emphasis on the ultimate

Season 2 Mikasa--- animeVSmanga

So over the past few days, in light of episode 33, there’s been a ton of discourse regarding Mikasa’s portrayal in the anime, how her attachment to him is apparently overplayed and her relationships with other people are being pushed aside.

This is an assessment I do not agree with, and, instead, would like to point out numerous anime only scenes showcasing Mikasa in a different light than “I only care about Eren”, and briefly touch upon her other scenes. Though this is an opinionated post, I try to be as objective as possible and try to cover as many counter arguments as I can.

To start things of, Episode 27

Please observe this instance. Armin is hypothesizing about the material the walls are made of, trying to figure out what’s really going on. In the manga, throughout chapters 34 to 37, Mikasa never shows any interest in the wall titans, the walls or the church conspiracy. Yes, she reacted to the wall titan, but its hard to ignore it when…it pops right in front of you. Here however we have evidence that she too is very intrigued by the state of things, this interest manifesting in a verbal question. When Armin is discussing his theory in 34, Mikasa has two lines…one is to shushh Jean, preventing him from waking up the sleeping Eren, and the other is to affirm that she’d rather stay with Eren. No mentions about the walls though. And though you could argue that Mikasa really did end up staying with Eren (as seen in ep 26), matter of fact is that not once does she inquire about the walls or anything in the manga. That’s only in the anime.

Still on episode 27, we get a brief glimpse of Mikasa in the Sasha flashback (we didn’t see her in ch 36 of the manga). Instead of being shown hovering around Eren like she is expected to, she seems to have a casual conversation with Hannah, another of her comrades, but not the closest friend. This affirms that she too made friends with people outside with Eren, and spend time with them. Yet she’s being accused of doing the literal opposite. Yes, this is a flashback and ultimately less relevant, but it does make the point that she got along with people outside of Eren and Armin. 

On to episode 30. Just like in the manga, Mikasa swoops in to save Historia and then joins the fight alongside the other SC soldiers, to take out the remaining titans and save the unarmed 104th. Afterwards we cut to Eren, disobeying orders by fighting and even getting hurt in the process. After he falls down and is met by RBC, the manga cuts forward to the Historia scene. The anime however, doesn’t we get multiple shots of Mikasa doing her soldier duty, taking out titans left and right. 

Not only does this remind us that she is a strong, competent soldier, it also shows us a Mikasa whose’ first priority at the moment isn’t Eren. After he fell and got injured, shouldn’t an overly attached Mikasa come flying right by his side? After all, hes possibly badly hurt, maybe even to the degree of being in danger? It’s not impossible, that, after seeing Eren go down, she went to check up on him in the manga. We just don’t see it because we jump forward a bit. The anime however confirms that, even though Eren got into trouble, Mikasa has other things to take care about: protecting the unarmed cadets and taking out the titans, following orders. The anime could’ve pushed “overattched” Mikasa and have her running straight to Eren, but instead we got this, showcasing quite the literal opposite.

Episode 31: Sasha took part in the meeting discussing RB, and is conspiring with the SC to secretly confine them. Upon realizing Ymir was a titan, Sasha was about to reveal confidential information jeopardizing the mission, but Mikasa quickly shut her up. Overattached-kasa would probably stay hovering over Eren, right? I mean they’re up against potential enemies, shouldn’t she stick close to him? He seems to be the enemies’ goal, after all.

Instead, we get this filler scene. WIT had complete freedom over it, since, you know it’s not in the manga at all. Sasha could’ve said literally anything. And even if she were to make the same blunder, anyone could’ve corrected her (why not smart, thoughtful Armin? he’d definitely be one to worry about this kind of stuff) but instead, Mikasa is given the opportunity, showcasing that she’s greatly invested in the mission and wants it to succeed. And not just because she wants Eren to be safe (remember, she’s not with him), but because she too is invested in the state of things and her job as a Survey Corps soldier. That’s what’s being presented to us here.

!EDIT! thank you @raelis1 (I can’t tag you apparently) for pointing this out, but there’s one more scene in ep 31

Mikasa helps up the unarmed Connie who’s using the makeshift 3dmg lift, and asks if he’s hurt. He’s not even part of the mission to capture RB, but he’s been through some shit and had no weapons, so naturally she wants to check up on him. We’re reminded that she cares about her comrades. There’s barely any interaction between the two in the manga, no specific relationship is being pushed her: it only shows that she cares about people other than Eren. And once again, none of the above is in the manga.

Now please let me ask: how does the anime emphasize “I only care about Eren” Mikasa, when all the instances above are new, not presented in the manga? Those are filler, those are added to add more characterization, and that characterization is going in the polar opposite of what anime!Mikasa is accused of being. You could argue that I’m getting stuck on details, but the thing is, the manga/anime differences are really only in the details, especially in the case of Mikasa!

