between tradition and modernity

Lame adaptations and sequels are always like, “how can Mina go back to her stifling Victorian marriage after her experience with the dark, seductive Dracula??”

Meanwhile, Mina marries her best friend, who she’s known since they were children, who she share common interests with, they build a home together, work as partners, make immense sacrifices for each other, support each other through their traumas.

Guys, a marriage isn’t stifling and restrictive just because two people… get along, I guess?


The Color Course: Understanding Color

Instructor: Tim Von Rueden (vonn)

Expert Input: Mel Herring (PurpleKecleon) or more recently GlitchedPuppet

This first half of the color course focuses on understanding color from the terms associated with color, how lights project color, choosing color schemes, and much more. We go into different discussions like why Red and Cyan are considered true complimentary colors instead of red and green.

We begin first breaking down what is Color? Why is there confusion when figuring out what is considered Red? As we continue throughout this course we will constantly refer back to the three terms that better explain what color is.

From there we dive into working digitally and the differences that brings when working with color projected with light rather than pigments. Once you begin understanding working in RGB (Red, Green, Blue) then it becomes easier understanding how colors mix in this digital format.

Working with color, we need to understand the color wheels associated with art and the difference between the traditional and modern color wheels. We will then show you how to choose these colors accurately from within Photoshop.

Then we take the time to look at the terms associated with color such as tint, tone, shade, monochromatic, greyscale, analogous, complimentary, and warm/cool. There are a lot of color terms but they are quite simple once you know the meaning of each.

The last section in our understanding color course looks at creating basic color schemes and we have a guest appearance from one of our favorite color artists, Mel Herring giving her insights on working with color as well!


A Selection Historical Ketubah Designs.

“The ketubah is the standard marriage contract that Jewish law requires a groom to provide for his bride on their wedding day. It is intended to protect the woman, primarily by establishing the man’s financial obligations to her in case of divorce or widowhood. Since, historically, the ketubah is read during the marriage ceremony, and thus publicly displayed, a tradition of decorating it evolved in many Jewish communities in different parts of the world. There is no one style that can characterize the art of the ketubah. Different Jewish communities adopted styles and even shapes for their ketubot that were characteristic of their localities and often reflected the artistic traditions of the countries in which they lived.”

1. The Persian Ketubah-1849

“The Jews have been an integral part of the Persian Empire since, at least, the ancient historical and biblical era of Cyrus, who let us practice our religion and rebuild our temple. The Persian Jews have a unique style, visible in everything from their architecture to the style of liturgy that combines thousands of years of Judaism with thousands of years of Persian culture.The Persian Ketubah is a distinctive Ketubah, unlike the ketubot of any other Jewish community, ancient or modern. The Persian Ketubah is in the deep, rich colors, typical of Persian communities while containing the decorative flair and patterns associated with the Persian Jewish community. The metaphorical frame around the deep aquamarine center that holds the Ketubah text is also a common element in traditional Persian Ketubot.”

2. The Bucharest Ketubah

“Jews have been living in Romania since the 16th century; first the Jewish Turkish merchants first settled there, followed by waves of Ashkenazim over the centuries. The Jews of Bucharest have both suffered misfortunes and flourished profoundly at different eras during the last half-millennium in and around Bucharest, Moldovia and Walachia.

The Romanian Jewish tradition of Ketubah art is one of the best of the European and Ashkenazi Jews. The Ketubot of Bucharest often traditionally included references to the twelve tribes of Israel (such as the names and symbols of the 12 tribes aligning the columns of the Bucharest Ketubah) and the blue that is now so powerfully associated with Judaism.”

3.  The Amsterdam Ketubah-1325

“The Jews were prominent in Amsterdam ever since they were expelled from France in 1325 and found refuge with the Dutch. The community grew to its golden years after the expulsion from Spain led many Spanish Jews to find safety in Amsterdam as well. In the Jewish Netherlands, a unique intermingling of the Sephardic and Ashkenazim was born: intermarriage between these groups was common, and, due to the lack of Rabbis, the two often prayed together. Indeed, even in Dutch today, many Yiddish words are common – a testament to the Jewish influence in Holland throughout the centuries.

In the Amsterdam Ketubah, this unique mixture of the Sephardic and Ashkenazim in Amsterdam clearly reveals itself. The elaborate patterns of the Sephardic tradition combine with the reserve of the Ashkenazi tradition, to create a magnificent historical Ketubah.”

