Paintings by Fuyuko Matsui, scanned by me via “becoming friends with all the children in the world,” 2011.
More scans

oozey mess
Cosimo Galluzzi
$LAYYYTER

★

titsay
Mike Driver
Fai_Ryy

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
The Stonewall Inn
No title available
YOU ARE THE REASON
ojovivo

JVL

tannertan36
d e v o n

Love Begins
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
Monterey Bay Aquarium

if i look back, i am lost
The Bowery Presents
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
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 India
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from France
seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from Indonesia

seen from Netherlands

seen from United States
@spiralfroot
Paintings by Fuyuko Matsui, scanned by me via “becoming friends with all the children in the world,” 2011.
More scans
the undertaking by Louise Glück
Mutual fascination is always a risky business. Lacan suggests that it is the consequence of an imaginary identification in which the self strives to incorporate the other in an act as aggressive as it is loving. It is never clear who, snake or snake charmer, is mesmerized by whom.
Elizabeth Grosz, Jacques Lacan: A feminist introduction
Đỗ Xuân Doãn (Vietnamese, 1937-2015)
Flower Market, 1992
Anaïs Nin, Linotte: The Early Diary of Anais Nin 1914-1920
haunted house uquiz by streetlighthalo
sandro botticelli, dante and beatrice in stars
double exposure of the full moon on 35mm film
J. Drew Lanham, Sparrow Envy: Field Guide to Birds and Lesser Beasts (2021)
@growingsad
*
jacqueline rose
*
simone weil
if you read about any biology you can quickly lose touch with what is astonishing and miraculous vs what is mundane, from animals that steal chloroplasts to become photosynthetic, to cloning technology being old hat, to trees that didn’t biodegrade for tens of millions of years, to naturally occurring lateral gene transfer between vastly different species, to the creation of gametes from adult cells, to the ability of some cancers to induce blood vessel growth, to desert shrimp that lie dormant for years, to the sensitivity of human touch receptors, to the fact that human hardware has a latent ability to see UV but their corneas block those wavelengths, to birds that echolocate and live in caves, to human skin being covered in enzymes that destroy RNA, to individual trees becoming genetic tapestries branch by branch, to life forms that gain energy from the electron potential of metals in their environments, to plants that recognize their siblings and adjust their behavior accordingly when growing next to them, to metamorphosis
which is to say. All of it is miraculous. and all of it is mundane. biology is Chaos vs. Order locking horns forever
friend sent me an Instagram reel yesterday with 1000s of likes that was basically like "pride and prejudice is timeless actually because it's about an autism4autism romance 🥰" and then the creator proceeded to cite moments in the book and film where Lizzie and Darcy are "socially awkward" and....listen. I'm far from an Austen scholar, but I have taught Austen novels as an educator and this kind of psycho-pop analysis that views characters as individuals with autonomy over their actions, rather than tools in a story written at a particular time to say something about that time, pisses me off more than I can say without sounding like an asshole. I'm sorry but Darcy isn't rude and awkward and even cruel to Lizzie because he has autism, he says and does those things because he's a wealthy upper class land owning man raised to see a middle class woman from a large family with no male heirs like Elizabeth as inherently beneath him which he expresses to her multiple times because it is socially acceptable for him to do so in a society where someone like him is privileged above almost all others. He is "socially awkward" around her because of misogyny and classism (PREJUDICE) and she is "socially awkward" around him because a woman of her standing at that time simply wouldn't have had much to do with the gentry but to actually push back against the shit that Darcy says would be social suicide for her whole family so she protests the only way she can which is refusing his advances (PRIDE). not to be the "context collapse is the death of media literacy" guy. But this is the problem with the kind of head empty, let people enjoy things, if I can't relate to it what's the point type crowd. Youse think you're being so quirky justifying incoherent and anachronistic interpretations with your rampant individualism, ensuring that other people never confront anything that challenges them in these stories like patriarchal misogyny and classism. Pride and Prejudice becomes an "autism4autism romance", completely undermining the historical context of its status as one of the great social satires about the class and gender politics that Austen so expertly observed around her. This attitude is why we have nonsensical historical dramas that actively hate history like fucking edgy bdsm "Wuthering Heights", Bridgerton, The Buccaneers, and even a 2025 Frankenstein movie where the monster is just misunderstood and does no wrong uwu etc. because individual relatability and catharsis is king over anything actually saying anything about anything now. Everything is relatable and nothing is meaningful.
Finally, in the category of the microscopic taste for displaying multiple surfaces, we should consider the common Dutch practice of opening, in order to reveal to our sight, the makings of the objects in their still lifes.
Willem Claesz. Heda, Still Life, 1634. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam. Whether it is edibles such as cheese, a pie, herring, fruit, and nuts, or collectibles such as shells, vessels, and watches, we are offered the inside, or underside, as well as the outer view. Cheeses are cut into, pies spill out their fillings beneath the shelter of crust, herring are cut to reveal flesh as well as gleaming skin. Shells and vessels of precious metal or glasses topple on their sides (occasionally we even see the jagged edge of a broken goblet), and watches are inevitably opened to reveal their works. Objects are exposed to the probing eye not only by the technique of flaying them, but also by reflection: the play of light on the surface distinguishes glass from metal, from cloth, from pastry, and also serves to multiply surfaces. The underside of a vessel's foot is doubled by its reflection in the adjacent pewter plate. Each thing exposes multiple surfaces in order to be more fully present to the eye. Consider the lemon, one of the favored objects of Dutch vision. Its representation characteristically maximizes surface: the peel is sliced and unwound to reveal a glistening interior from which a seed or two is frequently discarded to one side. In the hands of Willem Kalf, particularly, the lemon offers a splendid instance of what I have termed division.
Willem Kalf, Still Life with a Nautilus Goblet. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, Lugano. The representation of the wrinkled gold of its mottled surface, with the peel here pitted, there swelling, loosened from the flesh and sinuously extended, totally transforms the fruit. We have never seen a lemon in this way before. Modern interpretations notwithstanding, Kalf's lemons are subject not to the ravages of time but to the probings of the eye. Compare the lemons of Kalf to the lemons of Zurbarán.
Francisco de Zurbarán, Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose. The Norton Simon Foundation, Pasadena. Here is the familiar significant shame: bumpy ovals slightly drawn in at one end and pulled out to a pointed protuberance on the other, the entire form a steady yellow. What is more, Zurbarán's lemon is a solid object. It would fit in the hand, is graspable, and is piled with others of its kind to confirm its solid nature. Whatever other aspects there are to such works, it is clear that they are devised as a feast for the attentive eye. "But to resolve nature into abstractions is less to our purpose than to dissect her into parts," writes Bacon in the Novum Organum. The motto applies to Dutch still lifes. It suggests further what they are willing to sacrifice––the selection of a single, prime, or privileged view ("abstraction," in Bacon's terms) that is empowered to summarize knowledge.
from svetlana alpers, the art of describing: dutch art in the seventeenth century, 1983
little yellow goldfinch doesn't even know he's just like flowers
sheepish is a really funny word. fuck im so nervous (turns into this)