What else is there: the scarf talk in EP 26. That’s direct setup into chapter 50, the climax of the season, gives it a greater sense of progression and accomplishment by the end of it. And it’s shown in the manga that she stays with Eren anyway. She wraps the cloak around Eren at the beginning of ep 27, and does it again later on, but the latter is already featured in the manga, making the added wrapping not an unlikey or ooc thing. EP 28, Levi’s line to her is cut and it’s a real shame and I’m not happy with it, but it’s one single line from weeks ago. And it’s absence doesn’t emphasize her attachment to Eren any more than Levi already did in the manga. All her other scenes in ep 31 and 32 are 100% manga accurate. The entire sequence of Mikasa waking up in ep 33 is 100% taken from the manga. In fact, I did a shot by panel comparison, and, compared to the manga, anime!Mikasa is just a tad LESS extreme!! And the added flashback was, given the circumstances and context of the younger EMA, fairly in character.

So, all these things considered, the anime isn’t misinterpretation Mikasa at all. We’re getting multiple scenes emphasizing a Mikasa LESS concerned with Eren, and, except for the episode 28 Levi moment, all her moments, including the ones not related to Eren, are perfectly adapted. Her relationship with Eren is given slightly more emphasis, but never in an ooc/excessive way! It is ultimately one of the driving forces of the arc, and plays the key role in it’s climax. So please, do tell me how the anime’s portrayal of Mikasa is so incredibly different from the manga, because I honestly cannot rationally understand all the complaints.  

anonymous asked:

In the train AU Zarkon is actually kind to Keith? 😀

Oh hell yeah

This is the ultimate ALTERNATE universe - emphasis on a totally off the wall event like Zarkon being related to Keith AND being a good father figure. 

AND Lotor loves his mom and dad and is a totally rad cousin and brother to Keith. 

Yepp crazy stuff happening here folks.

Originally posted by konczakowski

“I wasn’t aware that super-mega-ultra-ley-cool was an adjective, Alan. Let alone one used to describe meditation.”

hellyeahtitans67  asked:

Regarding Darkseid then, for me as a Catholic I've always placed emphasis on the Satan archetype being the ultimate evil in any fictional universe hence why I somewhat tend to go next to Trigon and from what I get, the Apokoliptans are basically the closest we'll get to a Satanic archetype from Norse Mythology. Is there some elements of Satan in Darkseid (like is his immortal and tempts sentient life to misdeeds for his benefits)? Just curious

Certainly there’s a bit of Satan in there; he’s a god of evil and unrelenting power who tempts sinners and schemes against the light of the highest of fathers. But for him, that’s only on a surface level. For Trigon, that surface is all there is; he was a mean bad demon baby (as opposed to the thoroughly charming Darkseid baby) with devil iconography who killed a whole bunch of people and became god-king of what amounted to hell until a bunch of teenagers in leotards beat him up. He’s hardly unique in that regard; from C.W. Saturn to Satanus to Neron to Doctor Hurt to the First of the Fallen to Vyndktvx, DC’s absolutely lousy with devil figures, with the actual Lucifer of the bunch mostly just hanging out and running a piano bar in L.A. these days. Some of them are better than others, but the fulfillment of that archetype - however uniquely or subversively - is what they’re all about.

Darkseid has his own thing going on.

What it really amounts to above all else - as I understand it, allowing that I didn’t go to Sunday school as a kid - is that Satan is a rebel, at least as far as Milton popularly defined him. He wants to be free, he wants to define himself on his own terms, and whether that’s borne of a genuine ideological divide, sheer ego, or both, that’s the starting point of everything he does. He will endure Hell if it means God can’t tell him what to do anymore, or at the very least he can spit in the lord’s eye. If anything, Lex Luthor’s the most traditional Satan that DC has to offer, in terms of stature and motivation.

Darkseid on the other hand? He wants order, not rebellion - absolute, irrefutable, cosmic order. He’ll push and prod and manipulate and intimidate and even dispense rewards as appropriate to edge towards that order, tempting us to listen to the “other side” as it brings us closer to himself, but freedom plays no role in his desires, because his endgame leaves him with nothing to be free of. Even “conquest” or “domination” are ultimately too weak as concepts to encompass the scope of what he craves; want he wants isn’t to rule men and gods, but for them to stop being in any way that matters, along with everything else in creation except for Darkseid. To him this is perhaps almost something like a moral right, insomuch as that idea is capable of forming in his head, because to him any other outcome is clearly, utterly unacceptable, permitting as it would anything to exist that isn’t Darkseid.

