question for AAC users, would it be disrespectful to roughly translate/finalize you guys’ text posts so other people can understand it more easily, or is that okay for someone to do
Architecture is one of those fields that’s perpetually on the border of “You’re all full of shit” to me. This is an NYC office building that was built in 1977:
Apparently that little circular doohickey up top was, at the time, a revolutionary departure from modern design principles and had every prominent architect at the time absolutely furious for that reason. 46 years on and it’s seen as an architectural treasure that made the NYC Landmark list.
It’s. A circle. Literally just a circle. I don’t get it.
I can explain this, but you have to start with the understanding that this entire thing is a gigantic in-joke of a piss take. This is going to be long.
First, you need to understand about ornamentation. Ornamentation is anything in a building that is basically a slightly superfluous detail.
In this colonial revival house (which is supremely balanced and has very clean lines), you can notice how the bottom windows have these clean ornamentations at the top, the way the columns fan out into a small design; the way the dormer windows have their own different style of decor complete with arch and keystone! That’s the ornamentation, it’s the small touches of structural decor. The majority of the time, they were there because they were needed to support something, to give additional support
Modernism changes that. The arrival of concrete and steel on architecture means you can explore structures that were never possible before, ways of getting light into a room that were never possible before, shapes that were never possible before; it basically heralds a new era entirely. For instance, Louis Sullivan’s National Farmer’s Bank of Owatonna, though a late entry into modernism (1908!):
Look how none of the voids (windows and doors!) have any sort of ornamentation. There is some ornamentation around the corners, sure, and while the ornaments themselves are very baroque and refined, there’s also a textural element on the tiling itself being patterned. But that’s very up-close detailing, or very far away detailing. You end up with a mix of the shape and texture being where detailing is explored, less so the ornamentation of before. Importantly, none of that ornamentation is, in any way, shape, or form, anything that is fundamentally structural. It’s become nearly superfluous.
And this keeps developing and developing and you arrive at things like skyscrapers. Sullivan may have been the father of the skyscraper, but I can think of no better follower than the trio of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, who are most notable for the Empire State Building, but 500 5th Avenue may be the most direct example of what I’m talking about:
This modern-day ziggurat is almost all shape - the mullions (those vertical lines dividing windows) are largely decorative, and the ornamentation is very minimal and only serves to bring forward the shapes - notice how they only exist in what’s essentially the ceiling of each floor!
So we’ve established that ornamentation is steadily going away and no longer en vogue because architects are exploring the limits of shape itself, and they’re exploring unusual textures. But fast forward some 50 years, and this has become the singular architectural style that even exists. And a trio (Denise Scott Brown, Robert Venturi, and Steven Izenour) go to Las Vegas on a trip and come back with post-modernism. The idea is that buildings are either decorated sheds (ornamented houses) or ducks (buildings where the shape itself is the draw). The duck is a bit of joke to Americana - they passed by a duck building where the entire point was that it was a duck. There’s a disagreement, but even among the detractors, you’re going to see a more humorous take on Modernism. They’re going to make buildings that resemble other aspects of buildings, or other buildings, or whatever. It’s extremely in-jokey. It’s amazing.
Venturi and Scott Brown’s first major work is the Guild House, which is an apartment for the elderly. See if you can spot the joke:
Did you get it? The entire 5-story building is topped off with a colossal arch, treating the balconies like a void that you have to add an ornament on top. It’s a call back to the windows that we saw on the colonial house! This is a joke for a specific audience, but goddamn it’s really funny.
So the post-modernists are basically gonna set up jokes with architectural elements and play with aspects of it. It’s architecture for architecture nerds. It’s so obviously trying to be clever, and I love it.
Which brings us back to 550 Madison Avenue, by Johnson and Burgee, at the top of this post. The circle isn’t just the circle. It’s the entire slope and circle. The thing crowning the building. And you’ve seen it above doorframes and windows in a number of places.
The thing atop this dormer is called a pediment. It’s that mini roof. In this case we have a standard apex (the top) and a broken base (the bottom). This means that the top is connected and doesn’t recede to let in any ornamentation, but the bottom is broken up into two parts to let in the ornamentation.
On top of this door, you have a pediment broken on the apex. It’s filled in by that egg-like thing.
But what if you put a gigantic broken pediment one with no ornament on top of a building?
And there we have it. 550 Madison, a gigantic, supremely large scale shitpost, brought to you by technological advancements in construction and shifting design philosophies. “This skyscraper is structured like a window” is a really funny gag to pull if you’re the kind of person who actively has the same degree of architecture nerdery that I do. And architecture is one of the most common forms of art that you can observe and pull apart on your daily life.
Architecture is one of those things where because its so aggressively public, communal, and (seemingly) long lasting, its design should be equally so. But it turns out architects are just a bunch of little guys doing their weird hobby shit like everyone else, with back-and-forth fuck you’s to match. And that’s beautiful, it should never change.
Steph: Hey Bruce, no hard feelings, okay? But if I ever kill you just know that it’s because I really, really don’t want to marry you.
Bruce: *is trying to unpack that statement*
This is gold. Steph’s roommate is probably thinking Steph is gonna be Gotham’s next big rogue or something
Steph’s roommate: If you became a villain what would your villain name be? Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Steph:
Steph: *pulls up an entire folder of options Jason helped her make once when she was really annoyed with Bruce*
Steph: Okay, so this one…
Steph’s roommate: Just remember me fondly is all I ask.
Jason helped?…
New Idea: Whenever Bruce pisses off one of the BatKids a new “Hood” appears with a different color scheme to terrorize criminals in a non-Batman approved manner. Steph has now become the Purple Hood.
