@furiousgardener - Tumblr Blog

the-halfling-prince

pukicho

Visit Original Link

little guitar melody inspired by congolese soukous

anserifelidae

sweet baby paula ❤️ being cute and pettable

certifiedchickenposts

certified chicken post

theinturnetexplorer

Being a nature photographer seems great, maybe I should try…

hareofhrair-in-a-funny-hat

dogpuppy

nineteenyearoldmeblog

im fucking crying

escuerzoresucitado

mrsterlingeverything

goopydad

A wretched little horse is washed away.😈

ode-on-a-grecian-butt

Kos (or some say, 'Kosm')

felassan

nightvaleofficial

holly-warbs

Sketchbook drawing from a moment in Verőce, Hungary.

zootycoon-archive

i got these knockoff boots online and instead of the brand name on the tag they have the name of an apparently nonexistent martin scorsese movie??? what the fuck

loseremo

syzygy-yzygy

THE ORIGINAL? ON MY DASH

this-too-too-sullied-flesh

this post led to a series of events that had martin scorsese himself reacting to his alleged movie goncharov and it has less than 400k notes almost 3 years later?

ilovedthestars

"how do you feel about labels as a queer person?"

darkcomedies

evoking bertholt brecht’s “the way people cast a play!” quote as a spell against prescriptive, stereotypical, fatalistic typecasting

darkcomedies

idk what to tell you except go look at the fishwives

annabelle--cane

as someone who has formally studied the history of art and literature, my favorite things to study are always the "common" arts. vernacular design; material culture; and the pamphlets, ceramics, prints, and clothing forms we have zillions of extant examples of because they sold like hot cakes and workshops could only barely churn them out fast enough to meet demand. some sectors of art history scholarship are quite set on excluding "crafts" from "the arts," when, from my view, crafts are obviously a subsection of the arts, not a whole different category, and modes of "crafts" routinely get promoted to "arts" when heavyweight scholars take interest in them. it's like, mate, if you're calling yourself a serious art historian and you genuinely think that these eighteenth century tentacle porn prints are of zero intellectual or artistic value then that is your limitation as a scholar, not an inherent deficiency of the works. popular arts are exactly as worthy of respect and considered study as fine arts.

this is why it bugs me to no end to see people dismiss current popular art out of hand as completely unworthwhile in the name of fostering greater appreciation for the arts. hobby art, folk art, crafts, pop art, etc., they are all still very much art and it is valuable to treat them as such. to discount, for example, booktok romantasy novels as obviously bad and "not that deep" and label them as completely devoid of substance is, to me, a fundamentally incurious position to take. if I may say something a little bit meaner, it also strikes me as an excuse to be intellectually lazy and avoid having to learn anything new or subjectively unpleasant; it's a thought terminating cliche. and before anyone says anything, no, taking a work or genre or medium seriously does not automatically mean viewing it as Good or sacrosanct, I have ideological and aesthetic issues with much of the art canon, it means taking it seriously. dismissing huge swathes of the arts as unworthy of intellectual consideration is not a pro-art or pro-intellectual argument.

annabelle--cane

"these eighteenth century What Now" okay I have some bad news: I misremembered the date of this work, it's early nineteenth century, not eighteenth century. second, I have some good news: here is the image I had in mind. I really cannot stress enough that if you open that wikipedia link then you will see a sexually explicit woodblock print of a woman engaging carnally with a pair of octopodes, so you have been warned. art historian beware etc etc.

oldbutchdanielmolloy

omg you people can do anything

depsidase

sunderwight

The problem with studying the deep ocean is that humans need light to look at things, the depths of the ocean are extremely dark, and what lives there is accustomed to spending most of its time in that darkness. So when we go down there with submersibles and turn on Big Lights to see, we invariably and dramatically alter what's going on, in the same way that it's generally difficult to observe the natural behaviors of terrestrial animals if you whip out a megaphone and shout HEY GUYS WHAT ARE YOU DOING at them first.

herowyn

5 0 Y E A R S A G O

rarebird22

Almost 57 years ago!

alagaisia

Hey. Why isn’t the moon landing a national holiday in the US. Isn’t that fucked up? Does anyone else think that’s absurd?

alagaisia

It was a huge milestone of scientific and technological advancement. (Plus, at the time, politically significant). Humanity went to space! We set foot on a celestial body that was not earth for the first time in human history! That’s a big deal! I’ve never thought about it before but now that I have, it’s ridiculous to me that that’s not part of our everyday lives and the public consciousness anymore. Why don’t we have a public holiday and a family barbecue about it. Why have I never seen the original broadcast of the moon landing? It should be all over the news every year!

alagaisia

It’s July 20th. That’s the day of the moon landing. Next year is going to be the 54th anniversary. I’m ordering astronaut shaped cookie cutters on Etsy and I’m going to have a goddamn potluck. You’re all invited.

watermelon-converse

Hey. Hey. Tumblr. Ides of March ppl. We can do this

emi--rose

Hell yeah moon holiday

hello-delicious-tea

Ooh coming up we should celebrate

ariaste

PITCH: We call it Moon Day, and then every 7 years when it falls on a Monday, that's an even BIGGER deal and we call that Moon Day Monday and go absolutely apeshit about it (the next Moon Day Monday is in 2026 so we have a couple trial runs first)