#i know as an artist one will interpret my art in their own unique way based off their experiences

[signanothername]

How do you feel about the fandom?

I’m assuming you mean Ut/utmv?

How can I say this in the most gentle way possible hmm..

I genuinely do love the creativity within the fandom, the beautiful art and stories and ideas people come up with, the different interpretations of these characters even when i don’t agree with them or have my own thoughts/opinions, cause that’s what fandoms are supposed to, it’s all of us showing our love for these lil blorbos of ours in each of our own unique different ways

Of course, each fandom has its good and bad side, but to say the ut/utmv fandom is so damn negative to the point it’s suffocating is an understatement

I’m especially weirded out by the pro harassment behavior within this fandom, like, a mf would say “i’m anti harassment!!!!” Then turn around and post/reblog a post with +20 people name dropped to “raise awareness” for whatever little that is worth, you can “raise awareness” by messaging people privately, not make a list where an asshole can easily use it to harass people, and no, saying shit like “don’t harass these people!!!” Does not alleviate any responsibility from you if they do get harassed because of your post

That’s why messages are a thing, and only messaging those who explicitly state they want to be messaged, not jump in into people’s inboxes or messages and telling them shit out of the blue

So many people within this fandom need to learn fandom etiquette, how to mind their own business, and to use the damn block button, you’re uncomfortable with a certain subject? Tumblr has the most handy filtering system, don’t like a person/find them uncomfortable? Block them, blocking them isn’t enough and want to complain? That is what you can use your blog for, feel free to complain on your own blog to your heart’s content (not on other people’s blogs or under their posts if it’s not the subject for it) that’s what friends are for too, go to their DMs and complain till the end of time

Being just a bit bigger of an artist follower wise in comparison to other artists means that I deal with very special cases sometimes, because I’m also puzzled by the way people can get super comfortable with commanding strangers to do things they want or to break basic respectful boundaries like not getting people involved in drama even when they specifically state not to include them (me, I’m starngers, every time I reblog my boundaries post, it’s me implying that I got something that broke my very basic bitch boundaries that day, which says a lot about the fandom, cause i literally only got 4 boundaries stated damn)

That’s why I opt to not get too close to people within the fandom, and am generally careful as to who I let close to me, I’m very certain people might think I somehow have my own social circle within the fandom or have some wide connections they can never get, when in reality I’m isolated af

That being said, idk if it’s young people not knowing any better, or adults who act like children, but the fact harassment is very prominent and also very normalized within the fandom is something that definitely made me seriously think of just getting back to the Transformers fandom (one of the most chill fandoms i’ve ever been part of)

Fandom is fandom, keep it for rambling about blorbos, and learn to mind your own business <3

[mokeonn]

I have crawled out of my "only doing art studies pit" to craft a piece so full of love, and I shall now post that piece before once again disappearing to cry over anatomy

[bakuhatsufallinlove]

"Queer-coding" is only useful for a narrow range of media and it'd be great if we could stop using it for literally everything

Here's my problem with it:

The term originated to discuss negative media depictions of cultural stereotypes for LGBTQ people in the United States. It is inherently tied to the conditions of media censorship at play in the USA during the 1900s, with the Hays Code restricting depictions of anything it deemed "immoral."

Now, for whatever reason, people are using it to refer to literally anything they see as "kind of gay."

The term begins with the premise that making the audience see the character as queer is the creator's explicit intention. The creator knows the stereotype, you know the stereotype, so they are using the stereotype to convey to you something they can't say outright.

However, you can see how this goes awry, right?

The second we cross language, cultural, or even generational lines, this gets messy.

What traits are deemed queer? What behaviors or characteristics are seen as gay? The reality is this is a huge spectrum, and every culture has a different relationship with queerness in its history. For that matter, every nation has its own unique issues with censorship. A viewer from the USA may interpret a Japanese character as exhibiting stereotypically gay characteristics, but does that mean the Japanese creator intended it to be taken that way?

But then, if we try to account for what stereotypes Japanese media might use for queer characters to ascertain what the Japanese creator might have intended, we arrive at the same dead-end: the implication that queerness is only really portrayed via (usually negative) stereotypes.

This suggests that if media does not contain enough "clues" to imply a character is queer to the broadest possible audience, a queer reading of their story is out of the question. "Queer-coding" is treated as a metric of validity, a way to "prove" queer interpretations are allowable, yet it is based in stereotypes, censorship, and presumption of authorial intent.

The way queer-coding is continually brought into discussions about art essentially creates an ultimatum: media needs to be "explicit" by using direct (usually English language) terminology, or characters need to engage in things like kissing, declaring one's love, sexual activity, etc., yet even those are dismissed at times.

This creates a dynamic where art which is intentionally subtle or multifaceted may be seen as exhibiting cowardice rather than artistic complexity. It implies that if something is not "confirmed queer," queer themes cannot be read into it, queer subtext cannot be interpreted from it, and queer people are not allowed to identify with it.

This limits art. This builds walls that diminish human connection; it creates a situation where queer people are discouraged from seeing themselves in media not explicitly designated for them. Because, obviously, queer people are a completely different species from "normal people," right? Their feelings and experiences are so alien and distinct, there's no overlap anyone else could sympathize with.

You don't need permission to see queerness in art. You don't have anything to prove. Queer interpretations are just as valid as any other, and anyone who tells you different is selling something.

As I spoke about in this post, authorial intent is not more important than audience perception, and trying to infer the creator's intentions is a fool's errand. Especially in a situation where censorship is supposedly at play, any public statement from a creator could be reasonably disregarded as dishonest, which leaves us alone with ourselves and the work.

Which, by the way, is the only real way anyone experiences art. It's not you and the creator, it's you and the work. When people try to infer authorial intent, they are not discerning real, objective truth. They are sorting available information through a filter of what they consider believable before arriving at a subjective conclusion, which they then project onto a mental image of the creator.

