canon of proportions

squid’s laws of fic (not inclusive)

first law: write the fic you wish to see in the world aka goddammit do I have to do everything myself around here

second law: it’s going to be longer than you think. much longer. hahaha so long. why are you crying 

third law: the time spent writing is inversely proportional to the amount of smut present, dammit

fourth law: flesh out your secondary characters. make them real people. have them take over. oh god. put them back. somebody please help 

fifth law: the time spent researching canon is directly proportional to the amount of time you’ll spend altering your plot. that one person on the internet 

sixth law: the time spent researching in general will eclipse the time you spend writing. the nsa agent monitoring your internet search history is curled up in a corner. his boss wants to know if you’re a threat. “I don’t know,” the agent sobs. “I just really don’t know.” 

seventh law: at some point, someone will ask what your favorite hobby is. you will feign a heart attack to get away
Opinion | Are Christians Supposed to Be Communists?
I recently translated the New Testament. I learned a few things.
By David Bentley Hart

It was in 1983 that I heard the distinguished Greek Orthodox historian Aristeides Papadakis casually remark in a lecture at the University of Maryland that the earliest Christians were “communists.” In those days, the Cold War was still casting its great glacial shadow across the cultural landscape, and so enough of a murmur of consternation rippled through the room that Professor Papadakis — who always spoke with severe precision — felt obliged to explain that he meant this in the barest technical sense: They lived a common life and voluntarily enjoyed a community of possessions. The murmur subsided, though not necessarily the disquiet.

Not that anyone should have been surprised. If the communism of the apostolic church is a secret, it is a startlingly open one. Vaguer terms like “communalist” or “communitarian” might make the facts sound more palatable but cannot change them. The New Testament’s Book of Acts tells us that in Jerusalem the first converts to the proclamation of the risen Christ affirmed their new faith by living in a single dwelling, selling their fixed holdings, redistributing their wealth “as each needed” and owning all possessions communally. This was, after all, a pattern Jesus himself had established: “Each of you who does not give up all he possesses is incapable of being my disciple” (Luke 14:33).

This was always something of a scandal for the Christians of later ages, at least those who bothered to notice it. And today in America, with its bizarre piety of free enterprise and private wealth, it is almost unimaginable that anyone would adopt so seditious an attitude. Down the centuries, Christian culture has largely ignored the more provocative features of the early church or siphoned off their lingering residues in small special communities (such as monasteries and convents). Even when those features have been acknowledged, they have typically been treated as somehow incidental to the Gospel’s message — a prudent marshaling of resources against a hostile world for a brief season, but nothing essential to the faith, and certainly nothing amounting to a political philosophy.

It’s true, of course, that the early church was not a political movement in the modern sense. The very idea would have been meaningless. There were no political ideologies in the ancient world, no abstract programs for the reconstitution of society. But if not a political movement, the church was a kind of polity, and the form of life it assumed was not merely a practical strategy for survival, but rather the embodiment of its highest spiritual ideals. Its “communism” was hardly incidental to the faith.

The early church’s radicalism, if that is the right word, was impressed upon me repeatedly over the past few years, as I worked on my own translation of the New Testament for Yale University Press. When my longtime editor initially proposed the project, I foolishly imagined it would be an easy task: not because the text is a simple one, but because I had often “corrected” what I considered inadequate renderings of many of its passages, either for students or for myself. I assumed that long familiarity had prepared me to turn the Greek into English almost effortlessly.

Soon, though, I realized that while I may have known many things about the text, I had not always grasped them properly. I knew that much of the conventional language of scriptural translation has the effect of reducing complex and difficult words and concepts to vacuously simple or deceptively anachronistic terms (“eternal,” “hell,” “justification,” to give a few examples). But I had not appreciated how violently those conventions impoverish the text or obscure crucial dimensions of its conceptual world. The books of the New Testament, I came to see, constitute a historical conundrum — not because they come from the remote world of late antiquity, but rather because they often appear to make no sense even in the context of antiquity.

