Artemis, She/her |archaeologist turned museum person| I'm allowed to touch the old stuff, and I only ever dug up dinosaurs that one time and never again. Beware, history and fandoms ahead. Feel free to drop me an ask!
i love you archival work. i love you alphabetizing. i love you sorting. i love you reshelving. i love you document restoration. i love you shelf reading. i love you inventorying. i love you analysis. i love you archival work.
also this is part of a disturbing but sadly not uncommon attitude that progress = women (specifically women most of the time) showing more skin. because not showing skin is "following irrational religious modesty mandates" like the man on twitter says
somehow being progressive and secular automatically means putting women's bodies on display (although of course these people would shame women showing that much skin because they chose to). gee, I wonder why...
(to be clear, religious concealing clothing should also be respected as long as it's voluntary!)
Ive been vegan in terms of diet at multiple points in my life, and am a lifelong vegetarian. Also im lactose intolerant so my diet is mostly vegan, although I do not avoid non-vegan lactose free foods (such as eggs, and some cheeses) because my diet is very limited by allergies, intolerances, sensitivities, and cost.
But im guessing, since this is a fiber arts blog, that you are actually asking me if I will stop using wool. Easy answer: absolutely not, and I never will.
Not sure if youre aware, but sheep need to be sheared. There are some exceptions; some primitive breeds are able to molt, either with or without help from humans. But either way, the wool needs to be gone by summer. A sheep keeping its wool over the summer, especially for multiple years, can lead to a variety of issues like heatstroke, flystrike, infections, mobility issues, etc.
Even in situations where the shepherd isnt raising the sheep for wool and doesnt want to try selling it, they still pay to get the sheep sheared or do it themselves, because the health of the sheep require it.
It also does not hurt the sheep at all, and is comparable to a vaccine jab both in terms of botheration and health benefits.
So, we've established that the sheep cannot remain in their wool.
In terms of me using it, yeah obviously I am going to--its being produced and shorn anyway, and, unlike all synthetic alternatives, not an environmental disaster. The production of synthetic textiles like nylon and polyester are toxic--the environmental damage varies based both on the synthetic textile and also sometimes on the production method. The dyes used for these textiles are also toxic as fuck.
The dyes used for wool and plant fibers are also toxic, again to varying degrees, and a significant source of pollution. One of the very few ways to make non toxic, or considerably less toxic dyes is to use plant or animal dye material and do it yourself. So, for example, dyeing yourself some wool with onion skins and spinning it up and making a pair of mittens is, and i mean this literally, the best possible way for a new pair of mittens to enter the world. It is miles better than buying a pair of polyester mittens made of petroleum, dyed with disperse dyes (which are not readily biodegradable, are harmful to whatever environment they end up in, and also can be harmful to humans while being used), and sewn together in a sweat shop with what is often essentially slavery. And as soon as you start wearing and washing them they shed microplastics everywhere, and will continue to disperse them either into the groundwater or the ocean, depending on what kind of midden they end up in, until they eventually decompose after a very long life of fucking up literally everything they touch.
Im not sure how any of that is supposed to be better than my wool mittens. In fact I would say it is much much worse. And I will continue to use wool until the day I die.
Azo, heavy metal, and disperse dyes stand out as most harmful due to toxicity, persistence, and water pollution contribution. → Question
(If any of these sources dont work, no worries, you can find a ton of information and research about pretty much all of this stuff freely and widely available online.)
Artist: Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden (Netherlandish, 1399/1400-1464)
Date: ca. 1450
Medium: Oil on panel
Collection: Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA, United States
Description
Seated with her hands crossed in her lap, Isabella of Portugal (1397 – 1471), the duchess of Burgundy, conveys the poise and confidence of her noble position. Her sumptuous attire, heavily woven with gold thread, and her jeweled fingers and headdress reflect her aristocratic status.
Born a Portuguese infanta of the House of Aviz, Isabella was the only surviving daughter of King John I of Portugal and his wife Philippa of Lancaster. She served as the regent of the Burgundian Low Countries during the absence of her spouse in 1432 and in 1441–1443. Isabella served as her husband's representative in negotiations with England regarding trade relations in 1439 and those with the rebellious cities of Holland in 1444.
Isabella bore three sons, though only the youngest, Charles (born 10 November 1433), survived infancy to succeed his father as Duke Charles the Bold in 1467; she managed the upbringing and early finances of her son amid the losses of his elder brothers.
A notable patron of the arts and religious institutions, she founded convents and hospitals, including those for the Gray Sisters, and retired to the devotional estate of La Motte-au-Bois in 1457 before returning to courtly duties until Philip's death in 1467
As someone who dabbles in philosophy of language, the part that kills me about the emojis are heiroglyphs discussion is that heiroglyphs are language and emojis aren't. Because heiroglyphs were/are used for language and emojis aren't. People seem to be coming in with the assumption that heiroglyphs have meaning because they're images that depict things. And, not to impute things to people, but it pairs really well with the assumption that heiroglyphs are somehow "inferior" or unsophisticated compared to the alphabetic orthographic system we have now.
