![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
via https://ift.tt/2un57iW
(Your picture was not posted)
(Your picture was not posted)
Jul. 11th, 2018
via https://ift.tt/2u9eAuT
thisblueboy:
Thomas Couture, Romans during the Decadence (detail), 1847
(Your picture was not posted)
thisblueboy:
Thomas Couture, Romans during the Decadence (detail), 1847
(Your picture was not posted)
via https://ift.tt/2NE1az8
solarcrashx:
early fob gives me such heart eyes….like two 16 year olds meeting in a bookstore and running off with Cool Fucked Up Local Celebrity Pete Wentz (who quit the hardcore scene announcing to everybody he found a kid that was his golden ticket to take over the world, and patrick had seen this as an opportunity to impress The Legendary Pete Wentz) in a van that was so hot the plastic on the interior windows melted and the mirrors were duct taped on….pissing on each others laundy, beating each other up, keeping their porn out in the open….eventually meeting up with petes uninterested radical anarchist hardcore straightedge friend….i need a moment i love fall out boy
(Your picture was not posted)
solarcrashx:
early fob gives me such heart eyes….like two 16 year olds meeting in a bookstore and running off with Cool Fucked Up Local Celebrity Pete Wentz (who quit the hardcore scene announcing to everybody he found a kid that was his golden ticket to take over the world, and patrick had seen this as an opportunity to impress The Legendary Pete Wentz) in a van that was so hot the plastic on the interior windows melted and the mirrors were duct taped on….pissing on each others laundy, beating each other up, keeping their porn out in the open….eventually meeting up with petes uninterested radical anarchist hardcore straightedge friend….i need a moment i love fall out boy
(Your picture was not posted)
via https://ift.tt/2JceEid
jodiescomer:
Red. Better.
Pretty Woman (1990) dir. Gary Marshall
(Your picture was not posted)
jodiescomer:
Red. Better.
Pretty Woman (1990) dir. Gary Marshall
(Your picture was not posted)
via https://ift.tt/2NBNbKp
dailyavengers:
“We try to save as many people as we can.Sometimes that doesn’t mean everybody,but, if we can’t find a way to live with that,Next time maybe nobody can be saved.”
(Your picture was not posted)
dailyavengers:
“We try to save as many people as we can.Sometimes that doesn’t mean everybody,but, if we can’t find a way to live with that,Next time maybe nobody can be saved.”
(Your picture was not posted)
via https://ift.tt/2JccOht
towonderland72:
skamskada:
towonderland72:
skamskada:
towonderland72:
rabbitrah:
starprincejimin:
god im reading a text about romance fiction (especially targeted at young adults) for class and one sentence in it literally made my brain explode because ive been thinking about this kind of stuff too, how “Many people wouldn’t fall in love if they’ve never heard about it before.” and like…imagine there was no ideal/overaccentuated image of love and romance painted in postmodern mass media….how would we love? would it be purer? more authentic? what would we do differently? would we fall in love at all if we werent constantly being fed an ideal concept of love as the norm in mass media? like what is a natural process of human feelings and what is just a projection of how we want to love and want to be loved based on what we’ve seen on tv and read in books etc? in this essay i will
w … wh … where’s the rest of the essay, op?
@skamskada: #this is literally how the world worked until the consept of passionate romance (for the aristocrats ofc) was introduced in chivalric romance
I mean, that isn’t really true… The concept of romantic love and norms for (romantic) courtship existed way before the cult of chivalry, so OP’s idea wasn’t literally how the world worked. People wrote about and experienced passionate romance before the chivalric model, even if our concepts of ‘romance’ now have roots in that 12th century stuff. And even though chivalric romances were specific to Europe (whose troubadours likely were inspired by Arabic poetry from Al-Andalus), other cultures also independently conceived ideas about romantic love, so it’s not like the 12th century happened in Europe and people all over the world were suddenly getting taught how to do the whole passionate courtship thing for the first time. I’d say the fact that separate cultures share so much common ground on their early depictions of romance (with features such as idealization of the beloved, yearning, the giving of gifts, sexual entreaties, all detailed in pre-11th century verse and philosophy) actually suggests that there are ‘natural’ commonalities in our experiences of love that are manifested in the depictions we see on screen.
