457 Comments for Roseville State School

wrote:
Where in the USA is this located?
wrote:
Wow, this is one good shot.
Hooray for Joel Peter-Witkin!!! XD

It's beautiful. . . Eventhough it's rust, it reminds me of the Baroque era, and gilded objects. . . Maybe it's an industrial form of gilding. . .
wrote:
(That's supposed to be "thankfully," BTW...)
wrote:
Gotta say... after reading Motts' original comment, I **almost** googled Witkin. Then, thankfull, I read the user comments.

I did not google Witkin. I WILL not google Witkin. Thank you all for the enlightenment beforehand. Motts continues to be my favorite photographer and I am glad to leave it at that.
wrote:
Umm y r ppl so ILLITERATE?? Grrr... I get tired of seeing that.

In any case, cass, "y" would anyone in your "fam" be going to an abandoned chapel, anyway? You said it yourself, it "used to be a chapel." Which means it isn't anymore. Apparently God, and everyone else, has left the building.

Which means the rudeness stems from the vandalism of an urban ruin, not necessarily the placement of said graffiti within the ruin. It wouldn't matter if they'd painted this phrase in the bathroom, it'd still be rude.
wrote:
omg.. that looks umm weirdd =p nO perve here
wrote:
umm y r ppl so rude? that used to be a chapel! gods house. i hope no 1 in my fam ever goes there theyed be pissed..." NO PUSSY" thats so rude
wrote:
that could be an instant classic album cover.... like the swimming baby!!
Nice Niche
wrote:
pure art
wrote:
these are amazing photographs you have here, I've been to this location 6-8 times. Though, its all been after this building was destroyed. Such a pity : ( this was the building I had been dying to explore..
wrote:
Toys were considered "demeaning" because they were not "age appropriate," meaning appropriate to the person's chronological age, not his/her mental age. There were ways around this, such as having a "collection of model cars" rather than "toy cars" or using large-piece jigsaw puzzles of animals instead of preschool puzzles of cartoon characters. It's mostly about respecting each person as an individual and offering choices. Sometimes the rules change from day to day and it all seems very arbitrary.
wrote:
One of the most poignant conversations I had was with the mother of a middle-aged woman who had mental retardation. She had taken care of her daughter alone for years after her husband's death, then let her move to a group home so that she could live with people closer to her own age, rather than just with her mother, and so that it wouldn't be so hard for her if her mother died or became too sick/weak to care for her. The mother still picked her up every Friday and took her home until Monday morning. She was included in all family events. Her mother never really trusted that anyone else would properly care for her if Mom wasn't around to make sure Daughter was treated right, and said that she wanted her daughter to have as long and happy a life as possible, but that she prayed that Daughter would die just one minute before Mom did, so that Mom would never have to know that fear of leaving her disabled child alone in the world. As it turned out, Daughter became physically ill, had to have surgery in the hospital, and had to go briefly to a nursing home before she was well enough to return to her group home (thanks to Medicare restrictions on hospital stays and only a certain number of days being allowed for a given diagnosis). Complications rapidly developed, within a couple of days she was back in the hospital, and shortly after that she died with Mom and family at her side (and group home staff, too). A few months later her mother died, at peace. The impossible choices some of us are forced into...
beautiful.