#and i think this is a thing that should be also analyzed through the lense of race

[klingersgender]

thinking about. klinger

#specifically about his anger. i havent watched mash properly in a long time so i cant form many coherent thoughts but i am rotating it #kiertää kuin kissa kuumaa puuroa as we say. (to circle [something] like a cat with a bowl of hot porridge) #it's just. i know i often emphasize the fact that klinger is full of love and love for life and he IS but he is also oftentimes angry #and why shouldnt he be. in that situation #i feel like klinger's anger and frustration arent often given enough space in the show #like his anger is often used to a comical effect (which i'm not totally opposed to. #i think it makes him feel like a more well rounded character when sometimes he is angry about stupid shit. we all are) #but like. i wish we had gotten more of him being justifiably angry. at other people at the situation at the army #and i think this is a thing that should be also analyzed through the lense of race #but as i said. i havent really seen the source material in a long while so i'm not equipped to do that analysis atm. #but by god i am thinking about it #klinger. klingerrrrrr literally the only character ever for me

[teen-heart-throb-mr-hyde]

evil is arbitrary, or, i’m begging you all to be normal about hyde (and queerness)

so like. does anyone else think it’s weird when people conflate hyde’s actual evil with hypotheticals about his gender identity/presentation? here’s a post about that.

cw for discussion of general queerophobia and specifically transmisogny

to contextualize this post going forward, i'm going to lay down this principle: that what we consider evil is totally arbitrary.

"evil" is a concept, and like all concepts, we made it up, both as a society and as individuals. there are some things that basically everyone (individuals and society) can agree and have agreed, across time and culture, are objectively evil, like straight up murder. there are other things, however, that are morally neutral, or even good that have been deemed as "evil/morally wrong" within certain societies (which shape individuals), like queerness.

following so far? excellent.

there are two aspects to what i am reluctant to call hyde's "evil" considering the above, but keep in mind this idea of evil is filtered through two lenses: the individual (jekyll) and the society (victorian england). the two aspects are the canon/textual and the subtextual.

the canon is what we directly see on the page, and what we see on the page amounts mostly to two things: hyde's violence and cruelty towards others. when it comes down to explicit, textual evidence of hyde's evil, those are the examples we can pull from. these are also things that can, pretty objectively by many individuals and society, be considered evil. murder is bad. not really inventing the wheel here.

the subtextual is, obviously, very different. technically, it doesn't exist. the subtextual nature of hyde's "evil" is going to be different for everyone because it's what we think exists underneath the actual canon. based on textual evidence, we build a subtext that explains or expands on themes, characterization, messaging, etc. based on canon evidence in the novella, many people read in a degree of queer subtext, regarding both jekyll/hyde's gender and sexuality. jekyll is some kind of queer and has repressed that due to the heavy stigma and bigotry present during the time, and this emerges in hyde along with his other "base urges." but that doesn't actually exist in the text, it's just one reading that you can have.

hyde does some things in canon that are objectively evil (violence and cruelty) and could have done some things if you read the subtext a certain way that were arbitrarily evil, based on jekyll and the society that molded him (queerness).

so why do modern readers, modern queer readers treat these things as equally evil?

honestly? fucked if i know. but i have some theories.

this problem may be the opposite of the "sir danvers problem," which i've talked about before. while that comes from people woobifying hyde and wanting to remove any ill intent from his canon, objective evil, i think this problem comes from people wanting to put ill intent into his subtextual, arbitrary evil. with this, people lump in hyde's subtextual, arbitrary evil, specifically this reading of queerness, with his canon, objective evil and judge them as equally bad. which is just fucking not true!!!! i don't care how tired you are of people calling hyde a poor little little meow, it's a weird, poorly analyzed take.

if we take that reading of queer subtext, we can understand why jekyll and victorian society would conflate these things as equally evil, but as modern readers we don't have to. and we shouldn't! we should understand the nuance between which of jekyll/hyde's behaviours are actually evil, and which are only treated as evil. to imply that these, (again, because they're based on subtext) hypotheticals of hyde getting it on with other guys, or not adhering to binary standards of masculinity is just as bad as him killing a man in cold blood is gross, plain and simple.

it's especially sinister since i see this most often paired with the idea that hyde is in some way gnc. he's a drag queen, or a cross-dresser, or just more effeminate than jekyll, and that is supposed to make him more evil or just generally more "unpleasant." that's some straight up alfred hitchcock's psycho level transmisogny. if you want to make hyde any of those things, it should to be to question what "evil" means, who or what decides what evil is, and whether or not that is a correct judgement to make. (hint: it's not. gnc men/transfem ppl are not inherently evil. jesus.)

tldr; there's a lot going on. evil is arbitrary. some things are pretty objectively evil and hyde does those in canon, and some things are not and hyde could have done those in subtext. treating them as equally bad is weird. have all the queer readings of the text you want, just maybe interrogate why you're making those readings and how you pair them with the actual text.

#jekyll and hyde #dr jekyll and mr hyde #heres the post. enjoy i guess #i feel like i shouldn’t have to explain why using queerness as a way to make a character seem more depraved is bad. but alas.

[amc-iwtv]

I don't know when fanon loustat became so weird! something happened along the way, but I almost don't recognize my ship anymore, I'll need to disinfect or amputate it.

So true bestie, here is my theory:

TW: stream of consciousness writing as per my usual MO.

Here is the story of how VC the series of a hundred sad pretty boy twinks and the one manic twink, became hetero somehow...

I think fandom in general lives in a world of grandiose exaggeration of character traits, every character gets put through a game of telephone of a million or more people with their own experiences projecting. And because as humans we have to put things in neat little boxes. Funny character, sad character, sexy character etc, villain, hero, and all are heavily depend up on already established media tropes. Book characters (with so many pages of complex traits) and relationships get simplified to be understood, especially for a larger audience. The tv show didn't have enough episodes to write a story of a relationship that was fueled pure existential dread, so it became an explicitly abusive relationship. Their relationship got condensed simplified and boxed in in a way average people can understand in under 24hrs.

It's made worst on Tumblr were we have an epidemic when sociology terms get abused to all hell by people with massive victim complexes, and or sheltered life experiences. People gain second hand/or even further removed knowledge of a sociological/psychological phenomenon, it escapes academia and into the hands of people with no understanding,decorum, or self restraint who misinterpret and abuse it.

So you have pretentious annoying people who already like to put things in distinct boxes, with a history of abusing lofty theories, carrying massive victim complexes, and with little exposure to people with varying life experiences/beliefs:....get a hold of a relationship with large glaring power imbalances told through a biased lense (the point) think.... this black gay male protagonist living in an egregiously oppressive horrible time in a romantic relationship with someone so much more powerful get abused and then they come to the correct conclusion of ....he is to be sympathized with and understood....but then they jump to the conclusion that must mean..... he's good person and he is right....and then he's a good person and he is right all of the time and should not be criticized. So you have people upholding Louis as this untouchable righteous pure character that can only be analyze through the lens of victim or the viewer is evil.

His oppressor is a powerful white bisexual man, that uses (in the TV show anyway) violence that is usually gendered (abuse statistics men are the perpetuators, and women & children the victims 80-90% of the times) domestic violence. There is a child in the home, made by Lestat but cared for by Louis because Lestat does not want a child intervening in their relationship (in the tv show). Oh Also He's being cheated on by a man with a woman! People who grew up in a world of mainly abusive heterosexual nuclear families, with no experience with personal same sex relationships, are going to use that as their reference point. Gay couples hurting each other doesn't exist. If you only reference het relationship subliminally in your show set in 1910s, then you're intending it to be het, no nuance here!

