Emma's Art

okay this has nothing to with autism and I'm very normal, but I already made a chart predicting every possible colour

all males will be red tabbies

any females will most likely be black torbies (tortoiseshell tabbies), but there's a 25% of it being a chocolate torbie

and girls will look like this (black torbie)

or like this (chocolate torbie)

Yeah, there’s a reason for that.

Lisa Edelstein is Jewish.  As are Idina Menzel and Amy Winehouse, both of whom I have seen compared in looks to Gothel.  Gothel’s design is a pretty clear caricature of ethnically Jewish women.  

This is a pretty good contrast between Rapunzel and Gothel.  Rapunzel has the “typical Disney face”:

Here’s a more close up look at her features.

The hooked nose becomes even more pronounced as she becomes “eviler.”

If you wanted to claim that there was noting out of the ordinary for Disney animation when it came to Gothel’s features, you would have to find at least one Disney princess or heroine with similar characteristics (long hooked nose and dark curly hair, etc).

But here is what we have is -

small noses that turn up at the end:

wide, flatter noses (though cheers to Disney for not putting button noses on their characters of color, although Esmerelda’s clothing design deserves another essay on Rromani stereotypes and there are some major issues with Pocahontas as well)

And then a few misc noses (again, props for Jasmine’s nose not being a button):

Apart from just the design of Gothel, there’s also the whole: “obviously ‘other’ (read Jewish) woman kidnaps the pretty blonde (read: gentile) kid to use her for ritualistic/magical purposes”

Like that right there on top of the aesthetic Jewish-coding is what pushed the antisemitic caricature over the top for me.  It harkens back to antisemitic blood libel that claimed that Jews stole gentile children for all manner of nefarious reasons. Even when Gothel is in “mother” role to Rapunzel, she’s is shown as nagging and passive aggressive, both antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish women.

There is no one thing that makes her an antisemitic caricature, but the design, plus the storyline she plays out, plus her characterization cement the overall character as antisemitic.  

Jew-coding a villain is not in itself always antisemitic when there are also Jewish coded heroes. Rapunzel does not have that.

Having a villain steal a baby for magical/ritualistic reasons is not always antisemitic as long as the villain is not Jew-coded.  Rapunzel fails this as well.

Having a nagging and passive aggressive mother character is not antisemitic provided that she is not, again, coded as Jewish.  Rapunzel fails once again.

Hope this helps.

Jewish people don’t get that.  When we are portrayed in live action, our characters are more often than not whitewashed and in other media, our features are used and caricaturized to create “evil looking” villains.

You don’t see it because you’ve been ingrained with the idea that “ethnic” features are just “how you make a character look evil.”  You don’t look at Gothel and see your mother.  You don’t see yourself and your people.  You don’t see decades of propaganda aimed at fostering hate against you and ultimately seeking to destroy you.  

But seeing how you also seem to think that saying you’re not attracted to an entire race of people ISN’T racist, you really don’t get any say on any of this.

So really, you need to chill the fuck out and stop telling marginalized people to stop talking about the tools of our own marginalization.

Let’s play a game I like to call: Movie Villain or Antisemitic Propaganda:

Many “evil witch” tropes were built on European antisemitic stereotypes, not just in appearance but in the storylines they play out as well. Greediness, stealing children, killing children, hunger for power, etc.  Every time a movie villain design uses stereotyped Jewish features to communicate “evilness” to an audience, they perpetuate the marginalization of the people they are using. 

One big issue I have is that Gothel’s didn’t start out as the antisemitic caricature that made it to screen.  Much of the early concept art has a more dark romanticism feel.  

They changed the original design. Presumably to make Gothel more “other” from the good characters in the movie.  At some point, a decision was made that dark curly hair and a hooked nose wound better convey their villain.

It really doesn’t matter if any of this was intentional, I’d actually bet that it wasn’t.  However, antisemitic tropes are so engrained in our societies that people like you, even when confronted with a step by step break down of what it is, feel comfortable thinking that there’s nothing wrong with it and mocking those calling it out as if we are overreacting.

You seem to have completely ignored the majority of my post.  It is the character design, plus the characterization, plus the story line that mirrors blood libel that makes Gothel an antisemitic character.  It’s not just about someone of a certain race or ethnicity being a villain.  It’s about how stereotypes of a certain ethnic group are understood as “villainous” due to villains being repeatedly coded as Jewish over decades of film and tv.

In the middle of a horrific battlefield, you find one corpse laid aside neatly, straightened and arranged, its arms crossed neatly across its chest

As you walk through the garden, you gradually realise that the oddness you’ve been noticing about the trees is that they are all perfectly symmetrical

As you move through the abandoned house, you realise that suddenly that there’s no dust in this room, no dirt or cobwebs

You hear hideous noises coming from behind a locked door, screams and pleas, and visceral sounds of violence. When you manage to break down the door, there is no one there, and the room is perfectly spotless

In the middle of a horrific battlefield, a hollow full of churned mud and blood, you find five corpses cleanly dismembered, each set of limbs or parts neatly laid out in their own little row

You witness a murder, a brutal, grisly killing that carpets the area in blood. When you return in a blind panic with the authorities, the scene is completely clean, and no amount of examination can find even a drop of blood

