Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 16 2017

SpaceJester
0981 6183
Reposted fromsadurday sadurday viaswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
SpaceJester
1975 cfee
Reposted fromomengnidnif omengnidnif viaswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
6963 2445
SpaceJester
0735 623f
Welcome to Hell.
Reposted fromlevune levune viaswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
SpaceJester
Reposted fromgreensky greensky viaswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
SpaceJester
1128 bdd1
Reposted fromtelewizja telewizja viaswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
SpaceJester
rgfellows:

rgfellows:

kanyewestboro:

calanoida:

Susanna and the elders, restored (left)
susanna and the elders, restored with x-ray (right)
kathleen gilje, 1998

wow

oooh my gosh this is rad. this is so rad.
for those who don’t know about this painting, the artist was the baroque artist artemisia gentileschi.
gentileschi was a female painter in a time when it was very largely unheard of for a woman to be an artist. she managed to get the opportunity for training and eventual employment because her father, orazio, was already a well established master painter who was very adamant that she get artistic training. he apparently saw a high degree of skill in some artwork she did as a hobby in childhood. he was very supportive of her and encouraged her to resist the “traditional attitude and psychological submission to brainwashing and the jealousy of her obvious talents.”  
gentileschi became extremely well known in her time for painting female figures from the bible and their suffering. for example, the one seen above depicts the story from the book of daniel. susanna is bathing in her garden when two elders began to spy on her in the nude. as she finishes they stop her and tell her that they will tell everyone that they saw her have an affair with a young man (she’s married so this is an offense punishable by death) unless she has sex with them. she refuses, they tell their tale, and she is going to be put to death when the protagonist of the book (daniel) stops them.
so that painting above? that was her first major painting. she was seventeen-years-old. for context, here is a painting of the same story by alessandro allori made just four years earlier in 1606: 

wowwwww. that does not look like a woman being threatened with a choice between death or rape. so imagine 17 year old artemisia trying to approach painting the scene of a woman being assaulted. and she paints what is seen in the x-ray above. a woman in horrifying, grotesque anguish with what appears to be a knife poised in her clenched hand. damn that shit is real. who wants to guess that she was advised by, perhaps her father or others, to tone it down. women can’t look that grotesque. sexual assault can’t be depicted as that horrifying. and women definitely can’t be seen as having the potential to fight back. certainly not in artwork. women need to be soft. they need to wilt from their captors but still look pretty and be a damsel in distress. so she changed it. 
what’s interesting to note is that she eventually painted and stuck with some of her own, less traditional depictions of women. however, that is more interesting with some context.  
(warning for reference to rape, torture, and images of paintings which show violence and blood.)
so, gentileschi’s story continues in the very next year, 1611, when her father hires agostino tassi, an artist, to privately tutor her. it was in this time when tassi raped her. he then proceeded to promise that he would marry her. he pointed out that if it got out that she had lost her virginity to a man she wasn’t going to marry then it would ruin her. using this, he emotionally manipulated her into continuing a sexual relationship with him. however, he then proceeded to marry someone else. horrified at this turn of events she went to her father. orazio was having none of this shit and took tassi to court. at that time, rape wasn’t technically an offense to warrant a trial, but the fact that he had taken her virginity (and therefore technically “damaged orazio’s property”. ugh.) meant that the trial went along. it lasted for 7 months. during this time, to prove the truth of her words, artemisia was given invasive gynecological examinations and was even questioned while being subjected to torture via thumb screws. it was also discovered during the trial that tassi was planning to kill his current wife, have an affair with her sister, and steal a number of orazio’s paintings. tassi was found guilty and was given a prison sentence of…. one. year……. which he never even served because the verdict was annulled.
during this time and a bit after (1611-1612), artemisia painted her most famous work of judith slaying holofernes. this bible story involved holofernes, an assyrian general, leading troops to invade and destroy bethulia, the home of judith. judith decides to deal with this issue by coming to him, flirting with him to get his guard down, and then plying him with food and lots of wine. when he passed out, judith and her handmaiden took his sword and cut his head off. issue averted. the subject was a very popular one for art at the time. here is a version of the scene painted in 1598-99 by carivaggio, whom was a great stylistic influence on artemisia:

this depiction is a pretty good example of how this scene was typically depicted. artists usually went out of their way to show judith committing the act (or having committed it) while trying to detach her from the actual violence of it. in this way, they could avoid her losing the morality of her character and also avoid showing a woman committing such aggression. so here we see a young, rather delicate looking judith in a pure white dress. she is daintily holding down this massive man and looks rather disgusted and upset at having to do this. now, here is artemisia’s:

