?

Log in

No account? Create an account
breeden
ursulav

(no subject)

I must confess, I am not impressed by the mystique of sharks. They don't do much for me. I don't live in terror of shark-kind, and Shark Week is about the only time I'll change the channel off the Discover/Animal Planet/National Geographic trinity that forms most of my non-cartoon viewing. (I'm sure, mind you, that if one was attached to my leg, I'd be an instant convert to the Way of the Shark, but barring that sort of conversion-on-the-boat-to-Damascus event, I'm just not a shark person.) I just don't get the glamour. To me, they're a big fish. Sure, a cool fish, a fish that's really well in touch with its environment and has teeth like ginsu knives, but still...fish. And other than the fact that they can eat us, I don't really see what makes the shark a more interesting fish than, say, the flounder or the viperfish or the elegantly dressed parrotfish, let along the giant manta ray.

(Okay, that one show about the leaping big whites in South Africa who had learned to jump out of the water in pursuit of seals, those were pretty amazing. But a lot of it was the edge-of-the-seat cheering for those acrobatic little seals. You gotta admire any mammal that will do flips over the back of a great white shark and place all its faith in the fact that great whites don't corner very well.)

Nevertheless, this struck me as pretty cool:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040913/shark.html

breeden
ursulav

(no subject)

I must confess, I am not impressed by the mystique of sharks. They don’t do much for me. I don’t live in terror of shark-kind, and Shark Week is about the only time I’ll change the channel off the Discover/Animal Planet/National Geographic trinity that forms most of my non-cartoon viewing. (I’m sure, mind you, that if one was attached to my leg, I’d be an instant convert to the Way of the Shark, but barring that sort of conversion-on-the-boat-to-Damascus event, I’m just not a shark person.) I just don’t get the glamour. To me, they’re a big fish. Sure, a cool fish, a fish that’s really well in touch with its environment and has teeth like ginsu knives, but still…fish. And other than the fact that they can eat us, I don’t really see what makes the shark a more interesting fish than, say, the flounder or the viperfish or the elegantly dressed parrotfish, let along the giant manta ray.

(Okay, that one show about the leaping big whites in South Africa who had learned to jump out of the water in pursuit of seals, those were pretty amazing. But a lot of it was the edge-of-the-seat cheering for those acrobatic little seals. You gotta admire any mammal that will do flips over the back of a great white shark and place all its faith in the fact that great whites don’t corner very well.)

Nevertheless, this struck me as pretty cool:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040913/shark.html

Originally published at Tea with the Squash God. You can comment here or there.


breeden
ursulav

(no subject)

"Look out! The egg nog is in musth!"

breeden
ursulav

(no subject)

“Look out! The egg nog is in musth!”

Originally published at Tea with the Squash God. You can comment here or there.


breeden
ursulav

Diary of a Brief Moment of Existential Art Angst

So today, over the course of a leisurely forty-five minutes, I did this small and silly piece:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/10742633/

Angst!Collapse )

breeden
ursulav

Diary of a Brief Moment of Existential Art Angst

So today, over the course of a leisurely forty-five minutes, I did this small and silly piece:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/10742633/

I scanned it, uploaded it, and sat back for my usual episode of art angst–I painted something noxiously cute and relatively simple, without a background, that did not particularly stretch me in any way, merely because I thought it was funny and wanted to do a stripey design with my PITT pens, the shame, the shame.

I had a buyer within–I double checked the time stamps–six minutes.

I thought “Man, the thrill of selling it really goes a long way to negating the guilt of having done it in the first place.”

Then I thought, “Whoa, I’m letting commercial success overcome my art guilt! I have SOLD OUT! ARRGH! Get thee to art confession! Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned–I have painted simple and cute and sold it and felt less guilty for having sold it!”

Then I thought, “Is it actually possible for a commercial artist to sell out? I mean, without, y’know, hardcore porn or working for Disney or something?”

Then I thought, “No, that makes me feel less guilty, so it can’t be right.”

Then I thought, “Bunnychicken!” for no apparent reason. (That happens a lot.)

Then I thought, “If the measure of not selling out is forcing yourself to do things that nobody would put money down for, it’s dumb and in it’s own way just as reactionary as do things people do want, because you’re selling out to the mystique of not selling out, damnit, which is a total sell-out.”

Then I thought, “Yeah, but once you’ve thought of that, no matter what you do is selling out because everything could be percieved as selling out somehow, and the only way to avoid selling out is to do your own thing without even thinking about selling out, damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead, and stop worrying about it.”

