Ali Zolghadri
Sade Olutola
Monterey Bay Aquarium

blake kathryn
No title available
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Cosmic Funnies
todays bird
KIROKAZE

#extradirty
Keni
RMH
trying on a metaphor

Andulka

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

★
untitled

bliss lane
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

oozey mess
ojovivo
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from Canada

seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from Pakistan

seen from United States
seen from Switzerland

seen from Russia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Venezuela

seen from India
seen from United States

seen from France

seen from Malaysia
@noblegeas
Ali Zolghadri
curiouser and curiouser
“When we were kids, the Phonics Wizard came to our town to show off how the letter E can change the sounds of vowels. He turned a can into a cane, a pin into a pine. This one kid had a cap and he changed it into a cape, that kind of thing.
“And we loved it, we were all having a great time, but then he saw my sister and I, and he just got this - this look in his eyes, and then-”
She hesitated, worrying the coarse material between her fingers. “Things got pretty bad after that,” she muttered. “I know it’s silly, but I try to keep - her - comfortable. We don’t know if she can still hear us, or see us, or if she’s even still in here, but I like to think she is. I talk to her when I can, I leave music on when I’m out of the house. I tried to convince my parents to bring her with us when we went to Disneyland, but they didn’t - didn’t really take that well.”
After a moment, she put the ball of twine back onto its pillow. “Anyways. They tried to arrest the Phonics Wizard, but he had a plan in case something went wrong and he turned it into a plane and flew away.”
Part 1 of big "how to chibi-fy this flower????" guide is here!!! 🥰
big moth? please identify
Transform idealized architectural renders into what they'll actually look like. No sunshine. No happy families. Just cold, honest reality.
Upload an architectural render. Get back what it'll actually look like on a random Tuesday in November. No sunshine. No happy families. No impossibly green trees. Just cold, honest, depressing reality. Powered by AI & Disappointment
First HN comment: "I ran it on the 'society if...' meme"
in loving memory of my favorite shirt
turmeric kun update
Hmm hmm hmm. oxiclean loves her for who she is but turmeric cannot help but change her
Hey! I recently found out about a super-bizarre parasitic crustacean called a Dendrogaster. It's fascinating to say the least, but info has proven a bit scarce and everything I find out about it raises more questions then it answers. By any chance, would you be willing/able to give a brief rundown on it? You seem like the person to ask about that sort of thing.
Oh yeah I’m a BIG fan of these!! Information is scarce like that because they aren’t very well studied, however, it’s actually quite common for many parasitic crustaceans, of completely different groups, to shed their entire recognizable anatomy at some point in their life cycle. “Anchor worms” for instance begin as pretty typical crustacean larvae, but once they find a final host, they eventually molt into little more than a bag of flesh with a reproductive system:
Then there’s the parasitic barnacles known as Rhizocephala, like the genus Sacculina I’ve written about a few times, which reduce themselves down to a fungus-like network of “roots” filling the body of a host crab, and then develop an external fleshy bag for their eggs which is weirdly an AWFUL lot like a fungus network sprouting a mushroom:
So then there’s Dendrogaster, which also begins its life as just a typical little swimming bug:
But a Dendrogaster’s host is a starfish, and a starfish is mostly hollow. It doesn’t have a lot of “meat” for a parasite to embed itself in, so when Dendrogaster molts down into a flesh blob, it actually ends up kind of “free floating” inside the starfish, and the ideal shape for that lifestyle is apparently this:
Yes I have been fiddling with some monster designs inspired by these, they just got buried in my “to do” for years. Here’s how one fits into its starfish:
You would think this was just part of the host’s organ system from the looks of it! We actually aren’t positive, last I checked, how Dendrogaster feeds but it possibly just absorbs nutrients in a tapeworm-like fashion.
we’ve gone from the yee haw agenda to the ye olde thot programme
Ah yes, those slutty slutty Landsknecht shorts:
The bare-legged / hot-pants look was fairly common, since the whole point about being a Landsknecht (or Reislaufer, their Swiss equivalent) was to look outrageous.
Most period illustrations of Landsknechts are black-and-white woodcuts…
…though in 1905 a book called „Geschichte des Kostüms“ - History of Costume - assembled a bunch of black-and-whites and added colour.
If they look excessively gaudy, they’re not, because these next prints were coloured in-period by an artist called Erhard Schön, and it’s fair to assume he was representing what he saw.
In short - or in shorts - those reenactor costumes are spot on. :->
Something mentioned nowhere in this post that I have just learned from googling: these guys were not Ye Olde Medieval Dandies. They were 15th-16th century mercenaries. Pretty hardcore, too. They were exempt from sumptuary laws (ie the rules that said you couldn’t wear certain colours or cloth or styles) and apparently their response to that was technicolour thotpants.
I was complaining earlier about costuming in both “historical” settings and in fantasy/scifi. This is exactly what I mean when I say a knowledge of actual history would enrich the conceptual creative palette for things like “hardcore mercenary outfits.”
