#apparently i want to have a discourse on tumblr today??? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rationed-passion · 1 month

Text

Interview with a Caged Male

Our guest today describes himself as "locked and owned". He is putting himself through a brainwash on Tumblr to embrace long-term denial, frustration, and - apparently - female supremacy. That last one not a goal we are necessarily seeking (equality would be just fine, thank you). Anyway it was clear we had quite a bit to talk about:

Well hello, now let's start with the age question:

A sensitive subject, but if I was female I'd be well into my menopause.

That should satisfy our lawyers, let's not make you feel any worse:

Thanks ladies. I wanted to say a huge thank you for all coming back! I've been round the track a few times and across the whole spectrum of posts, from the tasteful to the stereotypical, your content is genuinely special, precisely because it does seem that you *are* so kind and tolerant [of my habits].

We're blushing. And you're a bit of an old smoothie - we can tell - but that will not get you off from a frank discussion of those embarrassing habits:

I've always been submissively inclined (much to my own shame given the kind of school I went to and the c-suite roles I have in real life). So I've found in Tumblr a delightful vein of material that rams home how very immaterial my own release is. You tolerating my habits. Well it seems more than I deserve. And I appreciate it.

Let's go a little into your real life. Married? Partnered? Living alone in a bedsit?

My own wife is utterly beautiful, and was delightfully dominant when she wanted to be (thank God she never ran when I meekly confessed an interest in chastity). But she no longer cares for sex of any sort; a combination of a menopausal shift and her dislike of how her body has evolved with time (she can't see, somehow, the beauty of her curves the way I can).

Oh that is such a shame! We hope you are an ally to her, reassuring her of her continuing allure?

I do try to be, yes. But - well maybe you know what it can be like when your self-confidence takes a hit? No amount of reassurance will tell her. It's left us with what younger people would call a "dead bedroom".

Is that a term in use nowadays? Oh how public discourse has declined!

I rather hate the term myself. Because our bedroom is so often filled with laughter, and a huge amount of physical affection in the way of hugs... It's just sexual contact that's gone, so that where years ago our bedtime routine often focused on cunnilingus, my role's now reduced to making nocturnal cups of camomile tea.

Oh deary me. Bedroom's are lovely when filled with laughter, although timing is everything. You don't want giggles from your partner just as you undress:

No I do not! Although, well I'm locked now, and ... well I say this because I hope it adds context when I say how very (indeed, how desperately) I enjoy your posts and the delightful undercurrent of "take pleasure where you can find it" that's threaded through them.

You're definitely an old smoothie. Just a very submissive one too. Keep talking. Hands where we can see them though:

So I just wanted to say how much I appreciate that, and the encouragement towards a more respectful mindset you offer. I might be living it more fully than I'd have chosen, but your steady reinforcement certainly helps, and it's probably more comfort than I deserve given how selfish my urges can make me.

Let us unpack, if we may, those urges. Tell us about them?

I'm in chastity. Locked in a cock-cage hoping all the time my penis stays flaccid enough to avoid the bars biting into my tender prick. For men like me being in chastity is better than sex. I fantasise about going down - giving cunnilingus - to a dominant woman. To a succession of demanding, dominant women. But it will never happen, and that turns me on. I get pathetically aroused at the idea of punishment. Humiliation. I guess I've got the sex life I deserve.

For some reason our stock answer of "oh bless" just won't do. We want to give you a virtual hug, and reassure it will be ok. And that you're doing fine. Because you are, aren't you?

Yes. Thank you miss. Besides, I've almost got used to the (incomparably disappointing) taste of camomile tea. Possibly I could get used to anything.

We're smiling and so are you, so I think everyone is in a good place. Thank you for opening up like this:

Thank you again. If these witterings have any value to anyone, I'm glad. Sorry for going on so much - I'm afraid this got away from me a bit!

You've done really well today, and you're always welcome back.

#fully clothed denial #fully clothed #denied #ask me anything

16 notes · View notes

ingravinoveritas · 10 months

Note

Why are people begging for Anna and Georgia to be in GO?! I’m genuinely wondering why cause they don’t fit in their world and if they were there, it wouldn’t be the Ineffable Husbands anymore, it would just be like a family reunion. Also, people wanting the girls to show up in GO as lesbian lovers to each other?? When have they ever been seen or hinted at any sort of affection towards one another? Georgia can barely stand her and Anna is….. meh. Barely on social media except only to post one occasional thing of Good Omens and then disappears into the night. Neil asking if Dottie and Sadie should show up in the next season and people asking if Georgia and Anna can play them…. It’s ironic cause the question was if Aziraphale should have a beard in season 3 and Neil took it as beards, someone used as a romantic partner to cover up the others sexuality. Veryyy interesting to see. Do you think Neil saying Sadie and Dottie are beards and people mentioning Georgia and Anna to play them means something?

It's honestly difficult to know where to start with this, because I have also noticed the uptick in people campaigning for Georgia and AL to be in season 3, apropos of seemingly nothing at all. There seems to be an assumption that Georgia and AL have the same kind of chemistry as David and Michael, when nothing could be further from the truth. By Georgia's own admission, she barely knew AL when the first season of Staged was filmed, and the entire "best friend" dynamic between them was faked.

A few years later, you have Staged season 3, where Georgia dyed her hair red to differentiate herself from AL since everyone kept saying they looked exactly the same. You also have a clearly established "throuple" dynamic between Michael, David, and Georgia that AL Is not at all a part of (and has seemingly been specifically excluded from), and Georgia only engaging with AL on social media when there is something to promote (such as Staged 3 being released on the BBC, to give a recent example) or on posts related to "business" things (Georgia commented on AL's new headshots, but not on the post for Mabli's first birthday, to give another example). Not to mention AL copying Georgia's personality and posting style at every available turn, because she desperately wants to obtain the same level of clout that Georgia has in the fandom. (This, despite Michael seemingly having faded her from his social media/any sort of public connection to her entirely.)

(Also, none of this even touches on what I mentioned in this post, about the sheer audacity in suggesting that AL and Georgia could play Aziraphale and Crowley, respectively, or how insulting that is to Michael and David...)

