May. 19th, 2017

skull_bearer: (Default)
via http://ift.tt/2qxyQVG:
DiMA flattens his crest indignantly, albeit with a twinkle in his birds eye. As shiny and cute as that might be though it pales in comparison to the glow of that symbol on Nate’s coat.. a strange change comes over him, whatever he’d been thinking about before fades to the background as he fixates on that one glittering point, beady eyed.“Present for pretty bird?” He asks, doing his best to be cute while not so subtly coveting the shiny prize.
skull_bearer: (Default)
via http://ift.tt/2rz1WSo:
DiMA flattens his crest indignantly, albeit with a twinkle in his birds eye. As shiny and cute as that might be though it pales in comparison to the glow of that symbol on Nate’s coat.. a strange change comes over him, whatever he’d been thinking about before fades to the background as he fixates on that one glittering point, beady eyed.“Present for pretty bird?” He asks, doing his best to be cute while not so subtly coveting the shiny prize.
skull_bearer: (Default)
via http://ift.tt/2qyVg98:
gentleviking:

Can you imagine sitting down to create a fantasy world all your own where there are no limits and you can craft it however you desire and you’re like “well obviously there’s still homophobia”

I think what people are missing from this post is the use of the word ‘obviously’. See, if the post was just ‘there’s still homophobia’ it would be different. People might want to have homophobia because it’s part of the plot, or is central to the worldbuilding/story. There’s nothing wrong with tackling hard issues in your stories (although please do your research and know what you’re doing).

The use of the word ‘obviously’ means that this should be self-evident and thus not likely to be important to the main story, meaning that queer readers would be visiting a world where they are hated and it’s no big deal.
skull_bearer: (Default)
via http://ift.tt/2q45ZVm:
To back up my previous post, the things with writing fiction not set in the real world is not not bring up real life issues you’re not planning to deal with.

To give of how to do it right(ish) and wrong in the same series, you just have to look at GRRM’s Song of Ice and Fire series.

See, in the series, GRRM tackles the issue of slavery in his Daenarys arc. Now, we can definitely argue he could have done it better, the whole thing reeks of white savior complex and barbaric brown people. However, he brought up the issue of slavery, and dealt with it, making it clear that the status quo was not okay (I’m aware the situation in the books isn’t so simple but bear with me) and by proxy, that slavery is bad, mmmkay?

Now, in the very same book series, we have the issue of homophobia. Originally, this isn’t so much of a big deal and seems to be brushed off (Renly/Loras), however, as the books progress, it’s made clear that homophobia is rife in Westeros and queer people are being murdered for their sexuality and that… basically is shrugged off, and even condoned by certain characters (yes, they are meant to be bad, but we’re not seeing any characters actually advocating for gay people not to be murdered). This topic is never explored and we’re supposed to see it as just- a facet of Why Westeros Is Shitty with no attempt to actually make this better.

Now, imagine if the slavery subplot was treated in the same way, where Dany was completely indifferent to the plight of the slaves and the only POVs we got on the topic were either neutral or condoning for the practise. Slavery was just allowed to- carry on under Dany’s rule. It was treated just as background flavor.

Cringing yet? Oh yeah. That’s the difference. Don’t use people’s IRL suffering as set dressing if you’re not going to make a point of tearing it down.
skull_bearer: (Default)
via http://ift.tt/2qCEx59:
libertarirynn:

johnnyramonesanticommunistshirt:

pervocracy:

rikodeine:

i love this so much i dont know where to start
- the comedy itself
- the commentary on ‘what is art’
- further on what is art: the viewers are interpreting this as art, but the intention of the “artist” was not actually art, so is it art or not? who gets to decide, the viewers or the creator?
- the act of placing the glasses and watching the response (and the response itself being that the viewers treated the glasses as art) as performance art
like is this a critique of postmodernism? does the critique betray itself since (one could argue) the viewers interpreting the glasses as art makes them art? or is that so ridiculous that it doesn’t matter? i could go on

The intention of the “artist” was not actually art, but… their intention was to create a specific image for public display in order to evoke a reaction from an audience, and then to create an image of that in order to evoke a different reaction from a second audience.

I think they accidentally arted.  Twice.

I hate everything about this post

This stuff is why my art appreciation class was so deliciously easy. I just bullshitted my way through all the assignments with random drivel about “what is really art” and got an A.

People can create really profound shit my total accident.

I discovered this when I read Claude Lanzmann’s interviews and discovered he was just a massive fucking troll.

October 2017

S M T W T F S
1 23 4 56 7
8 9 10 1112 1314
15 1617 18 192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios