Celestial Map

RSS | Random | Archive

About Me

Blogs I follow:

Theme by: Miguel
  1. akkochi said: hhhhh your art is so beautiful u v u. I'm wondering if you could do some references on backs? Of course only if you have time and feel like doing so o v o;;;

    kelpls:

    forgive my handwriting I HOPE THIS HELPS A LITTLE BC IM NOT RLY SURE IF IT MAKES SENSE also here are some pics of rl backs which you can also locate via google 1,2,3,4,5(nsfw bc butt) 

  2. 19462 Notes
    Reblogged: scarevitus
  3. archiaart:

anarcho-queer:

ibetyourphysiquehelps:

WHOA WHOA WHOA. excuse me.But the minimum wage is set for teenagers with first jobs/ college students TO GET EXPERIENCE. Because a higher paying job isn’t going to higher you unless ypu have experience. AND YOU GET THAT EXPERIENCE BY WORKING AT MINIMUM PAYING JOBS. and the higher paying jobs are harder jobs which is why they get more money. If you raise the minimum wage, then companies wont have the money to pay more employees so they look for the people with the most experience…So if companies can only higher people with experience and you dont have any because companies DONT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY YOU?? well then you are never going to get a job. And when the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up.And then we have the minimum wage earners complaining again.So stop saying that the minimum wage needs to be raised because it doesnt.What needs to happen is we need a better economy and thanks to obama, thats not going to happen for a while because obama doesn’t know what hes doing.So if you want to make more money, get experience and a better paying job.

You’re a shitty economist buddy.
Less than 15% of minimum wage worker’s are teenagers (age 14-19), the rest are adults aged 20 and over (85.7%). So lets stop pretending that these jobs are meant for students. The economy is shit and unfortunately, people have to settle for low wages because the alternative often is unemployment.
Higher paying jobs doesn’t equate to ‘harder jobs’. Often, the higher a position is, the less labor you are required to do.
"And when the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up."
Inflation doesn’t necessarily work that way. Obviously, you’re just regurgitating the bullshit theories conservatives spew out while disregarding the statistics and history that proves otherwise. But since you’re using that argument, why not raise the minimum wage with the rise of inflation? Or productivity even?
If we had raised the minimum wage with the rise of productivity since 1968, it would currently be $21.72. In other words, we are creating far more and producing more profit for corporations, while being paid for a third of what we use to.
What do you have to say about that?
And raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will raise 1.7 million families out of poverty and reduce the need for them to use public assistance, saving the federal government $7.6 billion per year. Would you say you’re you against that?
The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. In none of the 50 states is that enough money to pay the average rent for a 2-bedroom apartment. 
The minimum wage used to be able to keep a family of 3 above the poverty line. Now, the minimum wage can’t even keep a single parent working 40 hours a week, for an entire year without a single day off, above the poverty line.
When you raise the minimum wage, you’re putting more money into the pockets of the lower/working class. Their money is directly put back into the economy when the buy food, pay bills and generally spend their money. As oppose to higher paid people who have the luxury of saving their earnings. That means that businesses will generally make more money because the working class has more money to spend.
That’s my argument for raising the minimum wage, I would love to see your attempt to counter it.

I agree with you anarcho-queer, and I think the people protesting minimum wage increases should take a moment to self-reflect and assess their own values, see if they can feel compassion for the suffering of their fellow humans. There is another angle we can consider too. Some think we should create a maximum wage. To illustrate, here is a nice section from an article posted in 2012 (New Zealand Herald):

Reducing wages to create employment has the potential to work, but not the way the Government is implying. The wages which need to be reduced are those of the CEOs and other high-level management positions.
Former Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds is the often-referenced example of how salaries for those at the top of the pyramid have become obscene. […] Reynolds “earned $30 million in five years with the company”. That figure - made up of base salaries, performance incentives, share incentives, etc. - equates to $6 million a year.
What did Reynolds do to become the $6 million man? It is something of a mystery. Under his leadership, Telecom dropped from top place on the NZSX - a position it had occupied since 1991 - following the XT debacle in 2010. Share prices plummeted. Reynolds’ response was to go fishing. Despite all this, Reynolds was, according to the Herald, earning $34,000 a day during the 2012 financial year.
Supporters of such excesses claim these CEOs add value and help grow their companies. Why, then, do CEOs who do the opposite - such as Reynolds - still receive such engorged salaries? If they were on the factory floor, they would have lost their job by now. Furthermore, such justifications for CEO salaries tend to insult workers whose efforts do add value to, and grow, the company. If this seems far-fetched, consider what would bring Telecom to a halt: a strike by its engineers, or a strike by its CEO?

