A Glance at Future's History @iusedtousemyrealname - Tumblr Blog

byjove

I never thought I would be siding with the pope’s involvement in politics and cheering him on. I will say that.

byjove

qqueenofhades

The US president accuses Leo of being "weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy".

laropasucia

horreurscopes

starting a collection for my anthropology class can you guys send me more posts like these

horreurscopes

testtubebabybeavis

Here's a few I have

drill-teeth

Something I really struggle to get people to understand is that like. Sometimes there was no intentional homoerotic subtext, the author was just extremely misogynistic. Sometimes the author wasn't "secretly shipping" those two men, the author literally just hates women so much that they see them as being literally incapable of relationships with depth. Like this is kind of a big thing with misogyny actually. A lot of extremely misogynistic people truly believe that a man can only have meaningful and complex relationships with other men because they literally just think women are so inferior they only exist to birth children and clean the house. It's like when people say along the lines of "no one worships exclusively men quite like straight men do". It's just that phenomenon actually. That happens to be manifesting in a raging misogynist's writing. Writing a man character who literally only puts effort into his friendships with other men while completely ignoring his literal girlfriend or wife is actually an extremely straight thing to write. And that doesn't mean you can't ship those men or that there are no stories with actual intentional homoerotic subtext. I just think it's important to be able to recognize extreme misogyny in writing and acknowledge it without brushing it off and assuming good intentions when literally all evidence is screaming that this was a misogynistic writing choice and not a representing gay men choice.

unteriors

Old Bluff Road, Hopkins, South Carolina.

ouroborosorder

this is such a profoundly stupid thing to be mad about but. i periodically think about how banksy made one of my single favorite pieces of art of all time, and everything else he's ever done has sucked. man, how did you nail it once

ouroborosorder

It's this piece, titled The Banality of the Banality of Evil. Because on first glance, you're like. Yeah, okay, it's obvious what it's saying. Even nazis, even evil people can appreciate beauty, too. But then you learn its name, and suddenly the interpretation shifts a bit. The idea that evil is banal has in itself become banal. my first response to seeing a nazi on a bench is "oh it's about the banality of evil" and not "jesus christ there's a nazi on the bench."

and like. i dunno i think that's a really interesting way for a title to recontextualize a piece. it's finding nuance by tearing out the nuance you want to project onto it. it's not the greatest piece of art ever made, but i'd be lying if i said i didn't have a huge soft spot for it

manwhorewednesdays

Okay but I have to add to this

what I find really interesting is how the way this is drawn (especially considering who drew it) the art style seems extremely deliberate. This type of nostalgic landscape painting is very reminiscent of nazi art and specifically, Hitler's art.

Nazis were extremely judgmental of "entartete Kunst" (degenerate art). Bansky's usual work very well fall into this category! So for him to go for this style of painting in particular is another choice I find very interesting, because I can see some people react to this painting with some variation of "oh, I didn't know he could actually draw! I thought he is a hack but he is a real artist!" - and that is where they would agree with the Nazis.

I dunno I just find this piece very compelling

ouroborosorder

oh that is actually fascinating. in fact, to add on- a detail I omitted because I just kinda forgot to mention it. The reason there’s two signatures in the corner is because it was a painting in a thrift shop, Banksy adding the Nazi, and then returning it to the shop.

I think there’s something interesting about recognizing the lineage of this type of art and wanting to mess with it, subvert the intent, and explore the topic and legacy. It’s potent. I really like this piece

rifa

I was thinking this out in the tags but I think it deserves to be here.

So in summer of 2024 I was on an Alaskan cruise that ended up also having a gathering of 800+ Christian nationalist qanon people, no hyperbole at all. And it was one of the weirdest weeks of my life.

But one experience from it was this very strange feeling that this painting reminds me of. When you view this painting youre observing the nazi observing the landscape. When I was I'm Alaska looking at melting glaciers and massive untouched mountains and wilderness, I was also looking at nazis looking at it. And it made me wonder how they saw it, where their appreciation for the natural world sits.

I wondered if they knew that the landscape was only there because it was protected from mining and oil refinery. Or how they were taking in the visibly shrinking glacier without reflecting in horror about the effects on climate change. I looked and thought about the people whose land it was well before settlers, I sought out that history on our excursions, I know they didn't. When we all watched whales together I wondered if they cared, or if they were looking at sacrifices they were willing to make.

It was very surreal because I could hear them talk about how beautiful it all was. But I knew we weren't looking at the same thing, not really, and I wondered *what* exactly they saw.

Just like I wonder about what this nazi sees in this landscape, and how that vision aligns with his others for the world. If it's something he feels entitled to, something he sees as a sacrifice, something cold and aesthetic without any wonder or love for the natural world and the people in it.

Because if beauty and nature can't shift evil what the fuck can