A couple people have put it well; @andrewhickeywriter had a great piece on Darkseid, and Chris Sims had a solid look at the basics of it (even if it positioned his relationship to Superman as far more central than I see it; I’m very much in the camp of his villainous status to the DCU as a whole being completely secondary to his status as the villain of the Fourth World story). And as usual, Grant Morrison put it pretty well, in this case in the script for the first issue of Final Crisis

His is a hatred without emotion, a cold, utterly inhuman and destructive thing. Nothing is real in his world but Darkseid. He would feel perfect if it wasn’t for the whole universe hating him, so he obviously has to bring the universe into line with his viewpoint or he’ll never feel comfortable. Darkseid has no experience of love, tenderness, sorrow. He is monstrously, sociopathically at odds with all free, living things. Everything that is not Darkseid is a thorn in his side and must be converted. Only when the whole universe is an expression of Darkseid’s will can it ever feel comfortable to him. He does terrible things because…he MUST.

So no, I don’t quite see them as equivalents. DC’s Lucifer for instance would likely find Darkseid’s goals banal and pointless in the extreme, while Darkseid would consider the Morningstar a childish, weak-willed wandering fool without the ambition to match his power. They are, after all, products of different moral orders: Satan is classically born of a moral axis of Order vs. Chaos, while Darkseid exists in the context of Control vs. Freedom, with which side you take having vastly different implications in those different frameworks. The Devil wants to do his own thing, whatever the consequences for the rest of us. Darkseid wants us all to do his, to the point where “us” becomes an anachronism, because when that day comes, only Darkseid Is.

anonymous asked:

So I hate used to really ship Klaroline but lately my mind has been breaking on them. Idk I just think Klaus has done too many bad things to her and her friends to give him a second chance. Can you change my mind? Why do you ship them so hard?

Hi, okay so Idk if I’m going to be able to change ur mind because at the end of the day you feel how you feel. A lot of times I’ve doubted my shipping of Klaroline so ur not alone. The thing I wanna tell you before I start is that shipping is supposed to be fun so pls do not agonise over it; if it’s still fun, do it, if not, don’t.

(Warning: Anti D*mon and Dullena) 


