widely held misconceptions

spiderrealm  asked:

If you don't mind me asking, where did you learn to draw? I want to make a living from drawing (hopefully create my own comics) and there are so many youtube videos out there and tutorials, I don't know where to start. Did you teach yourself from tutorials or did you go to school? Your art is so amazing! I'm in love with your style! I don't want to copy your style, I just want to learn the basics and work that into my own style :D

Hi there! I was really touched that you would ask me this question so I wanted to give a thorough answer – I apologize in advance if it ends up being a little long.

I started drawing when I was in high school. In 2013, when I had already mostly established the way I approach art and my art style, I chose to go to art school. I didn’t enjoy it at all… ;; Following me leaving art school, I was scouted at a convention by an established video and mobile game based purely on the merit of my personal work - art I had never developed during school and was actively encouraged to discontinue by some of my teachers.

I think there’s a widely held misconception regarding art school which is that it guarantees you a job or a rise in skill level – it doesn’t. Some people have great results and feel great about their art school experience, but a large percentage of my friends did not have such a great experience. I would say that if you’re just looking to start out with art it would be best to build your fundamentals by yourself, and then make the decision as to whether or not you want to pursue post-secondary in art. This will strengthen your portfolio if you choose to apply and will give you some confidence in your abilities!

Personally, while tutorials can be very helpful, I wouldn’t recommend tutorials that teach you how to do something in a stylized way or in someone else’s style. Tutorials for things like light source understanding, perspective, colour theory, character silhouettes, anatomy structure, fabric shading etc can be great to take a look at! Avoid tutorials that encourage you to draw a figure or face exactly like someone else or tutorials that just show you how someone else approaches stylized painting – imo these will pigeonhole you into their style, using their shortcuts, and drawing with their mistakes.

If you’re looking to quickly improve, doing some gestures or going to a life drawing session can really help! I would recommend it. I went to a couple life drawing summer camps when I was in high school and saw a big improvement in how quickly I could put together human figures after just a week-long camp. Drawing real human figures is important because it helps you remember how the human body is put together underneath the clothes we normally draw them in, and it also helps you get a feeling for a variety of different poses you can then try to incorporate into your personal art.

I hope this helps a little ;;;; I’m sorry if it doesn’t ;;; if you want to ask me any more questions regarding this I’d be happy to do so.

A Harlot’s Guide to History: Mythbusting the Great Seducer (Episode 5)

Giacomo Casanova (1725-1798) has made his mark on history as a beacon of suavity, charm and smooth operation. His name is a by-word for a lady-killer and a seducer. The truth, of course, is far more complex. The Lady takes some of the most widely held misconceptions about the Great Seducer and turns them on their head. A young boy prone to the most ungainly nosebleeds, a witch, an angelic vision, and a feeling of perpetual inadequacy: it all served to make the man a legend.

                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m really proud of this one, guys! It’s kind of the intro to a series I’m going to do on Casanova. Also, I’m just putting a general NSFW warning on this as I discuss a lot of adult themes explicitly.

Made with SoundCloud
I note in passing that the proposition that the premises of a consular post are part of the territory of the sending State seems to be a widely-held misconception, dating back many years in the history of international law but possibly given broader currency, among other things, by an episode of the TV series “The Simpsons” in which the Simpson family visits Australia. Irrespective of its origins, the proposition remains a misconception, and does not help in identifying a basis on which evidence can be received from Canada by audiovisual link, even from within a consular post.
— 

R v Woutersz [2017] ACTSC 212 (11 August 2017) [46]  (Penfold J)

I’m reading this LSAT prep book and I feel like it talks about the “test makers” like they’re evil gamemakers in the Hunger Games.

“The test makers will try to lure you with reasonable solutions”
“A fact known to and exploited by the test makers”
“The test makers, being human (yes it’s true)”
“The test makers often prey upon widely-held misconceptions”
“This is one of the psychological weapons employed by the test makers to unnerve test takers”

Dispelling the Myth of the "Boston Massacre" - The Night of March 5, 1770

18thcenturylove: Gather around kids, and let me tell you something about the Boston Massacre… (if you’re not American, you can keep scrolling, it’s ok)

On the night of March 5, 1770, a squad of British soldiers, part of the 29th regiment stationed in Boston, fired their weapons at a hostile mob of colonists in King Street. Five people were killed and at the moment of their deaths were raised to martyr status for the revolutionary cause. Shortly after, the soldiers and their captain were arrested, imprisoned, and put on trial for murder and conspiracy. However, the commander of the troops in Boston believed that his men had been deliberately provoked. Although he was not a Loyalist, Counsel for the Prisoners John Adams (yes that John Adams) supported this argument and believed the blame lay more on the civilians involved than on the soldiers. For John Adams, the “Boston Massacre” was the justifiable product of an attack upon a group of eight recognizably young, inexperienced, armed soldiers by a considerably large crowd of violent, combative, unarmed civilians.

