titsay
Kiana Khansmith
d e v o n
todays bird
almost home
Peter Solarz
i don't do bad sauce passes
★
pixel skylines
noise dept.
hello vonnie
Xuebing Du
Three Goblin Art
NASA
Monterey Bay Aquarium
izzy's playlists!
Origami Around
sheepfilms
No title available
dirt enthusiast
seen from Paraguay
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from India
seen from Estonia
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
@rose-embolism
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
Oxiclean wants her to never change from what they made her to be, but a white canvas is meant to be painted.
Black Menswear modelled by Black Men
Creative Director Rock Mitchell
Tragedy alignment chart. Feel free to use, but please reblog if you do.
And of course the second part of the tragedy, which is: which quadrant did you think you were in vs. which one you were really in
THE ENTIRE WEST IS AT RISK OF BEING PUT UP FOR SALE AND I AM BEGGING YOU TO CALL YOUR SENATORS
Trump’s budget bill has many, many things in it, but buried amongst it is the MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND FOR SALE.
This is the entirety of the Arizona state forests, the entire Cascades mountain range. Swathes of pristine desert around the national parks in Utah. On the doorstep of Jackson Hole.
THIS BILL IS BIG, BUT IT CAN BE AMENDED AND ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT PASS AS IS please.
If you have ever enjoyed the wilderness, we stand to lose it all forever.
CALLING your senators - NOT JUST IN THE WEST. ALL SENATORS, is CRUCIAL.
Outdoor alliance has a great resource for reaching out.
The Senate’s spending package could offer up nearly 300 million acres of public lands for sale—a vast area that includes nearly 100,000 mile
I don’t have a huge following but please, everywhere I have ever loved, the forests I grew up playing in, the land I got married on, is all at risk and I am begging.
EDIT: I HAVE ADDED A LOT MORE INFORMATION IN A REBLOG THIS MORNING, WOULD APPRECIATE YOU CHECKING OUT THIS VERSION!!!
Feels like a good time to bring these back around.
That’s going to be expensive!
Me: oh damn that's a lot of roof, you're right that'll be really expensive
Me at the end of the video: *jaw drops* OHHHHHH NOOOOO NOW I GET IT
U know what's a good vibe. Batman struggling w teaming up with other superheroes, not bcos he's used to working alone, but bcos he's so used to teaming up w children
His sense of humour has been completely shot for years, all he knows are dad jokes. He has to restrain himself from saying 'hi tired I'm Batman'. He has lollipops & dinosaur band aids in his utility belt. One time he got in an argument w Green Lantern and blurted out 'i think you need to take a nap'
He once tried to make Clark stand in a corner after he was reckless on a mission, and when Clark pointed out that he was an adult, Bruce stormed off muttering about kids these days and why Clark couldn't be more like Nightwing
The seven stages of batman
You are a civilian. Batman is a myth, and a meme
You are a brand new amature rookie superhero. Batman is totally a myth, guys, right? This is just hazing the new guy. lol. I’m too smart for this.
You are a rank and file part time superhero. You know better than to go to Gotham, but you won’t say out loud why.
You are an established superhero. Batman is a founding member of the justice league and probably a vampire.
You are a league reservist. Batman is a ninja Sherlock Holmes CIA Hacktivist and also the thing that lives in your nightmares.
You are a front line justice league member. Batman is a single dad who gives dad advice and makes dad jokes and keeps trying to dad at you.
#secret stage 8: you are a superhero younger than batman #batman is your dad (@skyriderwednesday)
it would explain so much about Gotham economics if it turned out the only employers who pay a livable minimum wage are 1) Wayne Enterprises duh, but mainly 2) all of Gotham's assorted villains.
sure henching comes with shitty working conditions, but the benefits package is crazy competitive. they have dental
Gotham's villains are so engrained because supervillainy is the only thing propping up the local economy. henching requires no work experience, provides on-the-job training, and has a diversity hiring program (you're willing to commit crimes in tacky matching uniforms? great you're in, here's your gun and clownsuit)
Batman is constantly throwing money trying to compete but the fact remains that henchpeople are Gotham's largest workforce and will be until minimum wage laws catch up to reality
I like the Colin Firth version of Darcy best because he really captures the ten thousand yard stare of helpless frustration that comes with knowing he fucked up another social situation.