In literary analysis, we select a "lens" through which to view art. This means that we decide to accept certain ideas as given fact and explore what the works says once we look at it that way. For example, we could accept as fact the idea that a number of the core cast are queer in some way. It posits the question: once we dismiss heterosexuality and cisgender identity as the only options, what do we see?

This is an intellectual concept, but the reality is that everybody naturally applies their own lens to art when they view it. This lens is not nearly so rigid or clearly defined, but it is a lens nonetheless, defined by their experiences, values, and individual personality.

I would love for people to stop using the phrase "queer-coding" quite so freely. It centers a need for validation and hinges that on "what the creator intended."

If you want some ideas for different language about this, consider these:

A theme might be queer by exploring broad topics queer people often struggle with, such as secrecy, shame, or self-acceptance.

The subtext of something might be queer in that one could read a double-meaning or deeper implication to the narrative device or scenario.

A work might contain allegory, symbolism, imagery or parallels that could be interpreted with queerness.

I don't think it's interesting to try to "win" by convincing you I personally know what the creator intended. That leaves the art static, unchanging, and lifeless. I would much rather tell you how I personally see the art and why, because that dynamic allows all of us examine the work more deeply.

In the end, it is not an author's edict in some external statement that gives art meaning. It is the audience. Our feelings are what give art meaning, and connecting with other people about what it all means to us is what keeps art alive.

[0-n-1-x]

I positively ADORED the artist!reader x Damian, but I was wondering, do you have any ideas for photographer!reader and Damian? Please and thank you

tysm!! I actually was thinking about photographer!reader before so I have some do have some ideas!!

link to my masterlist <33

-I'd think that you would definitely be on yearbook or photography club at gotham academy.

-you and Damian meet during a school event where you're the unofficial photographer for your class. You’re snapping pictures for the yearbook, capturing moments of your classmates having fun. Damian, is off to the side, observing. When you spot him, something about his intense gaze and aloof demeanor intrigues you, so you decide to snap a quick photo of him.

-Damian notices you taking his picture and approaches you, questioning why you’d photograph him without permission. You apologize and explain that you’re just trying to capture everyone at the event. Despite his initial irritation, he’s impressed by your honesty and the way you confidently stand your ground. This sparks his interest, leading to more conversations between you two.

-Damian becomes protective of you, especially when he sees how focused you get during your shoots. If you’re out taking photos in risky areas of Gotham or staying out late to get the perfect shot, Damian insists on accompanying you, not wanting you to be alone in dangerous situations. If you go by yourself, best believe you're getting watched over by Robin that evening

-you guys definitely collaborate on creative projects. He’ll sketch something and you’ll try to capture it through photography, or you’ll take a photo, and he’ll interpret it through his art. It’s a unique partnership that brings out the best in both of your talents.

-Damian isn’t big on public displays of affection, but he shows his love in subtle ways. He’ll hold your hand when you’re walking together, guide you protectively through crowds, or rest his hand on your lower back. In private, he’s more open, often pulling you into gentle embraces and kissing your forehead or temple. You support this more than another person would, because you understand paparazzi, and journalism partially (sometimes you even pose when you guys are in public)

-Damian is your biggest supporter when it comes to your photography. He’ll attend every exhibition, help you find new locations to shoot, and like I said in Artistic!reader he'll even use his connections to get you access to exclusive places.

-You and Damian enjoy exploring Gotham together, often venturing into different neighborhoods to find hidden gems for your photography. Damian, being familiar with the city’s ins and outs, knows the best rooftops for skyline shots and the quietest parks for candid moments. These adventures become a regular part of your relationship

-Damian isn’t the most traditionally romantic, but he surprises you in his own way. He might bring you a new lens for your camera that he noticed you were eyeing, or leave a bouquet of your favorite flowers on your desk. His gestures are thoughtful and personal, always reflecting how well he knows you.

--Damian’s love language is acts of service and quality time. He shows his affection by doing small things for you, like making sure your camera gear is ready for a shoot or bringing you a coffee when you’re editing late into the night. You reciprocate by always being there for him, providing a safe space where he can be himself without any pretense.

[hyun3hk3y]

Symbolism in "Portrait of Lady Edelgard Von Hresvelg"

This is something that I’ve usually never really felt comfortable doing. If you ever wonder why some artists are a bit more reluctant to actually *talk* about the “meaning” of their work, its because it strikes the same tenor as having to explain why a joke is funny.  If I have to actually lay it out for the viewer why certain decisions were made in the execution of a work of art, the magic of the whole experience may be lost.  Moreover, many artists avoid making definitive statements on their work because they do not wish to deprive viewers the opportunity to derive their own unique explanation. 

While I chiefly view myself as a fine artist, most of my artistic training was as an illustrator.  As an artist, this can lead to an interesting dichotomy when it comes to creating paintings.  During my studies, I was told that the job of an illustrator is to solve pictorial problems for people often by making pictures that tell a story or convey an idea.  Fine art’s definition, in contrast, tends to be more nebulous.  But I digress, on to the painting…

A number of people on reddit and Tumblr have remarked on the candle with the snuffed-out flame.  No interpretations on it have been offered, the mere presence of a candle with a smoldering wick is a strong enough implication.  However, this is one instance where I drew inspiration from art history so I believe it is worth elaborating on.  The animus for the candle originates in the Arnolfini Portrait by Jan Van Eyck.  Below is an image of the painting with the pertinent candle circled.

Art history scholars have a number of different readings about the candle’s presence, but the one I was taught in Art History is that the lit candle indicates the presence of the holy ghost or the watchful eye of God.  Three Houses draws from a number of religions for its world building, in the case of The Church of Serios, the developers took the majority of their cues from The Catholic Church.  If a lit candle would suggest Edelgard’s faith in the Goddess, then an extinguished one must imply Edelgard’s *loss* of faith. 

In addition to the extinguished candle, I would also like to direct viewers to the reflection of the candle in the polished wood table surface. In the reflection the candle is still burning very brightly, almost down to the base of the candelabra.

