a turbulent moon-ridden girl

g ❣︎ 27 ❣︎ art historian

[boywrencher]

[lilitdior]

Daisy Edgar-Jones, George MacKay by Szilveszter Makó for British Vogue

[lapvonaa]

[cloth-fabric]

Ashi Studio - couture fw26

[henk-heijmans]

Communicants, ca. 1965 - by Jean Suquet (1928 - 2007), French

[punksvspreps]

Elizabeth Jaeger

[abwwia]

Margaret Balzer Cantieni (1914-2002), Berea College, ca. 1945. Courtesy Pico Cantieni

[mrsbeefheart]

Maude Fealy in King René’s Daughter, 1913

[miamaimania]

Ulyana Sergeenko Spring 2013 Haute Couture — Wooden slingshot accessory

[dreamyvixen]

pearllowe

[wholeheartedsuggestions]

my 5 year plan is to get back my joy

[thingsfromthedirt]

Kayser nightgown ads (ca. 1960s)

[bebemoon]

“lolita meets joséphine bonaparte” @ john galliano spring 1992, paris .

[lemaldusiecle]

Winona Ryder as Abigail Williams photographed behind the scenes of The Crucible (1996).

[simena]

Dongni Hou

[postarcadian]

also re: Ezra Pound's disgust at the "fleshiness" of D.H. Lawrence's poetry and that of the pre-Raphaelites, this is obviously not an original thought but I think it's interesting to note that the treatment of art and literature as a problem of optimization and the promotion of the idea that good literature and good art is about ruthlessly "cutting" whatever is "unnecessary" is itself an impulse that essentially applies the logic of eugenics to aesthetic theory. and so it's no surprise that Pound, arguably the most notorious fascist of 20th century Anglophone lit, is voicing said critique, and it's interesting that fascists' disgust at "fleshiness" (and its near-synonym "flabbiness") is still a cornerstone of modern fascism that links their artistic theory to their sexual politics and to what might seem like more fringe fascist phenomena like looksmaxxing and fatphobia etc etc

[catilinas]

Please Stop Calling Things Archives – AHA

What do historians mean when they say "archive"? One archivist makes the case for a more precise use of the word.

It is a shame to fight over terminology, especially when there is a perfectly accurate and precise term that could be used: personal collections. Not only is “personal collections” more accurate, in my experience it also draws students’ attention to a number of questions that they don’t ask about the term “archive.” When I discuss personal or special collections with students, they begin asking questions that “archive” does not inspire, such as: Collected by whom? Collected why? For what purpose? These are the questions we are trying to teach as historians.

As many historians currently use the word “archives,” they seem to imply that an archive is the natural state in which primary sources arrange themselves after being discarded or left by their creators. It creates the false impression that there is little to no work that goes into making primary sources available to researchers, and—more dangerously—that archives are even a neutral or unmoderated space. When archives and the historical record are used interchangeably in this way, we are unable to see what might be missing.