damn. thats a whole different scene. here holofernes looks less like he’s simply surprised by the goings ons and more like a man choking on his own blood and struggling fruitlessly against his captors. the blood here is less of a bright red than in carrivaggio’s but is somehow more sickening. it feels more real, and gushes in a much less stylized way than carrivaggio’s. not to mention, judith here is far from removed from the violence. she is putting her physical weight into this act. her hands (much stronger looking than most depictions of women’s hands in early artwork) are working hard. her face, as well, is completely different. she doesn’t look upset, necessarily, but more determined. 
it’s also worth note that the handmaiden is now involved in the action. it’s worth note because, during her rape trial, artemisia stated that she had cried for help during the initial rape. specifically she had called for tassi’s female tenant in the building, tuzia. tuzia not only ignored her cries for help, but she also denied the whole happening. tuzia had been a friend of artemisia’s and in fact was one of her only female friends. artemisia felt extremely betrayed, but rather than turning her against her own gender, this event instilled in her the deep importance of female relationships and solidarity among women. this can be seen in some of her artwork, and i believe in the one above, as well, with the inclusion of the handmaiden in the act.
so, i just added a million words worth of information dump on a post when no one asked me, but there we go. i could talk for ages about artemisia as a person and her depictions of women (even beyond what i wrote above. don’t get me started on her depictions of female nudes in comparison to how male artists painted nude women at the time.) 
to sum up: artemisia gentileschi is rad as hell. this x-ray is also rad as hell and makes her even radder.
i love art history.

i’m reblogging this again to add something that i also think is important to know about artemisia gentileschi.back in her time and through even to today, there are people who argue that her artworks were greatly aided by her father…. as in he either helped her paint them or just straight up painted them himself. hell, there are a number of works only recently (past several years or so) that have been officially attributed to artemisia because people originally saw the signature with “gentileschi” in it and automatically attributed it to orazio.so, not only was artemisia gentileschi an amazing artist and amazing historical figure, but i don’t want it to be ignored that there are people over 400 years later who still won’t give her the credit she deserves, just because she’s a woman and obviously women can’t paint like she did.

rgfellows:

rgfellows:

kanyewestboro:

calanoida:

Susanna and the Elders, Restored (Left)

Susanna and the Elders, Restored with X-ray (Right)

Kathleen Gilje, 1998

wow

Oooh my gosh this is rad. This is so rad.

For those who don’t know about this painting, the artist was the Baroque artist Artemisia Gentileschi.

Gentileschi was a female painter in a time when it was very largely unheard of for a woman to be an artist. She managed to get the opportunity for training and eventual employment because her father, Orazio, was already a well established master painter who was very adamant that she get artistic training. He apparently saw a high degree of skill in some artwork she did as a hobby in childhood. He was very supportive of her and encouraged her to resist the “traditional attitude and psychological submission to brainwashing and the jealousy of her obvious talents.”  

Gentileschi became extremely well known in her time for painting female figures from the Bible and their suffering. For example, the one seen above depicts the story from the Book of Daniel. Susanna is bathing in her garden when two elders began to spy on her in the nude. As she finishes they stop her and tell her that they will tell everyone that they saw her have an affair with a young man (she’s married so this is an offense punishable by death) unless she has sex with them. She refuses, they tell their tale, and she is going to be put to death when the protagonist of the book (Daniel) stops them.

So that painting above? That was her first major painting. She was SEVENTEEN-YEARS-OLD. For context, here is a painting of the same story by Alessandro Allori made just four years earlier in 1606: 

image

Wowwwww. That does not look like a woman being threatened with a choice between death or rape. So imagine 17 year old Artemisia trying to approach painting the scene of a woman being assaulted. And she paints what is seen in the x-ray above. A woman in horrifying, grotesque anguish with what appears to be a knife poised in her clenched hand. Damn that shit is real. Who wants to guess that she was advised by, perhaps her father or others, to tone it down. Women can’t look that grotesque. Sexual assault can’t be depicted as that horrifying. And women definitely can’t be seen as having the potential to fight back. Certainly not in artwork. Women need to be soft. They need to wilt from their captors but still look pretty and be a damsel in distress. So she changed it. 

What’s interesting to note is that she eventually painted and stuck with some of her own, less traditional depictions of women. However, that is more interesting with some context.  

(Warning for reference to rape, torture, and images of paintings which show violence and blood.)

So, Gentileschi’s story continues in the very next year, 1611, when her father hires Agostino Tassi, an artist, to privately tutor her. It was in this time when Tassi raped her. He then proceeded to promise that he would marry her. He pointed out that if it got out that she had lost her virginity to a man she wasn’t going to marry then it would ruin her. Using this, he emotionally manipulated her into continuing a sexual relationship with him. However, he then proceeded to marry someone else. Horrified at this turn of events she went to her father. Orazio was having none of this shit and took Tassi to court. At that time, rape wasn’t technically an offense to warrant a trial, but the fact that he had taken her virginity (and therefore technically “damaged Orazio’s property”. ugh.) meant that the trial went along. It lasted for 7 months. During this time, to prove the truth of her words, Artemisia was given invasive gynecological examinations and was even questioned while being subjected to torture via thumb screws. It was also discovered during the trial that Tassi was planning to kill his current wife, have an affair with her sister, and steal a number of Orazio’s paintings. Tassi was found guilty and was given a prison sentence of…. ONE. YEAR……. Which he never even served because the verdict was annulled.