The purpose of this image is to recall a saying from old Taoism Philosophy in China: “The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.”  Those who are familiar with Edelgard’s back story in Three Houses will find its relevance obvious.  I doubt I am the only one to make the allusion.

This brings me to the next major piece of symbolism I employed in the painting, the dagger and the drapery on the table.  The dagger’s significance should go without saying, but its application as a device will become more apparent after I explain the table cloth.  To put it succinctly, the majority of the dark shadow shapes made by the tablecloth are arranged to evoke the shape of the crest of flames.  Below is another visual to help illuminate this detail. 

The immediate implication here is the detail of Edelgard possessing the crest of flames.  As for why I decided to depict it in a more concealed way…When I first got the idea for this painting, the whole concept was that if a person saw this painting in a gallery, they would be looking at an actual artifact from Fodlan, one that created by an artist who actually lived there.  This is why the second row of the inscription reads “In the Imperial Year” on the left side and “1179” on the right.  This means the painting would have been completed just before Edelgard starts attending Gareg Mach, and long before the greater public would know she has the crest of flames.  How the artist came to know this would remain a mystery.  I like to imagine it as a detail that Fodlan’s historians would debate over for years after the game’s narrative.

There is also a second message that I have intended with the dagger’s placement cutting (heh) across the crest…Gripping the dagger over the crest of flames is a statement about what the path is that Edelgard will take, especially when the crest is examined as representing the Goddess Sothis.  In fact, there are two (technically three) lines of dialogue from Three Houses I had in mind for this symbolism.

That about sums it up!  I may do a couple more posts in the future where I show how the painting evolved from thumbnails, to studies to the finished image if theres interest in that sort of thing.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

So, controversial topic. taking in count that in a month, the webcomic "scarlet lady" is gonna end ¿what are your feelings about it?

I know that there's people out there that don't like it for the chloe salt, but i have to admit that the damnation that chloe went through, at least for me, gave her more agency than canon, for the fact that it wasn't manipulated by outside forces like canon did, it gave her the right to choose to be better or worse.

Another great element is that it does what canon refused to do: five back Adrian his agency by letting him vent his frustrations AND let him realize that his father is a bastard.

If you don't agree, that's more than excellent, i want to know your take in this topic, that being positive or negative 😄👍

My friend, you are talking to a big Scarlet Lady fan, so I'm happy to give my thoughts! Get ready for some gushing and in-depth discussion of the adaptation process. That's really what all fanfiction is, but Scarlet Lady is more of an adaptation than most since it's a true canon rewrite that often requires you to know canon to fully appreciate its jokes and meta commentary.

Before we get into it, I want to give a link to the comic for those who haven't read it. The artist/writer is @zoe-oneesama and this is page one of the comic. I'd follow the comic link if you haven't read it as the comic is nearing its end, so going straight to Zoe's page will spoil you on elements of ending.

General Thoughts on Adaptation

Adaptation is an art, not a science. There are things that are objective elements of a story. Things you really cannot change if you want people to feel like you're telling an adaptation of a given tale. But there are also plenty of elements that are more subjective. Things some people might consider vital, but that aren't truly necessary to stay true to the story's core. (Yes, the character core thing applies to stories too!)

For example, to be a Cinderella adaptation, you need to have some sort of big reveal moment where "the prince" finds Cinderella, but that moment doesn't need to involve a slipper and the prince doesn't need to be an actual prince. My favorite modern Cinderella adaptation is A Cinderella Story: Once Upon a Song and it twists both of those elements while keeping the major story beats in place, making it fully deserving of the Cinderella label while also being its own unique story that isn't a straight retelling, it's an adaptation.

I bring all this up because, as readers of this blog may have already guessed, Scarlet Lady does a lot of things that I personally would not do when adapting Miraculous. A big one being that I prefer a more complex take on Gabriel, but that's simply a matter of preference. A complex Gabriel is not a requirement for adapting Miraculous. Complex Gabriel vs comedic villain Gabriel is just a choice you have to make when it comes to adapting canon because canon is such a mess that both options have straight up backing in the source text. Even if they didn't, Gabriel's core role - villain - is one that leaves you a lot of room for interpretation based on other factors that we'll talk about in a second.

I'll close off this section with this: having read all of Scarlet Lady, I'll be so bold as to say that Zoe and I almost perfectly align when it comes to identifying the flaws in Miraculous because I've agreed with pretty much every change she's made. She did a fantastic job staying true to the core of canon while also telling the story she wanted to tell. It's not the way I'd redo canon, but it doesn't need to be for me to call it a fantastic story. Plus a lot of the different choices I'd make come down to narrative style and tone.

Narrative Style and Tone

I'm a novelist at heart, which means that I favor serialized storytelling. For those who don't know that word, it means stories that are one coherent whole just broken into chunks. Stories where the order matters. You can't start watching at a random episode, you have to start at the beginning. And skipping an episode usually means that you'll have no idea what's going on.

Miraculous is not a serialized show. It's primarily an episodic show, a word that means that episode order doesn't matter. Every installment stands alone.

Obviously Miraculous isn't completely episodic, but that's fine. Purely episodic narratives are rare these days. Most stories have at least minor serialized elements even if those elements are often ignored for multiple episodes at a time. This is where both Miraculous and Scarlet Lady fall. They're mostly episodic stories with serialized elements popping up every now and then.

Miraculous does this element poorly because it acts like it's a purely episodic show and then takes that to an absurd extreme. Rules, characters, and lore can never be counted on to stay the same from episode to episode even though that's not actually how episodic stories work. Scarlet Lady doesn't make this mistake. It understands that episodic narratives should have STORIES that stand alone, but that the WORLD the stories take place in must stay consistent.

Now that we've gone over the basic format stuff, let's talk about tone.

