Ron Oliver The Eye Of The Beholder Download
Film (Selected)Dreamland Principal Nicholas Jarecki / Land of Dreams ProductionsArrival Principal Paramount / D. VilleneuveMidnight Sun Principal Roger SpottiswoodeJack Of Diamonds (TV Movie) Principal Muse / Herve RenohCorner Gas: The Movie Principal Corner Gas: The Movie / David StoreyTangled (TV Movie) Principal CBC Shaftesburty / Bronwen HughesJensen Project (TV Movie) Principal NBC / Muse / Douglas BarrCutting Edge (TV Movie) Lead MGM / Stephen HerekThe Incredible Hulk Principal Universal/Louis LeterrierJekyll & Hyde Principal Muse / Paolo BarzmanWar Games III Principal Muse Inc.
- Eye Of The Beholder Game
- Ron Oliver The Eye Of The Beholder Download Torrent
- Eye Of The Beholder Walkthrough
From the thread below where this article was mentioned:following quotes are from the truly sick ones:'I do not think this can solely be an issue about art, it is alsoabout this child's development, which includes her sexualdevelopment, and she is pictured naked. While I would not say it ispornography, it is inappropriate and it could do added damagethrough people coming along who are looking for sexualgratification.' Sexuality is bad; my body reminds me of sexuality. Repress it!' Pornography is in the eye of the beholder, but there is theinevitable fallout of the way people experience images in a gallery.The artist's endeavour does not end when she puts them on displaybut it continues through people's response of them.' That's why some societies force their women to cover up from headto toe - to stop the spreading of impure thoughts. It's interestingthat even those societies don't force female children to cover upuntil puberty.A pedophile will find sexual gratification in any image of a childby forcing a sexual connotation onto it - no matter how innocent itactually is.
That is exactly what these 'critics' are doing. Theyare more in tune with pedophiles than they care to admit. Just a week ago, i bought at a flea market a thick issue of the Venus International (a german magazine with lots of contemporan(?) german and non-german 'people photographers') from the seventies. It has a full-page camera equipment commercial featuring a full-body colour photograph of a 6-8 y old girl completely naked, even without tricks to hide certain body parts. I don't think it caused any problems, since the company (minolta) is still doing okay.I wonder, what changed so radically in less than 30 years.
There is no 'legal' or 'legally guaranteed' right to privacy in British law - it is a concept in genral terms. As Scheider shot photos of her own child it wouldn't make a hoot if there was one, as 'privacy', in concept, only applies to intrusions from outside a family.E.G, Older children (teens) in Britain suspected by their parents of drugs use have argued the point, and lost, about whether a parent has a right to search their room and possessions for evidence of drugs. The parent in effect may conduct a search where no 'authority', such as the police, can do so without a warrant. If the parent wishes then to supply the 'evidence', if any is found, to the police with a statement implicating the 'child' in a possible possession charge they may do so and no 'right to privacy' issue can be raised as a defence to the search being unlawful. There is a very worrying trend of over protection and paranoia slowlyovertaking us, driven in no small part by press over hype and politicalvote catching.I have had a client recently request the negatives of totally inoccentfamily portrait sessions just in case pictures of their children got into thehands of peodophiles. A couple of things have come about that affect the child porn.
For one thing, the internet has made material much more available to people than in the past, and invariably, if you hear about a child porn case, it involves the internet. Secondly, the distribution of porn in general was much more restricted in years past. If it was illegal anyway, it didn't make much difference if it was child porn or adult porn or donkey porn. But there is a general recognition that child porn ought not to be allowed, while other porn is, and this has given much more emphasis to the topic.Now, if I understand your post, you are basically saying that those who think child nudity ought not to be published because it is inappropriate are truly sick and are in tune with the pedaphiles. That seems a truly bizzare twist of logic. Bob Blakley, mar 09, 2004; 10:40 a.m.Hmm?
There is a legally guaranteed right to privacy in Britain now, since the adoption of the EU Data Protection Directive and the supporting national legislation.-Does not apply here, or to editorial photography either. The appeals judges in the case of Naomi Campbell v Mirror said so for photography generally - and except in the concept of commercial confidentiality (Michael Douglas / Catherine Zeta Jones v Hello Magazine) - not for personal privacy either. 'Frankly, by slinging sleazy accusations of the critics being 'in tune with pedophiles,' you're just as bad as the most hysterical critics on the other side of the issue.' I'm consciously attacking these 'critics' on their own terms - and the approach is justified. They are both as 'well-meaning' in their own closed minds and as misguided as those who accused witches in the past.
They believe they are saving society from itself, when they are actually perpetuating a simplistic moral agenda and will gladly choose scapegoats wherever they can find them. You can't use logic or appeals to art or freedom of speech or even (heaven forbid) multiple interpretations. You have to attack these people in the same way they attack others.
They question the motives of artists and parents, yet never question their own. And this quote from Spiked shows just how prevalent this mindset is even among the supposedly well-educated liberal camp:'It is the intimacy of Schneider's work that makes it deeply uncomfortable - perhaps even 'indecent' - rather than her subject's nakedness. Schneider took two photographs of her daughter Madeleine every day since her birth, and these are displayed packed together in panels, each representing a stage of life (2). The tiny, gradual changes in a child's development become an artwork displayed in a public gallery. Schneider has said that she 'wanted to record the incidental changes which happen day to day: their cuts and bruises, dirt, drawings on themselves, temporary tattoos, tans and sunburns' (3).