That's the look of someone who's internal gears are furiously whirring to review what Rule Of Normal Social Contact he missed this time. Guy who is never, ever going to stop being so fucking awkward. Determinedly frustrated because he's following the rules, and it still blows up in his face. From a social engagement perspective, he falls for the fake road painted on the mountain's side every time and every social situation has the chance of slamming face first into a rock wall. Talking to people is like defusing a bomb. His friends all think he's cool as shit because of his word economy while he's full time trying to find the verbal cheat code to end every social interaction as quickly as possible.
"Here's my incredible, cool and sauve and smart friend Darcy!"
Internally: "Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck fuck. FUCK."
it's funny although a little exasperating how artists designing "princess" or medieval-esque gowns really do not understand how those types of clothes are constructed. We're all so used to modern day garments that are like... all sewn together in one layer of cloth, nobody seems to realize all of the bits and pieces were actually attached in layers.
So like look at this mid-1400's fit:
to get the effect of that orange gown, you've got
chemise next to the skin like a slip (not visible here) (sometimes you let a bit of this show at the neckline) (the point is not to sweat into your nice clothes and ruin them)
kirtle, or undergown. (your basic dress, acceptable to be seen by other people) this is the puffing bits visible at the elbow, cleavage, and slashed sleeve. It's a whole ass dress in there. Square neckline usually. In the left picture it's probably the mustard yellow layer on the standing figure.
coat, or gown. This is the orange diamond pattern part. It's also the bit of darker color visible in the V of the neckline.
surcoat, or sleeveless overgown. THIS is the yellow tapestry print. In the left picture it's the long printed blue dress on the standing figure
if you want to get really fancy you can add basically a kerchief or netting over the bare neck/shoulders. It can be tucked into the neckline or it can sit on top. That's called a partlet.
the best I can tell you is that they were technically in a mini-ice-age during this era. Still looks hot as balls though.
Coats and surcoats are really more for rich people though, normal folks will be wearing this look:
so you know that ballgown look that people default to when making "princess" designs
this is kind of the fashion equivalent of when an AI has been trained to approximate what art looks like without understanding what it's drawing or how physics work. A costume designer has general recollections of about how the dresses looked from art, and a lot of the art they're learning from is also romanticized revival recreations of earlier art, so things are getting pretty confused structurally.
(I have to blame Disney for a lot of the specific trends but to be clear this was already happening before Disney was born.)
You can probably recognize how the gestalt of the bodice evokes what would actually be two layers--a gown laced over an under-gown, maybe with a stomacher in the same color as the gown.
The skirt is the very distant legacy of a trend that starts around here, in the early 1500's:
deliberately slitting the skirt of your gown so that it shows a triangle of the under-gown peaking through.
You know what a farthingale is? it's this thing.
Reeds sewn into the skirt to give it that round bell shape without needing 100000 layers underneath. Unsurprisingly invented in Spain, where it's hot as fuck. This is also the era where the farthingale starts its evolution into the eventual hoop skirt. You see that wide "ballroom" shape in a lot of princess designs. Princess Peach is a classic example.
Farthingale becomes hoop skirt, and using basically the same technology (reeds sewn into the fabric for support) the under-gown/kirtle becomes stiffened and shaped.
Eventually you get to this very pronounced version of the "slashed skirt" shown in the left figure, below. You can see that the red skirt is probably part of a whole dress, because the red sleeves in the same fabric are visible under the outer gown. (you can also see the chemise at the edge of the neckline). They did have detachable sleeves back then, as a standard part of a gown, so the red sleeves could be pinned to the chemise instead of attached to the body of the gown.
