just makin art that NOBODY gaf about.... (og under cut)

seen from Australia
seen from Australia
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Argentina
seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Philippines
seen from China

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
just makin art that NOBODY gaf about.... (og under cut)
Industrial works of Pyrmont by artist Jane Bennett
(dates and titles in alt text)
I saw a post not too long ago that showed me a different side to Mrs. Bennett
They pointed out that while we might see her as overbearing and embarrassing to a ridiculous degree, she was a woman panicked
Think about it. With five daughters, in that era, any mother in their situation would have been trying desperately to marry off her daughters
They didn’t have a son to pass their estate to and protect his sisters financially and guarantee them a home
Their family wasn’t rich enough to leave the girls money to support themselves
All of her girls were of marrying age (at that time)
If I had five girls, in that situation, and they could be married to someone who could provide a home, protection, and security once I was gone…I’d probably be right there with her making sure Jane had to spend the night at Mr. Bingley’s
I read Pride and Prejudice in 10th grade and that has been my personality ever since.
mr darcy: well of course your sister is unsuitable for mr bingley. he is rich and your family is p-
lizzie bennett: WHICH IS WHY. MY SISTER. NEEDS. TO MARRY. WELL. YOU. ABSOLUTE. NOODLE.
As Karl Marx insists, it is only when matter is understood to be lifeless that it can be used unconditionally, and without permission, to create profit or property. It is only because we assume that rivers, soils, mountains, and rocks are not animate—let alone divine—that we can even imagine rerouting, poisoning, removing, or fracking them. These sorts of ecological concerns form a good deal of the motivation behind Jane Bennett’s retrieval of materiality as agential, or “vibrant”: “Why advocate the vitality of matter?” she asks. “Because my hunch is that the image of dead or thoroughly instrumentalized matter feeds human hubris and our earth-destroying fantasies of conquest and consumption.”
This is not to say that a living, active matter is necessarily benevolent or eco-friendly; it is simply to say that such matter does things that call into question the ontic dominance of “conscious” animals. Omega-3 actively alters the moods of the earth’s purported hierarchs; trash actively generates gases and reconfigures landscapes; and the multifarious “assemblage” of gunpowder, gun, human volition, and bodily mechanics enables a bullet to hit whatever it hits and kill whomever it kills. Agents marked as natural, cultural, material, immaterial, animal, vegetable, and mineral constantly function in such intermingled assemblages to get everything done that is done; “the electrical grid,” for example, is for Bennett “a volatile mix of coal, sweat, electromagnetic fields, computer programs, electron streams, profit motives, heat, lifestyles, nuclear fuel, plastic, fantasies of mastery, static, legislation, water, economic theory, wire, and wood—to name just some of the actants.” Mel Chen similarly animates the allegedly inanimate in their analyses of environmental toxins, which enter animal and vegetable bodies in a constant “merging of forms of ‘life’ and ‘nonlife.’” Such toxins, they argue, undertake cultural work, as one can detect in the case of lead’s producing a racist panic among white, heterosexist, American parents when it appears in toys manufactured in China. In the work of Bennett, Chen, and other “new materialist” authors, we find a refusal to divide the world into spirit and matter, life and nonlife, or activity and passivity […].
Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Pantheologies: Gods, Worlds, Monsters (2018, p.68)
The plot of pride and prejudice is honestly so wild. Like a lady tells someone who's in love with her that he's a self-absorbed, nose-in-the-air, classist prick, and that she wouldn't marry him for the world, completely roasting him over a spit, and he actually....changes? and she falls in love with him?
Enemies to lovers, 200K slowburn. Highly recommend.
Jane to Elizabeth, claiming to no longer be in love with Bingley: "You cannot think me so weak as to be in danger now."
Jane, not two minutes later in answer to Bingley's proposal: "Yes, yes, a thousand times yes."