I feel like a lot of people get "All Art is Political" confused with "All Art is made with Political Intentions" which is not the same.
hello vonnie
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Stranger Things
will byers stan first human second
Cosimo Galluzzi

titsay
I'd rather be in outer space đ¸
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

if i look back, i am lost

Kaledo Art
Misplaced Lens Cap

oozey mess
RMH

blake kathryn

JVL

No title available
No title available

Janaina Medeiros

Origami Around

â
seen from United States

seen from Poland
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Italy

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Australia

seen from Netherlands

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Uruguay

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Sweden
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from Portugal
seen from T1
seen from Italy
@additionalvelociraptors
I feel like a lot of people get "All Art is Political" confused with "All Art is made with Political Intentions" which is not the same.
I think disability justice would be easier if abled people understood that being disabled is a mixture of all three of
I canât do that without negative consequences
I canât do that unless I have support for it
I canât do that
and that trying to treat one of these as if itâs another one will get you nowhere.
Steven Greenberg, âWrestling with God and Menâ - Authorâs conversation with Rabbi Eliashiv in Jerusalem
âTwice the power of loveâ is my new favorite description of bisexuality
Anyway Iâm crying because thatâs the best and most genuine description of how it feels to be bi that Iâve ever heard.
health isn't a virtue.
people still go around acting like they've done something good in order to be able bodied and healthy. that they worked for it, that it's due to their moral fibre or good upbringing or self control. they genuinely, on some level, believe that they are a good person solely based on the strength of their physical abilities. they will resist the fact that it is largely down to chance that they were able to maintain such health. whatever they think they've built from scratch, the building blocks were already handed to them. not because they're more worthy of it, just by luck. and they really think they're worth more based on that sheer luck. i've met disabled people worth a hundred of the healthiest ableds alive.
She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.
She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.
81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.
The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.
Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.
Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.
The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.
She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.
Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.
When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.
The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.
When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.
The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.
You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.
Edited down a long tweet. (x)
rookie sid / vet Geno :)
This author has so much good stuff but this one is basically this theme, so like. enjoy (archive-locked)
https://archiveofourown.org/works/39184392
Once when I was in undergrad, someone described something as âproblematicâ in class and our professor was like, âThatâs cool, but âproblematicâ doesnât really mean anything. It means that the thing youâre describing has a problem, and in and of itself thatâs not bad. Art, especially, should always have problems, or else itâs not interesting and not art, either. It sounds like youâre trying to say that this is bad, but you donât want to say âbad.â Is that right?â
So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the âbadâ thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, âIâm uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.â
Once we stopped calling things âproblematicâ and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, âthatâs racistâ or âthatâs misogynisticâ or âew capitalism grossâ out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, âUhhh... Iâm not sure whatâs so bad?â and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.
Anyway. Whenever I see the word problematic, I canât help but think of this professor being like, âGood starting point, now letâs get specific.â I think when we have to commit to saying âthatâs ___â it requires a lot more careful thought about the truth and impact and complexities of whatever weâre claiming. Sometimes there really is some bullshit afoot, and also sometimes itâs art, and it should be full of problems, because thatâs what art is.
#'this is present in the text' is often a good first step #but those second and third ones (naming it; describing its function) are vital (via @elucubrare)
revisit my Jedi Master Maul from 6 years ago because he lowkey ate in that hanbok
She played bass on 10,000 songs, including the most-played track of the twentieth century. She was paid $55 per session. Her name never appeared on the albums.
Gold Star Studios, Los Angeles, 1964. A woman in a cardigan walks past the receptionist, a Fender Precision bass in her hand like a briefcase. She doesnât sign autographs. She signs a timesheet.
Her name is Carol Kaye. In three hours, she will record what will become the most-played track of the twentieth century. Sheâll pocket fifty-five dollars and head to another studio, on the other side of town, for the next session.