But that's not how any of this works. Heiroglyphs have meaning because people used them for language, the fact that they sometimes are images is accidental. Imagine, for instance, a picture of bread with vertically-facing wavy lines above it. That could mean anything. It could mean "hot bread" or "rotten bread" or maybe it has nothing to do with bread. Maybe I've established with friends that when I text that picture of bread to them, I'm saying that eating fresh bread. Maybe I've established with other friends that when I text that picture of bread to them, I'm saying that I have a stomach bug. Then the meaning of that picture of bread is "I have a stomach bug". Signs have no meaning apart from their use. A picture of bread doesn't mean anything unless it's being used to mean something.
Heiroglyphs have meaning in the same exact way that modern alphabetic orthographic written scripts do - people used them to mean things in the same way we use written words to mean things now. Emojis aren't used by people to communicate certain propositions, ergo they're not language, ergo they're not heiroglyphs. There's no organized system of meaning people follow to impute meaning to strings of emojis. Because people aren't using them that way. As soon as people start using emojis as language, then they'll be heiroglyphs. As soon as people start using strings of solely emojis to communicate propositions, then they'll be heiroglyphs. But not until then. No string of emojis, no matter how long, will have meaning - until people are using them to communicate.
"👁️⌛🌡️🛀🏼🌛" could mean fucking anything, much in the same way the string of words "I ate lunch last week" could mean fucking anything. The reason the latter has meaning is because it's embedded within a system of human activity wherein it communicates the proposition [I ate lunch last week], but given a different system of human activity it could just as well communicate the proposition [the weather's nice today]. Until emojis are incorporated into a system of human activity to communicate propositions, no string of emojis will mean anything ever.
Let's make it very simple! (and I do mean simple, we're not going for 'well technically' here)
Hieroglyphs are a script and that script is used to write three different stages of the Egyptian language: Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian.
Hieroglyphs are referred to as 'logoconsonantal' which are 'logograms with consonant sounds attached to them' or 'pictures that reference spoken sounds'.
This is very similar to how we understand the Latin alphabet in so much as the letters have sounds attached to them and putting those letters with sounds together forms words.
The Egyptians formed words in their language using the Hieroglyphic script by putting together signs with the sounds needed to form the word. The word 'cat' in Egyptian is 'mjw' (pronounced onomatopoeically as mew) and is formed of 4 signs: 𓅓𓇋𓅱𓃠
The owl sign sounds as 'm', the reed leaf sounds as 'j', the quail chick sounds as 'w', and the cat is there as a determinative or 'marker' to make sure you're not reading it as any other word that is spelled 'mjw' (like 'metal instrument' (has an instrument determinative) or 'grief' (has a wailing woman determinative)).
Just as A, B, and C have set sounds, Hieroglyphs have set sounds, and that's how they spell words. It's really that simple. It's exactly how we do it, just with pictures representing sounds rather than letters.
No. They wouldn’t be. This is because emoji have no set meaning. Sure, they depict certain things but their meaning can change depending on the person using them and the culture they come from. For instance, you have used several emoji here for which I either do not understand the connection to the word or could interpret entirely different, which defeats the purpose of a determinative.
A determinative functions as a categorisation tool. It is there to tell the reader, most of whom couldn’t read, what type of word they were dealing with. Every word in Egypt bar things like particles, articles, and prepositions etc have determinatives. They do not just mark homonyms. Birds get marked with birds determinatives (sometimes the actual bird if there’s a hieroglyph for it) but a bat🦇 also falls into the bird category for determinatives because it is a flying creature. Crocodile 🐊 uses a determinative of a crocodile but so does the word aggressive 🐊 and so does the word king 🐊 because aggressive is borrowing from the crocodile’s nature and a crocodile is one of the symbols of kingship in Ancient Egypt.
IP symbols are closer but that still feels like trying to cram a concept in where it shouldn’t be. Determinatives show the category and meaning of a word and while IP symbols show that the word has been claimed by a corporation, it is usually obvious from surrounding context what word is being used.
Emojis don’t just belong to one language like the determinative does in Old/Middle/Late Egyptian. They serve almost every language on this planet and have cross cultural differences. Saying “okay👌” in the anglosphere is fine but using that in Brazil or some parts of the Middle East will get you in trouble because 👌 is considered extremely rude.
Determinatives are more like seeing “toilet 🚻 🚾” in so much as they are present to categorise the word for those who can read the word ‘toilet’ (signs are just extra info confirming it) or those who cannot understand/read ‘toilet’ and therefore 🚻 🚾 are telling them what the word cannot.
Georg Kleemann - Jugendstil bat pendant necklace. Made of Silver, gold, opal, enamel, moonstone, pearl, amethyst, lapis, turquoise, ruby & diamond. Circa 1900.
Keeping the Dirt Clean @saintartemis - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
amandla
titsay
vaporwave
