israel, are unique among powers that returned countries to their populations in later days (Britain as a colonial power was 'late to the table' in that enterprise . . . .  since before it exploited by force with its colonization, and same with France.

Guns themselves are somewhat neutral, except the people who depend on them have extra power and require extra care in their training about the social responsibilities that come with owning and using them.

They are indeed intended to inflict death; no doubt about that.

Sometimes that is a worthwhile goal when a far off country seeks to take away your freedoms, your territory, your property, and your everything.

Of internally, when your government does not represent you but instead an organized gang of criminals.

Still Gandhi and Nelson Mandela offered us a better and different model.

Which I'm happier to endorse.

(long thoughts provoked by this photo and your remark, which I felt was one-sided, and though true, not deep enough)

Pardon me if i 'stir the pot' a little.

And thank you for the comment which started all this.

john

John (Crossly)

Thank you for the technical comments; I strive to be better technically all the time,and with 'street' that is a very big challenge, because many captures happen so quickly with so little time to change settings to optimal, or happen so often in lowest light or under severe lighting conditions.

This photo was meant, as are good documentary and many 'street' photos, to make you think, so if it does, then it has accomplished my goal in posting it.  For that I am happy.

Viz the colloquy between myself and Svetlana Korolyova above with her assertions about guns for cruelty, etc, and my response that gun are indeed for killing but are not always for inflicting cruelty and sometimes their use is justified (though I would never use one personally - the camera is my weapon, and I did go to war with a camera, which illustrates my statement.).

Thanks for the comment.

john

John (Crosley)

looks like a little Hamas Boy.. At least he's not wearing a bomb.

You have a unique view on arms and armaments.  I do not envy you, living in a perpetual battlefield.

john

John (Crosley)

yep; like living next door to Grendel.

Meir, for those who do not get your reference to the monster in Beowulf's England, here is a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel

Good, interesting comment, over the head of some, I fear, but I hope I helped.

john

John (Crosley)

Nevertheless, I live in the greatest place of all (for me).

You've shared photos of your personal dwelling, your family (including an Arab relative, very attractive and healthy looking), and your actions seem to sometimes belie  the sometimes angry pithy words of some of your posts. 

I think somehow you are a greater believer in Ecumenism between Jews and Arabs than your prior posts seem at times to reveal. 

Your posted photos also reveal a great understanding of your fellow man, Arab and Jew, alike (terrorists excluded) as well as just man/human kind in general.

Happy Holiday/s (to come).  Best Wishes from Ukraine, then Austria, then Canada then USA, then Ukraine again, perhaps.

john

John (Crosley)

I looked up "Ecumenisim" on Wikipedia. "ecumenism refers to the idea of a Christian unity". So you must be thinking of something else. It also says that: "The word contrasts with interfaith dialogue or interfaith pluralism aimed at unity or cooperation among diverse religions and referring to a worldwide 'religious unity' by the advocacy of a greater sense of shared spirituality." unquote. I, in no way support that idea of interfaith "religious unity" and neither does Islam -"by a long shot" in a very different way. Islam does not even support "intrafaith" dialog. Ask the Sunni, the Shiites, Taliban and al-qaeda about religious unity -or check out the Koran. Well this is far off of the photos topic of the photo, but you brought it up, not I.

Ecumenism certainly stands for 'interfaith' as you see it defined, but it has a broader meaning which may not have made its way into the dictionaries. In the primar sense it may stand for 'Christian interfaith', but not in my vocabulary'.

As you are aware the best dictionaries are defined by usage, and not the other way around.  The best dictionary I have ever seen takes words as they have been used by prominent writers, quotes them in context, then uses their use as part of the definition, or an alternate definition, and if it differs from a standard dictionary no. 1 definition, it becomes no. 2 through x definition, with example(s).

I used the term not in the Christian sense (obviously) but in the sense of some greater unity.  If you reject my usage, certainly you get the idea that I was trying to make . . . . that I think you do see some brotherhood, even if the Sunni, Shiite, Taliban, Al-Quaida, do not, especially their more strict adherents, for those are religions or those who practice those religions the most fervently are practitioners of exclusion.

Somehow through glimpses of your life I don't get the idea that you really are a practitioner of exclusion . . . . though maybe I am wrong.  Sometimes you say the words, but I seem to detect an open heart. . . . .

In any case, sometimes words fail, but I think I had the right idea, if not let me know.

john

John (Crosley)

yes, i understand, i think

A fascinating photo on various levels.

On the most obvious level it can be seen as a riff or thematic improvisation on the famous Diane Arbus photo, Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park.

On another level, it may be interpreted as a metaphor. The Arbus photo seemed to have captured the naive ardor of an earlier generation for the excitement of war (however unintentionally, given the circumstances described for how her photo occurred), and the then-unshakable, manic faith in the infallibility of the American way. The sense of ennui portrayed in John's interpretation could be seen as a metaphor for this generation's youth, who no longer have the luxury of blindly believing in war as romantic or heroic, or in a government or cultural system that is infallible.

It's also interesting to see how easily some viewers become trapped by the mere representation of a physical object - in this case, a bit of plastic that represents a firearm without actually being a firearm. I'm reminded of an incident from a few years ago when I was in an art supply store. Another shopper seemed annoyed by the selection of paints in the oil painting section. I overheard her muttering to the man accompanying her (husband, boyfriend, brother, I don't know) about toxic materials. Apparently she wanted a shade of red that contained no toxic materials. I offered a tube of Cadmium Red Hue that I'd used and found satisfactory.

She refused the tube. "I don't want anything with cadmium," she declared.

I pointed out that Cadmium Red Hue was a substitute for the traditional cadmium red and contained no cadmium or other toxic materials, and that the phrase "Cadmium Red Hue" only meant that it was designed to resemble as closely as possible the original cadmium-containing paint.

She wouldn't hear it. "Look, it says 'Cadmium' right there on the label. I don't want anything with cadmium!"

No amount of explanation would appease her. She was so thoroughly brainwashed by partial knowledge eagerly served up to the overly credulous that the mere word "cadmium" offended her. It's comparable to the anti-fur zealots who also oppose the wearing of any fabric that even resembles fur.

When a mere representation manages to prick the thin skin or ruffle feathers and fur on more than one level, chances are the photo is successful.

And reading with fascination your commentary on this photo.

It's of the highest order.

I'm enraptured with your ability to comment in depth on a photo such as this at a level that I like, and one that sometimes my commentors (commentators?) have done in colloquy with me over time with certain photos.

I'm interested in hearing more, if you feel like it, until I can reach a personal keyboard and computer rather than one in a hotel lobby with people waiting behind me waiting to print out boarding passes wondering 'what kind of guy looks at pictures while we want to get on our planes?'  What a jerk he must be!'  

So now this 'jerk' must go to be polite to the waiting people and their need now to print out boarding passes (airlines no longer will do that unless you actually prod and push them to do that and then they make pointed remarks about how you may indeed be 'helpless'or practicing being 'helpless'just to ruffle their feathers and waste their paper (instead of your own).

I'll see your future commentary if you have more, and add my observations when I have some freedom - this is a dialogue I long to join, and regret my traveling at this time -- you and I really have not joined our heads together much, and I'm absolutely delighted at your recent posts.

Thanks so much for sharing your observations not only with me but with the entire PN audience, members and gazers alike.

john

John (Crosley)