School shootings in the United States were the worst they've ever been in 2018, and the number of incidents and deaths show no signs of slowing down. Photographer Richard Johnson created this striking series that captures the new reality children must deal with.
On February 27, 2012, I received a call as I walked to classes on campus. I had just finished a grueling day-long audition for a dream position in a graduate program the day before, and I felt it had gone well, so I was feeling quite good. I figured my friend was simply calling to ask me how it had gone, but she told me in a somber voice to turn on the news right away. When I found the news, I saw that there had been a school shooting in my small, picturesque hometown. During the first news conference around noon, I watched a screen full of people I knew well as the town police chief announced that one of the students had died. Another died overnight. A third died the next day.
My dad had coached both the shooter and the dead students in little league. My sister had graduated that same high school only the year before and would have been there had she been a year younger. So, when I saw Richard Johnson's photo series "Fashion for Life," it hit close to home.
If you remember the department store back-to-school catalogs and ads of the 1990s, you probably recall bright, cheery kids showing off the latest children's fashion and school supplies. It's that style that creates the incredible, heartbreaking juxtaposition in Johnson's photos, which I spoke with him about.
Johnson notes that his inspiration for the project came from the fruitlessness of attempting to change opinions on social media, where "well thought-out or witty replies to people who disagree have little to no positive impact and if anything, push people further away from my perspective." He then decided to put his photography skills to use to create images that force people to consider the issue, asking:
What would a back-to-school ad look like if bulletproof vests were as common as pencils in school? ...How can we put this on our kids? The weight of survival and death on their shoulders. Is this their new normal?
Johnson notes that he made it a point not to inject his own opinion into the images, rather choosing simply to highlight the reality of "bulletproof backpacks at office supply stores" and the "obvious outcome from lack of solutions and actual change." In doing this, he sought to make the vests look like an everyday part of life for the children, as if they were as normal a part of their wardrobe as their sneakers. In fact, that was one of the most difficult parts of the project for him. He notes he carefully ran over the concept in his head and with his crew multiple times, eventually deciding to have the children act as if this was a normal part of everyday life.
One of my first questions was whether Johnson had any difficulty explaining the concept of the project to the children. Johnson said that surprisingly, the only difficulty actually came in explaining it to the parents, as the children understood right away and were "eager to participate."
As a parent, it's hard to comprehend that active shooter drills are a common practice at a lot of schools, including my kid's school here in Florida... The truth is any of us could be parents of kids that go to the next Sandy Hook, and that terrifies me beyond anything I can put into words.
Johnson said after he put the images of his own kids from the series on Facebook, he received message from people wondering if he really sends his kids to school in bulletproof vests, which made him realize that the images aren't that far out of the realm of reality for most people. He hopes that puts the reality of the situation into perspective for those who see the images and that it angers and inspires them to demand change.
For Johnson, the biggest issue was the self-doubt involved in making a project that makes such a strong statement. He notes that he agonized for every little detail, particularly since he understood that with this sort of project, every detail could have a significant effect on how the project was perceived and the sort of message it sent. Eventually, he just had to go for it, telling himself: "it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done when you have done nothing at all."
Lighting setup
When it came to post-processing, Johnson tried to emulate the established aesthetic of back-to-school ads. He used dodging and burning to draw attention to the subjects' faces to "let them discover the vests on their own." The images started in Lightroom for basic color correction, then moved into Photoshop, where he used the Beauty Retouch Panel by Retouching Academy for the dodging and burning and skin work, Lumenzia by Greg Benz for luminosity masking, and Pratik Naik's Infinite Color Panel for color-toning.
Johnson says he hopes the image inspire others to create compelling imagery as well and of course, that these images generate discourse that leads to change.
I would like to challenge those quick to dismiss work like this to do more than just comment. Go out and create work that challenges the way people think. The fantastic thing about art is that no one side has a monopoly on it. Go out and use those skills for more than being a keyboard warrior! You are better than this. In fact, we all are.
There's certainly no denying that Johnson's series captures your attention and makes you think about the current state of society.
You can view more of Johnson's work on his website, Instagram, and right here on Fstoppers.
All images used with permission of Richard Johnson.
You start off by comparing mass shootings to the decision of a country at war dropping a nuclear bomb, and saying they're essentially the same thing. I'll be completely honest, I found that level of "whatever" (I want to say ignorance, but that seems negative, and I am not trying to insult you, but the comparison of the two things as equals (or even vaguely similar) is beyond ludicrous, so I'm at a loss for a better word), so, after that, while I skimmed the rest of your post, I just couldn't bring myself to attempt an honest discussion with someone that is so far away from the basic facts. I'm sure that's my loss. I'm equally sure if I showed you conclusive proof from every expert in the world, you would not change your mind (I'm not saying that exists, I just think your mind is made up, and that's not going to change, your basic "Facts" are so far askew that I don't think you can move from your position on this, I could be wrong though).
In reference to your "BTW" comment, I asked 2 questions at the end, and I answered 2 questions at the end, not sure where the ambiguity is there.
Illogical argument. You can't get nuclear material to build a bomb. However you can get whatever you need to build a firearm with relative ease. There isn't a material you can feasibly restrict. Metal is in abundance, and gunpowder is fairly easily manufactured and refined. Machining tools are widespread.
