devoutvesta

[devoutvesta]

If y’all haven’t already, i highlyy suggest you go take a look at Brodsky & Utkin’s work. They were Russian architects, primarily active in the late 20th century. (I think their work emerged during the late Soviet era). Their works are absolutely mind blowing. I’m Dumbfounded.

[devoutvesta]

my opinion on the domesticated ford au and how critiques have been addressed by the creator:

there is an existing issue in the fandom with them not taking the canon abuse that ford faced seriously, e.g consistently victim blaming him, etc. this au has only fed into the downplaying of his abuse, under the guise of trying to portray the reality of abuse.

now this is the biggest issue i have with it:

they may not be ill intentioned, but they are intentionally pandering to the audience by making light of this abuse (through silly memes of ford in degrading situations) for comedic purposes whenever the audience asks. they play into the jokes and will then defend it by pretending they want to show the “dark reality” of abuse, but meanwhile they’re drawing ford on a hamster wheel and engaging in discussions like this (media below the cut). it is the audience that treats this character like a pet, the artist feeds into that.

secondly, i don’t think the quality of an au relies on how well it sticks to the source material, but i will be using canon billford as a reference point. their relationship has been praised for it’s nuance and how relatable it is to survivors of abuse. it actually helped many put their own experiences into perspective. bill and ford had a mutual, purer love and respect for one another, despite what bill did, as well as a mutual obsession. this integral part of their dynamic is surely what adds to how well written this abusive relationship was.

the au does remove this nuance, reducing their dynamic to that of a pet/nuisance and it’s apathetic owner. i do not think this is a bad thing to do, it is an au after all. but it is worth noting and it is something i dislike about it. it removes what makes it so realistic in the first place, ironically, as that was the opposite intention.

to each their own i suppose, i just think this relates to a bigger issue in the fandom itself. how they angrily react upon seeing an imperfect victim vs. the degrading manner with which they choose to discuss a less realistic but somehow more “sympathetic” portrayal.

[devoutvesta]

[devoutvesta]

it's so foggy out on the road i can't make out (makeout?! 😳😏😳🥺⁉️❤️❣️?💗💓💕💞💖💛💚💖💛💝💋?) a thing 10 feet infront of me

[devoutvesta]

Nicola Samori

Maddalena

Oil on panel

2010

[devoutvesta]

I just got described as an "ad hating commie" by someone because I said a minute of youtube ads is unpleasant. fully spent 5 minutes arguing and defending youtube ads. insane stuff

[devoutvesta]

The Real Dream by Colette (1975)

[devoutvesta]

the leaves are falling in the stream, the river flows away

[devoutvesta]

the erasure of adult women is terrifying be hairless, be smooth, no wrinkles, no cellulite, no stretch marks, no smile lines, no crow’s feet, no gray hairs we are teaching our female children that they will cease to exist if they don’t keep up the ever present demand to look youthful

[devoutvesta]

Women do not simply have faces, as men do; they are identified with their faces. Men have a naturalistic relation to their faces. Certainly they care whether they are good-looking or not. They suffer over acne, protruding ears, tiny eyes; they hate getting bald. But there is a much wider latitude in what is aesthetically acceptable in a man's face than what is in a woman's. A man's face is defined as something he basically doesn't need to tamper with; all he has to do is keep it clean. He can avail himself of the options for ornament supplied by nature: a beard, a mustache, longer or shorter hair. But he is not supposed to disguise himself. What he is "really" like is supposed to show. A man lives through his face; it records the progressive stages of his life. And since he doesn't tamper with his face, it is not separate from but is completed by his body—which is judged attractive by the impression it gives of virility and energy. By contrast, a woman's face is potentially separate from her body. She does not treat it naturalistically. A woman's face is the canvas upon which she paints a revised, corrected portrait of herself. One of the rules of this creation is that the face not show what she doesn't want it to show. Her face is an emblem, an icon, a flag. How she arranges her hair, the type of makeup she uses, the quality of her complexion—all these are signs, not of what she is "really" like, but of how she asks to be treated by others, especially men. They establish her status as an "object."

—Susan Sontag, “On Women.”

[devoutvesta]

[devoutvesta]

WELCOME ONE AND ALL TO WEIRDMAGEDDON !

[devoutvesta]

caught up in it

[devoutvesta]

i do not think its wrong to ship billford, here’s why

1) reevaluate the way in which you consume media. no one is shipping something because its their ideal for a perfect, romantic relationship. it’s not that black and white. that’s never been the point of shipping.

2) these tropes are nothing new, and have been beloved by ancient audiences for the same reasons it’s beloved today. whether it’s an imbalanced power dynamic, specifically god x mortal, a shared history, or mutual obsession.

3) for centuries, people have enjoyed navigating complicated and unhealthy emotional dynamics. especially when said ship can not exist in a healthy way. ford either hates or worships a much stronger, less empathetic, ancient eldritch being that likewise either obsesses over him or sees him as a nuisance/pet. either way, they’re always on the other’s mind. they are both deeply flawed, and only they know the true extent of the other’s ugliness, and they still love them.

but there is that middle ground that we’ve seen in the journal pages, some domesticity and genuine, pure love for the other. it exists, abusive relationships are nuanced, they have their good and their bad. and billford had their good parts. why wouldn’t people want to make art about it? here is your reminder that creating art does not equate to justifying or fetishizing abuse. it can and has happened, but there are many people incapable of seeing how obvious it would be if billford’s abuse was actually being fetishized by its shippers. it is so easy to notice. and it isn’t what’s being done here.

that nuance is still present when people make billford fluff. billford did have fluffy moments. there was tenderness, vulnerability, and love in that relationship. it’s okay to acknowledge that. why do you expect all art of billford to be torture porn of ford? not everyone wants to write bill physically torturing ford over and over again, especially when there are other, less gory aspects of their relationship to explore, that only increase the emotional impact of the torture that follows.

the ship is canon and is meant to be acknowledged, alex hirsch has attempted to explore both the messed up parts and the happy parts of their dynamic multiple times. in the show, in the journal, and in the book of bill. why is it any different when a fan does it?

does the art have to be explicitly acknowledge the abuse and remove all nuance from bill’s character, reducing him to something simple and one dimensional whose only motivation is to hurt others, for you to accept it? abuse is not that black and white, abusers themselves are not that black and white. bill in particular definitely is not.

it seems like a disservice to the original work.

navigating the ugly parts of a very fucked-up relationship is something fascinating and enjoyable for artists. there is a lot of grief, anger, and probably every other toxic thing in the book for you to work with. it’s the same reason people wait impatiently for whumptober.

exploring their dynamic has also allowed many to put their own abusive relationships into perspective.

i remember someone on reddit saying, “they’re both broken people, rub them sharp edges together long enough and you’ll get a fire. it’s fun to write.” and i think that describes it perfectly.

[devoutvesta]

[devoutvesta]

[devoutvesta]

The American Journal of Roentgenology (1906)