The Little Space Pioneer

"Forty-two", said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.

17,929 notes

vouzou:

The Hubble Extreme Deep Field
The Hubble Extreme Deep Field is the most distant image of the Universe ever created. Its diameter is one tenth the width of the full moon, its area is one 30 millionth of the entire sky. Within this field of view there are more than 5000 galaxies, 600 trillion stars and 50 quadrillion planets and moons. The light from the most distant visible objects was created more than 13 billion years ago, when the Universe was only 5% of it’s current age. This photograph is a slice of infinity, proof of the immense scale of reality.

One of the fascinating things about this picture is that they picked that part of the sky because there seemed to be fewer things in it than anywhere else.

vouzou:

The Hubble Extreme Deep Field

The Hubble Extreme Deep Field is the most distant image of the Universe ever created. Its diameter is one tenth the width of the full moon, its area is one 30 millionth of the entire sky. Within this field of view there are more than 5000 galaxies, 600 trillion stars and 50 quadrillion planets and moons. The light from the most distant visible objects was created more than 13 billion years ago, when the Universe was only 5% of it’s current age. This photograph is a slice of infinity, proof of the immense scale of reality.

One of the fascinating things about this picture is that they picked that part of the sky because there seemed to be fewer things in it than anywhere else.

(via vintagegal)

Filed under astronomy deep space photography photography galaxies

1 note

One should never take a man for granted. But one does.
Emma Peel, the Avengers.

0 notes

Colliding galaxies ARP81, photographed by the Hubble telescope.The bright blue patches indicate areas where stars are forming, and the enormous tail of gas above the two galaxies marks the path of the first galaxy as it spiralled in toward the other.Astronomers believe that the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy will collide in a similar fashion in three or four billion years, and generally make a point of saying that the collision will not likely affect life in the Solar System. As a rule, they also skip over the fact that the Sun will boil away all of the Earth’s water in 500 million years or so, so whatever the Andromeda Galaxy does to the Milky Way is probably a moot point.http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140423.html

Colliding galaxies ARP81, photographed by the Hubble telescope.

The bright blue patches indicate areas where stars are forming, and the enormous tail of gas above the two galaxies marks the path of the first galaxy as it spiralled in toward the other.

Astronomers believe that the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy will collide in a similar fashion in three or four billion years, and generally make a point of saying that the collision will not likely affect life in the Solar System. As a rule, they also skip over the fact that the Sun will boil away all of the Earth’s water in 500 million years or so, so whatever the Andromeda Galaxy does to the Milky Way is probably a moot point.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140423.html

Filed under photography deep space photography astronomy galaxies

4 notes

Tilda Swinton in Orlando (1992). Based on the novel by Virginia Woolf.

Depending on how you look at it, Orlando is either a wry commentary on sex roles through the ages or an invitation to gush over some of the most gorgeous clothes and scenery ever put on screen.

This scene has always been one of my favourites, partly because I love the period, and partly because I love the dialogue. Most of the injunctions against women made by the wits of the day are, unfortunately, quite real.

Filed under orlando tilda swinton rococo movies

0 notes

Radiohead, “Street Spirit (fade out). From The Bends (1995).

I don’t know whether it is harder to believe that this album is about to celebrate its 20th anniversary or whether REM’s Automatic For the People already has.

Filed under music 90s music Radiohead pop music

2 notes

Comet Lemmon and Comet PanSTARRS appearing together in the night sky over the Atacama Desert in South America. Photo by Yuri Beletsky for APOD.
Comet Lemmon (C/2012 F6) appears in the upper left and Comet PanSTARRS (C/2011 L4) in the lower right.

Comet Lemmon and Comet PanSTARRS appearing together in the night sky over the Atacama Desert in South America. Photo by Yuri Beletsky for APOD.

Comet Lemmon (C/2012 F6) appears in the upper left and Comet PanSTARRS (C/2011 L4) in the lower right.

(Source: apod.nasa.gov)

Filed under astronomy photos photography comets

359 notes

gailsimone:

j33zits:

gailsimone:

omnomnumbat:

I’ve been meaning to upload this for a while! This is the Catman collage I made for thewolverina(’s partner’s) PS3.

Well, this is awesome. :)
Also, for people who complain (understandably) about the way females are dressed in comics, I would like to point out that WE HAD BLAKE BUCK NAKED EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY.
;)

Seeing sexy half-naked women running around in spandex is a manchild fantasy.
Being a buff dude is also a manchild fantasy. This is not equalizing in any form of the word, and only feeds into the MRA idiots who think it does.

