Daisy Do Does Blogging

By the way, you can improve your executive function. You can literally build it like a muscle.

Yes, even if you're neurodivergent. I don't have ADHD, but it is allegedly a thing with ADHD as well. And I am autistic, and after a bunch of nerve damage (severe enough that I was basically housebound for 6 months), I had to completely rebuild my ability to get my brain to Do Things from what felt like nearly scratch.

This is specifically from ADDitude magazine, so written specifically for ADHD (and while focused in large part on kids, also definitely includes adults and adult activities):

Here's a link on this for autism (though as an editor wow did that title need an editor lol):

Resources on this aren't great because they're mainly aimed at neurotypical therapists or parents of neurdivergent children. There's worksheets you can do that help a lot too or thought work you can do to sort of build the neuro-infrastructure for tasks.

But a lot of the stuff is just like. fun. Pulling from both the first article and my own experience:

Things can be easier. You might always have a disability around this (I certainly always will), but it can be easier. You do not have to be this stuck forever.

Having read these articles, I don't see how they apply to me.

My issue appears to be that I have a finite amount of 'energy' to spend, and when it runs out, I start using the reservoir I use to remain friendly, spontaneous, positive and interested.

This energy depletes faster when trying to understand complex topics, perform reflex-heavy activities, or solve puzzles.

I may be misreading these, but I don't see how this applies? Or is it as simple as "when you build skill in various disciplines, they cost less energy"?

That's how it works yeah! There's a handful of factors at play. Developing skills develops neurplasticity. Essentially: The way that your brain can rewire it'self to perform multiple tasks and learn new ones more easily. This is important because it means that not only are you able to learn more things faster, you're able to perform more tasks during a day with less cognitive strain. As well, when you're doing things that you're enjoying doing, it actually replenishes your reserves of energy. And when you get better at doing those things it takes less and less energy to perform them, so you're actually making huge net gains when you have more things to do. I have recently begun excersising, regularly cleaning my house, and studying on and off, between fufilling my hobbies. I always thought that doing all of those things would take time away from my hobbies, which make me feel much more comfortable to do, but I've actually been more enthusiastic about performing them, and have more energy to do so!

Good to know, thanks. I think I'll get up and do some chores.

That's a good thing! While you're doing chores thing about the ways in which you might be able to make your process in completing them more efficient. Gamify it a little bit, even if just in your head, by trying to beat your personal best on completing chores. If you're not thinking while you're doing it, it can become very monotonous, boring, and it will be less of an excersise for that neuroplasticity. If you develop regular techniques (habits) for your choresing, then they'll become both a breeze, and a less stressful/taxing time!

By the way, you can improve your executive function. You can literally build it like a muscle.

Yes, even if you're neurodivergent. I don't have ADHD, but it is allegedly a thing with ADHD as well. And I am autistic, and after a bunch of nerve damage (severe enough that I was basically housebound for 6 months), I had to completely rebuild my ability to get my brain to Do Things from what felt like nearly scratch.

This is specifically from ADDitude magazine, so written specifically for ADHD (and while focused in large part on kids, also definitely includes adults and adult activities):

Here's a link on this for autism (though as an editor wow did that title need an editor lol):

Resources on this aren't great because they're mainly aimed at neurotypical therapists or parents of neurdivergent children. There's worksheets you can do that help a lot too or thought work you can do to sort of build the neuro-infrastructure for tasks.

But a lot of the stuff is just like. fun. Pulling from both the first article and my own experience:

Things can be easier. You might always have a disability around this (I certainly always will), but it can be easier. You do not have to be this stuck forever.

Having read these articles, I don't see how they apply to me.

My issue appears to be that I have a finite amount of 'energy' to spend, and when it runs out, I start using the reservoir I use to remain friendly, spontaneous, positive and interested.

This energy depletes faster when trying to understand complex topics, perform reflex-heavy activities, or solve puzzles.

I may be misreading these, but I don't see how this applies? Or is it as simple as "when you build skill in various disciplines, they cost less energy"?