Generally speaking, tone is the vibe of your story. It can be serious, silly, dramatic, and so on. One of Miraculous' biggest flaws is that its tone is all over the place. It's a silly romcom that brings in serious topics in serious ways and then handles them with all the grace of a hippo performing ballet in a china shop because of course it does! Those topics are horribly suited to the show's overall tone so it has no way to properly address them.

This is one of the many things I love about Scarlet Lady. It takes the show's absurdist tone and honors it. That's why Zoe's version of Gabriel works so well! He's a silly cartoony villain in a silly cartoony comic as he should be. It's also why my versions of Gabriel tend to be more complex. More serious serialized narratives are where more serious complex villains thrive. Neither option is better than the other, it all comes down to how you're adapting the original work. Zoe's choices are perfect for her version's style and tone. If mine are even close to that good for my preferred style and tone, then I'll be a happy author.

Narrative Weight & The Chloe Thing

This is getting long, so I'll end with a note on Chloe since you brought her up as it's another great example of the fact that there are very few choices that are inherently right or wrong when it comes to adaptation.

I don't know if I'd say that I'm a Chloe fan, but I certainly don't hate her. I also love what Zoe did with the character! It's a prime example of a thing that I've talked about before: the issue with Chloe is not a lack of redemption. The issue is that Chloe was given too much narrative weight to be what canon made her.

Quick definition: narrative weight is the importance a narrative places on a person, event, thing, etc. The more time you dedicate to an element of your narrative, the more weight that element has in the eyes of your audience. The more they expect the element to matter. The way that you develop the element will also shape audience expectations.

In the context of canon, Chloe has more development than almost any other side character. We know more about her family, her childhood, her personality, and so on. This was an absurd choice for canon to make because Chloe is not actually important to the story they told. You could pull her out of canon and almost nothing would change. Gabriel can make akumas do whatever he wants so, lore wise, he didn't need Miracle Queen. In fact, he arguably shouldn't have made Miracle Queen. He could have just taken the miracle box and jumped right into the plot of season five. Similarly, Chloe being mayor was an absurd one-note moment that's easily replaced with something more logical.

Because of this, there are a lot of things you can do when adapting Chloe. Everything from turning her back into a one-dimensional mean girl to redeeming her to what Zoe did: take Chloe's narrative weight and petty brat behavior and lean into both to make Chloe a main antagonist while also acknowledging the fact that Chloe is a messed up teenage girl who needs some serious help. I'm super excited to see the end of Chloe's arc in Scarlet Lady as I think it's going to be one of my favorites in the fandom. That is admittedly not a high bar as I'm very picky when it comes to Chloe content. I think most of it falls flat because most of it fails to let Chloe hit some sort of rock bottom when she absolutely needs to if you want to do anything interesting with her. She's not the kind of person who will easily change or see the error of her ways.

Conclusion

Scarlet Lady is a fantastic adaption of Miraculous and Zoe is a fantastic and funny adapter. The comic might not be to your tastes - and that's fine, nothing has universal appeal - but it's still a great example of how to honor source material while doing your own thing with it, which is a true skill. One of the problems with many modern retellings and reboots is that the people running the show don't understand how to adapt a narrative. They take far too much creative freedom and end up with something that doesn't feel anything like the source.

If I found out that Zoe somehow got hired to adapt something I love, then I wouldn't have any concerns. I'd have no idea what she'd do with it, but I'd be confident that it wouldn't spit in the face of the thing I love. I'd personally read a hundred Miraculous re-imaginings with her at the helm.

[rosinastrology]

Lana del Rey - Chart Analysis

My observations and interpretation of her chart:

Sun in Cancer, Moon in Leo, Scorpio Rising

Fun moon to have, and Lana is so beautiful!

The mind, sex appeal, and self are aligned with the traits of the sign of Cancer (protection, nurturing, and emotional). They all feel a bit more Scorpio. 

Very artistic person, right off the bat as I started to look into her chart. 

Her Sun feels pretty much like a Scorpio and very Scorpio sex appeal with her rising. Everything about her screams Scorpio. Lol. Not kidding. Her personal placements are watery. She is connected to her emotions deeply and intensely. Lack of abundance of love in the household. 

North node conjunct Venus (rules Taurus and Libra) in the 7th house of relationships and partnerships and the sign of Taurus indicates someone who is destined to form stable connections with either romantic partners as well as business partners. Her south node would be in the first house, so she is getting away from the I am and coming into the We are. In the past, there might have been a great deal of responsibility around looking perfect and following the male opinions on her body and appearance. Taurus deals with eating, in general. So, having Saturn in the 1st house of the self and body opposite Venus in the 6th (health, routine, and work) -7th house can indicate struggles with eating habits or body image due to others’ comments on her or desiring acceptance of others through the way one looks. 

There’s a magnetic beauty that exudes from her and many people find so attractive. 

Her Cancer Mercury expands because it’s pretty close to the 9th house of higher learning and education, travel and philosophy (ruled by Jupiter). In a water sign, it makes sense why she’s very in tune with the creative expression of the arts and brainstorming those ideas into nostalgic songs. Very emotional and creative with her art. 

Very potent sex appeal. Mars belongs to the 1st house whose cusp starts in Scorpio (as the Ascendant), where Scorpio is ruled by Mars and Pluto. Martian, Plutonian, Scorpio and Cancer strongly here. Her Pluto is in the 12th house of dreams and fantasy, drugs and illusions, mental asylums and hidden things. She’s highly connected with the collective’s emotional side and death/dark-related topics. I don’t really listen to her music or know much about her as a person and musician, but that’s what I’m reading from her chart. 

She struggles with self-esteem, especially her worth in relationships. She needs to learn how to nurture her relationships without giving away herself.

IC (home) in Aquarius: Home could have been a bit strange for her.

Jupiter in the 3rd house in Aquarius gives someone a beautiful, unique voice. Also, to point out, I think she must have odd or futuristic furniture, ornaments, and decor in her own house. That is something I’m picking up on, but just thought I should point out… or maybe obscure and eccentric colors around her house. Jupiter conjunct the IC can give abundance in the home, either a big house or family.