4.  The Ljubljana Ketubah

“The Jews of Slovenia have the unique honor of being at the crossroads between the ancient Jews and the medieval then modern Jews. Jews lived in Slovenia in ancient Roman times, and then, in the 6th century of the common era, Jews starting moving to Ljubljana and then Piran and the surrounding towns, where they were the region’s money-lenders. Over time, many of the Jews went on to Poland, Germany and the heart of Europe, but a small community has constantly remained in Ljubljana and Slovenia.

The ancient Ketubot of Ljubljana often included lions, stars, and an ornamental border. The Ljubljana Ketubah is perfect for the couple whose family lives on the crossroads between the old and the new, between the traditional and the modern, between Israel and Europe.”

anonymous asked:

I am confused. What is the traditional craft? What makes it different from the craft that is modern?

Traditional witchcraft is witchcraft that shapes and bases itself in the lore and folk beliefs of witches in the past, mainly coming from the Early Modern Period. It often serves as a reconstruction of what, from we can tell, witchcraft was in those times. 
The definitions, terms, and overall idea of witchcraft can change, even majorly in some places, between traditional and modern witchcraft. As I said, traditional witches draw upon folklore and history and use ideas that modern witchcraft have deemed as nonsense. Many traditional witches work with the Devil, are of a somewhat wilder nature, and work magic as they see fit. For many, it is also tied with animism, and thus involved a lot of spirit work, but I’ve known a couple of traditional witches who were not animists. 
Witchcraft in a traditional context means something specific. It isn’t a catch all term for magic as it’s come to mean in recent times. It is a kind of magic that deals with things that most find unpleasant. 
Because traditional witchcraft is an umbrella term, it finds many kinds of witches underneath it. Some work with the established traditions, some work with only their cultural and folkloric roots, some use their own visionary experiences to create their own side of things coupled with the folkloric ideas and terms tied to traditional witchcraft. Some are all three, some are two coupled, and some are just one. 

Tagged by: @ask-todomatsu

Tagging: @ask-ichi-things​, @totoko-answers​, @bruzza-karamatsu​ 

( Ya’ll don’t have to do this if you don’t want to LOL.)

Matsuno Osomatsu


$ Financial : wealthy / moderate / poor / in poverty

✚ Medical : fit / moderate / sickly / disabled / disadvantaged / non applicable

✪ Class or Caste : upper / middle / working / street trash / slave / unsure

✔ Education : qualified / unqualified / studying / other

✖ Criminal Record : yes, for major crimes / yes, for minor crimes / no / has committed crimes, but has not been caught yet 


◒ Children : has a child or children / has no children / wants children / verse dependent
◑ Relationship with Family : close with sibling(s) / not close with sibling(s) / has no siblings/sibling(s) is deceased
◔ Affiliation : orphaned / adopted / disowned / raised by birth parent(s) / not applicable  


extroverted / introverted / in between
disorganized / organized / in between
♦ close-minded / open-minded / in between
calm / anxious / in between
♦ disagreeable / agreeable / in between
♦ cautious / reckless / in between
♦ patient / impatient / in between
outspoken / reserved / in between
leader / follower / in between
♦ empathetic / unempathetic / in between
optimistic / pessimistic / in between
♦ traditional / modern / in between
♦ hard-working / lazy / in between
♦ cultured / uncultured / in between
loyal / disloyal / unknown
faithful / unfaithful / unknown


★ Faith : monotheist / polytheist / atheist / agnostic / it’s complicated
☆ Belief in Ghosts or Spirits : yes / no / don’t know / don’t care [It’s why he can’t go to the bathroom by himself.]
✮ Belief in an Afterlife : yes / no / don’t know / don’t care
✯ Belief in Reincarnation : yes / no / don’t know / don’t care
❃ Belief in Aliens : yes / no / don’t know / don’t care
✧ Religious : orthodox / liberal / in between / not religious
❀ Philosophical : yes / no


❤ Sexuality : heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual
❥ Sex : sex repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable / naive and clueless
♥ Romance: romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable / naive and clueless
❣ Sexually : adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious / inhibited
⚧ Potential Sexual Partners : male / female / agender / other / none / all
⚧ Potential Romantic Partners : male / female / agender / other / none / all


