Le lit - Toulouse-Lautrec
wallacepolsom

No title available

Discoholic 🪩
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
cherry valley forever
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Jules of Nature
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

oozey mess

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
RMH

No title available

Kaledo Art
No title available
Peter Solarz
Claire Keane

@theartofmadeline
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
NASA

PR's Tumblrdome
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Ecuador

seen from Pakistan

seen from Germany

seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia

seen from TĂĽrkiye
seen from United States

seen from China
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from Denmark

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Vietnam

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
@queerstorian
Le lit - Toulouse-Lautrec
Quick while the astronauts are no-transmission behind the moon let’s arrange the continents into a funny shape
Summer Evening, Wheatfield with Setting sun (1888) by Vincent van Gogh
Henriëtte Ronner-Knip (Dutch–Belgian, 1821–1909), "Study of Eleven Cats" (details), 1904
Christian Fredrik Swensson (Svensson)
(Sweden, 1834-1909)
French line ship for steam engine
Bonhams
John Singer Sargent - A Jersey Calf (1893)
Had to ban the phrase “tricky dick” from my classroom during watergate lesson because saying the word dick in front of 30 fifteen year olds is like lighting a bomb and throwing it through the doorway but now they’re just calling him Richard the Treacherous like they’re all medieval peasants. gonna lose it
Young Cathy and Heathcliff find a half staved unconscious Jane Eyre on the moors and poked her with a stick to see if she's dead. She isn't roused by their proding and they don't care enough to try and help her so it isn't mentioned in either book.
Incoming Tide, 1934. Hayley Lever. Oil on canvas
Yves Saint Laurent evening coat, fall/winter 1977
From Kerry Taylor Auctions
Mourning rings (17th-18th centuries)
Okay as much as I dunk on academia one thing I really need you all to take from me right now is this: you can read The Problematic Theory Book. you should, fundamentally, always, read the fucking source. You do not have to approach the source context-less, but you should be prepared to read it and make a genuine attempt to comprehend what the argument is without resorting to performatively dunking on it (yes, I get a bit silly with it when I liveblog, but I do actually do my best to understand what's being said. I don't like it when queer theory is bad? I thought it was supposed to help people). If you can't make a genuine effort to comprehend the text, then if the text truly has bad takes, you won't be able to adequately argue against why Thing Bad besides "well thing bad!!" you need to be able to construct a fucking argument. You need to be able to create a framework your worldview is built on. You need clarity of mind. Another thing ALSO alongside this is sometimes you will read The Problematic Theory Book and you will see things that you agree with. You will see analysis in there that has potential. This is actually super normal and something people do in academia is that they identify these nuggets of Actually Good / Potential Filled Takes and they try to expand upon them. Salvaging the potential of Problematic Theory Book does not mean that you implicitly agree with Problematic Theory Book in its original entirety. It means you saw someone going somewhere, saw them swerve into a fucking tree, and went to yourself, "okay, well, they were on the highway before this, so let me try and see if I can steer the car in the right direction. Let me see if I can try and use the work they laid the foundations for and build something actually revolutionary upon it, or otherwise use it for my own, better, more intentionally progressive and inclusive theory." Like, that's actually one thing that academia does that is good. you have to be in conversation with past work and you have to be able to see when an author was saying some shit that had potential, and identify where they fucked up and where they might've had something, and then build on it. you can't reinvent Ur-Theory from base principles in a vacuum and expect it to be good. you can't create theory that is Morally Pure Only Based On Works You've Deemed Morally Pure because that too is a vacuum, and at that point you're treating theory and like, science, as a fucking religion. It's not a religion. You are not going to go to hell if Judith Butler or Andrea Dworkin or bell hooks or Kimberlé Crenshaw, like, breathe on you the wrong way. You can read people who you fully disagree with, understand that at some points they may have been cooking, understand that at other points they were Absolutely Not Fucking Cooking, and try to see what you can take from their work and how you can create something that is NOT a recreation of the original fucking thing but, like, your own new thing that attempts to address real world issues. stop being afraid of The Big Evil Bad Book or suggesting that people shouldn't fucking read books. read the fucking book. engage. be an academic about it, goddamnit.
also conversely stop treating some books like the bible,
This is very correct and actually generalizes outside political theories. The further back you go in any field, the more you're going to deal with the fact that the people who originally had a really clever, useful idea also had a bunch of ideas that were ass.
For instance, Isaac Newton basically laid the foundations of physics and also thought he was chosen by God to interpret prophecies from the Bible, and dedicated significant effort to this.
For some reason, learning about force and acceleration doesn't make people learning physics today scrounge the Book of Revelation for prophecies!
no matter how little you think you know about history you shouldn’t beat yourself up over it because there is always someone who knows less than you and is more confident about it. someone once said that bridgerton was medieval to me
another person also thought that the middle ages were the period in between wwi and wwii so you should always be proud of yourself for having any sort of knowledge about the medieval period. i’m proud of you for not thinking fdr was an important medieval figure.
which outfit would you rather wear? (John Singleton Copley)
left – Thaddeus Burr (ca. 1758-1760) 🤎💙
right – Benjamin Pickman (ca. 1758-1761) 🩶❤️
Benjamins snatched waist is takin it for me and that sliver of color he still has a reveal up his sleeve while Thaddeus has shown all his cards. Blue satin is not enough to gag me
medieval lit is really fun. there will be a footnote that is like “nobody knows what the author meant there and scholars have been debating it for centuries” 
translator’s note: we have no clue bro
translator’s note: we’re sure this was hilarious in 12th century Somerset
translator’s note: again, we’re sure the scribe was the funniest guy in Plantagenet England and was getting all the tavern wenches but we can’t for the life of us figure out what he was talking about
it was nice seeing you at the devil's sacrament