So now Louis is a morally correct victim to be protected, and a powerless caretaker experiencing domestic violence from a white man cheating on him with a white woman. So to the mind that fed a delicious milkshake of the iwtv plot (the tv show) prone to boxing, simplifying, and flanderizing... Louis becomes a woman and a mother. The only people, these people, know to fulfill those roles. They are forgetting how much the dynamics change in a gay male relationship. So Louis becomes a woman (or feminine as if the feminine is a distinct static state of being instead of a name given to a bunch of traits, actions behavior, etc). And Lestat becomes a man, a very straight masculine man somehow.

Because:

1. Only women get abused by men.

2. Only women want to be parents.

3. You can't reference white het relationship, (the majority of relationships in media) with an interracial gay couple unless you intended one to be a feminine breedable woman.

4. Mothers are never abusers of children, only fathers.

5. If you're a weaker partner you bottom, because it's not based on arbitrary sexual preference, it's based on ironclad oppression facts and figures.

6. If you bottom you are a woman.

7. Femininity and masculinity are real, gender is real, when in a gay relationship, you get assigned your roles immediately.

Because if Louis is the weak feminine good woman, Lestat is the big strong evil man. So all Lestat's very effeminate sexually liberated behaviors get ignored, or down right disputed. The man did drag! His bisexuality and gender nonconformity presents such a ugly wrench in their new fanon wheel.

And if it gets even worse, the people saying these things are unapologetically turned on by the power imbalances and codependent is hot (ask Queen Octavia Butler). Of course, they were, fed on a diet of yaoi, and slash written by straight women, The fact Lestat has these privileges, the fact abused and cheated on Louis is very erotic for them! Louis was bottom, the bottom was synonymous with woman, and vice versa. And to any people on this site whatever turns you on is above criticism! Don't yuck anyone's yum. A few creators started putting these ideas into their work, and it got popular so they continued. However, I didn't mind these people and kept my distance, and my feelings in the group chat until they developed an entitlement to the work of others. Other fanfic writers and other artists had to create works that matched their vision of amc-loustat or it was bigoted and evil. And worthy of horrible anon hate. And that is where I come in, and caused a schism by getting really loud with my own opinions on my very blockable blog. Now there is a divide.

Sadly we can't disinfect, so I say amputated. Form your fandom pocket of semi sane people and leave the rest to wallow in their filth.

It's no fun, and I leave a fandom when I ain't having fun no more.

#louis de pointe du black #loustat

[yoonyia]

my friends referred to me as dark academia but a person and I don't know how to feel about it.

Anyways here's my thoughts on enders shadow so far and by that I mean basically nothing about the book and more about how Orson Scott Card can be what he is and still write stories of such compassion.

Orson Scott Card, for being the horrible person he is, is remarkably good at looking at a story from a different perspective, from a different lense and voice, to completely recontextualize a scene in a way that I really can't see a lot of other authors doing.

It really perplexes me that a person of this type of nature can be so judgemental and stubborn in their beliefs.

Now im no psychology major, nor have a lived long enough to consider my experience a proper case study but from what I saw from the people I met people of this nature are

1. incredibly rare, especially when it comes to subtlety and going against their own beliefs (or even just critiquing a slight part of their own beliefs)

2. incredibly kind and understanding, usually a bit aloof due to their way of always looking at an idea from the eyes of a million people. You can't really make a joke with them because they will take it as fact or see the sourness behind it, and they might be too understanding of horrible deeds and people, but at the end of the day they're kind.

Now of course exceptions to these kinda 'rules' always exists, if humans were black and white we wouldn't need to entire fields of study about it. But I find it so intriguing that osc wrote Ender as the exact person I mentioned before while seemingly not being like ender at all.

But the way he talks about his work and how he write about his loves makes me ponder at his nature for hours on end. When you read his introductions and how he came to write what he wrote he really seems to be absorbed by it. He said it gave him jealousy to not have him be the person writing enders shadow and the way he talks about his own work and ender really just seems like he's talking about himself, a constant reflection that's common among people of this nature.

Now im not saying he should be forgiven for his actions or that he didn't mean any of the horrible things he said, he meant every single word of it I'm sure. But I do also believe that he is a person of deep kindness, somewhere behind that twisted outlook of life I believe he thinks of himself as just and believes his words to be of compassion.

Or I'm assuming incorrectly, like I said I'm not qualified to psycho-analyze a person I've never met. He might have put nothing of his aiua into his writing, it might have been idea given to him by random chemical patterns in his body and he has no emotional connection to it beyond that. Who knows.

the answer is no one, or at least definitely not the writer himself.

And now that I look at what I wrote it really isn't that big of an assumption, of course he believes himself as being kind everyone tries to do that about something in their life (unless you're like me and assume everything you do is out of malice and if so I am so sorry) no the bigger mystery is how a person who can look at things from such distinct perspectives come to that conclusion.

I often wonder if the price to be a good artist is to be insane. Or inherently broken in some core human way, a giant contradiction.

I would pay the price to be a good artist, perhaps I maybe already have just without seeing the results of work. But it does make me afraid that I find myself so similar to a person like OSC, or similar to people who drove themselves mad or people who were killed or judged or punished for their ideas.

Maybe I only try and see the justification of the writers actions through his own mind because in some part of my heart I love the work to much to even mildly dislike the author. Because this world that was made inside this persons head is so beautiful it took away a piece of me and I feel unclean knowing that it was taken by someone who said some absolutely horrible, foul things.

Maybe I feel guilty of enjoying a story made by such a person

and maybe the person feels as guilty by writing it

#enders game #enders shadow

[tickly-trashcan]

Pretty Things {Mitsuba and Kou}

A/N: Thank you for the prompt lovely!! I love writing for these two so much i need to do it more often omg! I think they’re so neat and they have such a fun dynamic to explore waaaah~ I hope you have a lovely day/night and remember to keep up on your water!! :D (also i didnt really proofread orz but i think its probably fine?? anyways enjoy lolol)

Summary: Kou and Mitsuba are hanging out at Kou’s house. After Mitsuba takes a picture, Kou finds out what Mitsuba enjoys taking pictures of.

Word Count: 1.4k (under the cut)

“Come on in! I’ve got snacks on my desk and I set up a board game next to my bed! I’m not very good at it, but I know you like it!” Kou said as he opened the door to his bedroom, gesturing towards his desk and bed.

Mitsuba walked in hesitantly, looking around with curious eyes that only a photographer had. He analyzed the disorganized trinkets that scattered the room. However, despite the clutter, it was uniquely like Kou.

Mitsuba snickered smugly after Kou plopped down on the bed. He lifted his camera up and snapped a shot of his desk. “I could submit this to the school’s gallery. What should I call it? ‘Teenage Hoarder’?”

Kou pouted, his cheeks tinging pink as Mitsuba sat down next to him, clicking to the picture he had just taken. Seeing it through Mitsuba’s camera, Kou now realized just how disorganized it was, looking even worse with the bags of chips and candies and drinks. He rubbed the back of his neck and groaned sheepishly.

“You’ve got a good eye for pretty things, why are you taking pictures of my desk?”