That's how it works yeah! There's a handful of factors at play. Developing skills develops neurplasticity. Essentially: The way that your brain can rewire it'self to perform multiple tasks and learn new ones more easily. This is important because it means that not only are you able to learn more things faster, you're able to perform more tasks during a day with less cognitive strain. As well, when you're doing things that you're enjoying doing, it actually replenishes your reserves of energy. And when you get better at doing those things it takes less and less energy to perform them, so you're actually making huge net gains when you have more things to do. I have recently begun excersising, regularly cleaning my house, and studying on and off, between fufilling my hobbies. I always thought that doing all of those things would take time away from my hobbies, which make me feel much more comfortable to do, but I've actually been more enthusiastic about performing them, and have more energy to do so!

me: i dont like gangnam style

you: yeah me nei-

me: PSY-ch!

reblog if you gangnam smiled

I will be honest guys, the Red portrait of king Charles is gorgeous asdfghjkl

it's a bad portrait. Like. Objectively. It does the opposite of what's intended. It looks like the painter is insulting him. If it was in a contemporary gallery with no context you would see it immediately as the ambivalent criticism of Charles's reign, how he fades into the overwhelming red background as a tiny little figure, small and insignificant, insufficient for the clothes he's wearing. It reminds my of Goya's portraits, how they were so 'realistic' that they ended up making these great figures look pathetic to the viewer. So these are our rulers?

the sheer novelty. the surprise and shock, the kinda cunt it's serving for no reason. I. I love it. It's an incredible portrait by Jonathan Yeo. By the sheer fact that Charles, the man, is impossible to portray as greater than man because he's just such a nothingburger of a dude. So a portrait made to make him look huge and interesting made him be swallowed in red brushstrokes. The butterfly, that reminded me immediately of " we will all laugh at guilded butterflies", draws more attention than him. It looks like an omen. It looks like a warning in all this red. Something is not right here.

This is the best royal portrait ever 10/10

This is a painting of a monarch whose individual personality and even bodily presence are a mere footnote within the legacy of bloodshed that built the throne he occupies. This is the only way it's possible to depict him. It's a photograph of his soul

And I think all of that is entirely deliberate!

I think Jonathan Yeo meant this portrait to be absolutely all of those things, he just can't be very vocal about the paintings true meaning. Yet.

I've done this on another post, but let's compare that portrait up there to some other portraits Yeo's done.

Here's actor and activist Idris Elba, whom colleagues have described as warm and friendly, open-hearted, with an emotional intelligence that makes him capable of being very honest and vulnerable with the character he's playing:

Here's Jony Ive - who founded Apple with Steve Jobs and was chief design officer responsible for some of the more popular artistic choices, who recently left the company because the culture had gotten so toxic and shitty. He now works more in private design, so he has more artistic freedom and he can be less in the public eye:

Yeo's even previously painted British heads of state. Here's the phenomenal Baroness Doreen Lawrence of the labour party, a Jamaican immigrant who turned the tragic murder of her son into a lifelong campaign of quietly and steadily dismantling systemic racism:

To me, all these portraits are deeply personal, conveying the sitter's character with empathy and quiet dignity.

Elba is leaning forward in an intimate friendly gesture. He makes eye contact with the viewer but his face is turned slightly to the side, inviting but not confrontational, his brows slightly drawn together thoughtfully. His hands are natural and relaxed. He's shirtless - not to be a beefcake thirst trap (okay maybe just a tiny little bit), but to convey how emotionally naked he's willing to be.

Ives is literally putting a lens between himself and the viewer - we have to look closer to see his face, but when we do we see his eyes crinkled with a hint of good humor. The perspectives are all distorted, but the main thing we see is the hands that have physically built so much of the technology we use. And even outside the phone screen he's still enased by a circular frame within a frame, indicating yet another layer of separation between the subject and the viewer.

Lawrence is radiant, proudly upright and implacable as a mountain, her head held high and her hands folded before her with a self-contained air of calm determination. And even though the background is a chaotic sea of looming shapes and quick brush strokes, her eyes keep us grounded, even pinned in place. We're the viewer, but she is studying us.

