The Random Ramblings of a Cluttered Mind

argonauticae:

beautifuloutlier:

prokopetz:

sarahtypeswords:

wetorturedsomefolks:

memejacker:

several-talking-corpses:

memejacker:

caligula had anime eyes

wait romans painted their marble sculptures
it looks like a cheap theme park ride mascot

yep
here’s a statue of Augustus

and here’s a reproduction of the statue with the colors restored 


i honestly think that what we consider the height of sculpture in all of Western civilization being essentially the leftover templates of gaudy pieces of theme park shit to be evidence of the potential merit of found art

"I tried coloring it and then I ruined it"

And you know what the funniest part is? The paint didn’t just wear off over time. A bunch of asshole British historians back in the Victorian era actually went around scrubbing the remaining paint off of Greek and Roman statues - often destroying the fine details of the carving in the process - because the bright colours didn’t fit the dignified image they wished to present of the the cultures they claimed to be heirs to. This process also removed visible evidence of the fact that at least some of the statues thus stripped of paint had originally depicted non-white individuals.
Whenever you look at a Roman statue with a bare marble face, you’re looking at the face of imperialist historical revisionism.
(The missing noses on a lot of Egyptian statues are a similar deal. It’s not that the ancient Egyptians made statues with strangely fragile noses. Many Victorian archaeologists had a habit of chipping the noses off of the statues they brought back, then claiming that they’d found them that way - because with the noses intact, it was too obvious that the statues were meant to depict individuals of black African descent.)

There’s a lot of good academic discussion about chromophobia in modern Western aesthetics and how it links to colonialism.

a couple of general points:
1) the reason the reconstructions here look like “the leftover templates of gaudy pieces of theme park shit” is because they’re reconstructions. this is not actually what these statues looked like, and in my opinion they do roman art a massive disservice. the reason they look so “gaudy” (which is actually the exact same colonial attitude that led directly to the literal whitewashing of graeco-roman art, nice, very nice) is because the colours have been applied flat, with no shading or blending to give the impression of shadow. looking at contemporary roman portraiture, it’s clear that they did actually have quite a sophisticated grasp of shading and colouring, and to imagine that they would just suddenly forget how to do the dark bits when they were painting on stone is ludicrous. for context, this is a portrait of paquius proculo, a fresco from pompeii, dating from around 20-30AD, ten years earlier than that bust of caligula:

(also of interest in this regard are the fayum mummy portraits, dating from the second century AD; again, although they are of varying quality, the best of them demonstrate a clear understanding of shading. for example: 
and, to be honest: do you really think a civilisation that produced this

just, what, didn’t get paint? these reconstructions are laughable, not because they’re colourful but because they’re presenting an incredibly sophisticated culture as unable to understand simple artistic concepts; something that i think itself contributes to the idea of colourfully painted statues being ‘silly’ and ‘gaudy’, which again is an incredibly colonially-influenced idea. 
2) the reason graeco-roman statues are often missing the noses is because most excavated statues are generally missing the noses. they are fragile. the head of a statue is basically a football with details; the nose is the only protruding part and is comparatively narrow and thin (as opposed to, say, an arm or leg, which takes more force to break off but is still very much detachable, c.f the venus di milo) and is very, very easy to break off. although i am absolutely the last person to deny the racism that has been present in classics, the noses thing is really not a great example.

argonauticae:

beautifuloutlier:

prokopetz:

sarahtypeswords:

wetorturedsomefolks:

memejacker:

several-talking-corpses:

memejacker:

caligula had anime eyes

wait romans painted their marble sculptures

it looks like a cheap theme park ride mascot

yep

here’s a statue of Augustus

and here’s a reproduction of the statue with the colors restored 

i honestly think that what we consider the height of sculpture in all of Western civilization being essentially the leftover templates of gaudy pieces of theme park shit to be evidence of the potential merit of found art

"I tried coloring it and then I ruined it"

And you know what the funniest part is? The paint didn’t just wear off over time. A bunch of asshole British historians back in the Victorian era actually went around scrubbing the remaining paint off of Greek and Roman statues - often destroying the fine details of the carving in the process - because the bright colours didn’t fit the dignified image they wished to present of the the cultures they claimed to be heirs to. This process also removed visible evidence of the fact that at least some of the statues thus stripped of paint had originally depicted non-white individuals.

Whenever you look at a Roman statue with a bare marble face, you’re looking at the face of imperialist historical revisionism.

(The missing noses on a lot of Egyptian statues are a similar deal. It’s not that the ancient Egyptians made statues with strangely fragile noses. Many Victorian archaeologists had a habit of chipping the noses off of the statues they brought back, then claiming that they’d found them that way - because with the noses intact, it was too obvious that the statues were meant to depict individuals of black African descent.)

