Dress me up, make it tight, I'm your dolly
You're my doll, rock'n'roll, feel the glamour in pink
Kiss me here, touch me there, hanky panky~
Inspired from This post of @just-dol-headshots and this ask from @hakusins. Don't worry I'm still aiming for your ass Haku-Dean :) References and something under the cut
We all have to agree Bully Robin should have some softer and caring sides. When there's only them two and no one else is around to judge, he can let loose and slip back into that kinda of "Original Robin" we know and I love. I mean, that's what JDOLH made that got me into these swap messes from the beginning jsjkhskjhd you knowww the HUG!!
Reference: Barbie Girl (Aqua) and this cute ecchi Clamp Chobit piece
All in all I'm a pink bietch and Dollya won't be losing her V-card anytime soon that I can promise so hang in there okay mr.Bully.
edit: OMG THIS IS MY 1000TH POST TTOTT)) JKSDJLASKJKDLA
SELF-INDULGENT HERE WE GO
306 notes
·
View notes
Akira being like, obsessed w loyalty, but having it as a positive(ish) trait is so fun to me. He doesnt outright say it or ever ask for it, but theres like an unspoken bond between the thieves and himself. He asks for it (demands, really) because he gives it in return. Its the classic ‘ride or die’ mentality; he demands trust and loyalty bc he 100% trusts his team. He would not have baited himself into what would be considered his literal death if he was not COMPLETELY and UTTERLY faithful to his team and the cause. He trusted them to fulfill their end of the bargain no matter how difficult that wouldve been for them. And because of their mutual faith in each other, leader to team and team to leader, they all managed to make it out and live another school year.
He has very little regard for his life but hes not necessarily reckless. Hes calculated. And while hes a bit out of sorts in the beginning with all of these new ideas and concepts, he quickly finds his footing later in the year. And bc he is assembling a team of people who are loyal to Him, he can afford to be loyal right back to them. He can afford to be risky if the risk is mitigated by having his team follow up on his actions. This team has to run like a well oiled machine; any hiccups will get the rest of the team caught or worse; hurt or killed.
Ryuji inadvertently sets this trend, bc he is Ride or Die at heart and he somewhat influences Akira on this matter. And its why he is so reluctant to truly incorporate Goro onto the team (at first). Goro IMMEDIATELY clocks Akiras leadership as something heavier than simply ‘i lead this group to keep everyone on the same page’, but he wrongly assumes Akira has some sort of Thing about power. Theres no real power trip; he is not okay with limiting his teams voices on any matter. His ideas are not the end all, be all of any plan; hes Not Shido. I can imagine how tough Saes Palace was for everyone, but they needed to have unwavering faith in each other to pull off such a mindblowing plan.
I dunno where else im going w this, i just like thinking of Goro feeling some kinda way about Akira (and the thieves) unanimously declaring him as the leader of the thieves fully knowing what shady things theyve done up until this point. Someone who claims to change peoples hearts is deciding who gets to keep their free will or not, and to have a team basically say ‘yes hes our leader and we would die for him’ does NOT look good to anyone! Especially to someone who is quite literally killing people on behalf of someone Very Bad! Who then Dies for it!
72 notes
·
View notes
Ruby's post bringing up that Datz said Dhurke wasn't a hands-on parent is so interesting to me... i always got that vibe but it's nice to see it confirmed. because Dhurke seems like the type of guy who love, love, loves his kids to death, but isn't the best at knowing how to BE a parent-- and imagine it, being thrown in the life of a single father for TWO kids after traumatically losing his wife and having his whole life go to pieces while he's trying to juggle a fucking. rebellion. of course he'd be hands-off. i imagine the Dragons kind of raised their kids in a village sort of way, though Datz was at the forefront of helping raise Dhurke's kids for obvious reasons.
it strikes me that Nahyuta probably idolized Dhurke to some degree as a kid, and i think the distance probably encouraged that as well. Dhurke was a larger-than-life figure that Nahyuta probably doesn't know as well as he'd like despite everything, and while it made his dad intimidating, it's what made Yuta so passionate about wanting to help and follow in his father's footsteps-- and why it probably hurt so, so much when he wound up being corrupted by Ga'ran. Dhurke unconditionally loved his kids, but i imagine Yuta probably felt like he could never face his dad again.
jskdbfdsjk this family gives me brainworms dude.
