thorsty bupper

rnyfh:

“When we are trained by canonical art history, we sit through many a class showing images of the sexual abuse of women: the Rape of Lucretia, the Rape of Europa, the Rape of the Sabine Women. I always felt sure that this must be another kind of ‘rape’ from what which I dreaded happening to me, that which friends had horrifically experienced, when they feared for their lives, and felt in that moment something irretrievably stolen from them and ruined within them. How could we politely discuss artistic genius, formal perfection, compositional innovation, iconographic descent or color harmony when we were confronted with the crime by which most profoundly men police women? Artistic rape was nice, a bit sexy, normal because men do desire women, especially when they sit about with their clothes falling off. But that is feminism for you: always so uncouth and insensitive to aesthetics, and, of course, always bringing things down to the personal level, not being able to keep things like art and society apart. But in fact, the reverse is true. Art is where the meeting of the social and the subjective is rhetorically represented to us. It happens in ways which mystify that relation, giving canonical authority to a particular kind of experience of subjectivity and social power. What we are doing as feminists is naming those implicit connections between the most intimate and the most social, between power and the body, between sexuality and violence. Images of sexual intimidation are central to this problem and thus to a critique of canonical representation.”

— GRISELDA POLLOCK, Differencing the Canon: Feminist Desire and the Writing of Art’s Histories

hotcoins:

me: but it makes me look cute and the shadow that follows me makes me active, i get out more 

(via syccamine)

amongthespaghetti:

slab-o-meat:

*over the loudspeaker at ikea* FIRST BLOOD

i think if i, in the flesh, heard that in an ikea some primal part of me would break out and smash a norrnäs over the closest person’s head

(via slightlyinappropriate)

funereal-disease:

this is a strong contender for the funniest fucking thing I’ve ever seen

(via slightlyinappropriate)

historical-nonfiction:

In the winter of 970 to 971 CE, a Viking magnate was buried in a chamber grave in Mammen, Denmark. He lay on two down cushions inside a wooden coffin. It’s important to be comfortable in your eternal resting place. With him were symbols of his power: an expensive outfit of red and purple silk with blue and red embroidery, a large wax candle, a bronze bucket and two wooden buckets, and a ceremonial axe inlaid with silver decorations.

What does his tomb tell us about this man? It is unclear if he was Christian or pagan. The decorations on the ceremonial axe could be interpreted either way, but the wax candle was likely a Christian symbol, so its more likely than not that he was Christian. The fine quality of his grave goods, and the timing of the burial, suggest the Viking belonged to the circle around King Harald Bluetooth.

(Source: en.natmus.dk, via argonauti)