☠ Combat Skills : excellent / good / moderate / poor / none
≡ Literacy Skills : excellent / good / moderate / poor / none
✍ Artistic Skills : excellent / good / moderate / poor / none  
✂ Technical Skills : excellent / good / moderate / poor / none


☕ Drinking Alcohol : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
☁ Smoking : trying to quit / never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
✿ Other Narcotics : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess 
✌ Medicinal Drugs : never / sometimes ( Does weed count ? ) / frequently / to excess
☻ Indulgent Food : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
$ Splurge Spending : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
♣ Gambling : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess

Wonder Woman: A Marvel fan's perspective

I’ve just made it back from the local premiere of DC’s Wonder Woman and I want to share my impressions with the internet right away! I’ll do my best to keep it spoiler-free, because I really want people to go and see this film.

I don’t want to be one of those fans who starts a review with I’m not a fan of her music, but, but I think my perspective is very much influenced by my taste in comics, and I want to disclose that right away. I’ve read maybe a couple of dozen DC trades in my time, including a healthy dash of Wonder Woman, but I’m nowhere near appreciating the breadth and depth of the canon in the way I do with Marvel. I’m the Marvel fan who sat through the credits getting excited over the special thanks given to Lee, to Rucka, to Wein. I nearly fell out of my goddamned chair when I realised the screenplay was credited to one Allan Heinburg. THAT’S RIGHT, TRUE BELIEVERS, YOUNG AVENGERS ALLAN HEINBURG! (And it shows, so if that’s your jam, hie thee to a cinema, stat!) So maybe I’ve missed some stuff or maybe it’s given me some insight. I don’t know. All I know is it was a fucking great film and I’m usually a judgemental bitch about this stuff, so take from that what you will.

In a sentence: Wonder Woman is an excellent origin movie which doesn’t overly linger on the foundations of its story, and which pays credit to its setting and the history of the character whilst managing to make reasonably meaningful statements about the bigger picture in war, through a decently intersectional feminist lens, and almost devoid of the male gaze.

I don’t know very much about the decisions made in changing the setting of Diana’s origins from WWII to WWI. I wondered if it was something to do with being less on the nose with Gal Gadot’s Israeli heritage, but as it happens, there were some strikingly vivid depictions of the German instruments of biological warfare, perhaps more so than I’ve even seen in WWII films. Perhaps it was merely to differentiate between Diana and Captain America; perhaps it was to show a global war with more immediate physical impact upon civilians and fighting people. I would say this: it worked, it was fine, and the setting it gave to the world outside Themyscira when we got there was rich and deep.

The Themyscira of Wonder Woman was, oh blessed relief, a Paradise Island filled with women of different races and body types, up to a point – they were presented as very much a warrior people, and unfortunately, there were no fat women in the foreground. The geography felt real and lived in, and the island, cut off as it was, seemed to make sense. The costumes were not something I was thrilled about from promo shots, but in motion seemed to work much better: the desaturation of Diana’s costume appeared to be to portray it as colourful leather, and it flexed and moved quite well with her body in motion (and boy, did she get a range of motion!). The Amazons of Themyscira, absent of the male gaze, absolutely did practice the art of fighting in skimpy clothing, and wore makeup – some of them, lots of makeup – but the camerawork rigidly avoided the male gaze. They emoted, they argued, they fought and they loved – the only part which irked was the total absence of body hair. But god, at least some of them weren’t white! And her mother had WRINKLES and THIN SKIN AROUND HER COLLARBONE and SCARS. These are things I’ve never seen in a superhero film before.

The fights were excellent to my untrained eye. The clash between traditional and modern weaponry wasn’t as viciously overwhelming as I’ve seen it in some iterations of the comics, but that was probably to the benefit of the film: the Amazons gained in perceived competence when they were able to use their weapons well even when appearing outgunned. This also allowed for the only obviously gay moment, meta aside – subtle enough to presumably get past censors worldwide, but still very clearly a moment between female lovers to any viewer who regards gay people as human. (Look! This is what happens when you let Heinburg write stuff! He’s going to stick gay heroes in it and everyone’s going to have a good time.)

