modern au gaang doodles + bonus dangerous ladies
The Meditations - Marcus Aurelius (via creatingaquietmind)
this is a stoic’s way of saying ‘ride the chill wave.’(via thehumanzee)
|· But what does this even help with · I am ashamed that I can't endure · Thanks? · Knowing that doesn't help me bear it · Thinking about the good futures and the bad past · And the bad present · None of these things are endurable or bearable · And knowing why hasn't done anything to make me feel better · Just worse ·|
Donald Glover will be voicing Miles Morales as Spider-Man in the upcoming Disney XD series.
"The new season of Disney XD’s animated series Ultimate Spider-Man: Web Warriors will take Peter Parker through various parallel worlds, including one where he meets Miles Morales, his half-Hispanic, half-black counterpart, voiced by Glover. The season premieres Sunday (9 a.m. ET/PT), and the "Spider-Verse" arc of episodes airs next year."
Read more and watch a clip here.
HOLY SHIT!!! MY BABE!!!!!! LIVIN THE DREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHIT!!!!!!!!!!
is jontron on some quest to just be dunked by everyone he looks up to
i think the only meaningful relationship he feels that he can form is that of a father and a disappointing adult son
I. love. the. Anaconda. video. but the writeups I’ve been seeing keep referring to Drake as a co-star, which I think misses a big part of the point.
The reason this video rules is because Drake is an extra. Drake is a prop. Drake is a bro in the comfy-casual clothes that he rolled up to the set in, who has no lines or purpose other than the be ground upon, and whose face is obscured by shadows most of the time.
This is not a continuation of the Drake/Nicki/Rih media narrative. This is a dank-as-fuck feminist power play. This is, “Drake is whatever to me.” And this is a man who, if he isn’t at the top of his game, is close to it. A huge celebrity. And here is Nicki looking fucking amazing, tormenting him into a boner, then swatting his hand away and walking out of frame.
Your anaconda don’t want none unless she got buns, hun? Maybe she doesn’t want your anaconda. Maybe she’ll do whatever the fuck she wants with her buns, and it doesn’t matter what you think or feel.
All this talk about Aaron Diaz reminded me of on of my favorite tweets of all time.
Dear Aaron Diaz,
Over the past few days we’ve already exchanged some words about this. I reblogged Mary’s comic lampooning your comic (and others like it), expressing my approval of its message. I also subtweeted your work fairly obviously. We are friendly acquaintances and my behavior was inappropriate and rude. I apologized to you via email for being passive-aggressive and thoughtless, and you graciously accepted my apology. I admit: what I did was hurtful, and the wrong way to go about it. With that in mind, I want to try to address the problems I have with your work in a direct, honest, and hopefully respectful way. No passive-aggression, no rudeness, no vague-tweeting.
Aaron, I have a real problem with the way you write and draw female characters. It is sexually objectifying and sexist.
I do not have a problem with artists writing and drawing objectified female characters. I do have a problem with characters I consider sexist, but ultimately it’s something I can ignore. There’s a place for everything, and an artist has the right to create whatever they want to create, for whatever ends they choose. What I have a problem with is that your comic is not presented as a science fiction comic with a dash of sexy thrills, but rather as a feminist narrative in support of powerful independent women. You’ve made it clear on many occasions that you don’t consider your work to be objectifying or sexist. I have a problem with cheesecake-style art being presented as something feminist, empowering, enlightened- something made “for women”, when it’s clearly made for men.
You’re allowed to make art with male gaze. But please call a spade a spade.
I think you are a nice person who does good things. I think you’re a good artist and a good writer. But I consider writing and drawing women to be one of your weaknesses, and it’s hard to imagine that you don’t know that. If you do, I haven’t heard you say so.