Now, however, we have this whole "Dottie and Sadie" business to contend with, which is on a level of ridiculousness I'm not sure I knew existed. Context, for those who may not know: "Dottie and Sadie" refers to Aziraphale and Crowley's fictional wives, which Neil started alluding to as part of his exasperated answers to questions on Tumblr. They are not real characters and have nothing to do with the GO novel itself. But it seems the fans have taken the idea of AL and Georgia as Dottie and Sadie and run with it.

Anna (who apparently has also started copying Georgia's habit of searching her own name on Twitter) has now added to the discourse with this QT today:

I'm truly baffled as to how so many people don't seem to see this for the attention grab that it is. This is a clear attempt at remaining relevant, as well as her trying to push her way into GO season 3. Yet it's telling that the part she is seemingly lobbying for is for a character that doesn't even exist, and has no bearing on the GOmens universe whatsoever.

What also bothers me (and I've heard this from a few people who've DMed me as well) is that this very much comes across as "straight girl making out with a friend as a joke." For all we know, AL could be bi, but she has shared so little of herself/shown no outward support for the LGBTQ+ community as to make it impossible to determine. Also the last thing Michael and David have ever done is play what is between them/Aziraphale and Crowley for laughs, so the fact that their connection and experience with their own queerness is so genuine only makes this comment from AL look incredibly fake, and like she is trying to be a pale imitation of them.

But again...and perhaps the most unintentionally hilarious part of all this...is AL apparently missing the entire point that Dottie and Sadie are beards. By saying she wants to play such a role, she is reinforcing the idea that she is only there to make Michael look straight, and that that is the purpose of their relationship. For as calculated as all of her posts/replies are, this almost feels like her accidentally telling the truth in the midst of a bunch of nonsense. Like you said: Very interesting...

I have more thoughts on GO season 3/the casting of family members--Peter worked well in GO 2, Ty did not--to share in my forthcoming analysis of the second season (I'm rewatching all of the episodes right now just to get everything fresh in my mind, but I will start writing/turn Anons back on soon), so I will end this here. But those are my thoughts on all these recent developments. Just hoping that all the fandemonium (fan pandemonium) dies down and we can have an honest discussion about season 3 one of these days...

#phantomstars24 #reply post #good omens #michael sheen #welsh seduction machine #david tennant #soft scottish hipster gigolo #georgia tennant #trying to provide a balanced perspective #but the obsession folks in the fandom have with georgia and al is really ott at times #also AL accidentally confirming she is Michael's beard may be the only good thing about this #i don't even know anymore #fandom woes #anna lundberg #discourse

40 notes · View notes

painless-innit-colourful · 3 months

Text

deep green dashboard simulator for the weekend lore of the 27th Jan (for @thatfriendlyanon :) [all art is by @rozugold :)]

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

it's so funny that the papers actually worked really well and looked convincingly scary on elle's stream because over on crim's it was sweating and switching out items in the most corny way

#like bestie i'm glad it worked on the other end because it looked so bad on ours XD #tdg

🌵 thegreatcactushunt Follow

bird song being in the deeply weird playlist makes me very, VERY nervous now, just saying

#katy talks #the deep green

🪽 waxelytra Follow

new Sisyphus skin (black bars are not intentional)

🪨 sisyfish Follow

can we talk about how sneaky the switch was?? even watching their face cam I had NO IDEA that was coming

#especially with the nightmare they were apparently having lmao #get it crim the show must go on #the deep green

🍄 thereisafungus Follow

crim's on-camera acting makes me yell, what do you mean they keep looking at their palm or touching their hand when they're nervous, you can't do this to me

#tdg #crim sisyphus #CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME

🟩 homeiswheretheglowberriesgrow

being a crim-only viewer is so funny 'cause the mutuals have been talking about kore's backstory clues for literally months and sisyphus has only stumbled onto that story today because icarus literally dragged them into looking at it

because they've spent the best part of the last three months in a CAVE

🌺 bringerofhorses Follow

become a rozu viewer, see the sun

🪨 sisyfish Follow

I rather like this cave actually

🟩 homeiswheretheglowberriesgrow

I didn't know Sisyphus had a tumblr

🌱 thedeepestgreenestplace Follow

you can't trust a single thing I say

#tdg #crim sisyphus #elle icarus #my art #tdg fanart #they..........

🪨 sisyfish Follow

can we STOP with the baseless accusations that the massacre was planned AGAIN PLEASE. everyone on the server has stated multiple times that it was an accident by crim and then plot from it started there. it was not pre-planned. this comes up every time there's major lore and I'm so sick of it

🌱lussssshcave Follow

I'm also sick of seeing ppl speculate crim did it intentionally. look at their face in that moment

yes they're a good actor, but this is clearly the face of someone who's just made a huge mistake

🪨 sisyfish Follow

it honestly makes my blood boil that anyone would suggest crim would do something like that for content. grow up

#they literally have asked what buildings and things they can destroy in lore and respected that #stop starting stupid drama based on nothing #massacre discourse #tdg neg

🪴bloomingstrangely

all I'm saying is, it looks like blood…

#tdg fanart #crim sisyphus #elle icarus #tdg

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

ladies and gentlemen, icarus has teleported into the cavern!

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

ladies and gentlemen, grond has teleported into the cavern (and they have both been killed in there)

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

ladies and gentlemen, the marking has appeared! it's horrifying

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

ladies and gentlemen, sisyphus has told grond about the cavern

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

ladies and gentlemen, sisyphus has confessed to burning the trees! (accidentally :/)

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

ladies and gentlemen, they are looking at the other kore lore book

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

ladies and gentlemen, icarus & sisyphus are in the cavern together!

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

so, uh. a lot happened today

#i did not anticipate it going this far #tdg

🌵 thegreatcactushunt Follow

everytime crim shares secrets with jason before elle I want to throttle them. in the good way

🍂waydownunderthe Follow

I could fix them, but whatever it is they're currently doing is far more interesting

🌵 thegreatcactushunt Follow

letter from thalia saying "forgive yourself", marking on face looks like blood, sisyphus almost told icarus the truth about the cavern but decided against it last second, there are papers appearing in sisyphus' house that say "you know what you did", sisyphus keeps muttering "why won't it work?" in the cavern??