Workers create value. They just never see it, it is passed on to the CEOs and shareholders. But they have power when they act as a collective. Why else do you think the powerful get so angry whenever their wage slaves go on strike? And their pet media immediately paints the strikers as greedy? It’s because they are afraid of the power we all have. Their jobs are meaningless without the workers on the ground floor.

    archiaart:

    anarcho-queer:

    ibetyourphysiquehelps:

    WHOA WHOA WHOA.
    excuse me.
    But the minimum wage is set for teenagers with first jobs/ college students TO GET EXPERIENCE. Because a higher paying job isn’t going to higher you unless ypu have experience. AND YOU GET THAT EXPERIENCE BY WORKING AT MINIMUM PAYING JOBS. and the higher paying jobs are harder jobs which is why they get more money.
    If you raise the minimum wage, then companies wont have the money to pay more employees so they look for the people with the most experience…
    So if companies can only higher people with experience and you dont have any because companies DONT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY YOU??
    well then you are never going to get a job.
    And when the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up.
    And then we have the minimum wage earners complaining again.
    So stop saying that the minimum wage needs to be raised because it doesnt.
    What needs to happen is we need a better economy and thanks to obama, thats not going to happen for a while because obama doesn’t know what hes doing.
    So if you want to make more money, get experience and a better paying job.

    You’re a shitty economist buddy.

    Less than 15% of minimum wage worker’s are teenagers (age 14-19), the rest are adults aged 20 and over (85.7%). So lets stop pretending that these jobs are meant for students. The economy is shit and unfortunately, people have to settle for low wages because the alternative often is unemployment.

    Higher paying jobs doesn’t equate to ‘harder jobs’. Often, the higher a position is, the less labor you are required to do.

    "And when the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up."

    Inflation doesn’t necessarily work that way. Obviously, you’re just regurgitating the bullshit theories conservatives spew out while disregarding the statistics and history that proves otherwise. But since you’re using that argument, why not raise the minimum wage with the rise of inflation? Or productivity even?

    If we had raised the minimum wage with the rise of productivity since 1968, it would currently be $21.72. In other words, we are creating far more and producing more profit for corporations, while being paid for a third of what we use to.

    What do you have to say about that?

    And raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will raise 1.7 million families out of poverty and reduce the need for them to use public assistance, saving the federal government $7.6 billion per year. Would you say you’re you against that?

    The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. In none of the 50 states is that enough money to pay the average rent for a 2-bedroom apartment.

    The minimum wage used to be able to keep a family of 3 above the poverty line. Now, the minimum wage can’t even keep a single parent working 40 hours a week, for an entire year without a single day off, above the poverty line.

    When you raise the minimum wage, you’re putting more money into the pockets of the lower/working class. Their money is directly put back into the economy when the buy food, pay bills and generally spend their money. As oppose to higher paid people who have the luxury of saving their earnings. That means that businesses will generally make more money because the working class has more money to spend.

    That’s my argument for raising the minimum wage, I would love to see your attempt to counter it.

    I agree with you anarcho-queer, and I think the people protesting minimum wage increases should take a moment to self-reflect and assess their own values, see if they can feel compassion for the suffering of their fellow humans. There is another angle we can consider too. Some think we should create a maximum wage. To illustrate, here is a nice section from an article posted in 2012 (New Zealand Herald):

    Reducing wages to create employment has the potential to work, but not the way the Government is implying. The wages which need to be reduced are those of the CEOs and other high-level management positions.