Steve Trevor – Chris Pine, didn’t know that until today – was pretty decently cast (my main issue being that he looked a bit All American to pass for a German soldier) and genuinely well acted. He swayed between wide-eyed innocence and awkward heroics brilliantly, clearly realising from the outset that he represented all of the wider world to Diana, and as such had a responsibility to her. Unlike the dryer DC films, the cinema where I watched, with a full house, was often shaking with laughter – unlike during the Marvel films I’ve watched, there wasn’t one cheap shot. Instead, the humour came from actual wit, not quips – this was war, there wasn’t any time for quipping. The wit was inferred by the audience. Here, a small sample: Diana sees Steve bathing. He is embarrassed and goes to cover himself, but not quickly enough. She stares for a while and asks him if he is considered to be an average member of his sex. His palpable despair at the nature of the question got perhaps the biggest laugh of the entire film (he bluffed that he was “considered an above-average specimen” initially, but that streak of toxic masculinity was soon knocked out of him).

Diana, meanwhile, was genuinely a good fit. Again, having seem promo shots, I was halfway to despair – she really does have a slight figure, and I don’t think all the hard training in the world would bulk her up all that much. But oh, how she must have trained – she was no stuntwoman like some of the Amazon actors around her, but her muscles were clear and defined, and she carried a weight through the cinematography. A fall from on high would be met with a camera-shaking THUD into the ground. There were loving close-ups showing a lot of bicep when she hefted great weights above her head. Her thighs wobbled! Again, this shouldn’t be news in 2017, but it hasn’t happened yet in Marvel. Her accent was great – I presume it’s her natural accent, and that the other Amazons were supposed to match to her? Unfortunately, some of them slipped into British English from time to time, to my well-trained ear, but it was really pleasing to hear a non-American American icon sounding… non-American. There was possibly a little unintentional humour to be taken from the fact that her key name ‘Steve’ didn’t sound very natural to her tongue, and tended to come out more as 'Stieff,’ but it was kind of sweet, the film didn’t linger on it, and it wasn’t really an issue. Her portrayal of Diana oozed charm and demanded respect. This was a young Diana, certainly – a Diana whose people are still keeping secrets from her, who wants to charge into battle and take the head of the enemy leader – when the battle is World War One – who believes extremely firmly in her gods even when her countrywomen might doubt – but whose groundings as a great leader are being found throughout the film. Gadot was utterly convincing as the ingénue who knows more than every man in the room put together. A balance was found with disarming ease in the script – she knows nearly every language and outfoxes the British government – but she genuinely doesn’t see the point in trousers, and just about screeches with delight the first time she sees a baby.

On sex: my partner, who’s ace-spec, said she felt a little alienated by the obvious inclusion of a sex scene. Me, I’ve read some Wonder Woman, and I think I would have been a bit insulted if there hadn’t been any explicit attraction between Diana and Steve at all. In every iteration of the story, it’s still the story: the first Man to the Island Of Women brings with him War, and the young Diana flees her mother’s rule, falling for him and fighting for justice. I believe that the film could have managed without a sexual attraction between the characters, but I think it’s a worthy nod to the history and a decent element of complexity for both characters, especially given the minor character reveal for Steve which takes place just as they’re getting close to one another. The film isn’t lost to slow gazes into each other’s eyes – it’s more clever than that; it uses small ideas to represent big ones. Sex is here because war is here. Glory is here but so is pain. And there are other joyful nods to her comic continuity: for those who it would really upset, I feel I must make it clear that her traditional origin story is here, but so is her New 52 origin. (I didn’t have to dig to know about the conflict there - the Marvel fans heard DC readers screaming over that one). Despite my misgivings the moment it became clear that the film was going to Go There, it wasn’t made into something which wouldn’t work outside a feminist reading – more that Diana’s people are more emotionally complex than she knows, that even the most loving of mothers can keep secrets. It didn’t rankle, and I’d really thought it would. And Etta Candy was there! And the named villain she kept coming up against was Dr. Poison! Honestly, to my untrained eye they both seemed PERFECT. Etta was a fabulous blend of side-eying quirky realness, who got to throw out nice little jabs about corsetry and getting The Vote which kept us very firmly rooted in the time period. Dr. Poison was wide-eyed genius and vulnerability – the perfect locus for the film’s musing on whether war is inevitable, whether humans are driven to destroy one another by their own ambition and pride. With incredibly few lines she gave a commanding performance. I won’t go further into defining roles played by other actors, because there’s a nice few surprises here and there – I’ll say this: the casting is great, and some Marvel pitfalls of overly screen-perfect costuming and dehumanising armour were deftly avoided.