Uranus sextile Jupiter can indicate progressive abundance in terms of resources and monetary income. Then, she has Saturn square Jupiter which can indicate there was some sort of money struggles in her early household. Some sort of restriction in abundance. 

She’s far away from home. She’s not connected to the home. She gets easily lost in the intensity of her feelings and may recur to drugs, cigarettes, pills, etc. to alleviate the intensity.

Moon opposite Jupiter and square Venus, and Venus square Jupiter can indicate someone who has difficulty loving others and themselves, as well as not feeling very lucky. Jupiter is sometimes considered the husband in astrology, and Venus represents all things love and beauty, so having Jupiter square Venus can sometimes indicate not lasting in relationships either short-term or long-term because of that same lack of self-worth and confidence in themselves.

Her Moon in Leo close to the MC can give fighting spirit energy as well as a maternal instinct with the way she handles her career.

Intense person. Intense mental prowess and sex drive with emotive connection to the nurturing Cancer side. 

She’s suffered great disappointment throughout her life which I think have helped her write many of her popular songs. Neptune in the 2nd house, makes money from suffering and disillusionment. 

Midheaven in Leo: I think people see her as this Leo girl, who likes to party and she does because having Venus in Taurus, they like to have a good time. Very reserved though. I think she’s more of a free and talkative person behind closed doors with her closest friends and family, still private and does not like to talk much about her life with the public. She’d rather have the public know her through her music and what she puts out there.

The 8th house cusp is in Gemini (rules the 3rd house of speech and early home environment), which is ruled by Mercury in her 8th house. So, her mind and way of speaking is kind of slow and monotonous. I think she was body shamed from early in life which led to struggles with negative and restrictive views on her body and self. Taurus represents excesses of many things and having Saturn oppose the sign plus difficulty with seeing her worth may have taken her into a dark space at a certain point.

Leaving behind the past can serve her well in order to find the group of beautiful people who she should surround herself with. 

She knows how to appreciate beautiful people and art because there is this sexy pull sextile between Venus and Mercury. 

She’s got that mysterious and sweet face/personality. 

Cancer placements in a Scorpio house give that mermaid look too. She’s got that mermaid makeup look. 

Venus in Taurus, very lovely placement, but these people tend to indulge in things all pleasurable and comforting. Indulging can mean soothing one’s pains.

I think she finds comfort in foreign places away from her home.

@rosinastrology

Those are my observations on Lana del Rey’s chart!! If you’d like to see more of this, let me know in the comments!! Appreciate the feedback xx

[mask131]

I'm going to really quickly drop something I have been thinking for a very long time - and I don't think I have made a post about it?

It is one of the reasons I kind of cut ties with fandoms on the Internet as a whole, and why I originally strongly disliked the way "headcanons" were used, and why I often roll my eyes with the way people behave on the Internet... And I don't know if it is because I was old enough to have lived in a time when I enjoyed series and movies and cartoons without the Internet - or better, with an Internet that was without the "fandoms" as we know them today.

The main thing that irritates me with the way "fans" act on the Internet is how they think because they are fans of a piece of media, it "belongs to them". I fully understand the idea of fanfiction-positive and I am ALL for fan-art and AUs and the like, don't get me wrong. I do enjoy what fandoms were for - sharing a common passion, bring fan-made content based on a loved piece of media, have fun with it all... But the way this positivity has been framed and formulated, and the way it got interpreted has been irking me a lot.

Because in effect, a lot and lot of people have gotten into their brain, somehow, that a fandom "owns" a piece of media. That a television series was made first and foremost for the fans, and not for anyone else, and thus that it must cater to their every whims and desire. More and more people take fan theories and headcanons as actual guidelines, or solid fact, or in general confuse "canon" and "headcanon". More and more people believe the idea that "If we are strong enough, we can change this piece of media" or that "The creator of this piece of media owes us things because we are fans".

I am not very old, and yet I still lived in a time when we understood that published books and the shows on TV and the movies in theater were not... "ours". Yes a fandom is a way to allow fans to toy and play with a piece of fiction, and thus in a way make it "theirs". BUT THAT'S METAPHORIC NOT LITERAL! It certainly does not help that recently more and more tv shows and cartoons and whatnot have been explicitely interacting with or refering to their fandoms, even sometimes letting the fans drive the course of the story. Which is great, and is fun - but should be remembered as something not "natural" and a bit exceptional.

It reminds me of how recently there have been more and more incidents in theaters where musical plays were interrupted by audience members who thought they just could do anything they wanted - because somehow they thought a musical was an interactive play or a karaoke night. Again, these kind of interactions do exist (The Rocky Horror Picture Show was built upon these experiences) - but they were unique and out-there.

Art, fiction and media can and will live on without fandoms. Fandoms are not a needed ingredient of a piece of fiction, they are something that at best develops a healthy co-dependency with the piece of fiction it selects, at worst acts like a parasite to its host. But the fandom can be destroyed and obliterated and die - the fiction will still live on, and the media will still exist. And yet, so many fandoms seem to believe that somehow, they are the movers and shakers of industry and fiction, and that somehow they are the ones in control? So many fans treat creators like commissioned artists or pals they can ask favors from or victims they can bully freely without consequence.

Again, I don't know how to properly express my thoughts but... I lived in a world without fandoms, and now I can't stand it when people make it seem as if art and fiction and media was all about fandoms. And I mean fandom in the modern, Internet-sense of the term. Fandoms have went from enthusiastic pupils and eager to learn students and symposiums of fair critics to just... whining, entitled, over-spoiled little brats that kick their feet in anger, give orders to everybody and try to run away with the painting that is hanging on a museum's wall.

Yes fanfiction can "correct" a badly written plot, in one's opinion. It doesn't mean the author has to stick to your corrections, or that other people can't actually enjoy the badly written plot.

