Fifteen minutes of fire.

Recently, I participated in an open critique that included a few of the images from “Ricochet”. It was an opinionated affair, laced with controversy and confrontation. The session lasted fewer than 15 minutes, but suffice it to say it was time well spent.

Student work is rarely, if ever, fully formed—that is why we are students, and that is why we hold dear the opinions of our faculty and classmates. Nowhere else can an artist receive as much qualified and condensed opinion as in an open critique- I will always jump at the chance to participate in these forums.

That being said, one item in particular caught my attention as a matter for open discussion. Who decides the authorship of an artist’s work and how it should be presented? Who decides the right to decide on the perception of the content in the message, and who has a voice in its delivery?

If I identify the audience as the subject of a piece of art, who has the authority to disagree with my hypothesis—and does my intention have to be obvious? If I provoke a response from the viewer, is it any less genuine if it occurs by a slight-of-hand delivery? Is the data corrupt if the intention isn’t announced prior to the viewing? Am I being dishonest, deceptive or both?  Is response to a constructed stimuli a subject for analysis? Isn’t that a valid question that Art should ask?

The following were a few of the suggestions I received as a response to the viewing of the work:

-       Photograph knives instead of guns, “guns don’t intimidate me…”

-       Consider a different subject that isn’t trendy.

-       “I don’t give a s**t about guns. Why should I care about this work?

-       Photograph the bullet entry wounds of a victim.

-       Have you considered toy guns instead of confiscated ones?

-       Consider a different approach from the current “All guns go to Heaven theme.”

-       Consider pointing the gun at the viewer to make your opinion more dramatic.

-       Consider making the prints extremely large so they are more dramatic.

-       Draw inspiration from other artist’s subjective work and emulate their approach.

-        “I don’t think you are getting what you need from the photography department.” 

-       This is propaganda…

Wow.

There were so many other opinions in the room that weren’t expressed because of time constraint and even more thoughts that were held private for personal reasons. Growth doesn’t occur without change and change is disruptive by nature.

My intention of this first formal critique was to assess how the work was received by viewers who aren’t invested in cultivating the idea firsthand, or inconvenienced by the burden of creation. 

Should I make Politics my position and choose sides on the issue of gun rights/control, or should I produce documents that are ambiguous and non-committal?  Sometimes taking a neutral position is the most difficult stance of all. There are few allies and many adversaries. Perhaps it is more offensive to reject an ideology than it is to proclaim one.

The view from the conference room

Seated directly across from the Police Captain, I placed the photographs of the weapons on the conference table in front of him. He responded, “These look better than they really do!” It was a compliment and I took it that way. There was an immediate burst of energy throughout the room and we started to talk about guns.

After a few minutes of a mostly one-sided conversation (I really didn’t have much to offer), all this talk about ammunition, reliability and marksmanship led me to confess that I was conflicted about all this loaded dialogue (no pun intended) we were having. Lawmen don’t have the luxury of ambivalence about a stance that is almost certainly a life and death scenario. Self-preservation has a way of cutting through the crap. I struggled to be certain to convey my respect with any question I asked. A private audience with a Police Captain is something I very much wanted to get right.

I started to press a little bit about my ambivalence on the issue of gun control/rights and began to court an opinion that I knew would be honest and forthcoming. It was. “Just be sure”, he said, “to always keep your finger away from the trigger, make sure the safety is on and check to make sure there isn’t a bullet in the chamber.” There, that was easy. Everything the Captain told me was plain and simple, nothing at all like the conversation I imagined we might have.

 We spoke about the lawfulness (and it is lawful) of making photographs in public, even discussing the general guidelines of accepted decorum of wielding a gun in public. You can do it, you just can’t point the gun “at” anyone. Seems fair enough to me… There was absolutely no anxiety or self-consciousness in the Captain’s words. This was not new territory for him and we spoke of his weapons in the same way I spoke about my cameras. We talked about our tools.

Gun ownership and safety doesn’t really sound like it’s that difficult. Apparently most of the problems are actually caused by the bullet.

Fake Blood and (Almost) Real Emotion

In the world of theater the distance between a dancer’s dressing room and backstage is often separated by a dark corridor that serves as a symbolic division between the worlds of fantasy and reality.  To make that walk accompanied by a ballerina is the stuff of bucket lists. I do it on a regular basis and it never gets old.