I found myself constantly in doubt, in particular, regarding various constructions concerning words dealing with that which is “koinon,” or “common,” and most especially the texts’ distinctive emphasis on “koinonia.” This is a word usually rendered blandly as “fellowship” or “sharing” or (slightly better) “communion.” But is that all it implies?

After all, the New Testament’s condemnations of personal wealth are fairly unremitting and remarkably stark: Matthew 6:19-20, for instance (“Do not store up treasures for yourself on the earth”), or Luke 6:24-25 (“But alas for you who are rich, for you have your comfort”) or James 5:1-6 (“Come now, you who are rich, weep, howling out at the miseries that are coming for you”). While there are always clergy members and theologians swift to assure us that the New Testament condemns not wealth but its abuse, not a single verse (unless subjected to absurdly forced readings) confirms the claim.

I came to the conclusion that koinonia often refers to a precise set of practices within the early Christian communities, a special social arrangement — the very one described in Acts — that was integral to the new life in Christ. When, for instance, the Letter to the Hebrews instructs believers not to neglect koinonia, or the First Letter to Timothy exhorts them to become koinonikoi, this is no mere recommendation of personal generosity, but an invocation of a very specific form of communal life.

As best we can tell, local churches in the Roman world of the apostolic age were essentially small communes, self-sustaining but also able to share resources with one another when need dictated. This delicate web of communes constituted a kind of counter-empire within the empire, one founded upon charity rather than force — or, better, a kingdom not of this world but present within the world nonetheless, encompassing a radically different understanding of society and property.

It was all much easier, no doubt — this nonchalance toward private possessions — for those first generations of Christians. They tended to see themselves as transient tenants of a rapidly vanishing world, refugees passing lightly through a history not their own. But as the initial elation and expectations of the Gospel faded and the settled habits of life in this depressingly durable world emerged anew, the distinctive practices of the earliest Christians gave way to the common practices of the established order.

Even then, however, the transition was not quite as abrupt as one might imagine. Well into the second century, the pagan satirist Lucian of Samosata reported that Christians viewed possessions with contempt and owned all property communally. And the Christian writers of Lucian’s day largely confirm that picture: Justin Martyr, Tertullian and the anonymous treatise known as the Didache all claim that Christians must own everything in common, renounce private property and give their wealth to the poor. Even Clement of Alexandria, the first significant theologian to argue that the wealthy could be saved if they cultivated “spiritual poverty,” still insisted that ideally all goods should be held in common.

As late as the fourth and fifth centuries, bishops and theologians as eminent as Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine and Cyril of Alexandria felt free to denounce private wealth as a form of theft and stored riches as plunder seized from the poor. The great John Chrysostom frequently issued pronouncements on wealth and poverty that make Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin sound like timid conservatives. According to him, there is but one human estate, belonging to all, and those who keep any more of it for themselves than barest necessity dictates are brigands and apostates from the true Christian enterprise of charity. And he said much of this while installed as Archbishop of Constantinople.

That such language could still be heard at the heart of imperial Christendom, however, suggests that it had by then lost much of its force. It could be tolerated to a degree, but only as a bracing hyperbole, appropriate to an accepted religious grammar — an idiom, that is, rather than an imperative. Christianity was ceasing to be the apocalyptic annunciation of something unprecedented and becoming just the established devotional system of its culture, offering all the consolations and reassurances that one demands of religious institutions. As time went on, the original provocation of the early church would occasionally erupt in ephemeral “purist” movements — Spiritual Franciscans, Russian non-possessors, Catholic Worker houses — but in general, Christian adherence had become chiefly just a religion, a support for life in this world rather than a radically different model of how to live.

That was unavoidable. No society as a whole will ever found itself upon the rejection of society’s chief mechanism: property. And all great religions achieve historical success by gradually moderating their most extreme demands. So it is not possible to extract a simple moral from the early church’s radicalism.

But for those of us for whom the New Testament is not merely a record of the past but a challenge to the present, it is occasionally worth asking ourselves whether the distance separating the Christianity of the apostolic age from the far more comfortable Christianities of later centuries — and especially those of the developed world today — is more than one merely of time and circumstance.