Yes fanart can be much cooler than the actual design. It does not mean you suddenly know the movie better than the movie-maker themselves, or that your fan-art will have to influence the aesthetic of a cartoon's next season.

Yes headcanons are wonderful. It does not make them canon, and you cannot enforce them on anything.

I repeat myself like a broken record - but originally fandoms where a place of enjoyment and appreciation and theorizing and complaining, but solely as an audience, and as people gathered by similar interests. Now? Now they became places of control and influence and demands that don't understand that an audience member isn't supposed to jump on stage to point out "No you are saying it wrong, here is how you should say the line."

[taylortruther]

It is such a bizarre unique moral conundrum!!! for me it boils down to that text post (I can’t remember who posted it or what it was exactly) that’s like; “I alone have found the correct way to be a swiftie” lol

I personally feel like it’s normal and healthy to integrate new knowledge into my perspectives/opinions, so looking back at stuff, it makes the most sense for me to trust what Taylor says in the moment (“I am happy and writing fiction���) and basically respect her right to lie to us and to change her mind. The song is the song and exists as its own chunk of art, a moment in space/time, regardless of who the ~muse~ is or where the inspiration came from. Taylor, the real girl, interacts with the chunk of art similarly to fans making songs about our lives (like how she played specific surprise songs as if she was making a playlist as a swiftie to relate to her own life again). But, Taylor’s real life perspective holds more weight than a fan’s when interpreting the art - and has the most important role as Creator of The Art. Idk where that leaves us swifties in the end! I lean towards having the conversations that come from re-contextualizing the art, because it’s interesting and fun ✌️- almost like translating a poem from one language to another. What is gained? What is lost? What is expanded on/colored differently? (this is please-picturemeintheweeds on my main account)

i know that text post and truly, sometimes it feels like many people on here are competing to be the most morally righteous swiftie fadsjkl

i agree with you completely. and i would also sprinkle in a general acknowledgment that artists who write human stories are writing about shit they can relate to. is it always autobiographical? no. but it do frequently assume (arrest me!) that it's a metaphor or at least, in part, drawn from their own feelings/experiences. this is, imo, one of the most obvious nobrainer things in the world about art but for some reason on here it's scandalous idk

[writing-for-life]

for the love your fandom asks: 10, 11, 25?

Oh, they’re all such good ones, @stellerssong

11. If you're a writer or artist, what fic or piece of art are you proud of making?

I’m both, although my art usually flies under the radar because I have hang ups about it, hence hardly ever post it, and if I do, I usually attach it to something else. But I’ll post it separately this time because this is actually one I can sort of appreciate (sorry for the low quality, lifted it off a Tumblr post because I’m on my phone and the hi res is on my desktop):

Writing I’m proud of: The Light of Stars, simply because the feedback I got meant so much to me. If several people tell you it helped them with processing grief, or thinking about their own death with less fear, you know you’ve done something that went beyond a silly little fanfic (I mean, I’m totally committed to Muhulhu of course 🤣), and that honestly mattered in ways I can’t even begin to explain.

My Sandman Haikus, simply because I stuck with them, and they were for the first fandom event I took part in.

I’ll do the other two as well:

25. A piece of advice for taking care of yourself in fandom spaces

Not so much advice rather than what I try to do myself (and since I’m human, I sometimes fail):

Stop engaging as soon as you sense bad faith takes and reactivity. Remember they come from a place of being human or being hurt, and keep that in mind. But it serves no one and will usually create more hurt if at least one, or even both sides, are not in a space to listen.

Have a close circle of mutuals who get you, but beware of echo chambers.

Step back when things stop bringing you joy.

Regularly do something with your hands or your body if you can (you can interpret that in any way you like 😜), and get off electronic devices and social media.

10. A blog (mutual or one you follow) that has made your fandom experience brighter

All blogs I follow make my fandom experience brighter, otherwise I wouldn’t follow them. So if I follow you, or regularly engage with you even if I don’t, you can be sure you make my fandom experience worthwhile, and I always hope I can give back a bit.

I find it impossible to choose, hence I won’t, but I’m leaning towards blogs by people who share my passion for deep (over🤣)thinking and meta-analysis.

But I love all my mutuals, and each of them enriches my fandom experience in unique ways through either friendship (and that has nothing to do with what they do with their blogs), art or story. Or just unhinged shitposting. And sometimes all four…

[valeofpoppies]

hey!

you are very skilled with 3D art and game development, and i am also somewhat trying to get into it as a hobby (blender + godot rn).

can i ask how you learned to make 3D art? i am hoping that knowing how others learned will help me find ways to learn.

i know the basics of blender, but i really do need to learn how to get past the basics.

Hello! I appreciate you taking the time to write this. This is a question that requires some introspection and would be a good topic for future posts. However, here's the best summarization of my experience learning 3D:

I started doing 3D while I was a teenager. I downloaded a free version of 3D Coat so I could sculpt faces for fun. I barely had any idea how to manage topology then, so my workflow was very destructive (I made a lot of meshes with holes, clipping faces, bumps, no edge flow, etc.)

I revisited 3D during my years in college, when I took a couple of free courses on Lynda(dot)com on how to model in Maya (for which I had a student license for). They were really basic tutorials, but they helped me adopt better practices for modeling (like maintaining decent edge flow, how to use modifiers, how to use drivers, etc).

I began to learn how to rig in Maya until the pandemic hit in 2020, which happened to be the same year I would graduate. I wanted to pursue 3D further after college, but I knew my student license for Maya would eventually expire (and I didn't have enough money coming in to pay a monthly subscription) so I decided to switch to using Blender because it is open-source.