Mitsuba shrugged. “It’s good to expand your horizons, I suppose. Though, I do prefer taking pictures of things I find pretty.”

Kou nodded, already engaged in Mitsuba’s camera as he started to click through. Kou had brought Mitsuba through their family garden earlier, showing off the different veggies and flowers they had been growing. Mitsuba had taken so many pictures they had probably gotten sunburnt standing outside for so long.

“Hey, that’s just a sneaky picture of me!” Kou pointed out.

Mitsuba huffed as Kou pulled the camera towards him. He was holding one of the tomatoes in his hands, grinning proudly. He remembered bragging about how that was his tomato plant that he had been taking care of, and he assumed that Mitsuba had been taking a picture of the tomato. The tomato seemed to be an afterthought, however, as it sat in the very bottom corner of the picture, with Kou’s face at the center.

“Just for that, I have to take a picture of you.”

Mitsuba grumbled. Kou always did this. “I’ll just delete it anyway. I don’t really like being on camera.”

“Well, I’ll still be able to memorize it, so gimme your camera.”

Mitsuba chuckled, knowing Kou wouldn’t be able to memorize every little detail of him, but handed him the camera anyway. Kou picked it up and clicked a few buttons, clearly not used to the camera as the flash light popped up.

“You don’t need the flash since we’re in your room, Kou.”

“I know! I can’t get out of the gallery menu! Hey… how many sneaky pictures did you take of me?”

Mitsuba suddenly felt his cheeks warm. This was why he never lent his camera to anyone, even Kou. He cursed himself silently; he should’ve set it up before giving it to Kou.

“I don’t know, just— Just give the camera back. I’ll set it up for you.”

“Nuh-uh-uh, no way. Wow, I look good in this one! I should start counting how many there are, that way I know how many pictures to take of you!”

“Kou—!”

Mitsuba whined and tried to grab the camera away from Kou, but he simply twisted away and laughed. He clicked the button over and over and found more and more pictures of him. Mitsuba was feeling beyond embarrassed, but Kou was having a blast. He never minded when Mitsuba took his picture, but he never knew how often he captured him in his lense.

“Give it back!”

“Not yet! Eww, you took this one from a bad angle! Can I delete it?”

“No! Don’t delete my pictures!”

Kou pouted. “But you delete the ones I take of you!”

Mitsuba huffed in frustration and continued to grab to his camera. Kou eventually held it way above his head and craned his neck awkwardly to continue looking through, giggling and pointing out how all the pictures, whether or not they were Kou, were well taken.

“Kou, I’m serious!”

Kou stuck out his tongue and blew a raspberry at Mitsuba. Mitsuba wailed and tried to grab the camera again, using one hand to brace himself on Kou’s hip. He gasped and nearly kicked Mitsuba off, making him yelp.

Mitsuba continued to grab for his camera, holding even tighter as Kou squirmed beneath him, hardly able to keep it above his head.

“Stop! I’m— I’m ticklish!” Kou wheezed as Mitsuba whined.

“Not my problem! Give me my camera back!”

Kou couldn’t hold his arms up anymore and relented, giving Mitsuba his camera back as he started to giggle. Mitsuba quickly tucked the camera back into his bag, turning around with his hands on his hips as he glared at Kou.

“That was plain rude!”

“No it wasn’t!”

Mitsuba huffed. “You were laughing…”

Kou sighed. “Mitsuba, you were tickling me.”

“No I wasn’t—! Wait… tickling you?”

Kou chuckled awkwardly when he realized he had just put himself in a possible situation. He nodded his head and Mitsuba narrowed his eyes.

“Hmm… I didn’t know you were ticklish…”

Kou backed up slightly on his bed as Mitsuba inches forward. Kou shook his head, waving his hands as he tried to talk his way out of what he knew was going to happen now that he had let that slip.

“Well, I mean— Everybody is! I’m not actually that ticklish, you know? No, no, not at all. You know who’s really ticklish is Yashiro. But don’t tell her I told you that! She’ll probably hit me with a broom and— Mitsuba? Hey, I don’t like that look on your face…”

Mitsuba was grinning slightly, in that smug way he did. Kou backed up to the wall, stuck in the corner of his bed as Mitsuba leaned even closer.

“You know, I don’t appreciate you taking my camera.”

Kou gulped. “I’m sorry!”

Mitsuba ignored Kou’s apology and reached for his hips, but Kou simply swatted his hands away with a squeak. Mitsuba laughed in amusement moved his hands again, pulling away as Kou swatted at him and poking him quickly while he was distracted.

Kou squealed and jumped, and Mitsuba laughed again. “How did I not know this? Oh, now I’ve gotta try it out.”

“Don’t—!”

Kou could barely get the word out before Mitsuba pounced on him, gluing his hands to Kou’s hips as he tickled him. Kou shrieked and began to squirm, laughing. “Mitsubahahaha! Noho— No, plehehease!”

“I wish I could take a picture of your face right now! But my hands are a little occupied,” Mitsuba teased, making Kou whine through his already frantic laughter.

“Dohohon’t! My fahahace— ehehehe! My face wohohon’t be prehetty!”

“I’d like to disagree,” Mitsuba said absentmindedly, quickly realizing what he had said. “Hey, I took a picture of your desk earlier! I like to take silly pictures too!”

Kou wailed as Mitsuba grew bored of his hips and latched instead onto his sides. He squeezed and Kou arched his back, shoving Mitsuba away as best he could while still protecting his sides.

“I’m dahaha-dying! Mitsubahaaaa! Not thehehere!”

“You’re not dying, you’re fine! Where should I tickle you now?”

“Nohohowhehehere!”

“Nah.”

Kou thrashed about like a fish out of water as Mitsuba attacked his ribs, wiggling his fingers against them expertly as Kou cackled loudly and shrilly. Mitsuba laughed with him, teasing him.

“I’ve never heard you laugh like this before!”

“I cahahahan’t breheheathe! Mitsubahaha, stahahap!”

Mitsuba took that as a cue that he did eventually need to stop. He slowed down, gradually letting Kou off the hook as the poor boy caught his breath in heaves as Mitsuba watched him with a grin.

“You have a donkey laugh, y’know? Ee-yah!”

“Shut up,” Kou whined after he had caught his breath, covering his face in embarrassment. As soon as he moved his hands he heard a click, and he groaned as he realized Mitsuba had taken another picture of his flushed, exhausted face.

“Eh, would've been better if you were still laughing. I like this one though!”

“You’re weird.”

“I am simply an admirer of people who are photogenic. Can I take another? Give me a good smile!”

Mitsuba grinned widely as an example and Kou rolled his eyes. He couldn’t resist when Mitsuba asked to take his photo. He held up his hands and smiled as widely as he could, and the familiar sound of the camera click sounded.

#mitsuba #kou #toilet bound hanako kun #tickle fic #veryblushyswitch

[sophfandoms53]

I agree I wish people could view things with more neutrality because it would greatly improve the type of gameplay that we see but It feels sometimes like the fandom has these unrealistic borderline double standard expectations for how houseguests should act. There is so much negativity and hate around things like players getting frustrated if someone is making a move that will negatively impact them, or crying when someone they like gets voted out, or venting and shit talking other houseguests who are getting on their nerves. There is anger if players make up lies about their faves but also anger if people in the house get mad about people lying because lying is part of the game. I could go on but I won’t bore you any further lol. but the fandom who isn’t even competing couldn’t stop doing any of those things if their life depended on it so it’s like why then do those same people insist that the ones actually playing the high stress game for a life changing amount of money should are bad and wrong and silly for being emotional when things aren’t going their way.