GANG I DON'T LIKE THIS

#the deep green

🟩 homeiswheretheglowberriesgrow

"I thought you were good" / "I already ruined everything" / "the only option is to do whatever it takes to protect yourself and the ones you love"

crim's saying something very interesting here about sisyphus' internal philosophy but I can't quite work out what it is

#where is this Going #tdg

🪻theshallowgreen Follow

every time icarus reaches out and sisyphus pulls away I want to scream

#they make me ILL

🌵 thegreatcactushunt Follow

NEW PLAYLIST ALERT

#glad to see someone's as mentally ill about them as we are #also whooo official duo name!! #the deep green

🕊️ ica-whoops Follow

we already have a stream confirmed for next saturday, icarus hasn't come back to check on the papers situation yet, rozu is confirmed to be coming on, crim said last night 'it will get worse before it gets better'

#the deep green #lord help us all

🌵 thegreatcactushunt Follow

nice

#tdg

🪨 sisyfish Follow

sisyphus shoring up the alliance with grond the other night

#i love these two they're absolutely as bad as each other #politics duo ftw #tdg

🪽 waxelytra Follow

elle admitting she wasn't nessecarily thinking in character for the your obedient servant situation is so funny like. this stuff always happens in rp and it's so hard to work around later but it's made worse by crim's inability to take any situation lightly ever

#calm down always in character give her a break i BEG #the deep green

🪴bloomingstrangely

anxious bird & wet cat

🪴bloomingstrangely

WAIT CAT AND BIRD HMM

#this is not a manifesting moment apollo dni #someone pointed it out in the tags and i wanted to yell #tdg

#this took me SO LONG KFDJKFHJGJ i hope you like it :)))#i hit the desktop picture post limit wheeeee #thank you rozu for granting me the use of some of your wonderful art :)#and to the rest of my followers: hi me and my friends have been having a GREAT TIME jdjkdfjkfj #the deep green #long post

19 notes · View notes

mondfahrt · 2 years

Text

Questions About Art

In the last couple of weeks, you've probably seen a few twitter threads like these (or their re-posts on tumblr) about the "decline" of art and architecture. Now, these kinds of posts (and people like The Cultural Tutor especially) have a lot of fascist red flags that other people have pointed out much more eloquently than I ever could, but I'd like to give my own two cents about why this view on art, architecture and their history proposes a lot of problems but also some questions that are worth getting into.

Some of the problems I'll be talking about are directly from these twitter threads, some I saw in the comments of these threads, and some I've encountered in my daily life. I'm not saying these are all fascist! In fact, a lot could just be labelled as "things you learn about art history when you don't spend years studying it". This mindset and this kind of bias are, as you will see, very very old and there are reasons why we still struggle with them today.

I kind of want people to know about arguments I rarely see talked about in non-academic spaces. Diversify the public discourse, if you will. I know some of these things tend to get complicated but I've tried to keep it as simple as possible. But if you have any questions about any of this, please ask! I can talk about art all day every day.

Also, I'm not claiming to know everything. If nothing here seems to make sense to you, that's fine, too. I'd really like to know your opinion, though! And if I've made mistakes and you know better: Please tell me!

(I also really understand that engaging with these kinds of arguments is maybe kind of pointless. People will see and like and think what they will see and like and think. Art has always been devisive. But I love talking about art and I think I do have some perspective on this topic. And the discussion is kind of the point here. Also, if you read those threads on twitter, most comments are actually saying some good stuff. Not everything is mindblowingly wrong. I'm elaborating on some of it.)

Okay, let's get this thing going!

1. What is supreme?

There are several problems here: The choice of vocabulary is probably the least offensive. But this person presents their opinion (and it is simply that) as fact while assigning subjective values to the Pietá. What is extraordinary? What is beauty? Why is it surpreme? Is it because of the assumed value of marble, historically taken as a luxurious material when it isn't really any better than any other stone... Is in fact worse under certain circumstances because it really doesn't like getting wet... But I don't think this person wants to talk about that here. I think what they really mean is: It takes skill to make stone look like flesh or fabric.

Now, the problem with this is: It's a myth. Granted, we'll maybe have to leave Michelangelo out of it, because apparently he did do a lot of the work himself, but... a lot of artists did not. In fact, the artist as this unique genius working on his own, all by himself, is a narrative that's been pretty much established because of Michelangelo and the way art history has literally been built on top of his legacy. But most artists, before, during, and after Michelangelo's time, had whole workshops and teams of people working for and with them. We don't know a lot of medieval artists today because they didn't think it was important who had done the work. They shared their skills and time and resources to make and build and craft. Same goes for artists during the 17th century, because most of them still needed the help of craftspeople to make a bronze cast, for example. Sometimes we still can't decide if something is "by Leonardo da Vinci" or by one of his students or made in his workshop because sometimes an artist had an idea, drew a sketch and let other people do things like the background or details he didn't have the time for because he was busy inventing planes. And no one really cared because it was still from his workshop and having him paint the whole thing would've cost a lot more. Not only money but also time.

What we can see here, over time, is the development of the narrative of the artist as genius, and the devaluaziation of workshops and crafts in comparison to art.

2. What is an artist?

This is funny because idea, concept, and intellectual work in general are initially what seperated art and craft. The male artist as genius who creates something (the Pietá) out of nothing (a block of marble) is an important narrative! Saying that Jeff Koons' works are worse because he didn't do it himself is kind of ridiculous because it's nothing new. Artists have done this for centuries. And devaluing his work because it's only an idea/a concept is even funnier because that's one of the most important aspects of art in the early modern period.

For comparison: This is one of Jeff Koons' Balloon Dogs, mirror-polished stainless steel with transparent color coating (here in magenta), 121 x 143 x 45 inches (307.3 x 363.2 x 114.3 cm), made between 1994-2000.

