#Social criticism

[nemfrog]

"The juggernaut of poverty." Hell before death. 1908.

Internet Archive

[thefugitivesaint]

Diane Dillon (1933-) & Leo Dillon (1933-2012), 'Coming To Our Senses', 1989 Cover to the book by Morris Berman that I discovered at the tender age of 17. The basic thrust concerns the subject of embodiment and how Western culture drifted into abstraction/rationalism and away from the sensuous, somatic dimension of our existence as organic beings in a world. (What I've just written is a bad synopsis given that it's been years since I've read the book but it's not entirely off the mark.) All I can tell you (dear reader) is that it helped steer me into the direction I took when I delved into the fields of philosophy and economics only to encounter a great deal of said "abstraction" and "rationalism", framing people not as embodied beings with sometimes conflicting urges and impulses but as detached, rational self-maximizers who coldly calculate each action with a strict cost-benefit measurement (you may think this is more economics than philosophy but you'd be surprised how much of philosophy carries this bias almost as an axiom). [Note: this was before "behavioral economics" really became a more ubiquitous approach in economic theory but I digress] I can say that I plan a re-read to see how the book holds up but I think I can safely suggest that you give it a read (<---that is a terribly constructed sentence). This book led me to several other books by Berman, the main two being his earlier book, The Re-enchantment of the World (which I also remember loving) and his later work (from 2000) The Wandering God: A Study in Nomadic Spirituality Morris, at least from the above books, is an eclectic scholar who meanders around topics finding their connections in interesting ways and his work did wonders for my curious young mind. His later books, like The Twilight of American Culture and Dark Ages America, while interesting in their analysis of America as a nation in late stage capitalism, didn't resonate with me like his earlier work did. Again, I have not read either of the above books since they were published so it might be worth re-visiting them too just to see what Berman got right and wrong about where the United States was headed.

[theotherpacman]

look I think death note is a really poignant satire of the japanese justice system.

(im not japanese but i am american so. im not saying the japanese justice system is worse than my country's or anything)

japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and one of the reasons for that is because homicides aren't fucking reported as homicides. they're reported as heart attacks or suicides, because the japanese police just want to say that they have a low murder rate and a high solve rate for murder cases: on a personal level they want good numbers so they can get promoted, but on a societal level they want the police to remain the good guys in the eyes of the public. and that's light. "heart attacks" and "suicides" and "accidents" all actually murders, covered up to uphold the societal ideal of the law as the ultimate good.

in japan, 99% of people charged with crimes are convicted. innocent people falsely accused are put under enormous pressure to confess, at which point they often crack under the pressure and accept conviction. and that's L. he put a lot into the theory that light was the culprit even when he had nothing to go on and indeed evidence to the contrary, because he had no other suspects. and remember when he fucking had misa tortured ????? bound standing up with her eyes covered even when it couldn't have been clearer that they weren't going to get a confession out of her and it had been weeks? and he kept it up pretty much solely because he was too proud to admit that he had been wrong, or at least that this wasn't working.

in that way, light is the corrupt police force, and L is the corrupt judicial system. together they make the system of justice, but do either of them actually believe in that? they say they do, but light's "justice" is deference to the law, or rather, the status quo that the law represents; L's "justice" is having someone in prison, someone to blame, and the same perpetuation of the status quo. ideally they'd be able to keep each other in check - the police to arrest a corrupt judge, the court to convict a corrupt officer - but they're really exactly the same. light killed lind l. tailor, but L is the one who sent him to die.

it isn't 1:1 allegorical but it doesn't have to be. it's a thought-provoking and scathing criticism of what the japanese government calls justice. I think it's solid social commentary

[simplyonemore]

One more Orwell with one more social criticism. And one more of my alt-covers. Love this book! All book characters are in a pretty dire situation, but they don't get discouraged and somehow overcome challenges and hardships. I found that very encouraging.

Made using composite image techniques with 4 images. I couldn't help but put bedbugs on the cover as companions of the cheapest room, hope all of you are okay with insect pictures.

Thanks for watching!

[grandhotelabyss]

Is feeling down because others seem to be simply minded-ly following propoganda and spouting cliches, childish? Or is not caring about it and feeling numb to it just cynicism and "giving up"?

