I am in a superpositional state of neither alive nor dead until the next time I post.
Month: February 2013
Formative influences: Leo & Diane Dillon (1933 – 2012)
The Dillons’ work was characterized by stylistic diversity, with influences ranging over African folk art, Japanese woodcuts, old-master paintings and medieval illumination.
It was also noteworthy for the diversity of the people it portrayed. This was especially striking in the 1970s, when the Dillons began illustrating for children: until then, the smiling faces portrayed in picture books had been overwhelmingly white.
The two major statements they conveyed in their work were. “The first is all people, whatever the culture or race, experience the same things in living on this planet. We all have a lot in common,” state the Dillons. “It is our beliefs that divide us. We have little control over what life brings us but we can change our thoughts.The second statement is that since the beginning of history, people have expressed themselves graphically in wonderful and unique ways. Art in its many forms has survived to inform us of lives long gone. Art inspires, lifts our spirit, and brings beauty to our lives. We wish to pay homage to it and the people that created it.”
The Dillons received awards as diverse as their books, including a Hugo Award for science fiction illustration A NAACP Image Award, four New York Times Best Illustrated Awards, four Boston Globe/Horn Book Awards, two Coretta Scott King Awards, three Coretta Scott King Honors, and the Society of Illustrators Gold Medal.
Sources: Ny Times
Ave Babalon
He was no longer scared of what tomorrow might bring, because yesterday had brought it.
Neil Gaiman (via whitesleep)
This to me is the ultimate argument against conservatism, including conservatism masquerading as neo-liberalism, or in the US what is called Libertarianism. It all bases it’s assumptions on a meritocracy. It concludes that power, which in modern times means money, or capital if you prefer, will distribute itself to the most capable of wielding it. As long as there is no interference of the distribution by those who are lacking.
This goes against everything history has shown. History says that capital attracts capital, power grows power, not by merit or capability, but by leveraging what you have to gain more. It influences decisions so that the goal is not growing the potential of each individual, but growing power. And those who have ability but no power, lack the means to leverage into the system.
This is why democratic values are necessary for human development.
Ave Babalon
[Selfless love] would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person.
Playboy Interview With Ayn Rand (via fraterlux)
Let us point out the falsehoods and misconceptions in this argument. Selfless love does not imply the giver receives no peronal pleasure. It means they expect no reciprocation. It is not the return of love that provides joy, it is the act of giving it. Calling it pity is building a straw man.
In this philosophy the greatest thing you can do is take from a person, not help them grow.
And fuck this hypocritical cunt.