rosietheamazon:

i-likeursocks:

mysharona1987:

thefuckingcatalinawinemixer:

mysharona1987:

ladypolaris:

mysharona1987:

ladypolaris:

mysharona1987:

The best thing about couture fashion is that it always makes me think: “Yes, yes, this is exactly what I would wear if I were an evil sorceress.”

Same

This is my “try and seduce handsome hero into joining the dark side” dress.

I’m into it! It’s gauzy and light to downplay the evilness, but it’s just the right fuck-me red to tempt the handsome hero toward the dark. 10/10

“Your friends will betray you eventually.”

The first dress tho!!! 😍

The first dress is the one you order Snow White’s death in.

Effie Trinket would be proud

If I could model this is all I would want to do. Actually model art pieces. But I’d never get on the runway I’d just be staring in the mirror at all the details.
And then I’d fall down.

candelantern:

prokopetz:

Sometimes an artist just finds a niche and runs with it.

Take Eduard von Grützner, for example. German painter back in the early 1900s. He tried a whole bunch of stuff over the course of his career, but eventually he settled into doing paintings of fat, sassy monks drinking booze.

image

Just tubby old priests getting plastered.

image

He did dozens of these things.

image

Today it’s literally all he’s known for.

image

You do your thing, Eddie. You do your thing.

image

I’m obliged to reblog this because the bottom one was my icon for about 2 years

phantoonsoftheopera:

pervocracy:

rikodeine:

i love this so much i dont know where to start

– the comedy itself

– the commentary on ‘what is art’

– further on what is art: the viewers are interpreting this as art, but the intention of the “artist” was not actually art, so is it art or not? who gets to decide, the viewers or the creator?

– the act of placing the glasses and watching the response (and the response itself being that the viewers treated the glasses as art) as performance art

like is this a critique of postmodernism? does the critique betray itself since (one could argue) the viewers interpreting the glasses as art makes them art? or is that so ridiculous that it doesn’t matter? i could go on

The intention of the “artist” was not actually art, but… their intention was to create a specific image for public display in order to evoke a reaction from an audience, and then to create an image of that in order to evoke a different reaction from a second audience.

I think they accidentally arted.  Twice.

I hate when I accidentally art in public.