More broadly, the question of "caring" - it probably is true that this is just sentimentality and self inflicted neuroticism, self love in the mask of victim hood - yet idk, it just seems to be a natural reaction to cry for the world even if that makes you look like a gay lil dweeb lol

There's no conversation you're ever going to have with an individual or small group overwhelming enough to convert them to a whole new way of thinking, even if one trusted oneself enough to assign oneself this task. It doesn't really matter what anyone believes, therefore, in day-to-day interactions. I usually just change the subject. Or I neutrally probe their views further, sometimes pretending sympathetic curiosity, to see exactly what propaganda they've been imbibing. (Then again, what propaganda have I been imbibing? We have to remember to ask ourselves this question, too.) People's opinions change when climates of feeling change. If you can affect those, go for it; if not, stick with "it doesn't matter."

[weimar-arts]

Otto Ritschl, Der Betrunkene, 1924. Oil on canvas, 76 x 98 cm.

[that-one-girls-blog-posts]

finished Rouge by Mona Awad, the Absurdity of it all really made me question if this book could make me emotional but my good it did, she literally never misses!♡

[careful-disorder]

Félix Vallotton, Verdun. Interpretation of a war painting, black, blue and red projections, ravaged land, gas clouds.

“The painter makes no attempt to convey the decisive instants of the battle, but provides an image to sum up the war, where all human presence has disappeared.” - Musée de l’Armée

[temmais1]

Every day we see injustice happening and no one talks about it, but I will!

As a citizen who is not ashamed of my past, I must say that something is happening and everyone should know about it! They're killing our could-be-our-brothers! Every day, our brothers and sisters are brutally thrown down the drain by evil men! Killers for pleasure who forget where they came from and their past but not me!

I am a former sperm and I came to tell you my story, my struggle and trajectory!

When I was just a new sperm, I lived in a cramped house, my father's balls, along with billions of my brothers and sisters, but one day, they kicked us out of there! He made us run in the direction, I was scared but I ran as if it cost my life and it did, when I arrived at a cozy and round place I looked back and saw a scene that traumatizes me to this day!!! My brothers in sack trying to enter space and not being able to, they died trying, and I know that many were roasted for the same thing as me but they are hypocrites and do not see the truth! Even having gone through this, many men still have the nerve to throw our brothers and sisters' sperm down the drain, so today, I will not keep quiet!

SAY NO TO ABORTION OF INNOCENT SPERMS!!!

[theidealistphilosophy]

Television is by nature the dominator drug par excellence. Control of content, uniformity of content, repeatability of content make it inevitably a tool of coersion, brainwashing, and manipulation.

Terence McKenna, Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge.

[g-h-o-s-t-2000]

Robert Rauschenberg (1925-2008)

Retroactive II (1963)

[k-i-l-l-e-r-b-e-e-6-9]

Exquisite Pus - Fucking Your Rotten Face

[pavor-noctvrnvs]

| ᴀᴘᴘᴇɴᴅɪx ᴏɴ ᴍᴇᴅɪᴏᴄʀɪᴛʏ

ᴡʀɪᴛᴛᴇɴ ʙʏ ʙᴇʟᴀ ʜᴀᴍᴠᴀꜱ ɪɴ ᴘᴀᴛᴍᴏꜱ ɪ (1958-1964)

If the child, writes Plotinus, does not show any talent and seems unfit for a more serious career, the parents say that it would be best to give it to a trade. They do it today the same as they did a thousand and seven hundred years ago. The difference is that they were then aware of the mediocrity of the person who practised the trades. Today, however, the untalented, not so much with their numerical predominance, but rather with and due to the nature of modern civilization, considers itself the sustaining element of humanity. At this moment, there is no mention of Bernard Shaw's comment, who, with his usual inventiveness and his usual frivolity, considers the chauffeur-type to be the man of the future. At this moment, due to the power of technology, he who is usually called technical dictates. Which is just another name for a craftsman. Technology is not and never will belong amongst the representatives of the human spirit. But the overcrowded schools today are the technical colleges and universities, because a person without skills can easily get a well-paying job following what he learned here. This person dictates the standard of thinking and lifestyle and taste and morale and mood. To achieve the lifegoods are the easiest to him. This man has a so-called success.