The Borghese Gladiator, a French Grand Tour example from the last third of the 18th century, is a Gilt- and patinated bronze reproduction to the The Borghese Gladiator, an Hellenistic life-size marble sculpture actually portraying a warrior contending with a mounted combatant.  It was found before 1611, at Nettuno, south of Rome, among the ruins of Nero’s seaside palace.  It was added to the Borghese collection in Rome.  Camillo Borghese was pressured to sell it to his brother-in-law, Napoleon Bonaparte, in 1807.  It is so that it was taken to Paris when the Borghese collection was acquired for the Louvre, where it now resides.  The sculpture was among the most admired and copied works of antiquity in the eighteenth century, providing sculptors a canon of proportions.  A bronze cast was made for Charles I of England, which now resides at Windsor.   Other copies can be found at Petworth House and in the Green Court at Knole.

Courtesy of Viebahn Fine Arts

Building your own Canon of Proportion

It’s very common to draw a figure, and know that something looks… wrong, but not be able to tell *what*. Having a juicy set of “ideal” proportions can help you course-correct when your instincts lead you astray. Beginners can use ready-made sets of rules, but as you become more attuned to exactly how you want your figures to look, it can be helpful to generate your own. 

Step 1: Learn a few existing canons of proportion. Try using them to measure real people, to measure art you like, and to measure your own art. See what happens if you take one of your own drawings, and adjust it to match the system you’re studying. See what rules make sense, and are easy to use, and which rules are confusing, or hard to see.

Proko has a couple great videos on different systems of proportion; here’s one system I think is particularly effective (but lots and lots of people use Loomis’ system and other skull-to-chin systems to great effect):

Step 2: Gather a number of references of figures whose proportions you like. If you want realism, you should use photos. If you want to make superhero comics, find panels that especially speak to you, instead. Ditto anime, Egyptian sculpture, whatever. If you’d like to draw people who are fat, or exceptionally tall, or very muscular, be sure to add them to the mix. We’re trying to capture your artistic ideals, not anyone else’s. You’re looking for two kids of figures: first, neutral figures, standing up straight, facing forward or directly to the side, with arms out of the way. These figures make it easy to see the proportions. Second, you’re looking for dynamic poses. These figures will help you test if your canon is useful.

Step 3: Start looking for shapes and distances that are easy to identify. Classic examples are the distance from top of the head to the chin, from the base of the hand to the elbow, the width of the hips. However, it can be extremely helpful to take a page from Robert Beverly Hale’s book, and use volumes instead of lines when you measure. Use the cube that contains various parts of the body – like Hale uses the cranial mass. You could also use a clenched fist, or the volume of the hips.

Step 4: Start looking for relationships. Move your chosen measures around each of your neutral reference figures, looking for structural points in the figure that are simple, whole-number ratios of your measurement. When you think you’ve found a good match (“the width of the rib cage is the length of the forearm”), start testing it out on the dynamic poses. Still seems reasonable? Great! Be sure to make note of when the measurement is a little too big, or a little too small, and see what effect that has on the way the figure looks.

A canon is just a big collection of these rules. So make it as simple or as complex as you feel comfortable with! Feel free to get creative with your comparisons, too. IIRC, Polyklietos mentions that if you draw a square with each side being the length of the hand, the diagonal of that square is the length of the forearm (from pit of elbow to base of palm). Any relationship that’s easy to see and to measure is fair game – find what works for you. Mine existing canons for good rules, but test them. Don’t blindly believe anything – there are plenty that won’t quite suit your tastes. Pay specific. attention to areas you struggle with the most! I tend to draw people’s hands much too small – so I keep a number of rules around that I can use to verify when I’ve done it right.

Step 5: Draw it out. This is the fun part, because you get to play at being Da Vinci. Draw a good, clean, neutral figure, and note out all the relationships you discovered. If you can, find geometric, visual ways to show the relationship off (like the stacked squares in the video above, or like the Vitruvian Man’s circle-in-a-square). That will make it easier to remember.