*cracks knuckles*

So

  1. Firstly you have to remember when it comes to the issue of Klaroline being problematic, is that that all ships that stem from tvd or TO are inherently problematic. This is because the show its self is problematic. It’s misogynistic, it’s systematically racist and most relationships on the show put the female character at a distinct disadvantage. So very few ships can be seen as healthy or idealistic in the real world. I might say Stelena, Jolaric, and Jalaric are rare examples but even then those ships have their various issues.
  2. Secondly, even if the writers and the CW, in general, did a better job with their shows, you have to remember that this is the vampire genre. It’s meant to be gothic and the characters are meant to be morally dodgy, selfish and do horrifying things. TVD’s mistake was that it could never properly straddle the line between keeping up that gothic theme and appealing to a teen audience (hence the babies, and romanticising of characters that are clearly villains, - cough, cough Damon) so often they put too much emphasis on morality and people being either ‘good’ or ‘bad; even though supposedly good characters like: Matt, Bonnie, Caroline and Elena do bad, selfish things all the time. (More detail in point 3)
  3. Because Klaus was conceptualised when TVD was actually half good and they were still writing a show about vampires; dark, twisted, immoral, seductive, vampires; he hence is a product of that. Klaus is a vampire in the true sense. I don’t believe a person can be a Klaroline shipper unless they accept the fact that Klaus is not a good person. He’s not supposed to be and that’s part of what makes his dynamic with Caroline so interesting. Love, or infatuation/affection, doesn’t change him. Yes, he does things deviant to his ‘cold hearted bastard’ persona. The gifts, deviating from his evil plans for Caroline’s sake, showing mercy, reasoning, barging when he doesn’t have to etc… But none of these things makes him redeemable. This isn’t one of those ships where love makes the person more moral and good. In fact, in Caroline’s case, I’m quite sure it does the opposite - or would do, had they gotten more screen time - Caroline is very in denial about her vampirism. She constantly makes claims about how she’s a ‘good vampire’ (an oxymoron in its self) and is characterised as ‘judgy’ because she demands such a high moral standard from other people around her. And while yes, she is exceptionally good at controlling her urges and at self-discipline (likely a result of  being under Stefan’s self-denying mentoring program and learning about vampirism from someone who detests it because of his own lack of control) Caroline still does terrible things often just because it’s convenient for her or because it’s ‘what it takes to get the job done’. Caroline’s often the most level-headed out of all her friends when it comes to doing something immoral in aid of the greater good, in fact, she’s almost eerily ruthless, especially if said action if in aid of helping one of her friends. (See the slaughtering of the 12 witches for Bonnie’s sake). But Caroline doesn’t see that, she also very scarcely acknowledges how much she loves being a vampire and from day 1, Klaus has been perceptive of how much she does. From when he saves her life, to when he intuits that she doesn’t want the cure and predicts that small town life wouldn’t be enough for her + encouraging her to think outside of the box and use her vampire abilities to get a dress for prom. Even his smug little recital of what Caroline says in 5x11 (’in school, building a life for her self, plans… etc’) shows that he knows that Caroline is just playing herself with her whole ‘mission to be normal’ (e.g: being in school - whic she dropped out of - playing house with Alaric and the babies, being with Stefan, who was always ‘the perfect guy’ in Caroline’s mind, because of the pedestal she put him on, denying herself the true pleasures of vampirism). Furthermore one of the most poignant Klaroline scenes for me is when Klaus is burying the 12 witches and calls Caroline out because not a few hours ago she’s called him a terrible person, because he did terrible things and now here they are staring at the corpses of the witches Caroline killed for Bonnie, while also, inadvertently, enabling an evil, supernatural being to rise from the dead and raise hell. on mankind. For a Klaroline shipper the moment is agonising because Klaus passes up the opportunity to be a shoulder for Caroline to cry on but at the end of the day it was something she needed to hear and quite frankly doesn’t hear enough. As long as you’re a vampire and you feed of human flesh, lie, compel, steal, murder at your own leisure; as long as you’re a witch/human/hunter who enables or condones it, you cannot claim to be ‘good’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.
  4. The most important thing, in my opinion, to remember about Klaroline as a ship is that Klaus’s actions are never presented as okay. Caroline never tolerates anything he does and constantly calls him out on his behaviour, furthermore, the show doesn’t romanticise him or excuse/ignore his behaviour. In contrast characters like Damon, who magically become the hero because it’s the only convenient way to put him with Elena. Elena’s love is supposed to change him and make him a better person but we see no evidence of this on the show, Damon’s his same rapey, abusive self all 8 seasons. But with Klaus, no excuses are made. He’s not supposed to magically turn good, you ask why I ship them so hard? It’s because 9/10 in all their scenes together and in their dynamic in general Caroline always has agency and nearly always has the upper hand, even when she’s dying. She manipulates Klaus into saving her life (”I know you’re in love with me’ ‘I guess we’ll never know’) in fact I’m convinced that Caroline used her A1 drama skills in that last part where Caroline makes those little croaky dying noises and was actually laying it on thick so that Klaus would be moved enough to save her- which he did. Caroline constantly manipulates Klaus and uses her emotional upper hand against him (’Show me I can trust you’ ‘I was promised a date for one of my hybrids’ ‘Show me your compassion’). So the relationship doesn’t just purely consist of Klaus doing horrible thing to Caroline and her friends and getting away with it. It’s far more complicated than that, there’s a power struggle involved and it’s extremely gripping and intriguing.
  5. When it comes down to it, Caroline was Klaus’ first choice, unlike many other TVD relationships, their’s is centered around Caroline (take dullena for example, even in a show centred entirely around elena, every bit of their relationship is all about Damon, or he finds a way to make it about him). Like I said Caroline has the agency, the emphasis is on her future, her hopes, her dreams and ultimately he respects her wishes, leaves mystic falls gives her space and waits for her to be ready.

I hope that helps or gives you some perspective. Anyone who wants to chime in please feel free to add something else.

anonymous asked:

Julie is totally making yousana endgame because there's so much emphasis on them. Last HB video was there to show us how depressed Yousef was. They even had text messages and the last clip reference it so the audience would see it. And then there's so much emphasis on Sana feeling sick with jealousy and the carrots. Even though they haven't shared a scene for a while, they're the focal point of. Yousef is the person Sana feels she can be her true self with. She needs that to be happy.

I COMPLETELY AGREE also notice how 70% of ALL clips in the entire season has SOMETHING to do with yousef - ep 1 had 4/5, ep 2 had ¾, ep 3 had 4/5, ep 4 had ¾, ep 5 3/5, ep 6 had 2/5, ep 7 had 2/5. there wouldn’t be such an emphasis on yousef if he weren’t ultimately important for sana’s story

It is clear that the different ways the two societies have developed fits in with their different attitudes to measure. Thus, in the West, society has mainly emphasized the development of science and technology (dependent on measure) while in the East, the main emphasis has gone to religion and philosophy (which are directed ultimately toward the immeasurable).

If one considers this question carefully, one can see that in a certain sense, the East was right to see the immeasurable as the primary reality. For as has already been indicated, measure is an insight created by man. A reality which is beyond man and prior to him cannot depend on such insight. Indeed, the attempt to suppose that measure exists prior to man and independently of him leads, as has been seen, to the ‘objectification’ of man’s insight, so that it becomes rigidified and unable to change, eventually bringing about falseness and deception in our overall apprehension of the self and the world.