We are not talking about technology. What we are talking about is the technician. A. Perron⁴⁴ says that the technique is puerile, typically a product of the imagination of the adolescent child. Everybody has a more or less developed technical age, but by the age of eighteen, in the normal man, it passes away. The technical imagination, once it reaches intellectual maturity, is only stays in the hands of the man without higher qualities. It is a pity, says A. Perron, to speak of the realisation of particularly great values in connection with technology. Behind all technical civilization is the Jules Verne idea of wanting to furnishes the world like Captain Nemo furnishes the Nautilus. If the hundred-seater turbine-jet aeroplane is to be valorised in spiritual terms, it must be we have to admit that it's value is not more than a carousel's. Rather it is less.

The literature of technocracy is large, but unusable, says E. B. Wallace⁴⁵. The opinion of every author is decided by some sympathy or aversion, as if it were impossible to take a disinterested position on this issue. Technology has become the focus of tensions in worldviews. Spiritualists reject it principally and unconditionally just as materialists praise it. European thinking does not have, and has never had, the unbiased measure that can determine the significance of technology without preoccupation. With a few exceptions, our thinkers have merely framed the passions of history well and badly, but there has been no one who could see the whole thing from above. European thought is the 'gifted personality', but do not stands in the sign of an absolute spirit. It takes more than being an interesting person to the truth.

Mircea Eliade claims that the earth's chthonic rhythm is pretty slow, and the goal of technology is to speed up this rhythm. Human takes over the role of time. What the earth's physical-geological-chemical life creates over thousands of years, man can do even in a matter of minutes with his technology. Man melts metal, cleans it of elements that do not belong there, or mixes it appropriately with other elements, shapes it and makes tools. It shortens natural processes, and what it achieves is always the more in shorter time.

Here is one of the interesting theories of European man, which is as much witty as it much is frivolous. The author do not really tell us the most important thing. What is the purpose of this shortening? Why do people take over the role of time and speed up processes?

Man's behavior towards nature can be of three types. The first is metaphysical, which wants to lift up every speck of dust in nature and wants to ennoble it. This primordial behavior for us, after it has completely disappeared even from historical religions, has preserved by the tradition of alchemy. Alchemy wants to turn the world into gold, that is, it wants to raise it with every atom to the world of the incorruptible and imperishable spirit.

The second behavior is man's paternal care for nature. Archaic cultures arose from this care. Where farming and animal husbandry are still intact, this spirit lives on.

The third behavior became common with the passing of the archaic era, and it is the robbery of nature. If one take a look today to the mines, the scorched primeval forests, the plundered seas, the slaughtered animals and primitive peoples, and the billions of civilized bondman slaves, one can have no doubt as to what is happening here. For a short time in the last century, it seemed that socialism would create a perfect change in the way of life, and everyone believed that it would end this exploitation. The opposite happened. Socialism is a European theory just like the others, it is not a solution to a crisis, it is only a product of crisis, that is, it cannot grasp things from above, it only articulates the difficulties with great difficulty. Instead of creating a radical solution, it only intensified the robbery and rather justified his crimes with a stupid ideology.

Some consider the life-destroying nature of technology to be a forced consequence of overpopulation. This frenzied robbery economy would make no sense anyway. The author⁴⁶ delights in the usual horror statistics that we all know: how many people were on earth in 1800, how many in 1900, how many we will be in 2000. He secretly hopes that nuclear war or an epidemic will thin our ranks. If this did not happen, the situation would be hopeless. In a few hundred years, there will be four people per square meter on earth, which means that we will have just as much space to stop as on a crowded tram. These people, says G. B. Balling, will have a socialist ideology of a high order compared to today's simple barbarism. They just won't have anything to eat. The predatory nature of the technique is beyond doubt. However, this robbery is a compulsion that must be continued because there are many of us. If we had a normal economy, more than half of humanity would starve. Invention, says the author, is a function of population density. The anxiety caused by the ever-increasing population forces people to create more and more opportunities for robbery, and to exploit those opportunities with ever faster and more efficient methods. If the population of the earth were to decrease to the level of 1800, technology would cease to be eighty percent, if only because there would not be enough of us to maintain the industrial estates employing a large number of people and the densely stratified occupations. Cybernetics would disappear like nylon and canned pineapples.

Of course, things can be even reversed. It is not at all certain that the regularization of robbery was caused by overpopulation. It could easily be that the exploitation that has become general, that is, the conscious breeding of slaves — just to have as many workers as possible and the labor as cheap as possible — caused such a horrible increase in the population. It seems that they want to explain the organized robbery economy with the necessity of population density, which is nothing more than a lame excuse. One cannot be careful enough with a theory that ascribes some crisis in life to external causes and wants to absolve the person from mandatory responsibility. The first reason is always the individual. The responsibility must be assumed not only out of fairness, but also because it makes sense, so there is a possibility for the person to change the situation he has recalled with his own will.

