T bugO Obt
B
I am now jealous of T-bug.
(via billie-joe)
Without Y, a and n? Feel free to refer to me as You-Know-Who. Or She-Who-Cannot-Be-Named.
**************
th gh bou
I don’t normally join in these things, but it kind of amuses me that this makes my name:
V
Now, where’s my mask?
I don’t do these things much either but my name is…
Ho T
The Helicoprion was a shark-like fish that arose in the oceans of the late Carboniferous 280 million years ago, and eventually went extinct during the early Triassic some 225 million years ago.
The Helicoprion kept growing new teeth throughout its life, but they did not fall out. Instead, the teeth grew in spiral fashion, with new, larger ones being added.
There have been some completely redic evolutions that have happened, but this scenario is highly unlikely.
Look at that animal. Does anything there seem likely? Does that jaw look like it would be aerodynamic in the slightest? Why would teeth get smaller over time? How would teeth that point outwards like that be conducive to catching prey?
The more likely scenario is that the tooth spiral was located deep within the throat. These throat-teeth would grab prey entering the mouth cavity, and upon closing the mouth the teeth/jaw shape would facilitate swallowing. The lack of wear and breakage on the teeth suggests the teeth were not used for biting tough prey; it’s more likely that Helicoprion enjoyeda diet of soft-bodied prey (such as jellyfish, octopuses etc).
No one can say for sure unless by some miracle a full fossil is found (unfortunately very unlikely with cartilaginous fish!)… but with the evidence presented, the “throat teeth” theory is the most scientifically plausible.
Further reading: http://paleobiology.si.edu/helicoprion/index.html
Hello! Sorry for being slow with my reply! My DA print shop is here - http://wyldflowa.deviantart.com/store/ Thank you so much for your interest! xxx
DA is doing a 25% off offer on prints that ends today. These offers roll around quite frequently… but I can’t say when (I’m also not sure what time zone they’re talking about when they say “today”)! So it might be a good idea to take advantage of it while it’s happening now! :)
Thank you again! I hope you don’t mind me answering publicly to tell everyone about the 25% off - I didn’t know it was happening until today! :D
I’ve had a few requests asking whether it’s possible to buy prints of my work anywhere. I’m very flattered! Thank you! I’ve set a few of my pics up to buy on DeviantART~!
If there’s any images I’ve done that you like that aren’t available, or any of DA’s print products that you want my drawinz all over, then let me know and I’ll make them so. :)
I also have a small stock of A4 prints - more info at the bottom of this journal entry.
Please have a look, take care! I’ll have some new pics up very soon! x
“I’m not dancing”
Yeeeargh spent too long on this~
Jukebox from my upcoming webcomic, Rainbow Carousel. ^^;
Oh my gosh… a sudden load of followers happened last night. Hello! I’m kinda scared! But it’s lovely… thank you! I’ll try my best just to draw and post and not let my anxieties make me hide the stuff I draw from the world. Ehe. ^^;
Starting with this! Just a doodle of my bbys Bubblegum and Sundae from my webcomic, Rainbow Carousel. I so want to hide this because my style has changed once again, more manga… but I think I’m satisfied. So satisfied that I think I’ll be able to get my webcomic going very soon… after I’ve finished my dissertation… oh my gosh my dissertation… I’m totally urgh omg with that right now… *crumpled heap*
Just look at the pretty bishies with the gaudy colours slapped on them I’ll be under my duvet, seeking comfort from my cat…
(sorry if this appears twice Tumblr’s being a bit temperamental with me)
Okay so I know this is kinda taboo but anyways.
Frida Kahlo: Not too easy on the eyes. I mean she’s got the lady-mo and the monobrow thing going on. She didn’t know where to put her blush or what shade lipstick would obviously suit her skin tone. Really, she’s a bit of a wreck. So this got me to thinking. What would have happened if her girlfriends had done the right thing and taken her to a beautician, (which clearly needed to happen)? I did a subtle re-paint over the top of her original self-portrait to “conceptualize” what it would have looked like if she had been whisked off to Beauty Works or the likes….I didn’t want to alter the integrity of the original painting too much. What do you reckon?
Did you really just skin-lighten a Frida Kahlo self portait
and remove her facial hair
and call her “a wreck”
and then say she couldn’t choose a fucking lipstick to suit her skin tone
after you changed her skin tone
how can one person be everything that is wrong with the world at once
I don’t think she changed her skin tone but still.. ! What the fuck are you doing? Who cares about making her beautiful by western beauty industry standards. You’re going against everything that makes her really beautiful. Frida had a bunch of fucked up shit happen to her, unibrow and all. And she wore her facial hair with pride. It’s part of who she was and what made her a strong, proud, awesome woman and symbol of feminism. The fact that you consider her friends not taking her to a salon to ‘fix’ her ‘flaws’, wrong. Only serves to show how shallow you really are. You don’t have to buy in to the shit they sell you to be beautiful. And fuck you, photoshop pictures of yourself next time.
I beg to differ.
Removing the lowlights and expanding the midtones and highlights to cover previously dark areas in order to “even out” the skintone counts as “lightening”.
Here’s a half-and-half comparison to better see what was done here:
This is basically what most hydroquinone skin-bleaching creams are touted to do.
if you think that standard western beauty is the only issue here, you’re also wrong.
many many layers of stupid and colonizer mentality here.
I looked at 1 page of the op’s blog. many drawings, not 1 poc
op conceptualized a tan white woman is what he did.
and beauty is the only issue here? nope.
This is also just not isolated to the OP.
