No drug dealer I have ever encountered has offered me a “First One’s Free to get you hooked” deal, like my school and parents told me would happen as a kid. Kind of disappointed.
i’m still looking for the guy that gives away free drugs near your school
“Outdated” is not really a meaningful criticism of a course of action. Kissing people has been around forever, we don’t condemn it as “outdated” in general.
My observation is that even now there’s lots of people who are using drag as a way to explore their gender identity, oppose or transgress gender boundaries, and otherwise do things that I find generally beneficial to the LGBT community, and blanket condemnations aren’t useful. If there’s people in the community doing bad or disrespectful things, it’s going to be more useful to focus on those specific things and try to get them improved, rather than declaring that something that’s such a big part of so many people’s journey is suddenly retroactively horrible and totally invalid.
today after work i amused myself by drawing some orc ladies (◕‿◕✿)
I want to be like almost all of them, and also I want to snuggle like almost all of them. Such good draws.
They really are sort of excellent. What sells it to me is the child’s profession of “scamp”.
EDIT: So I went over them again, and realized that they’re all female orcs, I think. (I am not clear on orc secondary sexual characteristics, nor have I talked to them about pronouns or gender identity.) And the thing I think is interesting is: I didn’t notice. I am not sure what that indicates, but I bet it’s a thing.
You don’t need another human being to make your life complete, but let’s be honest. Having your wounds kissed by someone who doesn’t see them as disasters in your soul, but cracks to put their love into, is the most calming thing in this world.
Because I’m actually super uncomfortable with this dynamic. It makes me feel obligated to present my wounds, to sort out which ones are serious enough to be worthy of their time and then carefully package an explanation of the wounds’ nature and origin. And then I feel like I need to declare “yes, that was good wound-kissing, I feel better now” so they don’t feel like they’re wasting their time. Instead of privately coping in whatever fucked-up way I feel I need, I have to work on making sure this is a good experience for them, and it’s really exhausting trying to play tour guide to your own trauma.
(This isn’t saying the person who does this asks me to be a tour guide, or is anything less than completely giving and wonderful about the whole situation, but it makes me feel that way nonetheless.)
Sometimes I need to be allowed to go off on my own and lick my own damn wounds, and when I’m ready I’ll come back to you and we can do fun things together like I’m actually healed, instead of just perpetually healing.
Syntax in art, stated simply is the process by which an image is
made. Tools, technique, medium, etc. For instance if one sits down and
draws the same landscape in charcoal, and then in watercolor they’d
have two very different looking images of the same scene because of the
difference in syntax. The effect created by the syntax creates different visual qualities.
Photographic syntax produces a variety of effects that are not
inherent in any other medium. However for various reasons these effects
have been copied in other mediums, and I personally have always found
that very interesting, so I want to discuss some of the things that are
distinct to photography but have been lifted for use in other mediums.
Degas is better known for his painting and sculptures, but he was
also fascinated with photography and he is probably the first artist
whose work was noticeably influenced by it. Degas noted that in candid
photographs, unlike in posed portraits or paintings - there would
sometimes be something, some person, partially out of the frame. This
idea obviously intrigued him because it almost became a hallmark of his
paintings - notice how often his compositions feature somebody partially
“out of frame”. True this sort of composition is not inherent to
photography, but this is one of the first instances of art being
influenced in a noticeable way by photographs. He also seems to have used photographs as reference for sculptures - although there is some contention over this.
The image at the top of the post is a photo by Lartigue showing a
distortion which was common in the early days of focal plane shutters
and large formats. The early focal plane shutter consisted
of a roll of fabric with a slot in it, which swept across the film -
the slot exposing the film to light in a scanning motion. When an
object moved faster than the shutter swiped, it would become distorted
in a similar way to how a piece of paper gets distorted if you move it
around on a scanner. This effect simply does not occur in normal human
vision, and so it never appeared in any art until after the invention of
the camera. It is however commonly used to imply motion in cartoons
and comics.
When multiple exposures were made on a single plate, whether accidentally, or to study motion,
this too produced images which had up to that point simply been beyond
the realm of human experience, so nothing like this had been portrayed
before in art.
Duchamp’s Nude Descending Staircase was inspired by such motion studies.
Then you have things like light trails:
The trails in Akira are interesting because they seem to mimic the
the light trails that early video cameras would pick up - a bright light
would leave a ghost image that would fade away after a second or two.
It seems this effect no longer afflicts video cameras. But similar trails appear in long exposure still photographs too.
The ringflash has enjoyed some popularity in recent years for
portrait photography. It is a circular flash which rings the lens of
the camera, and produces a distinct, ring shaped highlight on a model’s eyes when
used. Not surprisingly this effect has also influenced artists and appeared in drawn art.
Do I even have to mention lens flare?
(this particular cross shaped flare replicates an effect created with a special “sparkle filter” that was popular in the 60s and 70s - but generally considered tasteless by photographers in more recent times)
Lens flare is interesting because it’s something generally
undesirable to photographers. But it is commonly inserted into
animations as a realistic effect, because it suggests an actual camera
is filming an outdoor scene (rather than a camera filming a flat table
in a studio).
The effect has unfortunately been abused
to the point where it’s kind of an art faux pas when used in that
manner, although interestingly, highly stylized lens flares have
appeared for example in Gurren Lagann - more as a stylistic special effect than as mimicry.
Photographic syntax has so widely been adapted in other mediums that
we may not even realize the source of some of these effects. These
effects have become so widely adopted and repeated that they are more or
less taken for granted. But it’s always fun to know where they come
from.