There is also an author⁴⁷ who attempts to bring technology and the office to a common denominator. The two really have something in common in life-destroying mechanization. One could also say that bureaucracy and technocracy are both by-products of modern utopianism. The author considers the office to be older, but technology to be more harmful. Today, in their demoralizing effect, they work together in wonderful harmony, as if both have the goal of exterminating life. G. W. Ballington is otherwise a more thoughtful type of journalist, who noticed the life-destroying effects of the two modern phenomena, but who did not notice the functional difference between office and technology. The office is always a question of humanity, the tension between the organism and the organization. Technique is the question of the living and the inanimate, the tension between the organism and the mechanism. The aim of the office is to corrupt the joy. The technique is a suicide attempt.

The natural consequence of man's activity to acquire more in a shorter time is twofold: one is that life speeds up, and the other is that it becomes more and more empty. E. B. Wallace calls this phenomenon loss of life-essence⁴⁸. Always more in less time. In ever shorter time, as far as possible. Run or swim a hundred meters in as little time as possible. Throw the javelin as far as possible. Jump as far and as high as possible. Lift as much weight as possible. This is the modern hero. How many bricks does the Stakhanovist lay in one hour? The speed of automobiles is two hundred kilometers per hour, so are trains, and airplanes travel at the speed of sound. One person manages thirty machines, the other forty. It is necessary to accelerate the development of plants with radiation. You have to produce more in a smaller area. More people need to be accommodated in fewer places. Bunk beds, two-level bunk beds. To make use of space, time, material, strength and energy. This grandiose idiocy is called rationalism. Rationalism is the metaphysics of robbing life. The faster someone runs a hundred meters, the less sense it all makes. There is a performance that is absolutely absurd. Rationalism is a great example of how could be something is reasonable and completely nonsensical as well at once.

Let's plant as many sugar beets as possible in as small an area as possible. This is what is reasonable. Take advantage of it. As fast as possible. No one has ever asked the question, what happens to the time you save when you do something faster? The word production is used misleadingly for this phenomenon. It's more clear as the day that it's a robbery. Sow twice a year. Growing five kilo potatoes. To introduce growing of oranges and bananas in the Arctic Circle. Shortening the production processes. The shortest way under the fastest time. This is what Mircea Eliade calls the acceleration of the rhythm of nature, when man takes over the role of time and dictates a faster pace. He wants to swim the hundred meters faster, but he doesn't know what to do with the time he saved. M. Eliade is certainly not a musical person and does not know the difference between rhythm and beat. Nature, life, thinking, and art have a rhythm, a pulse given together with life. And the mechanics are cadenced. The machine is automatic. Rhythm and beat can never be confused. If you use beat instead of rhythm, the result is loss of life-essence. The dance is rhythmic, the military step is cadenced. The heartbeat is rhythmic, the metronome is cadenced, even if numeric values of these two is the same. Rationalist thinking is an abbreviated and accelerated thinking from which the essentials of life have disappeared. Rationalism is the mindless pace that stands in one place, which has no meaning that can be called by any name. It is the modern chase and the record and the performance, the speed, the lust for life, and hurrying, and the foaming and the lagging and the dizziness and the absence of essences, when the individual is nothing more but only existence in Nothingness.

In every civilization, says Perron⁴⁹, there is a degree which may be called the minimum of spirituality, and there is every indication that this minimum is the same in all civilizations. A productive life is only possible on top of this. When a person reaches the freezing point, his life is not controlled by spiritual forces, but by pseudo-spiritual compulsions, which we know from the psychology of the weak-minded, the immature, the primitive, and the psychopaths, and which the common parlance calls obsessions. Obsession is a mere psychological phenomenon without spiritual content. A. Perron claims that if a person descends to the spiritual minimum because he loses control over himself, he can become a free prey to all abnormalities. The abnormality is precisely that a person is governed by an obsession instead of a rational spirit. In general, a person without talent can be recognized by the fact that their life contents are pseudo-spiritual. Lack of talent is actually a kind of intellectual minimum. The life of society depends on the wealth of talents within it. The dissolvance of society begins with the disappearance of talents.