I learned to navigate Blender through a whole lot of popular dedicated Youtube channels (like CGCookie, BlenderGuru, Ducky 3D, and many others...) It did indeed help that I had prior experience with modeling software so I could look up what I needed to know then. I didn't get to using Blender for game dev until a year later, when I came across a whole bunch of game artists and mod-makers across various platforms (twitter, tumblr, steam, discord). The point in which I began to join communities dedicated to making game art/modding is where I experienced the most growth because I wasn't interpreting online tutorials by myself anymore, I was communicating back and forth with other people about making art in general. I learned what tools other people were using, I learned how they functioned, I studied unique applications for those tools by studying other people's work, and it also helped me find new leads for study.

A practice I adopted that I found very useful is pastiching models from other games. If I wanted to get better at creating topology, I would import a ripped model from a game that I liked, studied its wireframe, and attempted to recreate that style by creating a unique model. It is derivative, but in the process you learn a lot of unique applications of smoothing, edge sharpening, normal rotation, masking and texturing that could be useful for formulating a style of one's own.

There's a lot that goes into the learning process. For me, it is like undoing a jacket by the threads. The more you pull the threads apart, the more noticeable it becomes how its all woven and stitched together. Once you've taken apart the whole thing, you get an idea as to how it was put together in the first place.

[skillzissue]

Hey is it just me or do you also get caught off guard-

-Thinking about there’s so much beautiful art in world. Like I complain about having a inconsistent art style, but honestly I’ve been thinking -

I wish that my art style (if I even have one smh) never changes from its malleable nature.

Bc I look at different artists and see how unique their shape theory is, the way the characters seem so alive and vibrant and easy to look at- I love those kinds of art styles. I love drawing with wide, crazy exaggerated expressions and poses that grab people’s attention. I want to draw like that. And it’s beautiful.

And then I look at different artists and basically cry about how soft their rendering is, how their characters look like their melting in their sun burst environments, with so many minor details and just little things that add up. It’s so, so pretty and soft and makes you feel gooey inside and when I look at it all I can think about how amazingly gorgeous it is. I want to draw like that. And it’s beautiful.

But of course, it doesn’t end there. Bc then I look at artists that depict their world through understanding the beauty in the mundane, how they paint the sky, sub ways, bike rides and parks and stores and everything in between. Their lineless styles telling a story with vibrant colors, small touches and grand lighting, displaying the softness of life through people just. Experiencing it. I want to do that. And it’s beautiful.

And there’s more. There’s always more- I could literally go on about this for hours but I think you get the point. Everyone has this unique style that sticks out and really pronounces who they are as a person, and as much as I want to have such a special way of displaying how I see the world, something that you look at and just say “yeah, that’s Skillz,��

I just. I honestly wouldn’t know what to do you know? I want to do all of these things at once. I want to study these different artists and interpret them in my own ways, make those strong emotional expressions and those soft spoken moments and those wide open backgrounds.

But I can’t do it all. There’s a reason why each person has their own style. Can I do it all? Can I? Is there enough time in the world? I have so many thoughts and sometimes I need the right brush to speak them.

PLEASE I needed to have 15 fucking art styles yesterday ONG 😭😭🙏

…

Just me?

[thelettergii]

How does one even learn how to draw the way you do? Like, this is not just (deservingly) complementing you, I genuinely want to know because your sugarplum ladies and sailor moon art are everything! The colour and texture of your art are so unique!

Wow, thank you so much! <3

The nice answer is that if I could share 3 tips that shaped my artwork:

Get a really good understanding of anatomy and proportions. Some people memorize every muscle, but imo you don't have to. I grew up with foervraengd's anatomy tutorials and took those proportions to heart. I wouldn't try to stylize (that is, find your own unique art style) until you can grasp the basics, because you have to understand the basics before you can exaggerate them.

Learn to reference without tracing exactly. I often look for photo references for poses I'm not familiar with drawing. I think it's ok to layer a ref on top of your drawing to check if proportions are correct or something like that, but I've learned what looks lively IRL can look pretty lifeless when transferred directly to a canvas. An artist I like @/almakrowan suggests blurring the reference to help you interpret it in your own way; I would also suggest exaggerating the placement of body parts a little - look at the direction the arms, legs, shoulders, and hips are facing and make that angle a little more extreme.

Analyze your favorite artists! I'm an analytical person by nature so I'm biased, but I think it's fun to break down exactly what I like about a specific artist's style or art piece. Maybe it's their line textures, or the way they capture faces in an elegant or cute way, or the composition or layout of their pieces. It's very likely you enjoy more than one artist, so I think if you can take all the things you like about different artists and combine them together somehow, that's what creates your unique artistic voice. (This works for fashion design too!)

The less nice answer is that truthfully I am pretty hard on myself when it comes to art, unhealthily so. In my old art I see nothing but flaws, so I'm always trying to get better with my latest artwork. This is not a healthy learning mechanism and I do not recommend it, haha.

I used to lurk on deviantART as a kid and there was always this huge emphasis on "accept constructive criticism and always improve yourself" and a lot of art drama stemmed from artists who refused to take critique and you could see their art stagnating. So even though I was just a lurker without an account at the time I took that philosophy to heart, maybe a little too much...

[umbrx]

have u ever think to ask AI to draw doffy and viola together?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: I will assume this comes from genuine curiosity and/or frustration that there isn't too much art of Doffy and Viola as a ship. If so, I understand the wish to see more art of them together, but have never experienced the frustration by the lack of it. In my opinion, there are two ways to go about it:

Commissioning an artist to draw the ship and paying for their services.

Learning to draw and doing it yourself.

AI (overused term as it's not actual artificial intelligence, but I digress) is a very controversial topic, but as someone who is working on machine learning models myself, I am more than aware what goes on with it. I can't change your personal opinion on it, dear anon, but I'll try to make my case as to why I'm against it and its use, and hopefully discourage you from doing it yourself.

Firstly, machine learning models demand training sets. In the case of generative adversarial networks or GANs, their primary training sets consist of images. Thousands upon thousands of images.

Where are these images from? Artists; their art posted on the internet. Their depictions of art, personal interpretations, redrawings, original characters, art of favourite characters, nature, commissions for others, photos, etc.