Like, I would personally argue that existence of literature/art etc. about romance could be considered a response to people’s actual experiences of love, rather than just something that encourages people to want to find it or something that creates a model for it. People have been making art and writing about love forever, because it’s an essential part of the human experience–I don’t think there was ever a point in which love just occurred ‘naturally’ and there wasn’t a phenomenon of people glorifying it. That’s not to say that OP doesn’t have a point about the way our ideas of romance are affected by the media we consume, but, yanno. I’m saying this isn’t exactly a new problem?
Awwww hahaha I love you, @towonderland72
I was really superficial, what I was aiming for (could have aimed for) is basically that a lot of cultures pre a chivalry era equivalent didn’t really have the glorifying media widely accessible, so that’s where we disagree. There was little room for fancy entertainment - or for grand romance - in a peasant’s life anywhere in the world. Aristocracy had time to indulge, ofc.
Not to mention that aristocracy has always had quite firm ideas about what’s suitable for peasants and restricted their access to ideas/entertainment/etc which could potentially lead them to spend time and energy on activities not directly profitable for their overlords.
Naturally, that imposes other views of love on those without much access to romance, views that may be equally “true”/“untrue”, but anyway rather less glorified in many cultures post chivalry romances.
But seeing as grand epic romance literature has been around for about a thousand years I definitely agree that it’s not a new problem.
I mean, I just don’t get why you’d use the chivalric era as a starting point… especially if you believe that peasant’s entertainment and exposure to ideas have always been governed by the aristocracy. Which… shrug. So yeah, I do disagree with you, haha.
I also don’t think we can generalize about the peasantry (or aristocracy) as if they had a shared experience or set relationship across all pre-chivalric societies… I suppose my reply was knee-jerk because it felt quite reductively eurocentric. I’m thinking about Golden Age China, for example, where poor women were brought into court and educated, and concubines made major contributions to the poetic tradition writing about love; or about oral traditions and mythology (which contained depictions of romantic love!) in pre-contact Polynesia, where the lore was known by even the least capable fishermen. Not to mention that even in Europe, the peasantry had some conception of romantic love before the stuff that filtered down into taverns during the chivalric age (I am assuming by ‘widely accessible glorifying media’ you are talking about the phenomenon of troubador verse and itinerant musicians). European peasants themselves had an oral tradition, even if it wasn’t recorded, and I’d argue that they were likely to have their own conception of romantic love, especially because peasants were more likely to be able to marry for love than aristocrats… but also mostly because every society ever recorded seems to have talked about it.
The chivalric romance era is a good (eurocentric indeed) starting point because that’s when love emerges properly as a theme in its own right, not just mostly as a vehicle for war epics or “merely” educational tales. Also romance does become widespread then, because from the 12th century onwards wandering minstrels and troubadours became a thing (still eurocentric, yeah) instead of sticking with their patrons. Also also you’ll never sway me on overlords trying, and to quite some extent succeeding, in restricting access to information and entertainment, because not letting the peasants get too many ideas of their own is kinda crucial to a feudal structure.
But yeah, ofc there were notions of romantic love in songs and tales way before that, but the glorifying not so much. Marriage was a legal matter, joining or giving over property (still eurocentric), and few would expect to sweep someone off their feet or being swept themselves.
I kinda adore your knee-jerk reaction, bb. It was well deserved.