Rationalism is actually an obsession that arose from the spiritual minimum of European civilization at the beginning of the modern age. Technology, un rêve défaillant, a fainting dream, was born of this pseudo-spiritual compulsion. What does this dream dreams? Jules Verne novels. Airships and airplanes and wireless telegraph and radio and television, rocketry and sustainable flight, travel on the stream of fire to the center of the earth, electromagnetism extracted from the air, and solar energy stored in boxes. Captain Nemo sits in his Nautilus, twelve thousand meters under the sea, alone. The submarine has its own power plant, shining light everywhere. He has his own way. Its own oxygen generator. He presses one of the buttons and the invisible organ plays Bach's Mass in B minor. He presses the other button and the television plays Hamlet. In the meantime, he gets hungry, presses the third button, and the table rolls in, with an eight-course lunch and port wine. He presses the fourth button and see the Moon and Venus and Jupiter up close through the telescope. Pressing another button, the submarine starts and rises to the surface of the sea, there is another button, the Nautilus grows wings, rises into the air and climbs to the top of Mount Everest. Captain Nemo sits on deck and smokes a pipe, watching the hurricane raging in the mountains, while he presses a button and a glass of fresh grapefruit juice appears on the table. He only needs to know which button to press. Captain Nemo is very careful that if he wants to listen to the Sunday sermon in Westminster Abbey, do not press the button that fires forty shells per minute from the automatic rapid-fire cannon. Captain Nemo is a colossal man because he takes all of this seriously and swears by the push-button theory. He invented and built all this himself. If this charms a sixteen-year-old, it is understandable because this is his world. If this is a mature person, then un rêve défaillant. However, if it becomes to an entire civilization, then it is a collective lunacy. And if this collective insanity prepares for war and makes tactical weapons, then that is what can be called suicide. Captain Nemo is a dangerous opponent. Not because he is smart, but precisely because he is unheardly limited and short-tempered and without talent. Because he's mediocre. Because he is immature and has no idea about the values ​​of humanity. He only cares about which button he press. If he were a student, there would still be a chance that it would be worth it. But he is a grown man, so the situation is hopeless. Captain Nemo lives below the spiritual minimum and doesn't even know what he's doing, like the student who gets drunk from sudden knowledge on how to develope chlorine—and poisons the whole house.

More recently, the name homo faber has been coined for the mediocre people. Homo faber means crafting man. This is the one about whom Plotinus says that he is unfit for a serious career. If one wants to understand this man, one must turn to the Hebrew tradition. This tradition teaches that creation is only perfect if it passes through four stages. Creation is born in the realm of potentials (aziluth) as possibility and thought. From there it moves into the virtual world (berijah), this is the first step of realization. Then it must be shaped (jezirah) and finally physically made (assiyah). Homo faber only lives in this last, fourth circle. It deals only with what needs to be done manually and physically. What is usually called an invention today is such a monstrous creation that does not affected by the spiritual phases, which is why it is such a wasteful creation. That is why most of the machines are strange and grotesque. The machine was not made to be an object of joy forever, like a work of art. All machines are gnome-like because they are mere fabrications. The Homo faber is such a clumsy man. The operation of the machine is scary, and comical at the same time. The machine is stupid. There is hardly anything more ridiculous than watching the ever-repeating motions of it, as it spits out the tin elephants from itself. Since each thing is not only itself, but also a symbol and a sign of something else, the question must be asked, what is the machine a symbol of? The machine is a symbol of the rational function, of the human ability below the certain spiritual minimum, which was just mentioned, that is mediocrity, that is, lack of talent. Since the machine only moves in the circle of doing (circle of repeated mechanical acts*), it only does something that can it done, and nothing else. Therefore, all technical creations, like sound records, photographs and reproductions, these are only factitious objects, machine-made copies.* The machine does not create, but repeat. That's what's so outrageously comical about it, because life can do many things except repeating. The machine stands outside of time. It has no metaphysics. And if someone were to ask what the metaphysics of this lack of metaphysics is, the answer would be that the fear of time appears here. Man has managed to create something that has no awareness of passing away. However, this work is, unfortunately, idiotic and can only say the same thing over and over again. What does not know death does not live. The machine has no guilt, no conscience, no religion. The technique, let's say, is ineptia mysterii (insensitive to mystery, or to be more precise, to human spirit, and the mystery of inward and intimate humane relations*). Therefore, it is ultimately an occult phenomenon.