Then I stopped and ran that last bit through my head a few times to see if I could understand it the second time through, which I could, but only barely, and I really wasn’t sure whether that meant it was okay to paint mice in ponchoes or not.

Then I thought “Fireworks! The crow has FIREWORKS, not toilet paper!” which was important to something unrelated.

Then I thought, “Screw it, it’s a mouse wearing a poncho and a chicken. If that’s selling out, there is no hope for any of us.”

Then I thought, “Man, I could really use a nap.” And in this, at least, I was unanimous.

And that constituted my art angst moment for the day. Tune in next week for another exciting episode of “Ursula Wrestles With The Demons Of Art,” which, we predict, will end in another exciting nap.

Originally published at Tea with the Squash God. You can comment here or there.


breeden
ursulav

And another thing...

Banned Books Weeks is next week.

I am not a fan of banning books that do not, for example, contain detailed instructions on how to make methamphetimines in the basement. (I'm not actually for banning those, either, but I can at least understand why you wouldn't want 'em in the school library.) Like, I'd assume, the vast majority of my readership, I am deeply opposed to banning books. There's something really...</i>patronizing</i> about trying to ban books. We can make a case for evil, too, but definitely patronizing. And that really chafes my hide.

Also, y'know, the usual--you don't do anybody any favors by trying to hide information from them. Banning books because they describe racism, for example, does not prevent racism, it just makes people ignorant about its existence. It's the ultimate head-in-the-sand game.

But you all know that already, and I'm just preachin' to the choir.

And so, as seen around LJ, the top 100 banned books of the last decade!

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

Some of these baffle me utterly. I mean, sure. Anything with gay stuff is gonna be controversial. I may not approve of people trying to ban it, but I can see why they would. Same for all the adult sex manuals. And "Huck Finn" may be a great American classic, but I can see it being a problem among people who fail to see Twain's terribly humane handling of the whole issue because they're blinded by the vernacular. (And hell, they've been trying to ban that one for years.) And Catcher in the Rye is practically a shoo-in.

Some of these, though..."The Night Kitchen"? I LOVED that book! I had it memorized as a small child! "James and the Giant Peach"? I mean, I'll buy that Roald Dahl is inherently somewhat subversive, but I don't recall much sex and death in that one. "A Light in the Attic"? "Where's Waldo"? "Julie of the Wolves"? (Someone said that one's banned because there's menstruation. Um. HUH? Do they think this is something that girls won't do if they don't read about it? Whazzup with that?)

breeden
ursulav

And another thing…

Banned Books Weeks is next week.

I am not a fan of banning books that do not, for example, contain detailed instructions on how to make methamphetimines in the basement. (I’m not actually for banning those, either, but I can at least understand why you wouldn’t want ‘em in the school library.) Like, I’d assume, the vast majority of my readership, I am deeply opposed to banning books. There’s something really…</i>patronizing</i> about trying to ban books. We can make a case for evil, too, but definitely patronizing. And that really chafes my hide.

Also, y’know, the usual–you don’t do anybody any favors by trying to hide information from them. Banning books because they describe racism, for example, does not prevent racism, it just makes people ignorant about its existence. It’s the ultimate head-in-the-sand game.

But you all know that already, and I’m just preachin’ to the choir.

And so, as seen around LJ, the top 100 banned books of the last decade!

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

Some of these baffle me utterly. I mean, sure. Anything with gay stuff is gonna be controversial. I may not approve of people trying to ban it, but I can see why they would. Same for all the adult sex manuals. And “Huck Finn” may be a great American classic, but I can see it being a problem among people who fail to see Twain’s terribly humane handling of the whole issue because they’re blinded by the vernacular. (And hell, they’ve been trying to ban that one for years.) And Catcher in the Rye is practically a shoo-in.

Some of these, though…”The Night Kitchen”? I LOVED that book! I had it memorized as a small child! “James and the Giant Peach”? I mean, I’ll buy that Roald Dahl is inherently somewhat subversive, but I don’t recall much sex and death in that one. “A Light in the Attic”? “Where’s Waldo”? “Julie of the Wolves”? (Someone said that one’s banned because there’s menstruation. Um. HUH? Do they think this is something that girls won’t do if they don’t read about it? Whazzup with that?)

Originally published at Tea with the Squash God. You can comment here or there.