posted 9 hours ago with 212 notes , via , source - reblog
Credit

avett-druthers:

Material Possesion (by Lissy Elle Laricchia)

posted 9 hours ago with 94 notes , via - reblog
Credit

ethanwearsprada:

i think it’s a universal truth that everyone in our generation takes pluto’s losing its planetary status as a personal offense

posted 10 hours ago with 162,062 notes , via , source - reblog
Credit
posted 16 hours ago with 4,152 notes , via , source - reblog
Credit

chlekthemonkey:

Roe Deer (by Alain Balthazard)

posted 21 hours ago with 276 notes , via , source - reblog
Credit

There has always been violence in art. There is violence in the Bible, violence in Homer, violence in Shakespeare, and many psychiatrists believe that it serves as a catharsis rather than a model. I think the question of whether there has been an increase in screen violence and, if so, what effect this has had, is to a very great extent a media-defined issue. I know there are well-intentioned people who sincerely believe that films and TV contribute to violence, but almost all of the official studies of this question have concluded that there is no evidence to support this view. At the same time, I think the media tend to exploit the issue because it allows them to display and discuss the so-called harmful things from a lofty position of moral superiority.

But the people who commit violent crime are not ordinary people who are transformed into vicious thugs by the wrong diet of films or TV. Rather, it is a fact that violent crime is invariably committed by people with a long record of anti-social behaviour, or by the unexpected blossoming of a psychopath who is described afterward as having been ‘…such a nice, quiet boy,’ but whose entire life, it is later realized, has been leading him inexorably to the terrible moment, and who would have found the final ostensible reason for his action if not in one thing then in another. In both instances immensely complicated social, economic and psychological forces are involved in the individual’s criminal behaviour.

The simplistic notion that films and TV can transform an otherwise innocent and good person into a criminal has strong overtones of the Salem witch trials. This notion is further encouraged by the criminals and their lawyers who hope for mitigation through this excuse. I am also surprised at the extremely illogical distinction that is so often drawn between harmful violence and the so-called harmless violence of, say, “Tom and Jerry” cartoons or James Bond movies, where often sadistic violence is presented as unadulterated fun. I hasten to say, I don’t think that they contribute to violence either. Films and TV are also convenient whipping boys for politicians because they allow them to look away from the social and economic causes of crime, about which they are either unwilling or unable to do anything.

Stanley Kubrick speaks on violence in films in an interview with Michel Ciment (via craigdaniels)

posted 1 day ago with 442 notes , via , source - reblog
✎ #quote
Credit

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

posted 1 day ago with 1,757 notes , via , source - reblog
Credit

1000drawings:

Sigrid Rødli

posted 1 day ago with 649 notes , via , source - reblog
✎ #art
Credit

I have scars on my hands from touching certain people. —J. D. Salinger  (via fleurstains)

posted 1 day ago with 8,566 notes , via , source - reblog
✎ #quote
Credit
posted 1 day ago with 751 notes , via , source - reblog
Credit