>Right figure, you can see this shit is getting elaborate now. I think that's a white under-gown with a yellow gown and a burgundy overgown. The collar around her neck is actually a partlet, not connected to anything else, just tucked in and maybe pinned underneath the neckline. But they're starting to have separate skirts now, so it's also possible she's only wearing a yellow skirt with the overgown on top it.
At this point whalebone is coming into the picture in a BIG way, and that's when you start to get Tudor style boned gown/kirtles tight around the bust really taking off. Also boned sleeves, if you can believe that. The smooth flat conical bodice is the product of a boned kirtle, which will eventually become stays, which will eventually become a corset.
anyway by now we're fully out of the medieval period and into the early modern/renaissance.
look at this bad ass bitch, hat ON titties OUT, who is doing it like her
I went to the ren fair recently, which got me interested in the specific historical inspirations of common “Renaissance Festival” clothes and consequently bugged my sister about her research so hard that it made us miss our turn
One common outfit you see (thanks to Amazon) is this modern take on the kirtle
On the left: Amazon. On the right: a recreation of what people actually wore. You can see how we have the same basic concept with a very different execution. This is what you would call a kirtle.
Another common ren fair look is the outer-wear stays. Always with the un-collared billowy undershirt.
I want to draw attention to the lacing. Stands to reason that costumers now would use contemporary lacing rather than that of previous eras. But check out even the romantic depictions of clothing from the 1870’s below this. No grommets. That’s just pure fabric baby.
Very few renaissance era women ever wore anything exactly like the ren fair corsets. For one thing, cross lacing wasn’t common, and metal grommets were not accessible to normal clothing makers. For another, structured stays (or “bodies”) were underwear, not outerwear. (Apparently something more popular with English peasants than French peasants, who didn’t use them.)
Left: stays (underwear). Right: jumps (outerwear)
Stays are boned. Jumps are not. Stays/bodies were pretty expensive due to the craftsmanship, and a poor person would have budget for a single pair. You can imagine this investment was not as popular with women who did hard physical labor. Jumps got really popular in the mid-1700’s and largely replaced stays in working class fashion.
A brief history lesson: clothes are ephemeral; we lose them as they are worn out, cut down, repurposed, and thrown away. Before modern anthropology and modern record keeping, it was difficult for anyone to know what anyone else looked like in the past or even a country away. Words used to refer to one kind of garment kept being used even as that garment changed in structure and purpose over time. Even after paper became common enough for printing art, it wore out fast and art was lost. References were hard to get.
What we think of as “peasant garb” is actually the product of a game of telephone that travels back from Romantic Revival art, and many of those (urban) artists got their idea of what rural peasants wore from opera costumes. The costumers working at the opera were not going out to the country side to take notes on what farmers actually wore, nor did they want to. Opera is show biz, you want it to be evocative, but not ordinary. Their costumes would have been based on what urban folks were wearing, with extra little touches like a shepherds crook to make it look “rural”.
Below: some mid-to-late 1800’s artistic depictions of peasants wearing improbably nice fabrics/clothes (probably a reflection of opera costumes). The painting of the peasant girl on the right is wearing more-or-less jumps.
You can see how the romantic art depictions of unstructured vests eventually inspired the “medieval revival” styles of the 1960’s/1970’s which lives on in the ren fair. Not only the neckline of the vest, but the style of undershirt with an open neck and billowy sleeves.
Compare (unstructured, laced, outerwear):
Nobody wore that in the 1400’s or 1500’s, but they wore things that looked similar at a glance. When 1960’s artists went back looking for early modern/medieval styles to replicate, they mostly had a hodge podge of this art to reference and extrapolate from.
The fact that a historical laced kirtle with an over skirt looks a lot like stays worn on the outside, probably made this confusing for artists. Undershirts of the 1500’s were collared and high necked, however, with tighter sleeves.(Below, 1500’s kirtle)
One last example of 1800’s romanticism, this time depicting a contemporary girl. Looks familiar, right? We’re back at the ren fair, if you take the bonnet off.
It does look similar to what was being worn in the 1800’s. Here’s a cartoon showing a working class woman in the 1870’s.