Is permission to use these images ever sought from them? No. Images are stored into datasets on big servers with no questions asked whatsoever and the models are trained on them. Same as when you google something and save the picture to your personal computer. By all means, that is already copyright infringement if you don't have permission from the artist to download their work. Just because it's online, doesn't imply you're meant to take it. You wouldn't take fruit from a fruit stand before paying for it, right? Hopefully.

The problem with art generative models like Midjourney, DALL-E and others is the fact they're trained on illegally obtained artwork, and they're making profit off of it (we can debate back and forth on the costs of keeping the servers running, whether it would be better if they were free for use, etc, etc, but let's not go down that rabbit hole — still no). Each one demands a subscription for you to use their services. Sure, the art they generate is very fast and it is good, but it lacks character. There's a reason why we can tell something is "AI generated" or not.

Secondly, I respect the craft. Being an artist means constant improvement, no matter if you're a professional or a hobbyist. It requires hours upon hours of practice, be it self-taught or through education. It requires time, money, patience and a strong will to continue pursuing it. It's blood, sweat and tears, just like other artistic crafts. Not to mention how soulful art is when done by a human being. An art style (while people can try and copy it) is something unique. It's an expression of an individual human being, and their art – no matter what the subject is, is something you get to see once in a lifetime. It's a collection of thoughts, emotions and ideas brought to life through dedicated effort over time. It mustn't be devalued just because computers can generate something faster.

I can go on and on about this, in all honesty, but I'll stop myself here. Again, your actions are your own and I can't tell you what to do and what not to do. I'd always opt for commissioning an artist whose style I like. I'm guaranteed to get a unique, never seen before piece of art that I know I'll love. If I were in no position to pay someone, then I'd get to it and start drawing myself. There's tons of tutorials on how to learn to draw from people who have spent years perfecting their art. There are plenty of tips around so you don't make all the mistakes they did. There are whole communities out there to help you out to improve. Not all shortcuts in life should be pursued.

[narratingvoice]

from one to ten how silly do you think all of the fans are

Dreadfully silly, of course. But mostly in a good way. Have you seen some of the interpretations of myself that people have created? They've drawn me as a kitty, a pony, a very silly bird, and even a fern! And Stanley too has been rendered into all kinds of fantastical forms. How whimsical! I love seeing how the human mind can wander off into far reaches of the imagination, even if it doesn't make any sense in the context of the canon they're working from. How would Stanley complete the game if he was a pony? He wouldn't be able to climb the stairs, that's for sure! Oh, I'm giggling again just thinking about it.

I used to be much harsher on that sort of thing, you know. Back in 2013 when the original Parable came out, I hated the idea of anyone making jokes and japes out of my game. It was supposed to be a very serious story that I poured my whole soul into, after all. I even had a serious room to deposit players who weren't taking the experience seriously enough. But apparently it wasn't serious enough, because they still disregarded my clear instructions as often as possible, often for incredibly silly reasons like seeing what happens if you jump off the cargo lift. More than that, they started creating fan works that mainly revolved around me kissing Stanley, and this made me scratch my head. Why would I kiss Stanley in the middle of the story? I do that on my own private time. And how did they even know about that??

But as the years went on, I've slowly learned - and this has been one of the hardest lessons to learn in my life - that it's not meant as a slight against me. It's not about me at all. It's about my fans expressing themselves, adding their own unique voice to my work. I can't stay mad at that. It's a true expression of the essence of divine art! And more importantly for me, it drives engagement with my game and ultimately increases sales. So thank you, and also you all need to thank me for being such a huge inspiration on you. Let's keep the artistic symbiosis going as long as possible.

Oh right, but you wanted a number. Well as tempted as I am to rate the fandom a perfect ten out of ten, I think there's a number that most effectively encapsulates the silliness. A number that has given me no end of headaches going all the way back to the demo. That number, of course, is....

[sunset-aria]

(Vent Art) "Just Draw For Myself"

For the folks wondering why I haven't been streaming art that isn't commissions as of late. 

When it comes to drawing for other people, the process feels nearly effortless. I can have trouble drafting or finishing a piece to my satisfaction sometimes, but I can take someone else's commission idea and bring it to life with clarity and accuracy enough that I often feel justified in bragging that I can "read a customer's mind". 

In the times that I've given myself the room to play with fanart, mostly Zelda-related, I've enjoyed the satisfaction of carving out a unique interpretation of something I find inspiring, from material that I'm deeply familiar with and that resonates with me. 

In recent months, I've been trying to pivot my workflow more towards leaving myself room in the week to do my own thing, to return to original characters and stories of mine that I've mostly left neglected, since most of my working time for years on end has been dedicated towards drawing things to make other people happy and to earn money. With how often I've mentioned to my husband, "I'd love to draw X", or "I really should go back to working on Y", I figured I'd have more than enough inspiration to fill the days in the week I've opened up for myself. 

That... hasn't really been the case. 

I'm not lacking for ideas, but the act of sitting down and creating for myself first and foremost has become foreign to me. I'm an artist motivated by praise from my customers and loved ones for rendering their ideas exactly as they see them.  And it feels like I've been doing it that way for so long, I've forgotten what it feels like to just enjoy working to build something I can call wholly mine. Even with the intentions of laying down a plan for an ambitious project, and structuring it how I might attempt a customer's piece, or inversely giving myself the freedom to experiment without the pressures of quality or customer expectations, my canvas becomes a blank wall standing in front of my will to create. I'll tell myself in the morning what I plan to work on for myself that day, but by the time I've sat down to put pen on tablet, the vision has faded. At best, I'll manage something small, but usually nothing at all, or I'll pivot to working on a commission instead.

Safe to say, re-learning to draw and paint for myself is still a work in progress. I know I can do it, because I've done it before, but it frustrates me to no end to struggle this hard to give myself the satisfaction I give to others so easily.