So somebody on my Facebook posted this. And I’ve seen sooooo many memes like it. Images of a canvas with nothing but a slash cut into it, or a giant blurry square of color, or a black circle on a white canvas. There are always hundreds of comments about how anyone could do that and it isn’t really art, or stories of the time someone dropped a glove on the floor of a museum and people started discussing the meaning of the piece, assuming it was an abstract found-objects type of sculpture.

The painting on the left is a bay or lake or harbor with mountains in the background and some people going about their day in the foreground. It’s very pretty and it is skillfully painted. It’s a nice piece of art. It’s also just a landscape. I don’t recognize a signature style, the subject matter is far too common to narrow it down. I have no idea who painted that image.

The painting on the right I recognized immediately. When I was studying abstraction and non-representational art, I didn’t study this painter in depth, but I remember the day we learned about him and specifically about this series of paintings. His name was Ad Reinhart, and this is one painting from a series he called the ultimate paintings. (Not ultimate as in the best, but ultimate as in last.)

The day that my art history teacher showed us Ad Reinhart’s paintings, one guy in the class scoffed and made a comment that it was a scam, that Reinhart had slapped some black paint on the canvas and pretentious people who wanted to look smart gave him money for it. My teacher shut him down immediately. She told him that this is not a canvas that someone just painted black. It isn’t easy to tell from this photo, but there are groups of color, usually squares of very very very dark blue or red or green or brown. They are so dark that, if you saw them on their own, you would call each of them black. But when they are side by side their differences are apparent. Initially you stare at the piece thinking that THAT corner of the canvas is TRUE black. Then you begin to wonder if it is a deep green that only appears black because the area next to it is a deep, deep red. Or perhaps the “blue” is the true black and that red is actually brown. Or perhaps the blue is violet and the color next to it is the true black. The piece challenges the viewer’s perception. By the time you move on to the next painting, you’re left to wonder if maybe there have been other instances in which you believe something to be true but your perception is warped by some outside factor. And then you wonder if ANY of the colors were truly black. How can anything be cut and dry, black and white, when even black itself isn’t as absolute as you thought it was?

People need to understand that not all art is about portraying a realistic image, and that technical skills (like the ability to paint a scene that looks as though it may have been photographed) are not the only kind of artistic skills. Some art is meant to be pretty or look like something. Other art is meant to carry a message or an idea, to provoke thought.

Reinhart’s art is utterly genius.

“But anyone could have done that! It doesn’t take any special skill! I could have done that!”

Ok. Maybe you could have. But you didn’t.

Give abstract art some respect. It’s more important than you realize.

GOD THANK YOU LORD IN HEAVEN FOR THIS FUCKING POST.

Ooh, thank you for turning me on to Reinhardt. I will go to the Tate and look at it.

The weird traditionalist/abstract false dichotomy doesn’t even have to span generations. I look at a Thomas Kinkade and I look at a Cy Twombly: here is something well-crafted and involving hard work and precise representation, and here is a bunch of paint drips and pencil scrawls. I know which one actually inspires me.

wow

this is fucking thought provoking 

brands are for the sake of advertising so people will remember their company and hopefully buy from them, this is a known business tactic. trees do not want to sell anything and probably couldn’t care less if you don’t recognize them theyre fucking plants bye

People are more focused on branding and spending money than learning about the world around them. So fuck you for defending that.

I’m with the first guy. Brands are designed to be recognized. You can’t help that. But unless you’re using plants in your field or are just a big nature nerd there will rarely be a need for you to recognize every plant by their foliage.

Might as well learn every different kind of mineral, gas, compound, organism, etc in the universe ever.

“Mom can you tell me what leaf this is?”

“Honey I honestly have no idea”

“Fuck you mom, you consumerist sheep”.

Maple, birch, pine, oak, and the last two could belong to a number of different species. (Rose? Beech? Elm?) Know where I learned that? Books and the internet. 

Nature grows all over the place and is about infinite diversity in infinite combinations(TM). Brand logos are purposely designed to deliver the simplest, most memorable message possible, as often as possible. A message, incidentally, that is far clearer than the muddled false dichotomy of the OP. What exactly is OP trying to say? Go for a walk? Become a Girl Scout? Replace every ad with a tree? (A labelled tree.) 

It would actually be a good idea to plant a tree for every ad posted, although the logistics would be complicated and there are probably more practical solutions. But you didn’t say this. You didn’t say anything. You just posted this smug picture and waited for your notes to roll in. Congratulations.

me

I fucking quit

i hate art

"where’s your homework"

I knew it smelled wrong: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/sep/30/invisible-art-hoax-lana-newstrom-cbc

Guys, I love to complain about the pretensions of the contemporary art scene as much as the next person, but please fact-check. Also to the person who 'hates art': I can't even with you. 

This week, Kevin Feige, President of Marvel Studios, gave an interview to Movies.com where he discussed future plans for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, briefly touching on the topic of a female superhero franchise. He said Marvel has no specific plans to launch one.

Unfortunately, Marvel don’t have much competition when it comes to female characters. DC Comics may still own the rights to the most famous superheroine of them all, but they’ve repeatedly failed to bring Wonder Woman to the big screen, instead opting for a TV show that fizzled out in 2012 after one lackluster episode. Plus, DC are not known for their great attitude toward diversity. With stand-out characters like Black Widow, and things like Jane Foster’s tie-in mentoring program for girls in science and technology, Marvel can’t help but look good by comparison. 