Omg im so sorry for responding late to this 😭

I am answering this now bc i still think its kinda relevant especially when it comes to how people talk about Cirie or Cory’s game recently.

You can’t appreciate or criticize how either of them play without someone trying to bash them or misinterpreting how they’re playing for the sake of wanting to feel valid for disliking them.

I really like Cirie and Cory as players and people but I’m not gonna act like they’re flawless in every way or that their strategies don’t have issues. They for sure do, Cory’s been cracking a lot recently especially with Jared treating him the way he has. And Cirie and Izzy spiral every hour and change plans constantly, its a disaster in there LMAO

But they’re also just trying to play the game and their moves don’t need to be over analyzed with some deeper motivation behind it bc they’re going after someone or they aren’t working with someone you personally favor.

Full disclosure though, you’re allowed to dislike any houseguest for any reason. It doesn’t have to be this essay of reasons or you searching for evidence so you feel valid about it. That’s kinda the problem with ppl here and on twitter, they wanna feel validated for not vibing with a houseguest so they constantly misinterpret things that arent that big a deal and want ppl to agree with them. And its kinda not necessary imo.

I think we’re just so used to disliking a majority of the hgs that people don’t know what to do with a cast that’s messy all around as people and players but are overall decent (cameron, red, and jared suck tho lemme be clear they are not part of what im talking about), so some people wanna just hate so they reach to the most extremes because that’s what we’ve come to expect. But humans don’t work in such a good or bad way, and i think this season is a reminder that people are messy and complex but aren’t bad.

It’s hard for players to truly play BB and it’s hard as a viewer to talk about gameplay bc of this “this or that” lense ppl watch the game through.

#i just want chaos half the time tbh LMAO #so how players are as players doesnt bother me #bc bb is known for entertainment and gameplay #but very rarely do we have good gameplay #so for me it is what it is #but behavior is a totally different thing #its why i dont like cameron and jared especially #red i have a side eye on too #bc them as people aren’t fun to watch #and that effects their game #also anon pls feel free to always dump your thoughts in my inbox #you are not boring me at all LMAO #this is very insightful and i think should be talked about more #bb25

[filliteapot]

What are your thoughts about age-gap romances? I myself I am mostly okay with them (it's all about the execution and how the relationship is potrayed, what it is like etc.) and some of my favorite couples and ships have age-gap, for example Tom and Polly from Fire and Hemlock, Firuka and Hagas from Genbu Kaiden. But due to fandom spaces... I have started to feel quilty and bad for liking some age-gap couples and romances and I wonder if I should stop liking them and if I should age-up my own character from 20 to 28 since the love interest is 32-33 in a fantasy romance I am writing.

Oh my, you know , I saw your ask right after complaining to a friend about fandoms. The timing made me yell. So expect a long answer with my honest thoughts under the cut.

I may have an opinion unpopular in fandom spaces and nowadays overall, but I think that your taste in fiction doesn't necessary reflect your preferences and opinions irl. More than that, I don't think that fiction equals reality and I consider viewing reality through fandom/fiction lenses (and otherwise, evaluating fiction from the point of view of our reality, this time and age) a dangerous simplification. Fiction doesn't have to work by our reality's laws and morals. Reality is much more complicated than any fiction ever written. This is that I think.

As for stories with age gap romances - I don't see it as something necessarily problematic and accusable. I may like them, I may dislike them, or stay neutral - as you said, it depends on how it's written. But I'm gonna say smth that kinda makes me worst person for fandoms: in all honesty, shoujos about teenage girls falling for their teachers, fantasy about 20 y.o. in relationships with immortal creatures, even stories about straight out creepy relationships with age gap don't hurt me and don't make me righteously mad and screaming it gives young people the wrong idea. What doesn't, nowadays? Learning to use your brains and analyze information is still my preferable option. I also don't understand how writing about some not-safe-for-all-audiences themes equals romantization of said themes. I really don't see such stories as a problem or harmful influence, just like any other thing claimed problematic by fandoms tbh. In my experience, most of them are not even close to "excusing age gaps between young ppl and old perverts". This is something totally different.

I think you should write your story as you want, without trying to please everyone and make it safe for everyone, without a mere possibility to trigger smth unpleasant for someone - it's impossible to do that after all. If for some reason your characters must be 20 and 32 years old, so be it. In fantasy I sometimes see examples of bigger age gaps, like "twenty y.o. and a 3000 y.o. magician" which fandom sometimes condemns as problematic bc of said "age gap", and I see that this one potential 3000 y.o. magician is written like a teenage girl and doesn't feel old or not human in the slightest, and it's not about problematicness or age gap at all, even when your mage is not 3000 y.o. but 30-something. It's about your exploring yourself, people and the world through your writing. Maybe, it's about learning to love the world a bit more (true in my case, this is why i'm making my own story I guess), maybe it's about putting yourself in other person's shoes, trying to understand how someone different from you (in age, or status) feels and thinks. Maybe it's about going against fandom morals and hollow accusations you are unhappy with, some kind of protest, I don't know. It may be sublimation, a stupid wish that never came true, a way to get through some traumatic experience, a way to understand your own feelings about this subject and form your opinion, or desire to take this theme and make a good story you can enjoy, finally! None of these makes you a criminal, btw. You may even never understand why exactly you take something for your story or the purpose of writing it at all - and that's okay. You have a personal relationship with your story and not a single person has the right to interfere.

In short, I'm standing firmly on this ground: stories are not our reality, but a way to get to know it and maybe love it. Your preferences in fiction don't necessarily mean it expands to real life. Feeling something good from a story that someone says you are supposed to hate doesn't make you trash. Also, I beg you: don't use fandom categories to deal with reality and don't apply their standards and logic to your opinion about yourself. Fandoms surely make our life funnier sometimes, but they are limited spaces with their own rules and working mechanisms, and they simplify things a lot. I can understand the desire to always have the right and simple answer to everything, and a clear opinion about everything, but life has the habit of walking up to you and smashing your face into situations that can't be defined by simple notions, or even don't let you decide what to accuse and what to excuse (sometimes it's not our place to decide). I don't think you must feel guilty for liking smth in fiction. I stopped caring about it some time ago, when I got that me liking murder ballads by the Decemberists didn't make me a killer, and that I actually don't see the period novels in which women suffer as romantization of women's suffering. And I'm fine with my unpopular perception of fiction and reality.

I wish all the best on your writing.

#replies #writing #this is something i actually thought a lot these days #and yes this is my honest opinion i'm firm with

[runthepockets]

Last night Liz was talking to me about how they like smelling dudes' armpits after a long day, and because they more or less navigate the heterosexual world in the same way I do (and I've met a couple straight trans girls who've said the same), it got me thinking about how people would clown on people back in the day for getting excited at M/F ships where like, the girl would ask the guy out instead of the other way around. I know a lot of people are jaded after years of seeing nothing but unfulfilling and hamfisted depictions of heterosexual media their whole life, especially on the gay website. People are justified in feeling like they've seen it all. But this is so far from true. Like it'd be kinda huge if a straight woman in media were depicted is being into her boyfriend's armpits, or a straight guy into the scent of his girlfriend's balls, or if a girl went to make the first move in the bedroom and a guy went for an "I'm actually not in the mood, can we just cuddle?" and it wasn't seen as a dig at his masculinity or the tipping point for a weird, prolonged rape joke, or for a guy to fall in love with a fat chick and have it portrayed as something beautiful and earnest rather than a weird, prolonged misogynist / fatphobic joke at her expense. Maybe not as big as an onscreen kiss between two guys, but still!

