On one hand it’s a little sad that a lot of these viewers might never delve into baroque beyond looking at the game and not even playing it at that - the curse of surface level aesthetics maybe. On the other hand I guess the comfort of having been so intensely engrossed with baroque and its elusive material sort of assures me that people who come to love it for its qualities in that same way are what I’ll end up appreciating when I inevitably see it. I think I’d rather have people who are genuinely fascinated or at least intrigued popping up over people who might not care very much. In the end I guess it doesn’t matter, I experienced it largely on my own anyway and it sort of stays that way in my mind.

Plus the prospect of getting more fanart each year is nice, I’ve already seen some lovely recent work thanks to baroque becoming more accessible :)

Sadly I didn’t get to draw anything for great heat again this year, I was too busy, but maybe I’ll draw something soon for the sake of making some new fanart? I remember sketching some things but no clue where those went

I bought an old gas mask recently (an Avon SF-10) and all I want to do is wear it for fun, but at the same time I go ‘oh but if I wear it too much, the rubber will be affected by skin oils!’ and it’s a dilemma. It’s 33 years old but it was kept in very good condition, and I take care to keep it safe and clean but still..

It’s been interesting learning how to care for it. It was between the FM12 and the S10 for my first purchase and somehow there was someone selling the SF-10, so I thought why not? I like most of the Avon models so if I happen to buy another, it’ll be the aforementioned FM12 or an S6. Anything older might be difficult to preserve properly, and anything newer I can’t really afford lol.

It’s too bad I don’t do anything like cosplay, photography, or airsoft, though it’s honestly a bit stupid to wear a gas mask for airsoft. I can’t see why anyone would.

I have no real use for it, but hey if I ever decide to do something, I’ll have it, huh? Apparently there’s a phenomenon where people are genuinely scared of wearing gas masks and that it can cause claustrophobia. I didn’t feel that whatsoever, but that was interesting to learn.

I don’t really like CARI and other modern ‘institutes’ or repositories of graphic design language. I understand that they serve as a basic record of visual styles in lieu of the fact that we simply don’t possess proper records, but a lot of the examples provided for each style are just too broad rather than centering on a very specific visual, and the definitions given don’t always apply. The same issue goes with the recently-developed, Aesthetics wiki. It’s extremely easy for the average viewer to either misunderstand the core qualities of the visual style they’re trying to learn about, or to conflate them with others due to a lack of proper documentation of their overlap.

I think this is the fault of many visual styles not having formal descriptors or documented traits, so the assignment of names being a recent effort is what’s generalizing what may have been a distinct style at its time of conception. There’s a large audience who want to emulate or use a specific graphic style without really understanding what makes it, so while we end up with things that look aesthetically pleasing, they are in no way accurate to the time period (or are quite close, but still a bit too modern). I don’t think there’s anything wrong with modernization of visual styles, but I believe they should be labeled as a new version of said style because not doing so continues to feed misconception of what it may have actually looked like in its respective time period.

It irks me a little when I go searching for a specific style and none of the examples I’m seeing are what I’m looking for. They’re either too complex or seem like a sub-type that may have branched off or evolved from the original, making it impossible to find what I want. Not that they’re not following the style they claim to be in, but that the lack of distinction dilutes what could be considered the core tenets of a certain version of a style, and it really complicates things if I’m looking for a very specific image; it might be there but beside other images that don't really give off a similar impression. Obviously I am not claiming that they are specifically intended to be sub-types when created, but that it’d be convenient to organize them that way.

It’s like how UI design of a particular graphic style can be entirely different from a poster advertisement or cover art in the same style because the purpose is not the same, and so certain graphic elements are changed to suit it. Similarly, product design vs web design, vs industrial design.. There are different constraints to each use case, and of course there is variation also based on the artist. Then to complicate it further, time periods: 1990’s era design vs early 2000’s vs late 2000’s and so on. I’d argue 1980’s and prior's contribution to later developments gets ignored often. There may be recognizable elements that promote the understanding that all of what you’re seeing is under one name, but the variation in depiction still feels like it could be further specified. Not to mention, some visual styles sorely lack examples beyond a certain time period.