    Former Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds is the often-referenced example of how salaries for those at the top of the pyramid have become obscene. […] Reynolds “earned $30 million in five years with the company”. That figure - made up of base salaries, performance incentives, share incentives, etc. - equates to $6 million a year.

    What did Reynolds do to become the $6 million man? It is something of a mystery. Under his leadership, Telecom dropped from top place on the NZSX - a position it had occupied since 1991 - following the XT debacle in 2010. Share prices plummeted. Reynolds’ response was to go fishing. Despite all this, Reynolds was, according to the Herald, earning $34,000 a day during the 2012 financial year.

    Supporters of such excesses claim these CEOs add value and help grow their companies. Why, then, do CEOs who do the opposite - such as Reynolds - still receive such engorged salaries? If they were on the factory floor, they would have lost their job by now. Furthermore, such justifications for CEO salaries tend to insult workers whose efforts do add value to, and grow, the company. If this seems far-fetched, consider what would bring Telecom to a halt: a strike by its engineers, or a strike by its CEO?

    Workers create value. They just never see it, it is passed on to the CEOs and shareholders. But they have power when they act as a collective. Why else do you think the powerful get so angry whenever their wage slaves go on strike? And their pet media immediately paints the strikers as greedy? It’s because they are afraid of the power we all have. Their jobs are meaningless without the workers on the ground floor.

  4. 16360 Notes
    Reblogged: ashelisms
  5. squad-hanji:

    WHY WAIT TO SEE SCARY GOD MOTHER WHEN YOU CAN WATCH IT RIGHT NOW HAPPY HALLOWEEN SPOOPERS

  6. 7462 Notes
    Reblogged: foxboros
  7. brsis:

achievementhugger:

thebabbagepatch:

ilacktact:

mycosmicreality:

adeyami:

US students will be able to shield themselves during school shootings with the latest in body armour, the Bodyguard Blanket
http://goo.gl/WwvECT
Are fucking kidding me? I have been sitting at home and constantly watching the news after the events of yesterday. For those of you who are wondering, I am a junior at REYNOLDS HIGH SCHOOL! I was there when the shooter kept running in the halls trying to open the doors and get in. I was there in the dark praying and crying while my librarian kept saying ” they’ll have to kill me before they touch my kids” I have known her for three years, her determination to keep us safe broke her heart. Seeing this, that little children need protection in school. Are we sending kids to a battlefield? I have three little brothers ranging from 5-10, and still people have the nerve to speak about the second amendment? Really? I can’t even type anymore. I’m so disgusted and frustrated. When will you realize that it’s important to have gun control? When a shooter is pointing a gun at your child? Is that when you’ll realize that guns aren’t something to be kept around. People say it’s a free country but honesty, this country is more oppressed and diseased than any other country.

Show me ONE instance where gun control and gun free zones prevented school shootings.



Let me tell you guys a story. In 1996, in a little town in Australia called Port Arthur, a gunman killed 35 and injured 23. This place was a tourist attraction, with plenty of visitors and locals going about their business. 35 people died.That’s 35 marriages, anniversaries, birthdays or uni degrees. 35 people left Port Arthur in body bags.At the time, we had a pretty conservative government, and the Prime Minister at the time (in hindsight) was kind of a dick. But within two weeks of the shooting, Howard instituted a massive reform and buyback of all firearms. 
But it must be a statistical flaw, you say, there weren’t that many massacres before 1996, right? No, WRONG. In the eighteen years leading up to Port Arthur, there had been 13 mass shootings. 
But April, you ask, this couldn’t possibly have worked could it? Wouldn’t it only have reduced the mass shootings? WRONG.Since 1996, there have been ZERO mass shootings. That’s right, ZERO. FUCKING ZILCH. There have been scattered homicides, however:
How many schools have been raided and children murdered? NONE.How many film buffs have been murdered in their seats? NONE.How many innocent lives have been lost to the barrel of a gun? NONE.
On top of this, homicides involving the use of guns, and youth suicide involving the use of guns has declined dramatically, by up to 60%
Australia, however much the environment tries to kill you, is a safe haven, and you can walk the streets with 99% assurance that you won’t fall victim to a drive by shooting.
Your move, America.

