The Lanzhou screw is a mysterious object discovered in recent years that seems to challenge mainstream archaeology and history. It was discovered in 2002, and has since then, generated great amount of attention among researchers. The most mysterious part of this object is that, within a piece of rock, a metal screw was discovered. The mysterious pear-shaped stone is about 6×8 cm and weighs around 466 grams. But it is not a common rock and the metal shaped screw inside just adds to the mystery of a rock, that according to researchers is around 300 million years old.

The mysterious black rock has geologists scratching their head. Tests have failed to show the exact composition of the mysterious rock, researchers that include geologists and physicists from the National Land Resources Bureau of Gansu Province, Colored Metal Survey Bureau of Gansu Province, the Institute of Geology and Minerals Research of China Academy, Lanzhou Branch, and the School of Resources and Environment of Lanzhou College, are unsure of the origin of the artifact and point out that at this time, all theories are possible.

Keep reading

The present is not enough. It is impoverished and toxic for queers and other people who do not feel the privilege of majoritarian belonging, normative tastes, and “rational” expectations….Let me be clear that the idea is not simply to turn away from the present. One cannot afford such a maneuver, and if one thinks one can, one has resisted the present in favor of folly. The present must be known in relation to the alternative temporal and spatial maps provided by a perception of past and future affective worlds.

José Esteban Muñoz, Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity

Revisiting this life-changing book for my PhD prelims, and I thought this portion might resonate with my queer, imaginative, fiction-loving, justice-loving, just generally loving tumblr friends.

Disney's Pool of Light and Background Theory

Something I’ve been reading up on recently in my quest to provide backgrounds for my drawings is Disney’s focus on pools of light in backgrounds, the idea being that backgrounds, while important and containing valuable information, are set pieces. A background on its own isn’t really complete - it’s a stage without actors. The pool of light refers to the area that is supposed to catch the viewer’s attention, it’s where most of the action in the scene will take place and where the majority of the important information for the viewer is located. Essentially, to continue the theater stage metaphor, it’s the spotlight of your composition.

Cinderella has some really, really excellent examples of this in its background paintings:

These are some more blatant examples, but will work for what I wish to talk about, in that this theory comes down to two things: color and shape.


The pool of light deals not just with making an area in the scene brighter or lighter than another, it focuses on contrasts. While dark/light is part of this, there’s also the contrasts of tone, hue, and saturation. In Cinderella’s palette, this is consistently different warm grays used as the light, while dark blues are used as the shadow. When viewed on a color wheel, the colors are often near-complementary, but not exactly:

What’s important to take away from this is that these colors blend into every object, which allows the whole composition to appear consistent. 

Of course, the shadows/hilights don’t have to be the traditional warm light/cool shadows. This is just what the example uses.


Secondly, and just as important, is the shape of the light itself - because it shows exactly where the character will be moving, and what we should be focusing on. Even when not in animation, this is surprisingly effective. For example, look at the two screenshots of the stairs - would you expect Cinderella to go down the stairs, or across towards the rafters? Would she bring the breakfast up the stairs, or across the hall?

What’s fascinating is that this is absolutely everywhere in old Disney movies and shorts. Literally every background uses this concept. It’s not something you really think about while viewing the film, but as an artist, the ideas employed by these movies are incredibly useful.

(All screencaps used in this post are from disneyscreencaps, which is also a great place to research this further.)

The idea put forward in this article is so smart and elegant it makes my brain fizz. Pulling lines off a profile to draw a front-on view of a face with the same proportions is something that I think every artist has done at least a few times… but! 

If you pull the lines out at an angle, down or up, you can accurately derive the proportions for low and high view shots. Brilliant.

Well…No he really isn’t.

Ok hear me out I’m not shooting down any theories whatsoever but hear me out ok??

cause this is the guy who goes so far to wear super short hacker mode shorts on instead of normal trousers omg like guys

Anyway, my point is if 707 really has that kind of power he would rather joke around with everyone instead.

So I’d like to porpose a brighter, happier theory to our dear lord lucifer I mean Luciel Choi.

Ok remember this chat at the start of the game???

There’s the time when you have to answer one of these

-You’re not violating my….
-Where did you get that info!?
-But I’m not a girl.

Now Im one of the few people who chose “But I’m not a girl”

Luciel will straight up answer : 



And when you think about it, it actually make sense. REMEMBER this is a OTOME GAME that team Cheritz created for YOU GUYS to enjoy.

Want more evidence?? Please check out team Cheritz asks for the game character. You know what Luciel always say??

SO!!!! I hope yall have a broader view on the problem and try not to be sad about it, because after all, mystic messenger is a game we all enjoy. Luciel always knows the user is new, and he would make jokes for you guys so you guys can feel comfortable around the game


Speard the words guys. 

Finally, a thank you for all who’ve had the patient to read all my bullshit. ;w; love ya~

Art has become too ironical and unintelligible for its own communicative good: It only speaks to those in the esoteric know – those willing to play the art game. Narcissistically fetishized, advanced art loses relational purpose. Caught up in itself, it forgets the audience, which is expected to accept it on its own terms, uncritically: Whatever common ground existed between advanced art and the audience collapses. Holding up a mirror to itself rather than to the audience – as art has done since Aristotle noted the cathartic effect of the insight it afforded – art loses its audience. Thus, advanced art loses its foundation in human experience.
—  Taken from A Critical History of 20th-Century Art by Donald Kuspit.