You run through the night and the woods with a comrade, pulling each other through leaves and twigs and mud as you scramble desperately towards freedom. When you finally emerge from the forest, in the grey light of dawn, you turn to your companion in relief, and notice that their clothes are somehow perfectly clean

You hand a glass of water to your suspect, talking casually the whole while, and watch with satisfaction as they take it in their bare hand and take a drink. There’ll be a decent set of prints to run from that later. Except there isn’t. There are no prints at all. As if nothing ever touched the glass

You browse idly through your host’s catalogue, and stop, and pay much more attention, when you realise that several items on a dry list of acquisitions are ones you’ve seen before, and it slowly dawns on you that each neat little object and number in this neat little book are things that belong (belonged?) to people you know

Neatness, particularly incongruous neatness, neatness where you expect violence or imperfection or abandonment, or neatness that you belatedly realise was hiding violence, or neatness that is imposed over violence, is incredibly scary. Because neatness is not a natural thing. Neatness requires some active force to have come through and made it so. Neatness implies that the world around you is being arranged, maybe to hide things, to disguise things, to make you doubt your senses, or else simply according to something else’s desires. Neatness is active and artificial. Neatness puts things, maybe even people, into neat little boxes according to something else’s ideals, and that’s terrifying as well. Being objectified. Being asked to fit categories that you’re not sure you can fit, and wondering what will happen to the bits of you that don’t.

Neatness, essentially, says that something else is here. Neatness where there should be chaos says that either something came and changed things, or that what you’re seeing now or what you saw then is not real. Neatness alongside violence says that something came through here for whom violence did not mean the same thing as it does to you.

Neatness, in the right context, in the right place, can be very, very scary

https://yangoly-sportu.teamukraine.com.ua/en/

the bare-throated bellbird is so loud that it can cause permanent damage to human hearing at close range!

saved as →

I have provided an updated funnypic to more accurately reflect the reality of the bird.

Like imagine you go over to your boy's house for dinner and that's across from you while you eat. Like would you say something or just

He also did an entire series called The Disasters Of War, which were stark presentations of the brutality of war. Goya understood violence. Understood that deep dark part of us that comes out when we are engaged in battle with a foreign power, or even with our own country. His artwork prior to the Black Paintings contains plenty of dark, powerful imagery... But that wasn't all Goya was great at. He also painted the Maja.

While I'm using La maja vestida because Tumblr will probably have me drawn and quartered if I post La maja desnuda, that one's the important one. It was one of the first Western paintings to depict nudity outside of a religious or mythological context and without negativity. It was an unabashed depiction of the female form without any of the usual artistic justifications of the time. It was also one of the first to depict female pubic hair without negative connotations behind that, since usually pubic hair was only presented in artwork of women seen as "unclean" or "immoral", such as prostitutes. Yes, even back in the day, there was that weird anti-pube thing. Goya just... Painted a nude woman. No justification. Just a nude without any of the usual justification.

He nearly got tried by the Spanish Inquisition over it, albeit in the years their power was waning, but that's a story for another day.

Goya was capable of incredible things. His painting of Manuel Godoy is a brilliant piece of subtle, intricate artistic satire, his painting of Charles IV and his family is flattering without being absurd, still presenting them as people, his fresco Adoration In The Name Of God might just be my favorite religious fresco ever.

Look at this. Holy shit.

And of course there's The Sleep Of Reason Produces Monsters.

Anyway my point is that Goya's artwork was intensely varied, even to the end of his career. One of the man's latest self-portraits (well, self-caricatures) depicts him as an elderly man, thick beard and head of hair, two canes, long robe, and has a single phrase written above him.

"Aun aprendo". I am still learning.

But the Black Paintings are what people know most about Goya, and yeah. I'm with you, the Black Paintings are nuts. They depict the mental state of a man whose mental state was growing darker and darker over the prior three decades.

You see, Goya went deaf because of an unspecified illness. His artwork's increasing darkness following this is often seen as a reflection of his increasing insular, isolated state, the worsening of symptoms such as tinnitus, loss of balance, all led to him becoming more withdrawn. It might've been Ménière's disease. It might've been lead poisoning. We don't know.

What we do know is that Goya proceeded to paint the Black Paintings directly on the walls of his home, the Quinta del Sordo (The House Of The Deaf Man, named that prior to Goya even owning it) due to a conscious decision to withdraw from the public eye following the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy and the rejection of the Spanish constitution of 1812, and started to suppress his own works. The Black Paintings weren't meant to be seen. They were the artwork of a man who saw his country start to turn towards the old, bad ways once again, drifting closer to medievalism than it had previously, at the same time he was becoming more and more isolated due to his deafness, his fear of old age and madness creeping up on him, and so he decided to get his despair out through art. Saturn Devouring His Son might be what we all know, but the Black Paintings are 14 paintings, not just one.

And here are a few of my favorites.

The Dog.

Women Laughing.

Fight With Cudgels.

Witches' Sabbath.

The Fates.

So yes she WAS IN FACT PERGANTE

Keep your eyes on the ball

go here

http://www.myscriptfont.com/

instead of printing it off just use this blank thing that way you dont have to scan it or anything

so fill that out by pasting it in any art program and whatnot

then save it and upload it to that site

and itll give you an option to download it

ehh