in 1987 a lone gunman killed 16 people, wounded 15 and then committed suicide. within six months the uk government passed an amendment to the firearms act effectively outlawing all high calibre, high frequency, high capacity rifles and shotguns.
in 1996 another lone gunman killed 16 children and their teacher, and then committed suicide. again within six months the uk government outlawed all handguns. special dispensation had to be issued in order to hold shooting competition as part of the 2012 olympic games, and british hopefuls had to train overseas.
you can legally own certain types of shotgun, .22 calibre rifles over a certain barrel length, and antiques. that’s it.
in the nigh-on twenty years since the uk has had one mass shooting. one. and we’re down to about 30 gun-related deaths annually.
there is not one example of gun control laws reducing mass shootings and gun-related homicide. there are dozens. it literally works every time. the usa is the anomaly not because it didn’t work but because it hasn’t tried.

    brsis:

    achievementhugger:

    thebabbagepatch:

    ilacktact:

    mycosmicreality:

    adeyami:

    US students will be able to shield themselves during school shootings with the latest in body armour, the Bodyguard Blanket

    http://goo.gl/WwvECT

    Are fucking kidding me? I have been sitting at home and constantly watching the news after the events of yesterday. For those of you who are wondering, I am a junior at REYNOLDS HIGH SCHOOL! I was there when the shooter kept running in the halls trying to open the doors and get in. I was there in the dark praying and crying while my librarian kept saying ” they’ll have to kill me before they touch my kids” I have known her for three years, her determination to keep us safe broke her heart. Seeing this, that little children need protection in school. Are we sending kids to a battlefield? I have three little brothers ranging from 5-10, and still people have the nerve to speak about the second amendment? Really? I can’t even type anymore. I’m so disgusted and frustrated. When will you realize that it’s important to have gun control? When a shooter is pointing a gun at your child? Is that when you’ll realize that guns aren’t something to be kept around. People say it’s a free country but honesty, this country is more oppressed and diseased than any other country.

    Show me ONE instance where gun control and gun free zones prevented school shootings.

    image

    Let me tell you guys a story.
    In 1996, in a little town in Australia called Port Arthur, a gunman killed 35 and injured 23. This place was a tourist attraction, with plenty of visitors and locals going about their business. 
    35 people died.That’s 35 marriages, anniversaries, birthdays or uni degrees. 35 people left Port Arthur in body bags.
    At the time, we had a pretty conservative government, and the Prime Minister at the time (in hindsight) was kind of a dick. But within two weeks of the shooting, Howard instituted a massive reform and buyback of all firearms. 

    But it must be a statistical flaw, you say, there weren’t that many massacres before 1996, right? No, WRONG. 
    In the eighteen years leading up to Port Arthur, there had been 13 mass shootings. 

    But April, you ask, this couldn’t possibly have worked could it? Wouldn’t it only have reduced the mass shootings? WRONG.
    Since 1996, there have been ZERO mass shootings. That’s right, ZERO. FUCKING ZILCH. There have been scattered homicides, however:

    How many schools have been raided and children murdered? NONE.
    How many film buffs have been murdered in their seats? NONE.
    How many innocent lives have been lost to the barrel of a gun? NONE.

    On top of this, homicides involving the use of guns, and youth suicide involving the use of guns has declined dramatically, by up to 60%

    Australia, however much the environment tries to kill you, is a safe haven, and you can walk the streets with 99% assurance that you won’t fall victim to a drive by shooting.

    Your move, America.

    in 1987 a lone gunman killed 16 people, wounded 15 and then committed suicide. within six months the uk government passed an amendment to the firearms act effectively outlawing all high calibre, high frequency, high capacity rifles and shotguns.

    in 1996 another lone gunman killed 16 children and their teacher, and then committed suicide. again within six months the uk government outlawed all handguns. special dispensation had to be issued in order to hold shooting competition as part of the 2012 olympic games, and british hopefuls had to train overseas.

    you can legally own certain types of shotgun, .22 calibre rifles over a certain barrel length, and antiques. that’s it.

    in the nigh-on twenty years since the uk has had one mass shooting. one. and we’re down to about 30 gun-related deaths annually.

    there is not one example of gun control laws reducing mass shootings and gun-related homicide. there are dozens. it literally works every time. the usa is the anomaly not because it didn’t work but because it hasn’t tried.