But when Feige replies to the female superhero question by pointing out the importance of characters like Jane Foster and Pepper Potts, he’s accidentally highlighting the MCU’s failures. He’s essentially boasting about managing the absolute bare minimum to depict female characters like functional human beings. Yes, Pepper Potts and Black Widow are well-written characters with important roles… but so are at least four or five male characters in each of their respective movies. This isn’t an achievement. It’s a basic expectation for any film that isn’t completely terrible. [READ MORE]

This makes me want to make some fucking heroines already. I haven't for ages because I was afraid to screw it up but shit, I can't do worse than what is already happening everywhere. And if I am afraid I am screwing it up, I will come ask you guys. deal? 

let's do this.

it kind of scares me that if supervillains were real and people who literally killed hundreds and murdered innocents but did it in a snazzy costume and had an agenda there’d still be a bunch of middle class white girls who would do anything to fuck them because…

I see. In that case I reiterate points 2), 3) and 4). TL;DR - if that was what you meant, then just say so. Anything else is obvious trolling. Then again, ‘diary of a cyberbully’ gives me all the information I need. 

oh my fucking god thaT WAS WHAT I MEANT. YES. I SAID IT. 

IT LITERALLY FUCKING SAYS IT IN THE FIRST POST UYOU JUST ASSUMED I WAS TALKING ABOUT LOKI AND WHATEVER OH MY GOD

I WAS NOT “OBVIOUSLY TROLLING” AND “DIARY OF A CYBERBULLY” AS MY TITLE IS

WAIT FOR THIS

A JOKE

THIS IS NOT A DIARY DETAILING MY CYBERBULLYING AS YOU APPARENTLY HAVE NOT NOTICED

IM GOING TO PISS

Ok, look, I'm really sorry for the wank. I think this is what happens when I see stuff on tumblr and people only post one paragraph of someone else's post with no names or details. I did follow it back to your tumblr and read only this paragraph:

there were no tags, there were no names, there was no previous post on James Holmes. I do like your donation post though. I was thinking about that while reading your post and it may have coloured my response. 

Sigh. I get back to Tumblr after months without and immediately get into wank. Which, I see, you already seem to have enough of. So, again, I apologise. And yes, I do look at Loki pole-dancing gifs on tumblr, feel free to judge me for that.

Sharp cartoon pointing out how the principles of socialism (in other words, sharing) benefit the NFL.

leftcoastjane: In honor of Superbowl Sunday.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is now training its guns on the anti-discrimination bill, saying the possible enactment of the bill into law would open the door for the legalization of same sex marriages.

Speaking at a weekly forum in Greenhills, San Juan City, on Wednesday, lawyers of the CBCP and a Catholic bishop hit the Senate for amending the previous version of the anti-discrimination bill or the Senate Bill 2814.

The Senate has recently passed on third reading the bill which is after penalizing all forms of discrimination.

The SB 2814, known as Anti-Ethnic, Racial or Religious Discrimination and Profiling Act of 2011, will be discussed by a bicameral conference committee tasked to harmonize the Senate bill with similar bills passed by the House.

Ronald Reyes, a lawyer of the CBCP, said they had no qualms about the bill before but became concerned when the bill was amended and “sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity” were included.

“It’s opening the door for same sex marriages, which our country doesn’t allow,” Reyes told reporters.

Read more here

Did you know that several bank branches in the Philippines, especially the provincial branches, have made it an unofficial policy to turn down loans to gay men? Because they're considered frivolous spendthrifts? *tears hair* AAAGHHH I hate living in a non-secular country. Separation of Church and State!!!

natashavc:

Oh such epic fucking idiocy. Way to seize the wrong end of the stick and run a lightyear with it.

Allegedly the ana girls started the kerfuffle by their own ignorance (oh, children. Do you even know how many carbs birds eat?) but the reactionary, half-witted retort was much more damaging and widespread.

People with more than two brain cells to bang together have already skewered NatashaVC's reason!fail. I'll just quote regazzadilupo: "Oh, so the original post is even more ignorant. And obviously someone who knows fuck all about birds. Or reptiles. Or mammals. Check out some biology before you justify your wavery politics with lumping your human issues on an entire genus of animals." poblet noted "the original post here is like the worst drawn out shitty hetero-and-cis-centric ladymetaphor I have ever encountered". 

It would be so easy to take down her points, one by shaky, kneejerk one. I could note that sometimes people just like pictures of birds...who made you a damn arbiter of taste? I could argue that birds are nothing like NatashaVC paints them: parrots are brilliant and lovebirds devoted, and raptors are fierce--and none of them are COLD, in any sense. Or dumb, I mean, have you been awake near a nesting tree at dawn? Ow.

I could submit that chimpanzees frequently cannibalise infants of other nests, so higher on the evolutionary ladder doesn't always mean better, and what the hell are we doing trying to shoehorn animal habits into our own lives anyway? Isn't that why we came DOWN from the trees? The bit where liking birds makes you look like a rape victim--ohhh, that's worth a daily post all by itself. Or I could just negate the whole 'birds are a symbol of frail and delicate womanhood' with two words: PEREGRINE, BITCH.

But that isn't the point, is it? Whatever point I try to counter is moot. NatashaVC isn't talking about birds or even symbols of birds, or anything she claims to be ranting against. She just saw a chance to be superior on the internet, and leaped at it. Unfortunately it made her look just as ignorant, narrow-minded and irrational as the pro-ana girls seemed to her.

So, good work there striking a blow for 'feminism', if by that you mean 'judging people by arbitrary standards you pulled out of your ass'. Well done.

Marianne Williamson, concerning the announcement of Bin Laden’s death (via dancingraphics)