Earth Intruder

shankcrank:

420lickd33znutzswagg:

Photo of Rick Santorum made entirely of gay porn

I just want this on my blog again tbh

(via pomejanet)

vondell-swain:

euclase:

I coughed up some thoughts about realism. Castiel has volunteered to assist…

So when artists say, “Draw what you see,” what does that even mean, right?

It means don’t draw the objects. Instead, draw the light that hits the objects. And draw only the light.

Okay, but how.

Well, I guess… think of an Impressionistic painting, like a Monet or a Renoir. Impressionism is about drawing the light, not the object. If you stand close to an Impressionistic painting, you can’t tell what shit is, right? It’s just a mess of smudges and brushstrokes. But if you step back, you start to see shapes.

That’s because Impressionism is about capturing the quality of light, rather than being faithful to the object.

Realism is the same way.

With realism, your job isn’t to be exhaustive. It isn’t about completeness, every pore and every eyelash. That’s called hyperrealism, which is something else entirely. Hyperrealism is about forcing you to see everything whether you want to or not. It’s about confrontation.

Realism, on the other hand, is much more playful. It’s about creating the illusion of completeness. If you look at that drawing of Castiel, you won’t see any pores or eyelashes. You’ll only see the suggestion of eyelashes. And if you keep going with that thought, you’ll realize you don’t actually see anything else, either. You don’t see a nose or a trenchcoat or hair. You only see suggestions and illusions. Afterall, it’s not real. It’s pixels on a screen.

The light is the thing you’re actually drawing. Literally, that’s true. Because your eyes process light information. But more figuratively, too. Light exists between you and everything else. It’s like this invisible, fluid warmth, like a creature that bends and drapes and changes color according to whatever it touches.

So if you’re drawing a portait of Castiel, say, don’t try to draw Castiel. Draw the light that touches him instead. And if the light isn’t touching him—if the light isn’t showing you every individual eyelash or every individual pore—why would you draw it? You don’t have to. You knew what it was. Your brain put it together.

Our brains love to be teased and tempted and hinted at, and that’s what light does. It suggests that there’s something more underneath. It’s hands running over a surface. It gives us hints about what something might feel like or taste like or how heavy it might be, or how warm it might be, or what a person might be thinking or feeling. Like a blind person running her hands over a metal bowl to feel out its shape. But in this case, the light is the hands, and you’re drawing what that feels like. So you don’t have to draw all of it. You only have to draw enough of it to know what it is.

Right.

And that was my (completely pornographic, as it turns out) way of describing realism. 

Thanks, Cas. With fewer clothes next time, maybe? :3

really really beautifully (and accurately) worded

vondell-swain:

vondell-swain:

thelastsamweiss:

vondell-swain:

whoa

i love it

um

anyone else understand what the fuck this is supposed to mean

i just don’t get art sometimes

i really don’t

this is bullshit

it’s an installation piece that tells a familiar, immediately-identifiable story (that of the roughly, carelessly handled package) while simultaneously housing a handful of incredibly interesting ideas. the package was shipped with the full intent of it being handled carelessly, returned and presented as art — completely unbeknownst to the employees, who proceeded to treat it exactly as they would treat a package that did not contain “art”.

that indifference says a lot of things about how absolutely arbitrary the “value” we give to art is, and also poses some interesting questions about when exactly something begins to be classified as art — is it when the piece is planned? is it when the piece is shipped? is it when the piece arrives at the gallery? is it when the show opens?

if you happened across this piece sitting in a warehouse full of glass showcases, it wouldn’t be a piece at all, it would just be an unfortunate error waiting to be thrown away. if you happened across it in a FedEx warehouse, you’d reprimand the employee responsible and toss it. if you happened across it when it was outside the gallery waiting to be brought in, you’d assume the gallery owner would be very annoyed that one of the glass showcases they ordered broke and they’d have to order another one.

in fact, it is the very action of presenting it as a piece of art and opening it up for critical interpretation that defines it as art. that is the action that gives value to these two objects. it allows their story to be told by allowing you to experience it and consider it in an elevated, critical manner that you otherwise would never have done.

it’s a very high-concept piece and so it takes a lot more mental investment in order to understand and appreciate than, say, a pretty painting of a landscape would. but once you do, it’s a very nice treat. I enjoyed it.

(it also happens to be really really pleasing aesthetically, which I’m sure played a large part in the conceptual refinement and physical planning stage after the inception of the original concept. the decision to have the case be cube-shaped and not rectangular was a particularly well-considered decision that adds a lot to the final product.)

a good post from last night

(Source: p1ss)

frass:

xindha:

In a simple experiment, researchers at the University of Chicago sought to find out whether a rat would release a fellow rat from an unpleasantly restrictive cage if it could. The answer was yes.

The free rat, occasionally hearing distress calls from its compatriot, learned to open the cage and did so with greater efficiency over time. It would release the other animal even if there wasn’t the payoff of a reunion with it. Astonishingly, if given access to a small hoard of chocolate chips, the free rat would usually save at least one treat for the captive — which is a lot to expect of a rat.

The researchers came to the unavoidable conclusion that what they were seeing was empathy — and apparently selfless behavior driven by that mental state.

“A New Model of Empathy: The Rat” by David Brown, Washington Post

THIS IS WHY I LOVE MY RATS. THEY ARE AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS.

(via fuckyeahwomenprotesting2)

(Source: anti-propaganda)

(via pomejanet)

(Source: chickenschizophrenia)

yearslater:

Suspended books (by hanifoto)