Where the film truly shone to me was in its intersectionality. I’m SURE they could have done more, they could always do more. But given that this was a Wonder Woman film, and that we were bound to get a pale Diana and Steve, it did so much within that! From the minister played by David Thewlis, who (without comment) walked with a cane, to Etta’s charmingly full-figured portrayal – overlooked and overworked by Steve, a plot thread they didn’t pull hard on, but which added depth to the characters and their social networks, and which felt very believable. Crowd shots were incredible for this: a sea of soldiers with white faces, and amongst them, near the centre of the shot, a black soldier, for this was England during the war, and not America, and our forces weren’t explicitly segregated. His uniqueness in the image made him the focus, not the novelty. There were older women staffing the medical services, there were soldiers in tam o’ shanters, there were even Canary Girls for one very distinct shot, and I had to tell my English girlfriend who they even were. And here’s something I’m annoyed with Marvel for again – the ease with which this film handled everything, when Marvel can’t even get Carol fucking Danvers on the screen after god knows how many box office crushing successes. I don’t know if there’s any version of Diana’s origin story where she and Steve join forces with a ragtag group of international fighters, but my god, if this is how DC are going to handle characters who seem suspiciously like Marvel’s Howling Commandos, they can fucking have them. It was great. It never touted American exceptionalism, and there were some fantastic callouts, like Diana trying to find out who destroyed the way of life of The Chief, played by Eugene Brave Rock, and finding, simply, that he could point to his sleeping ally, Steve, and say “his people.” Yes, yes, yes. Saïd Taghmaoui was outstanding as Sameer – the sort of person who flourishes in historical accounts and novels of the time, but who we never seem to get on screen – a highly educated man who manipulates and fleeces others, because he wanted to be an actor – but he was “the wrong colour.” Ewen Bremner – Spud, from Trainspotting, as Charlie, fell a little flatter for me – there was nothing inherently wrong with his portrayal, but speaking as a Brit, I think the world has enough cowardly drunken Scots characters, even if they’re brimming with sadness and complexity in response to a world gone mad. DC Bombshells has a Steve Trevor who explicitly suffers from PTSD, rather than transferring trauma into a more minor character – probably this wouldn’t have been something they could manage in a two-hour film, but it was a shame, and it was a little dehumanising, as he was the only Scottish character, even if he was totally believable. Steve certainly had his moments of vulnerability, which I very much appreciated, even so.

Cinematography-wise, I think the film fell into some familiar traps. There was an irritating amount of blue and orange, though it wasn’t half so pronounced as other action films of the last decade, and there was a wonderful scene where the colour scheme was used as a fakeout and faded into glorious bright golds. Still, the hyper-colourful ending credits were a tantalising reminder of the richer, more fully-realised world we could have had. The sets, however, were fantastic, and felt grimly realistic throughout the war scenes. The single tiny point I thought seemed historically off to me turns out to be something I was wrong on – pebbledashing for the exterior of buildings, iconically used on 1930s homes in the UK, was actually used in the 1910s for outbuildings. There are probably costuming, accent or set design mistakes somewhere in the film – in a production of this scope, there always are – but I couldn’t find them, not once.

Score was fine – it’s not what I go to the cinema for, but it seemed like it was used well and in all the right places. A couple of bits were good enough that I briefly wondered if it could be Howard Shore – it wasn’t, it seems to have been a bit designed by committee, which I suppose is par for the course with these things and why I liked Shore so much in the first place. The ending theme’s composed by Florence Welch of Florence + The Machine, however, and performed by Sia! I have no idea if it was good – as always happens at my local cinema, they brought up the lights straight away and everyone started talking loudly.

Essentially, whether it’s a perfect film and whether it will stand the test of time is a different question as to whether it’s a good Wonder Woman film, which it absolutely is. Were the themes clever? I would say they were consistent, and not guilty of overreach. Wonder Woman is at its heart a narrative about whether humanity and civilization should be worth the time of a godlike figure from a paradise civilization, and, by association, for ourselves. It wasn’t hammered home, if that’s not your kind of thing, and it’s handled better than your average war film. Was it improved by a screenplay written by a gay writer who usually handles the small screen, and who’s written for comics in the past? My god, yes – and was it improved by its direction by a woman – Patty Jenkins – known for her work with intense female actors? Yes! Should you go and see it? If you like films or comics, it’s definitely worth it.