2 notes
·
View notes
tagged for a wip extract by @sheirukitriesfandom... here is julienne when she still thinks she wants to be an academic
There are better places for perfecting one’s university-application, than the growing tumult of a Bruma tavern: but few offer such fine drinks, for the intervals between increasingly half-formed sentences: and so Agnete and I hardly thought to look elsewhere, when at eighteen, the fancy took me to attend the Arcane University. I was still in my dreams of library-nooks and papers with colour illustrations, of shelves to the ceiling and infinite alchemical supplies with which to fumigate the Lustratorium, – but such dreams hardly provide the material for a formal letter, and so I must, into the foaming head of some drink I was too little Nordic for, invent things about myself to suit my intentions. Half an hour later, the tavern becoming busy, I felt quite as if I had fumigated myself: and gave up.
tagging anyone who wants to share :)
6 notes
·
View notes
thinking abt linebeck’s coat. something very alluring about it for some reason. so im just gonna ramble about it here instead of in the tags for once
you can probably start a fight between the people who think it’s a coat and people who think it’s a jacket but i think it’s a coat moving on
the character designs are interesting to look at due to the proportions and art style so it is hard to imagine how long his coat would be but i think it would go down to a bit above ankles because i think that’s good. it’s a bit more dramatic a bit more impressive(?) that way and would probably lead to problems tbh
based on some of the official art i imagine that the stripe at the bottom might’ve been a late addition since it’s missing in the bit of official art most used to represent linebeck. tbh linebeck is inconsistent in very tiny ways in the official art but that’s mostly if you’re gonna be nit-picky or bored enough to notice
his coat is so good it’s simple but very recognizable and stands out among the other character designs in ph and its just. yknow good character design
its also surprisingly good for headcanons and stuff and because i mostly take a lot of canon as suggestion i have a good handful of headcanons tagged specifically onto his coat (one of which is the length of it ig)
i like to imagine that he made it himself. i’ve seen stuff where people write linebeck as being able to fix link’s tunic when it gets torn and i feel like the logical extreme of that is that he made his own coat. i think that adds a layer of. importance to it? it’s unique it’s solely linebeck’s it’s tied to him because he made it with his own hands and maybe it can represent something about him that way?
i like to imagine that in addition to the normal pockets one the outside he’s got a whole lot of little pockets on the inside of the coat, like so many pockets that he hides little trinkets or tools or things he steals in either to keep or to take back to his ship for whatever reason. some of the pockets have little flaps of whatever they’re called that can be secured in place with a small button to keep stuff in
he’s got like pencils and a compass and little notes and tiny figurines and cool rocks and feathers and all kinds of little things he thought was worth keeping around and due to that his coat is uncomfortable sometimes but if he knows for certain he’s going to be busy doing stuff he’ll empty out all of the pockets and only leave the important stuff so that it’s lighter and less uncomfortable. link finds his coat lying around at some point and is caught so badly off-guard by how surprisingly heavy it is with all of the bullshit he keeps in all of his pockets
i also imagine he values it a lot, maybe to the point of being really possessive and protective of it, not letting link touch it and if it gets torn or stained he shuts down and has to fix it before he can move on to anything else, and if he can’t fix it at the time it leave him kind of overwhelmed or upset until he can fix it. he has a lot stocked-up materials specifically for his coat to avoid a situation where he has to go for while with his coat damaged
backing away from headcanon territory, his coat is just a cool bit of character design and has just been lodged in my mind for a while. its cool and never brought up within the game (obviously) and i guess a last little closing thought is that in the cutscene where oshus teleports link above linebeck it kinda looks like his coat moves when he tries to catch link and i think that’s cool
7 notes
·
View notes
Ok I'm curious, could you elaborate on art school education when you have the time?
Mainly because my friend went to art high school and feels she wasted all the years there while I've been self-teaching myself for a few months by just messing around, so I was wondering just how different the two approaches are :0
Oh, I have lots and lots of thoughts on art education. I do feel that I need to preface this with the whole "my experience is not universal", bc all my feelings about art and art education stem from my own experiences of being self-taught and then getting actual formal college degrees in art.
The shortest version of my long rant, under the cut, is that there isn't a superior way to learn art. With art education, you run the risk of getting bad teachers who don't teach the subject well, and you can also run into teachers who aren't open-minded about approaches to art that differ too much from their own--the flipside, of course, is that there are sometimes amazing teachers who can challenge you to try new things you'd never had thought of on your own, or who have already made a lot of mistakes that they can tell you about so you don't have to make them yourself. With being self-taught, you have to figure out everything on your own, and sifting through online tutorials or reading books can be difficult to find "actually useful and well-explained" advice, but you do also get the freedom of doing literally whatever you want and really focusing what you learn based on what you're actually interested in. Each has it's pros and cons, but neither is technically better or worse, per se, although education of any sort comes down a lot to each person's situation in life, as not everyone has access to education or even the tools for making art.
For the long, long expansion of my thoughts and some of my personal experiences with art education specifically...
In short, I'm technically entirely self-taught, despite holding two different art degrees. Aside from some feedback I got from my 8th grade art teacher (who had agreed to look at my hobby art in her own spare time outside of class), I basically taught myself to draw entirely on my own, using various "how to draw" books, online tutorials, and just a lot of general experimentation and continued drawing on my own. Which meant I made a lot of mistakes, or didn't try out certain things, or got frustrated bc I couldn't figure out how to do something, but overall I had a lot of fun. The actual art classes I took in middle and high school? Well, I took a life drawing class in high school that taught me how to draw from life, a skill I never would have acquired on my own bc the process for learning that skill requires a lot of patience, and personally, I find life drawing to be extremely boring. My high school art teacher was also allowing blatant copyright infringements to occur in her class, which was something I learned years later when taking a media law class in college to learn about copyright law specifically, so I guess I learned what to not do as a teacher if I manage to become one, but I didn't learn a whole lot of actual art skills or even really improve my art in any significant way. I never actually learned anything like the elements of art and how to use them, or color theory, or any of that, in class or even on my own, but because I was constantly looking at lots of art online, and making art on my own and experimenting with new things, I ended up learning all of the "essentials of art" intuitively, sort of like how children learn the grammar of whichever language(s) they grow up speaking without learning the actual formal grammar of the language. Which I think a lot of artists actually do as they continue to make art, even if they don't realize it.
