"I don't want any trouble. Where do you want to go?"

Look, there's enough to criticize about image generation, but I don't think associating it with "low class" is the dunk you think it is.

I couldn't identify a fake Chanel bag by sight, and I guarantee the OP can't identify an AI picture by sight unless it has seventh fingers or some such.

today at work i rung up a customer and the total was 12.30 and i said “12:30, reminds me of a clock :)” and they kind of smiled at me with confusion and i was like “like the time on a clock, just reminds me of it… 12:30” and they said “i have no idea what you’re talking about…” with an expression of supreme pity and gentleness. after that was finished i turned to my coworker next to me and said “i just bombed so hard with this clock comment” and then realized the customer hadn’t moved and was still standing right next to me. if my fate continues down this path, the customer will probably read this tumblr post as well

Once I was buying booze and it came to 19.80. Quick as a flash I went 'a very good year' and they got that immediately, so it may just be the way you tell them.

@northshorewave He's going for that gold-plated pussy, evidently

󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 The new Europe with lasting peace, plan of P.A.Mass from 1920.

by dodi_maps

This rules

some interesting features of the plan:

>southern italy was, however, to be handed over to greece

AND HE’LL BE REALLY CLEVER 😉😉😉

People, don’t forget about this!!!

THIS. It is worth re-reading that particular passage in the book for the full context.

If Aziraphale didn't seem gay, the sequence in which he puts his penis in Crowley's bottom for the purposes of sexual pleasure would land rather oddly.

how it feels finding a cool base location in minecraft

We Didn't Start The Fire is a very popular song to write parodies of. I'm almost certain that there have been at least 119 (number of events listed in the original song) different parodies written. Do You See My Vision

FUCK. honestly just FUCK. We missed a very important day yesterday.

what was yesterday, cat?

I’m not missing it this year.

In my opinion, Bill Watterson deserves way more credit as one of the great paleoartists.

He did not need to go this hard, but he did, and he has my everlasting respect for that.

How could you leave out this???

Also I recall in the foreward of one of his big Calvin and Hobbes collection volumes, he wrote a bit about how his knowledge and portrayal of dinosaurs shifted over time as he wrote the comic. Watterson's early dinosaurs were very stereotypical reptilian monsters inspired by the dinosaurs he loved in his childhood:

As he continued work on the comic he researched further into modern dinosaur science of the time, which just so happened to be the height of the Dinosaur Renaissance in the 1980s and 90s. Dinosaurs were being reenvisioned as active, warm blooded, successful animals, and Watterson made an amazing effort to include accurate anatomy and scientific understanding where he absolutely could have just stuck to what he was familiar with. Instead, he created incredibly vivid and real-feeling depictions that absolutely belong alongside the works of other revolutionary palaeoartists of the 80s and 90s like Mark Hallett, Greg Paul and John Gurche.

I will be honest guys, the Red portrait of king Charles is gorgeous asdfghjkl

it's a bad portrait. Like. Objectively. It does the opposite of what's intended. It looks like the painter is insulting him. If it was in a contemporary gallery with no context you would see it immediately as the ambivalent criticism of Charles's reign, how he fades into the overwhelming red background as a tiny little figure, small and insignificant, insufficient for the clothes he's wearing. It reminds my of Goya's portraits, how they were so 'realistic' that they ended up making these great figures look pathetic to the viewer. So these are our rulers?

the sheer novelty. the surprise and shock, the kinda cunt it's serving for no reason. I. I love it. It's an incredible portrait by Jonathan Yeo. By the sheer fact that Charles, the man, is impossible to portray as greater than man because he's just such a nothingburger of a dude. So a portrait made to make him look huge and interesting made him be swallowed in red brushstrokes. The butterfly, that reminded me immediately of " we will all laugh at guilded butterflies", draws more attention than him. It looks like an omen. It looks like a warning in all this red. Something is not right here.