On the other hand, it would clearly be wrong to accept the notion that measure is inherently incapable of being anything else but a false and deceitful veil of illusion, covering the true nature of reality. Rather, one may perhaps say that whatever can be assimilated within the field of measure is real, but of a dependent conditional sort of reality. What it depends on is ultimately the immeasurable totality. But this totality is not separate from the field of measure. Rather, the immeasurable overlaps and includes the measurable. Or to put it in another way, all that can be measured has its origin, its sustenance, and its ultimate dissolution in the immeasurable and undefinable which is the creative source of everything. Nevertheless, an adequate understanding of the measurable aspect of reality as a whole is evidently necessary for clear perception and right action in every phase of life.
—  David Bohm
The Disappearing City In Peru

The Chimu people once had a vast empire that stretched more than 1000 kilometres from southern Ecuador down the coast of Peru. It was built on the remnants fo the Moche culture. Their empire thrived thanks to complicated water works to bring water to the desert, and the abundant seafood off the coast.

At one point, their capital Chan Chan housed over 30,000 inhabitants. That makes it the largest city in the Americas before Europeans arrived. It had been founded in 850 CE, and eventually covered over 20 square kilometers. Chan Chan had grand palaces, public meeting spaces, and of couse lots of houses!

Some of the walls have intricate designs of the things that were important to this culture – so lots of seafood. In the middle of the compound, representing the most important thing of all – water – a large lake was used for aesthetic and ceremonial purposes. Although Chan Chan was a functioning city, the Chimu put great emphasis on art and design and this citadel was one of the ultimate showcases of this.

Today, Chan Chan is under threat – not from the Incans who stormed in and ended the Chimu, or the Spanish who stripped the city of its precious gold and silver – but from the weather. Since Chan Chan is made from mudbrick, it erodes in rain. With changing weather patterns what was once the driest place on earth is getting lots more rain. Peru is trying to protect this once-great city, but UNESCO has named it an at-risk site and the site is so large perfect protection is impossible.

anonymous asked:

Okay this is probably a very stupid question but it's basically about Haikyuu and since you're familiar with Japanes I'm just going to ask: So it always kinda confused me that they're basically address each other with their family name like "Oikawa, Iwaizumi, kageyama etc." isn't that kind of weird? If I'm friends with someone I don't address them with their family name :/ Could you maybe explain this ? :)

In Japanese culture it is customary for people to address each other by their family names, and not by their given name. Plain and simple; that’s just how it is. For some obvious reasons, families are an exception to this rule.

TL;DR ahead

In haikyuu!! everyone’s mostly referred to by their last names because, simply put, they aren’t good enough friends to call each other by their given names. If you think about it, they’ve pretty much only just met.

To complicate this a little bit, if you are close enough with someone (read: good friends), it is sometimes acceptable for you to address that person by their given name. (so, in theory, Iwaizumi and Oikawa could call each other Tooru and Hajime. The problem with this is that they’ve known each other for so long that calling each other by their first names might seem a little too intimate. In anime usually, calling someone by their first name in young adulthood can be embarrassing and have other implications). 

To add to this, if you are older than someone it is also more acceptable for you to call them by their first name, though most people still use last names. For example, Oikawa can call Kageyama “Tobio-chan” because he’s  1) older than Kageyama, 2) a superior in school, and 3)  he’s known him for a few years. (Mostly, though, he just uses “Tobio-chan” as a way to tease and exercise his superiority). 

Ultimately, the emphasis should be on the fact that calling someone by their first name can show a deeper level of friendship (or intimacy) between two people. (like sugawara calling sawamura, “Daichi”) Foreigners aren’t typically expected to abide by this rule, unless you are a working professional, then you are.

in my head i think of it a bit like this:
last name - Friends/coworkers/employers/acquaintances/strangers
last name nickname/first name/first name nickname - Friends/close friends/ family

If you’re looking for the specific historical explanation as to why this is, i’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place, bc i don’t know. 

Reasons to watch Hellsing Ultimate
  • REAL vampire action (emphasis on real because violent and bloody and no mercy u v u)
  • Puts religion in a positive light on both the protestant and catholic sides
  • Badasses. Badasses everywhere. Even the butler and on the catholic side. 
  • Single lady Integra Fairbrooke Wingates Hellsing (runs an entire vampire/ghoul killing estate and got no time for a man u v u)
  • An ass-kicking yet bumbly and silly police girl with cannons (bitches love cannons)
  • Comic relief mixed in with beautiful and flowing action 
  • Engaging monologues (this anime has some of the best voice acting you’ll ever hear in an English dub) 
  • The perfect Halloween anime. Go watch while the season is still fresh!
5

Artwork Spotlight: The Arts

Alfons Mucha, 1896

Today is the 155th anniversary of Alfons Mucha’s birth. He was born in the town of Ivančice in the Moravian region of what is now the Czech Republic on July 24, 1860. I’m planning in the future to feature him in one of my artist spotlights, and I will at that time delve more into his biography and why he is such an iconic artist today, but today, in honor of his birthday, I will discuss one of his most iconic works, the four decorative panels on the arts he produced in 1896.