And then, on the other end of the personality spectrum, here's noted asshole Damien Hirst, who frequently makes the news for being racist and sexist and just generally a really slimy piece of shit. His most famous works are the animal carcasses suspended in resin-

-yeah, that. That guy. He's made all the money in the goddamn world three times over for pieces like that, and he still seems like he's on a personal mission to make everyone around him as miserable as possible.

Here's Yeo's portrait of him, seated on a leather throne, dick bulge at eye level, contained in one of his own tanks:

Here's the droopy and melancholic portrait of the famously pompous and insufferable John Cooper Clarke, self-described "original punk poet", who was recently booed off stage for making super transphobic remarks, and whose most famous quote is "I read Kerouac at 12 and decided I could do better":

And, most notably for the argument I'm making here, here's D-Day veteran Sgt Geoffrey Pattinson, and see if you can spot the extremely subtle use of color theory here:

My conclusion: Jonathan Yeo paints very good portraits, and sometimes his subjects are very bad people.

And I think he brings absolutely all of his artistic talent to the Charles portrait.

@chromegnomes is absolutely right; it is the only possible way to depict him. It is a photograph of his soul.

And that's precisely why it's so ugly and uncomfortable to look at.

People have said that Charles has a "complicated legacy", which is what people say when someone has an objectively horrible legacy that they are still personally benefiting from. But the people who still tolerate his extravagant gilded existence to "honor historical tradition" will find absolutely nothing to like in this portrait. All the gold and brass and pomp of his uniform, all the military accolades for his colonial warmongering, all the fabulous ostentatious wealth he was born into and has spent every second of his life surrounded by - which would have been rendered with glittering precision and care in a traditional royal portrait - they're all dingy and washed out and already fading. The medals aren't even clearly marked enough to really know what they are; it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The butterfly that was included as a nod to his honestly extensive conservation work (because let's give the little bit of credit where credit is actually due) stands out as the one bright point of beauty and authenticity - but it's dwarfed by the only other visible object, the sword, and it's being swallowed up by that lurid, putrid background that seems to seep out of Charles' uniform. The dark tips of its wings are the most high-contrast part of the painting except for Charles' black hollow eyes that stare into nothing. And, most significantly in my opinion, the butterfly isn't actually touching him, or connected to him in any way. It just exists alongside him, but it doesn't need him.

His face is painted in such a way to detail absolutely every wrinkle without ever being able to completely cover up the blood red background, and below the sunken shark-like eyes, the artist has included that vapidly pleasant plastered-on smile with nothing behind it that is practically the royal uniform by now. I think the angle is also deliberately chosen to be unsettling: many portraits are traditionally done either head-on, 3/4 profile, or full profile. Charles is none of these - his head is tilted juuust a few degrees off kilter. It's not quite right. And he's looking off to the side very slightly; his thousand-yard-stare is kind of drifting over the viewers shoulder. He can't look us in the eye.

And there is no way, there is absolutely no possible way that an artist who is smart enough and skilled enough to imbue all his other portraits with so much meaning and symbolism and indicators of the subject's character - there's no way that's not intentional.

But... Yeo lives in London. He's still working on other royal and aristocratic portraits. He still has to live in that society, and he still has to get paid.

So of course he has to toe the line, at least until Charles dies, and say that the vivid blood-soaked red is to symbolize the """vibrancy""" of this terminally ill octogenarian, to bring a """modern contemporary feel""" to this 19th century colonizer.

Yeo knows exactly what he's doing.

Here's an excerpt about it from Smithsonian magazine:

Listen, I work in memory care and end-of-life care, and we only say someone "seems to be smiling approvingly" to comfort the family when someone is so far gone they clearly don't know where they are anymore. His ex-wife Camilla, who probably has more good reasons to hate him than any other single human being alive, looked at this haunting vision of hell and was like YES PERFECT.

This is all completely intentional. We are all picking up on exactly the message the artist was trying to convey. Yeo is trying to tell us, loud and clear, that something is not right here. It is absolutely an omen.