During this time and a bit after (1611-1612), Artemisia painted her most famous work of Judith Slaying Holofernes. This bible story involved Holofernes, an Assyrian general, leading troops to invade and destroy Bethulia, the home of Judith. Judith decides to deal with this issue by coming to him, flirting with him to get his guard down, and then plying him with food and lots of wine. When he passed out, Judith and her handmaiden took his sword and cut his head off. Issue averted. The subject was a very popular one for art at the time. Here is a version of the scene painted in 1598-99 by Carivaggio, whom was a great stylistic influence on Artemisia:

image

This depiction is a pretty good example of how this scene was typically depicted. Artists usually went out of their way to show Judith committing the act (or having committed it) while trying to detach her from the actual violence of it. In this way, they could avoid her losing the morality of her character and also avoid showing a woman committing such aggression. So here we see a young, rather delicate looking Judith in a pure white dress. She is daintily holding down this massive man and looks rather disgusted and upset at having to do this. Now, here is Artemisia’s:

image

Damn. Thats a whole different scene. Here Holofernes looks less like he’s simply surprised by the goings ons and more like a man choking on his own blood and struggling fruitlessly against his captors. The blood here is less of a bright red than in Carrivaggio’s but is somehow more sickening. It feels more real, and gushes in a much less stylized way than Carrivaggio’s. Not to mention, Judith here is far from removed from the violence. She is putting her physical weight into this act. Her hands (much stronger looking than most depictions of women’s hands in early artwork) are working hard. Her face, as well, is completely different. She doesn’t look upset, necessarily, but more determined. 

It’s also worth note that the handmaiden is now involved in the action. It’s worth note because, during her rape trial, Artemisia stated that she had cried for help during the initial rape. Specifically she had called for Tassi’s female tenant in the building, Tuzia. Tuzia not only ignored her cries for help, but she also denied the whole happening. Tuzia had been a friend of Artemisia’s and in fact was one of her only female friends. Artemisia felt extremely betrayed, but rather than turning her against her own gender, this event instilled in her the deep importance of female relationships and solidarity among women. This can be seen in some of her artwork, and I believe in the one above, as well, with the inclusion of the handmaiden in the act.

So, I just added a million words worth of information dump on a post when no one asked me, but there we go. I could talk for ages about Artemisia as a person and her depictions of women (even beyond what I wrote above. Don’t get me started on her depictions of female nudes in comparison to how male artists painted nude women at the time.) 

To sum up: Artemisia Gentileschi is rad as hell. This x-ray is also rad as hell and makes her even radder.

I love art history.

I’m reblogging this again to add something that I also think is important to know about Artemisia Gentileschi.
Back in her time and through even to TODAY, there are people who argue that her artworks were greatly aided by her father…. As in he either helped her paint them or just straight up painted them himself. Hell, there are a number of works only recently (past several years or so) that have been officially attributed to Artemisia because people originally saw the signature with “Gentileschi” in it and automatically attributed it to Orazio.
So, not only was Artemisia Gentileschi an amazing artist and amazing historical figure, but I don’t want it to be ignored that there are people over 400 years later who still won’t give her the credit she deserves, just because she’s a woman and obviously women can’t paint like she did.

Reposted fromsober sober viaswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
SpaceJester
0168 a3b9
SpaceJester
SpaceJester
7574 6db7
When I join empty server
Reposted fromrrandom rrandom viaswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
SpaceJester
1150 3286
meanwhile in russia
SpaceJester
5849 1cad
Reposted fromswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
SpaceJester
Reposted fromunsteadyshy unsteadyshy viaswinkaszynka swinkaszynka
2420 303c
Reposted fromidiod idiod
2418 b884
Reposted fromidiod idiod

June 13 2017

3393 9e1d

sixpenceee:

A cherokee tribe’s blue fire opal knife. 

Not opal.

Opalite (fancy-ass glass)… Opal can’t be knapped like flint, or glass.

Reposted fromdarkbookworm13 darkbookworm13
SpaceJester
1737 1f80
Reposted fromdaelmo daelmo
3479 5642 500
Reposted fromwit wit
3548 2ada

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 

image

It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 

What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.

This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 

imageimageimage

Also: 

image

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.

You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.

Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.

Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.

Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.

Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE.

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

Reposted fromenyopax enyopax
2725 7502 500

thervdhood:

i’m fucking LOSING it

Reposted fromanswrs answrs
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl