Third Horizon @secondhorizon - Tumblr Blog

Posts

@ruwint6218-blog @iliya-atanesyanb22-blog @kristina-pikulina375-blog @radblizzardunknown-blog @liftedmarigold @relaxjackieshere-blog @blissfullycynical-blog @thafuckkisthis @annie-t-14 @obsessedwith-dean-castiel-sam @deadblog707 @sterlingscreamsmurders @princeofheartss @rockhoax @unnamedspecies @peteneems @nihilisticmeme @coolnut-blog @kleroterion @pastthetreesandstars @egberg @penileprojectiie @samiswaitingforadream @enwind @sagaciouscejai

ninenine-brooklyn

spencerthespacer-deactivated202

fox-in-the-wheat-deactivated202

THIS IS THE HARDEST I HAVE LAUGHED IN SO LONG YOU HAVE CURED MY DEPRESSION

ywg

This is one of the greatest posts I’ve ever witnessed. The payoff was amazing.

weloveshortvideos

melvinandlugnut

This will be funnier when I make it into a video later. Had to split it up because of the length.

chongoblog

squidfox-deactivated20201012

The loss of innocence

glumshoe

Children’s art in media: fully-colored, stylized but recognizabke figures with backgrounds and aesthetically textured and messy crayon coloring that

Children’s art in real life: an anguished disembodied head floating on one side, a massive sea of amorphous red scribbles taking up half the paper, ‘SAM’ written in enormous shaky letters overlapping everything, partial figure of a dinosaur abandoned before drawing the legs

glumshoe

in a movie this would be a fully-colored crayon drawing of a ranger standing in front of an arch that said “Jurassic Park” but instead it is two dinosaur skulls floating in the abyss while a ranger’s head is swallowed by his own enormous speech bubble and I adore it

jess-sheridan

Part of my job is literally making those dumb kids drawings in film/tv AND LET ME TELL YOU, the reason why they’re never like actual kid art is because 1. None of us art goblins remember what weird shit kids think of when they draw so we rely on bad reference images and the random stuff we remember drawing 2. We have so much muscle memory that it’s legit difficult to make ‘bad’ art 3. It’s a legal nightmare to use actual kid art most of the time so one of the dept art goblins makes it 4. The colour is because it adds contrast and draws the eye; usually we’re working with nice art supplies with a full spectrum of colours and trying to tone it down to look as bad as possible but failing miserably because it’s just not in us to do it.

glumshoe

This is the funniest fucking professional problem I can imagine.

I’d love to see the results of like… trying to commission children to make art for film and TV. “Draw a happy family!” “Okay!” [chird churns out three weirdly proportioned humans and a yellow amorphous blob with a speech bubble shouting something unintelligible] “Oh uh… it’s very. Nice. Can you tell me who the yellow person is?” “That’s Spongebob. The family is happy because he came to their party.”

catchymemes

Just some Disney Pokémon trainers

artist: https://www.deviantart.com/pavlover/gallery/64251477/Disney-Pokemon-trainer

kanadeamo

@malkasa

steampunktendencies

A remarkable Jacobean re-emergence after 200 years of yellowing varnish Courtesy Philip Mould

beyoursledgehammer

PAINT RESTORATION OF MESMERIZING

eliciaforever-deactivated201906

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.

ooh-sluggie

Will someone PLEASE clean the mona lisa

dracofidus-deactivated20200523

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.

elliotputyourbootsbackon

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)

tabby-dragon

I found this really interesting, thanks for sharing.

eroscestlavie

i can’t believe that photo of hemsworth hiddleston and taika waititi all taking a nap together that’s so cursed and blessed at the same time

eroscestlavie

i’m the fact that the person taking the photo had to use a panoramic shot to get all of tom in the photo

cordaloo

the FACT that mark ruffalo is the one who took this and then posted it on facebooks like the nerdy dad he is

alsedes

I just noticed Taika Waititi is snuggling Chris Hemsworth’s legs. This is the most precious image in existence.

slothgangang

This is what non-toxic masculinity looks like.

fernlom

This is the world warriormale wants, and I’m A-OK with that. Fight when needed, but never fear the embrace of your brother.

akdjchcusaocicucy23232223

do tumbleweeds actually blow around in the southwest or is that a myth…?

lithicc

!!! They do!!!

Tumbleweed is actually an invasive species from Siberia. What happens is when the soil gets too dry the roots come out of the ground and the plant curls up into a ball so that it can blow to a new spot. When it comes into contact with wet soil its roots will unfold and it will settle down.

laundryandtaxes

That is ten times more fucked up than I thought. They plant themselves again? That’s neat. I always thought they were just dead leaves and twigs in a bunch.

azzandra

I like this. Tumbleweeds just fuck off when they don’t like a place, they are not like other plants who have to respect your plant rules, they are rebels.

coolfriendlygay-deactivated2018

it’s time to play chav or slav:

are these lads ENGLISH or SLAVIC

jstorofficial

slav

coolfriendlygay-deactivated2018

round two: CHAV or SLAV

joydivisionisntthatgood-deactiv

chav. grass is too green to be anywhere in eastern europe.

coolfriendlygay-deactivated2018

very true.. but is this power couple chav love or slav love?

maxofs2d

trick question. one is chav the other is slav. next

coolfriendlygay-deactivated2018

god this was absolutely my best post

prokopetz

Okay, let’s be serious for a moment: like 80% of the whole “being a GM is like herding cats” thing is because you didn’t bother to communicate to your players what the game was going to be about and expected them to figure it out by reading your mind.

I promise you, if you’ve written up a fancy new dungeon and ask your players “hey, want to play a game about exploring a dungeon?”, it’s quite likely that they’ll be more than happy to go to the dungeon.

Hell, save them the trouble and just start the game with them already in the dungeon - as long as you clear it with your group in advance and don’t abuse the privilege to drop them into a pit full of rust monsters on turn one, they’ll probably just go with it. In medias res is your friend!

And on the off chance that they say “no, we don’t want to go to a dungeon today”? At least you found out up front instead of pissing around for a couple of hours first - there’s literally no downside to opening that channel of communication.

(There are admittedly a small minority of players who this won’t work for because they actively and deliberately obstruct whatever they think the GM is trying to do, but they’re contrarian assholes and you shouldn’t be gaming with them in the first place.)

prokopetz

And most of the remaining 20%? Is because you tried to plan for your players taking a specific set of actions.

Here’s a secret: don’t plan for any player actions whatsoever. Plan what’s going to happen if the players never showed up at all.

It’s easier to let go of a plan that’s designed to be disrupted, and coming up with a good answer to “what would happen here if the player characters didn’t interfere?” forces you to think carefully about the needs, resources and and motivations of everyone involved, which is far better preparation for responding to player shenanigans than any amount of what-if speculation.