What I’m saying is that it’s a very specific conception of romance that spreads in Europe in the 12th century, and not the first iteration of it. I also never said that marriage wasn’t a legal matter–I’m saying that there were conceptions of romantic love that YES, involved ‘sweeping off their feet’ that existed in poems and songs and treatises. So, YES, glorification. What exactly were ancient people writing love poems for, if they weren’t glorifying the feeling? It really wasn’t just war and education. You talk about ‘love in its own right’ being the decider, but the very presence of gods and goddesses of love in ancient pantheons kind of contradicts the idea that that only emerged in the 12th century. And what about something like Song of Songs? Or the The Love Song of Shu-Sin from ancient Mesopotamia? Decidedly BC, and long before the whole European troubadour explosion.
I didn’t say that overlords didn’t try to control the ideas of their peasants, but it’s a very top-down history that doesn’t acknowledge that the lowest ranks of society have always had their own culture and ideas. You can disagree on that all you like. My knee is jerking ever harder now so I will only say one more thing, which is that it kind of seemed like you were categorizing all pre-12th Century societies as feudal, hence me saying what I did about generalizing about peasants. I don’t even think we really disagree tbh I just ah
(Your picture was not posted)
towonderland72:
skamskada:
towonderland72:
skamskada:
towonderland72:
rabbitrah:
starprincejimin:
god im reading a text about romance fiction (especially targeted at young adults) for class and one sentence in it literally made my brain explode because ive been thinking about this kind of stuff too, how “Many people wouldn’t fall in love if they’ve never heard about it before.” and like…imagine there was no ideal/overaccentuated image of love and romance painted in postmodern mass media….how would we love? would it be purer? more authentic? what would we do differently? would we fall in love at all if we werent constantly being fed an ideal concept of love as the norm in mass media? like what is a natural process of human feelings and what is just a projection of how we want to love and want to be loved based on what we’ve seen on tv and read in books etc? in this essay i will
w … wh … where’s the rest of the essay, op?
@skamskada: #this is literally how the world worked until the consept of passionate romance (for the aristocrats ofc) was introduced in chivalric romance
I mean, that isn’t really true… The concept of romantic love and norms for (romantic) courtship existed way before the cult of chivalry, so OP’s idea wasn’t literally how the world worked. People wrote about and experienced passionate romance before the chivalric model, even if our concepts of ‘romance’ now have roots in that 12th century stuff. And even though chivalric romances were specific to Europe (whose troubadours likely were inspired by Arabic poetry from Al-Andalus), other cultures also independently conceived ideas about romantic love, so it’s not like the 12th century happened in Europe and people all over the world were suddenly getting taught how to do the whole passionate courtship thing for the first time. I’d say the fact that separate cultures share so much common ground on their early depictions of romance (with features such as idealization of the beloved, yearning, the giving of gifts, sexual entreaties, all detailed in pre-11th century verse and philosophy) actually suggests that there are ‘natural’ commonalities in our experiences of love that are manifested in the depictions we see on screen.
Like, I would personally argue that existence of literature/art etc. about romance could be considered a response to people’s actual experiences of love, rather than just something that encourages people to want to find it or something that creates a model for it. People have been making art and writing about love forever, because it’s an essential part of the human experience–I don’t think there was ever a point in which love just occurred ‘naturally’ and there wasn’t a phenomenon of people glorifying it. That’s not to say that OP doesn’t have a point about the way our ideas of romance are affected by the media we consume, but, yanno. I’m saying this isn’t exactly a new problem?
Awwww hahaha I love you, @towonderland72
I was really superficial, what I was aiming for (could have aimed for) is basically that a lot of cultures pre a chivalry era equivalent didn’t really have the glorifying media widely accessible, so that’s where we disagree. There was little room for fancy entertainment - or for grand romance - in a peasant’s life anywhere in the world. Aristocracy had time to indulge, ofc.
Not to mention that aristocracy has always had quite firm ideas about what’s suitable for peasants and restricted their access to ideas/entertainment/etc which could potentially lead them to spend time and energy on activities not directly profitable for their overlords.
Naturally, that imposes other views of love on those without much access to romance, views that may be equally “true”/“untrue”, but anyway rather less glorified in many cultures post chivalry romances.