There has been a ridiculous and worrying trend (existing since forever, but intensifying as of late) in White-oriented fashion, art and beauty media of “beautifying” Frida Kahlo. This usually means casting white models to portray her and giving them a flower wreath.
But, it isn’t limited to that, like in this repulsive photoshoot that cast the palest-of-the-pale and then captured her looking submissive and sad.
Frida wasn’t conventionally beautiful and she knew it. She was an iconoclast and a revolutionary. She was a woman who suffered pain daily and who transformed Mexican art forever. Beautiful is the most timid and weak compliment among all the things Frida Kahlo was.
Looking through the OP’s blog, see this “methodology of painting pretty girls” labeled “Pretty Girl Recipe”.
Yeah. That explains a lot.
And as for the “integrity of the original painting,” how about the face lift you gave her to tighter her cheeks and all the injections under her eyes to fill out her sockets and the major remodeling of the fucking bone of her brow ridge to make it “feminine” enough for your liking? They doing major fucking plastic surgery now at Beauty Works?
Frida Kahlo is my fucking hero and one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen. She dealt with a lot of shit in her life and she came out of it strong and wonderful and if you think a little bit of hair on her lip and between her eyebrows makes her less wonderful, you’re just ignorant and HORRIBLE.
Go to hell, OP.
What gets me about this is that this is a self portrait. It’s not a fashion shoot or even a portrait of someone else, its not an image where her looks should come under any form of critique - this is how Khalo chose to represent herself. If she wished it to be so she would have painted herself without the facial hair and monobrow, she could have painted herself with flawless even-toned skin and reshaped her lips into a seductive pout… But she didn’t. She chose to portray herself like this. She immortalised herself in painting this way; boldly displaying and accepting her features.
By painting over it and making comments like these it’s essentially being said that “the way you present yourself, see yourself and accept yourself is unacceptable to me”… which is fucking nasty.
Not to mention painting over someone’s work like this is akin to vandalism. You remember that Mr Bean film where he ruined Whistler’s Mother then drew a new face in? You’ve done exactly the same here… except you’re not covering up an innocent mistake, you’re making a concerted effort to “improve” a completed painting. As an artist surely you must see the error here? How would you like someone coming and redrawing over images you’d finished up? But not only that, this is an image of the most intimate subject someone can portray, the self, and you feel like you can paint over that just so that it looks better to you?!
Fuck. Right. Off.
saying that evolution is a theory and it hasn’t really been proven yet is sort of like saying gravity is a theory and it hasn’t really been proven yet
Objects fall because they refuse to raise themselves up to the power of Christ
amen
Acccctuuuuuaaaaaaaally
It’s not quite the same because Evolution has never actually been observed. Since it was theorized, we’ve never actually had a documented case of a new species coming into existence after evolving from another.
I mean that takes a super long time and is super hard (read: impossible) to observe.
Whereas gravity is obviously very observable.
Not that I don’t believe in Evolution. Just a fun fact.
I’m going to “well actually…” on you here… Evolution is very observable. Change can be witnessed in organisms introduced to isolated island communities which have different ecological niches or different environmental factors that they must rapidly adapt to or face extinction.
A very subtle example that I got to experience myself was measuring field mice that had inadvertently been introduced to an island in Scotland - the mice on the island were significantly bigger than mice on the mainland; the mice that had larger body masses are more likely to survive and therefore breed in the harsh conditions on a cold Scottish island, meaning that after a few generations of the “fittest” animals breeding the overall average body mass of mice on the island had increased. The mice were evolving, subtly, towards a form that would help their survival in that environment.
More dramatic examples like this one I found from a quick Google of “island evolution” can be observed. Of course, a tiger will never evolve into a bird after a few generations after being dumped somewhere outside of its preferred habitat, that sort of leap is completely impossible, the changes are subtle. The argument of what constitutes a “new” species however is of great debate… we’ve veered away from classifying animals based entirely on their morphological features and are now looking into genetic differences between species. But how we define a new species is integral to observing evolution - In that link I gave, the island lizards may very well turn out to be genetically identical to mainland lizards, but morphologically they have developed a whole new digestive strategy to cope with a new environment. Are they still the same species? Do we categorise them according to their genetic make up or their distinct physical differences and environmental adaptations? You must remember that “species” is a somewhat arbitrary concept that we created to help us make sense of the world. The differences between species happened due to nature, but the “species” themselves are named and defined by man. Some species are only differentiated from one another due to exceptionally small differences that man has defined as significant.
You also can’t forget “man made” evolution due to selective breeding of favourable characteristics in domestic animals. Many of the species we’re most familiar with today would not exist had they not been bred specifically by man. In these cases WE are acting as the new environment; we allow only certain animals to breed not based on their ability to survive (as would happen in nature), but on certain features we find favourable.
The evolution of organisms in the past is classified as theoretical because it’s based upon evidence rather than direct observation. We can, however, directly observe evolution happening right now in certain communities (and by our own hands). So it’s kinda fair to say yeah, evolution has been proven directly in the here and now but not in the past… but certain assumptions of past events can be derived from evidence obtained in the present day.
UNICORN
…
I imagined a race of people whose blood was filled with minerals that sparkled all the colours of the rainbow. It would crystallize throughout their lives, producing beautiful glittering horns on their foreheads. But they were all killed by humans… Because humans fear and kill what they don’t understand. Deep under the earth in the places where the blood of the unicorns was spilled, crystals grow. These crystals are treasured, unlike the race that bore them.
…
This looks like my really old art for some reason. I’m going backwards… ;_;