TLDR; what we think of as “Renaissance” or even “medieval” peasant garb is actually a remix of the working class clothes from the 1800’s, with some confused memories of the kirtle from older art thrown in.
Structured stays? 1500’s. The blousy no-collar undershirt? 1700’s. The cross lacing? 1800’s.
Anyway. This image of peasants has always been costume & fantasy. That’s why I think it’s kind of fun that it reaches a terminus in the anachronism and fantasy of a Renaissance Festival.
cannot believe we are having a whole discussion about "princess dresses" without talking about THEE iconic feature of the Princess Look, the conical hennin (Wikipedia)
I realize this is about the medieval era and not the early modern period but also, since we're talking about things that historically have layers that have been flattened into one piece for costuming purposes: THE FRENCH HOOD
most modern depictions in movies and film (even otherwise very accurate ones) make it a sort of headband/kokoshnik-looking thing with a veil at the back, like this:
while we're not 100% sure still how exactly a French hood worked, we can infer from documents and some paintings/sculptures from the time that it was probably more like a couple of hoods (as in cloth bags that go over the head, not just a veil) stacked on top of each other to create a layered effect:
an innermost one (the coif) made of linen to protect the more fancy layers from hair oils and dirt and to contain the hair, with perhaps a decorative ruffle,
a second one (the cap) that might be a different color, like red,
a third, longer hood with a contrasting lining that could be folded back (to both help keep it on the head and also to create a different look) and possibly a decorative trim,
and possibly something like a jeweled ribbon or decorative chain that could go on separately for extra glam
being a humanities major who’s friends with stem majors is so funny because you’ll ask your friends what they’re doing today and they’re like “UGH it’s so stressful i have to stabilize the reactor core for my nuclear power midterm and then i have to build the supercomputer from i have no mouth yet i must scream for my electrical engineering homework :/ what about you” and you’re like “oh well i have to read a fun little book and write an essay about gender.” and they still think you have it worse
Being a stem major who's friends with humanities majors is ALSO funny bc you ask what's goin on with them and they're like "oh yeah my day's pretty good! I only have to read 50 pages for this one class today and half a book for another one. It's much better than last week where I read three books and wrote a 10 page paper about their overlapping motifs for one class while also researching a niche period of time that our library doesn't have any resources on. How's it been for you?" and you're like "oh I have a lil packet of fun math puzzles due tomorrow." and they look at you like you're carrying the weight of the universe on your back
Anyone can help!
(Real pen the last picture)
It is important for EVERYONE to know how to help ANYONE. Not everyone can give them selves their medicine under every circumstance. Be educated, help out.
In the last year, i have gotten about five new violent allergies from foods i used to be able to eat. Next time i eat a fruit, my throat could close. I may not be able to inject myself. My boyfriend and i played with my trainer pen for like 30 minutes. He knows how to inject it. I know how. This is important.
As someone with food allergies I feel like everyone should know this. Especially for those who are physically or mentally unable to stab themself with a needle for whatever reason (such as myself who has an extreme phobia of needles), others around them need to know how to administer one in case of an emergency.
Another tip! If their thigh isn’t exposed don’t panic! The needle will go through fabric as long as you don’t try to push through a seam. Seams are too thick for the needle!!!
I’m pinning this post
I’m mortified that this post made me realize I had no clue how epipens work.
Spreading this.
Highlighting the bit about holding it in place for at least three seconds (I usually practice five seconds, just to be safe), AND THE PART ABOUT CALLING AN AMBULANCE.
The epipen does not CURE the allergic reaction, it just hits pause. It gives the patient an extra window of time for the ambulance to get there. It’s not an indefinite pause - it’s just a temporary one. 15 minutes, if I recall correctly. So GET AN AMBULANCE THERE ASAP.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is extremely important to know and it only takes 30 seconds to learn but those 30 seconds reading saves lives
nobody’s dying on my watch
Note the time you gave the epipen. In sharpie on the actual item if possible. Give to paramedics.
You can give a second dose 5-15 minutes after the first one if symptoms don’t improve (and the person carries a second epipen) and paramedics aren’t there yet.