Heterosexuality in media really is just that dire, a lot of the time. The majority of it exists for (cis) straight guys to either live vicarously through or to get their jollies off to, and very little inbetween. There's a reason Hollywood keeps pushing for all knowing and all powerful strongmen with dehydrated 6 packs and one dimensional women with flat tummies and big tits. And I'm saying all this as a guy who actually likes action movies and romcoms and stupid goofy college guy sex romps.

Part of the reason Worst Person In The World was one of my favorite movies of 2021 is because there were a lot of little moments where a straight woman got to talk about her sexuality and express intimacy for her male partners in a way I'd never really seen before. She tells a guy at a party she likes soft dicks more than hard ones, because she being the one to make it hard feels empowering for her. She kinda has a thing for groping and biting the butts of her male partners. The film opens with her doing photography and asking the male models to get into savory poses before making out with them. And it was really enlightening and affirming for me. The music video for When You Were Young by The Killers is one of my favorites in the world because it follows a working class Mexican couple in their religious hometown; it's a tribute to romantic passion and betrayal as well as a love letter to a non eurocentric depiction of heterosexuality. People were crazy about shows like Roseanne (before the weird reboot and the creator going Mask Off) and Malcolm in the Middle because they depicted divisive social topics through the lenses of zany, disheveled, gritty, and realistic working class heterosexual couples (the former also being overweight without their weight being the target of any jokes) and their offspring that weren't usually portrayed onscreen. This is the kinda stuff I'm starving for and I didn't realize until I was shown it. Heterosexuality has been the pop culture zeitgeist for at least a century now and it's still barely scraping the surface of potential.

This isn't me complaining about people voicing greviences with their oppressors, or anything. No one should be forced to put a ton of thought into things they don't really care about, but damn. Imagine how much more fun people would have engaging with and analyzing straight media if everything wasn't Skinny White People Being Dicks To Each Other For 2 Hours.

[mechalink]

reading through the amphibia tag and watching people analyze things through the very specific lens of their own belief of what things look like being the only way they can be

point the first: grief is weird and messy and complicated. people you have known your entire life can not hit you for months, you could be crying over a coworker you've known for 4 months. you can cry over your abuser and father of two of your children dying to old age, you can have no reaction to a soldier dying side by side with you, but write books about the nature of war later.

to say someone in denial that doesn't cry it out onscreen, but does overwork herself to near death and become hyperprotective means the writers aren't respecting grief or their feelings is simply a 'does not logically follow'. reasoning about what is 'realistic' requires knowing what happens for real around a phenomenon, otherwise it's just 'that's not how I would have done it'

homework: read this and consider how it doesn't match, or does, your concept of grief. look at people's responses to it. consider how you would show that in a show for 13 year Olds, and how it wouldn't look wholly dissimilar to Sasha in S2 and S3, or Anne in S3, with different focuses to distract them:

point the second: just because some characters obviously deserve better, and others have to be shown to deserve better, does not mean the first characters don't matter. do teenagers with bad coping mechanisms deserve love and friendship and freedom? obviously, what kind of person world say differently? anyone who would needs to think real hard about how they treat teens.

but does a 1000 year old executor of their kingdom's colonist history and literal hivemind's subject deserve a chance to reject it, and perhaps become a better person? that's an argument you have to make onscreen because the answer is not an obvious yes! maybe you still don't think they should! but it would be ridiculous for them to not argue it.

also people should consider not minimizing or ignoring the parts of the show that do what they wish the show did. having anne hide her search history in the quarantine song is prelude to her obsession, again and again she pushes to progress the quest home, ignoring her health, her community, her family, and the law, and so many people go 'well, she can't possibly care about her friends stuck in amphibia'.

your bad analysis, and requirement for a show to specifically match your own model of what a thing looks like or else it did nothing is a failure of critical analysis. you need to compare it to a broad scope of reasonable models, and the 'denial while working yourself to death and higher danger' model is perhaps one of the most common ones in media. to ignore it in a media analysis of grief is a fatal flaw

to demand a show spend time on each character and their threads in proportion not to the show's needs, and general normal moral positions, but instead to how much you personally would have enjoyed them, is not crit analysis, it's your preference. go write fanfic about it. don't treat it as absolute and obvious failure of a specific media. sashannarcy is fucking popular. ignore andrias all you want. or don't.

like teenagers and many people, you can be better. consider the concept of a critical lens, and what your 'default' lens looks like. consider learning and using different lenses, especially Doyle-ist ones, when judging whether a show did the 'right' or 'wrong' thing

#amphibia #critical analysis #meta critical analysis #grief #storytelling

[tumblasha]

barbie girl (english vs portuguese)

a comparison between the two songs and why i think it's important for the brazilian version to Also have a remix. below is the chorus of each song

BARBIE GIRL - AQUA

I'm a Barbie girl, in the Barbie world Life in plastic, it's fantastic You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere Imagination, life is your creation

SOU A BARBIE GIRL - KELLY KEY

Sou a Barbie Girl Se você quer ser meu namorado Fica ligado Presta atenção na minha condição É diferente, sou muito exigente

---

the main thesis is that the brazilian version is simply more For The Girls. let's analyze this through three lenses

the chorus

as you can see above, the american version really emphasizes the point that barbie is a doll you can play around with. it lists off everything that you can do To her.

the brazilian version is all about barbie being the center of attention and having ken (plus all of the men in the world?) fight for her attention. she KNOWS that she's the It Girl and she'll make you fight for her attention

the ken

both of these songs happen as barbie is preparing for a party. ken is already ready, and he's patiently waiting for barbie to be done too. he constantly urges barbie to get ready, "come on, barbie! let's go party!" / "anda barbie! vamos barbie!"

what interests me here is two things:

ken's wording across the two languages: in english, he emphasizes the party. in portuguese, he wants to make sure he can spend time with barbie (it just happens to be a barbie).

barbie's response: in english she just makes cheering noises "ooh woa, ooh woa!" while in portuguese she yells out "já vou! já vou!", just as excited to spend time with ken as ken himself. at some point, barbie also says "você pode me esperar, um pouco Ken?" and ken responds simply "claro, por você eu faço tudo!". a simp!!! as he should be!!!

the end

ken: well barbie, we're just gettin' started barbie: oh, i love you ken!

in the english version, we have ken once again talk about the party and how much the event will be. barbie, once she's ready, thanks ken for waiting by telling him she loves him

ken: claro, por você eu faço tudo! barbie: ah, melhor assim!

in the portuguese version, ken Knows His Place and says he'd wait for barbie as long she needed / wanted. barbie isn't even done getting ready, and they're both okay with it <3

---

i really think that the brazilian version of the song is more fun and girly! it establishes barbie as adam and ken as the eve born from her ribs. expanding on a girl-friendly song does more for me than reclaiming a misogynistic song lol

e tudo isso é só pra dizer ANDA BARBIE VAMOS BARBIE, eu preciso um remix com ludmilla e / ou pabllo vittar