It will probably take you several tries to draw out a figure that *you* think looks right *and* that has measurements that are easy to remember – so don’t fall too much in love with your first attempt. In the worst case, you’ll spend a few hours studying the figure, improving your instincts. In the best case, artists of the future will busy themselves trying to learn the secrets of YOUR system of proportion.

If you do this exercise, post your results! Knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied!

anonymous asked:

Hey there! I've taken art classes & every week my teacher made us draw Greek statues, with each week growing in difficulty. I love drawing statues but I was wondering what the benefits of drawing greek statues are? Is it because of their intense detail with regard to anatomy? Sorry if this is a stupid question. I just want to get better at anatomy & I want to make it more fun instead of just doing figure drawing studies and studying muscles and skulls and things of the sort, haha. Thank you! =D

Not a stupid question at all! I once had to do a contour line drawing assignment and I thought it was pointless because all I wanted to draw was anime .. haa.. But I was too inexperienced at the time to see that the point was to learn the form of an object (in this case, through the combination of lines), much like the purpose of drawing from the plaster casts/statues. From what I can tell, because the statues from antiquity have such a masterful canon that governed proportions and form, artists can learn from what is considered the best in anatomy and to also gain a sense of what is beautiful, because in my experience, that is something that must be learned as well, surprisingly enough. And there is also learning lighting and tones; I’m guessing your teacher also incorporates strong lighting for the casts? You can learn the way lighting plays on different forms, hard, soft, and so on.
I read somewhere that your artwork is an average of all the other artworks that have influenced you, purposefully or otherwise, so assuming that’s the case, it’s more beneficial to surround yourself with the what is best (in technique), rather than anything sub par.
I find that drawing what I want but also adding in things that will help me learn, like adding in stuff I’m weak at for the sake getting better, makes the learning process more fun. When I draw what I want, it’s always more enjoyable for me. In practice, I’ve come to realize that having good technique by itself or having a good idea alone is not enough, i.e. you could have a really nice drawing of a body but it’d be unexciting, or you could have a good idea but technical skills are lacking and then that would distract the viewer away from your idea. It’s best to have a good balance between the two. And don’t worry, it gets less boring the more you learn! I hope I was informational!

It’s like 6am and I can’t feel my leg

Enjoy tum smooches pfff

anonymous asked:

Your reigens..,,, are so handsome like,,, my heart can't handle it I can't believe???? thank you for bestowing such good reigens upon us

a  a aaAA  a h thank ghgkghkjgh.

TBH i’ve been trying to learn how to get around that and it’s been the funniest struggle hahaha. LIKE. Mememan is not Hansamu he’s just a Plain Dude but whenever I try to interpret him into my style he just .?.?? does what he wants

I think my initial draw of him feels more like him, where as my newer ones are def closer to canon proportions, so.. It’s been a tossup lately haha.

I think part of it is the hair line but HOO BOY this is the first time I’ve been actively trying to make someone look more plain and it’s not working GEEZ.

anonymous asked:

Once I got into FB discourse with an anti-Snape friend who worked for Buzzfeed. I made her so mad by presenting Snape as an example of both success and failure in coping with abuse and unrequited love, she made a Buzzfeed video of herself talking to an invisible strawman version of me and using the word "creepy" in place of rational statements. If you google "1-800-not-today-satan" you can find the video; I don't recommend it. Anyway, I felt nothing but pride :) (cont...)

it was actually a beautiful FB discussion but it doesn’t surprise me that a thoughtful, moderate pro-Snape argument is what finally pissed her off so much she had to make the video. Reasonable analysis presents a bigger threat to dogmatic beliefs than the opposite dogmatic belief. I’ve seen it on Tumblr - my friends who are good writers get the most hate, even though they’re pretty generous in debate.

