
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

No title available
No title available

izzy's playlists!
almost home
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

oozey mess

Product Placement
NASA

#extradirty
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
Cosimo Galluzzi
DEAR READER
dirt enthusiast
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
occasionally subtle
KIROKAZE

JBB: An Artblog!
Claire Keane
Sade Olutola

seen from United States

seen from Japan
seen from Poland

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from T1

seen from Chile

seen from Norway

seen from Belarus

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Mexico
seen from Spain
@fenlurker
Tuira Kayapó brandished her machete in the face of a government official who was trying to convince indigenous leaders to accept a mega-dam project in the Amazon, 1989
the lord of the forest
"What does this have to do with politics??" *Posts soviet suprematist painter Malevich*
When, in the year 1913, in my desperate attempt to free art from the ballast of objectivity, I took refuge in the square form and exhibited a picture which consisted of nothing more than a black square on a white field, the critics and, along with them, the public sighed, "Everything which we loved is lost. We are in a desert. . . . Before us is nothing but a black square on a white background!" "Withering" words were sought to drive off the symbol of the "desert" so that one might behold on the "dead square" the beloved likeness of "reality" ( "true objectivity" and a spiritual feeling). The square seemed incomprehensible and dangerous to the critics and the public... and this, of course, was to be expected. The ascent to the heights of nonobjective art is arduous and painful... but it is nevertheless rewarding. The familiar recedes ever further and further. into the background... The contours of the objective world fade more and more and so it goes, step by step, until finally the world-"everything we loved and by which we have lived" becomes lost to sight. No more "likeness of reality," no idealistic images-nothing but a desert! But this desert is filled with the spirit of nonobjective sensation which pervades everything. Even I was gripped by a kind of timidity bordering on fear when it came to leaving "the world of will and idea," in which I had lived and worked and in the reality of which I had believed. But a blissful sense of liberating nonobjectivity drew me forth into the "desert," where nothing is real except feeling... and so feeling became the substance of my life. This was no "empty square" which I had exhibited but rather the feeling of nonobjectivity. I realized that the "thing" and the "concept" were substituted for feeling and understood the falsity of the world of will and idea. Is a milk bottle, then, the symbol of milk? Suprematism is the rediscovery of pure art which, in the course of time, had become obscured by the accumulation of "things." It appears to me that, for the critics and the public, the painting of Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, etc., has become nothing more than a conglomeration of countless "things," which conceal its true value the feeling which gave rise to it. The virtuosity of the objective representation is the only thing admired. If it were possible to extract from the works of the great masters the feeling expressed in them-the actual artistic value, that is-and to hide this away, the public, along with the critics and the art scholars, would never even miss it. So it is not at all strange that my square seemed empty to the public. If one insists on judging an art work on the basis of the virtuosity of the objective representation-the verisimilitude of the illusion and thinks he sees in the objective representation itself a symbol of the inducing emotion, he will never partake of the gladdening content of a work of art.
Suprematism
Kasimir Malevich, 1927
Чистый Красный Цвет (Pure Red Color)
A. Rodchenko, 1921
And so the Constructivists working with the surface plane, despite themselves, confirmed the representational, of which their constructions were an element. And when the artist really wanted to get rid of representation, he achieved this only at the cost of destroying painting and only at the cost of destroying himself as a painter. I am referring to the canvas which Rodchenko offered to the attention of an astonished public at one of this season's exhibitions [5x5 = 25, 1921]. This was a smallish, almost square canvas painted entirely in a single red colour. This canvas is extremely significant for the evolution of artistic forms which art has undergone in the last ten years. It is not merely a stage which can be followed by new ones but it represents the last and final step of a long journey, the last word, after which painting must become silent, the last 'picture' made by an artist. This canvas eloquently demonstrates that painting as a figurative art - which it has always been - is outdated. If Malevich's Black Square on a White Background, despite the poverty of its artistic meaning, did contain some painterly idea which the author called 'economy', 'the fifth dimension', then Rodchenko's canvas, which is devoid of any content, is a meaningless, dumb and blind wall. However, as a link in the chain of development, viewed not as a self-contained value (which it isn't) but as a stage in evolution, it is historically significant and 'marks an epoch.’
From the Easel to the Machine
Nikolai Tarabukhin, 1922
Brent Cotton Before the Thunder Speaks, 2026 Oil on canvas, 91 x 121cm
SYKES: Are you aware the US was taking millions of barrels of oil from Iran?
WRIGHT: We are preventing the flow of Iranian oil
SYKES: That is not what I asked you. Can I play some audio?
*plays audio of Trump admitting the US is stealing Iranian oil*
WRIGHT: I think the president is talking casually
SYKES: Do you think that it's appropriate to 'talk casually' about war?
WRIGHT: I think you talk to all different audiences and you talk in all different styles
SYKES: There are 13 service members who are dead
WRIGHT: He treats this war deadly serious
SYKES: You just said he was speaking casually
WRIGHT: He speaks 20 hours a day
SYKES: Do you think your positions are in line with President Trump?
CHRIS WRIGHT: Yes, I hope so
SYKES: Do you love inflation?
WRIGHT: Uh. I love ending Iran's ability to have a nuclear weapon
SYKES: That was not my question. Do you love inflation, yes or no?
WRIGHT: No
SYKES: Do you know that your boss just stated that he 'loves inflation'?
WRIGHT: He's an entertaining, hyperbolic guy who has done tremendous leadership
SYKES: So it sounds like you're unaware that President Trump just said he 'loves inflation'
Once when I was in undergrad, someone described something as “problematic” in class and our professor was like, “That’s cool, but ‘problematic’ doesn’t really mean anything. It means that the thing you’re describing has a problem, and in and of itself that’s not bad. Art, especially, should always have problems, or else it’s not interesting and not art, either. It sounds like you’re trying to say that this is bad, but you don’t want to say ‘bad.’ Is that right?”
So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the “bad” thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, “I’m uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.”
Once we stopped calling things “problematic” and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, “that’s racist” or “that’s misogynistic” or “ew capitalism gross” out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, “Uhhh... I’m not sure what’s so bad?” and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.
Anyway. Whenever I see the word problematic, I can’t help but think of this professor being like, “Good starting point, now let’s get specific.” I think when we have to commit to saying “that’s ___” it requires a lot more careful thought about the truth and impact and complexities of whatever we’re claiming. Sometimes there really is some bullshit afoot, and also sometimes it’s art, and it should be full of problems, because that’s what art is.
An Irish far-right streamer attempts to interview an antifascist. Sound on. [video]
Update from the Twitter account of the hero in that video:
when the curse is lifted
yankees need to stop being weird about this dog. that's not normal. y'all creep me out.
because americans are not very good at space they directly killed 17 people in preventable deathtraps, but westerners do not care about people like they do dogs
In America, if you get caught with a tiny bag of weed, you can be sold and bought as slaves for the McDonald’s corporation
today i learned that Fidel’s mother (a poor cuban) was originally his father’s (a well off, domineering Spaniard) domestic servant. one doesn’t need a full biography to extrapolate the levels of exploitation and coercion that kind of relationship entails. and she raised a man who would go on to dedicate his entire existence fighting for women and all oppressed peoples the likes of which latin america has never seen before or since
That's all really interesting stuff
...why did he choose to be a dictator, though?
To prevent politically uneducated brony tumblr users from spreading in the proud nation of Cuba
Zhiyong Jing, Insomnia