I adopted you all long ago. It’s why I’m still here.
I adopted you all long ago. It’s why I’m still here.
I know. I’m working on one now and it’s HARD. I’d forgotten how hard it was. I have no idea why I thought this was easy, pleasurable or even a sensible thing to do. I cannot send help but we are both in this together.
That’s so beautiful. I will henceforth tell everyone I meant it to be like that, and only you and I will know it wasn’t intentional.
TIL that the saxophone was invented only in 1846 by Adolphe Sax. As a child, he survived a three-story fall, a gunpowder explosion, drinking a bowl of sulfuric water, a near-poisoning due to furniture varnish, and falling into a speeding river. His neighbors called him “little Sax, the ghost.”
God really did not want the Saxophone invented.
perfect timing for this post showing up but Mr. Sax invented a bunch of other instruments (including ones that had a run but didn’t really stick around) but y’all wanna see one of his failed inventions?
behold, the fucking valved trombone
That’s not an instrument, that a section of plumbing
perpendicular honk engine
now THAT looks like an instrument invented by someone who survived a three-story fall, gunpowder explosion, consumption of sulfur, toxic vapors, and falling into rapids.
TIL that since we are three-dimensional beings and can only fathom objects of dimensions equal or lower to our own, it’s possible there are fourth or fifth-dimensional beings that can see us, but we can’t see them.
There might be as many as 11 dimensions, or 26. We believe its one of those two numbers but we aren’t sure which one yet.
horrible addition! I shall be hyperventilating in a closet.
Honestly? People say this site is either terrible or dead or both but if you can find your own little niche and just like,,, have some common fucking sense and not interact with groups you don’t like it’s actually one of the easiest websites to make your own. Idk I significantly prefer the general concept, layout and vibe of this site and of my lil tumblr niche over other social media’s. It’s just not the same elsewhere??
Imagine being the only person alive who can say this
buzz aldrin and neil armstrong liked to do a thing where they’d tell unfunny jokes at parties about being on the moon and when people were confused they’d go “guess you had to have been there”
radio omens really does the best job of all three versions just making you feel so acutely how unbearable they are to absolutely everyone around them by presenting it in dialogue format like you’re there and maxing out the insufferability. if you were under any illusions about them being cool or fun or thinking you might perhaps like to hang out with them, radio omens just makes it abundantly clear that you would not. you would not like it.
Let’s estimate how heavy is the rock that Aziraphale is lifting in the garden of eden’ scene. Based on the footage we have, I will approximate its shape to a trapezoidal base prism (more specifically, its base is a trapezoid rectangle).
To discover the base measurements, I will use this scene (because is the one where he is closer to the stone, minimizing camera effects) and Mr. Sheen height (1,78m) to do some pixel measurements.
Some math later, and using the fact that two edges of the rock accompanies the junction of the larger stones I managed to get the height and smaller base of the rock, but I still needed the other side and the bigger base.
For this, I measured the angle shown. With these informations and trigonometry, I concluded these are the base’s measurements. Now, for its depth (this one was hard, and probably the source of possible errors), we need some considerations.
Based on other scenes from the wall, we can safely say that this stone does not represent its thickness. However, we can see the inside of the wall, which is made of three to five layers of pre cut blocks.
I am assuming, now, that Aziraphale’s stone has the depth equivalent of the first outside layer that we see, since antique stone constructions don’t use mortar and the piece could fairly “break” in that spot.
Thanks to our adorable Eve, we have a scene to make some pixel measurement using her hand as reference (an average woman hand has a length of 17,27cm) and I concluded that the stone’s length is 28cm.
Using the right volume formula, the result is V=0,03087m^3.
Now, we need to estimate its density. According to some proposed locations, the garden of eden is in southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq), based on the book “Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence”-Peter Roger Stuart Moorey, the primary construction stones of this region is limestone and gypsum.
The density of limestone (the most probable one) is 2711kg/m^3, which results in a weight of 83,69kg for our little angel to lift.
