The Daily Footnote
Guess who doesn’t care that I have work to do because there’s thunder outside? #Daphne #thatswho #COWARDisay #butthecutestcowardEVERRR

Guess who doesn’t care that I have work to do because there’s thunder outside? #Daphne #thatswho #COWARDisay #butthecutestcowardEVERRR

isthistakenalready:

Aoi Honoo is Too Real

I don’t know what this is but it’s perfect.

neil-gaiman:

geekynerfherder:

Various cover art for 'Neverwhere' by Neil Gaiman, released on this day in 1996.

My book can now drink legally in the UK and Australia…

Bumper stickers hijacking my God for political gain like it’s no big deal. #grooooss

Bumper stickers hijacking my God for political gain like it’s no big deal. #grooooss

bifanoland:

Hey guys! Thought It would be neat to do a process post on my ‘Vasilisa Encounters the White Horseman’ piece, since I documented the painting process in more detail than normal. Please forgive the crappy photobooth image quality. 

 All in all, it took about a month to complete from thumbnail phase to final.  It was a lot of trial and error, and I learned a lot in painting this image. 

In case you’re interested, prints of the image are available here: http://www.inprnt.com/gallery/laurabifano/

Life These Days: storyboarding, The West Wing, and new glasses! And a rare Instagram update. Back to work!

Life These Days: storyboarding, The West Wing, and new glasses! And a rare Instagram update. Back to work!

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.

This is a really cool analysis (or post about how to analyze, really). Very interesting, and a great way to look at art through a different lens!

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.

This is a really cool analysis (or post about how to analyze, really). Very interesting, and a great way to look at art through a different lens!

Friends! #Daphne #llewyn

Friends! #Daphne #llewyn

HAIRCUUUUTTT. #theshortest!! #thatitseverbeen!!

HAIRCUUUUTTT. #theshortest!! #thatitseverbeen!!