Jenny Packham Resort 2015 Collection
Belahzur reveals his true indentity.
I love Belahzur. He looks like a mutant hedgehog. A mutant hedgehog that can chop your head off with his claws.
Let me bring you a thing back
- blond= male
- brunet=male or female
I did not know this.
things that should be taught in english lessons but aren’t.
Why can’t we have female and male versions of words? It makes language actually easier, cos you don’t have to add something that describes the gender. If you are talking about a blonde woman, you can just say blonde and people know you’re talking about a she. So much easier.
I never understood how the English speaking people can live with only one article. It’s so much simpler to have at least a female and a male one.
It did have three genders (masculine, feminine and neuter) and three numbers (singular, plural and dual). You speak German, this may sound familiar. After the Norman invasion of 1066, Norman French was imposed as the language of the court the social scheme changed. There was a small elite of French speakers, a big base of native speakers of English and an intermediate class of civil servants who acted as translators. These people were native speakers of Norman French and some kind of defective English. With a new language came a new stress pattern: in Old English the stress always fell on the leftmost element unless it was a prefix. In French it fell on the rightmost element. According to one theory, first proposed by Otto Jespersen in his Modern English Grammar (1909) and supported by Lightfoot in his Principles of Diachronic Syntax (1979), the friction of both patterns caused a collapse: the Germanic pattern survived, but the contrast between stressed and unstressed syllables became much more evident. This resulted in the weakening of all vowels in an unstressed syllable (those to the right of a word):
OE lufu* > ME luue > PDE love
OE lufian > ME luue > PDE love
OE mona > ME mone > PDE moon
* Voiceless fricatives in intervocalic positions retained some amount of voice from the surrounding sounds (you cannot interrupt voice and make a perfect silence between two voiced sounds, let alone vowels). Voiceless turns into voiced: f > v (Verner’s law). The double u stands for a vowel (first u) and a v (second u). The o spelling was a writing convention so the u could be spotted in manuscript texts. I haven’t included here the Great Vowel Shift because that’s just crazy. You can look it up here.
OE - Old English, ME - Middle English, PDE - Present Day English
If we take the weakening of unstressed syllables to the extreme, we end up getting rid of the whole syllable. That’s what happened with all the elements that appear to the right of the word, i. e. inflectional marks: gender, number, case markings etc. Compare German and English to get the idea. Number disappeared in the cases in which it was contained in the inflectional marks, but reappeared under the form -s whenever it was necessary, by analogy. Some cases had a change in the radical (brother > brethren), which was dropped or left for a more restrictive meaning in favour of a regular form (brothers = sons to my father; brethren = members of a group or cult). Gender was only kept in loan words which made that distinction (those up there), but disappeared in most (if not all) other instances.
I’ve found this sentence in English which sums it up perfectly: Out of sight, out of mind. New generations didn’t remember or know about case markings or inflectional marks, so they didn’t need them. They simply used high redundancy (like the perpetual need of a lexical subject) to convey the same meanings other languages do with just a few words.
Some linguistic schools still talk about cases in English. In the Chomskyan Minimalist Program (Generative Grammar), the explanation for the double structure of transfer verbs (give, transfer, send…) is the existence of a category which assigns dative case to one of the elements and allows for an alternative structure:
I gave the keys to my mother / I gave my mother the keys
Anónimo ha dicho: i took a world mythology class last year and we talked briefly about dragons. in western mythology they can represent a lot of things, but they seem to represent greed most commonly. in that: they're constantly taking money they won't use and women just to have and hoard it. so like...i guess if feminists want their symbol to be creatures of pure greed taking things they don't want or need just to have that are defeated by powerful men, then sure.