There’s a lot of good academic discussion about chromophobia in modern Western aesthetics and how it links to colonialism.

a couple of general points:

1) the reason the reconstructions here look like “the leftover templates of gaudy pieces of theme park shit” is because they’re reconstructions. this is not actually what these statues looked like, and in my opinion they do roman art a massive disservice. the reason they look so “gaudy” (which is actually the exact same colonial attitude that led directly to the literal whitewashing of graeco-roman art, nice, very nice) is because the colours have been applied flat, with no shading or blending to give the impression of shadow. looking at contemporary roman portraiture, it’s clear that they did actually have quite a sophisticated grasp of shading and colouring, and to imagine that they would just suddenly forget how to do the dark bits when they were painting on stone is ludicrous. for context, this is a portrait of paquius proculo, a fresco from pompeii, dating from around 20-30AD, ten years earlier than that bust of caligula:

image

(also of interest in this regard are the fayum mummy portraits, dating from the second century AD; again, although they are of varying quality, the best of them demonstrate a clear understanding of shading. for example: image

and, to be honest: do you really think a civilisation that produced this

image

just, what, didn’t get paint? these reconstructions are laughable, not because they’re colourful but because they’re presenting an incredibly sophisticated culture as unable to understand simple artistic concepts; something that i think itself contributes to the idea of colourfully painted statues being ‘silly’ and ‘gaudy’, which again is an incredibly colonially-influenced idea. 

2) the reason graeco-roman statues are often missing the noses is because most excavated statues are generally missing the noses. they are fragile. the head of a statue is basically a football with details; the nose is the only protruding part and is comparatively narrow and thin (as opposed to, say, an arm or leg, which takes more force to break off but is still very much detachable, c.f the venus di milo) and is very, very easy to break off. although i am absolutely the last person to deny the racism that has been present in classics, the noses thing is really not a great example.

(via petrichorlore)

poldberg:

While there is a lot of appropriate rage about Ferguson right now, the killing of John Crawford, III is getting less attention than it deserves. I put Shaun King’s tweets and history lesson on the matter in chronological order for easier consumption.

Links:

Autopsy and video show John Crawford shot from behind in Wal-Mart

Witness in murder of John Crawford changes story

You really should be following Shaun King on Twitter.

(via talisguy)

anotherwalkingscandal:

ero-miki:

Putting down confident girls is not feminism

shaming sex workers is not feminism

"I’m not like other girls" is not feminism

slut shaming is not feminism

shaming BDSM practitioners is not feminism

misandry is not feminism

ignoring trans women’s rights is not feminism

Fuck YES

(Source: ero-miki, via pocketwatchesandtea)

Anonymous said: I have a question about the Kane Chronicles... what is Sadie supposed to look like? She's described as being fair-skinned and having light hair and blue eyes, and I know blue eyes/light hair/light skin =/= white, but in her official portrait she has straight blonde hair and is very pale. But I thought she and her brother were black? If I drew her like her official portrait, would that be whitewashing? I'm really confused.

minuiko:

Kids with parents of different races sometimes favor one parent over the other rather than looking mixed, per se. It’s rare, but not unheard of, and the Kanes have a white mother and African-American father. Sadie’s described as the splitting image of her mother, as well as pale enough that people are surprised that she and Carter are siblings, so I wouldn’t call it whitewashing if you drew her like her official portrait. I do prefer drawing her with more AA features, but that’s a personal preference.  

peregr1ne:

idk alright soul has shark teeth so i had a random au thought where maka’s like a generic human-like mermaid and he’s a creepy monstrous merman thing, and her at first thinking he doesn’t talk much because he’s aloof and mysterious but really he’s just shy and thinks she’s pretty
plus nice cheery friendly pretty maka and her threatening-looking antisocial shark boyfriend lurking around in the shadows and glaring if you come anywhere near her

peregr1ne:

idk alright soul has shark teeth so i had a random au thought where maka’s like a generic human-like mermaid and he’s a creepy monstrous merman thing, and her at first thinking he doesn’t talk much because he’s aloof and mysterious but really he’s just shy and thinks she’s pretty

plus nice cheery friendly pretty maka and her threatening-looking antisocial shark boyfriend lurking around in the shadows and glaring if you come anywhere near her

heinouscr0w:

diddlemydiddlies:

aaronthespiritbear:

Golf ball hitting steel at 150mph, recorded at 70 000fps

physics is so fucked up

jesus fucking christ

heinouscr0w:

diddlemydiddlies:

aaronthespiritbear:

Golf ball hitting steel at 150mph, recorded at 70 000fps

physics is so fucked up

jesus fucking christ

(Source: azzatron4000, via dsurath21)

eveningflares:

evangelala:

internet friends are kinda like illegally downloaded friends. you don’t get the physical copy but you still get all the great content

(via livebloggingmydescentintomadness)

so let me get this straight:

mallorylrc:

sparklyelegance:

rawrgoesjerran:

double06:

y’all bleed outta your vaginas

once a month, your panties look like a fucking murder scene

you are basically giVING BIRTH TO THE FUCKING LINING OF ONE OF YOUR INTERNAL ORGANS

and yet you just go about your daily business like

image

people with vaginas are fucking badass.

people with vaginas 

what are they called again?

They’re called people with vaginas because not everyone with a vagina is a woman.

whoop there it is

(via talisguy)