Ralph & Russo Haute Couture Autumn/Winter 2018
No title available

titsay
Three Goblin Art
No title available

@theartofmadeline
Cosmic Funnies
Jules of Nature
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Xuebing Du
tumblr dot com
styofa doing anything
$LAYYYTER
Show & Tell

if i look back, i am lost

JVL
Mike Driver
d e v o n
No title available
trying on a metaphor

blake kathryn

seen from Germany

seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia

seen from France

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from Greece
seen from United States

seen from Kenya

seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Germany
@kirwalk
Ralph & Russo Haute Couture Autumn/Winter 2018
[gay panic]
What you seek
aries: adventure and recklessness. you want someone that knows what they want and someone that will pursue you endlessly. you want a person that is exciting, daring and brave. thus, you may have a tendency to fall for individuals that are good with their words and know how to have a good time.
taurus: stability and supportiveness. you fall for individuals that can crawl under your skin in the best ways. someone that knows what to do when you’re upset and always answers when you call. you fall for people that know the little things about you and always stand by your side. you’re not one to fall for individuals that are fickle and are hard to pin down.
gemini: you fall for people who give you the opportunity to travel and are willing to experience an abundance of fun moments with. you love the ones who can put up with your weird behaviour and can keep you entertained. geminis tend to be flighty individuals and depending on your chart, you may find it difficult to find one person that you want to stick with for the long term, so finding someone that has similar interests, a sense of humour you enjoy, and someone that puts up with your different moods is someone you are likely to fall for.
cancer: comfort is something that is of utmost importance to you, so it’s no surprise that you fall for people that take care of you. you’re kind of like a baby; you need hugs, constant attention, and someone that will love you unconditionally and always take your feelings into consideration. people who do all of the aforementioned are the types you fall for (or should, at least), but sometimes you have a tendency to fall for the ones who also cause you the most pain. but be careful with your heart, cancer, because you are often too attached to leave people even when they are the ones breaking your heart.
leo: you love being showered with love, as well as showering others with love. for you, love is something that should be grandiose and you love showing off the people you’re with, whether it be on social media or just simply talking about them. so because of that, you adore the type of people that allow you to show them off, while also giving you the attention you crave. you want someone you can be proud of, someone pretty, and someone who makes you feel like you’re living some sort of fairytale relationship.
virgo: you fall for people who are intelligent and who you can see yourself form a stable relationship with. earth signs tend to prefer stability over reckless behaviour, so you might be prone to falling for individuals who are either really smart in class or ones who have good charisma, goals, and confidence. while you are prone to being headass, you don’t like the overly emotional types, so you are probably more likely to fall for people who are more in control of their emotions.
libra: you have a tendency to fall for all sorts of people, as you crave love and intimacy. you generally enjoy people who are flirty, know how to keep you interested, and make you feel safe. however, libras have a tendency to put up with a lot due to their need to keep peace, so sometimes you may find yourself falling for the wrong people but you stick with them anyway.
scorpio: you fall for the passionate and intense types; you like people who commit themselves to you as much as you commit to them. when you are in love, you tend to throw yourself fully into the relationship without considering boundaries or limitations, and to have someone allow you to do all of this makes you feel wanted. scorpios also tend to crave sexual intimacy, so anyone that knows how to please you in that manner will probably win you over.
sagittarius: you fall in love with adventure and creating new memories. you love people who can make you laugh and give you freedom, but someone that is also willing to go along with your crazy plans. you don’t like being limited in love because then you tend to get bored and go looking for someone else, so to find someone that allows you to flourish without suffocating you is someone you will consider keeping around.
capricorn: you fall for people with power and status; people who are capable of showing their determination and commitment in anything they throw themselves into. but you also have a soft spot for the goofy types – you enjoy people who make you feel like all the worries on your shoulders slip away like water. you fall for stability, comfort and support.
aquarius: you fall for the people who don’t want you, or the ones who don’t show you how much they want you. you don’t like feeling suffocated by individuals who feel the need to message you all the time or shower you with affection, as you adore your freedom a little too much. so you tend to fall for those who make you chase them rather than them chasing you.
pisces: you tend to fall for the people that are a little dangerous and detrimental to you, as you are obsessed with the idea of saving others or being saved yourself. even though you deny it, you secretly love a little drama and emotional outbursts in your relationship as you need to feel like you’re constantly needed in order to be completely happy in a relationship.
anyone here into idiots? if yes then im ur dream girl
A remarkable Jacobean re-emergence after 200 years of yellowing varnish Courtesy Philip Mould
PAINT RESTORATION OF MESMERIZING
I saw this on Twitter. He’s using acetone, but a cellulose ether has been added to make it into a gel (probably Klucel—this entire gel mixture is sometimes just called Klucel by restorers, but Klucel is specifically the stuff that makes the gel).
Normally, acetone is too volatile for restoration, but when it’s a gel, it becomes very stable and a) stays on top of the porous surface of the painting, and b) won’t evaporate. So it can eat up the varnish.
