John Mccain is in baseball jail.
a couple of tumblr functions if you didn’t know about them:
- you can make tags on an individual blog display from the earliest to latest post by adding /chrono to the end, for example: http://gameofgifs.tumblr.com/tagged/season_202/chrono
- you can search through a tumblog by date…
THIS IS SO CUTE OH MY GOSH IT’S SO HAPPY AND THERE ARE SO MANY BALLS TO CHOOSE FROM AND THEN IN THE END IT’S JUST SO OVERWHELMED WITH HAPPINESS IT HAS TO LEAVE
i dont have to say it we’re all thinking the same thing
|me:||haha hey guys do u dare me to eat this whole thing of ice cream|
|me:||*shaking my head and chuckling* i cant believe you guys are making me do this|
|me:||*eating right out of the thing* this is so wild you guys you're so fucked up for making me do this|
7 billion people, 14 billion buttholes
a slight calculative error was madeanus georg
are you implying there’s a human named anus georg who posesses 7 billion buttholes
that is terrifying
I’ve seen a few fashion posts trying to expand the “Marie Antoinette is not Victorian” rant, but this stuff can get complicated, so here is a semi-comprehensive list so everyone knows exactly when all of these eras were.
Please note that this is very basic and that there are sometimes subcategories (especially in the 17th century, Jacobean, Restoration, etc)
And people wonder WHY I complain about History/Art History periodization. Note how much overlap there is to the above “eras”, and how many exceptions and extensions there are to these categories.
Oh, and by the way…
Because you wouldn’t want to be historically inaccurate.
Reblogging because these are both good imagesetsets, but also to ask - what’s so wrong with overlap and extensions? There’s certainly a lot more that could be explained, and more non-UK terms that are and should be used, but as an admitted basic beginner’s guide, it defines the terms briefly and well. When it comes to fashion, I don’t personally find the broader political terms extremely useful as dress is not defined by reign - but going strictly to dates will never work because people are unfortunately not going to say “I love the dress of the period 1909-1914, it’s so flattering”.
I don’t love the tendency to turn an era label that usually refers to the reign of a specific monarch or dynasty into something broader, but I’d rather see people say that Downton Abbey started in the Edwardian era than the Victorian if I can’t make post-Edwardian a thing
like I should.
Also - and I should have put this in originally - the point of the original sets was to illustrate eras in fashion, not portraiture. It may not be noticeable to viewers who are uninterested in the specifics of fashion history, but each set contains an image from the beginning, middle, and end of the era named.
medievalpoc's additions work very well to illustrate the point of her blog - that historical Europe was not lily-white - but they are not a useful replacement for beggars-opera's originals and not portraits she should have chosen instead, because they are not detailed representations of dress from the beginning, middle, and end of these eras.
The first Tudor portrait appears to be 18th century (maybe? I would have to see the full original, I guess) and the third appears to be from a couple of decades before the period started. The Elizabethan, Stuart, and first and last Georgian images depict costumes that were worn for historical settings or to convey ~*~exoticism~*~. The Regency portraits don’t show any of the characteristics of Regency dress, the Victorian ones only give a good view of one outfit ca. 1880, and one Edwardian portrait has no dress details while the other two cover the same style.
I’m glad medievalpoc was able to use this as a teachable moment and to share these portraits, but the original context keeps this from being a meaningful criticism of beggars-opera's post, and it should not be taken as such.