Last night I made that walk with Atlanta Ballet dancer Nadia Mara and it proved to be more symbolic than usual. Two hours later, Nadia would lie center-stage, spot lit, drenched in fake blood dying from a theatrical gunshot wound that was delivered with terrifyingly real emotion. All the while, I took aim with my camera and recorded every gory detail as if I were a participant rather than a photographer. I felt the weight of the moment and tried to imagine what that experience would actually feel like. Sadly, that scene is often played out in real-life scenarios that don’t have the benefit of suspended disbelief.

On this evening, Nadia was accidentally shot by her stage-lover, and real life friend, Jonah Hooper, they have danced and died in each other’s arms many times before. Still, the moment felt fresh and the emotions seemed raw. Increasingly, everywhere I turn these days the killing ritual is paying another visit. Has it always been this persistent or has my awareness become more acutely tuned to its hideous frequency? I guess maybe that’s the point of this on-going exercise I’m conducting.

 

I’m beginning to think that contextual and situational circumstance, much like this theatrical illustration, is absolutely at the center of my belief about gun rights and gun control. That isn’t groundbreaking news to anyone, but it is a good starting-point for my becoming more at ease with this controversial subject.

Later, I walked from the theater with another good friend of mine, Scott Freeman. Scott is a terrific writer and an even better person; he works as Managing Editor of ArtsATL, and he has written many stories on a number of controversial subjects. He is a trusted confidant and often engages me in thoughtful conversation. Tonight was no different.

I decided to ask Scott how he came to terms with his decision to write difficult stories and he gave me some good advice. “Charlie”, he said, “I asked that question years ago, and a good friend told me this- Never be paralyzed by the possibilities of the future”. “How did that work out for you?” I asked. “Well”, he said, “I received a death threat and someone tried to burn down my house”.

“Thanks Scott!” I said with a smirk. His story definitely lightened my mood. We parted ways and headed off in different directions to report on what we had just witnessed in the theater. Scott would write his review, and I would edit my photos.

 For some strange reason I thought about Petey and wondered what he would think about all of this.

NRA comes calling

Earlier today the phone rang-- it was the NRA. They wanted to talk to my youngest daughter who is twenty years old. I almost hung up the phone but I decided to hear what "Brian" had to say, it was predictable....

"Did you know your Constitutional rights are being stolen away from you by Obama, along with Hillary and the rest of the liberal media!". I felt like a sleeping dog that had been poked. Really? I asked-- how is that? Brian sensed a fish on the line so he decided to "set the hook". Well, Mr. McCullers, I'm glad you asked. Let me play you a short message from Wayne LaPierre (the current CEO of the NRA), and then I'll get your response....  ok, I muttered with the hook half lodged in my cheek.

Mr. LaPierre was really animated and upset! It was a well-crafted recording that was designed to make me mad as Hell. But I wasn't mad.... I wanted to hear what he had to say. He told me that my way of life was being threatened and it was up to me to do something, NOW!  Mr. LaPierre went on to tell me the same facts that Brian had mentioned (only more emphatically), that "my 2nd amendment rights were slipping away from me and it was only going to get worse when Hillary takes over the White House". Was that really the best strategy to assume what the voters have yet to decide??

The recording ended and I was returned to Brian so he could finish me off with the gaff hook and haul me in the boat. "What do you think about that, Mr. McCullers! Is that really the future you want for Savannah (my daughter whom he referred to by name...). My inner-fish began to fight back-- how dare he present a veiled threat in such a vile manner! Well, Brian, I've heard the 2nd amendment referenced several times in the last few minutes- please tell me how do you interpret it? Silence.....

and more silence.... Brian, are you still there? 

Brian blustered, "The NRA is a national organization based in Washington D.C. that yields tremendous influence...." Brian.... I interrupted, I want to know how do you define the 2nd amendment!.  More silence and then a dial tone. He hung up on me. A glorified telemarketer hung up on me!  

I don't think I was being obtuse or confrontational,  I really wanted to know his view on this issue. It's a shame that he decided to cut the line assuming I was about to spit the hook. In retrospect, I think we are very similar (Brian and me), he wears a gun on his hip to dissuade an unwanted intruder and I arm myself with a desire to understand the right and the responsibility for that particular freedom. I don't dislike Brian or his right to bear arms,  I just wish we could have talked a little longer so I could have possibly understood his politics instead of simply being subjected to his posturing.

 I really would like to come to terms with the right to bear arms to defend myself against an oppositional militia and what that actually means. I hope Brian calls back tomorrow-- and I hope he brings better bait.