  8. 334990 Notes
    Reblogged: boobadger
  9. (Source: sandandglass)

  10. 204850 Notes
    Reblogged: suarezart
  11. craftylindsey:

    lucifers-kittykat:

    This is Susan Robinson, one of the last people in the country who can preform late term abortions after the murder of Dr. George Tiller. This is from an awesome documentary called After Tiller, about the last 4 late-term abortion practitioners in the country. It’s a great watch and available on Netflix, would strongly recommend. 

    warrior woman

    (Source: throwherinthewater)

  12. 18942 Notes
    Reblogged: p33p
  13. doublepseudonym:

come on baby girl, flex your zygomaticus major for this greasy stranger

    doublepseudonym:

    come on baby girl, flex your zygomaticus major for this greasy stranger

  14. 6689 Notes
    Reblogged: saccharinescorpion
  15. 2dtraditionalanimation:

Proteus - Rodolphe Guenoden

    2dtraditionalanimation:

    Proteus - Rodolphe Guenoden

  16. 1909 Notes
    Reblogged: silk-ward
  17. awakeforyears:

    atane:

    This is happening

    raise your hand if you called this opportunistic racist bullshit

  18. 17468 Notes
    Reblogged: sugaryacid
  19. il-tenore-regina:

    She removes her wig, her eyelashes, her makeup, never breaking eye contact with the reflection of her natural self. It’s an intimate, powerful moment television doesn’t often show: A black woman removing all the elements white supremacy tells her she has to wear to be beautiful, successful, powerful. And let’s not forget that that wasn’t just Annalise taking it off: It was Davis, too—Davis, who remains brave in a world where a New York Times critic can get away with calling her ‘less classically beautiful.’x

    God is real. 

    (Source: fistoffight)

  20. 18074 Notes
    Reblogged: beasies
  21. motherfuckingshakespeare:

    akafoxxcub:

    the best is when you’re reminded that “nothing” is elizabethan slang for female genitals, so shakespeare literally titled his play

    much ado about pussy

    Ah, Shakespeare. Such fine and serious art. So serious.

  22. 88333 Notes
    Reblogged: gothiethefairy
  23. 2089 Notes
    Reblogged: justice4mikebrown
  24. gehayi:

youmightbeamisogynist:

naamahdarling:

mythosidhe:

Although I have to point out that there was a piece of speculative science fiction called The Blazing World published by one Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1666, slightly predating Mary Shelley.

This is the thing. Women have been doing awesome shit since there was awesome shit to do, we’ve BEEN THERE, if anyone bothered to look.

Oh, they looked. And then maliciously and willfully erased us from the books to keep anyone else from “getting ideas.”

Hell, the first named author in history? Enheduanna, a Sumerian high priestess, poet and lyricist. She’s known as the Shakespeare of Sumerian literature.

    gehayi:

    youmightbeamisogynist:

    naamahdarling:

    mythosidhe:

    Although I have to point out that there was a piece of speculative science fiction called The Blazing World published by one Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1666, slightly predating Mary Shelley.

    This is the thing. Women have been doing awesome shit since there was awesome shit to do, we’ve BEEN THERE, if anyone bothered to look.

    Oh, they looked. And then maliciously and willfully erased us from the books to keep anyone else from “getting ideas.”

    Hell, the first named author in history? Enheduanna, a Sumerian high priestess, poet and lyricist. She’s known as the Shakespeare of Sumerian literature.

    (Source: dovsherman)

  25. 96878 Notes
    Reblogged: callmekitto
  26. madsabroo:

rgfellows:

dandraco:

hollyoakhill:

do you ever think about how little Michelangelo cared

All right, everyone, grab a chair and sit back because I’m going to share with you what I learned about Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel in my Art History Class.
The man NEVER wanted to paint the damn thing. But the pope at the time “forced him to” According to my teacher. Michelangelo hated this man, I MEAN REALLY HATED HIM. So did a majority of people. The pope’s nickname translated literally means “Terrible pope”.
And the working conditions were awful. He had to work on his back with all that paint, which is filled with some toxic shit that gave Michelangelo a limp for the rest of his life. (Also, our teacher made us get on our backs and try drawing with both hands JUST to prove how bad and uncomfortable it is.)
At the time, the ceiling was so high, you could barely see it. You need binoculars to get a good look at what’s up there, by the time people could see the paintings, there was a lot of weird symbolism that Michelangelo hid up there.