To sum up, Aziraphale is lifting approximately 83,69kg (184,5 pounds) without using any knee technique and without even looking discomfortable. Maybe the buff angel we see in the storyboards is not so off, after all.
where is that renaissance painting with those two fellers and a giant fucking random skull on the floor that looks like it was accidentally stretched out in photoshop
somebody please explain
Someone once told me it’s like that because it was designed to be hung in a stairwell so the skull pops out as you walk past.
…I guess it works but you have to be at a pretty sharp angle
There was a whole trend at one point where artists would include something in their paintings (usually a skull, for whatever reason) that’s super distorted in just the right way so that it looks normal if you hold the painting up to a convex/concave mirror. I have absolutely no idea why. But I think that’s what’s going on here.
In case anyone’s curious, here’s what it looks like when you walk past it irl:
It does have a 3D effect to it! It’s pretty neat, guess it would be even more impressive to people from the 14th century.
ahhhhh it’s my favourite painting on my dash!! strap in folks it’s nerd commentary time!!
so there’s like a billion and one things going on in this painting (because it’s the middle of the renaissance and they got a li’l excited) so let’s break this down.
first off, it was painted smack dab in the middle of the renaissance (1533) which means people-with-money are interested in two primary things:
- Knowledge of God
this is important and will explain 90% of everything going on (the remaining 10% is just the painter showing off).
okay, so first off it’s called ambassadors because on either side we have a)a stately, educated man of the world, and b)a religious figure head. who precisely they were was up for debate for like 300 hundred years and isn’t really the point. what is the point is that one of them represents the best of man, and the other the best from God; they therefore are ambassadors of these two facets, and to prove their excellence, we have all the items on the shelves.
on the top shelf we’ve got a celestial globe, a sundial, a quadrant, a torquetum, etc. these are all things focused on learning the up there, the things beyond this world but yet are still scientific that humans are categorizing.
meanwhile on the bottom shelf, we’ve got the awesome things of human learning on earth: a terrestrial globe, a book of mathematics for merchants, a lute, hymnal, etc.
the point of having all these things is to show off the glory of human excellence when it comes to learning
and also the artist’s ability to paint details. you’ve got the full trivium of learning going on: grammar, logic, rhetoric; and then also the quadrivium: geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy. everything is balanced.
H O W E V E R.
holbein is also problematizing human learning even as he’s extolling its virtues. for example, we have a broken string on the lute:
the instrument settings on the polyhedral sundial are actually wrong:
and, most importantly, that mother effing skull.
so the skull represents a couple things.
first, perspective was all 👏 the 👏 rage 👏 during the renaissance, and the better you were at it, the higher respect you got. so if you could draw something like this (which a previous commenter is correct, it was hung by a staircase so you would see it as you passed by), you automatically got that sweet sweet street cred. also if you don’t think it’s impressive that he could paint this by hand, you try it because dear lord it’s not fun pls pls professor let us go back to normal still lifes we’ll never complain about onion skins and tomatoes ever again aaaaaugh—
um so second, this is a form of memento mori, or vanitas, meaning “remember you must die” and “vanity” (a reference to ecclesiastes), respectively. the point of painting these was to remind the owner that they are mortal, and that time is short — and that no matter how much human knowledge they accumulated (the shelves), nothing could stop death.
side note: the placement of the skull is also important. the skull is a reference to death, the end of life, so it’s placed on the floor. compare this to michelangelo’s creation of adam, which is a reference to the beginning of life, and is placed on the sistine chapel’s ceiling.
for life you look up, for death you look down.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, we get to the last thing this painting is hiding:
a crucifix, tucked away in the top left corner so that you can barely see it, but once you do, you can’t unsee it. because, once again, this is the middle of the renaissance: holbein wants to stress both the importance of human knowledge (plato’s know thyself), and its limits (calvin’s ‘man never has clear knowledge of self until he has seen God’s face’). remember knowledge, remember death, remember christ.
and remember how good of a painter he is he needs more patrons.
anyway i could wax poetic about this painting for literal hours (the one and only time i saw it in person i wound up explicating to random viewers bc i can’t help myself and y’know they were receptive), so yeah. there’s the cliff notes version.
