obvious comments are obvious

everything you need to know about bucky barnes in one scene

flickr

It’s a mammal. by SDRaindog
Via Flickr:
Notice the hair on its underside; not a reptile but is covered with scales.

the weirdest thing you can call a native person is exotic like????? where do you think i came from?? and further, where did you come from?? because chances are, you’re living on my stolen land.

anonymous asked:

isn't it sad that eliza saying that she loves playing clarke and that she never wants this show to end makes our fandom so happy. like, we should know that. we do. that should be a give in with pretty much any actor. but the antis' perspective muddled everything, and it makes us doubt that the lead actress even likes her job. they make us second guess everything, stuff that's literally on the fucking screen and stuff that's completely obvious.

PREACH THIS WHOLE ASK 

So I just read that Lady Gaga’s “Angel Down” was written for Trayvon Martin. And in the comments, all I saw were a bunch of White People complaining about how she only makes songs for thugs and faggots. And when some people asked the proof of Trayvon being a thug, people responded with ‘he lived in a ghetto and he’s black’ or  ‘he liked rap, wore a grill, and threw the middle finger in some pics’.

Sometimes the ignorance is astounding.

4

“This is all just… very familiar.”

Smoke Prince

9

Romance in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam cinema

7

He’s Sherlock. How will we ever know what goes on in that funny old head?

We know he’s thinking about John here because of the transition. It fades to black on John then Sherlock appears just as he’s opening his eyes (x)

anonymous asked:

How do you go from roman wall paintings to "primitive looking" early and high medieval paintings and crude depictions of forms? Was the skill lost? Was it a concious choice?

Hi there anon, sorry this took so long to answer. I wanted to give you a thoughtful response.

There was certainly a lot of talent in ancient Greek and Roman art–understatement of the century, I know, please bear with me, ancient art is not my area of expertise nor my passion (my poor Italian archaeology professor, she tried). The Greek classical canon demonstrates an understanding of human anatomy that is still breath taking today. And although I am not as fond of Roman art, I do adore the Roman mosaics. Particularly from Pompeii!

I’m going to have to disagree with your (presumed) views on medieval art, but I will attempt to thoughtfully articulate an answer to your question (I am also enormously fond of medieval art, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt). In a technical sense, I agree with you, I can look at, say, the Bayeux tapestry and scratch my head and wonder where the artist(s) got their understanding of human proportions and perspectives. 

But medieval art, well, to imply that it was “a Dark Age” really isn’t truthful. Yes, many technical skills and knowledge were “lost”, if you will. But the Islamic World was flourishing just outside of Europe, and often interacting with Europe! Ibn al-Haytham had discovered the camera obscura in 10th century Cairo, and his understanding of light fundamentally altered both the fields of science and art. In fact, many discoveries were being made! Europe didn’t exist in a vacuum, it never has. Monks were hard at work transcribing documents and salvaging classical studies; Vikings pillaged the British Isles and brought with them their own cultures and art, and brought new ones back home. The “rediscovery” of Greco-Roman cultures in the Renaissance era was a phenomenal event in human history (an understatement, AGAIN), but, well, there is a certain disregard for pre-Renaissance art and culture, thanks to some humanist scholars. Let me borrow a quote from my ancient art history textbook: 

“Historians once referred to the thousand years (roughly 400 to 1400) between the dying Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity as its official religion and the rebirth (Renaissance) of interest in classical antiquity as the Dark Ages. Scholars and laypersons alike thought this long ‘interval’–between the ancient and what was perceived as the beginning of the modern European world–was rough and uncivilized, and crude and primitive artistically. They viewed these centuries–dubbed the Middle Ages–as simply a blank between (in the middle of) two great civilizations. This negative assessment, a legacy of the humanist scholars of Renaissance Italy, persists today in the retention of the noun Middle Ages and the adjective medieval to describe this period and its art. The force of tradition dictates that we continue to use those terms, even though modern scholars long ago ceased to see the art of medieval Europe as unsophisticated or inferior.” Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: Twelfth Edition, Volume I, Fred S. Kleiner and Christin J. Mamiya, p. 421.

Let’s take illuminated manuscripts, for example. One of my most favorite forms of art. For the heck of it, let’s use a well-known example, like a folio from the Book of Kells. 

I could wax poetic about the dedication and love that went into illuminated manuscripts (or the way entire communities joined together over centuries to construct massive Gothic cathedrals, which were also looked down upon by Renaissance scholars) but I’ll give you this, more relevant quote, instead: Giraldus Cambrenis, a priest visiting Ireland in 1185, when (most likely) referencing the Book of Kells (or a similar illuminated manuscript): “Fine craftmanship is all about you, but you might not notice it. Look more keenly at it and you…will make out intricacies, so delicate and subtle, so exact and compact, so full of knots and links, with colors so fresh and vivid, that you might say that all this was the work of an angel, and not of a man. For my part, the oftener I see the book, the more carefully I study it, the more I am lost in ever fresh amazement, and I see more and more wonders in the book.” Keep in mind, now, that the text alone could have been compiled by two to three different scholars; the inks and dyes imported from miles away; and, while I am not an expert on creating vellum, I imagine turning calfskin into fine, readable paper is no mean feat. An art in and of itself.

Now, this is one of the most beloved and well-known examples of Western art from this period, to be fair. 

So, maybe, a less common example, but one very near and dear to my heart: the icons of Andrei Rublev. Let’s talk about Rublev’s Holy Trinity (dated 1410, starting to get closer to the Renaissance era, but Russia was very isolated from the West at this point; but as it has similar artistic values to the medieval era, I think it makes a good case):

If you and I were to criticize this from a technical viewpoint, what might we say? The heads look unnaturally small, to me, compared to their long bodies. Their feet and hands look very flat; the entire image looks very flat. It is difficult to discern their forms under their billowy robes. We assume they are sitting. The features, to me at least, are a little difficult to distinguish. 

But, that is also not the point of an icon. This sort of icon was meant to be a window into heaven; “writing an image of the divine” is how the process was described; believed to lend protection and perhaps even healing; meant to educate a largely illiterate population with beautiful, Biblically significant scenes. The rich symbolism, the delicate gold coloring; the way so few icons were ever signed by the artist because they were all meant to be equally good, equally pure, equally holy. They were an act of love and work, not necessarily artistic pleasure (now, maybe that was a conscious choice to deviate from the Greco-Roman canons; but the Russian schools, which were beginning to grow apart from the Byzantine schools, doubtfully had access to those resources, anyway.) Alright, I’m going to cut myself off before I spend the rest of my Saturday night sniffling about how important icons are to me. I guess what I am trying to say, is an artwork can still be significant without utilizing the sort of skill sets we associate with ancient Greece and Rome. It can still serve an important purpose. 

I do stand by the belief that medieval art was not lesser, merely different. And I don’t think that the budding cities of Western Europe had quite the resources that the great cities of Greece and Rome did, either, not for many years. 

As for a conscious choice to make the stylistic differences that gave us some really strangely drawn Christchilds, well, I’m afraid I don’t know enough to say and I don’t want to overstep my boundaries of knowledge. Certain schools and monks tended to resemble each other and learn from each other, we can compare and contrast those. But I’ll leave it to medieval and Renaissance scholars as to just how independent these artistic choices were. 

Well, I hope that answered your question a little bit. I apologize if I was unclear or a bit sporadic, it is rather late here.