i really liked my tags on this post so i wanted to touch them up and post them as a stand alone! i ended up adding quite a bit to this ''':)
What artistic skill does Izzy possess?
I think he has a lot of 'practical' artsy skills. he’s decent at sewing (mending your own clothes isn't just useful, it's almost a requirement at sea with limited possessions and resources) he's probably decent at braiding hair from having to splice rope- simply anything with roots in being useful I think he has done enough to be decent at by this point in his life.
Singing comes into this as well, holding a rhythm is important for certain sailing tasks, and while I think he can sing in ways that don't translate to shanties, I don't think he has utilised this in a long long time (so excited that we are apparently getting an Izzy singing scene in s2!!!! I need him to know he can have fun)
Another thing is I think he was a really good tattoo artist! I don't actually see him as having the creativity to come up with interesting and unique designs but I do think he is excellent at the act itself, and at copying requested designs. you need a swallow? an anchor? a ship? any common sailors tattoo? he can absolutely do it and it will probably be the best tattoo you have. it was always a mark of honour if you could convince him to do yours on the Queen Anne- he was very busy and didn't often do them, and definitely wouldn't do them if he didn't respect you. He's done a lot of Ed's 'quality' tattoos (though I think Ed also does a lot on himself), he's done tattoos for Fang, and Ivan, and he will do them for the rest of the kraken crew in the future. (he will even do one for Lucius one day, one of his own pieces of art as long as its not an Ed face or a dick. They understand each other now)
anything else? I don't know, I see him very much as, he won't let himself do things if they aren't practical. his canon whittling is as close as he gets and that's more of a 'thing to do with your hands while watching the deck' kind of thing. have knife will whittle
I think ultimately, Izzy doesn't let himself do things for himself. if you love something, if you have a soft spot, it can be targeted, taken away.
I do think he maybe dances though. He always plays it off as something Ed forces him to do when they're drunk/on shore but... he loves it- the motion; the reliance on another partner and the intimate understanding of exactly what they're gonna do next? I think he would love that actually.
I think dancing might be the one thing he always does for fun. He never lets himself have it, but if Ed demands a partner? Yes, of course, anything for his Captain.
(Ed always demands a partner. he likes dancing well enough but he likes seeing Izzy do it more- he knows Izzy will never do it on his own, he understands why, but Ed is Blackbeard. Nobody fucks with Blackbeard- and if he wants to dance? if he wants his first mate to dance? they're fucking dancing.)
but that's not the truth of the situation, really.
It always takes him a second to let his guard down, but he relaxes into it. He lets himself loose in a way Ed only sees when he's deep into the rhythm of a swordfight. And perhaps it's the same, to him- finding the flow of the battle, of the music. Feeling his partner, understanding them and being understood in return? It's all the same- but dancing is safe. Dancing is fun. In a swordfight there are stakes- and he loves the stakes, he loves that this thing that means everything to him matters, but sometimes, just sometimes, it really is nice to move like that in a way that doesn't matter.
And when they really get going- all twirls and jumps and frankly being a little ridiculous, Izzy laughs. A deep belly laugh, a kind of joy you didn't think was possible from him. But here he is, letting go at last. He laughs and he smiles and he feels such joy, the rest of the world melts away, and it is just him and his partner, dancing.
(later- much, much later, a man will play a battle song over their raids, a jaunty little tune that throws off everyone they fight against, and Izzy gets to dance, and fight, and feel free, unburdened by the weight that he's carried with him his whole life. They'll dance after too, and he will have finally found a place where he completely belongs)
(if you liked this, can I recommend Talking Bodies by ItsClydeBitches, i feel like that fic fits the themes of dancing incredibly well)
27 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
Okay I can’t not say something…
… I dunno what’s going on in Geats. I’m not watching it. Sounds like my man Michianga is getting some shit which sucks, when will Takahashi treat the purple guys right???
I say, not even sure I’m spelling his name right.
But I genuinely cannot believe people are still trying to come for Horobi on this.
So let’s clear some things up.
1) Horobi was absolutely set up. Probably wasn’t the Ark’s plan from the start exactly, but she knowingly made him dependent on her and psychologically abused and manipulated him for years. Disconnected from her, Horobi was unstable and trying to grapple w/ trying to think for himself. He was heavily traumatised and easily manipulated, making him the perfect patsy. All she had to do was poke Izu’s blind devotion to Aruto a bit and have her use her usual brand of insensitive, socially unaware ‘help.’ That situation was absolutely orchestrated.
