It's Not A Gun, But A Notional, Composite Toy...

Does it make sense to place provocative symbolism equating a firearm - and all the violent implications generally associated with it - with warm and comforting symbols, as though the warmth and familiarity and the word "Mommy", alongside it, will completely neutralize the imagery of a gun, in a place that is meant to provide recreational and learning opportunities to young, impressionable kids?

Evidently the arts committee of Le Patro d'Ottawa felt that would be the case. They would help take the sing away from guns and the fascination held by young men for firearms, by placing that image in the presence of flowers and crayons, birds and other colourful and delightful objects. In fact, constructing the image of a gun from images of flowers and birds and crayons.

And place it proudly and high on a wall of the building so it can be seen and appreciated by all. Commissioned by a well-known artist who evidently meant his vision to be one that "can't do any harm, and that it's a simple symbolism, like the sculpture of a gun with a note on the barrel". Just the very topic and object to highlight the purpose of such an establishment.

There, that didn't hurt, did it? And why, for what purported purpose? If the idea is to wean young people away from their fascination with firearms, why think that softening the image by constructing it from well-regarded objects of childhood and nature would do the trick? When, in fact, it would be more sensible to realize that doing just that 'normalizes' a gun, removes its stigma as a weapon. Why make an effort to soften the image of a gun?

For how can an object constructed of the images of delicate flowers, exquisite birds, colourful crayons, with the priceless word "Mommy", and all it denotes alongside it, represent as something to be avoided? If anything, it would increase a young person's attraction to guns, as harmless, intriguing and something to be innocently accessed.

Quite apart from the fact that it is an objectional visual assault deployed in a public place, something that people who live across from the building must put up with. People who take offence at its public display are not artistic Philistines, they are rational and sensitive to the message being conveyed, which is not a very good one.

Foremost, however, the question must be put: where is the common sense in portraying a gun in such a gentle context, and why would anyone think that young children would benefit from such a portrayal? Completely oblivious.

Back to the drawing board on that imbecilic idea.