Such a perspective seems more appropriate for the family photo album than the gazes of strangers. This is a far cry from naked cherubs or artful photographs: it is the raw record of one individual's growth, which perhaps shouldn't really be for our eyes.' There is also something odd about a mother relating to her daughter through the lens of a camera, apparently using it as a way to observe the pattern of her growing up.
Eye Of The Beholder Game
Photographing her daughter, Schneider says, 'remains an integral part of our lives, the first (sometimes the only) thing we do together each day'. This is clearly not an experience that most mothers share - or would want to.' How sick that art, which in its traditional mode is valorized for revealing and exploring the personal, should be condemned for doing that on the subject of childhood. 'You have to attack these people in the same way they attack others. They question the motives of artists and parents, yet never question their own.'
Besides making you feel better, this changes the situation in what manner? Are they going to read your words and repent of their assumptions?In any event, I don't think the angst is generated by repressed pedophila. It's generated by pervasive anxiety helped along by media saturation bombing of anything at all scary. Remember those 'flesh-eating bacteria' stories of a few years back?
Roaming packs of computerized pedophiles are just the latest shadow lurking in the hallway.We've reached a point in the industrial societies where the average person feels no control over anything beyond the trivial. Worrying about eccentric photographers is just a compensation. It's a pervasive old-maid aunt syndrome afflicting the aunts and everyone else.I could come up with some arguments against that sort of project based on the ethics of parental coercion but it's not worth the effort. If I'm going to be concerned about children as a whole I'd rather concern myself with the ones that are starving or trying to evade bullets and parasites. There is also another worrying aspect to this paticular story.A lot of the justification for pulling these images seems to have less to dowith content and more to do with discomfort with anything that differentfrom the norm.Responsible and loving parents will have many different approaches tohow they bring up and relate to their children.Now whilst there are extremes, ranging from violence to mental abuse, ingeneral parents do a pretty good job. Yes some aren't as succesful asothers and some kids go off the rails but this is more usually caused bydetachment rather than anything a social worker would be concernedabout.What is worrying here is that the do gooders have effectively missed thepoint.
What we see here is an intelligent and loving parent, whoobviously is very close to their child and has chosen to document andshare that with others.This is not abuse of that child and in fact means the mother probably hasa closer relationship, and is spending more time together than many'normal' families.As someone said above this is typical of the mentality that led to witchburning.I will go further and say in all honesty I believe we live in a moredangerous society than we ever have before. Not because there arecriminals and perverts out there no.
I think you're all forgetting about the child. In five or ten years time, she might be very upset by this exhibition, especially if her peers get to hear about it.All these arguments about 'freedom' are very fine and good but one should also consider the effects on the people involved. Like many proud parents I took pictures of my baby daughter in the bath and like many parents I have been known to show these pictures to her boyfriends when she has been foolish enough to bring them home.
When she brought home her husband to be, she pre-empted this with a first strike by showing him the pictures herself!On a serious note, though, I think that a public exhibition of such pictures without my daughter's permission would be thoughtless at the very least. There is a very fine line here and I wonder if this woman has crossed it. 'There is also something odd about a mother relating to her daughter through the lens of a camera, apparently using it as a way to observe the pattern of her growing up. Photographing her daughter, Schneider says, 'remains an integral part of our lives, the first (sometimes the only) thing we do together each day'. This is clearly not an experience that most mothers share - or would want to.' Id be interested in seeing the statistical data to support that statementFunny, most mothers I talk to and I talk to a lot of moms, would tend to disagree. How can it be odd to want to make a record of your childs early years, to capture their expressions, their love and joy, innocence and wonder?
They will pass this way but once, and may be unable to record the experiences themselves. I truly believe it is a gift the child will grow to cherish. A mother whose children had long grown & left to start their own families once said to me at least youve got the photography part right its such an overwhelming period and the time flies by so quickly that your memories tend to blur. My photos ARE the memories.I dont believe Ive seen Betsy Schneiders Scenes From A Childhood in its complete form. However, Im assuming that the uproar is over images like Carrot, Orange Chair & Toilet Training 2000. Frankly, Im with Mark Lloyd here.
Ron Oliver The Eye Of The Beholder Download Torrent
I too believe that this has more to do with the discomfort of others than content. They are very innocent and natural images. Harvey makes a point about the childs level of discomfort, and certainly this should be taken into account, but again, I see only innocence and beauty here breaks my heart to think that she will not see that as well. Since the 'powers-that-be' are so concerned with child welfare (and quite rightly) why do they not expend more energy protecting the 78,000 children that die every day around the world from poverty, disease, malnutrition, landmines and exploitation in sweat-shops.But to the issue in hand. Where on the spectrum lies the work of such as Sally Mann, Ron Oliver, David Hamilton and Jock Sturges? The self-appointed 'moral majority' condemn their work as pornography, but this selfsame group condone, even sponsor, the very institutions that cause the deaths of the children referred to above.We have seen recently in Ireland - and there has been a similar experience in the US and Canada - institutions of the Catholic Church (the Christian Brothers for one) found guilty of the most appalling abuse of minors.
Eye Of The Beholder Walkthrough
Once again that toxic conjunction of power and the vulnerable. What does this tell us about the mind-set of those who seek power?Pornography involves the exploitation of children, usually for financial gain, and the fact that it is such a huge industry causes one to ask deep and unsettling questions about the human race. It expresses a desire for power over those who are unable to defend themsleves - a theme which is a constant throughout politics and the desire for hegemony. It is driven by the same psychological forces that drive tyrants and torturers.The work of Hamilton, Sturges and Mann is perhaps erotic, but it is a celebration of humanity.