david-farrell

When did it become OK to be a dick to Taylor Swift?

She has every right to be proud of her achievements

by David Farrell 3 days ago 209 Views

~~

It’s cool to hate Taylor Swift.

If you were to believe what people say about Taylor Swift you would think she is nothing less than an evil mastermind bent on world destruction when, in fact, she is simply a musician whose work has been justifiably recognised for its more than considerable merit.

You may say that people hate on Taylor because Kim Kardashian exposed her as a snake, but in reality this was just the final straw. The tide has started to turn against Taylor well before that. The hate she received and is still receiving for winning the Grammy for Album of the Year in 2015 (which was completely beyond her control by the way) is a perfect example of that.

The fact is that people loathe to celebrate successful people, especially women. When it seems like someone is getting popular, they are immediately seen as too big for their boots and the criticism starts rolling in. They are the real snakes, not Taylor.

A perfect example of this is this article from BuzzFeed which accuses Taylor of making her entire career off playing the victim. BuzzFeed have previously been very supportive of Taylor, publishing articles like “21 Times Taylor Swift Proved She Has A Heart Of Gold”, “17 Reasons Why Taylor Swift Couldn’t Possibly Top “1989”. If you’re going to be critical, then please show a consistent line.

The truth is that now that it’s in vogue to hate on Taylor, publications like BuzzFeed have readily jumped on the bandwagon. Penning a 20-page long essay about how much you despise someone is tantamount to creating a ‘Mean Girls’-esque burn book. Not only is this playground behaviour, but also a colossal waste of everyone’s time. The whole article is redundant because by engaging in a personal attack upon Taylor’s character it ends up doing very thing it claims Taylor Swift has based her whole career on – turning her into a victim.

The disturbingly ruthless character assassination of Taylor has come about in an age when America is rebelling against the traditional girl next door. This once practically untouchable archetype has now been thrown out of the window in favour of celebrating diversity, which is undoubtedly fantastic for society. What we must be careful of, however, is to not go too far the other way in order to achieve this goal of equality.

How can the persecution of what Taylor stands for – the girl next door – belong in the diverse accepting society we want to create? This is a society where there is room for the gay kid, the black kid and the girl next door to sit at the same table, rather than one where the girl next door is left out to justify the years she enjoyed the spotlight over others. That’s called reverse discrimination, which benefits nobody. What we need to strive towards is equal spotlight, equal recognition.

There now exists a paradox whereby white artists like Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande, who all received Grammy nominations this year, are still clearly favoured by established institutions such as The Grammys, as evidenced by the events of last Sunday, but their work is unfairly dismissed by the masses as redundant fluff.

Taylor Swift winning Album of the Year angered a lot of people and whether or not it was the right decision it was the decision which was made and Taylor has every right to be proud of her achievement. After all, this was the moment she had worked for since she was 15. The culmination of the fruits of her labour. The fulfilment of her dreams. To rob anyone of that satisfaction is bullying no matter what the reason.

The fact is that ‘1989’ was, in fact, one of the best albums in recent memory, you can check out this BuzzFeed article for all the reasons why. You don’t need to carry a political message in order to be a bloody fantastic album. Taylor’s mastery lies in reinvention and pitch perfect PR campaigns. And newsflash, every single artist manipulates the media – Beyonce herself is just as shrewd a businesswoman and people adore her. It’s a fickle business.

The matter is one of respect. Artists, generally speaking, are much better at showing respect for one another, which is important considering that we lived in an era when pop is looked down upon as a lesser art. Taylor Swift had already declared herself a fan of Kendrick Lamar when she asked him to feature on her song ‘Bad Blood’. If Lamar did not respect Taylor’s work he would have declined, which begs the questions as to why the general public is so damning of Taylor on behalf of Lamar when the artist himself publicly has already declared his respect for her work.

Taylor Swift is an intelligent, strong woman who has managed to create a successful career for herself out of nothing and that is purely based on talent, not playing the victim. Do you think people who buy her albums if they carried the same message, but without her level of musical mastery? Absolutely not. Does society need to change to recognise more diverse talent – of course, but don’t blame Taylor Swift for a problem that should be equally shouldered by all of us.