it's okay to draw for glory. don't let anyone convince you that art has to be a hobby. you don't have to rest or take breaks. if you feel yourself hitting a wall feel free to lose sleep over the process. you can forgo friendship if you need to. it's completely fine to want your art to win you immortality through your influence and canonization as a master. you don't have to take it easy
Gall Wasps: these wasps produce a chemical that triggers abnormal cell growth in plants, causing the plants to form strange-looking structures around the wasp's larvae
Above: plant growths caused by the larvae of three different species of gall wasp, including Trigonaspis teres, Callirhytis seminator, and Feron izabellae
These tumor-like growths are known as plant galls. They develop in response to chemicals that are injected or secreted by certain insects, mites, and nematodes. Each plant gall forms around the body of a single larva (or, in some cases, a small group of larvae), and the structure serves as both protection and sustenance for the tiny creature developing within.
Above: the plant gall of the oak apple gall wasp, Atrusca quercuscentricola, with a bisected view that shows the larva within
There are many different insects that can trigger the production of plant galls, including certain aphids, psyllids, flies, beetles, scale insects, and caterpillars, but gall-forming wasps are especially diverse. They also create some of the most distinctive plant galls in nature.
Above: the photo at the top shows the plant gall of an unidentified gall wasp from the family Cynipidae, and the photo at the bottom depicts the plant galls of the urchin gall wasp, Cynips quercusechinus
The color, shape, size, and texture of each plant gall varies depending on the species of gall wasp that induces it. Some wasps are associated with plant galls that look like fuzzy little pom-poms; others produce mushroom-shaped structures, colorful discs, cones, pink spheres, cottonballs, etc.
Above: this photo shows a mushroom gall wasp, Heteroecus sanctaeclarae, which produces plant galls that look like tiny mushroom-shaped houses
As this article explains:
Galls are plant growths (similar to tumors) that are induced by various organisms such as bacteria, fungi, and insects. Gall wasps have evolved to “trick” the plant into forming this growth which they then use for food and shelter as they transform from a larva to an adult.
The wasp larvae secrete chemicals that mimic growth hormones in a particular plant upon hatching. The chemicals trick the oak into growing a gall on its flowers, acorns, leaves, or stems. The larva is then encapsulated by the gall as it grows, waiting patiently inside until its metamorphosis is complete.
Above: Feron parmula, commonly known as the disc gall wasp
Many of these plant galls have elaborate, colorful features that are truly stunning.
Above: the spined-turban gall wasp, Cynips douglasii
Gall-forming wasps are only parasitic toward plants -- they do not parasitize other animals. The larvae feed on the nutritive tissues of their plant galls, but the adult wasps do not feed at all.
Above: plant galls produced by two different species of gall wasp
These wasps also have a peculiar reproductive cycle:
Many species have alternating generations, meaning all of the adults emerging from galls during one time of the year are female-only, while the adults emerging in a different season have both males and females. Most species have females that can reproduce using parthenogenesis when they emerge by themselves. This means that their eggs are essentially clones of themselves. What’s more, some species appear not to have any males at all.
Above: the huge, fuzzy plant galls of Striatoandricus furnessae and Druon pattoni
Scientists have named and described roughly 1400 species of gall wasp, and that's likely just a fraction of the number of species that actually exist, as gall-forming organisms are widely understudied.
Above: close-up of a gall wasp larva nestled in its plant gall
Once the larva transforms into a fully-developed wasp, it finally emerges from its gall.
Above: adult gall wasps
Sources & More Info:
Forest Watch: Gall Wasps
Gallformers: What the Heck is a Gall?
Southwick Country Park Nature Reserve: Ecosystem Engineers
The British Plant Gall Society: Plant Galls
The Royal Horticultural Society: Oak Gall Wasps
iNaturalist: Photos of Gall Wasps and Allies
why does everything wasps do read like an elaborate hoax
I watched Red Letter Media's new video on AI slop, and it was fine, nothing that I hadn't heard before. But during one particular section they brought up this line of thought:
AI is democratizing art, finally anyone can make art!
To which they give the usual counterpoint that typing in prompts isn't creating art, but then add this, which I thought much more interesting:
Anyone can create art. Anyone can create art and has always been able to.
I thought this was an interesting viewpoint, and one that comes from their own history as guerrilla filmmakers on Youtube. But I don't think it's a view that is true generally, and that the "art" that anyone can create is heavily constrained.
In A Room of One's Own, Virginia Woolf famously says:
a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction
And I do think that the general point can be extended beyond what Woolf calls a "question about sex"; economic and social structures shape artistic production, and for creative freedom, the material conditions need to be secured.
I think there's something unfair about saying that anyone can create art. Woolf talks about the way that a stroke of inspiration can be violently squashed and how a person has to be able to sustain themselves through the demands of labor and childrearing and all these other demands on them. It's true that anyone can create art, trivially so, what are we really talking about when we talk about what art people can create?