As far as suicides go, yes currently in the US most suicides are with firearms. However removing firearms will not likely stop suicides. There is plenty of data that shows that countries without firearms have the same or higher suicide rate as the US.
Just a note: FBI statistics show that hands/baseball bats/etc still kill more people than 'assault rifles'
And finally - the question regarding why the media doesn't do more to show the ongoing toll of violence and instead focuses on mass shootings has (unfortunately) a simple answer: the coverage would be inherently racist based on today's definitions and social activism. (FBI statistics are quite clear on this)
But that just goes to show that programs are needed to alleviate the social issues of low-income, poor education, minimal opportunities that plague these communities and give rise to violence. The amount of money and press given to banning guns would be so much more effective if applied towards the real issues rather than an ideological band-aid.
Sorry, but you've apparently completely misunderstood my point, you're actually repeating it. You're right, the main difference between a nuclear weapon and a firearm, is that that you cannot get the parts you need to build something nuclear. That was my exact point. Ergo, if it was more difficult to get firearms (or parts for firearms even), we might get closer to a similar result. I'm not suggesting that will make all guns disappear, or anything like that (or that we should even be trying to do that). I'm merely pointing that guns are far too accessible, and if the govt took some kind of steps to reduce access, like they have for nuclear materials, we might get a similar result. I have no idea how you arrive that the conclusion that's illogical, since you literally explained the difference between the two as a reason why they're different.
I'm not talking about suicides, that's a whole different discussion, incidental to what we're talking about. I never mentioned them, this feels a lot like a red herring, "quick, let's talk about something different that's easier to defend."...
Deaths from other causes are also a red herring. Are guns the only problem in society? No. Does that mean we can only deal with one obvious issue at a time? Again, no.
And finally, you've gone from the red herring logical fallacy, to the straw man. No one is talking about banning guns. There's a chasm of space between common sense gun reform, and banning guns.
Dave Dundas, what ARE the parts for creating a firearm?
And what parts need to be metal, what parts don't, what parts can be 3D printed, and what's your plan to regulate ALL of those materials, and technologies without violating the 4th, and 5th Amendment?
Dave Dundas how do you define "common sense" within a legal framework? These are important questions, especially when you consider that these laws will inevitably get challenged in court.
I have been watching the news long enough (since 1986), to know that there are sufficient politicians out there that have floated bans to know that banning guns is ANYTHING but a red herring. Sens Feinstein, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Schumer, and a number of others have co-sponsored S.66, that has a short title of The Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. It has no hope of passing this year, but this is a direct refutation of your argument that it is a logical fallacy to say that politicians are trying to ban a classification of weapons.
Before we go passing new laws, how about we take a hard look at the laws we currently have on the books, and not just the big gun laws (NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, and the FOPA of 1986), and see if stepped-up enforcement will do anything. Because if you're just going to propose new laws to make you feel better, people are still going to continue to die, and I'm not up for that.
Edited to include link to S.66 "Assault Weapons Ban of 2019"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66/text
Those are all reasonable questions to start the discussion with. However, the current rules of the govt (specifically the Dickey Amendment) severely restrict any research into firearms by anyone capable of collecting that data, so, I would suggest we start by creating a real study that will actually attempt to get some of these answers so that we have real data instead of opinions.
Progress is painfully slow getting past that deliberately created roadblock to science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
Dave Dundas, on 23 March 2018, the rules applying to the Dickey Amendment changed it so that the research cannot be used to advocate for gun control. Which is actually quite reasonable. If you're doing research, starting with a conclusion, and then looking for data to support it is intellectually dishonest, and should not be government funded.
I am with you that we need more data. But we don't need data that has an agenda, that will only set back real solutions.
Seems like you missed the point and find it hard to follow the conversation. You can't effectively restrict access to something that can be readliy aquired or manufactured. Alcohol and pot are perfect examples.
The next comment was in regards to the suicides portion of the conversation as a whole.
The portion about murders from other causes is to inject some context into the conversation, as the clamor to restrict assault rifles is somewhat disingenuous when baseball bats kill more people. If the conversation was truly about safety and protecting people, then we would be requesting proof of membership on a baseball team and mental health checks to make sure they weren't gonna be misused. But we are not, which is the clearest proof that ideology is driving the conversation and not facts.
There is no 'common sense' if weapon A is denigrated and villified while weapon B is actually more of a problem and ignored. It's actually the opposite of common sense.
Also, Trying to identify 'logical fallacies' in a debate is the latest trend, but its just an attempt to discredit the argument without addressing the valid points made. Works great in high school debates, but petty and transparent when the adults are talking.
I don't agree with your arguments based on the facts that I accept.
Additionally, it's a very sound starting point, since long before I was in university, to look at basic flaws in an argument to see if it's reasonable, before getting into the details. A poorly crafted argument can, randomly, still be valid, but, it's quite unlikely compared to any argument that has sound reasoning behind it. Facts are facts. Fallacies are usually used because people want to push an agenda. It's not a trend, it's a basis for assessing reality. It's been in use since before the Greeks were around to codify the specifics. In no way should people reject what logic shows as obviously flawed, simply because they don't agree with the conclusion.
If you want people to buy into your arguments more, I'd suggest you start with better arguments, instead of trying to bash logical principles that have been established over literally thousands of years.