How We Look At Pictures: A Basic Art Crit Lesson

this was sparked by the miniwank here. (ETA: link fixed)   taradiane posted this picture of daniel radcliffe.



wayfairer said the childsploitation made her uncomfortable and asked for a cut-tag.  lots of people took offense and/or got snotty.  the lady protested too much.  no one ELSE was bothered by the childsploitation.  he's just a kid; kids crouch in that position all the time.  was she some kind of sicko, getting turned on?  etc etc etc.  she was uncomfortable with the suggestive pose; they denied there was one. 

let's put it this way:  the suggestive composition.  that picture is designed to draw the eye to daniel's crotch. 

it's not that the photographer necessarily made a crotch bull's eye and lined dan up in front of it; it's that no artist, no professional photographer, lines up a shot unaware of what he or she is doing.  photographers look through the viewfinder, and they don't see just "kid crouching on pedestal with caterpillar brows": they see the image of lines and colors and highlights and dynamics that is going to exist in the photograph.  they don't see the person--they see the work of art.

let's study how this works.  ( gather round. )

happy father's day

i had nightmares about flying.  i mean usually, i have nightmares *in which* i'm flying--flying away from something. ( blahblah )

yesterday was my last evah day sacking.  last week they hired a whole passel of new sackers.  now i got a $0.50 raise, and will be working fewer hours, which for the first week does not quite even out; but everyone thinks i'm fabulous and they seemed to think last thursday i was doing a great job checking; so my hours may go up.  i'm friendlier than History Teacher Manager, for sure.  i bet i've won ten times more repeat customers than he has.  i've had bunches of people say it was a real pleasure to talk to me, and/or they'd "definitely be coming back," and/or they hoped to see me again. 

lalala.

(no subject)

wtf is gmail???

(no subject)

remus.

and sirius.

and remus/sirius.

waaaaaaaaaaaaah.

(no subject)

i made icons but i really don't feel like uploading and posting them. 

maybe later.

fanfic vs original fic (for reading. not writing)

there's no such thing as being wasted on fanfiction, cause i often enjoy reading it more than original fiction; but sometimes i think, this person could be making MONEY, and a lot of it; or THIS person is brilliant, and i want to know what her world-building would be like without the crutch.

and SOMETIMES you see someone who has all this raw talent--world-building, and... sheer inventiveness.  but can't quite stand up to the demands of canon.  this is someone who would write original fiction that you might not be able to quibble with at all, but whose fanfiction has flaws because of the difficulty of matching characters and voice and tone and--shape.  and color. 

and then i wish, again (or should i say especially?) that she'd turn her attention to original fiction.

i'll have a conditional rec forthcoming soonish.

hp/ss rec

hall of the mountain kings by tara tory.  nc-17.  stunningly original, executed very well, but not without mechanical errors or flaws.  diverges from canon under the influence of too much desire to write original fic, methinks.

ETA: password protection is back up at inkstain, and that link is wrong. i'll have to wait for an email back before i fix the link.

gen hp rec

pretty far ooc but really adorable.

teacher's pet by didodikali.  hermione, snape, mcgonagall.  hermione's working on her animagus form and gets stuck; snape helps her out; snape becomes a polar bear due to some bad mistletoe, and gets stuck; dumbledore gives mcgonagall a racy christmas present; hermione charms a t-shirt out of draco... .

it's like a kids' book.