The image of the Towner Woman and Baby is a monstrosity. Its multiple irresolvable problems should disturb any rational viewer. Here's one I haven't mentioned before:
Start by standing up and mimicking what she is supposedly doing. Raise your left arm overhead and start waving your hand, as if you were waving at the President. Then with your right arm, position it as if you were holding a baby with it. Actually do it, and while you are doing it, while you are waving, I want you to think about how it feels. Really put yourself into the mental thought that you are actually holding a baby with just your right arm.
Doesn't it feel inadequate? Don't you feel the urgent desire to shift your left arm to the baby's back, lest it fall? But, it isn't only you who would have that feeling; the child would too.
When a child is being held and he or she puts their arms around the holder, it's not just a matter of showing affection. It may not be that at all. It's out of the precariousness of it. The holder is their support. The holder is their Earth. The holder is their whole planet, and the danger of falling off the planet is very real. So, the child, including one this young, would automatically hold on to the source of support if its ties to it were tenuous.
And it's especially true were the mother holding the child with just one arm from below. That child, although knowing nothing about physics and gravity, would get the same urge that you got when you were waving your left arm- to shift it to the kid before it fell. The kid would be driven the same way- to get its arms around its mother.
Joseph Backes said that the mother is holding the child with her right arm, but I trust you agree that we can't see that in the picture; her right arm is not in view. And I trust you also agree that we can't see the child's arm going around the mother.
But, I'm saying that the child would sense the precariousness of the situation and would wrap its arms around the mother's neck. That would happen instinctively and automatically in this situation.
There wouldn't be the compulsion if the mother were holding the child solidly in both arms, as seen below:
But, imagine if the mother above had her left arm high in the air waving at the President, and it was just her right arm below holding the child. Then, the child would lean in and get its arms around the mother's neck.
In other words, when a child holds on to its mother, it may be partly out of affection, but really, it's holding on for dear life.
Below, we have a mother holding a baby with two arms: one above and one below. Imagine if the arm above weren't there. Imagine that she is waving with it, and also imagine that she is standing rather than sitting. How precarious would it be?
Below we have an ultra-safe situation where the mother is using two arms to lock in the baby, and the baby is doing its part to help.
Again, if her left arm weren't there, if the baby didn't feel it against its back, the baby's arms would instinctively go up to latch on, to wrap around. And if it didn't, it would be at great risk of falling.
We don't hear a lot of stories about people dropping babies, and it's because they hold them with two arms.
So, the problem with the image below is that even if you assume that the mother has her right arm supporting the child even though we can't see it, it wouldn't be enough to give the child any sense of security, and it would instinctively try to bolster the situation by using its own arms to latch on to the mother. It isn't doing it. Why don't we see its right arm wrapping around in front?
But, who's kidding who? The problem is not just that the baby is not using its arms to hold on to its mother; it's that it has no arms. It's like a Thalidomide baby- with no arms and no legs. It's just a blob: an orange blob and a white blob.
The above is not a photographic image. It is a cartoon that was added to a movie. That is absolutely certain.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.