I think people have creative visions that they're unable to realize, and AI gives some crude facsimile of that realization, without specific elements of craft that are, perhaps, invisible to a person who hasn't had the opportunity to get a deeper understanding of a specific medium. And I think some of the thirst for AI from people who have unfulfilled creative impulses is that they just never had the time to spend taking in art, understanding a medium, and developing a craft.
And I say "crude", but compared to what? To the thing that would have existed if that person had spent ten years studying their craft of choice and refining their approach to that craft so the accumulated quirks and aesthetics would carry deeper, richer meanings? That's a thing that doesn't exist and probably never would, for most people.
I guess it fills me with a sort of melancholy that I can't escape. The AI offers these would-be creatives something, it's not nothing. But it's not the thing that I would want for people: I'd want them to have the true expression of their ideas, not the generative guesswork.
Why people like your doodles better than your finished works
Learn from your doodles rather than resent them
I frequently see artists complain that their finished works got less attention than mere sketches, doodles and other smaller or less serious work. Which is frustrating! But almost as often, I can see exactly why the doodle got more attention. I’m going to cover some of these reasons, so you can use that information so you can do more than fume about it.
The doodle is easy to read, the polished work is busy
The polished work is completely drenched in little details that the artist slaved over, but the details create a kind of overall noise that makes everything harder to understand, making the whole image less appealing.
Don’t get too lost in little details, work from larger shapes to small details, use things like a highly readable silhouette, contrast, variance in line width or negative space to keep the image understandable. Pay attention to the composition to guide the eye where you want it.
The doodle is high contrast, the polished work is low contrast
When you do lots of details all equally well lit and easy to see, overall you lose the strong lights and darks that make a work pop. You have to sacrifice some of those details, let them be in shadow or out of focus in the background, to create a more appealing image overall.
You might also be forgetting that without lineart you need to use strong lights and darks, since lineart creates it’s own natural high contrast.
Contrast draws the eye, use that to create focus where you want it.
The doodle is simple to understand, the polished work is highly ambiguous in meaning and message
Many doodles that outstrip the artist’s polished work are jokes. Jokes usually have a specific clear focus and message, the viewer can understand it immediately (if they couldn’t, it wouldn’t be funny). You don’t have to make everything funny, but like a joke, you need to get to the point and give the audience the information they need to “get it.” More details can be present, but the viewer should not be confused about what to look at from the outset. Remember: people will look at and interpret your art in milliseconds. They might give it a longer look but only AFTER that millisecond look.
The initial glance is like the first page of a book. If it wows them they keep looking to understand more, if they are lost and confused, no second chances, they’ve already scrolled away.
You can use things like composition, basic structures of shapes and simple shape symbolism to give viewers the initial information they need to stay interested. Don’t feel like you have to abandon more personal and difficult to parse symbolism, these things can work together to create intrigue.
The doodle is fluid and expressive, the polished work is stiff and dead
The sketch for your polished work needs to be done with spontaneity and fluidity. When you want to really flex your drawing skills and show the world your beautiful realistic human faces, your sublime anatomy, gorgeous textures - it’s easy to forget about the undersketch and jump to rendering as soon as you can, creating a stiff or boring sketch that isn’t worthy of all the time you’re sinking into the minute details.
Practice quick gestures, read up on line of action, and before you make a polished painting, make sure you have a sketch that’s fun to look at even without the detailed rendering. Thumbnailing helps. Studies too. Sometimes you have to do the bad boring sketch, but you can take a few stabs at it.
You can’t make a bad sketch good by painting more details on it, you need to work out the sketch first before moving to the details.
Remember, if you’re going to spend 20 hours painting the thing, you can afford another half hour sketching a few different takes on your idea before digging in.
Lots of doodles, very few polished works
If you mostly post one kind of thing, your audience will be people who like that. Also, you may not have much practice with the techniques you are using in the polished work, while you have become a pro at doodles. You become an expert at what you practice, do more of what you want to be known for, become an expert at it, make it the only thing your audience is there for.
The audience is familiar with the subject of the doodle, unfamiliar with the subject of the polished work
Many artists do doodles of fanart and get fed up that people like that more, but the truth is, they don’t like it “more” they just already know they like it. You can increase the chances of people appreciating your original works by making sure they can understand what’s going on in the illustration without prior knowledge of who these characters are, or simply sticking to it until you have garnered an audience. Just keep at it.
Remember, the creators of the property you made fanart of are themselves artists who were pushing an original idea at one time. You can follow in their footsteps.
