Randomness


INTJ. Private.

My art blog



Ask me anything

Submit

stfueverything:

christel-thoughts:

geekscoutcookies:

uncutcolombiancoke:

nedahoyin:

thinksquad:

Singer CeeLo Green took to Twitter today to make an attempt to define what rape is, shortly after pleading no contest for charges that he slipped a woman ecstasy without her consent in 2012

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/cee-lo-green-says-its-only-rape-if-the-person-is-conscious?bffb

My n****.. Not you too.. Smh..

SMH dude essentially told on himself.  

Holy shit. Fuck you CeeLo

yeah… all of the above comments.

and here my friend had told me that Cee Lo was such a huge feminist…..pfft.

Source: thinksquad

chinesekleptocracy:

Don’t want nudes leaked? Don’t take nudes. Don’t want to be robbed? Stop owning things. Wanna avoid being killed? Buddy, quit living already!

Tagged: this actually is based on logical fallaciesunequivalent comparisonsbut I like itsoshrug

Source: chinesekleptocracy

moonlightequilibrium:

moonlightequilibrium:

image

medievalpoc:

aseantoo submitted to medievalpoc:

Unknown artist, possibly of the Brazilian School
Black Artist Completing a Portrait of a White Female Aristocrat
Brazil (early 1700s)
Oil on canvas
Philadelphia private collection
[x], [x]
I was thrilled at first to see this image - a pre-modern Black woman artist, portrayed at work! But then I saw this:
Although this black artist appears to be wearing a dress, it is likely to be a male figure. As the scholar Sheldon Cheek explains, the artist wears an earring and a silver collar, both common articles worn by black male servants/slaves in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the collar traditionally indicating slave status. Women rarely, if ever, wore the silver collar. The artist also appears to be wearing a silver “shackle” on the arm.
Ugh. Pretty awful.

I think we should all be pretty critical of what’s written about this painting. Especially the part you’ve quoted above about how they have assigned the gender of the artist in the painting. I find it bizarre that something that is supposed to indicate enslaved status (not gender) somehow trumps this person wearing women’s clothing (that’s also a woman’s hat to the best of my knowledge).
The Americas, including Brazil, have a long tradition of transgender and third gender people. This is one of those images from the past that falls quite easily through the cracks because it is a collection of “exceptions”; it doesn’t fit nicely into categories that have been created and therefore, it’s more or less ignored.
If anyone’s hesitant to be critical, maybe you should also note that both the articles linked above make claims that slavery in Brazil was “less harsh” than other places. What???
How many of our assumptions are being projected onto this painting? Are the “contradictions” present in it a product of the painting itself, or is the problem with the categories we try to place it in? How many layers do we have to fight uphill through when we even look at this image? After all, History teaches us:
women weren’t artists
Black people weren’t artists
Black people were enslaved
Enslaved people didn’t do anything of worth
Transgender, genderqueer and third gender people didn’t exist before the 1960s
white people control how Black images are perceived, but not the other way around
gender must be immediately perceivable and fit into our categories of “male” and “female”
^ So this is the baggage we bring with us when we look at this image. We look at this painting, and we actively search for indicators that allow us to continue to believe the above assumptions.
If we take away those assumptions, if we try to move past them and see this portrait with new eyes, what are we left with? Whose History do we see here? Maybe it’s mine; maybe it’s yours.

medievalpoc:

aseantoo submitted to medievalpoc:

Unknown artist, possibly of the Brazilian School

Black Artist Completing a Portrait of a White Female Aristocrat

Brazil (early 1700s)

Oil on canvas

Philadelphia private collection

[x], [x]

I was thrilled at first to see this image - a pre-modern Black woman artist, portrayed at work! But then I saw this:

Although this black artist appears to be wearing a dress, it is likely to be a male figure. As the scholar Sheldon Cheek explains, the artist wears an earring and a silver collar, both common articles worn by black male servants/slaves in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the collar traditionally indicating slave status. Women rarely, if ever, wore the silver collar. The artist also appears to be wearing a silver “shackle” on the arm.

Ugh. Pretty awful.