But seeing as grand epic romance literature has been around for about a thousand years I definitely agree that it’s not a new problem.
I mean, I just don’t get why you’d use the chivalric era as a starting point… especially if you believe that peasant’s entertainment and exposure to ideas have always been governed by the aristocracy. Which… shrug. So yeah, I do disagree with you, haha.
I also don’t think we can generalize about the peasantry (or aristocracy) as if they had a shared experience or set relationship across all pre-chivalric societies… I suppose my reply was knee-jerk because it felt quite reductively eurocentric. I’m thinking about Golden Age China, for example, where poor women were brought into court and educated, and concubines made major contributions to the poetic tradition writing about love; or about oral traditions and mythology (which contained depictions of romantic love!) in pre-contact Polynesia, where the lore was known by even the least capable fishermen. Not to mention that even in Europe, the peasantry had some conception of romantic love before the stuff that filtered down into taverns during the chivalric age (I am assuming by ‘widely accessible glorifying media’ you are talking about the phenomenon of troubador verse and itinerant musicians). European peasants themselves had an oral tradition, even if it wasn’t recorded, and I’d argue that they were likely to have their own conception of romantic love, especially because peasants were more likely to be able to marry for love than aristocrats… but also mostly because every society ever recorded seems to have talked about it.
The chivalric romance era is a good (eurocentric indeed) starting point because that’s when love emerges properly as a theme in its own right, not just mostly as a vehicle for war epics or “merely” educational tales. Also romance does become widespread then, because from the 12th century onwards wandering minstrels and troubadours became a thing (still eurocentric, yeah) instead of sticking with their patrons. Also also you’ll never sway me on overlords trying, and to quite some extent succeeding, in restricting access to information and entertainment, because not letting the peasants get too many ideas of their own is kinda crucial to a feudal structure.
But yeah, ofc there were notions of romantic love in songs and tales way before that, but the glorifying not so much. Marriage was a legal matter, joining or giving over property (still eurocentric), and few would expect to sweep someone off their feet or being swept themselves.
I kinda adore your knee-jerk reaction, bb. It was well deserved.
What I’m saying is that it’s a very specific conception of romance that spreads in Europe in the 12th century, and not the first iteration of it. I also never said that marriage wasn’t a legal matter–I’m saying that there were conceptions of romantic love that YES, involved ‘sweeping off their feet’ that existed in poems and songs and treatises. So, YES, glorification. What exactly were ancient people writing love poems for, if they weren’t glorifying the feeling? It really wasn’t just war and education. You talk about ‘love in its own right’ being the decider, but the very presence of gods and goddesses of love in ancient pantheons kind of contradicts the idea that that only emerged in the 12th century. And what about something like Song of Songs? Or the The Love Song of Shu-Sin from ancient Mesopotamia? Decidedly BC, and long before the whole European troubadour explosion.
I didn’t say that overlords didn’t try to control the ideas of their peasants, but it’s a very top-down history that doesn’t acknowledge that the lowest ranks of society have always had their own culture and ideas. You can disagree on that all you like. My knee is jerking ever harder now so I will only say one more thing, which is that it kind of seemed like you were categorizing all pre-12th Century societies as feudal, hence me saying what I did about generalizing about peasants. I don’t even think we really disagree tbh I just ah
(Your picture was not posted)
via https://ift.tt/2N2B9bR
henricavyll:
She is beautiful, guileless, kind, and pure of heart. You are brilliant, ferocious, hilarious, and a grade A bitch. Together, you are the perfect woman.
Professor Marston and the Wonder Women (2017) dir. Angela Robinson
(Your picture was not posted)
henricavyll:
She is beautiful, guileless, kind, and pure of heart. You are brilliant, ferocious, hilarious, and a grade A bitch. Together, you are the perfect woman.
Professor Marston and the Wonder Women (2017) dir. Angela Robinson
(Your picture was not posted)