This one? The creation of the sun and moon? God is mooning you. And the pope and all others after him prayed under that without knowing.

This one? At the time, dissecting was sacrilegious and everyone found out how behind God was what looked like half a brain. blah blah, science, science, that pissed everyone off.
And also, ALLLLLLL the men and women in the Sistine Chapel are all on fucking steroids. My teacher described the women’s bodies as "Men bodies with boobs slapped on."
And then there is this:

Now this is the back wall. Michelangelo actually wanted to paint this one after he finished the ceiling. (and there was a different pope too, I believe.) However, originally, EVERYONE in that painting was naked. And they didn’t like it. Adam and Eve naked? That’s cool. But Jesus? Now you crossed the line. So the pope at the time hired someone else to censor it and give the important figures clothes. He worked on it for 6 or 9 months before he died.
And then the symbolism in this one is great. Somewhere in the right, there are homosexuals in heaven. (No matter what, the Vatican will say “Those straight men are happy” I’ll get to that in a second), Michelangelo painted himself near Jesus, and the terrible pope is in hell with a snake biting his balls.
And if you were to point ANY of this out to the Vatican, they will deny all of it and claim Michelangelo was a catholic hero. In fact, when they discovered the symbolism around the 60s or 70s, the guy who told the Vatican was kicked out of the Vatican for life.
TL;DR: Michelangelo hated the pope and made the best “fuck you” of all time.

YO. ALL OF THIS^. Michelangelo was hella grumpy all of the time. It was fantastic.
However, as beautiful as this commentary is, I’m gonna make a little correction. The Pope isn’t the one in hell getting his balls bitten; that guy is actually the Papal Minister of Ceremonies a the time, Biagio de Cesena. 
See, when Michelangelo was painting this, as you said, lots of people were uncomfortable with all of the nudity (especially because the Last Judgement [back wall mural] was painted much later when nudity in religious art was even more controversial than before), but the dude who was the angriest was de Cesena. 
He was so angry that he reportedly burst in on Michelangelo while he was working (which is already a big no-no because Michelangelo’s requirements for working were mostly “fuck the hell off and leave me alone or else I quit and I will stab you in the eye with my paintbrush/chisel”.). He then proceeds to tell Michelangelo that this fresco is disgusting and obscene and shame on him etc etc. He also referred to it as “i stui di nudi”, which means “A stew of nudes” which is one of the best descriptions of a thing ever, if you ask me. 
So Michelangelo, probably on the cusp of homicide is like “Thank you for the notes. Now get the fuck out,” and de Cesena reluctantly does. 
Later, he comes to see the finished product and finds that Michelangelo had painted his portrait down in Hell to represent the Minos, King of the Dead. He has the ears of an ass and the above described crotch biting snake:

Upon seeing this and being enraged, de Cesena went to the Pope to demand that it be changed and that Michelangelo be punished. However, the Pope was SO incredibly done dealing with Michelangelo’s snark, tantrums, and general hatred of the world and everyone in it, that he didn’t want to do shit. 
The Pope’s response to him was literally to say “As Pope, I have a lot of influence on Earth and up in Heaven, but I have no jurisdiction in Hell. You’re shit out of luck.” 
And it stayed.
Michelangelo, grade A artist, snark master, and professional dick.


my favorite

    madsabroo:

    rgfellows:

    dandraco:

    hollyoakhill:

    do you ever think about how little Michelangelo cared

    All right, everyone, grab a chair and sit back because I’m going to share with you what I learned about Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel in my Art History Class.