It was earlier that evening that Capt John Goldfinch was accosted by a disorderly apprentice and this disrespect had angered Hugh White, a private in the 29th Regiment. White later encountered this man and after lecturing him for his behavior, was only answered with insult. Private White then struck the man causing a small crowd to form. During the trial, witness Samuel Clark testified that while he was not present at the shooting, he had spoken to White only moment prior to the incident. Instead of appearing agitated, White had politely asked him “how we all did at home,” which may be proof that White did not have any particular formulations in mind before the quarrel.

The crowd as it gathered to further accost Private White was, at the moment, totaled at about thirty people. Some threw snowballs and oyster shells and other carried staves. Witness Edward Langford testified that at this time, he told several boys in the crowd to leave the sentry alone and knew even then that “something would come of this.” This statement alone John Adams believed proved that “he thought there was danger, or at least the sentinel in fact was terrified and did think himself in danger.” Out of fear, White called for support with six grenadiers arriving in response. Langford stated that he was unable to hear Private White give the call for assistance although being “pretty loud,” yet was somehow able to later hear Captain Preston give the supposed order to fire. Despite this contradiction in testimony, Langford admits that the soldiers did not appear to have taken specific aim at any of the victims. This provided further ground for disregarding the idea of British premeditation.

There were now a total of 8 soldiers, including Capt Preston, who were becoming increasingly anxious as the crowd grew to over a hundred. Amid the confusion, three townspeople drew near Capt Preston, among them Theodore Bliss, who dared the soldiers to shoot. It was immediately after, as Ebenezer Bridgeham testified, that “ice or snow” was thrown and that the “guns were struck several times,” with clubs and sticks. Witness James Bailey also declared he saw several members “heaving pieces of ice, large and hard enough to hurt any man, as big as your fist.” In a tragic twist, what might have been a ball of ice was thrown from the crowd and struck the muzzle of Private Montgomery’s musket. Prompted by the resulting misfire, the other soldiers fired into the crowd, killing five people.

As John Adams defended the soldiers and addressed the court, a man had to be “divested of all human passions if you do not think him at the least provoked, thrown off guard or thrown in to the fury, by such treatment as this.” Regardless of the atmosphere in Boston, the law was clear that if a man, whether he was a soldier or civilian, felt himself endangered, he had the right to kill in self-defense. Taking into account an assault of this scale and the instability of the testimonies of the prosecuting witnesses, six of the soldiers were declared innocent but two were convicted of manslaughter for identified to have fired directly into the crowd. They were given the reduced sentence of having their thumbs branded in open court.

However, this is not to say that the extreme actions by the Bostonians were premeditated, but by calling the victims of the “massacre” a “mob.” John Adams insisted that the jury face the reality of what had occurred. Despite how traitorous this accusation appeared to his peers, he proved that this one particular Boston crowd was dangerous, but not a reflection of Boston as a whole. As much at fault as any of the individuals was the law itself, or at least popular notions about the law: 1) the 18th c. legal theory that made political mobs quasi-legal 2) the contemporary constitution that entrusted the keeping of the peace to soldiers without giving them authority to employ force 3) the legal misconception widely held in Boston that the king’s troops could never fire upon British subjects.

shirena  asked:

Any tips for writing well-rounded antagonists who are really, really unsympathetic? If it matters, I'm rewriting Cap 1, and I want the Red Skull's motives to make sense, but I want to minimize people thinking well of him. He's a Nazi. Come on. I don't want to encourage the already widely held misconception that crazy=evil. But I don't think making him not-crazy will work, because his evil plan is pretty crazy. I've done a little searching, but haven't found much about keeping evil unsympathetic.

Well, the thing is, his motives don’t have to make sense to us. They only have to make sense to him. The best villains, as the saying goes, always believe they are the heroes. And fortunately (sort of) you do have a built-in reason for his belief that he’s a hero: he’s a Nazi.

This is gonna take a while. BUCKLE UP. We’re gonna talk about aliens. And Hitler.  

Keep reading