Douglas Crimp says,

"The extraordinary status that has accrued to the work of art during the modern period is, in part, a consequence of the romantic myth of the artist as the most highly specialized, indeed unique producer. That this myth obscures the social division of labor was recognized by Minimal artists. Traditional sculpture's specialized craft and highly fetishized materials were opposed by Minimalism with the introduction of objects industrially fabricated of ordinary manufactured materials." (1)

Jeff Koons is not a Minimalist. Their works from the 1950s and 1960s looks more like this.

This is Carl Andre's 4 Square 4 Void, installation 2018, 12 unit hollow square on floor, 0.5 x 160 x 160 cm.

Minimalists like Andre intended to completely erase the hand of the artist by using materials that had to be very obviously made with machines. This is where another art myth comes in as well: "I could have done that." Yes, that's the point. Minimal art is supposed to let you reflect on the way we lift artists to higher standards. Why would you treat Andre's metal squares differently than the concrete floor their lying on? You're actually even invited to walk on these! To reflect the way you experience the room around you, with the artwork and your body in it... (The Minimalists had a whole thing going on relationships between art, space and viewer as a critique of the supposedly "neutral" gallery or museum space but that's a topic for another day.)

The Minimalists (Carl Andre, Sol LeWitt, Dan Flavin, Donald Judd...) also did these high finishes like Koons, very shiny surfaces that show no traces of brushes or chisels. You're not supposed to think these have been done by one person. And if they're not done by a person but by a machine, or by a whole group of people working these machines, then who is the artist? What is an artist? And can anyone be an artist?

3. Is it art if you (don't) need to explain it?

They also wanted to make art accessible. Since the kind of art the Minimalists did was pretty much completely new and unheard of in the 1960s, no one understood it, which meant that everyone started on the same level. You're just supposed to feel their art, its position in the room and in relation to your body. Everyone can do that. No academic advantage. Some critics were furious about that.

Of course, this concept falls apart a bit when you think about art historians and critics engaging much more with art in general, talking to artists and other historians, knowing about materials etc. You'll never get a completely even playing field, if you ask me, but at least the Minimalists tried to do something.

In contrast: The twitter post above claims that the Pietá needs no explanation or context. But that's not exactly true, is it? Sure, you can appreciate it without knowing anything about it. Pain like that translates well in any case, I think. But being at least culturally Christian puts you miles ahead of everyone else already. Knowing that that's the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, who's lying in her arms, dead... otherwise these two people could be lovers, or siblings, or friends. It's also placed in a church, you can't really get close to it, which could make it hard to even see that the man in the woman's arms is dead, at first glance he could just be unconscious, even sleeping. Not having this context doesn't make this work less impressive, on a skill-level, but it does add some things.

Context matters.

Which takes me to one point in the discussion on twitter that actually makes me angry.

4. What is context?

The OP says that they don't know what to think about these sculptures. Maybe you don't either, that's completely fair! Let me add some context:

On the left: Veronica Ryan's Custard Apple (Annonaceae), Breadfruit (Moraceae), and Soursop (Annonaceae), all from 2021. Now, I had to research this but it was fairly easy. I just used Google. The titles suggest that these are fruit. The fact that they are the UK's first public sculpture dedicated to the Windrush generation makes me think that they're probably culturally and historically important to these people specifically. People from the Caribbean, where the artist was born and where these fruits are common, who migrated to the UK.

I like this anecdote from an article in iNews on the day the sculpture was unveiled in London:

"On a wet October morning, shoppers wheeling trolleys nodded in recognition as they passed the work. A mother fielded questions from her young daughter, identifying the soursop for her and explaining what it was as they walked away. As Ryan posed for photographers, a young man sped past, pointed at the marble sculpture and shouted “sugar-apple!” - “That’s right!” the artist shouted back, beaming." (2)

I know what the Pietá is depicting, I've learned about it from growing up as a Christian and studying art history. I had to google what a soursop was, but other people have grown up with them and look at this sculpture, already knowing what it means.

Context matters.

I also think it's important to know that this is the first public sculpture in the UK by a Black woman. And I love that Ryan says she wants these sculptures of fruits to be a part of the community, to bring people together like food tends to do, to remind people of good things, to give them a place to sit or rest or climb on.

The Pietá sits high and mighty, untouchable, holy, and that's for a reason, too. But I like that sculpture like Ryan's, made from marble and bronze just like so many sculptures from the Renaissance, can also be like this, public and warm.

I don't have to understand everything about it. I have never eaten a sugar-apple, or a breadfruit. This is not art made for me. It does not need to be. But I can still find something in it, if I open my mind, do a bit of research, and don't expect everything to be spelled out for me.

Now, the sculpture on the right is a bit more complicated: It's Heather Phillipson's THE END, 2020, and it was placed in Trafalgar Square, London, on the so-called Fourth Plinth. The Fourth Plinth is a public art project intended to diversify the monuments in London. The other three plinths on Trafalgar Square all carry statues of white British men (two generals and one king). The fourth plinth was supposed to carry another general but the funds ran out and it remained empty until the 1990s, when it was decided that it would instead show different works of contemporary art temporarily, specifically commissioned for this place. Phillipson's work is supposed to look playful, joyful, even tasty, but with a darker twist. The drone on top of the whipped cream sculpture is recording a live feed of Trafalgar Square, a commentary on surveillance in public spaces, even - or especially - if those public spaces are places for people to come together and enjoy life and culture. The sculpture is not taking itself very seriously, just as it is poking fun at the seriousness of other (public) art, like the generals and kings surrounding it, or the paintings in the National Gallery behind it, but it's also political. Who does a public square belong to? Do we know who's watching us at any given moment? But also: Who are we watching? Everyone can watch the sculpture's live feed, all the people on the square, but also every statue of a dead white man there.

5. Do you need to be told this is art?

At this point, I do think OP is arguing in bad faith here. I'm not saying you have to like any of these artworks. Or that you have to understand them immediately, or get anything out of them. But they are so much more than just "shock factor". Actually, most of modern, postmodern and contemporary art is about so much more than shock factor, especially public sculptures. I've only talked about those here because the OP on twitter only talked about those but it's also my field of study. And I still needed to research a lot to write this, so I don't expect anyone to understand anything immediately. But when it comes to art, I urge people to keep an open mind. Most artworks are much more meaningful than you'd expect and I bet I could actually tell you a lot about Michelangelo's Pietá you didn't know that would change its interpretation to you.