What the hell?
Seriously?
Why do you switch POV in your example, from an observer (“SEEING sexy half-naked women”) to the character himself, (“BEING a buff dude”) in your comment here? Do you not see how obvious a switch tactic that is? It’s not apples and oranges, it’s apples and orangutans.
And are we seriously trying to say that having sexy naked guys is purely so males will imagine themselves as…what, naked eye candy?  What happened to the observer? Where did they run off to, suddenly?
Speaking as a female, having Nicola Scott draw hot naked guys makes me want to look at them, not BE them. The assumption that the viewer is automatically a het male is just WEIRD.
But I’ll throw it open to the readership.
Hot naked guys in comics. Are they purely for het males to imagine themselves being, or can they function as eye candy?
All opinions welcome.

I think that a good writer should be able to manage both. Comic books suffer from a lot of the same problems romance novels do, in that the creators of both frequently assume that they are dealing with an entirely male or an entirely female audience, and write characters accordingly.
So in comics you have writers and artists treating all of their male characters like people the readers want to be, and female characters like people the readers want to be with. Bad romance novels and “chick flicks”, on the other hand, do exactly the same in reverse.
A more gender-balanced take on things may be harder to achieve, but it is usually worth the trouble. One of the reasons Pride and Prejudice remains so popular after 200 years, for example, is that Jane Austen put a lot of effort into creating believable characters on both sides of the divide (and in fact a good deal of Austen’s writing was devoted to the idea that men and women were less different than they thought). I probably have more in common with Lizzy Bennett than with Fitzwilliam Darcy, for example, but I can picture myself in either one’s shoes.
Most romances fail miserably at this. This has financial consequences as well as artistic ones: men generally can’t get interested in them. Even if the creators are not bothered by this, that is money left on the table. All of this is equally true of comic books.
In other words, comics will remain in good company if they never learn how to depict male characters both as people that straight men want to be and straight women want to fantasize about (and vice versa for female characters) but the books would be a lot better and the industry would be a lot better off if they did. There is a lot to be said for simply not going overboard with the sexiness. Letting the reader decide whether a character is an object of fantasy or a reader surrogate would go a long way to solving the problem. Many of comics’ worst excesses, especially with female characters, are a result of the creators making an executive decision about how she ought to be viewed and exaggerating the effect until there is literally no other way of seeing her. (See, for example, most of the Escher Girls blog.)

gailsimone:

j33zits:

gailsimone:

omnomnumbat:

I’ve been meaning to upload this for a while! This is the Catman collage I made for thewolverina(’s partner’s) PS3.

Well, this is awesome. :)

Also, for people who complain (understandably) about the way females are dressed in comics, I would like to point out that WE HAD BLAKE BUCK NAKED EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY.

;)

Seeing sexy half-naked women running around in spandex is a manchild fantasy.

Being a buff dude is also a manchild fantasy. This is not equalizing in any form of the word, and only feeds into the MRA idiots who think it does.

What the hell?

Seriously?

Why do you switch POV in your example, from an observer (“SEEING sexy half-naked women”) to the character himself, (“BEING a buff dude”) in your comment here? Do you not see how obvious a switch tactic that is? It’s not apples and oranges, it’s apples and orangutans.

And are we seriously trying to say that having sexy naked guys is purely so males will imagine themselves as…what, naked eye candy?  What happened to the observer? Where did they run off to, suddenly?

Speaking as a female, having Nicola Scott draw hot naked guys makes me want to look at them, not BE them. The assumption that the viewer is automatically a het male is just WEIRD.

But I’ll throw it open to the readership.

Hot naked guys in comics. Are they purely for het males to imagine themselves being, or can they function as eye candy?

All opinions welcome.

I think that a good writer should be able to manage both. Comic books suffer from a lot of the same problems romance novels do, in that the creators of both frequently assume that they are dealing with an entirely male or an entirely female audience, and write characters accordingly.

So in comics you have writers and artists treating all of their male characters like people the readers want to be, and female characters like people the readers want to be with. Bad romance novels and “chick flicks”, on the other hand, do exactly the same in reverse.