The beauty of the MASH (family) Fandom.

We respect each other.

We respect that some folks like the early seasons and some folks like the later seasons and some folks like both.

That some folks love Trapper and some folks love BJ and some folks love both.

That some folks like Burns over Winchester and vice verse.

We have Blake lovers. Potter lovers.
Fans of both Colonels.

Radar lovers. Klinger enthusiasts.
Those who love both Corporals the same…

Sidney lovers. Flagg lovers. Kellye lovers.
Father Mulcahy lovers.

We’re just one big family unit.

No judgment or harsh criticism.
Just unity and love and togetherness.
Agree to disagree. Kindness.

I love you all so much.
Long live our vintage fandom. (Family)

David Farrell - The Swallowing Tree

It is inevitable that the landscape has some part in a country’s sense of its own identity; often it is a key element in the mythology that comes to define a nation, regardless of whether or not the collective image of that landscape corresponds to reality in any substantial way. The necessary human relationship to the land in terms of possession and development also complicates this picture – landscapes are coded and shaped by those histories in a fundamental way. In Ireland the sense of possession (and of dispossession), is especially loaded; the landscape comes already freighted with memory, woven into its layers. David Farrell is a photographer acutely sensitive to the textures and the nuances of place, reading from them the often fraught narratives of social and political history. His rather indirect approach might seem to belong to the recent trend of photographing the aftermath events and conflict, but in Farrell’s case it also elaborates a sense of photography’s potential to illuminate by a sort of ‘slow looking’ and his persistence in returning to specific locations and themes is remarkable in that it allows for a long view of the sort of issues that are too often reduced to fodder for headlines.

Farrell’s most sustained – though by no means only – subject in this vein has been the searches for the bodies of those who were abducted and murdered by Republican paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. The first publication of this work, titled Innocent Landscapes, came about from his winning the European Publishers Award. However, since that time he has been revisiting the sites of these searches as they have sporadically continued and as nature has continued to reclaim and to efface the sites of earlier interventions in the landscape, which in Farrell’s pictures appeared as being at once painstaking in their forensic attention and also quite brutal in their rearrangement of topography. This duality is significant in itself, given that each ‘disappearance’ was an individual loss touching on a small network of lives and yet also marking a whole community by the arbitrary incursion of violence. Farrell’s book The Swallowing Tree is an excerpt from that larger series that embodies its central theme of landscape as memory, suggested here by the motif of the tree that gives the work its title. Nature absorbs and encloses the scant traces of human commemoration just as it hid the traces of violence for so long and it only reluctantly gives up its secrets – if at all.

What the book describes is a complex movement between revelation and concealment, memory and forgetting, really, which sees the action of the searches continually pushing against the force of nature; in all of Farrell’s work about the disappeared (and here as well) we are constantly shown that memory must be willed, that it is an action requiring an often painstaking devotion and that its reward – assuming it ever comes – will be a sort of closure, if not actual forgiveness, because that hardly seems possible. The searches are a potent metaphor for an endless labour against forgetting, just as the relentless growth of nature speaks to the inevitable way in which the passage of time obscures the truth of those meaningless deaths. At the same time, these are expressly quiet images and they retain a meditative sense of distance that allows us to reflect upon what the process of remembering (and re-remembering) entails in this case. The book revolves around repeated images of the tree itself as it grows around – or ‘swallows’ rather – a small votive image and a string of rosary beads over a number of years. These are threaded through a narrative that tracks the passage of seasons and how the site of the original search is gradually absorbed back into the landscape, hidden once more.