This is the best royal portrait ever 10/10

This is a painting of a monarch whose individual personality and even bodily presence are a mere footnote within the legacy of bloodshed that built the throne he occupies. This is the only way it's possible to depict him. It's a photograph of his soul

And I think all of that is entirely deliberate!

I think Jonathan Yeo meant this portrait to be absolutely all of those things, he just can't be very vocal about the paintings true meaning. Yet.

I've done this on another post, but let's compare that portrait up there to some other portraits Yeo's done.

Here's actor and activist Idris Elba, whom colleagues have described as warm and friendly, open-hearted, with an emotional intelligence that makes him capable of being very honest and vulnerable with the character he's playing:

Here's Jony Ive - who founded Apple with Steve Jobs and was chief design officer responsible for some of the more popular artistic choices, who recently left the company because the culture had gotten so toxic and shitty. He now works more in private design, so he has more artistic freedom and he can be less in the public eye:

Yeo's even previously painted British heads of state. Here's the phenomenal Baroness Doreen Lawrence of the labour party, a Jamaican immigrant who turned the tragic murder of her son into a lifelong campaign of quietly and steadily dismantling systemic racism:

To me, all these portraits are deeply personal, conveying the sitter's character with empathy and quiet dignity.

Elba is leaning forward in an intimate friendly gesture. He makes eye contact with the viewer but his face is turned slightly to the side, inviting but not confrontational, his brows slightly drawn together thoughtfully. His hands are natural and relaxed. He's shirtless - not to be a beefcake thirst trap (okay maybe just a tiny little bit), but to convey how emotionally naked he's willing to be.

Ives is literally putting a lens between himself and the viewer - we have to look closer to see his face, but when we do we see his eyes crinkled with a hint of good humor. The perspectives are all distorted, but the main thing we see is the hands that have physically built so much of the technology we use. And even outside the phone screen he's still enased by a circular frame within a frame, indicating yet another layer of separation between the subject and the viewer.

Lawrence is radiant, proudly upright and implacable as a mountain, her head held high and her hands folded before her with a self-contained air of calm determination. And even though the background is a chaotic sea of looming shapes and quick brush strokes, her eyes keep us grounded, even pinned in place. We're the viewer, but she is studying us.

And then, on the other end of the personality spectrum, here's noted asshole Damien Hirst, who frequently makes the news for being racist and sexist and just generally a really slimy piece of shit. His most famous works are the animal carcasses suspended in resin-

-yeah, that. That guy. He's made all the money in the goddamn world three times over for pieces like that, and he still seems like he's on a personal mission to make everyone around him as miserable as possible.

Here's Yeo's portrait of him, seated on a leather throne, dick bulge at eye level, contained in one of his own tanks:

Here's the droopy and melancholic portrait of the famously pompous and insufferable John Cooper Clarke, self-described "original punk poet", who was recently booed off stage for making super transphobic remarks, and whose most famous quote is "I read Kerouac at 12 and decided I could do better":

And, most notably for the argument I'm making here, here's D-Day veteran Sgt Geoffrey Pattinson, and see if you can spot the extremely subtle use of color theory here:

My conclusion: Jonathan Yeo paints very good portraits, and sometimes his subjects are very bad people.

And I think he brings absolutely all of his artistic talent to the Charles portrait.

@chromegnomes is absolutely right; it is the only possible way to depict him. It is a photograph of his soul.

And that's precisely why it's so ugly and uncomfortable to look at.