Here are a few just for fun:

This is the only statue by Michelangelo with a signature. We're not sure why exactly that is. Because he saw this as a great work and was proud of himself? Or because he was only at the beginning of his career when he made it and needed to build a reputation?

Mary looks much too young in this to have an adult son. It's an anachronism that's maybe pointing towards her later ascension. Or towards some kind of "beautiful people are moral and good" metaphor that was very prominent during the Renaissance. Or maybe Michelangelo just didn't want to make an older woman.

This work is a masterpiece of composition: You don't even realise that Mary is much larger than Jesus because she's sitting and because her dress is so voluminous. But it's also only brilliant when you're looking at it from the front. It's placed in a church, in front of a wall, so you can't even see behind it. That means, Michelangelo didn't need to do a full piece that's amazing and interesting from all sides - which is, incidentally, a factor that becomes very popular during the Late Renaissance.

I think that last point is interesting because sculptures like those by Phillipson and Ryan do need to be interesting from all sides, since their placed in an open space. They need to do something with the space around them, not just with one wall in a church.

These sculptures are not random. Not even when you don't know what the artists wanted to do with them. If you get something else out of THE END or Custard Apple, that's fine! That's not random, that's just one way to look at art, it's interaction, it's dialogue.

6. What is the conceptual foundation of art?

We can disagree on this but I don't think the "conceptual foundation of modern art" is to question accepted standards of what art can be. (Setting aside that OP is most likely mixing up modern and contemporary art here.) There are hundreds of movements, styles, and theories in art. Andre, Koons, Phillipson and Ryan are just four artists out of thousands, and each one wants to do something different with their art. Yes, some of them want to question what art can be. Some want to question the assumed neutrality of the gallery. Some want us to think about our bodies in space. Some want to make political statements about surveillance. Some want to see their heritage represented in public.

Some of my favourite artists want to make you think about life and death and all the love we share in between. How we interact with people daily. Or how the world around us keeps moving and changing. Some want to make statements about gender and bodies, or the environment, or colonialism, or capitalism. Some want you to see all the shadows on a white canvas. Some just really like a certain shade of blue.

Art can be so many different things. I love Medieval art, and Renaissance art, and art from the Enlightenment... (I even have friends who study these periods in art history!) No work of art, no period in art history, is superior to another.

OP of the thread - as well as commenters like Mike Brook - assume that contemporary art is only one thing. They argue that idea and concept and meaning trump everything in contemporary art, that form has become meaningless. That's true for some artworks, concept art in particular, or art that can be reproduced again and again. Looking down at that art, criticizing it as meaningless or only interesting because of its shock factor, misses the point, though. And it is - and this is important - incredibly elitist.

7. What is art?

This is an argument we've had since the beginnings of art history - when one of Michelangelo's friends, Giorgio Vasari, published biographies of artists, likening them to nobles and popes and highlighting their unique skills in order to make them out to be geniuses. That meant, in turn, that you couldn't simply become an artist, but that you were born to be one.

Vasari had such an influence on art history - he's actually said to be the "father of art history" - that we still have to unravel these narratives today. Because when Vasari wrote these biographies, these stories, he only included the (in his opinion) greatest artists of all, with Michelangelo coming out on top. He's the reason we have an art historic canon, a set of artists who are considered important and great and worthy of study and admiration and remembrance. Of course, Vasari mostly included Italian artists because most art from north of the Alps was not as great. And anyone before Michelangelo couldn't be as great as Michelangelo because you needed to show progress, that art was moving forward, becoming better and better. Art made by women was always depicted as being less good than that made by men. And so on, and so forth...

The same narrative goes for understanding art. There are several instances throughout art history when people (mostly old white men) cried about the supposed "end of art". It happened with the Impressionists, with the Dadaists, with the Minimalists, with concept art and installation art and so on.

In 1967, art critic Michael Fried published an essay called "Art and Objecthood" in which he criticized Minimal art (especially in comparison to Modernist art) as being literal and theatrical. It is one of the most cited essays on contemporary art in recent decades. You might ask yourself, what about Carl Andre's metal plates on the floor could be theatrical? Literal can be understood: They are literally metal squares on the floor. They don't pretend to be anything else, like how Michelangelo's marble pretends to be Jesus, or how Ryan's bronze pretends to be fruit. In this way, they can be understood by everyone. You don't have to have read the Bible or been to the Caribbean to "understand" a metal square. You are simply supposed to experience your body in relation to it. That also means that the artwork speaks to every person differently and individually, because no one can experience art out of any body other than their own.

"Theatricality" to Fried means superficiality, deception, and emptiness of meaning. If a work of art doesn't claim to be anything else than what it is, it's superficial. If anyone can find different, individual meaning in a work of art, no one can really know what the artist wants to say, so it's deceptive. And if the artist doesn't care about universal meaning being found in their work, it must be meaningless.

Christa Noel Robbins says on Fried's essay:

In catering to each viewer in their turn, the ability of the work of art to transcend atomized taste and enter into something like a community of meaning making is foreclosed. Absent that community, Fried has long argued, a work of art has no real meaning; it is particularized, isolating the viewer in their own individuated field of experience. (3)

If a work of art doesn't transcend to give us some higher meaning, a meaning that's the same for everyone, is it art? Or is it an object?

That's basically what people who question any and all contemporary art, who ask "what is an artist?", have problems with. They don't want to see that a sculpture is just a block of marble, no matter the form. The form doesn't make it any less a block of marble, something very normal, and earthly, and not "supreme" at all. And not everyone will find (or needs to find) higher meaning in that block. Only if someone does find higher meaning in it, does it become art at all - Michelangelo's sculpture needs the viewer, just like the metal squares need the viewer to make them into art. Into more than objects. But this process is extremely subjective, for Michelangelo just as much as for Andre or Ryan.