Before delving into imagery and style, I will first delve into their purpose. Mucha’s first successful work was in posters, and these works bear many similarities to his poster work, including the vertical format and compositions centered on single female figures. However, these are not posters. They advertise nothing and were never meant to hang in a public venue. Rather they are panneaux, decorative panels, meant to be luxury objects, printed using the lithographic process in large-format on silk or high-quality paper and hung in private rooms as decoration. 

Since they served a decorative purpose, it’s easy to see them as just pretty images with little meaning or depth. But they do function, as pretty much all of Mucha’s panel art does, as allegories. Other series of panel arts he did include ones centering on flowers, precious stones, stars, and the times of day. However the Arts series is unique in two ways. One is the fact that its main subject, the Arts, are not aspects of nature but are human processes. The second quality that sets it apart is that it is a double allegory. While it is ostensibly about the arts, it also functions as a subtle ”times of day” series. So each panel has a dual sense. The Dance panel also functions as the morning panel, the Painting panel as day, the Poetry panel as evening, and the Music panel as night. The two themes feed into each other.

Stylistically the panels share the same style of linework. Shading is used sparingly and represented mostly by hatching. Mucha uses thicker linework outlining the female figure and the roundels, but most of the linework is very fine. Harder to discuss is the coloring, since different printings yield slightly different color schemes, but most printings show muted, pastel colors or warm colors. Composition-wise, the panels are strongly vertical. Space is carefully delineated by the roundels surrounding the figures, which also provide a seat for three of the figures. Background is barely suggested; perspective is non-existent. Flowers in the upper corners and arabesques lining the sides of the lower half of the panels add a highly ornamental effect. 

Within the space of the roundels, half-delineated landscapes provide the sole suggestion that these panels inhabit any sort of reality. They give us visual clues as to what these panels depict. In Dance, leaves flutter beyond the confines of the roundel as the bare suggestion of trees evoke a landscape in the morning mist. In Painting, sunlight beams on a flower in stylized circles as the background depicts a noon sky. In Poetry, the most clearly depicted landscape shows the sun setting behind trees. In Music, branches laden with nighttime songbirds stand out darkly in front of the moon. The landscapes themselves have little perspective. The entire atmosphere is highly unnatural, almost mystical.

The female figures are central to the images. Not Symbolist femme fatales, not modernistic Parisian beauties, they have sexual appeal but are hardly acting in a manner one would consider seductive. Like in most of his panel art, they seem to function as allegorical spirits. Their poses are highly stylized, as if they are intentionally presenting themselves. None of them are clearly moving, but seem rather to be in poses suggesting movement. Even Dance stands surprisingly straight considering she represents an art form defined by activity. In fact all these panels would be incredibly still, in fact even uninteresting, were it not for the complex flow of fabric, hair, and arabesques that provide an extra layer to the composition as well as visual interest. Visual interest is provided also by the details of the highly fantastic clothing which further divorce the images from any clear culture or reality, and the unusual details of the roundels.

Beyond the relative lack of motion in the figures themselves is also the curious fact that none of them is participating in the art they represent. Even Dance does not dance but instead holds an impossible pose that no dancer would naturally be able to get into, get out of, or hold. Instead they seem to be caught in acts of inspiration. Dance stands and arcs her back against the breeze blowing against her. Painting watches the sunlight reflect off the flower she holds and seems to trace with her loose hand its outline. Poetry watches the landscape before her, musing on the evocative scene. Music listens to birds with her hands to her ears, while in the roundel around her a motif of a disembodied hand plucking stylized strings of starlight is repeated. That Mucha goes for such an unusual depiction of the arts invites further analysis. To me two messages are readily apparent.