Well I have always figured Anita Sarkeesian sleeps on a pile of hoop earrings like Smaug
In Asturian mythology (Celtic/Germanic) there’s an animal similar to a dragon called cuélebres, linked with Spanish culebra (snake). They were originally a metaphor of life as a cycle. They used to be snakes that lived under water and kept growing till one day they grew wings and flew away never to be seen again. Some myths claim that it was God (or some other deity) that expelled them from this world and they had to fly to another land where all the other cuélebres live. When Christianism reached Asturias, they were turned into a symbol of the devil. Some myths about them include the guarding of a treasure or the kidnapping of a xana (an Asturian nymph). There’s one in particular where the xana dares a man to kiss her a set number of times. While he keeps his eyes closed, she transforms into a giant snake (most likely another cuélebre)who wraps around his body and starts choking him. If the man manages to fulfill the kissing request, he can get the treasure she guards and even marry her, if he doesn’t she will kill him. Yeah, I can see some parallels here too.
I’ve seen a few fashion posts trying to expand the “Marie Antoinette is not Victorian” rant, but this stuff can get complicated, so here is a semi-comprehensive list so everyone knows exactly when all of these eras were.
Please note that this is very basic and that there are sometimes subcategories (especially in the 17th century, Jacobean, Restoration, etc).
I’d be really careful with some of the text in these images: British monarchs are not the only visible influences in European fashion or history. In fact, the UK was never truly influential in international European affairs till pretty much the late 17th - early 18th century (as Britain or Great Britain). The timeline would be better if it included and sourced the paintings much better. The Renaissance was highly influenced by Italian culture in all fields, fashion was no different. The 16th and 17th centuries have a clear Spanish influence (the 17th century was the peak of the Spanish empire and Anna of Austria became a fashion icon back then). There’s been a constant influence of French fashions (although most of them took elements from Italy and Spain originally), and central Europe also had some pretty interesting and unique characteristics. Dutch fashion was also highly influential in England during their (the Low Countries’) war against Spain.
I started sourcing the portraits that were not English or British, but I ended up sourcing all of them. I have put the non-English portraits in bold. You can never have enough references.
- 1st row: The first three images show two English ladies: Lady Guildford (middle) and (future) Queen Elizabeth as a teen (right). The woman on the left is Margaret of Austria, Duchess of Savoy (not English).
What you know as “Elizabethan ruffs” has its origin in continental fashions, and you can find some pretty interesting designs if you look it up as cuello de lechuguilla. That site is in Spanish, but it’s definitely a must if you’re interested in historical fashion, especially in Spanish fashion. It’s well-sourced, with interesting posts and contains lots of images.
- 2nd row: The two women on the left and middle are Italian: left is Paolo Veronese’s Portrait of an unknown lady, the one in the middle is Maria de Medici, or Eleonora di Garzia di Toledo, according to Wikipedia. Right is an unknown English woman, painted by Robert Peake.
- 4th row: Left is Catherine Douglas, Duchess of Queensberry, attributed to Charles Jervas. Middle is Mary Little, future Lady Carr, by Thomas Gainsborough. Click the link to see more images. Right is Miss Elizabeth Murray by George Romney, but I can’t seem to find an online reference outside of poster sites.
- 5th row: Regency! British portraits can be very interesting, but don’t forget that most of these fashions were French and there’s an even greater amount of French portraits sporting this same fashion. Left is the portrait of an unknown lady by François Henri Mulard. It’s most likely French, and it’s one of the examples of Empire fashion on the Wikipedia page for “1795-1820 in fashion”. The two girls in the middle are Mesdemoiselles Mollien by George Rouget. There are also some sites where they compare period fashion with modern takes on the same styles here and here. Both are in Spanish, but you can run them through Google Translate if you want to read the text. Right is Amalie Auguste, Princess of Bavaria and Queen of Saxony by Joseph Stieler.
- 6th row: Left is Mary Ann Lawrence by Henry Mundy. The lady in the middle is wearing the fashions of the Spanish periodo isabelino, the Spanish Elizabethan period: the reign of Isabel II of Spain. She’s la Duquesa de Castro-Enríquez, painted by the brilliant Spanish painter, Federico de Madrazo. He might also be a good starting point for more Spanish 19th century fashion. Right is Lady Meysey-Thompson by John Singer Sargent.