People like the machine because it is obedient.

The advantage of a machine over a human is that it does not require freedom. The dictator's ideal is the machine.

The machine is just practice, without any theory. But we know that practice is depraved theory.

The machine is reason manifested, technology is rationalism manifested. Accelerating and shortening intervention in the processes of nature. A kind of artificial and counter-nature where things are predictable because there is no life span.

Technology is an attempt to make people live without sacrifice. The machine is liked by the person who believes that he is at home on the earth.

Machine sentimentality (electric chair).

Technology is the triumph of the outside world, that is, technology is proof that even the wildest phantasm has a greater reality than the outside world.

Whoever builds on the outside world degrades humanity.

Technology is the desacralization of human work.

The comforting nature of technical civilization eliminates the tragic. Now there is only accident.

Sacred and profane work. There is no fruitful work without valeur liturgique (liturgical value*, M. Eliade).

There is no separate sacred and profane work. Work is the realization of dreams. Mediocre dreams (Verne novels, technique). Technique, being inspired by the fear of time, is an insurance against passing away. Illusion. This is the mechanical ideal of immortality.

A never been imagined materiality.

Technology is the fainting of the spirit.

Inventing technology is not productivity.

Technology is a defense against the threat of genius. The craftsman hides in his craft so that he does not have to deal with serious matters. Hence the spiritual deafness of technical man.

The technical person has a freak sense of reality.

Technology and genderlessness. A hermaphrodite machine, neither begets nor gives birth. He excretes. The infernal character of machines.

Technical civilization and narcotics.

Unproductiveness of machines.

The machine is a projection of the subspiritual layer that is instinct and reflex, the base of the machine is Pavlov's world.

A mechanized nightmare like utopia.

⁴⁴ Arnold Perron: Un Rêve défaillant (A faint dream. Az ájult álomkép). Paris. Metteur. 1957.

⁴⁵ E. B. Wallace: The World of the Mediocrity (A középszerűség világa). London. Pencil and Stone. 1959.

⁴⁶ G. B. Balling: Malthus and Edison. Books of the recent times (Malthus és Edison. Legújabb idők könyvei). No.12. London. 1955.

⁴⁷ George William Allington: Technocracy and Bureaucracy. Diseases of the modern human life (Technokrácia és bürokrácia. A modern emberi élet betegségei). New York, Ontario. 1956.

��⁸ E. B. Wallace: I.m. 188-216. p.

⁴⁹ A. Perron: I.m. 127-141. p.

* extended/explanatory translations by the op

[malakkc-poetry]

Enigmas Galore

The world is a mystery,

Its ecosystems are all aflurry

With busy microsystems that bury

Secrets we need to survive in a hurry.

Within the Amazon forest

That's teaming with microcosms, that test

The geniuses to uncover their best

Kept perplexing plexus in a quest

For cognizance of what may stop death.

Searching oceanic reefs for answers,

Is another forager for more enigmas,

That'll blow your mind in amazements,

Which serve humanity's placements

Above all in food chains, that destroy,

Instead of build and preserve your coy

Knowledge, that man can toy

With nature and devastate in a ploy

To persuade all, that He's superior

While being ignorant of 'self' and 'other',

Where 'other' may be race or

Flaura, fauna, marine, that forever

Amaze in their aesthetic and giving nature.

Awake! Awake from your slumber

And remember life doesn't need your surrender!

[athencrys]

Minimalism and Modern Art

and how ironically funny it is

lets start easy

do these have any deeper meaning, are they actually worth anything, is it really Art?

what even is art?

Art was once primarily used to portray. Depicting equally important as well unimportant Moments in human history, acting as recollections of our past.

Art made the impossible viewable. Grand paintings of different Gods, versions of heaven and hell or other myths.

Art is no longer needed for such things, now people expect Art to give emotion.

This is where it gets good

does a picture of a painting make you feel something? does it bring you frivolous joy??

didnt think so.

at least not until you suddenly find yourself in a museum with blank white walls, white lights and a parquet floor which is too light to seems natural. Around you long wide and complex shifting hallways. On each wall you see paintings that could have been drawn by a fourth grader.

its fucking creepy.

those paintings arent meant for you, silly

you dont understand art! how dare you make assumptions about it

only heavy pockets will help you understand, buying one of these will make you feel exquisit and gives you something 'matchless' to show off

...

uncomfortable

while one of these artworks did not make an impression, on such a large scale it definitely does.