How many of you just tilted your computer to make the skull appear?
Susanna and the Elders, Restored (Left)
Susanna and the Elders, Restored with X-ray (Right)
Kathleen Gilje, 1998
Oooh my gosh this is rad. This is so rad.
For those who don’t know about this painting, the artist was the Baroque artist Artemisia Gentileschi.
Gentileschi was a female painter in a time when it was very largely unheard of for a woman to be an artist. She managed to get the opportunity for training and eventual employment because her father, Orazio, was already a well established master painter who was very adamant that she get artistic training. He apparently saw a high degree of skill in some artwork she did as a hobby in childhood. He was very supportive of her and encouraged her to resist the “traditional attitude and psychological submission to brainwashing and the jealousy of her obvious talents.”
Gentileschi became extremely well known in her time for painting female figures from the Bible and their suffering. For example, the one seen above depicts the story from the Book of Daniel. Susanna is bathing in her garden when two elders began to spy on her in the nude. As she finishes they stop her and tell her that they will tell everyone that they saw her have an affair with a young man (she’s married so this is an offense punishable by death) unless she has sex with them. She refuses, they tell their tale, and she is going to be put to death when the protagonist of the book (Daniel) stops them.
So that painting above? That was her first major painting. She was SEVENTEEN-YEARS-OLD. For context, here is a painting of the same story by Alessandro Allori made just four years earlier in 1606:
Wowwwww. That does not look like a woman being threatened with a choice between death or rape. So imagine 17 year old Artemisia trying to approach painting the scene of a woman being assaulted. And she paints what is seen in the x-ray above. A woman in horrifying, grotesque anguish with what appears to be a knife poised in her clenched hand. Damn that shit is real. Who wants to guess that she was advised by, perhaps her father or others, to tone it down. Women can’t look that grotesque. Sexual assault can’t be depicted as that horrifying. And women definitely can’t be seen as having the potential to fight back. Certainly not in artwork. Women need to be soft. They need to wilt from their captors but still look pretty and be a damsel in distress. So she changed it.
What’s interesting to note is that she eventually painted and stuck with some of her own, less traditional depictions of women. However, that is more interesting with some context.
(Warning for reference to rape, torture, and images of paintings which show violence and blood.)
So, Gentileschi’s story continues in the very next year, 1611, when her father hires Agostino Tassi, an artist, to privately tutor her. It was in this time when Tassi raped her. He then proceeded to promise that he would marry her. He pointed out that if it got out that she had lost her virginity to a man she wasn’t going to marry then it would ruin her. Using this, he emotionally manipulated her into continuing a sexual relationship with him. However, he then proceeded to marry someone else. Horrified at this turn of events she went to her father. Orazio was having none of this shit and took Tassi to court. At that time, rape wasn’t technically an offense to warrant a trial, but the fact that he had taken her virginity (and therefore technically “damaged Orazio’s property”. ugh.) meant that the trial went along. It lasted for 7 months. During this time, to prove the truth of her words, Artemisia was given invasive gynecological examinations and was even questioned while being subjected to torture via thumb screws. It was also discovered during the trial that Tassi was planning to kill his current wife, have an affair with her sister, and steal a number of Orazio’s paintings. Tassi was found guilty and was given a prison sentence of…. ONE. YEAR……. Which he never even served because the verdict was annulled.
