50s-60s

I’m coming to terms with the fact that I really am just out of step asethetically from just about everyone I meet. What am I into right now? William Blake, epic poetry from ancient Mesopotamia, the Hermetica, and medieval music/very old folk. Last month it was the Manhattan Project, John Donne, quantum physics, 50s and 60s sci-fi and Richard Feynman (who I have complicated feelings about). Before that it was Lawrence of Arabia, 60s movies, and 60s jazz. I feel a pressure to hide the things I like, for a number of reasons. I think a lot of the time people assume I’m putting on a front, trying to appear cultured, but that genuinely is not where I’m coming from. I have a tendency to be guarded about this stuff, which comes from a fear of being vulnerable, and that makes the problem worse because it makes it harder to communicate my enthusiasm. I’m rapidly improving at that.

There aren’t a ton things I’m passionate about that I can bond with new people over, because I have very few “grounded” interests or reference points for most people. Though it makes it really exciting when someone is into the same stuff as me (and isn’t an asswipe about it, which, let’s be honest, is the real problem here).

If you kind of squint you might see a constellation in that list, and many are recurring images in my mind. The thing that I get out of most of my interests is just something that’s very off-zeitgeist right now, so it doesn’t tend to show up so much in modern cultural products. The place I’m coming from isn’t compatible with postmodern irony or nihilism, nor with the new sincerity approach to pop culture, nor with embracing industry-produced media. And, I mean, that’s part of the problem too. That I feel completely disconnected from most modern cultural products.

It’s a little lonely and I think this is one of the big things that drives people into grad school. But then I also have this drive to express what I get out of this stuff, and that’s honestly where I get the greatest joy in my life.

This style of slightly 50s/60s art (like in Little Golden Books) seems to be really popular these days. I have to say, it’s really fun to imitate. I think maybe it spurred from the Frozen concept art? Disney concept artists seem to use it a lot.

Also, man, there is a lot of Eddie Redmayne reference material out there.

MORE NEWT. MORE TINA. MORE FANTASTIC BEASTS FOREVER.

anonymous asked:

Given the popularity of Hamilton, what do you make of the fact that historians like Sean Willentz and Nancy Isenberg criticize it for glorifying an elitist into a pseudo-populist, while once again reinforcing Aaron Burr as America's Richard III, erasing Vidal's attempt to reconstruct the latter?

Well, I don’t know about Nancy Isenberg, but in Sean Wilentz’ case, I know that this goes back to something of a generational divide within American History: during the late 40s/50s/early 60s, there was a generation of historians who were looking for a “usable past” that would find roots for New Deal liberalism dating back to the 19th century and hopefully to the American Revolution, and who found it in the 19th century Democratic Party. This includes folks like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (especially in his argument that Andrew Jackson was the first coming of FDR because banks = evil), Gordon Wood (Radicalism of the American Revolution), and yes, Sean Wilentz. Chants Democratic (1984), the book that made Wilentz’ career, was an attempt to find an authentic, class-conscious, anti-racist working class politics in the various “Workingmen’s” political movements within and around the Democratic Party in the early 19th century NYC. 

Now, there were always problems with this particular analysis - for one thing, you had to look very hard to find people who fit Wilentz’ schema, because Tammany Hall was laissez-faire on economic policy, the Democratic Party very waffly on unions until quite late, and you have to go pretty far into the margins of the 19th century Democratic Party to find someone who was anti-slavery, let alone anti-racist. For another, the comparisons only worked as long as you focused on a limited area of anti-capitalist/populist rhetoric (working people good, banks and big business bad) or public policy (support for the income tax, or the Nullification Crisis) - because once you start looking too closely, the dark side of the 19th century Democratic Party becomes too obvious to ignore. Finally, it simply ignored too many complicated shifts in national politics that took place after the 19th century without which you wouldn’t have a Democratic Party that any of its current members would ever have joined. 

And then came along a new generation of historians who took a revisionist approach to the study of political parties in the 19th century, one more attuned to concerns of race and Jim Crow, war and empire. And these historians pointed out, quite accurately, that the 19th century Democratic Party was the party of white supremacy, both pro-slavery and pro-imperialism (indeed, the two things went hand-in-hand for much of the 19th century as many of America’s wars of expansion were wars to acquire land for slavery to expand into), that it was the party that invented the idea of States’ Rights, nullification, and strict constructionism, and so on. 

By contrast, these scholars looked at the 19th century Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans and instead of seeing the elitist party of big business, saw political parties that believed in an activist Federal government in economic policy (nationally planned public works, central banking), social welfare policy (the construction of schools, hospitals, orphanages, asylums, etc.), and civil rights, that (however ineffectively or inconsistently) opposed imperialist wars against Native Americans, Mexico, etc., that believed in social reform and had links to major social movements. 

To bring this all back to Hamilton, Chernow’s biography was definitely in the latter camp, emphasizing Hamilton as an upwardly mobile immigrant, a modernizer, anti-slavery advocate, champion of an activist Federal government against the opposition of southern slaveholders like Thomas Jefferson. 

> Yes

Surprisingly, it is not Tsuki’s hand. Yancy didn’t want to touch it, so he prods the floating thing in the water until it floats to the shore.

It’s a dead body. The man is probably in his 50s or 60s, and clearly going through the decomposition process. Because of how this process works, the body must have been dead for some time for the cadaver to start floating.

Katsuo accidentally falls into the water. Csilla watches.

Commissions!

Lines:                                         Flat color:                                Shading:

Waist up: $10                               Waist up: $15                          Waist up: $25

Full body: $15                               Full body: $20                         Full body: $30

Extras:

Add a character: Additional %50

Backgrounds: $10-$20

Digital Paintings:

Face and Head: $40

Waist up: $50

Full Body: $60

Painted backgrounds: $15

Hello! I have found myself in need of some money, so I thought I’d open up commissions! If you’re interested, just message me and we can work out the details.

Things I will not do:

NSFW

Furry art

New plan… I hand out candy or little flowers or something freaking CHEAP at the convention because badge ribbons are never cheap, even if you buy blank ones. They want to act like it’s so freaking hard to make them that they have to charge more if you buy less than 100. And that’s their call but then the blank ones should be dirt cheap, not almost as costly as printed ones. “Buy blank ones and save!” Yeah, about $5. Instead of $44 I pay $39 to have to write them all with a paint pen that prolly costs $5.

And then they want $10+ to mail you pieces of stickied ribbons they cut up with pinking shears. Even if you only bought 20.

I can’t justify dropping $50-$60 just for the fun of handing them out. I could hand out $1 bills and spend less with my circulation. Oh, well.

anonymous asked:

how did u get to a high enough level in runescape so that you could actually enjoy it cause im like around 50-60 for most skills and its taken so long but i cant do anything cause im still not high enough level

I’ll echo what others have said on here - the mid-game of rs kind of sucks. My advice would be to set a goal (sounds stupid, but it worked for me). When I started working towards prifddinas, it seemed like the levels were coming faster. And after I unlocked prif, I actually started enjoying the game more.

Also daily challenges and weekly/monthly d&ds are handy for levelling up

So yeah, I don’t actually know if any of that was helpful. But if you wanted to message me off anon, I could always give you some specific training suggestions!