Nvm, what I should be saying is: thank you for this blog, and thank you for appreciating Snape and for taking so many punches. Antis are more threatened by arguments that are well researched and thought out using introspection about personal bias, etc… so it’s kind of a compliment?? Eh, not really. But yeah.

dude i looked up the video and it’s so FUNNY bc they do the basics of all anti discourse: (1) make shit up (like that snape told lily he loved her) (2) blowing shit in canon out of proportion (body-shamed hermione into changing her teeth when she literally tells us she was going to do it anyway). like….. DUDE. 

the thing, i’ve experienced this in debates where i’m literally pulling quotes from the books & the antis i’m talking to will stick to what they think no matter what like…. uh. or where i’ll upset someone’s (fanon) idea and they’ll go “well SURE the thing MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT HINGED ON might not be true but im still right tho :)))” or i’ll talk about a certain point and why it’s probably bad analysis and the person will then proceed to bring up that point again and again as if i haven’t already talked about, proving that they don’t actually read anything i write. (most of these happened in my latest long debate with an anti about the merits of james potter, for example lmao.)

i’ve said it before but antis have decided that the fanon version of snape is the actual truth of his character and refuse to acknowledge any thoughtful analysis about his past or his actions. they will shut down any conversations with conventional buzzwords (”friendzoned nice guy” “creepy” “obsessive” “racist” etc) which may or may not actually apply to snape. they will repeat circlejerk fanon wank about snape’s treatment of his students even when the conversation in question is literally about events that took place before any of his students were born. and it’s so SO frustrating.

i’m sorry you had to deal with that - you don’t always have to agree with your friends, but it’s rough when they roll over one of your faves that way and don’t at least attempt to listen. and thanks for the support: i do take attracting antis as a compliment, even tho some days i honestly wish they’d just fuck off. at the very least, it lets me scratch the itch of my repressed aggression about snape so they’re helping more than they probably want to lmao. 

Okay can I just say something here?

As most of you I’m sure are aware, fandoms (esp on tumblr/in fanfiction) can sometimes blow partially-canon traits really out of proportion and venture over into the realm of the fanon, occasionally really, really far, all the while still claiming these verging-on-the-edge-of-ooc characteristics are canon as hell. The massive chain culture we’ve got going isn’t helping this much (think memes. how long do they take to spread. bout ten minutes). So a couple of people say ‘this character behaves in such-and-such a way’, and boom. Suddenly this is accepted as hard truth the world over. One such trait has been bugging me lately, because I’ve noticed basically everyone assigns it to Draco Malfoy and it’s in almost EVERY DRACO-CENTRIC OR INCLUSIVE FIC. Namely, that he is always cool and collected. Suave. Let me just make something very clear right now.

Draco. Malfoy. Is. Not. Suave.

He is not the personification of the verb ‘smooth’. He is not a graceful statue. He is not void of emotion. He is not continually charming and always in possession of his head, he is DEFINITELY not immune to getting flustered, and he’s not freaking unshakable. Soooo many fics portray Draco as this intimidating, almost godlike marble creature who is forever stoic/coy/unaffected in the face of discomfort. And I get where this is coming from. Yes, Draco is good at shutting down his conscience and feelings of guilt or compassion, yes he is mean, and yes he is a snooty aristocrat with a superiority complex. But this does not mean that he’s incapable of feeling or reacting to touchy situations. In fact, throughout the entire series, one of his most noticeable traits is that he does react to touchy situations, very strongly. Exhibit A:

‘This is very easy,’ Malfoy drawled, loud enough for Harry to hear him. ‘I knew it must have been, if Potter could do it… I bet you’re not dangerous at all, are you?’ he said to the Hippogriff. 'Are you, you great ugly brute?’

It happened in a flash of steely talons, Malfoy let out a high-pitched scream…

'Im dying!’ Malfoy yelled, as the class panicked. 'I’m dying, look at me, it’s killed me!’

I know, this is pre-war Malfoy, but he’s painted as pretty put-together during a lot of Hogwarts era fics as well so I think including this is necessary. Guys, Draco was the biggest drama queen on the planet. It was not hard at all to ruffle his feathers. This child was only cocky when he was completely in control of the situation; any shifting of the playing field and he would either be fuming mad, whining about tattling to his daddy, or running terrified. Fear is a very big element of his character, and that does not ever change, not even in the later books when he drops the theatrics. Draco is not good at handling things during the action, in the here and now. He prefers to work with strategy, to be distanced from what’s going on, so when he’s actually put in a fight-or-flight situation, his natural instinct is always flight. Remember, he is a Slytherin, not a Gryffindor. Self-preservation trumps bravery every time.