People have said that Charles has a "complicated legacy", which is what people say when someone has an objectively horrible legacy that they are still personally benefiting from. But the people who still tolerate his extravagant gilded existence to "honor historical tradition" will find absolutely nothing to like in this portrait. All the gold and brass and pomp of his uniform, all the military accolades for his colonial warmongering, all the fabulous ostentatious wealth he was born into and has spent every second of his life surrounded by - which would have been rendered with glittering precision and care in a traditional royal portrait - they're all dingy and washed out and already fading. The medals aren't even clearly marked enough to really know what they are; it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The butterfly that was included as a nod to his honestly extensive conservation work (because let's give the little bit of credit where credit is actually due) stands out as the one bright point of beauty and authenticity - but it's dwarfed by the only other visible object, the sword, and it's being swallowed up by that lurid, putrid background that seems to seep out of Charles' uniform. The dark tips of its wings are the most high-contrast part of the painting except for Charles' black hollow eyes that stare into nothing. And, most significantly in my opinion, the butterfly isn't actually touching him, or connected to him in any way. It just exists alongside him, but it doesn't need him.

His face is painted in such a way to detail absolutely every wrinkle without ever being able to completely cover up the blood red background, and below the sunken shark-like eyes, the artist has included that vapidly pleasant plastered-on smile with nothing behind it that is practically the royal uniform by now. I think the angle is also deliberately chosen to be unsettling: many portraits are traditionally done either head-on, 3/4 profile, or full profile. Charles is none of these - his head is tilted juuust a few degrees off kilter. It's not quite right. And he's looking off to the side very slightly; his thousand-yard-stare is kind of drifting over the viewers shoulder. He can't look us in the eye.

And there is no way, there is absolutely no possible way that an artist who is smart enough and skilled enough to imbue all his other portraits with so much meaning and symbolism and indicators of the subject's character - there's no way that's not intentional.

But... Yeo lives in London. He's still working on other royal and aristocratic portraits. He still has to live in that society, and he still has to get paid.

So of course he has to toe the line, at least until Charles dies, and say that the vivid blood-soaked red is to symbolize the """vibrancy""" of this terminally ill octogenarian, to bring a """modern contemporary feel""" to this 19th century colonizer.

Yeo knows exactly what he's doing.

Here's an excerpt about it from Smithsonian magazine:

Listen, I work in memory care and end-of-life care, and we only say someone "seems to be smiling approvingly" to comfort the family when someone is so far gone they clearly don't know where they are anymore. His ex-wife Camilla, who probably has more good reasons to hate him than any other single human being alive, looked at this haunting vision of hell and was like YES PERFECT.

This is all completely intentional. We are all picking up on exactly the message the artist was trying to convey. Yeo is trying to tell us, loud and clear, that something is not right here. It is absolutely an omen.

Op is right; it is insulting him. And it is supposed to make us look at this pathetic villain, who is currently toddling through the final days of his unfairly long and lavishly useless life, and think "these are our rulers?"

Wow. I've never seen someone so clearly projecting their own interpretations of an artist's work so hard they were solidly convinced that this same artist was hiding secret messages in their art- wait I guess Gaylors.

Anyhow, sure, this guy who hates all these people worked with them for weeks, hours at a time, to make a portrait of them that he could secretly slip jabs at them so subtle that you can only tell via careful analysis. This is barely a step above "Paul is Dead and the Beatles are admitting it through their song lyrics"

Yeah, the other thing about this is...

Shouldn't King Charles or his media team, in theory, be able to tell that and exclude dirty republicans from their artist contracts?

(see also: More or less implied assumption that "British monarchy bad" is something so universally agreed that only total rubes wouldn't be totally on board.)

>the famously pompous and insufferable John Cooper Clarke...whose most famous quote is "I read Kerouac at 12 and decided I could do better"

>His ex-wife Camilla, who probably has more good reasons to hate him than any other single human being alive

"But other than becoming queen, Mrs. Windsor, isn't it all kind of a drag?"

saddam hussein "valued the opinions of female advisors more than males and kept them around because he felt women were more honest." he was woke fr.

Him and Ghadaffi, only hiring woman as bodyguards

Supposedly when Gaddafi was ousted, they found a full gynecological examination room in one of his secret hideouts. Does your employer care about their lady employees that much? Somehow I doubt it.

Living that #crimepawsnolaws life!

WHAAARGARBL