Today, there’s a live performance of kabuki collaboration with hatsune miku in japan

This is collaboration between a traditional kabuki with modern virtual character in one performance, that was amazing (*v*)

But, that’s not the one i wan’t to talk here, really what else i’ve come to talk here except this one?

For God shake! The hero using kogitsunemaru as his main weapon!! And this holy fox is the one and only sword who can defeat the wrath of blue dragon who can burned anyting in sight with it’s blue flame
As expected of holy fox, jiji will proud of you
Sice today is jiji’s anniversary too, this kind of story is just seem so special at the moment

I’m sorry i always excited over anyting involved kogitsunemaru, blame the one in my profile picture for this(°v°)
Even though i did like kogi before i’ve seen toumyu, he did multiplied my love for kogi, so blame him for this(´;ω;`)

Traditional Xaela presence in Eorzea and how you can justify it

So as many might’ve seen from the lore book, despite what many of us had assumed to be true about the Xaela (that is, that they also were under heavy attack and that many tribes had been left in shambles), and has left many of the more traditional, tribal roleplayers hanging.

The Garleans are not all that interested in the Steppe, and the 51 canonical tribes are as of now not at war with Ilsabard that we know of (officially, anyway, skirmishes most probably did and do happen).

The lore book states that the Garleans set their eye on Doma and Dalmasca, and through their fall came to pretty much dominate Far Eastern civilization. From what we see in the book (never flat out stated, but heavily implied), for the most part Xaela life continues to be as it was, with the documented 51 tribes still living the traditional lifestyle, in their cycle of keeping and nurturing their herds, killing each other, thriving or dying out.

Note how the book reports that the main reason there would be for tribes to disappear is that they split up, merge with others, or die off “naturally”, implying that the greatest enemy of the Xaela are other Xaela still.

This of course still makes it possible for Garlean scouting parties or small units to have been sent to gather information on any potentially valuable resources (looking for Ceruleum comes to mind).

This presents a problem: why would a traditional, tribal Xaela, whose life has not visibly changed in any way that wasn’t expected in his lifestyle choose to travel the world to settle in a new culture with a radically different worldview? Let’s explore together some possibilities that allow us to stay true to the characters we want to play, while still feeling at ease playing them in a land that doesn’t seem like many would come to anyway. Follow me below the break!

Note: This, of course, isn’t a problem for Xaela who simply decide that their characters are struck by wanderlust and leave to explore, willingly and knowingly abandoning their nomadic roots. These should in theory be rare, exceptional cases, but RP is full of the exceptional!

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

What do you think of jens comments on the dress? I dont get it :( Where is Grace Kellys life a fairy tale? It was more like the opposite. Where does this dress show a "Balance" and "both" - I see only one side traditionally feminity and royal conservatism and where the other side needed for balance? The modern action hero Emma 'spend more time around swords then dress' Swan also represents? Where does severe catholic gown show "openness" "walls down"?

I think Jen is entitled to her opinion. She clearly has strong opinions on why she thinks the dress works. That being said, I disagree. To borrow from academia, she has a really great thesis statement that isn’t backed by the evidence.

Like you, I don’t see the balance between modernity and the traditional feminine or “princessy” lifestyle. I see Grace Kelly, who was a beautiful woman, who wore a beautiful dress to a very religious ceremony. To me, much of the symbolism that Jen was going for is lost when you a) consider the context of Grace Kelly’s dress (it had to be all covered up) and b) realize it is a replica exactly of the famous gown. 

I think, to a degree, Jen interprets Emma’s openness to her more or less completely embracing her fairytale origins. It makes some sense. After all, Emma’s personal arcs through season 3 were very much centered on doing just that. As such, I can see her believing that by choosing a very “princessy” wedding gown in a modern setting/venue, it shows Emma being open to who she could have been and her life as a princess. 

Jen claims to be clearly going for a balance between Emma’s two worlds, but it strikes me much more than the princess world than her modern one. I think the goal would have been more achievable had they gone with a traditional ballgown cut, but with a more daring neckline or material. Show some skin, Emma, you aren’t in a church that demands none of it! 

The gown was pretty, but it doesn’t scream Emma Swan to me because it wasn’t made for Emma Swan. It was designed for someone else completely. I’m hoping we get some contextual explanation for this in the narrative, but Once isn’t exactly known for explaining character’s feelings. But, looking at the picture, I keep asking myself why she would choose this one.