He’s certainly not any more collected during the war than he is in his school days. In fact, if anything, it gets worse, as basically all of his swagger disappears and he is little more than a distraught wreck. This kid had panic attacks, he cried in the bathroom to a ghost because he was so scared, he was guilty and traumatized and you cannot tell me that a terrified, messed up kid like that was suave. His attempts at making jabs at the trio all through the sixth year are notably feeble, he’s clearly not good at keeping up a composed appearance at all times as he is described continually as looking pale and sickly and nervous, with “dark shadows under his eyes and a distinctly greyish tinge to his skin”, and when the time comes for him to kill Dumbledore, he’s outright shaking- every word out of his mouth and every action he makes on that tower are positively screaming 'I DON’T WANT THIS PLEASE HELP ME.

Now, I’m not saying he isn’t able to act smug in his post-OotP years. He is, and he can still be threatening and cruel as well. But he isn’t aloof. He isn’t a mountain. Draco Malfoy has a very wide range of emotions, he is not made of steel. In Exhibit B, you can see just how ‘calm and cold’ he is when the trio is brought to Malfoy Manor:

'Well, Draco?’ said Lucius Malfoy. He sounded avid. 'Is it? Is it Harry Potter?’

'I can’t - I can’t be sure,’ said Draco. He was keeping his distance from Greyback, and seemed as scared of looking at Harry as Harry was of looking at him.

 Harry saw Draco’s face up close, now, right beside his father’s. They were extraordinarily alike, except that while his father looked beside himself with excitement, Draco’s expression was full of reluctance, even fear.’

Oh, yeah. The kid’s unreadable.

People, level-headedness during tough situations is NOT a canonical aspect of Draco’s personality. The rest of the time, sure, but not when he’s scared. This behavior isn’t exclusive to the war, either- in every part of his life that we get to see in the books, which is basically his entire growing-up years, he panics when things are looking bad for him. And anyone who says he would get all his old arrogance and snark back after the war ended is being ridiculous, because there is no way that’s the case. After all he suffered, after the shaking of his views and the torture he was forced to use on others and the realization that he was not better than the people they were fighting against, that in fact, he was probably far less than them (which we aren’t explicitly given but HAS TO HAVE HAPPENED after all he saw and considering he didn’t uphold his old pureblood views as an adult and that his entire family just quit fighting for Voldemort during the Battle of Hogwarts; he was only in it for his parents by then, and obviously once they forfeited their side he would have too. He did NOT support Voldemort by the end of the series, and probably saw he was wrong far before this), every last dreg of confidence would’ve been drained from him. Post-war Draco would’ve been a shadow of himself, constantly tortured by guilt and regret and the mark on his arm. Not debonair and in love with himself. Not a playboy (honestly where did this trope even come from the only girl who ever paid him any attention was his fangirl Pansy and apparently his wife). That massive section of his life where he was under Voldemort’s control was not a phase that he could’ve just glossed over. It shaped him. He was broken during that war. And he was never as lordly and impenetrable as he most likely aspired to be in an emulation of Lucius to begin with.

So can we all just stop pretending that Draco Malfoy is unflappable and impervious to emotion please? Because he’s not. He’s really not.

anonymous asked:

Lmao along w the natsu modern questions what ab Lucy's piercings or tattoos or her hairstyles? (Like how short her hair is or how she usually wears it) also how buff/skinny do u picture them? I love the way u envision them!

I like long-haired/little bit wavy Lucy.

Lucy has two lobe piercings on each side, and two cartilage piercings on the right side. I don’t do a lot of facial piercings with her, but she may end up with a nose piercing in some AUs.

If Lucy has any tattoos in an AU it’s a watercolor flower on her rib cage. (like this but obvs not on her arm lmao)

And a key either on her wrist or the back of her neck. Potential zodiac signs are also an option.