Anyhow, moving on. I personally really enjoyed my undergrad illustration degree. Now, to be fair, if someone was willing to pay me to attend college for the rest of my life as my actual career, that is what I would do bc I love learning, and I love the challenge presented by college courses. But do I feel like I learned anything new about art in those classes? Yes and no. I took a lot of art history classes bc I had never had any art history before college, and found I loved the topic a lot. The life drawing classes I was required to take felt like a waste of time bc I already had that skill from the one high school class, and I spent most of those classes fighting the teachers about why we should have less nude models (bc nudes are super easy to draw from life, but clothing is very, very difficult, and I wanted to learn how to draw clothing as a challenge bc I was bored in those classes). I spent one class teaching the entire class how to use Photoshop bc the teacher's method was absolute BS and I could do everything faster and easier than what we were being taught bc I had been using the program for years (the teacher even joked about how I had hijacked the class, to which I'm still not sure was meant to be friendly or malicious). The "Anatomy for the Artist" class I took was one of the most useful classes I've ever taken, and really helped me with drawing not only humans, but anything with a skeleton and muscles, since the teacher's approach made it so I learned the skill of using actual real-life anatomy as a means of creating art from the knowledge of anatomy (and I lucked out for this class bc I had an adjunct who was there to cover the actual teacher who was on sabbatical, and from what I heard from classmates I would have learned nothing from the usual teacher's approach to the class; I hope the teacher I did have found a good stable job bc she was amazing). Most of the actual core illustration classes helped me improve my art a great deal, but not bc they taught me anything--more so, it was that I had to create a lot of art for them, and find creative solutions to the challenges the projects would present (there were lots of "illustrate this abstract concept without using x, y, or z imagery" or "create an illustration within these specific parameters" which really required me to think about how to plan and go about completing the final project). Somehow, the actual "foundations classes" that I took--where I was supposed to learn things like design theory, the elements and principles of art, color theory, etc.--well, let's just say the teacher was on his way to retirement, and didn't teach any of that really well, so I still ended up going through my undergrad more or less on intuition and the art skills I had cultivated on my own. Mostly, college art classes were useful in helping me to improve my art, not because I learned new things (although I did learn some new things), but rather because I needed to make lots and lots of art in a relatively short time, and making art constantly is the fastest way to improve.
That all said, I still never really got the point of things that I kept seeing or hearing as common art advice. For example: "Use references." Okay? What does that mean? What does that look like? How do I do that? I was never taught that once, and it was only partway through college that I figured out that people meant "look at a photo of a real person to figure out a pose or something" and not "learn about the subject you're trying to draw so you have an understanding of that subject that allows you to draw it from your imagination how you want". And honestly the former advice is useful but...only useful to a point, so I'm kinda glad I never learned it bc it would have stunted my development and presented a roadblock. In either case, I was never taught how to use a ref or what "use a ref" meant in my formal art education, and by the time I figured it out on my own, my repertoire of art skills made the advice moot.
So what's all the long and short of this? Is art education a sham and useless? Well, not entirely, but maybe sort of. It really comes down to which teachers are teaching the subject, and how they do it. I only had a handful of art teachers who were really able to get me to think about art differently and push me to learn more and improve. But I also had a friend in my undergrad class who had never drawn in his life and he found most of the classes super useful bc he wasn't coming in being self-taught and already drawing. We were at different places in our art journeys, and so we got different things out of the college classes.
I do feel overall that the focus of my college classes was more productive than the lack of focus from my high school classes. Would I tell everyone who wants to get better at art to go to art school? Hell no. I got a degree in art because I love it, and because I had hoped to work as a video game concept artist (for which one does need at least a BFA to get hired by most companies). Of course, by the end of my degree I had figured out the video game industry in America was absolutely not a place I wanted to be working for my own health, but my frustrations with how my art education had been structured, paired with the fact that I spent a few classes actually teaching my classmates things, made me think I might make an okay art teacher. But even my wanting to be an art teacher still comes from a place of deep love for art. For those who just want to take up art as a hobby, self-taught is fine, and sometimes it will be better than getting stuck with a bad teacher who'll crush the enjoyment of art. Yes, I think a well-structured art course could help someone learn art and become confident in their art, which is part of the reason I want to try teaching it (esp. bc it took me years to learn some things that a good teacher would have just like, covered in a core class), but like...self-taught or school-taught, there isn't a superior way to learn art. They're both just very different approaches.
7 notes
·
View notes