During this time and a bit after (1611-1612), Artemisia painted her most famous work of Judith Slaying Holofernes. This bible story involved Holofernes, an Assyrian general, leading troops to invade and destroy Bethulia, the home of Judith. Judith decides to deal with this issue by coming to him, flirting with him to get his guard down, and then plying him with food and lots of wine. When he passed out, Judith and her handmaiden took his sword and cut his head off. Issue averted. The subject was a very popular one for art at the time. Here is a version of the scene painted in 1598-99 by Carivaggio, whom was a great stylistic influence on Artemisia:
This depiction is a pretty good example of how this scene was typically depicted. Artists usually went out of their way to show Judith committing the act (or having committed it) while trying to detach her from the actual violence of it. In this way, they could avoid her losing the morality of her character and also avoid showing a woman committing such aggression. So here we see a young, rather delicate looking Judith in a pure white dress. She is daintily holding down this massive man and looks rather disgusted and upset at having to do this. Now, here is Artemisia’s:
Damn. Thats a whole different scene. Here Holofernes looks less like he’s simply surprised by the goings ons and more like a man choking on his own blood and struggling fruitlessly against his captors. The blood here is less of a bright red than in Carrivaggio’s but is somehow more sickening. It feels more real, and gushes in a much less stylized way than Carrivaggio’s. Not to mention, Judith here is far from removed from the violence. She is putting her physical weight into this act. Her hands (much stronger looking than most depictions of women’s hands in early artwork) are working hard. Her face, as well, is completely different. She doesn’t look upset, necessarily, but more determined.
It’s also worth note that the handmaiden is now involved in the action. It’s worth note because, during her rape trial, Artemisia stated that she had cried for help during the initial rape. Specifically she had called for Tassi’s female tenant in the building, Tuzia. Tuzia not only ignored her cries for help, but she also denied the whole happening. Tuzia had been a friend of Artemisia’s and in fact was one of her only female friends. Artemisia felt extremely betrayed, but rather than turning her against her own gender, this event instilled in her the deep importance of female relationships and solidarity among women. This can be seen in some of her artwork, and I believe in the one above, as well, with the inclusion of the handmaiden in the act.
So, I just added a million words worth of information dump on a post when no one asked me, but there we go. I could talk for ages about Artemisia as a person and her depictions of women (even beyond what I wrote above. Don’t get me started on her depictions of female nudes in comparison to how male artists painted nude women at the time.)
To sum up: Artemisia Gentileschi is rad as hell. This x-ray is also rad as hell and makes her even radder.
I love art history.
I’m reblogging this again to add something that I also think is important to know about Artemisia Gentileschi.
Back in her time and through even to TODAY, there are people who argue that her artworks were greatly aided by her father…. As in he either helped her paint them or just straight up painted them himself. Hell, there are a number of works only recently (past several years or so) that have been officially attributed to Artemisia because people originally saw the signature with “Gentileschi” in it and automatically attributed it to Orazio.
So, not only was Artemisia Gentileschi an amazing artist and amazing historical figure, but I don’t want it to be ignored that there are people over 400 years later who still won’t give her the credit she deserves, just because she’s a woman and obviously women can’t paint like she did.
re: how the Armageddidn’t forced Aziraphale and Crowley to shift the dynamic of their relationship because this topic fascinates me
(I should emphasize that this is definitely a show!Az&C analysis)
They have a very elaborate dance. A dance which was created by specific qualities of their personalities as well as the external pressure from Heaven and Hell.
Crowley comes forward. He has ideas, he voices questions, he comes up with plans, he convinces, he suggests starting the Arrangement and bringing up the Antichrist together and running away to Alpha Centauri. He shows up in that church in 1941 and saves the books. He drives to Aziraphale’s the day after the brak-up, twice.
And Aziraphale accepts. He agrees to Crowley’s plans (eventually), he takes him in, he listens to his questions even if he doesn’t agree with him, he provides Crowley with a place where the demon can feel safe (and take off his sunglasses!), he completely accepts him in his own home.
I like to mentally describe it as a question-reply dynamic because in many cases this is exactly what is happening.