#obrigada por ler o meu portinglish <3 #someone pls tag greta gerwig's secret tumblr acct /j #tbm acho q a voz de kelly key e o 'ken' dela sonam muito como marinette e adrien do miraculous ladybug KKKKKK #dash rambles #barbie #barbie girl #analysis #sou a barbie girl #tldr #go brasil #actual ihouse #brasil mention #brazil mention

[uselessheretic]

i said this somewhere else but not here, but i think a big reason why ofmd fandom is struggling so much with certain topics (especially race) is mostly due to unfamiliarity with the marginalized identities. from my perspective as a black american, convos about race in polynesia is next to nonexistent even in antiracist spaces. topics on the caribbean is something that more people have a passing knowledge of, but even in real life antiracist spaces, they're rarely talked about in depth (and in black spaces we mostly just all bicker on twitter with the biannual diaspora war someone always kicks off with a hot take.) this isn't everybody of course. there's plenty of māori and people from the caribbean in fandom, and sometimes fandom acts like there isn't. this is also an american perspective, although i feel like it'd be a wee bit egotistical for people outside those regions to assume they know everything.

with ofmd it's not just being familiar with the culture, but its history as well, and then analyzing what happens in the show through those lenses. the time period and historical figures being depicted reflect a very complex moment in history that had a lot of nuances that aren't as widely present today. when you throw in being critical of the show's writing and what our modern day biases look like that gets even more complicated. but that still means we have to then determine how much the writers intention matters here. so people are juggling analysis that involves culture, history, writer's intention, and our own biases.

which kinda uses a bit more active work than people are used to. fandom's always bad at talking about race no matter what but lmao ofmd really be struggling. at the very least i be struggling 😭

so, for many people these are conversations they haven't held before and lenses of analysis they haven't used. that means there's a lot of new information they're learning often from fandom folks' meta and commentary. that means people have to do more work than usual to determine what is and isn't true. usually there's a bit more check and balances happening where a lot of the time (but not always) misinfo will be corrected by others in fandom more familiar with what they're talking about. this on its own is already a pretty bad way to tell real info from misinfo, but it's even worse now.

this whole ramble is also me saying that i'm also in the process of learning, and i think people should be more open to admitting that. nobody knows everything and learning involves making a lot of mistakes. i wish fandom had a more rehabilitative culture of being able to own up to mistakes. with things born of ignorance to not always be treated like purposeful, unforgivable crimes. that kind of pressure makes for a miserable environment where people are scared of being wrong and more likely to default to just agreeing with whatever statement is least likely to get them in trouble. which also means when people suspect that something isn't correct they just stay silent and work off the assumption that someone else will fix.

which, by the way, is called morally motivated network harassment so if you ever wanted to read a study that feels like it's describing tumblr perfectly i would highly recommend it.

i've been super wordy all day so my bad lol but i guess tldr:

a lot of people in ofmd fandom aren't familiar with some of the more complex topics around race because it involves marginalized identities that often are erased in schools/antiracist activist spaces

stuff being more confusing makes sense because not everything is straight forward. especially when talking about things in a historical context where there's more active engagement needed (also most schools teach us to not engage in this way. so like it fr is hard??)

fandom's too mean about things. when people are learning we should encourage that, but it's hard to do that when people feel like they're going to be punished if they make a mistake.

idk fact check stuff i guess? and be careful to not mistake someone's own interpretation for fact when listening to someone's opinion. ppl should also look at the sources and draw their own conclusions.

also i think it's dumb when someone learns new information and then pretends that they knew this all along and that everyone else is dumb and bigoted for not knowing. just as a bonus point i guess.

#long post #sorry im thinking a lot abt fanculture recently

[mikolaj-nowakowski]

FINAL REFLECTION ON CAS EXPERIENCE

What did you enjoy most about CAS?

I enjoyed CAS due to the essential freedom it gave me. Here, CAS enabled me most especially losing myself and indulging in some interests of mine, such as business competitions and photography but not only, and this needs to be underlined. It enabled me to be free and free myself from the obstacles of time boundaries. In my humble opinion, CAS was a life-changing process for me, especially in the development of my ethical and moral compass, since I needed to follow some certain rules, which helped me to think about myself.

- What was your greatest challenge and how did you overcome this?

Frankly speaking, I think that the biggest challenge at least for me was some sort of maze, when planning events and activities within the 18-month-long CAS journey. It not only involved some rethinking but I should say rebuilding of my perception of the world. This is due to the fact that I needed to plan even down to the smallest details of an activity like skiing.

I am very proud of how I conquered this huge, in my opinion, challenge, and this is due to the carefulness of my planning. Every activity, including academic tests and short tests, and what is more some more leisurely things like skiing or playing tennis, was carefully planned. I took into my account multiple scenarios regarding weather, and creating alternative plans became sort of automatic, I should say. 

- What abilities and skills did you develop most significantly in CAS?

In order to answer this complex question I critically analyzed the skills developed throughout my CAS experience, which at the end I would say was personal development. Planning methodically as mentioned few lines above required the integrated management of not only the daily activities but also what I was supposed to achieve at any specific week. I should also mention that laziness and irresponsibility were replaced in no time by diligence and responsibility.

But honestly, critical thinking is the most effective tool I got from CAS. It is this analyzing the world through different lenses and poundering upon the fact of how beautiful our life is and what world we live in. It enabled me also to dissect the problem and come up with super crazy solutions.

#final #short #post

[mundanememorize]

okay i will rant for like two seconds my once a month rant but i have recently realized fucking psychology or i guess like modern/pop psychology especially is destroyingggg art. so bad.

like as writer/artist for like the past 2-3 years i’ve found myself being like oh i need to be able to perfectly articulate how my stories deal with mental health and then i get in this awful loop bc i’m not writing anymore im dissecting.

and on the audience part too it’s also awful. i love metas and analysis etc etc but it’s all turned into this strange phenomenon of like “proving a theory” and so many of these metas (im just going to use that for the catchall) focus on the same dissection.

just lately when it comes to art and discussion old or new academic or twitter rants i feel like i constantly see people asking “what is wrong with the artist to make them make this” instead of understanding the emotion or subject present in the piece and dissecting that as it relates to you. it has ti be clinical and hard fact and true to the creators intent.

i hate this approach so much and the way i see it effects my writing has made me crazy so i’m glad i’ve realized. i do not like to see abstract concepts put into a box im sure no one else does but being in like online art culture it’s so so so bad for that because no one can discuss anything online it has to be a debate. and then you’re debating art instead of analyzing and sharing experience.

this is all very vague and that’s kind of the point. what i’m talking about applies to anyone from like brain rotted edge lord anime girl artists to characters in mainstream/high production projects. there is no separation of art from artist on the basis of how does it make you feel it seems like it’s everyone’s wondering what’s going on in the artists head and trying to use their art as tools to figure it out. i think that has terrified me in creating and it’s made me feel like i have to make it present in my art in the first place so i have “nothing to hide” but why does an audience need to be in your psyche???

this is not me saying exploring mental health and illness and symptoms of it in art is a bad thing, it is exactly the opposite. it’s when it turns into everyone fighting about how xyz proves their headcanon correct and then no one else is allowed to interpret a character another way when the point of most art from the people i know and/or admire want the exact opposite. every character should be a mirror to a large variety of people and experiences. the same shade of green should excite one person and disgust the next. i am just so tired and appalled and over the like compartmentalization of art to enjoy it as a monolith go fuck yourself!!!!!

