My best friend and I had a call recently---she’s back with her family for a bit helping out with some hometown stuff. As part of the stuff, she’s been going through a (deceased) relative’s scrapbook, compiled in the American Midwest circa 1870-1900 and featuring mostly cut-out figures from the ads of the day.
She talked about how painstaking this relative’s work was. (Apparently the relative was careful to cut out every finger, every cowlick; this was by no means carelessly or hastily assembled.) But she also she talked about how---the baby on the baking soda ad is ugly, it is so ugly, why anyone would clip this heinously ugly illustrated baby and paste it into a scrapbook? Why would you save the (terribly told, boring) ghost story that came with your box of soap?
(Why include these things in the first place? we asked each other. ”There’s a kind of anti-capitalism to it,” she mused.)
And we discussed that for a bit---how most of the images, stories, artists, and ads were local, not national; they’re pulled from [Midwestern state] companies’ advertisements in [Midwestern state] papers, magazines, and products. As a consequence, you’re not looking at Leyendecker or Norman Rockwell illustrations, but Johann Spatz-Smith from down the road, who took a drawing class at college.
(College is the state college, and he came home on weekends and in the summer to help with the farm or earn some money at the plant.)
But it also inspired a really interesting conversation about how---we have access to so much more art, better and more professional art, than any time in history. As my bff said, all you have to do to find a great, technically proficient and lovely representational image of a baby, is to google the right keywords. But for a girl living in rural [Midwestern state] of the late 1800s, it was the baking soda ad, or literal actual babies. There was no in-between, no heading out to the nearby art museum to study oil paintings of mother and child, no studying photographs and film---such new technologies hadn’t diffused to local newspapers and circulars yet, and were far beyond the average person’s means. But cheap, semi-amateur artists? Those were definitely around, scattered between towns and nearby smallish cities.
It was a good conversation, and made me think about a couple things---the weird entitlement that “professional” and expensive art instills in viewers, how it artificially depresses the appetite for messy unprofessional art, including your own; the way that this makes your tastes narrower, less interesting, less open.
By that I mean---maybe the baby isn’t ugly! Maybe you’ve just seen too many photorealistic babies. Maybe you haven’t really stopped to contemplate that your drawing of a baby (however crude, ugly, or limited) is the best drawing of a baby you can make, and the act of drawing that lumpen, ugly baby is more sacred and profoundly human than even looking at a Mary Cassatt painting.
And even if that isn’t the case....there was this girl in [American Midwestern state] for whom it was very, very important that she capture every finger, curl, and bit of shading for that ugly soap ad baby. And some one hundred years later, her great-something-or-other took pains to preserve her work---because how terribly human it is, to seek out all the art we can find that resonates with us, preserve it, adore it.
It might be the most human impulse we have.
3K notes
·
View notes
growing up in a poor rural area with a feral dog and cat problem was very sad. but also whenever you wanted a dog, it would just show up. whenever you wanted a cat, it would just be in your garage. and it would be a goddamn fantastic dog that was immune to every disease and could survive any disaster. but anyway it made me diametrically opposed to paying for animals so navigating the world outside of my hometown has been bizarre.
186 notes
·
View notes
Saw a vid that claimed that tfothou was "pro ai" because of a thing Madeline said about how someday ai could be used to write TV and movies, and it made me want to eat drywall.
You are not ment to side with Madeline Usher. Nothing in the show is saying you should side with her, especially not with ai. Madeline is obsessed with the idea of immortality and wants to use ai to do it but none of her technological achievements get off the ground, at least not further than managing Fortunato's records and business dealings. Like, the one ai she makes, lenore's ai, is a broken, hollowed out shell of lenore that only says one word on repeat. It's about the fruitlessness that is seeking immortality and the hollow lifelessness of ai. It's not pro-ai at all.
179 notes
·
View notes
Scorpius and Rose's dynamic would be like James and Lily's, except Scorpius isn't an arrogant bully and would try his best to get along with Rose's friends because he knows how important they are to her and he really wishes to be part of her life in any way possible.
Oh, and he'll respect her boundaries. If she asks him to leave, he will. If she rejects him, he'll accept it. But until that rejection comes, he'll keep asking her out and trying to win her heart (and gladly welcoming any hexes and curses she throws his way)
Rose wouldn't ever date someone that her friends and family don't aprove of. If he doesn't get along with her loved ones, he's done for.
23 notes
·
View notes