- 7th row: Left is Princess Cecilie, Crown Princess of Germany by Philip Delaszlo. Middle is Mrs. Curtis by John Singer Sargent. Right is the portrait of Mrs. Charles Schreiber by John William Waterhouse.
erasure of Asian people and characters is very deep rooted in American media and goes all the way back to conception—don’t let it persist!
Important even when you’re excited about this movie!
good points, but please for the love of god, realize that the original marvel comic was a fucking horrible racist disaster of the most unacceptable calibre that rode on the tail ends of the 90s ninja craze and the budding 00s anime craze.
I still have no idea why Disney chose to adapt this MASSACRE of a comic book series to film, but what I have heard is that they’ve cherry picked the best parts of it and created something great from what was absolute dregs before.
And honestly I think a movie portraying a much, much more racially diverse -even if it is fictional- world, where everyone lives unquestionably together and showing what that might just be like, is a pretty good goddamn thing that I think could stand to be shown and portrayed to kids of this generation. You aren’t seeing the white kids appropriating anybody’s culture, you’re seeing a bunch of kids who are friends and race is not a divisive factor between them. I sort of think, in media, portraying/normalizing these sorts of things is really important and I think that is what BH6 is doing here: normalizing these sorts of situations.
When I say “normalize”, I mean, in media, and especially media for impressionable children, things that could be anything from diverse/inclusive groups of people from different races, to things like different genders, or different body types, being shown as “normal.” You put them on screen and tell a kid “this is normal.” and this can be shown in a way to goad children into doing what advertisers/media producers want, but it can also be used as a force of good. It’s about time we start using this media influence to spread stuff like this, instead of “buy this toy, wear this type of clothes, girls behave this way and boys have to do this or they aren’t normal”.
baby steps, man. There was a shitstorm when Laika released a movie with an openly gay character. But when they did the same thing a year after for the Boxtrolls, only the stupid old people got pissy about it. See? It’s starting to become normalized.
In the future I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s now easier for more diverse casts to exist, not just because it’s now been done once, but because the people, like me, who work in production, can point to things like this and say “see? They did it in Paranorman, the world didn’t explode. It’ll be fine.” or “see? the movie didn’t have to change for a bunch of different races to fit in fine. It’s not a big deal.” It’s been normalized. Somebody has to set a precedent. Wouldn’t it be great if shows were as diverse as this, not because they had some sort of agenda to, but just because that’s… yknow, normal?
#p l e a s e take note #i do get why people would get mad at disney for their decisions #but the source material is absolutely terribly and incredibly racist #and i would rather have a revamp about a mixed-race kid in a mixed-race world #than a straight adaptation of a racist as hell comic series #made by white dudes that think they’re clever for regurgitating every single exaggerated japanese and animanga stereotype in the book (via revyl)
The Impossible, or rather, Lo imposible (its original title) is a Spanish movie direct by J.A. Bayona. It’s the story of a Spanish family on holidays when the tsunami took place. I’m not going to get into the whole erasure of Asians or Asian-Americans, but congrats OP! You’ve found the one white demographic that gets constantly swept under the rug! I guess you could argue that they hired foreign actors to portray Spanish people, and I can also see an accusation of white-washing (this is Tumblr after all). Because everyone knows that white Spaniards don’t exist. Not at all. It’s not that we have been misrepresented and had our history or even politics ridiculed: the whole mash-up of Spanish traditions such as the Holy Week processions (procesiones de Semana Santa), the Fallas and San Fermín in Mission Impossible II. (All this is left out of something as basic as the English Wikipedia article. It does show up in the Spanish article. In fact, I only found Spanish videos on Youtube pointing this out.)
I see you have good intentions, OP, don’t mess up by not doing proper research. The other movies may incur in such erasure; but The Impossible was always intended to focus on white Spanish people. It’s based on the experiences of a family of Spanish tourists.