(Although of course, sometimes Aziraphale invites Crowley to invite him and fuck me if I know who is the coming forward side and who is the accepting side in this scenario. But I stand by my original point that even though Aziraphale invites Crowley to invite him, he does it so that eventually his role can be the accepting one, because actual coming forward is too risky and makes him too conflicted. To prove it, let’s look at a few situations when Aziraphale does come forward. First is in Rome, but I’m not convinced I should count it in this post because 1) Aziraphale and Crowley didn’t know each other that well yet and 2) Heaven and Hell are not a clear threat to their relationship yet. Both of those factors have a huge influence on their dynamic so I felt like this situation should be omitted in this particular meta. Second time is the Globe scene where we know that it was Aziraphale who had suggested the meeting. I treat it like the exception which confirms the rule (is that even an English expression? *shrugs in non-native*). Besides, eventually it’s Crowley who suggests only one of them goes to Edinburgh. The third one is the Bastille scene where he invites Crowley to crepes, and I feel it was exactly what I described earlier - a reply to Crowley coming forward by rescuing him, which may or may not have been set up by Aziraphale in the first place. And the last example is the 1967 scene and I don’t have to explain why Aziraphale stepping out of his usual role and coming forward with the holy water is a big deal, do I?)
Back to the point - Crowley comes forward, Aziraphale accepts. It’s been going on like this for hundreds of years now.
And then two very important things happen. Aziraphale hears from the Metatron that Heaven genuinely wants the war to happen. And Crowley sees the bookshop burn.
Both of those things were the straw that broke the camel’s back, I think. Except Aziraphale went from “Must Obey Heaven” to “It’s Not Worth It”, whereas Crowley went from “Must Come Up With Something“ to “It’s Not Worth It”.
Suddenly Aziraphale takes all the initiative. He calls Crowley, minutes later he declares he won’t take part in the war, after fleeing from Heaven he finds Crowley and tells him they need to go to Tadfield, and comes up with his own plan of setting things right (a BAD plan, but still a plan).
And Crowley? He has nothing left to do. He goes to a random bar to get drunk and wait for the world to end and it’s Aziraphale who makes him take action again.
At the airbase, we see the same pattern repeating. Aziraphale says, “…is that the Ineffable Plan as well?“ and Crowley joins him. He might or might not be just as confused as Gabriel and Beelzebub, but he immediately supports the angel.
Aziraphale came forward, Crowley accepted.
When Satan starts to emerge, Crowley loses all hope, and Aziraphale says that they can’t give up now. Aziraphale doesn’t have a plan - I think he’s too confused and unfamiliar with Hell to come up with something himself - but he pretty much says, “I don’t know what to do, but I want to take action, and I need you by my side“ (isn’t this the same thing that Crowley said to him when the Antichrist was born?). And Crowley replied with a plan.
Again, Aziraphale came forward, and Crowley accepted.
And finally, my favourite example - on the bus stop, after the world was saved, but not everything was sorted out for the two of them yet. And I know in that scene Aziraphale is the one who may or may not be inviting Crowley to invite him, and Crowley is the one suggesting he stays with him, but I would argue that it’s a yet another example of them switching roles again.
Because this time it’s not about who starts the topic and who comes up with suggestions and who agrees to them. This time it’s about Aziraphale letting himself be in need of shelter (not rescue. shelter), and Crowley letting himself be the one who provides it. The one who is a fixed point where you can go when you’re looking for safety and acceptance. This is how they switch their centuries-long dynamic in this scene.
(On a side note, all of this is why I feel like it was Aziraphale who came up with the body swap.)
They come back to their old dynamic after they swap bodies back, but it’s different, less serious. “Let me tempt you to a spot of lunch?“, “Temptation accomplished” seems more like a playful nod at said dynamic than going back to their old ways. And maybe Aziraphale will always be a bit more leaning towards being the accepting side, and Crowley will always lean towards the side who comes forward. But it will be so because it fits their personalities, not because of their issues with Heaven and Hell. It will be so because they can finally be fully, genuinely themselves.