Naturally the design and the pacing of the book are intended to accentuate its themes and they do this rather well (the design is by Ángel Luis González Fernández). To begin with, the cover is plain board onto which an image has been directly printed, extending around the book and across the ‘spine’ (in this case it’s actually a pair of grooves cut in the board that allow it to fold and to lie flat when opened). But the absorbent nature of the cardboard also means that the image is rendered quite faintly, which in turn reinforces the impression that memory is an unstable, fragile construct; however tangible it might seem, the details can slip away from us – and do. The book itself is housed within the oversized cover. This might seem a somewhat unwieldy arrangement and depending on how the book is held it can be, but it also subtly foregrounds the key theme of the pictures, which is a complex dynamic of excavation and enclosure. The smaller narrative of the book is effectively ‘swallowed’ by the expansive – and fading – landscape of the cover. This is an effective and telling detail, typical of the attention that Farrell brings to his work.

The sequencing of the book develops a distinct, though not monotonous rhythm that grows from the sustained, repeated nature of revisiting the site. It is essentially a survey of changes and the way in which those changes push back against interventions into the landscape, small or large. The growth of the tree is not shown using a narrow, typological format, as might be the obvious temptation, but is presented through a more refined composite view, embedded in a narrative structure that places its growth, which is here also a kind of forgetting, in the context of seasonal change; we can see the passage of time written on the landscape itself. This presents us with the melancholy knowledge of how insufficient any memorial is bound to be, that loss and commemoration alike will be obscured and overtaken, despite the best of intentions. However evocative it may be though, The Swallowing Tree is still a rather small excerpt from a larger body of work that details Farrell’s revisiting of the sites originally featured in Innocent Landscapes. While it encapsulates the key themes of that work very well, and sustains its own aesthetic integrity, there remains a nagging sense that we must await a more complete statement on this subject from Farrell.

8

The Lobster [2015]

We dance alone. That’s why we only play electronic music.

Plot: In a dystopian near future, single people, according to the laws of The City, are taken to The Hotel, where they are obliged to find a romantic partner in forty-five days or are transformed into beasts and sent off into The Woods.

Director: Yorgos Lanthimos

Actors: Colin Farrell (David), Jessica Barden (Nosebleed Woman), Rachel Weisz (Short Sighted Woman)

Writers: Yorgos Lanthimos & Efthymis Filippou

FOUNDED IN THE 1960s, the vegas kings and the nevada hangmen have become the most feared and well known mc’s in more than just nevada. their president’s hold more power in vegas than the mayor of the city himself as the each of the club’s underhanded policies and tactics have never been investigated. the police have no desire to get themselves involved with the workings the two anarchic clubs. the kings own multiple bars and clubs in vegas, the hangmen own territories on the opposite side of the city. they both have their bases in roadhouses, the kings north of the city and the hangmen south of the city.

as they were both founded around the same time, the kings in 1962 and the hangmen in 1963, there has been times of peace and tension between the two groups. currently they are not at war, yet if members of the two clubs end up in the same place, a fight is likely to break out. they both deal in illicit items, such as weapons and drugs, yet their reputations precede them and cops often look the other way. initiation into the clubs is tough, but once a man has proven his worth to the mc, he’s got brothers for life. never betray them, the desert isn’t kind and neither are they.

RULES.

  • due to the graphic nature of this verse, it is asked that all muns be over the age of 18.
  • if you are triggered by drug use, violence, assault, alcohol, sexual situations, torture, gore, guns, smut, etc, then this isn’t the verse for you.
  • women are not going to be club members, they can either be an old lady, kings cunt / loose noose, or affiliate to the club.
  • male positions available for patched members or prospects
  • this is a high selectivity group - for the comfort of all the members as there are dark themes involved.
  • please submit your applications to ME
  • no ooc drama, you will be removed from the group without hesitation
  • please tag all triggering material, ask if you need something specific tagged
  • humans only
  • no duplicated fc’s unless previously discussed
  • not activity based but please do try to be active
  • please track the tags ( v ) on the devil’s path for ic interactions and the tag ( v ) otdp for ooc interactions. tah applications with berrygroups and ( v ) otdp

APPLICATION.

mun name & age :
name :
age :
fc :
position :
affiliation : kings OR hangmen
short bio :

MEMBERS.

Keep reading