artchipel:

Curator’s Monday

Seth Haverkamp (USA)

Seth has had a passion for art since he was a small child; always sitting in his room and drawing. He continued with his art and graduated with a Bachelor in Fine Arts from Carson Newman College after a year each at Cleveland Institute of Art and Memphis College of Art. In 2005 he studied with internationally known artist Nelson Shanks, at Studio lncamminati. Upon leaving lncamminati he moved to northern Virginia where his career in painting really took off. Living in the Washington DC area has enabled Seth to have a number of one-man shows as well as study with renowned artist Robert Liberace. 

Along with interesting and unique still-life paintings Seth has done many commissioned portraits, but it must be said that his chief subject and love is his wife and children. They always take him to new heights of creativity and beauty. Seth was a featured artist in 200Ts American Artist Portrait Highlights publication as well as in International Artist magazine. Seth enjoys realism. He loves color and form and the drama of light and dark. As Seth says, “The meaning? It is found in beauty. At the moment, that’s enough.

© All images courtesy the artist

[more Seth Haverkamp | Curator’s Monday with fer1972]

I think the reason that lots of people think Steven Moffat’s version of Doctor Who is sexist is because it repeatedly acts and sounds sexist. It may be that Moffat consciously tries to craft his Who as feminist or pro-feminist. If so, I don’t think there’s any better illustration of the crucial point that, in a sexist society, however much of an ‘ally’ you may be, if you’re a man then you still enjoy male privilege, and probably don’t realise it half the time.

The Doctor describes Clara as “a mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a skirt that’s just a little bit too tight”. The Doctor describes Marilyn Monroe as though she really was nothing more than the stereotypical ‘man crazy’ ditz she played in some of her movies. Rory likens being married to Amy to being trapped inside a giant robot duplicate of her. We get dialogue like “Why did she try to kill you and then want to marry you?” “Because she’s a woman”. Osgood, a scientist, is shown to be secretly obsessed with jealousy towards her prettier sister. A Dalek develops a female alter-ego, and she spends her time cooking.
[…]
In Moffat’s show, women are overwhelmingly defined by their traditional gender roles or bodily functions. It doesn’t matter that their excellence in these gender roles is praised by show and lead character. It doesn’t matter that we’re supposed to be impressed by the virtuosity with which River tricks people using her feminine wiles. It doesn’t change anything that the Doctor goes into rhapsodies about the wonders of motherhood. That isn’t liberating; it’s still the mapping of male, patriarchal conceptions of female value onto female characters.

River exists entirely because of the Doctor. Who the hell is River? She is an assemblage of gender essentialist tropes and wisecracks. When does she ever – beyond, arguably, her first appearance – behave like an academic or a scientist? When does she ever display anything resembling erudition or intellectual curiosity? When does she ever do or say anything to show or engender love? Admittedly, the Doctor seems to be sexually aroused by the way she shoots people… which is just charming. In ‘Let’s Kill Hitler’, she is incarnated as Mels, a character we’ve never seen or heard of before, and plonked unceremoniously into the story out of sheer, brazen convenience. She stalks Amy and Rory (her unwitting mother and father) for years, pretending to be their friend, all because of her pre-programmed monomaniacal desire to get to the Doctor. She regenerates while “concentrating on a dress size”. She spends the rest of the episode obsessing over her hair, clothes, shoes and weight. River’s instability is finally conquered by the love of a good man. This seems intensely hostile and patronising. If that isn’t what was aimed at, then somebody is a very bad shot.

It doesn’t matter that River is ‘powerful’. Fetishizing ‘power’ in women characters – having them kicking ass and always being ready with a putdown - isn’t the same as writing them as human beings.

Steven Moffat: a Case for the Prosecution

[…]The reason I feel ill when the Doctor snogs River’s ghost at the end of ‘Name of the Doctor’ is not that I hate emotion in Who, or that I want – because I’m a sexually and emotionally repressed nerd or something – Doctor Who to be emotionless.  Rather, the opposite of this is the truth.  The reason I feel ill at moments like that is rather that I hate fake emotion, cheap emotion, unearned emotion.  Commodified emotion.  Packaged, marketed, profitable, sugary, junk emotion.  Sentimentality, in other words. 

Sentimentality is disgusting because it’s not fundamentally about other people, or relationships.  It’s about oneself.  It’s self-regarding, self-comforting, self-pleasing.  It isn’t social.  It’s narcissistic.  This is precisely what is so horribly wrong with all those Moffatian emotional tornadoes.  How can they be touching when the characters and relationships are so shallow?  When we’re watching narcissists adoring their own reflections in their partner’s eyes?[…]
 I don’t like having to hate this show.  I want to love it.  

(via blake-wyatt)

(via lets-kill-all-the-children)

"I think I really wanted to prove something to myself, but at the same time, I’m very sensitive. When you see those action movies and it’s like the back of somebody’s head and then all of a sudden they give that one pose at the end and you’re like, "That was not…That was the lamest thing." You want to see the actor risking their life. It’s part of what sells it, I think, as an audience member, and, like I said, I’m sensitive about that sort of thing. So I would want to… I never would want to be that. I wouldn’t want to be perceived as a wuss who couldn’t do it, I guess. " - Scarlett Johansson

(via sergeantjerkbarnes)

scienceyoucanlove:

Evolution is awesome!  A native group of people living on the Soloman Islands northeast of Australia called Melanesians is famous for their beautiful dark skin and naturally blonde hair. The odd combination has got scientists wondering about how such a color combo develops over time. According to the Global Financial Newswires, many scientists have long thought that their blonde hair was a result of a diet high in fish, perhaps bleaching by the sun and salt water, or a reminder of the island’s historic relations with people of European descent.In fact, the blonde Melanesians have blonde that is unique solely to them. According to the study in which scientists compared 43 blonde hair islanders to 42 dark hair islanders, blonde Melanesians have a variant of a native gene called TYRP1 that plays an important role in the melanin biosynthetic pathway. This variant is completely separate from what causes blonde hair in Europeans, and doesn’t even exist in the European genetic set.What’s truly beautiful in this fascinating discovery, as so perfectly stated by the study author Sean Myles, a geneticist at Nova Scotia Agricultural College, is that “it’s a great example of convergent evolution, where the same outcome is brought about by completely different means.”Found on http://tinyurl.com/6u8kwhl
source 

scienceyoucanlove:

Evolution is awesome!  A native group of people living on the Soloman Islands northeast of Australia called Melanesians is famous for their beautiful dark skin and naturally blonde hair. 

The odd combination has got scientists wondering about how such a color combo develops over time. According to the Global Financial Newswires, many scientists have long thought that their blonde hair was a result of a diet high in fish, perhaps bleaching by the sun and salt water, or a reminder of the island’s historic relations with people of European descent.

In fact, the blonde Melanesians have blonde that is unique solely to them. According to the study in which scientists compared 43 blonde hair islanders to 42 dark hair islanders, blonde Melanesians have a variant of a native gene called TYRP1 that plays an important role in the melanin biosynthetic pathway. This variant is completely separate from what causes blonde hair in Europeans, and doesn’t even exist in the European genetic set.

What’s truly beautiful in this fascinating discovery, as so perfectly stated by the study author Sean Myles, a geneticist at Nova Scotia Agricultural College, is that “it’s a great example of convergent evolution, where the same outcome is brought about by completely different means.”

Found on http://tinyurl.com/6u8kwhl

source 

(via femalebattlecry)