and i kind of got off topic with the subject of psychology present in art but looking at art with a psychological lense can be fun but that’s the lens you should already be using in the sense of connecting emotionally to pieces. i’m seeing yourself in the art right in front of you. most people (especially people who don’t create art often) go into art immediately trying to “figure it out” which i understand but how to you make it clear to everyone that they already understand, they just need to listen to what is there in front of them.

to look at art through a clinical lens is the death of art is maybe a more accurate way of talking about it. to look at art and try to dissect it, not for yourself, but to say “i know exactly what the artist was thinking” you’ll never be right. it’s fun to joke about in the basis of relation to the art but then that’s just you relating. that’s your experience and perception. you will never know the artists intent.

this is more specific and a little more silly but i feel like that^ over laps with people freaking out about character and “good/bad” representation. saying gay characters can only act this way. that characters with plurality can only be portrayed like this. that characters with a disability or neurodivergence or this or that can only say this list of things or else you’ve made a “harmful character”. of course there is harmful stereotyping but i would hope everyone able to publish and produce stuff knows what to do and not to do. i know that’s not realistic but i hope majority of writers don’t need a strict do and does list to write all of their stories!

i really mean this more in the way of making a strict view of how exactly to portray a certain character especially when it comes to marginalized identity and psychology then makes a new box that pisses people off. people did not like autistic people being portrayed as emotionless genius robots who parade as people and that’s normal because that is fucked up. but why now does every autistic character need to be almost a joke about being “too weird”. why also does a character need to be confirmed by the creator to be anything. it’s definitely nice but to me if a character portrays your experience without being confirmed anything, why not just enjoy the character in the way you perceive them. i’m also just a really big fan of ambiguity and surrealism in art so that’s how i prefer to take it but i don’t understand why every single aspect of art needs to be labeled for enjoyment. it’s killing it.

i kind of got off track with this but i hope it’s clear how i feel like psychology effects art in the ways of when you confine symptoms to one box and you put people into those boxes and those people love art and make art. then the perception of art will be affected and it’s hurting it badly. it is okay to be uncertain but i think psychology is hurting people and art badly in tandem

#there’s also the issue of black and white thibking and absolutes thta have taken over the modern day #from both political extremism to your internal morality but that’s like. this will turn into an actual ten paper essay #and to be transparent on this. this id a lot of stuff i’ve only recently realized and started to unpack because i’ve stopped being obsessed #with these labels. so i am just kind of speaking from my heart and my perception of what was making me kind of crazy #psychology like is helpful to people and that shouldn’t be taken away from them #but i also just kind of wish it could quietly exist and be helpful. #because like ten years ago it was a fucking like social death sentence to be in therapy #and now it’s all you can hear or see be misconstrued on the internet but it’s hurting people more because they get out in a box #<again two very extremist points. we can never seem to find a middle ground #and it’s not bad for people to know terms or symtpms of what they have or think they have because then they can find tools to help #but the way people dissect individuals and lump them together in ‘avoidant type’ style boxes #when people have an array of experience and trauma and hardship under their belt that’s so unique to them it’s so harmful to lump them #in with so many others with that same individual experience. why do we have to mush people together to understand people #why can’t we just meet a person and let them tell us how they are and feel and came to be #sorry this is like my one million thoughts from the past couple months so i’m like. literal essay it has to stop now because i want a #peach red bull

[camiladaviladigitalmediablog]

Blog Post #6

   In this sixth session, we learned about representation in media, identity and visual culture. Without a doubt, John Berger had to make an appearance. He was mainly known as an art critic and writter of Ways of Seeing Series, which gain fame for having some questionable statements, like: The woman seeing her reflection equates to vanity, or that whenever she sees herself she is seeing herself while being observed (usually by a man). In a sense, these statements are not entirely wrong, but unfortunately, they are placed as absolute truths. As if women were enslaved by this desire to be perceived by men.

   With time, many feminists have raised to show counterarguments and point issues to Berger’s ideas. One of them is Laura Mulvey, she states that most classic movies present characters and the spectator will identify the protagonist as the male who has a woman as his co-star. And yet, what about the female characters? They end up existing solely as the friends of the female protagonist, the loving interests of the male protagonist’s friends. Or just as plain background characters that acknowledge the existence of women but will never be important enough to be considered as thinking beings with hopes and emotions.

   Not only the Western world, but I would say, the entirety of the globe is filled with mostly male gaze media. Usually, female gaze films get a weird look from general audiences. For example, romcoms and chick flicks are always deemed as some sort of second-degree movie, not meant to be taken seriously or acknowledged. Even when movies are released that are not part of these genres and have a higher budget but are presented under the female gaze, get a lot of scrutiny by film critics (usually men) even though these movies are meant to explore this other point of view. I always think of Sofia Coppola’s films when thinking of this. She is one of the few female directors to gain the same popularity as her male counterparts, many people believe her position is only because her father is Francis Ford Coppola, but others (including me) consider her work worthy of recognition and with a fresh perspective, mainly incline towards the female gaze. She had to endure this commentary that simply was not willing to analyze her projects through other lenses. Her films are criticized because they are not like the Rocky movies… well, there is not much to say, and the only way to see this is to get disappointed. 

   Now, this does not mean the female gaze projects should not be examined in any way, and just let them be because they are revolutionary. That is not the case. For example, I believe that when her movie from 2006 Marie Antoinette was reviewed, most of the criticism was lost in the explanation of why make a movie about this unredeemable figure. The thing is, of course, this movie romanticizes the lavish life of the protagonist, but I suppose that with Kristen Dunst as the female lead is difficult to identify that she is playing a teenager who just received the entirety of a kingdom. Funnily enough, the film does acknowledge the consequences of her actions and all of the noble court’s and also highlights how she was the main culprit of the decadence of the realm when in those times women had no say in general, much less in decisions about the government of a nation. 

   To me, this movie portrays a girl who just acted as anyone in her circumstances would, a noble child who now almost illimited income to expense in a lavish lifestyle. But somehow end up blamed for all the atrocities during those times that were a series of unstoppable events. Is this a character that should get forgiveness? Not really. Should be the face of a falling kingdom? Also no.

Bibliography:

Berger, J. (2012) Ways of seeing: Based on the BBC television series with John Berger. London: British Broadcasting Corp. 

Mulvey, L. and Rogers, A.B. (2015) Feminisms. diversity, difference and multiplicity in contemporary film cultures. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Marie Antoinette. (2006). [DVD]. Directed by Sofia Coppola. France: Columbia Pictures

Marie Antoinette (2017). YouTube. 28 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBWyKRoh98U&themeRefresh=1 (Accessed: 09 January 2024).

#Youtube

[vanessahernandez3d]

Blog #4 Analyzing my work through the lens of Medium Specificity and Gesamtkunstwerk

For this blog post, I will analyze one of my pieces of work through the lenses of medium specificity and gesamtkunstwerk. For this analysis, I chose the following piece. For this 3D illustration, as well as for most of my work, I mixed 3D elements with 2D elements. I also mixed the use of different software such as Blender, Substance Painter, Adobe Illustrator, and Procreate; as you can see, I didn’t stick to just one medium. So let’s analyze my work. 