Don’t get me wrong, the wedding dress doesn’t have to be her exact style. My wedding dress (mermaid cut, and blingy af) wasn’t anything the clothes I normally wear (flowy and lacy, feminine), but my friends who saw me in it all explained why it looked like me. Looking at Emma’s dress, I can’t articulate why it is her, and that’s because it wasn’t made for her. I don’t get the “not what I expected, but I can totally see it” vibe, but I just can’t see it for Emma. And I think that’s where the dress selection fails. It doesn’t have the balance, and it doesn’t show off Emma Swan. 

Jen is entitled to her feelings, but unfortunately, they don’t necessarily translate to the final product.

I’m thinking about taking somewhat of a hiatus. 
This is tiring.
I don’t like words being put in my mouth. 
Misunderstandings can be asked of me, not accused. 

If the difference between Traditional, traditional, and modern can’t be understood, then that discussion about initiation absolutely cannot be had yet. 

Symphony No.5, I. Trauermarsch. In gemessenem Schritt. Streng Wie Ein Kondukt
Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra, Eliahu Inbal
Symphony No.5, I. Trauermarsch. In gemessenem Schritt. Streng Wie Ein Kondukt

Gustav Mahler (1860-1911).

As a composer, Mahler acted as a bridge between the 19th-century Austro-German tradition and the modernism of the early 20th century. While in his lifetime his status as a conductor was established beyond question, his own music gained wide popularity only after periods of relative neglect which included a ban on its performance in much of Europe during the Nazi era.

The Symphony No. 5 by Gustav Mahler was composed in 1901 and 1902, mostly during the summer months at Mahler’s cottage at Maiernigg. Among its most distinctive features are the trumpet solo that opens the work; The musical canvas and emotional scope of the work, which lasts over an hour, are huge.

After 1945 Mahler’s music was rediscovered and championed by a new generation of listeners; He then became a frequently performed and recorded composer, a position he has sustained into the 21st century.

anonymous asked:

do you happen to know any blogs or sites that have like basic for dummies definitions of types of witchcraft? ive been researching for a while but im still so confused about it like the difference between modern witchcraft and old wicca and modern wicca and traditional witchcraft and british traditional witchcraft which is apparently wicca even though i thought traditional came before wicca im just so confused 😫

I know there are many posts on Tumblr that have many definitions of these words neatly lined up. You can find them on my ‘beginner’ tag. I don’t know any sites off the top of my head, though. Does anyone else?


  • extroverted / introverted / in-between
  • disorganized / organized / in-between
  • close-minded / open-minded / in-between
  • disagreeable / agreeable / in-between
  • cautious / reckless / in-between
  • patient / impatient / in-between
  • outspoken / reserved / in-between
  • leader / follower / in-between
  • empathetic / apathetic / in-between
  • optimistic / pessimistic / in-between
  • traditional / modern / in-between
  • hard-working / lazy / in-between
  • cultured / uncultured / in-between
  • loyal / disloyal / unknown
  • faithful / unfaithful / unknown


  • SEXUALITY – heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual / demisexual / greysexual / omnisexual
  • SEX – sex repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable
  • ROMANCE – romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable
  • SEXUALLY – adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious


  • DRINKING ALCOHOL – never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
  • SMOKING – trying to quit / never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
  • OTHER NARCOTICS – never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
  • MEDICINAL DRUGS – never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
  • INDULGENT FOOD – never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
  • SPLURGE SPENDING – never / sometimes / frequently / to excess
  • GAMBLING – never / sometimes / frequently / to excess


ITURBIDE’s work negotiates the intersection of,and tensions between tradition and modernity in the lives of diverse Mexican peoples whether from their capital Mexico city ,the northern Sonora Desert or the Southern Jushitan province in oaxaca state. Iturbide honed in on facts of urban life that evidenced surreal disjuncture, testifying to divergent lives, realities and temporalities of a nation as culturally,economically and socially heterogeneous as Mexico.   


Check out our latest video! It’s a quick comparison of one of the most important joints in furniture making, the mortise and tenon. In the video you’ll see the difference between a traditional hand cut M&T and a more modern machine cut M&T. We incorporate the machine cut M&T in every piece made in our shop. There will be a follow up video with a more in depth explanation of the joint and a stress test showing just how strong this joint is. Thanks for viewing!