Penumbra Ex Elysium

twogreendragons:

all the friendship!

(Source: kingevans)

burn-down-the-world:

This was the single funniest thing I have ever seen a president do.

I’M STILL LAUGHING.

I will never not reblog this.

art-of-swords:

Two-Handed Bearing Sword of the city of Brunswick

• Dated: circa 1570
• Provenance: The Brunswick City Arsenal Historic Collections of the Dukes of Brunswick successively at Schloss Wolfenbüttel, Schloss Blankenburg and Schloss Marienburg.
• Exhibited: Tower of London, Exhibition of Arms, Armour and Militaria lent by the Duke of Brunswick, 1952-53, Item No. 87.

With iron pommel of crutch shape with hooked ends and a central hole, richly etched overall with foliate decoration upon a blackened ground, each face bearing two eight-petalled flowers and two grotesque birds within circular borders.

Later long wooden grip of three sections, turned in the centre with a central knop flanked by a double-ogee design bordered by raised bands, the upper and lower sections spirally wound with twisted wire and the whole covered with leather. The quillons of ribbon section with recurved tips engraved to resemble fish tails; with four notched volutes issuing from the upper and lower edges.

The quillons and etched with a decorative line of pellets, each widening in the middle into a disc and with riband-like ring-guards on each side widening into discs in the centre, etched with fine arabesque foliage involving flowers and grotesque birds. The guards have in addition rows of pellets etched along the edges and on each of the discs on the side-rings and the quillons is an Imperial eagle.

The entire inner face of both ring-guards also decorated en suite. Fitted with double-edged blade of flattened hexagonal section along its whole length, widening towards a broad tip, and with a long ricasso diverging into two large lugs, the whole of the lower half of the ricasso is etched with trophies-of-arms upon a granular ground and a figure of a man is etched above the ricasso on each side.

Source & Copyright: Peter Finer 

Second vid

Bo Staff techniques. Second vid is for the Ninjutsu style of staff fighting. And both of these are just beginning techniques and how to hold the staff, both experts have plenty more videos on the different aspects of bo staff fighting.

madamezombiestix:

chick-n-thenuggets:

dresdencodak:

unatheblade:

This is a post about drawing sexy women.

Obviously, when writing women characters, if the only thing you have in mind is their sexuality, you’re probably going to write a shitty character. That aside though, sometimes you want to draw a pin-up or convey the general sexiness of a character. I know I do.

So here we have three drawings by the inimitable Emily Carroll and three drawings by fan-favorite J. Scott Campbell. Questionable anatomy notwithstanding, Campbell’s women are posed in such a way and their expressions are meant to convey a vulnerable innocence that unknowingly makes them desirable. Many artists (predominantly male) have a habit of putting women on pedestals as unattainable objects of beauty. I know this is meant as a compliment, but it’s also somewhat dehumanizing and reduces a three-dimensional human being to an object of desire.   

On the other hand, Emily’s girls, though drawn in a graphic, cartoony style, have a vitality to them that suggests full-blooded human beings. They have knowing eyes, flushed skin, full lips, They aren’t infantalized sex objects, but lusty, passionate women. Their sexuality is under their control, not a result of a “male gaze”. Rather than put them on pedestals, Emily seems more interested in mussing their hair up and fooling around with them. In short, Emily’s ladies are ladies I’d like to know, while Campbell’s are cute but probably not much fun to be around.

So yeah, when I set out to draw attractive women, I’m drawing my inspiration from Emily Carroll rather than the usual run of “good girl” artists.  

Excellent advice. People sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between “sexualized” and “objectified,” the latter being the negative element to avoid when portraying a character.  There is nothing wrong with a character or illustration that is dominated by sexuality, but if you portray them as an object or infantilize them, you’re not just left with a shallow product but generally a sexist and demeaning one as well.  

As is evidenced above, this isn’t an issue of showing more or less skin or anything like that, but a subtler issue of execution and context.  At the end of the day you have to ask yourself “is this authentic? Does this feel like a real person?” Illustrators and cartoonists alike should take note.

Ummm…not to be the devil’s advocate here but we are talking about sexy Cinderella, sexy Tinkerbell, and Mary Jane. They are fictional characters, and in two cases they are exaggerated versions of fictional characters. I mean, what is a “real person” in this situation? What is a “real person” in the marvel universe? or in a Disney film?

And also these are Pin ups so….yeah. Was Betty Page intended to be a “authentic, real person?”. No, she is idealized and fictionalized to the max. It’s fiction, so why the fuck not? And if a character is promiscuous, emotionally vulnerable, etc. that doesn’t make them a shitty character. If you can’t write a compelling characters with a range of  backgrounds and personalities than maybe you are a shitty writer.

Lastly, I personally don’t find any of these illustrations sexy. The top 3 remind me of weird furry stuff, and the last one is just confusing. Is she in an elevator? I don’t know.

The bottom three are for teen boys and pervy old nerds.

BOOM! BURNED!

I will admit that Emily Carroll is wonderful and I adore her work, but I’m totally with  chick-n-thenuggets  here.