2) Is two things. Izu could easily have dodged that shot and choose not to, and Horobi had no reason to think she had no backup (which was ridiculous to begin w/). He’d made it very clearly he considered backups to be a form of immortality for ai, and we have no clue how he would have reacted if she dodged bc she choose not to. Obviously Horobi ‘shouldn’t’ have resorted to violence to ‘end’ that interaction, but he was not in a mental place where he could make that distinction. It’s all he’s ever known, it’s predominately the only way anyone has ever treated him. He was panicked and she was harassing him. He was desperate to end the interaction in anyway possible, and he’d already tried walking away. But there is no way he ‘knew’ he was ‘killing’ her (and, well… He didn’t). He actually seems genuinely shaken that she just took the hit, being unable to respond to Jin’s question (which he always has before). He wasn’t planning on ‘killing’ her at all, he just needed her to stop. She also choose to go in there in the first place. That’s like… Not to compare any of these characters to dogs in that way, but that’s like a domesticated Pomeranian walking into a playpen w/ a recently ‘rescued’ wolf that’s been abused and used in fighting rings and trying to play and being shocked it got bitten.
3) There were so many people who could have done something. Jin, who’s been so ready to take hits for people he barely knows before, just stands there. There were plenty of humans around! Fuwa and Yua, who started this whole damn thing, were nowhere to be seen, and Fuwa had an opportunity to stop the fighting and fucked it up. Like I absolutely believe there’s a correlation between Fuwa shooting Horobi for asking him that question and Horobi shooting at Izu to get her to stop provoking him. Aruto himself is more busy trying to force the HumaGear outside to go back to how he thinks they should be then dealing w/ the actual root of the situation. If he actually cared as much as he claims, maybe he’d realise how much suffering Horobi is going through and actually try to address the situation, rather than leaving it to his secretary who is in no way capable of doing so?
Basically, the fact of the matter is that this was not Horobi killing Izu in cold blood, it was more equivalent to a wounded animal trying to defend itself. She choose to go in there, back him into a corner, and choose not to back off when she saw he was becoming agitated. She choose not to dodge. He fired back in an attempt to end the interaction, bc she was doing more harm than help. Ultimately, I’m not trying to pin this on her, either, although I have Issues w/ how she was portrayed. Izu was never going to be able to help Horobi there bc she just could not understand what he was going through. In her mind, devotion to Aruto makes everything right, Aruto is the absolute best thing ever. And that’t not her fault, that was how she was made, and he inadvertently groomed her into that. But let’s not get me started on Aruto. The fact of the matter is that this was literally everyone’s fault. Well, it’s Gai and the Ark’s fault (bc the Ark is Gai’s fault), but if Horobi and even Izu herself had done nothing different but someone else present actually used their common sense for five seconds, this would never have happened.
Literally, this is saying that a traumatised, abused child soldier lashing out bc they feel backed into a corner and scared out of their minds is deliberately aggressive. Horobi was protecting himself the only way he knew how, Izu was (unintentionally, like she meant well but meaning well does not equate to doing well) harassing and provoking him and randomly decided not to dodge for some inconceivable reason, and everyone else decided that clearly, the sheltered ai w/ limited world experience and knowledge was obviously the right person to deal w/ the traumatised, abused, unstable one.
Also Fuwa and Yua started it and Fuwa had a chance to stop the fighting and fucked it up. An in character fuck up, maybe, but a fuck up. Aruto was more bothered w/ getting his free labour back than helping the traumatised child soldier. Jin randomly decides to be useless.
Edit: bc I realise I forgot them, Naki and Ikazuchi aren’t even there, they just show up to talk shit later like what the fuck guys maybe actually make and effort before you start badmouthing your supposed family member who you know has been horribly abused and mind controlled all his life.
GAI AND THE ARK.
Aaaaand… I’m not talking about after bc I think I’ve ruffled enough feathers.
Basically, while the situation in Geats does sound much more straightforward, I will not stand for people depicting Horobi as some knowingly malicious killer when he was very clearly not in a space where he could or knew how to make those calls. The man had only just gotten disconnected from the Ark, he was just learning how to make decisions. He didn’t ‘choose’ to ‘kill’ Izu, he acted on an instinct to protect himself out of fear and then he himself did not understand his actions.
3 notes
·
View notes