The doodle is quirky and unusual, the polished work is stale and samey
This can happen when an artist has an image in their head of what a SERIOUS and PROFESSIONAL painting looks like, usually based on a very narrow subset of artwork, often itself based on the same cargo cult of seriousness.
Try studying works outside your usual stomping grounds. Look to artists that likely inspired your faves (if you’re talking about realistic artists who inspired your favorite concept artists, here’s some likely culprits to get you started on the google search: JC Leyendecker, Alphonse Mucha, Norman Rockwell, James Gurney, Rembrandt), look to artists outside your genre, and look at your doodles and ask yourself what “not serious, just for fun” source of inspiration is making them so fresh and vibrant that your audience is connecting to them so strongly. Study that, respect that fun and try to pull it into your serious work.
The polished work was hard to make and no one cares
Being an artist is hard, and that we keep at it is commendable, but struggling and taking more hours doesn’t make a piece better necessarily.
There are a few things to consider here. First, you need to realize looking to the vague faceless masses of the internet for a fatherly “I’m proud of you, son” moment is always going to be disappointing and painful and attempting to guilt strangers into fulfilling that role for you is awkward and inappropriate. You need artist friends who can recognize your hard work and cheer you on and you need to be your own cheerleader, value your own hard work and practice.
Second, you need to realize torturing yourself doesn’t in and of itself make art better. Hard work is something people love about art, the meaning of someone spending that time, but if I screamed for 8 hours, drew a single line, then posted that, the internet wouldn’t be wrong to be unexcited about it. Rather than blame the viewer, think about two things: how can you make the art itself more appealing while still doing the painting that you’re interested in doing, and how can you do that faster and with less pointless suffering?
It’s okay to be a masochist when it comes to art, many artists are, just make sure you’re spending your time and suffering wisely.
You’re complaining about someone else’s “doodle”
Sketches and cartoons are deceptively hard to make appealing, rather than fume that they are getting more attention, look to them for lessons. What could you learn from them? Could you do it? Maybe you should try. Would make a good exercise.
And never get mad that their drawings are more appealing to the internet than yours, even though they spent less time on their drawing than you did on yours. See above for why time is not important here, but also keep in mind they may have been practicing longer than you or may be more established than you.
Keep working on your art, keep posting, push to be seen, advertise your work, put yourself out there. These things take time but work.
reminder to worldbuilders: don't get caught up in things that aren't important to the story you're writing, like plot and characters! instead, try to focus on what readers actually care about: detailed plate tectonics
I love rocks that look extremely like someone just tested the demon blade on them
stolen from that social media site gay millennials and grumpy boomers use
This is a really good representation of one of the reasons I prefer to write sci fi that's on the harder side! If I wanted to argue against somebody who thinks commitment to scientific realism is some stick in the mud no fun allowed creativity-limiting thing, my argument might involve showing them this. It really is my impression that, ironically, the greater freedom from realism constraints enabled by a "softer" approach tends to result in more convergence. I think it's because paying attention to realism tends to interrupt a process related to "AI inbreeding" (disclaimer: I base this on some descriptions of the phenomenon I've read on Tumblr) and the thing Leviathan-Supersystem calls "fictionbrain." Speculative fiction writers tend to also be appreciators of other people's speculative fiction, and that means often one of the main inputs to their imagination is other people's fiction. As a result, if you remove other constraints, the result tends to be strong convergence on a model mostly made of genre conventions and tropes and stuff people have seen other people do before. Your fantasy has Orcs because fantasy usually has Orcs. Your sci fi has space fighters and something kinda-sorta like WWII mixed battleship/aircraft carrier naval warfare but IN SPACE cause Star Wars and Wing Commander and Battlestar Galactica and so on did that. Your spacecraft have their decks parallel to their long axis which is parallel to their direction of movement like a boat cause that's how it works in Star Trek and Star Wars and a bunch of other sci fi. Your dinosaurs look kinda like dragons cause that's how they look in old movies from the middle twentieth century and those dinosaur toys you played with as a kid and the Jurassic Park movies. It's hard to not do that cause of course your imagination is fundamentally downstream from your direct sensory experiences and the ideas you've been exposed to.
Caring about scientific realism and sociological realism gets you paying attention to a new, different sets of ideas. It gets you learning about how motion in free fall and vacuum works instead of just rolling with assumption that spacecraft will move like boats or airplanes. It gets you learning about how acceleration gravity and centrifugal gravity works instead of just rolling with the idea that spaceships have arbitrary "artificial gravity." It gets you thinking about how multiple sapient species living in close proximity to each other might have shaped each other's evolution instead of just going "Well, there's Orcs, and there's Elves, and there's Dwarves..." And so on.