I think we should all be pretty critical of what’s written about this painting. Especially the part you’ve quoted above about how they have assigned the gender of the artist in the painting. I find it bizarre that something that is supposed to indicate enslaved status (not gender) somehow trumps this person wearing women’s clothing (that’s also a woman’s hat to the best of my knowledge).

The Americas, including Brazil, have a long tradition of transgender and third gender people. This is one of those images from the past that falls quite easily through the cracks because it is a collection of “exceptions”; it doesn’t fit nicely into categories that have been created and therefore, it’s more or less ignored.

If anyone’s hesitant to be critical, maybe you should also note that both the articles linked above make claims that slavery in Brazil was “less harsh” than other places. What???

How many of our assumptions are being projected onto this painting? Are the “contradictions” present in it a product of the painting itself, or is the problem with the categories we try to place it in? How many layers do we have to fight uphill through when we even look at this image? After all, History teaches us:

  • women weren’t artists
  • Black people weren’t artists
  • Black people were enslaved
  • Enslaved people didn’t do anything of worth
  • Transgender, genderqueer and third gender people didn’t exist before the 1960s
  • white people control how Black images are perceived, but not the other way around
  • gender must be immediately perceivable and fit into our categories of “male” and “female”

^ So this is the baggage we bring with us when we look at this image. We look at this painting, and we actively search for indicators that allow us to continue to believe the above assumptions.

If we take away those assumptions, if we try to move past them and see this portrait with new eyes, what are we left with? Whose History do we see here? Maybe it’s mine; maybe it’s yours.

jumpingjacktrash:

hextrudedcubes:

heytheretylerr:

WHAT KIND OF WIZARD FISH IS THIS

It’s a transparent cardinalfish (probably Apogon crassiceps) swallowing an ostracod. When threatened, this type of ostracod release a burst of biolumiscent chemicals to dazzle predators and/or attract their predator’s predators. The transparent cardinalfish is (for obvious reasons) particularly susceptible to this last bit, and so has evolved to spit out this type of ostracod whenever they detect the chemical. There’s a video at the post’s source!

so cool, thank you!
edit: here’s the link, since tumblr makes it hard to find source
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024m0s1

jumpingjacktrash:

hextrudedcubes:

heytheretylerr:

WHAT KIND OF WIZARD FISH IS THIS

It’s a transparent cardinalfish (probably Apogon crassiceps) swallowing an ostracod. When threatened, this type of ostracod release a burst of biolumiscent chemicals to dazzle predators and/or attract their predator’s predators. The transparent cardinalfish is (for obvious reasons) particularly susceptible to this last bit, and so has evolved to spit out this type of ostracod whenever they detect the chemical. There’s a video at the post’s source!

so cool, thank you!

edit: here’s the link, since tumblr makes it hard to find source

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024m0s1

Source: BBC

legendarystar-lord:

Meanwhile, David Tennant:

Source: legendarystar-lord

kamilavender:

These are golden.

Source: best-of-memes

jessthevagabond:

aryeastark:

Emma Watson’s tweet about leaked pictures x

I was watching news with my mom about this whole thing and she started on with the whole “why are they taking naked pictures” thing and I stopped her and said “wait, isn’t the real thing here why is everyone blaming the victim? whatever you feel about naked photos, no one should be hacked into and their privacy violated.”
…and then she got quiet. 

jessthevagabond:

aryeastark:

Emma Watson’s tweet about leaked pictures x

I was watching news with my mom about this whole thing and she started on with the whole “why are they taking naked pictures” thing and I stopped her and said “wait, isn’t the real thing here why is everyone blaming the victim? whatever you feel about naked photos, no one should be hacked into and their privacy violated.”

…and then she got quiet. 

Source: aryeastark

moaninglisasmile:

well if that isn’t the greatest headline you’ve ever seen (story here)

moaninglisasmile:

well if that isn’t the greatest headline you’ve ever seen (story here)

Source: moaninglisasmile

trollbutt:

poeticus:

anxiousbagel:

emotionally manipulative things you should never say to people:

  • "i would kill myself without you"
  • "everyone leaves me, don’t leave me like they did"
  • basically anything that guilts the other person into staying in a relationship with you

this post is important

This forever

Source: anxiousbagel