It looks scary, but acetone has no effect on oils, and jelly acetone is even less interactive with the surface of the paint or canvas.
Will someone PLEASE clean the mona lisa
For those who are wondering, they cleaned a copy of the Mona Lisa made by one of Da Vinchi’s students, and here’s a side by side comparison:
CLEAN THE FUCKING MONA LISA.
A couple problems with cleaning the Mona Lisa:
The Mona Lisa is a glazed painting.
A Direct Painting is one in which the artist mixes a large amount of paint of the correct value and shade the first time, and applies it to the painting. A Glazed Painting is a painting in which an underpainting is painted, generally in shades of gray or brown, and a allowed to dry, before layers of very thin glaze - a mixture of a tiny bit of pigment and a lot of oil - is applied to the surface. Some artists, such as Leonardo, choose to work this way because it provides an incredible sense of light and illumination (look at how the real Mona Lisa seems to glow).
The Mona Lisa is an incredible work of glazed painting, but that makes it fragile, so fragile that many conservators don’t want to work on it because it’s extremely difficult and a conservation effort go wrong for many many reasons. One of the reasons it could go wrong is that the glazes and the varnish layers are actually a very similar chemical composition, and a conservator could accidentally strip off layers of glaze while removing the varnish.
In fact, in 1809 during its first restoration when they stripped off the varnish, they also stripped off some of the top paint layers, which has caused the painting to look more washed out than Leonardo painted it.
The Mona Lisa also has a frankly ridiculous amount of glaze layers on it, as Leonardo considered it incomplete up until he died, He actually took it with him when he left Italy (fleeing charges of homosexuality), meaning it never even got to the family who had commissioned it, and instead constantly altered it, trying to get it just a touch more perfect every time. That makes it really fragile, with countless layers of very thin paint, many of which have cracked, warped, flaked, or discolored. It’s not just the top layer, its layers and layers of glazing throughout the painting that have slowly discolored or been damaged over time.
Speaking of damage, look at the cracking. That’s called craquelure; it happens with many painting’s (even ones that aren’t painted with this technique) because the paint shrinks as it dries, or the surface it’s painted on warps. Notice that the other painting has very little of it, even though it’s almost the same age.
The reason the Mona Lisa has so much craquelure is because Leonardo was highly experimental, almost to the point of it being his biggest flaw. There were established painting techniques, and then there were Leonardo’s painting techniques. The established painting techniques were created in order to insure longevity and quality, but Leonardo didn’t stick to any of them. This has made his work a ticking time bomb of deterioration.
Don’t believe me, check it out:
This is how most people think The Last Supper looks
But this is actually a copy done by Andrea Solari in 1520.
The actual Last Supper looks like this:
The Last Supper has been painstakingly and teadiously restored, with conservators sometimes working on sections as small as 4 cm a day. To get to it you’ve got to walk through a series of airlocks (AIRLOCKS!?!?!) and they only allow 15 people at a time because the moisture from your breath and your skin particles will damage it. Despite all of the precautions and restoration, it still looks like that.
This is because Leonardo painted the last supper using highly experimental methods. He didn’t use the traditional wet-into-wet method that fresco painters used, and insead painted onto the dry plaster on the wall, meaning the paint did not chemically adhere. Before he even died the painting had already begun to flake. It’s a miracle it’s still there at all.
They’ve done what restoration they can on The Last Supper because the painting will absolutely disappear if they don’t. The Mona Lisa, which is delicate, but much more stable, doesn’t need the same kind of attention. And, like many of his works, is just too delicate to touch, and the risk of doing irreparable damage to it is far too high. The Mona Lisa is insured for something like 800 million dollars, and that’s a lot of money to be ruined by one wrong brush stroke. (fun fact: the most expensive painting ever sold was also a Leonardo, the Salvator Mundi, and it went for 450 million dollars.)
Furthermore, there are probably only 20 or so authenticated Leonardo paintings in the whole world. If you look through the list, most of them aren’t even fully done by him, are disputed, or aren’t even finished. It’s simply too difficult and too risky to restore the Mona Lisa, one of Leonardo’s only finished and mostly intact works, when there’s hardly any more of his paintings to fall back on.
Now the painting you see in the video above is 200 years old, not 600 years old, and I assure you, the conservators decided the risk to restore it was minimal (after extensive research, paint testing, x-raying, gamma radiation, etc.) and that the work they were doing was worth the risk based on the painting’s value.
Conservators make the decision all the time about how much they can do for a painting, because really, they have the ability to completely strip a painting of all varnish and glazes and just repaint the whole thing (which happens to a lot of badly damaged paintings, especially when there’s no way to save them - one of the very small museums in my area recently deaccessioned a Monet because it was barely original, and no one wants to look at a Monet that’s only 20% Monet’s work) - but doing that to the Mona Lisa, removing the artist’s hand from the most famous piece of artwork in history? Hell No.
(also, I’m not a conservator but I’ll be applying to a conservation grad program sometime next year, so sorry if any of my info is at all inaccurate)
I found this really interesting, thanks for sharing.
Reblog going again because someone added all the facts that my lil reblog was missing (because I’m a horrible student and only remember vague details of interesting stories)
“He came. He left. Nothing else had changed. I had not changed. The world hadn’t changed. Yet nothing would be the same.”
Call Me by Your Name (2017)
dir. Luca Guadagnino
Archie Andrews in ‘Chapter One: The River’s Edge’ (S01E01)
My Own Private Idaho (1991, Gus Van Sant)
Call me by your name (2017, Luca Guadagnino)
what the fuck did you just say to me?