"Anything can be art," complains The Cultural Tutor in another tweet. But that's not the real problem they have. The problem is: If anything can be art, and I don't like some of that art and I don't even think it's art, who's to say that Michelangelo's Pietá is art? If I can question contemporary art, isn't everything else in danger to be questioned as well?

(1) Douglas Crimp: "Serra's Public Sculpture", in: Rosalind Krauss (ed.): Richard Serra/Sculpture, New York 1986, pp. 40-56, p. 44. (2) Hettie Judah: "Veronica Ryan’s celebratory giant fruit are a lesson in how to do public sculpture well", in: iNews, 10/01/2021, URL: https://inews.co.uk/culture/arts/veronica-ryan-windrush-monument-fruit-sculpture-hackney-london-review-1227786. (3) Christa Noel Robinson: "The Sensibility of Michael Fried", in: Criticism 60:4 (2018), pp. 429-454, p. 432.

#art history #art #contemporary art #modern art #women artists #michelangelo #veronica ryan #carl andre #heather phillipson #michael fried #art criticism #turner prize #minimalism

126 notes · View notes

sorrel-scribbles · 1 year

Text

So since Sherlock Holmes is apparently in the public domain today (tumblr trending told me), I've got to make a post about it, and by that I mean I'm going to ramble about Enola Holmes for a hot second.

(500+ words of analysis below the break)

I am not a big Sherlock Holmes person. I don't keep up with every single adaptation. I've read a couple of the books and watched Enola Holmes, and before Enola Holmes 2, I was never a Johnlock person. Aroace Sherlock is something that's very important to me, so I don't seek out adaptations where he and Watson are implied to or do feel something for each other. It's just wasn't my cup of tea, but I didn't care if it was other people's. I just wanted a Sherlock who didn't need romance (and I still do tbh, but that's not what this post is about). That's part of the reason I watched Enola Holmes (1) and loved it. Besides Enola herself and the story (both of which I absolutely adore), we get a Sherlock who's got only his two siblings and is doing just fine (yes he needs friends, but you get the point-).

Then I watched Enola Holmes 2.

A big part of the lesson Enola learns in this movie is that she can be independent and hold her own, but it's also ok to ask for help when you need it, and to let other people in (both literally and emotionally). Some of this involves Sherlock and Edith, but mainly, it's about Tewkesbury. It's about the fact that having a person to lean on and a man who you love doesn't take away your agency or your sense of self. Enola learns this, and everything is all sparkles and sunshine for her post-case...and then they introduce Watson. The whole time I was watching the movie, I interpreted the hints being dropped about Watson to be teasers for the next movie that will hopefully be made, but then he shows up at the end of this one.

Intentionally or not, they've created a narrative parallel. There are little hints dropped throughout the movie about Enola's feelings for Tewkesbury. She's suppressing them, hard, but you can still tell. The movie also focuses on Enola and Sherlock's relationship, and how similar they actually are, to the point where Sherlock invites her to be his case-solving partner. They also tease the introduction of Watson, who anybody who knows anything about Sherlock Holmes should know is his closest ally. The movie also clearly establishes that Sherlock hasn't learned Enola's lessons yet. He still needs to find his person, and unlike the first movie, this is a role his family can't fulfill for him. Enola herself recognizes this and sets him up with Watson as a new roommate. And where does she go while all this is happening? On a date with Tewkesbury!

Call me crazy, but they're basically saying "Tewkesbury is to Enola what Watson is to Sherlock."

That sure looks to me like something romantic is being implied.

And no, this isn't me saying "Enola Holmes 3 WILL have canon Johnlock," (because, to be honest, I doubt it, and I don't want to start discourse) I'm just pointing out the narrative parallel they've established lends itself well, and that I'm not biased in pointing it out because I'm not a Johnlock shipper. I would actually like to see an "our platonic connection is just as important as your romantic one" storyline, because that's the type of Sherlock Holmes media I connect with, but they have set themselves up for a Johnlock storyline here, and I would love to see that come to pass as well.

(Enola herself should, of course, remain the main focus of the movies. Ultimately, it's about her and about women and about the Holmes family and I wouldn't want it any other way.)

#mine #enola holmes #enola holmes 2 #sherlock holmes #media analysis #johnlock #enola johnlock

33 notes · View notes

graylinesspam · 5 months

Text

Alright, I'm only going to address this situation one time so listen up.

I made a silly little headcannon post not even 24 hours ago that has apparently stirred up a lot of feelings in the DC Batman fandom. It doesn't even have 200 notes yet and I've received a lot of negative feedback on it.

which I almost want to say is fine? Like you're more than welcome to disagree with me, whatever. Especially when it comes to DC characters who are some of the most mischaracterized by their own source material of any characters in existence. Rebloging with full essays including comic panels citing why I am wrong is a bit unnecessary, I don't usually engage with fandom discourse so I don't love to have it on my post but I'll let it go since it isn't really inappropriate just kinda unwelcome. It's a part of fandom, it's whatever.

But I am actually having to address it specifically because I've received five anonymous asks in my inbox since last night that have all been a lot more hostile than the people who've attached their usernames to their disagreements. One of which actually had suicide baiting in it. I deleted the first three after receiving that ask because I was just freaking out and kinda hoping they would go away. Again I never interact with discourse so I'm not really sure how to deal with this. But I've received two more asks today and I'm really not willing to deal with this at all anymore.

I didn't realize I needed to add a "don't like don't read" warning to a stupid tumblr post but It is never appropriate to send hate mail anonymously to another blog. We need to remember first the rules of "is it true, is it kind, is it helpful?" for the people asking me if I'm illiterate or if I've ever read a batman comic before. And for the rest of you; this is a reminder that you are in control of you're own online experience. There's a block button right there; use it liberally.

I have never been treated so disrespectfully in a fandom space before and I regularly hang around in the Star Wars fandom. It is a sad fucking day when you behave worse than star wars fans. And for the crime of mischaracterization of all thing? Like you'd have thought I said something morally offensive with the way people were judging my character.

I don't know; I'm rambling. I don't know what else to say about this except just Stop. And also my ask box will be closed until further notice.

(Also blanket statement not to harass anyone else on that post on my behalf. Not that I have enough followers to need to worry about that, but seriously guys, just behave like adults please.)

