PaxOhana

And this is how a human gets adopted by a cat

Took a risk and it paid off

This is the face of someone who knows this doesn't always work.

Okay. Say you ask a small child to draw you a house, and they come up with something like this:

For the purposes of this analogy the child is shit at colouring in, because I only wanted to give the general idea.

So, we can all agree that the child who draws a house probably isn't trying to communicate anything in particular other than “look at this cool house I drew”, right?

Cool.

So… Why is it seemingly in the middle of nowhere, when most children live in houses with neighbours?

Why is the main body a square and the roof a solid triangle when that doesn't look like any house that has ever been built anywhere?

Why does it have a wood-burning stove with smoke actively coming out of the chimney, even though the sun indicates warm weather?

Why is the sun smiling? Why is it yellow?

Answer: because the child has seen picture books, and films, and the drawings of other children, and has on some level absorbed that this is what a house is meant to look like.

Face to face, the child almost certainly wouldn't know where to begin communicating “yellow is a colour culturally associated with happiness and warmth, and two dots accompanied by a curved line symbolically represent a smiling human face, so I have combined these attributes with the sun to convey that it is a very warm and pleasant day”.

Or “historically most houses in my country used fire for heat and cooking, and even though this is no longer the case for the majority of households, most media portrayals of houses are inspired by other, older, media portrayals and therefore include the chimney. I have chosen to follow this trend.”

Or even, “I have poor motor control because of my age, and large, 2 dimensional shapes are easier to draw than anything involving detail and perspective”.

Yet this is all information that you can pick up from detailed study of the house drawing.

Ultimately, it's not about what the writer intended. That's what the whole death of the author thing means.

If you think of literature like as a conversation, then think of all the analysis stuff that your English teacher keeps trying to get you to look at as like body language. It's the stuff that the other person doesn't even necessarily mean to communicate, but that can tell you a hell of a lot about what they mean.

Also, a poem written by a poet who got high is still a poem written by a poet.

People love to say dismissive bullshit like, "oh, that's just the drugs talking" but actually, drugs can't fucking talk! It is always the human being doing the talking regardless of how intoxicated they are. The drugs are not creating the poetry. The poet's mind is creating the poetry. A person doesn't stop being a person just because they took something.

David Bowie said he was so high the year he wrote the album Hunky Dory that he didn't remember writing it (in fact he said he didn't remember anything about the year).

This is the album that includes "Life on Mars?", which many people consider to be some pretty cutting commentary on Marxism and capitalism.

Bowie himself could not tell you what that song is about, or if it's about anything at all. But quite a few people have found a lot of meaning in it.

My teenager is working on a big art project for school and they said their meanings tend to be very surface level

Their work is about flora and fauna is a mix of bone motifs, animal shapes and natural flora intertwining to create one beast that symbolises the land

And when I pointed out that it seemed to me like a commentary on how the ecosystem works and every part is reliant on another and how life and death are two sides of the same coin they didn't go "no I was just doing surface level nature is cool" they went "oh yeah! I can see it now!"

And I've had that experience as well

Sometimes artists don't know the meaning until other people point it out

[Image ID: Tweet from non podhortez (@/ crookedRoads770) reading: Yesterday I overheard my two year old son saying "Are you sure this is a good idea" and my five year old son replying "Trust me" and I have never moved from one room to another so quickly in my life /End ID]

Production art for Lilo & Stitch by David Wang, Geraldine Kovats, William Silvers, and Peter Moehrle ✗

NASA released the clearest pictures yet of our neighbours in the solar system

Oh and of course us

Honourable mention

If anyone is curious or confused:

Mercury (2013): An image from the Wide Angle Camera (WAC) of the Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS) on the MESSENGER mission/spacecraft

Venus (2018): A false colour image of Venus' nightside from Japan's Akatsuki spacecraft's IR2 camera (I couldn't find the original publication/archived gallery image for this specific image but I've linked the project site which include some previous images that explain the process)

Mars (2003): An enhanced colour composite image from images taken by the Viking mission [page that include the enhanced colour version featured above]

Jupiter (2024): A post-processed and colour-enhanced version of this image from the Juno spacecraft.

Saturn (2005): A Hubble Space Telescope composite image of Saturn's aurora (exact details are in the link so I won't reproduce here)

Uranus (1986): A Voyager 2 image taken using the VG ISS narrow angle instrument. I believe this one is visual spectrum and post-processed but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Neptune (1998): Also a voyager 2 image but importantly this image was processed in false colour to enhance the planet's dark spot. It has been reprocessed since. Its true colour is quite similar to that of Uranus.

Earth (2012): I believe this is the famed 'Blue Marble' image of Earth. We have much more data now and have made incredibly detailed composite image of Earth since (see Google Earth). Concerningly, this image was done by a satellite whose mission is heavily relied on by climate scientists and all the official NASA and US government pages that directly reference the mission have died recently. I can't even easily find the PIA number (though, admittedly I didn't look too hard and someone probably listed it somewhere)

Pluto (2015): Above is a crudely colour enhanced version of the false-colour original New Horizons' MVIC instrument. This particular image (the real one) combines blue, red, and infrared data. Pluto does not appear this way to human vision (not least because we cannot see infrared but also because the colours are a lot more subtle)

Witchcraft

none pizza with left beef

It should be a rule of Tumblr to always reblog none pizza with left beef

ive missed you

Does he know how to kick flip?

And the camera loves her

It’s his now

Like fighting a mirror

Race track