One is the emphasis on the idea that all art has ultimately natural inspiration. To the Art Nouveau designer, this is a given. Mucha worked in the age that saw the triumph of nature as artistic inspiration. There was never such a time when artists and designers were so influenced by natural world. Indeed the focus here on the way nature inspires the arts not only emphasizes the importance of natural inspiration but also emphasizes it over the physical process of creating. The artist is placed in the passive position of spectator of the natural world instead of a creator. Ultimately, Mucha seems to say it is better for that artist not to think of oneself not as a creator, but as a transcriber and translator of the already-created. That Mucha depicts the artists of these scenes as women connects them to already established tradition in Symbolist art of using women to depict nature herself and the forces that control it. So Mucha’s artists are both separate from nature, in other words spectators of it, and representative of it, an actor of nature demonstrating its power as much as the dancing leaves or the singing birds. There is thus interwoven in this idea of natural inspiration the idea that the artistic process is a continuation of the natural processes that influence it.

The second and final message I feel this work conveys is the idea that art is primarily a mental process. In the time of Mucha, the idea that artists and designers were essentially nothing more than craftsmen was already outdated. Already in this period artists were seen as thinkers and philosophers, and their work were seen as valuable because they embodied concepts of truth. As the modern era has played out to now, the idea has continued to take hold that art derives value more from the concepts behind it than from the virtuosic skill used to make it. Mucha’s panels make a subtle commentary on this, considering that only a few years later cubism would throw these ideas into the spotlight. I would not go so far as to call these works masterpieces of conceptualism. But Mucha, by showing no final product nor depicting any of his figures actively making one, puts all the emphasis in this allegory of art on the thought, the inspiration, the mentality of creation. 

It should be noted the most detailed part of the work is in the upper parts of the images and in the figures themselves. One’s eyes are focused almost entirely on the space within the roundels, where reality is most fully fleshed out, and where we are forced to confront both the figures and their inspiration. Music and Dance make eye contact with us, perhaps reflecting the immediate and involving naturre of their art forms, while Painting and Poetry are lost in thought. Beyond the roundels everything melts into nothing. It is possible even that what is in the roundels are not real, that the women are imagining everything around them, or remembering hazily something they already saw, meaning that beyond the figures, the whole image is the depiction of their mental process. The landscapes, which seem before the most real part of the background, may be no more real than the arabesques.

Because the world of the images is so stylized, the viewer is made to reflect on the artifice of the work. In the end wondering whether the figures are observing or imagining is unimportant, as the figures and everything around them are already the product of someone’s imagination and mental process, lovingly made and beautiful to look at. Mucha’s work later in his life would indulge more and more in heavy-handed allegory, but this is perhaps his only work that tries to allegorize the artistic process. That he does it in this way, that plays so much with our understanding of thought and inspiration’s role in art, and our understanding of when nature ends and art begins, shows himself as an artist willing to play with heady, intellectual concepts even where you would not expect them.

I feel like society today puts way too much emphasis on success when we should be putting the emphasis on the process that gets us there. Ultimately being successful is just the destination in a journey that has no set timeline. Our successes and failures don’t define us so don’t let society make you think you’re worthless just because you’re not winning right now. Take control, push yourself and don’t give up. Focus on where you are right now and what your next step is, not where you’re “supposed to be” or where you desire to be. Pay attention to the process and knock shit off the list one by one until you reach the top.

On The Fallen Child (Serious Undertale Spoilers)

I have what appears to be a drastically different conception of Chara from the rest of the fandom and I’m wondering if it’s valid or I’m just missing key information. Warnings for mention of abuse and suicide.

Keep reading

Essentialism: A philosophical problem?

“In art, essentialism is the idea that each medium has its own particular strengths and weaknesses, contingent on its mode of communication. A chase scene, for example, may be appropriate for motion pictures, but poorly realized in poetry, because the essential components of the poetic medium are ill suited to convey the information of a chase scene. This idea may be further refined, and it may be said that the haiku is a poor vehicle for describing a lover’s affection, as opposed to the sonnet. Essentialism is attractive to artists, because it not only delineates the role of art and media, but also prescribes a method for evaluating art (quality correlates to the degree of organic form). However, considerable criticism has been leveled at essentialism, which has been unable to formally define organic form or for that matter, medium. What, after all, is the medium of poetry? If it is language, how is this distinct from the medium of prose fiction? Is the distinction really a distinction in medium or genre? Questions about organic form, its definition, and its role in art remain controversial. Generally, working artists accept some form of the concept of organic form, whereas philosophers have tended to regard it as vague and irrelevant.”

So, paraphrasing to the best of my knowledge: Each medium of communication has strengths and weaknesses, depending on the mode of communication. After this, the other question is, ‘how do we evaluate art?’. What is organic form? What is a medium? How is one form of media like poetry different from haiku, etc.

I’m going to try and discuss this problem.

1. I believe that certain forms of communication work better than others, depending on how/what message you want to convey.