Op is right; it is insulting him. And it is supposed to make us look at this pathetic villain, who is currently toddling through the final days of his unfairly long and lavishly useless life, and think "these are our rulers?"

It's fairly consistently reported that one of the few things King Prince Charles is actually GOOD at is art. He has a degree in it. I really think that some of this IS what he wanted?

Like, the whole "swallowed by his family's legacy" thing probably is something he authentically feels? And the age on him, he took on the job he'd been prepared for since birth at SEVENTY FOUR years old. He IS old, and tired, and has a family legacy it's impossible for him to match.

The whole "drowning in blood" thing not, so much, that's probably supposed to be royal velvets or something in his mind. But the rest of it, I think he does want to be saying.

Holy shit that would change everything

I had no idea Charles had an art degree - I'm a clueless American, more on that in a minute - but if any of the things I'm reading in this painting are things that Charles himself approved of, that is goddamn brilliant. I have read that the guy seems at least moderately aware of how thoroughly ridiculous his whole deal is, but is it possible he actually had enough self-awareness to suggest some of these themes, or even just noticed them when he saw the painting?

Because that would add yet another layer to the art analysis here. You said it adds a whole new layer to the complexity of his complicity, and I totally agree. I still personally think that the artist's intention with all the red was to suggest blood and he's only currently saying it's about "modern vibrancy" for political reasons. I wouldn't think that any member of the royal family is that up front about the damage their royal legacy has done globally, but it seems I admittedly don't know fuck squat about the British royal family, because

I've gotta make a correction to my last post: Camilla's his wife, not his ex-wife.

I fucked that one up real good!

I woke up this morning to about a dozen notes from various people pointing out that uh, no, maybe you're thinking of Diana, Charles and Camilla are still very much married.

I was thinking of Diana! I thought he divorced Camilla but didn't marry Diana and then she died. Which is all kinds of ass-backwards wrong.

Quick cheers to all the people who pointed this out: @nohrg @cootloos @inkstars1138 @lottie-starling @audiothoughtsandmisc @ratherembarrassing @invisible-goats @tofiam @inexpressiblybeautiful @aristoteliancomplacency @numbuh-7-knd

And I want to especially thank audiothoughtsandmisc inexpressiblybeautiful and numbuh-7-knd for being especially kind and gracious about it. Thank you for correcting me everybody, and I mean that very sincerely. Should I add a correction to the og post? But it won't show up and reblogs though, will it? What's the best Tumblr etiquette here?

Oh, also, yeah I could tell it was a monarch butterfly, which aren't native to the UK - they're native to where I live here in California, but maybe they were chosen because for a while they were an endangered species. (They were recently upgraded from endangered to vulnerable.) Or maybe it's just it's a MONARCH butterfly get it do you get it, but I doubt it, since everything else seems deliberate and carefully chosen.

Man am I kicking myself. I went and looked up some of John Cooper Clark's dour shitty poetry for this, but I didn't bother to check whether the king was still married?? I have brought shame and dishonor to my family this day.

OP I know that hindsight is 20/20 but I really would have put more rigour into this. Here's an interview of Yeo stating that two other factors were involved than 'only' that it's invoking modern vibrancy. One being that King Charles coat was a visually distracting colour, and the other that it may have been psychologically impacted by a heart attack that he suffered before finishing and colouring it. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/king-charles-royal-painting-portrait-b2547484.html

Swing Swing Submarine, a game developer based in France, tried pitching a new Klonoa game to Bandai Namco around last year to see if they were interested in rebooting the series. Apparently, no response came of it though. The artists behind the concept art, Florent Mounier and Mathieu Sancho, posted their pieces to their online portfolios which you can check out here.

