[misterasset]

I think my point is being lost somewhere along the way. I was just saying that the artist was probably trying to point out that we have in excess of 2.3 million people in the USA commiting crimes. And that whatever the reason that fact has become true, and we should look at some way to reduce it.

I'm going to use Japan again here for an example because I just got back from there, but it was a very nice experience. They let their children ride the subway by themselves and I saw groups of what had to have been 8 year olds or so walking home by themselves knowing they'd be perfectly safe. Or the fact that no one litters (of course some people do, but on large it's non-existent), not even cigarette buds (a personal pet peeve of mine).

What did they do differently than us that fostered this kind of thinking towards issues like that? I'm not looking for an answer in this thread, but I think that's the kind of thought the artist is trying to provoke. Trying to get people to think and care about the issue rather than push a position onto anyone.

Make sense?

[dilbert]

Point taken, I understand what you're saying.

Singapore is the same way. Cleanest country you will ever see in the world, but there is a reason. The fine for littering in Singapore is HUGE, and it only takes one offense for a person to not want to do it again. The fine for littering in the USA is pretty much non-existent, hence we have dirty cities where people don't respect the way in which they live. Cause and effect once again.

I know what you're getting at, and maybe there is no answer. Back to the art, I just don't think the actual art itself merits an exhibition, but that's just my opinion.

[ivox3]

Litterers suck.

[rivoli]

Litterers suck.

totally. cutting off hands sucks too.

[jsf]

If the cutting off of hands is such an effective deterrent to crime, why are they still cutting off hands?