Editorial Photography
"Colors of the night" Naschmarkt, Vienna
Advertising Agency: Stockenhuber Design
Photographer: Daniela Stockenhuber

(c) D. Stockenhuber, Stockenhuber Design, Austria 

ppl liked this on twitter so i’ll post it here too ;;v;;; still so large tho

Commission for a dudette (asked to keep her anonymous). She commissioned me to draw any one of my friends’ sonas that I want to draw. Gurl, you do not just give me money then leave me alone with difficult decisions. 

Anyway Amber, I chose your lemur bae! ovo/

On this day in 1666, a great fire swept through London and raged for four days. More than a century later, J.M.W. Turner witnessed another great fire in the capital, the burning of the Houses of Parliament, and created some quick sketches before producing this dramatic painting.

The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons, October 16, 1834,” 1834–35, by Joseph Mallord William Turner


September 2nd 1945: Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence

On this day in 1945 the Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence was issued. The Proclamation, written by communist revolutionary Ho Chi Minh, was first announced in public at the Ba Đình flower garden in Hanoi. Vietnam had been a colony of France since the 19th century, but revolutionary forces were able to take hold following the occupation of the country by the Japanese during World War Two. The Proclamation itself began with a direct quote from the US Declaration of Independence and liberally quoted from French revolutionary texts to highlight the hypocrisy of brutal and repressive French imperialism. The Communists’ Proclamation made no reference to Marx or Lenin but despite its praise of the American Founding Fathers and attempts to appeal to them, the Cold War driven United States was determined to destroy this new communist state. The US therefore supported France in their attempt to reassert control in the ensuing Indochina War. However the French were no match for Ho Chi Minh’s well-organised guerilla forces, and suffered humiliating defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The war ended with the Geneva Accords which divided Vietnam along the 17th parallel into a communist North and Western-friendly South. After years of struggle and unrest between the two, and the steadily increasing presence of US advisers, full scale war broke out and by 1965 the US had decidedly entered the conflict on the side of the South. The Americans underestimated the determination of the North Vietnamese and eventually withdrew from the war that had killed millions of people. Shortly after in April 1975, thirty years after the initial proclamation of independence, Saigon fell to the communists and Vietnam was reunited as an independent communist state.

"Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country—and in fact it is so already. And thus the entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty"
- excerpt from Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence


Lothar Daniel Bechtold, Fashion Designer
Project: Corporate Identity, Fashion Collection Sales Folder, Website, 
Promotions, Social Media
Advertising Agency: Stockenhuber Design
Concept/Idea: D. Stockenhuber
Art Director, CD: D. Stockenhuber
Photos: M. Mayer


Bell Commission of Marina for Obesemudkipz! Thank you so much for commissioning me and the extra bells as well >< I guess we both share a similar love for this pink sweety. I remember when I cried when she left my town in Wild world when I was in elementary school. Anyway, I hope you like it! I also added the transparent file without the background and effects for you!

On 'structural' oppression


Phrases often take on lives of their own. I noticed this when reading a social media conversation where a queer friend said to a straight person “you do not experience structural homophobia, so…” It got me thinking about what that ‘structural’ is doing in that sentence. The ‘structural’ has migrated there from other discussions: people use it to prefix conversation about various types of oppression, usually to claim something about the way society works. It most often comes into play when not talking about directly violent elements of oppression, but those that are less perceptible outside its dynamic: e.g., implicit social threats of violence, rights to employment, covert and unconscious examples of homophobia, or sexism, or racism. I think it is meant to underline the actual reality of these experiences of oppression, and its permeation through the social fabric.

But, yes, these phrases go wandering, take on lives of their own, grow other implications. Why is the ‘structural’ prefix so popular? It is presumably part of a claim that phenomena such as differentiated employment or access to healthcare are not simply neutral features of the world ‘as it is’, but are politically distributed. But this ‘structural’ dimension of social experience is only intelligible to us comparatively, and collectively. Therefore, while it is strictly accurate for my friend to say to his straight interlocutor “you do not experience structural homophobia”, it is equally true for me to say: neither do you. You experience homophobia: its ‘structural’ element arrives in collective appreciation of its common logic with other experiences. That is to say, there is no dividing line between the structural and the incidental: all homophobia, and all oppression, is structural in that it is patterned by a particular social logic.

The reason I think this is important, and that it is important to insist on the collective dimension of social experience, is that the prefix ‘structural’ can be used to exculpate and disempower. It can give rise to the kind of argument that states there are no ‘winners’ from oppressive social structures. This, it seems to me, is an error in reasoning. What it suggests is that patriarchy, or heteronormativity, actually traumatises all human beings (this argument is rarely deployed for white supremacy, the historical reason being hopefully obvious.) This may in fact be true: but it is certainly easier to deal with a traumatised subject-position in one’s slippers, in the armchair, as one’s wife sweats over a hot stove in her 15th consecutive hour of work. It is rather like saying capitalists are also losers from capitalism, as they have to degrade and destroy life to make a profit. There patently are winners from oppressive social structures. That is why they exist.

Why does this argument come about? It is an individual argument: it comes from looking at the individual consequences of social dynamics rather than the way they affect groups, or classes, of people. Doesn’t an insistence on the social, or structural, dimension of oppression in fact suggest that there must be winners and losers? Further: it is equally important to conceive of an anti-oppressive politics as extendable beyond the individual: that is, it is a political rather than personal project. I mean by this that it is legitimate to try to challenge and eliminate personal prejudices in oneself, but that a political project has to go beyond this, to identify the social logic that imparts these prejudices in the first place, and articulate a politics that seeks to destroy them. Again, it seems to me this requires thinking beyond our immediate experience, about why our social order might need to create interior externalities, or classes of people becoming ‘surplus populations’, or rely on unpaid work in the form of social reproduction. As such, ‘structures’ are constructed (but materially real) social norms that appear to take on a seemingly immutable presence outside of the subject: but they are nonetheless constituted by and dependent on human action, and can therefore be changed.