A more gender-balanced take on things may be harder to achieve, but it is usually worth the trouble. One of the reasons Pride and Prejudice remains so popular after 200 years, for example, is that Jane Austen put a lot of effort into creating believable characters on both sides of the divide (and in fact a good deal of Austen’s writing was devoted to the idea that men and women were less different than they thought). I probably have more in common with Lizzy Bennett than with Fitzwilliam Darcy, for example, but I can picture myself in either one’s shoes.

Most romances fail miserably at this. This has financial consequences as well as artistic ones: men generally can’t get interested in them. Even if the creators are not bothered by this, that is money left on the table. All of this is equally true of comic books.

In other words, comics will remain in good company if they never learn how to depict male characters both as people that straight men want to be and straight women want to fantasize about (and vice versa for female characters) but the books would be a lot better and the industry would be a lot better off if they did. There is a lot to be said for simply not going overboard with the sexiness. Letting the reader decide whether a character is an object of fantasy or a reader surrogate would go a long way to solving the problem. Many of comics’ worst excesses, especially with female characters, are a result of the creators making an executive decision about how she ought to be viewed and exaggerating the effect until there is literally no other way of seeing her. (See, for example, most of the Escher Girls blog.)

Filed under comics women art writing Gail Simone escher girls

340 notes

eschergirls:

beccadrawsstuff submitted:

My first redraw!  When I saw the original cover on Escher Girls I thought that it would be fun to alternate their poses.  So, I flipped the two and used that as a reference for a “new” cover.

It was tough to draw Hal in that pose ugh, and then even Star’s new pose is pretty odd too.  However!  I think I made my point by it.  Please enjoy!

This is great. xD

Gil Kane himself would probably have to agree that the picture would look better if the poses were swapped. This is extremely clever, and would probably work on a lot of different comics.

The original picture is the cover of Green Lantern 41, from December 1965. One of the weird things about current comics is that a lot of the industry still uses tropes that were common fifty years ago but seem to be jaw-droppingly anachronistic now. Kane was about as good as it got for artists at DC in the sixties, but he grew up in a world where it was pretty normal to draw men and women in different poses even when they were doing the exact same thing, so drawing Star Sapphire in an attacking (masculine) pose or Green Lantern in a fleeing (feminine) one didn’t come easily, and when he drew this cover it didn’t come out as well as it might have.

Comic book companies today are staffed with people who grew up with the idea of sexual equality, but the artists still adhere to the idea that the way Gil Kane, Jack Kirby, Carmine Infantino and John Romita did things was Forever and For All Time The Only Way of Doing Things, so anything they didn’t do particularly well is something that probably ought not to be done well.

Consequently when you see a fifty-year old example of “boobs and butt” posing, instead of rolling your eyes and laughing about how much things have changed in the time since this comic came out, you end up cringing at the thought of how many comics come out these days with the exact same problems cropping up a lot more frequently - in spite of the fact that the artists today are better paid and spend a lot more time working on them.

Filed under comics escher girls green lantern art women star sapphire gil kane

7 notes

"A Christmas For Shacktown", from Walt Disney’s Four Color Comics issue 367, January 1952. Reprinted many times.
"A Christmas For Shacktown" was one of my favourite Barks stories as a kid, and is still one of my favourite Christmas stories of all time.
Donald, Daisy and the kids decide to throw a Christmas party for the poorer kids in Duckburg and are forced to deal with Scrooge McDuck to raise the money. Scrooge, unfortunately, is in one of his stingier moods, and Donald has to resort to desperate measures to get him to part with some cash.
Disney should probably have adapted this story for a cartoon or a TV special. As a cartoon it would easily rival the likes of How the Grinch Stole Christmas and A Charlie Brown Christmas. With fewer people reading comics than there used to be, it remains relatively unknown and wildly under-rated.

"A Christmas For Shacktown", from Walt Disney’s Four Color Comics issue 367, January 1952. Reprinted many times.

"A Christmas For Shacktown" was one of my favourite Barks stories as a kid, and is still one of my favourite Christmas stories of all time.

Donald, Daisy and the kids decide to throw a Christmas party for the poorer kids in Duckburg and are forced to deal with Scrooge McDuck to raise the money. Scrooge, unfortunately, is in one of his stingier moods, and Donald has to resort to desperate measures to get him to part with some cash.

Disney should probably have adapted this story for a cartoon or a TV special. As a cartoon it would easily rival the likes of How the Grinch Stole Christmas and A Charlie Brown Christmas. With fewer people reading comics than there used to be, it remains relatively unknown and wildly under-rated.

Filed under Carl Barks donald duck holidays comics