They look basically like they do in canon bodywise only the proportions make sense. Lucy isn’t quite as curvy or… top heavy, so to speak.

Egypt is a Greek word meaning “Black.” μαύρος             

• The Egyptians of the Bible were Negroid. 
• The Bible says both Egyptians and Ethiopians are descendants of Ham. 
• Arabs invaded Egypt in the 7th Century AD; Remember, Egypt wasn’t invaded by Rome until 300 BC. The Bible dates 4000 BC. 
• Therefore, Arabs have no more connection to Ancient Egypt than Europeans have to Ancient America. 
• Egyptian is an Afro-Asiatic language. (AFRO, AFRO) 
• The national language of modern day Egypt is Egyptian Arabic, which gradually replaced Coptic. (Coptic–Ethiopia) 
• Black Egyptians were eventually mixed with invading Libyans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, Arabs and Western Europeans. That is where the mixed people of the modern-day Arabs come from. 

The following is supporting evidence from The African Origin of Civilization: by: Cheikh Anta Diop 

Evidence from Physical Anthropology 
The skeletons and skulls of the Ancient Egyptians clearly reflect they were Negroid people with features very similar to those of modern Black Nubians and other people of the Upper Nile and of East Africa. 

Melanin Dosage Test 
Egyptologist Cheikh Anta Diop invented a method for determining the level of melanin in the skin of human beings. When conducted on Egyptian mummies in the Museum of Man in Paris, this test indicated these remains were of Black people. 

Osteological Evidence 
“Lepsius canon,” which distinguishes the bodily proportions of various racial groups categories the “ideal Egyptian” as “short-armed and of Negroid or Negrito physical type." 

Evidence From Blood Types 

Diop notes that even after hundreds of years of inter-mixture with foreign invaders, the blood type of modern Egyptians is the "same group B as the populations of western Africa on the Atlantic seaboard and not the A2 Group characteristic of the white race prior to any crossbreeding.”

gaytrucys  asked:

Hey, how did you develop your art style? You're my favorite artist.

if i were to get technical- the answer might be underwhelming hahah!

fan art has been my #1 motivation to draw sense i got into my first big nich when i was 11 (kids next door) and i wanted to emulate canon proportions as much as possible to make my comics  feel real. i guess thats just how i feel through out all my interests. i incorporate stylistic choices from the things that i like into my drawings and so now my art style is this weird frankenstein of all these things ive loved over the years. its hard to see w/o context but even the way i draw feet derives form tom warburton’s style a lot haha

My version about the Shadowbolts in their free day get up. I trace it since Im getting stuck as I’d never get a “balance” in their canon proportion and my own style.

EDIT: Giving Sugarcoat another bow, minor eye edits.

Sunny dress to her status, and letting everyone knows.
Sour is keeping with the fads, dont want to be left behind.
Indigo is showing her allegiance. Dont Drink. Dont Smoke. Dont do Drugs
Sugarcoat dress as frilly as possible to her liking, not giving a stone to your opinion. She’s Sugarcoat(ed) after all!
Lemon is channeling her hard-hitting music in her looks. Rock ON!


Youtubers. I tried do a line of: Minecraft Style then the Normal* (*That what I call the Aesthetic canon or human proportion figure) style. 

Pete and Noochm was the last one, everything before just did go wrong. 

[For me my minecraft style everybody have like same height like in the game meh] 

PD: Oe, funny thing still have no idea what the hell Brandon have on his head. I mean the hat.

Fanon Caliborn: asshole of epic propotions, "annoying little brother,“ complete and utter idiot, pushover, basically just Invader Zim, overconfident, whiny little pissbaby, about as threatening as a teddy bear, pretty much a joke

Canon Caliborn: asshole of epic proportions, constantly underestimated, a cunning tactician despite his learning disability, determined to get his way at any cost, will never give up even when his task seems impossible, surprisingly insecure under his bravado, has an absolutely lethal temper, can be legitimately terrifying, is a comedic character but is NOT a joke