Still she wished for company.

(Source: goforthandsmile)

viavivien:

camhappy4life:

honorized:

joosboks:

msanimanga:

itstrivial:

#CAN YOU PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE TEEEEEEA

HAVE YOU EVER STIRRED THE CREAM IN WITH A LONE TEASPOON

OR ASKED THE STEAMING KETTLE WHY HE STEAMS

CAN YOU DRINK WITH ALL POSHNESS OF THE BRITISH

CAN YOU PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE TEA

CAN YOU PAINT WITH ALL THE COLORS OF THE TEEEEEAAAAAAAAA

YOU THINK THE ONLY TEA CUPS WHO ARE TEA CUPS

ARE THE TEA CUPS WHO HOLD A DEEP DARK BREW

BUT IF YOU DRINK LIGHT ORANGE TEA OF STRANGERS

YOU’LL TASTE THINGS YOU NEVER KNEW YOU NEVER KNEW

HOW DARK CAN THE ORANGE PEKOE GROW

IF YOU POUR IT NOW, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW

AND YOU’LL NEVER STIR THE CREAM IN WITH A LONE TEASPOON

FOR WHETHER WE LIKE BLACK, OR HERBAL GREEN

 WE MUST DRINK WITH ALL THE POSHNESS OF THE BRITISH

WE MUST PAINT WITH ALL THE COLOURS OF THE TEA

YOU CAN OWN THE LEAVES AND STILL

ALL YOU’LL OWN IS LEAVES UNTIL

YOU CAN PAINT WITH ALL THE COLOURS OF THE TEA 

I have just witness the most glorifying post in the history of tumblr.

^^^
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I LOVE THIS

omg tea

imaballoon:

SHIT.

(Source: samdraws)

hallor:

Ginger Benedict Cumberbatch as the Master (2011)

Not that I want this to actually happen on the show, but it’s a fun concept, Cumbermaster.

(Source: howllor)

unlockaflockofwords:

Yes, I know I reblogged it before; I’m reblogging it again.

This image epitomises the delight I get from transformative works, and it’s a beautifully eloquent response to Robin Hobb’s misguided rant about fanfiction:

“The intent of the author is ignored. A writer puts a great deal of thought into what goes into the story and what doesn’t. If a particular scene doesn’t happen ‘on stage’ before the reader’s eyes, there is probably a reason for it. If something is left nebulous, it is because the author intends for it to be nebulous. To use an analogy, we look at the Mona Lisa and wonder. Each of us draws his own conclusions about her elusive smile. We don’t draw eyebrows on her to make her look surprised, or put a balloon caption over her head. Yet much fan fiction does just that. Fan fiction closes up the space that I have engineered into the story, and the reader is told what he must think rather than being allowed to observe the characters and draw his own conclusions.”  Robin Hobb on fanfiction

http://web.archive.org/web/20050630015105/http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html

And she’s wrong, she’s SO wrong. Granted, drawing a mustache onto the Mona Lisa would be a bad thing, a final thing, a change-the-source thing, but there are COUNTLESS images that mess with the Mona Lisa without ever actually damaging the source image, without ever preventing a viewer from engaging with the pristine source image and interpreting it as they see fit. The Mona Lisa remains inviolate, regardless of weed-smoking iterations or The Da Vinci Code, and the audience are free to interpret her as they will. Transformative works based upon her are examples of people sharing one possible interpretation, or addressing problems they perceive, or bringing a marxist/feminist/whateverist reading to the fore, or just making their friends giggle.

This, though, this is so much better than anything I’ve seen that transforms the Mona Lisa. This takes that gorgeous, familiar image of Vermeer’s Girl With A Pearl Earring (an image that the book and movie of the same name have made familiar to people outwith Art History students [who might know it as the ‘Mona Lisa of the North’]) and reworks it with brilliant and elegant simplicity.

Manet’s painting ‘Olympia’ does something similar with Titian’s ‘Venus of Urbino’ (which is itself a reworking of Giorgione’s ‘Sleeping Venus’); Georgione dresses up his objectifying & titillating high class porn as an image of a goddess, and has her eyes closed - she doesn’t know we’re ogling her. She’s helpless before our (male) voyeuristic gaze. Titian’s nude knows we’re ogling her, but she’s still putatively a goddess, and despite that she’s glancing coyly away as she consciously provokes the viewer, offering herself up to him. Manet’s nude, however, is unambiguously presented as a human and a prostitute, and she looks straight out at the viewer, her hand on her thigh making it clear that she alone chooses who gets access to her sex. The painting was received with shock and disgust and had to be protected from those who wanted to destroy it for its obscenity - not for showing naked flesh, but for making the naked woman into a subject, rather than an object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28Manet%29

God, I’m rambling. Anyway, point being - transformative work, intratextual work, is most emphatically not a new thing, nor a creatively barren thing. It’s awesome. And this image here is delicious, because it takes that lovely painting, in which the model is mysterious, alluring, her parted lips gleaming and her eyes wide as she looks out at the viewer, objectified - and it drags it straight into the 21st century by adding the camera, making it into that recognisable MySpace pose, making her the CREATOR of the image not just the object. She is looking at herself, not at us, and this careful composition becomes an ephemeral snapshot, a fleeting moment in her day.