The link to the portfolio containing the artwork has gone down, so here is all of the artwork:

Oh, uhh, that's okay <:3... These look... really bad... ;w;

guy is trying to make some more merch ideas for this year's cons...or at least to sell online lol we'll see

im going to start compiling all the shitty booktok videos i find except theyre on reels bc i suck

this is how i learned the alphabet

Mr. Wayne Radiotv please look at the first video I saw on this website I promise it will change your life for the better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrkVXDs0CD8&ab_channel=NovagirlTributeVids

Talking about world building with friends, and it sounds like I have to play New Vegas, but I have a question: When you beat it does Todd Howard personally mail you your socks, or do you get, like, a victory screen with a certificate that you print out?

Joshua Sawyer sends you a fax of your degree in ASCII.

All these years I’ve been living a lie. Equilibrium is shit.

I had the exact opposite and same exact experience re-watching this movie again recently too. It’s like they had two completely ideas for a movie and couldn’t marry either of the two so you just get a really goofy mashup of either one with a very lackluster final fight. That said I watched it with my GF and had a blast and when the action is good it’s pretty alright for a western flick.

I also learned today that there’s…fisherman nerdcore? Or something?

I will pay you eighty real life dollars to purchase that fucking D&D shirt and ship it to my home on venus.

I’m so mad because this worked

help me roger

Reblogging myself because

Originally posted by gifs-for-the-masses

Reblogging myself because… what was that? Five minutes?

O_O

………my friend has made me curious

help me roger

Update: after I reblogged this someone messaged me offering me tickets to the sold out Hausu screening with a Q&A and autograph session with the director

These never work for me, but here’s to trying.

Eh Roger is cute I might as well

That fish is so happy it makes me happy.

Cute fish and hey, I could do with something good

I’m 36 years old and I still don’t understand asexuality. Not in an incredulous, “I can’t BELIEVE this person is asexual” way but in a “I literally don’t know much about it” way.

Like, I see plenty of asexual people on Tumblr posting women in thongs, big ol’ titties…all the good shit. And my head is all, “Wait…aren’t you meant to not like that stuff?” But I don’t really know. 

I did a bit of Googling and it seems this well’s a deep one.

Those sound like porn blogs pretending to be aces.

Some of them honestly seem legit. They’re casual blogs, posting all kinds of shit but then, every so often, they’ll post a fat ass.

Then I look at their Tumblr bio and it’s all “Asexual for life!” But you might be right. It’s weird.

Sexual desire is different from aesthetic attraction. Plenty of asexuals appreciate the human body, and even love it, but do view those assets as being sexual naturally. Asexuals may also have sexual desires for a persons body, but not desire to actually have sex with them, or more specifically penetrative sex. Many asexuals feel pleasure and enjoy having sexual encounters, but do not actively seek sex, or do not feel regular compulsive sexual desires. Most of this is fit under the umbrella of Grey Asexuality which defines a more gradient attraction to sex and sexual feelings, still leaning towards non-sexuality in most cases. Demisexual is the more specific term used for a person who does not experience sexual desire until the development of a serious romantic relationship, or strong emotional attraction towards an individual. Some asexuals are still sex repulsed, or have minimal sexual feelings or desires to speak of, which is commonly how uninformed persons see all of asexuality in general. There’s all sorts of different models as well as interpretations of what romance and attraction are and how they relate to sexual desire, and a lot of deeply philosophical and scientific stuff that I’m not at all qualified to talk about. The general gist of this all is that asexuality, much like any other sexuality is not defined solely by a binary and everything exists on a pallet of various interesting flavors.

Commission for @daisydage

——————————————————

COMMISSION INFO

PATREON

This isn’t an achievement. Stop doing this to workers.

SMH, like, if you’re stretching your employees work hours as far as possible you’re not going to get the best product out of it either? Like overworking means bad decisions, bad assets, half-baked stories, and rushed concepts. This isn’t even healthy for the game, much less the fucking developers, holy shit.

This isn’t an achievement. Stop doing this to workers.

They are paid to make a masterpiece. They are not a slave workers. If any of them want to quit their jobs because it is to extraneous on them and they can quit. This is an achievement because they are making not just a game but a work of art. Like damn.

Yeah guys, just quit your paying job that you’ve worked tirelessly to achieve, it’s that easy to conquer abusive work practices. ??????