Dumb Bullshit

switch 2 size comparison

i started playing some Abiotic Factor with @vincentvarlotto and since we're a couple lads havin a banter we're making jokes and he will reference something i do no get. and i go "what? i dont get it." and he goes "you don't know blorbus?? The Youtuber that meeks a smee?" and i just feel like my bogos are binted every time. im 30 or 40 years old i dont know these people

these ppl have been around for decades! you just go outside too much!

My man

For anyone wondering, Blockhead and conehead are terms used to describe the skull shape of golden retrievers. This baby is a blockhead but to anyone unfamiliar, it sounds like the reddit op is asking if this puppy is going to be an idiot.

Goldens have two main head types, Block and Cone (sometimes called slender but I digress). Blockheads have the big blocky heads and coneheads are more pointy. Two examples below.

As far as I'm aware, its just an aesthetic thing and has no impact on their health.

TLDR: your mama so blockhead she minecraft steve

Tweet

What the fuck

This is absolutely fascinating. I've now been looking at Alex Colville's paintings and trying to work out what it is about them that makes them look like CGI and how/why he did that in a world where CGI didn't exist yet. Here's what I've got so far:

- Total lack of atmospheric perspective (things don't fade into the distance)

- Very realistic shading but no or only very faint shadows cast by ambient light.

- Limited interaction between objects and environment (shadows, ripples etc)

- Flat textures and consistent lighting used for backgrounds that would usually show a lot of variation in lighting, colour and texture

- Bodies apparently modelled piece by piece rather than drawn from life, and in a very stiff way so that the bodies show the pose but don't communicate the body language that would usually go with it. They look like dolls.

- Odd composition that cuts off parts that would usually be considered important (like the person's head in the snowy driving scene)

- Very precise drawing of structures and perspective combined with all the simplistic elements I've already listed. In other words, details in the "wrong" places.

What's fascinating about this is that in early or bad CGI, these things come from the fact that the machine is modelling very precisely the shapes and perspectives and colours, but missing out on some parts that are difficult to render (shadows, atmospheric perspective) and being completely unable to pose bodies in such a way as to convey emotion or body language.

But Colville wasn't a computer, so he did these same things *on purpose*. For some reason he was *aiming* for that precise-but-all-wrong look. I mean, mission accomplished! The question in my mind is, did he do this because he was trying to make the pictures unsettling and alienating, or because in some way, this was how he actually saw the world?

omf i never thought i'd find posts about alex colville on tumblr, but! he's a local artist where i'm from & i work at a library/archives and have processed a lot of documents related to his art. just wanted to give my two cents!

my impression is that colville did see the world as an unsettling place and a lot of his work was fueled by this general ~malaise?? but in a lot of cases, he was trying to express particular fears or traumas. for instance, this painting (horse and train) was apparently inspired by a really tragic experience his wife had:

iirc she was in a horrible automobile crash, as the car she was in collided with a train. i find it genuinely horrifying to look at, knowing the context, but a lot of colville's work is like that? idk he just seems to capture the feeling you get in nightmares where everything is treacle-ish and slow and inevitable.

reblog to pet his bald head

this picture is so beautiful to me, the colours brothers

A seldom-discussed synapsid evolutionary trend is becoming a potato

give this man his own conspectus. i want a bald bitch glintstone crown