    The man NEVER wanted to paint the damn thing. But the pope at the time “forced him to” According to my teacher. Michelangelo hated this man, I MEAN REALLY HATED HIM. So did a majority of people. The pope’s nickname translated literally means “Terrible pope”.

    And the working conditions were awful. He had to work on his back with all that paint, which is filled with some toxic shit that gave Michelangelo a limp for the rest of his life.
    (Also, our teacher made us get on our backs and try drawing with both hands JUST to prove how bad and uncomfortable it is.)

    At the time, the ceiling was so high, you could barely see it. You need binoculars to get a good look at what’s up there, by the time people could see the paintings, there was a lot of weird symbolism that Michelangelo hid up there.

    This one? The creation of the sun and moon? God is mooning you. And the pope and all others after him prayed under that without knowing.

    This one? At the time, dissecting was sacrilegious and everyone found out how behind God was what looked like half a brain. blah blah, science, science, that pissed everyone off.

    And also, ALLLLLLL the men and women in the Sistine Chapel are all on fucking steroids. My teacher described the women’s bodies as "Men bodies with boobs slapped on."

    And then there is this:

    Now this is the back wall. Michelangelo actually wanted to paint this one after he finished the ceiling. (and there was a different pope too, I believe.) However, originally, EVERYONE in that painting was naked. And they didn’t like it. Adam and Eve naked? That’s cool. But Jesus? Now you crossed the line. So the pope at the time hired someone else to censor it and give the important figures clothes. He worked on it for 6 or 9 months before he died.

    And then the symbolism in this one is great. Somewhere in the right, there are homosexuals in heaven. (No matter what, the Vatican will say “Those straight men are happy” I’ll get to that in a second), Michelangelo painted himself near Jesus, and the terrible pope is in hell with a snake biting his balls.

    And if you were to point ANY of this out to the Vatican, they will deny all of it and claim Michelangelo was a catholic hero. In fact, when they discovered the symbolism around the 60s or 70s, the guy who told the Vatican was kicked out of the Vatican for life.

    TL;DR: Michelangelo hated the pope and made the best “fuck you” of all time.

    YO. ALL OF THIS^. Michelangelo was hella grumpy all of the time. It was fantastic.

    However, as beautiful as this commentary is, I’m gonna make a little correction. The Pope isn’t the one in hell getting his balls bitten; that guy is actually the Papal Minister of Ceremonies a the time, Biagio de Cesena. 

    See, when Michelangelo was painting this, as you said, lots of people were uncomfortable with all of the nudity (especially because the Last Judgement [back wall mural] was painted much later when nudity in religious art was even more controversial than before), but the dude who was the angriest was de Cesena. 

    He was so angry that he reportedly burst in on Michelangelo while he was working (which is already a big no-no because Michelangelo’s requirements for working were mostly “fuck the hell off and leave me alone or else I quit and I will stab you in the eye with my paintbrush/chisel”.). He then proceeds to tell Michelangelo that this fresco is disgusting and obscene and shame on him etc etc. He also referred to it as “i stui di nudi”, which means “A stew of nudes” which is one of the best descriptions of a thing ever, if you ask me. 

    So Michelangelo, probably on the cusp of homicide is like “Thank you for the notes. Now get the fuck out,” and de Cesena reluctantly does. 

    Later, he comes to see the finished product and finds that Michelangelo had painted his portrait down in Hell to represent the Minos, King of the Dead. He has the ears of an ass and the above described crotch biting snake:

    image

    Upon seeing this and being enraged, de Cesena went to the Pope to demand that it be changed and that Michelangelo be punished. However, the Pope was SO incredibly done dealing with Michelangelo’s snark, tantrums, and general hatred of the world and everyone in it, that he didn’t want to do shit. 

    The Pope’s response to him was literally to say “As Pope, I have a lot of influence on Earth and up in Heaven, but I have no jurisdiction in Hell. You’re shit out of luck.” 

    And it stayed.

    Michelangelo, grade A artist, snark master, and professional dick.

    image

    my favorite

  27. 209610 Notes
    Reblogged: tentakrule
  28. cacnea:

jenny goes hard

    cacnea:

    jenny goes hard

  29. 3828 Notes
    Reblogged: feranelia