What is organic form?
“A work is said to possess an organic form if the work’s structure has originated from the materials and subjects used by the author, "as a plant”. It stands in contrast to a mechanical form, a work which has been produced in accordance with artificial rules. Samuel Coleridge suggested that the concept of organic form meant that a poem or literary piece was shaped, rather than structured, from within. The use of the form allowed a piece to uniquely develop itself as it unfolded, and ultimately revealed an emphasis on the whole outcome of the piece, including the connections of each development to each other. In contrast to the more mechanical processes and rules which many critics believed were necessary for the formation of poetry and works, S.T. Coleridge determined that a more subconscious approach was possible through the, ‘‘imagination of the artist’’ whereby the outcome is an organic form, where ‘‘content and form have coalesced and fused’’

Is seems to me the organic form must arise by itself. In my opinion, I’m not sure about calling this art. Art like literature, sculpture, painting, etc. MUST be mechanical because of it arising from the artist. Organic art cannot arise from an artist, because art is made to fit constraints. We cannot call a haiku a ballet, yet we call a novel a painting or a sculpture. But we cannot call a ballet a painting, or a novel a ballet. A ballet is not a waltz.

Art and Organic Form are different things!
But then how are Art and Organic Form related to each other?

They are connected by the idea of beauty/ugliness, a response of a certain energy that occurs.
Since we can be unsure of outside of our mind, beauty/ugliness rests within the mind and perception that creates a certain defined reaction of pleasure or disgust.

Definition:
Art form - A 'crafted’ work by deliberate action. It is not produced on its own/through its own work. It does provoke a response, ! It has intention! Organic form does not have intention.
Example: A tornado rips through a corn field tearing out a path that looks like the letters D O & G.
A tornado had no intent to spell out the word Dog. It just happens, non intentionally.

(The ! means I suddenly had an idea)

This 'intentionality’ allows use to formulate a way to evaluate an Art Form. Quality relates, not to organic form, but to Intentionality. How well does the communication of intent from the artist to the viewer succeed? Art is a way of expressing intent. Which strangely makes sense.

Let’s us hypothesize an art student is assigned a pottery assignment. He is given a lump of clay. He does nothing to it, and turns it in for a grade. The teacher gives him an F. The art student’s intent was to showcase the natural form of the clay, and in this case he failed. But let us say the teacher gives the an A because the teacher felt he was trying to show case the natural form of the clay. The Art form was a success!

However let us switch the intention. Let us say the art student simply didn’t want to do the work. In this case if the teacher gives him an A, the art form was actually a failure, because the intention did not communicate well. The teacher giving a F is now the success, why then did he get an F?

What is a medium? The structure of intentionality. And yes, it does largely depend on defining the structure. You can convey a chase scene in a poem as well as a painting. It largely depends on how well the intent is conveyed.

So, What, after all, is the medium of poetry? If it is language, how is this distinct from the medium of prose fiction? Is the distinction really a distinction in medium or genre? Yes, the distinction is a matter of structure.

anonymous asked:

Why does sasusaku want minakushi to parallel their ship? Isn't that what Sasuke's parents are for?

First off, I’d like to say I’m putting this in the SS tag because it relates to them. Not because I’m looking for a fight or anything.

MinaKushi is an indisputable ship in the fandom. You don’t have to necessarily like it, but it’s canon in the sense that without it, there is literally no story. Without them, there is no Naruto. And with no Naruto, there is no story. Some would claim that Sasuke and Sakura drive the story, but they would be wrong.

The other thing about MinaKushi is that their story has a lot of emphasis on the red thread of fate, which is basically the ultimate form of love story. SasuSaku so badly wants to be this, when they really aren’t. As much as some people don’t want to admit it, they don’t exactly have the happiest (for lack of a better word) relationship in the world. They aren’t this lovey dovey and passionate relationship that gets presented in fanon so much. It’s quiet and subdued and that’s what works for them. 

As for the bit about Sasuke’s parents, I hadn’t thought about it before, but now that I do, yeah. Sasuke and Sakura have parallels to Fugaku and Mikoto, while Naruto and Hinata have parallels to Minato and Kushina. None of these parallels are perfect matches for each other, but they do fit with each other.

[L]esbians are represented as outside the sexual economy, tied to home and childbearing, while the gay male characters exist in a world of backrooms and anonymous sex. Lesbians are thereby also […] situated outside potential radicalism and necessarily imbricated with assimilationist politics. [Suzanna Danuta] Walters asserts that such characterization is common to the “new queer culture” wherein “gay male sex and its histories have become the very model of radical chic”, while lesbian sexual history is characterized as nonexistent and lesbians are portrayed as puritanical. While repression of certain forms of sexuality and gender expression have certainly taken place, the emphasis on the “lesbian sex police” as the ultimate repressors, instead of the mechanisms of repression enacted by heterosexist and homophobic society, is curious.
—  Rebecca Beirne (2008): Lesbians in Television and Text After the Millennium