#Batman #Batfam #Ask box #annon

6 notes · View notes

buttercuparry · 1 year

Note

how has arya been the punching bag longer than dany? is it because of the beef in s7 between the sisters or even before? Hi a new fan here🥴

Even before season 7. I have been on tumblr for 6-7 years now. And i joined specifically to show appreciation for Arya. In those days- when the show was running parallely- you would have both the show fans and book fans dunking on Arya. The book fans would say shit like Arya would die and live on in Nymeria as Sansa's pet. This has now been replaced by the West of Westeros theory and they don't speak much about Nymeria right now.

In those days we had similar discourses like the ones we see today. Arya is jealous of Sansa and therefore tries to sabotage her. She is not a good sister because she didn't go to Cersei's tea party. Mycah's death is her fault. She is unnatural. She is a psychopath who can't have a love life ( this was directed to gendrya!). She would die or be a faceless man forever. There was also the usual obsession about beauty. How Lyanna was actually like Sansa and not Arya because how can someone who looks like Arya cause war ( the way the war is romanticized I fucking kid you not). How her quotes are not about her but Sansa. And of course Jon...like even before Jonsa became the headache that it is today...Arya's relationship with this brother of hers ( platonic or otherwise) got dismissed. And I said it was long before Dany became the punching bag because at that time there wasn't this ridiculous attempt to posit Dany as someone Jon would have no qualms killing. Mind you there always were discourses in the fandom about how it is impossible for Dany to be the final hero (TM). There always were fans who would try to dismiss her political achievements and righteous cause. But when the show was running, in the earlier seasons I believe the hate wasn't this acrid- because you had so many of the casual fans who were in awe of such a fantastic and powerful character.

The destruction of the story only became apparent in the later seasons and reached a catastrophic end with Dany's brutal death. But careless handling of plots and storylines were always there. And Arya has been the victim of it since the very first episode of the series. From the beginning she was protrayed as the troublemaker ( her throwing food at Sansa). I think the showrunners cut off the whole scene from the books where Arya protests against Sansa's dismissal of Jon as just the half brother. Instead they preferred showing Arya to always be on the offense: after the Mycah debacle in the books, we see Arya suffering from guilt and agony and realization that Mycah never mattered to anyone. In the show we have Arya stabbing at the table thinking of killing Joff ( she had every fucking right of it but still...).

All of these were used to argue by the show only fans that Arya is the sister to be kept on leash and the book fans as always turned a blind eye to the very apparent ridiculous portrayal and joined in on with apparently intellectual metas about how even after the war of dawn, Arya won't quite be able to belong within the walls of winterfell. Her whole storyline which symbolizes a want for home/family/love and security got exchanged in these metas as one of revenge. So yeah. Arya has always been the punching bag for them. And it happened long before season 7.

7 notes · View notes

jayblanc · 1 year

Text

What happens when 907500 more people than you intended get blazed with your shitpost.

Earlier today I made a shitpost. And because I occasionally throw small amounts of money at Tumblr to keep this hellsite running, I blazed it. And apparently @staff enjoyed the post so much, they decided to 'hyper-blaze' it, and so it started appearing on *VASTLY MORE PEOPLE'S DASHES THAN I EVER INTENDED IT TO*.

So here's what I learned :

1 : Most people are actually cool with this. And even enjoy random blazed content showing up that brings them something from outside their normal circles.

2: People thought the post was funny. And I got a ton of natural reblogs too. But I was too oblique in making it clear the joke was actually about Elon Musk, not Tony Stark. It wasn't actually a fandom post about the Marvel character, but about how intelligent honest people don't become billionaires because they spend money on the things that improve the world.

3: There is a certain kind of person who will get very annoyed at seeing a mention of another fandom that they do not themselves follow.

4: Some of these people will get wound up so much that the will post a comment explaining the folly of blazing something that clearly no one cares about or wants to see or engage with.

5: A few of these will also straight up send "Kill yourself" and raid-spam comments.

6: The "Kill yourself" stuff usually results in an account getting locked, but some of those comments still get through.

7: Some of these people absolutely think they are in the right, and even admit to cyberbullying, because fandom loser posts deserve it. And there are dozens of them (Dozens!), so they must be right.

8: I, hardened by having started out in the Usenet era of discourse, and being statistics literate enough to look at the numbers and know hundreds of likes is more than dozens of hate, have not been badly affected by this. But, maybe, just maybe, bullying and abusive comments through the justification that 'blazed fandom posts deserve it' is kinda harmful?

9: @staff might want to think about disabling comments on Blazed posts.

#@staff #blaze it #bullying #tumblr #tumblr on tumblr

5 notes · View notes

applesfallingfromblondehair · 2 years

Text

thoughts

As a Leo, one of my visible toxic traits is the following: there are very few things I love more than telling people "I told you so". And yet, today was such a frustrating time that I didn't even enjoy the thrill of being right. Because what the fuck.

It's the second time this year that something like this happens: some utter cunt (there really is no other word for them) taking some online speculation—done, one would assume, in a relatively safe, niche space—and running to fucking deuxmoi with it, therefore feeding it to ONE POINT SIX MILLION PEOPLE. I don't use the R word because no-one should, but oh my god what the FUCK was going through this person's mind when they decided to do that.

This brings me to my decision to avoid addressing every single ounce of speculation about this woman and whatever the heck may or may not be going on with Taron in LA. It's been WEEKS, guys, I've gotten asks for more than a month now, and I've deleted every single one of them. Some of the anons tried calling me out for not addressing it, but I didn't give a shit. I saw what was done with the Cock speculation ages ago, and I did not want a repeat of that for anything in the world. I felt responsible, and I felt TERRIBLE, and I'd vowed it would never happen again.

So naturally, this platform (and potential others, although I don't know anybody else who has a similar page on the topic here on tumblr) not being available, the insane discourse was moved to the second worst platform on the web: Reddit.