The record label will never put her name on the album.
Between 1957 and 1973, Carol Kaye took part in roughly 10,000 recording sessions. Not as the featured artist, not as a guest, but as a hired hand. She was part of an anonymous collective nicknamed The Wrecking Crewâelite studio musicians who actually played the instruments on your favorite records while the famous bands posed for promotional photos.
The work was relentless. Three albums before the day was over. Stale coffee in paper cups. No rehearsal. The charts arrived minutes before the tape rolled. If you couldnât read a chart and nail the take in two tries, you didnât get called for the next session.
Carol could do it on the first try.
She started playing guitar in grimy bars at fourteen because her family couldnât pay the electric bill. Music wasnât a romantic dream for her. It was survival. It was a jobâfactory work with better acoustics and lower pay.
But she was faster and sharper than almost everyone else. She corrected charts in pencil while the producer was still explaining what he wanted. In one session in 1968, she told a famous producer his arrangement sounded like a dying dog. She chose her own line. They kept her version.
That descending bass line that drives the Beach Boysâ âWouldnât It Be Niceâ? Carol Kaye. The propulsive groove of âThese Boots Are Made for Walkinââ? Carol Kaye. The acoustic-guitar intro to âLa Bambaâ? Carol Kaye. The iconic theme from Mission: Impossible? Carol Kaye.
She invented techniques on the spot, out of sheer necessity. When the bass sound was too muddy for AM radio, she stuck felt under the strings and used a hard pick instead of her fingers. The tone cut through the static like a blade. It became the sonic signature that defined 1960s pop.
Bassists spent yearsâdecadesâtrying to crack the secret of the Beach Boysâ gear to get that sound. They were studying the wrong people. They should have been studying Carol.
She received no royalties. No residuals. No gold-record ceremony. No credit on the album sleeves. When âYouâve Lost That Lovinâ Feelinââ hit number one, Carol was already back in a studio cutting a soap jingle.
The biggest bands mimed her bass lines on TV variety shows. New York marketing departments decided a mom in classic clothes didnât fit the rebellious-youth image they were selling. So they simply left her name off the album credits.
For thirty years, almost no one cared. The truth only began to surface in the late 1990s, when music researchers found the same union contract numbers on thousands of hit records. The very documents meant to preserve studio musiciansâ anonymity betrayed them.
Think about it. Every time you heard âGood Vibrations,â âRiver Deep â Mountain High,â the Righteous Brothers, Nancy Sinatra, or Sonny and Cher, you were hearing Carol Kaye. She composed the soundtrack of an entire generationâs youth.
And yet the records still say nothing. Sheâs now over eighty. She wrote instructional books. She trained countless bassists. She is finally starting to be recognized by music historians who uncovered the truth about The Wrecking Crew.
But she never got what she deserved: her name on those albums. Credit for the music that defined an era. Recognition that those bass lines everyone associates with the âBeach Boysâ were, in fact, Carol Kayeâs.
Fifty-five dollars a session. Ten thousand sessions. The most-played track of the twentieth century.
And the world didnât know her name.
She was admitted to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2025 but refused, fuck yeah, Carol. Her official website is incredible.
@demilypyro
you should get a second evening for reading fan fiction. And you should get an extra day in the week to do arts and crafts.
idk anything about this but I love it
If any competition needed to be on Tumblr, it's this one.
Every time you think it's a given, that there's NO WAY that Red or Yellow could catch up to the other one given the lead, you are wrong. Right down to the wire.
nuh uh yellow missed one at :55
pride month!!!
Is that a miette?
Pride for you! Pride for a thousand years!!
you COME OUT to miette? you come out to her as queer? oh! oh! pride for mother! pride for mother for One Thousand Years!!!!
Please go learn how time works.
is jake gyllenhaal gay??
why would you ask us, a narnia blog, this
When my mother forgets a wordďżź, she is the queen of coming up with new words. Words that would take a third National Treasure movie to fully decipher.ďżź I was talking to her yesterday, and she said this: âYou know the time for los jibbities is coming upďżź. You must be so excited!âďżź Oh, is it time for los jibbities already?ďżź I must have missed it on my calendar. ďżźAre we celebrating something? âOf courseďżź! We should all be celebrating, shouldnât we?â ďżźOK, so los jibbities is a happy thing.ďżź Itâs not like something is giving you the heebie-jeebies, which would have been my one and only guess.ďżź âLos heebie-jeebies? Now youâre making things up.ďżź..and this is my show.â Youâre right. The time for los jibbities is coming upďżź. Is this a season? âYes, the season for love. The season for pride.âďżź OK, los jibbities. âYeah, sound it out.â LosâŚjibbities. LGBTs! âSĂ, mira cuz youâre gay!â âYou couldnât just say pride season? You couldnât just⌠*laughs*
HAPPY LOS JIBBITIES EVERYBODY!!!
The time for Los Jibbities has arrived!
one person's "ugghh this trope is so overdone" is another person's "oooooohohohohohohohoho"