It's amazing how McSweeney's got Tumblr culture down.
"Did you consider the people who don't like chili? The people who are vegetarians? The people without tastebuds? The people who don't know h
Can’t believe Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice in the 2000s
And in 2015 Emily Brontë released literary clsssic Wuthering Heights
Thank God someone paved the way for them…
if you think jk was the first woman author, you don’t actually care about women authors.
Mary Shelley didnt fuck on her parents graves for this level of disrespect
Murasaki Shikibu didn’t invent the novel for this.
Christine de Pizan did not sit down at her desk and write The Book of the City of Ladies, advocating for women’s education and finding value in women of all social classes and backgrounds, in 1405 for this.
🎶SHAHARIZADE HAD A THOUSAND TALES🎶
This……….isn’t even true in 20th century fantasy or childrens books? Pierce, Lackey, Applegate, McCaffrey, Bradley, Butler, whomst?
Casual reminder that
a woman was the first known author/poet in 2300BC - Enheduanna
the first novel in recorded history was written by a woman in 1010AD - Murasaki Shikibu
the earliest example of science fiction was written by a woman in 1666 - Margaret Cavendish
horror science fiction was popularised by a teenage girl in 1818 - Mary Shelley
a Scotswoman expanded childrens’ stories from moralising tales into anarchic adventures in the mid 1800s, well before it became popular in the early 20th century - Catherine Sinclair
the masked/costumed hero archetype that inspired Batman and Zorro was created by a woman in 1905 - Baroness Emma Orczy
And while she is problematic as all get out, we all know who is to blame for popularising Boarding School fiction (which is a huge inspiration of She Who Must Not Be Named) from the 1930s onwards - Enid Blyton
And do I even need to mention what a badass pioneer Ursula Le Guin was for women author in the fantasy/sci-fi genre?
Not to mention Agatha Christie is literally second only to Shakespeare in terms of works sold – 4 billion compared to JKR’s paltry 500 million
Mary Shelly did what
Mary.Shelly.Lost.Her.Virginity.On.Her.Parent’s.Grave.
Mary Shelley lost her virginity on her mother’s grave. Her father was still very much alive.
She did what now?
We have female authors who published before Rowling here on Tumblr. @dduane, for example! I read her Star Trek novels from the 80s and 90s as a kid/teen.
Octavia E. Butler wrote probably the most accurate dystopian novel in the form of Parable of the Sower.
The thing to remember, is this crap happens about every ten years or so. It takes about a decade for the contemporary women writers, especially the ones in SF&F, to be conveniently forgotten, and then as women keep writing, abruptly it's "Women are writing fantasy now!"
It's really a way to deny that women have had a place in the SF&F writing community for generations. A way to deny their importance. And it needs to be fought against, again and again.
TIP:
This holiday season, if you know someone who likes house plants,
DON'T
get them a houseplant. DO NOT.
instead, get them a NICE, MEDIUM-LARGE, AESTHETIC, BOTTOM-DRAINING, INDOOR
POT.
that is what they want. that is what they dream of. ok? thats what will be most useful and appreciated. in fact, if you can, get them a CUTE MATCHING SET. OF POTS!!!! NOT PLANTS, POTS!!!!!!!!
they may be more excited initially about the plant. that is true. but a pot is a gift that they will go home and use to upsize one of their already beloved houseplants, and every time they look at it they will remember how much they appreciate you.
HOUSEPLANT:
- they already have so many
- needs to be watered
- takes up window space
- comes in a pot thats already too small, needs to be upsized, costing money
- can die
AESTHETIC POT
- lets them care for an existing plant they own
- they will be grateful every time they see it in their home
- does not take up window space not already occupied by a plant
- can be wrapped without dying or spilling dirt everywhere
I HAVE NEVER HIT REBLOG SO FAST
Pro Tip: look at the sizes they currently have, and get ones just slightly larger. Repotting time WOO!
where's that masterpost of quotes that have no right going as hard as they do. I'd like to submit "Protagonism is best left to teens and the insane"