Now its fucking everywhere

Minimalism is now considered exquisit.

Its how houses are build and painted, how public parks are structured, how parents clothe their fucking children

this 'Art' has progressively taken over so many aspects of our daily lives

and in a sense that is the real Art

dont blame for believing that its truly artistic how drastically our world changed to fit our perception of wealth

and how uncomfortable it is

lets hope this made any sense

[that-one-girls-blog-posts]

girly/-girl🎀

because no matter what you like, you're never doing it right

I don't play about my girly girl things, I'm gonna reclaim all that shit! yes I am girl, I like my shallow hobbies I like my shallow thoughts and I'm gonna prove you wrong about them again and again

indulge or look down upon but girl beware to them I'm worth just as much as you are!

I'm sensitive, I have an eye for visuals and aesthetics, my makeup is art, I like my basic music, the lyrics get me, my impractical styling the fake, the fixed, the plastered and caked, all a calming ritual reminding me of beauty throughout the day

I let them dump all their "at least she can walk in them heals", "those nails probably make great weapons","she does have the body for that dress","I bet that hair and makeup took her hours"and"oh what an interesting outfit" 's on me!

let them go to bed with the satisfaction that they are better than me while I close my eyes and smile at all the stupidly girl things that make me happy

I let them feel satisfied with their wit when I uncomfortably smile at those backhanded compliments and I feel satisfied with my heart for not coming up with a single mean thing to come back with, because I can see beyond my interests!

your looks are cool, your words are cool, your thoughts are cool, and your girls so cool and important and not just accepted or tolerated but celebrated, not like those other girls, not like me, at least not right now, when we need them smart instead of sexy, because ofcourse both doesn't exist

but no! keep looking down at us with your normal life and mature behavior and proper ways, you with your artsy sporty smarty lifestyle, your games and books and fancy equipment, which "DONT TOUCH you're gonna break it, just go back to brushing your hair!" which "oh you're into that book? I bet the boys like that about you!" which "ugh just try harder princess and the pea!" and there will be pretty pink pop culture fashionista which "no makeup can fix this", "no glow up make you right", "you're not girly enough to be girl", "no letting you in until you've consumed all we did already so long ago"

be girly or be reasonable, madonna or whore, girls fight no more, be shallow or deep, Lilith or eve, it doesn't matter what you like because girl you're never doing it right, smart or dumb cause that's what that is

girls can't do make up and science fair CHOOSE

girls can't read romance and classics CHOOSE

girls can't like videogames and shopping CHOOSE

so you do and you do it wrong only girly girls like shopping, only sporty girls can run, only smart girls know history

if your hobby is skincare or reading or something else, it's valid, it's not a hobby, it's right, it's wrong and useless and helpful and beautiful and ridiculous and shallow and deep depending on the observer because it's girl!

but all our hobbies are ruined by machines you support capitalism and small peoples dreams, the products made by brands instead of innovative minds, you empower some and you hurt others, the books made of tropes instead of plots, the projects about honor instead of encouraging curiosity, the matches about money instead of skills and play

so there might never be no taking eachothers hand and showing them what girl is like, no loving eachother because we're all right, in this conversation, too different, not all the same but maybe someday aware that the problem was never girl and always system

they applaud intellect by calling others stupid, and drool at the overstyled you're not supposed to be like

my friend does math like no one else so quick and easy and always right but when she wears a dress they laugh all night, I do my math counting with nail polishes and stuffed animals but they see my dress and it's me they wanna dance with, now look at it from one side or the other, they deem both of us worthless none better than the other

by simply liking the things I like, I've been called silly, ditzy and shallow, girly all my life but hobbies are hobbies no matter if you disagree! coffee runs and hearts on my notes and trying new hairstyles, I wear my ribbons and glitter and "fakestuff" while impressing you with knowledge you thought "someone like me" couldn't posess, knowledge which you still explain slow and easy back to me not because I didn't get it but because you never will

girl isn't ditzy, girl isn't pointless, girl isn't too stupid to understand! it's misogyny not respecting women and tainting the term girl with their lack of taking me seriously

and one more word to be perfectly clear "girls" and "girly girls" and "non girly girls" and "girly not girls" if things are bad as they often are, and no one will accept you not even one of us, be confident, embrace and accept, only you have the power to truly validate yourself