I still refuse to go through everything that's been said on there, and now it would potentially be useless, too, because some people either figured out how much they overstepped or were plain cowards and as soon as the news broke on deuxmoi and I subsequently addressed it in my teeny tiny platform on here they were like "better avoid associating with this whole thing, eh". Good for you, but this doesn't change anything: if you went along with it, gave it the time of day, and threw logs in the flames you're still utter morons.

I am not going to talk about it on here anymore. And it's become clear that any public platform like this has no reason to exist in the capacity it has existed in up until now (aka: y'all can't be trusted with speculation because someone could and apparently WILL run to gossip columns with it), so here's my idea:

shall we start a Discord server?

I know it's another thing to get if you don't already have it (although it is free, obviously, and easy to use), and I know we lose the anonymity, but the two things could coexist: if you want to send in "innocent" anon asks, then do, and they will likely be answered. But if you want to speculate, you are kindly invited to step out of the shadows and do it in bright sunlight, with a group of like-minded people. It's a way of taking back control from the people who are hell-bent on ruining it for everyone.

Let me know what you think of this, and if enough people are interested I will set it up!

Love,

Your tired C

#the situation #a discord server?

10 notes · View notes

demonicintegrity · 1 year

Text

Since Welcome Home just had a speedrun record for viral bullshit, lemme key y'all in on what today's creatives think about.

For context, I'm in art school. Everyone around me including myself all have some sort of personal project(s) we wanna publish one day/are working on currently. And those specific projects are meant to make money so it means reaching a wider set of people.

I have several professors touch on what our online portfolio and presence needs, and it's led into class discussions on balancing putting ourselves/our work out there and keeping privacy. On top of learning how to deal with predatory editors and safe pitching practices, my peers are strongly voicing their distaste for any sort of proximity with any fandom they could accomplish because of rampant parasocial behaviors.

I got a roommate who wants to write a graphic novel and part of it is a sorta commentary on tiktok stardom in particular. They explained some of it to us and we all agreed the only way it would ever work is if it never went viral and prayed tiktok never got its hands on it.

Back in my wannabe youtuber days I took a good study at youtubers and realize the best fanbases were on the smaller side and that were encouraged into a specific way of engaging. (Like coming together specifically to do analysis or specifically to discuss smth, etc.) By nature of what people were attracted to what content.

I got book ideas I simply will not go through with if I'm in a peak/going viral because I know people will not handle them well. They will be shelved for another time. I also need to clean out and update my half-abandoned youtube before I start buckling down on my artistic endeavors because I know how the internet is. Never mind the fact that I'm willingly kneecapping myself by refusing to interact with instagram and pulling away from using twitter professionally. I value my tumblr circle so fucking much because it's so not insane and more on the wavelength with my bullshit. And I'm holding onto this more than any How To Market With Social Media advice.

Said roommate who's super passionate about their graphic novel idea exploring fame and what not (which I really can't wait to see happen one day) took inspiration from whatever the fuck tiktok did with Penelope Scott that one time. They explained she had the perfect amount of space away from her presence and an amazing social media balance that couldn't have been better and yet still got drag through the mud. My understanding is that watching that happened made my roommate go "what if" and want to explore some more concepts regarding fame and parasocial relationships.

I'm lucky. I have had minor "popularity" in certain circles on Tumblr (apparently) and yet have never got too dragged into discourse. Especially considering I've been here since I was twelve. The worst I've gotten is from the sociopolitical side of things, some of y'all probably remember how terfs were up my ass that one time.

My point being: Artists who are aware and in the industry and these spheres right now are hyperaware of what their presence can do. Hyperaware that their social media doesn't get to be the luxury of just a fun thing but an extension of their work life. That combined with how even traditionally published authors are more expected to be their own marketing these days, we are much more aware and even prepared than the averaged hobbyist.

And that's partly why all art is such a miserable hobby right now.

Never mind gaming algorithms and playing the luck game to even get seen, never mind the cultural idea that art is just something to be consumed and tossed out like it's a disposable napkin, but the average person is not prepared to handle what happens when lots of people start interacting with you specifically for your work. The masses simply cannot get their act together, especially in a post-covid world.

And the solutions aren't simple. Largely because the only way this is going to get better is if the people consuming learn how to behave. And you and I both can assume how likely that's going to be. Truly, I think meaningful change starts with media literacy. Just learning how to critically think about a piece. But I don't even think that's being taught in public schools, let alone to the focus it needs to have.

If we want the masses to stop harassing people unfortunately we gotta hope they have the reading comprehension to understand what's being put out there. That way they don't come out of left field with a wild accusation.

I remember being in 8th grade reading The Taming of The Shrew and the teacher have exactly zero acknowledgement on the blatant abuse that was taking place. The most we got from the class or her was "dang they didn't like women back then. Wild how she changed after being with this guy for only a short bit. anyways." and move on.

(I remember ranting to my mom borderline horrified how no one else was acknowledging the blatant abuse and horror. And how I just knew some boy my age was gonna sit in that class and read it and not see what was wrong cuz it wasn't explained. No one wanted to put effort understanding Ye Olde Speech. My mom was sorta proud of me in that moment. Said she would've never thought about those sorta things and thought I'd make a good teacher.)

I watched a Ted Ed last quarter in my philosophy class about an after school program teaching porn literacy and sex ed. The person speaking was pleasantly surprised at what was coming from the students once they were interested and encouraged. She (and our class) were horrified realizing porn was the only sex ed most teens were getting.

But my point here being: Teens were not engaging critically, not knowing how to properly get something out of media without being explicitly taught and walked through how to do that. Even though they were actively trying to learn something and intake information, they don't know how. I know my English classes were mostly just "we read this now write a paper about this from the text. Cite your sources and explain yourselves." But even I didn't know what explain yourselves meant and I did great in English.

And now attention spans seem to be on the fritz and the mob mentality is more rabid than ever.

I love making art so much. But trying to put anything out there is gonna suck because now I have to pull out ten different formulas of how do I get a big enough audience to sustain me but also curate and attract people who wont approach this/me in bad faith. All while knowing my social media will immediately become an extension of my work life instead of the stuff I do for funsies.

#Fandom #It sucks because I can see the web but I can't help every aspect of it alone.

2 notes · View notes