‘Medium Specificity theories generally concern themselves with the idea that different media have essential and unique characteristics that form the basis of how they can and should be used.’ (Maras and Sutton, 2000)

Under the scope of Medium Specificity, my work would be somewhat less valid or a form of lesser art. As we learned during the seminars, this theory basically proposes that art forms or techniques shouldn't mix, so I’m not respecting the purity of each medium with my work and it is somewhat polluted by the mixing of things. According to this theory, my final artwork should have been achieved by just using one software or just one style (either 3D or 2D.)

However, nowadays in Digital Media Arts, it is almost impossible to stick to just one medium and achieve the greatest result by just using one technique or one style or one software; with all the possibilities that technology gives us it has become very common to mix different mediums and explore how and what different techniques one can use to achieve the desired final piece of work. As stated by Lev Manovich (2000) ‘various cultural and technological developments have together rendered meaningless one of the key concepts of modern art - that of a medium.’ Digital mediums are connected and I could argue that many times they depend on one another; to mention an example, I think that 3D and 2D media are intrinsically related, most of the time 3D artists use or create 2D sketches before conceiving a 3D piece, and 2D techniques are also used for creating 3D textures. In the same way, many times 2D artists make use of 3D models as a base for them to facilitate the process of creating certain environments or human poses. 

I can argue that my art wouldn’t be the same if I stuck to just one medium, and I wouldn’t be able to transmit the messages I want if I just stuck to one way of doing things. Yes the main components of my work are usually 3D stuff, but they wouldn’t look as good as I wanted them to look if I didn’t edit the colors of the rendered image or added 2D elements to the final composition, or if I didn’t create 2D textures for the 3D elements; under this theory I wouldn’t even be able to print and display my work because I would have to just stick to the digital medium. 

So instead, I can conclude that this piece of mine is more of a gesamtkunstwerk and that by the mixing of media, I am achieving my final artistic vision. As we learned during the seminars, this term describes an artwork in which different art forms are mixed to create a single coherent piece of work, and that is exactly what I look to achieve with my art, technique, and style. My goal is to transmit something through my work regardless of how I achieve the final product, what I care about is the impact it has on my audience and that it catches their attention; that is what gesamtkunstwerk is about.

References

Manovich, L. (2000). Post-media Aesthetics Medium in Crisis

Maras, S., Sutton, D. (2000). Medium Specificity Re-visited. Convergence, 6(2), p.p. 98-113. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/135485650000600207 [Accessed on: 12 December 2023]

[ledlightingmanufacturer]

How to choose a suitable Sports Lighting in Stadium ?

Sports Light includes a distinctive feature: ability to remote mount the driver, allowing for on-site flexibility and lower EPA wind ratings. This remote capability not only makes the fixture easy to install but simplifies maintenance. Lamps can be placed up to 50 meters (164 feet) high, but drivers can be placed in a bank at the base level. When it’s time to replace the driver, service is just a matter of accessing at the base – not getting on a lift. Why are LED Lights the key to perfect lighting in a stadium? When choosing the type of sports lighting to install at a venue, it is not necessary to focus only on solutions to short-term problems with the fixtures installed. Its goal should be to improve the quality of future playing fields and ensure maintenance costs remain within budget. LED sports lights have significant advantages over metal halide sports lights. Therefore, choosing the right LED sports lights for your stadium is crucial to a successful business plan. Why should I choose LED Lights rather than Halogen lamps? In order to understand how light is generated, it is important to understand two independent processes. The first occurs before electricity reaches the LED light bulb and can be considered as a Power Consumption Process. The second takes place a little later, with the projection of light. 1.Power Consumption Process By electricity consumption we mean the percentage of energy that is not wasted, which is necessary to turn on the lights. In ordinary halogen lamps, up to 80% of the energy is wasted in the process of supplying electricity. With our LEDs, less than 10% of the energy is wasted, so our sports LED lighting will require less electricity and will match and exceed the light projection provided by halogen fixtures for sports lighting. 2.Light Projection Process The lighting process is the second stage. Once the lights are turned on, you need to cast light onto the ground with a strong light intensity. This is where the distinction between luminosity and efficiency is very important. Is a high-power LED light more efficient just because it is very bright? The answer to this question is a simple NO. The most relevant thing about an LED is not how bright it is, but how far it can cast it. If a light is very bright for the first 5-10 meters, but from this distance its intensity diminishes and the light reaching the playing field will be rather low, it should be taken into account that for sports lighting the luminaires are usually mounted high pole.erefore, instead of thinking only about luminosity, it is also necessary to consider how light travels through distance. The luminosity is a relevant factor, but not the only one to consider. How can this ability to travel be achieved? The key factor to produce high brightness is the main purpose of sports led lighting. Geometric optics views light as a set of straight rays that bend when they are crossed or reflected by surfaces. Therefore, when the lenses for each stadium lighting are fabricated and installed, it is crucial to analyze to the maximum extent how light leaves the fixtures and manipulate them in such a way that they cast in a certain direction. This is achieved through mathematical combinations and programs that simulate light. All this we (LED lights specialists) do with maximum accuracy thanks to the professional masters of our engineering department. If the light from the LEDs is more concentrated, there will be less light scattered or wasted leaving the fixture. Are there other reasons to choose the LED sport lights than the halogen sports lighters for use in the stadium or field? HALOGEN STADIUM LIGHTS 1: Lower Track Light Scope: Much lower efficiency. 2: Higher Power Consumption: Only 20-60% of the electrical energy is used to turn on the lights. A lot of power is wasted during the process. 3: Low Efficiency: Only 60-80% of the voltage is correctly counterbalanced by the ballast. This means that the Power Factor is only 60-80% which causes significant interference on the electric current. If we assume that an installation includes other electrical equipment apart from luminaires, they will be affected much more negatively than if we use LEDs. 4: Fragile: with high maintenance rate since they use glass tubes. 5: High Reaction Time: Lights need at least 1 minute to reach their maximum brightness. 6: Health Threat: A higher proportion of ultraviolet light is used. 7: High Temperature: what makes the proportion of lost light greater. LED STADIUM LIGHTS 1: Higher Track Scope: Thanks to our unique optics, we are able to provide more light on the playing court than traditional lights or other LED manufacturers. 2: Lower Power Consumption: About 95% of the electricity is used to turn on the light, losing less than 5%. 3: High Efficiency Ballasts: LEDs use switched sources, exceeding 95% efficiency. They incorporate a capacitor that redistributes and compensates the voltage better. This means that there is better stability and less interference in the electrical circuit. 4: Luminaires Resistencies: Manufactured shockproof 5: Awesome Reaction Time: In milliseconds the LED Light turns on completely. 6: Ecological and Clean light source: LEDs focus on the visible color spectrum, so UV rays are hardly used. 7: Cooler Light Source: Generates less heat as compare to ordinary bulbs. LED lights are the best choice to save energy, and our advanced optical system, achieves better light projection by increasing the illumination on the track. The only disadvantage of sports LED lighting is that it requires a larger initial investment, but the energy savings of using LEDs is a great advantage. After a year and a half, the savings on electricity bills are enough to cover the initial costs. Currently, LED sports lighting uses the best technology and is the best solution on the market. LED is not the future, it is also the present and the future! Read the full article

#600Wledstadiumlight #Ledsportlight1000w #LEDStadiumFloodLighting