I know Mary’s comic stung. I’m not going to deny there was meanness there, although I saw it more as humorously exaggerated satire than a personal attack. I understand that it sucks to see your work roasted in such a way. But the criticism it made of your work resonated with a lot of people. They can’t all be idiots, crazy people, or “SJWs”, or people with a personal grudge against you. To paraphrase a saying, “If lots of people are telling you it’s raining, get an umbrella.” Aaron, many people have this problem with your work. The problem exists. And since you seem to be very much invested in feminism and positive, non-sexualized portrayals of women in media, you need to take a long hard look at your own output. You need to get an umbrella.
I don’t think I’ve seen a single page of Dresden Codak that doesn’t feature a woman posed in a male-gazey way, with loving focus on her ass or cleavage, or wearing a sexual costume, or in some situation that puts her in a compromising position (like the most recent page in which Kimiko’s clothing is burned off of her body, which has happened at least twice in the series’ run.) I have a very hard time believing that these details are accidental. Not to mention the pinups you posted a few days ago. Instead of saying something like, “Here’s some sexy drawings of Kimiko I did” you said they were about “agency” and “celebration of the female form”. It’s hard not to see language like that as dishonest and sort of insulting.
The following images are a few examples of what I’m referring to. I tried to only find examples from the current arc in the comic, or from merchandise you currently sell. I understand that there is a larger context to these images, but the fact that you continually write situations in which these presentations of women would be contextually appropriate is part of the problem. For the sake of fairness, there is ONE female character in Dresden Codak who is not presented sexually, but to me, that doesn’t do much to make up for the rest of it, especially since she is the only female character with a speaking role in the history of the comic who is not presented this way.
Aaron, you can do whatever you want with your own comic. However, if you really do care about female characters in media, or care to know why so many people seem to be angry with you about it, I would do one of two things. If you don’t want your comic to present its female characters in a borderline-erotic light, then stop doing that. If you don’t mind that, then by all means continue, but please just admit that you like drawing t&a and that it’s not particularly empowering, or feminist, or a celebration of personal agency. As a woman, I resent being told that men’s eye candy is actually meant to uplift me and that I should celebrate it.
I’m not trying to attack you or slander you. I’m certainly not doing this to stir up drama. I think you are a good person. And I think that you make a good comic. It’s obvious that a lot of people really love it and support it, and will continue to love and support it no matter what. There’s a lot you are doing right. But your work is not perfect, and I want to talk about it directly, honestly, and respectfully.
Thank you for listening.
- Brian Eno, A Year With Swollen Appendices (via volumexii)
I have other things to do and shouldn’t waste time preaching to the choir about Aaron Diaz being wrong. But his views on pinups and objectification seem wrong to me.
Okay, just the compressed version: I don’t think objectification can, or even should, be completely removed from sexuality. Sometimes a nice ass is just a nice ass — which is to say, a geometric form, a literal object, whose shape appeals to you. What is important is not to allow the enjoyment of people’s forms to become mutually exclusive with enjoyment of people as human beings. But “enjoyment of people as human beings” is a thing that actually involves knowing people and cannot be conveyed through a picture alone. Using the right poses or camera angles or whatever cannot not make a picture of a sexy person “less objectifying” and therefore “better.” Ultimately, unless you know the person, you are still just looking at their body and thinking it’s a nicely shaped body.
The idea that certain camera angles or poses or the like are “more dehumanizing” than others is in fact kind of disturbing to me, as it suggests that the implied audience is unable to see a pictured person as a person unless those parameters are set just right. And if that’s true then that is the sort of thing that needs to be fixed. A picture is a picture is a picture. Ogling someone in a picture does not become less about their physical form because they are in a different pose or something. It’s still a picture, and it’s still ogling.
Aaron “composition” Diaz
Aaron “This totally isn’t my fetish at all" Diaz
On another note the word “dehumanizing” takes on a few extra layers of meaning when it’s a transhumanist doing cyborg cheesecake
Aaron “incapable of feeling hypocrisy" Diaz
This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill, fifteen percent concentrated power of will, five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain, and a hundred percent reason to remember the name
The Thinker by Auguste Rodin x Drake thinking about Nicki’s ass in Anaconda.