Hi I’m back again :) I just recently submitted one of my work, an experimental cartoon style artwork that I tried, and it has already been critiqued and I thank you all who liked it and gave comments on how I can improve it and I’m gonna do an improved one in the near future :)
So for the mean time I’m gonna ask again a little of your time, this time to give comment on my best artwork so far. Here you go, I hope you like it and again I’m gonna ask; What is wrong? What could be better? Thanks a lot in advance everyone :D
I like what you have here and I understand that it’s a different style from what I usually do, so please take the following with a pinch of salt.
The pose looks slightly forced, awkward. Having the two hands up to her chest and shoulders, plus the scarf, is just too much clutter for the top half of her body. Slightly exaggerating the pose, at least of the hand holding the headphones could help in making the whole thing less solid and add some movement. The other hand is covered by the scarf and that makes me doubt there’s any reason for it to be in such position.
Ref. 1 - The girl in this picture has some shy pose going on, but the pose of her whole body flows with the arms and makes it look more interesting.
Ref. 2 - The pose here is more open, with a clear view of the arm holding the headphones.
How to pose hands - This is a blog post on how to pose hands for professional photography and modeling. It’s very helpful in finding the perfect balance between accurate and visually interesting. Most of the pictures focus on portraits similar to what you have here.
Whenever you take elements out of something, the ones that you can see are more evident. That’s why I mentioned that hidden hand behind the scarf: it doesn’t make sense to include a hand if it’s going to be obscured. It would work if she were hiding something. That way you could make her intentions evident and give her some depth. But this is not a murderer hiding a dagger behind her back. This is a girl enjoying a song. You could emphasise that by making her dance or sway to the music. Add some flow to her clothes and hair.
I like the colours and, I assume, you were going for a pop of colour with her hair. The problem is that it clashes against the darker colours way too much. And I’m not a huge fan of eyes and brows showing through hair. I get that’s part of the style, but you can make it more balanced, so the hair doesn’t get kicked out of the spotlight. If her eyes are closed, I don’t see the point in making them stand out through the hair so much. Perhaps parting her bangs a bit— like here— and making her brows more detailed and expressive could explain why they’re so relevant. And for the sake of expression, they are. I’d add some texture to the hair. Again, it may be the whole style, but I always found this kind of shading bland. There’s no reason you cannot experiment with some degree of texture. Same with the scarf: where you going for a knitted scarf? Is it supposed to be more of a cotton cloth to cover your neck?
I said her clothes didn’t match the hair, my reasoning being he hair is too light and takes all the attention from the clothes. The red skirt could help gather some attention, but it sinks in a sea of black. I love black and white, I think there’s nothing easier than mixing black and white and adding a pop of colour to make an interesting colour scheme. Especially when it comes to clothes. But that pop of colour has to be obvious, and here that’s the hair, not the skirt. A brighter red could help with that, but you don’t want to go overboard with it. So I suggest making the black pieces more interesting. Seeing as she’s wearing a jacket and a shirt— both black— you could add some white to the mix: a white pattern (black and white stripes, for instance) can give the design some balance. I like to add some extra details to buttons and zippers and some extra shine could also help break that black sea you have going on. Also, never be afraid to add colours to black and white. Use layers and blending modes to make the piece more interesting. I’ve used lots of colours to shade black: from red and purple to browns and greens. I’d use some pinkish hues to make it cozier, more interesting. The worst you can do with black and white is shade it with grey.
It’s a nice drawing, but it lacks the degree of detail that would make it more catchy. Above all, the shading is correct but lacks depth: no deep shadows or highlights, and no texture. Some richer colours for elements you want to stand out— i.e. her hair— would also be a good idea. Adding these shouldn’t go against the style. I keep thinking of this artist FionaCreates— tumblr & portfolio. She also has a more simplified style, but still keeps some degree of depth in her colours (my favourite part of all her work) and texture. It’s not about rendering every single freckle on her skin, but about making her believable and interesting to look at.