I mean, you snooze you lose…
Dick is obviously the blue hood. Kane called dibs on the orange hood. Barbara claims indigo. Oh, Tim might think that sense Cass is the black hood he can be the white one? Nope. That’s Alfred. It’s actually just a small pin Jason gave him that Alfred wears when he’s particularly fed up with Bruce, but it still counts! Plus, do you really wanna try getting out Gotham stains from a white uniform. Yikes.
And together they are the Rainbow Hoods! Which is funny until you realize that they are just pissed off Bat’s who are working with the Red Hood… then it gets scary. For the criminals, at least. The goonunion has set up a rainbow alert for when there is a certain number or more of hoods out at night. It’s like a weather alert in the way ot warns them to just stay home that night.
I love the idea that’s there’s nothing as terrifying for the gotham criminal population than a bat that has eschewed parental supervision
So basically they’re power rangers now
I’d like to think that all the other hoods are just basic color outfits right, but Tim? No he’s gonna outshine them all with his pink power ranger suit. He’s going all out but he’s also gonna be the most stylish.
Ngl it makes everyone else try to step up their game without making it obvious they’re jealous of the pink hoods outfit.
Tim would rock the pink like Sharpay, princess Peach, this dude is glamorous and everyone knows it.
Crime happening? You better hope the pink one doesn’t show up
The rainbow codes are used not only to refer to which hoods are out, they gradiate in terms of severity
So you get “light” if there’s one new Hood, “mid” and their colours mixed for two, “dark” for three etc
Unless Pink Hood shows up
There is no modifier for Code Pink
The fucking JOKER will go home if there’s a call that the Pink Hood is out, Code Pink is “go home or die”
My only issue with this is the implication that Tim, our Canon unhinged bisexual, would be upset at being made the Pink Hood.
I think it’d be more fun if Tim was the first Other Hood and claimed Pink from the beginning. He choose that. It’s his and you couldn’t pry it from his cold dead hands.
Besides, of all the Bats (not Jason), Tim would absolutely be the first to have a villain arc. Batman takes Tim’s coffee/tells him to go to bed and suddenly Pink Hood is prowling the streets. Man’s only moral code is ‘Don’t be Gun Batman’.
Also, very important question here, what shade of pink are we talking? We talking Hot Pink, Baby Pink, Bi Pride Pink?
So getting blood stains out of pink sucks cuz I have had soooo many more fading problems on pink, even with cold water (which is how you get blood stains out)
So the answer is he starts Hot Pink, becomes Bi Pride Pink, and lordy help the goons if he’s gotten to Baby Pink because it means he has been SWIMMING in blood
Pink Hood is also one sneaky son of a bitch and it baffles. Everyone.
Tim’s out here in neon fucking colors, not seemingly trying to hide but it’ll be a cold day in hell before he doesn’t get the drop on someone.
He’s essentially one of those asshole cop cars that hides under the bridge with a speed trap and you don’t know they’re there untill you’re fucked.
No one is safe. (Except Cass)
Batman is a little unsettled at this clear show of talent, and frustrated that Tim refuses to use it as Red Robin.
Tim claims it’s 'Revenge Fuelled’ and 'Can Only Be Brought Out In Times Of Great Need’.
Jason calls bullshit, but won’t be caught dead (again) admitting that to Bruce. It’s a Gaslight, Gatekeep, Girlboss world after all, and Jason’s fucking THRIVING on Tim’s Villan Era.
I also think it would be funny if they just absolutely refuse to acknowledge these identities to Bruce.
Bruce: Tim you BLEW UP Scarecrow’s lab!
Tim: Pink Hood did that.
Bruce: That’s YOU
Tim: Conjecture.
Bruce: Tim, you got mad at me because I said you couldn’t blow up the lab, then you disappeared and immediately after Pink Hood shows up with a bow staff, breaks a bunch of limbs, and then blows up the lab.
Tim: Circumstantial evidence at best.
Bruce: Your suit is literally hanging out of your bag right now!
Tim: I cosplay.
Anonymous
Anonymous asked:
Also about 'when is middle age' - people stay 'younger' longer nowadays. An "abled" person in their sixties nowadays is generally expected to be almost as mobile as a 30 year old, without signs of cognitive decline, and if they are showing signs of frailty that's cause for concern. Back when that person was born, in the 1950s or 60s, it was considered just part of being that age. A combination of public health improvements and changes in attitude (like, it's seen that age-related illness and disability can be treated, eased and slowed more now than it was in the past) have made it so people don't get 'old' until their 70s or 80s now.
Like, if you want a concrete example, compare William Hartnell's (First, 1963-66) and Peter Capaldi's (Twelfth, 2014-17) performance as the Doctor. William Hartnell is clearly an old man, whereas Peter Capaldi is a middle-aged one - and quite a zippy one. Both men where 55 years old when they started playing the Doctor.
I've seen you posting detailed information about the WGA strike and wondered if you had any suggestions as to how those of us not directly involved can show our support for the Union?
Okay, bearing in mind that all this is entirely subjective at the moment (and so far lacking any more useful input from other sources): a few thoughts.
This will be my third WGA strike. (My first one was in 1988, just after I’d made my first live action sale—s1e6 of ST:TNG). And the thought keeps occurring to me at the moment that this time out, there’s a potentially gamechanging player on the field that wasn’t there before: truly pervasive social media.
Reblogging because the most common questions I’m getting in Asks right now are all about how to support the Writers Strike. Diane’s suggestions all seem very practical to me.
…Ah well. Might as well give this a wash and a tumble. Needs must when AMPTP* drives… :/
Tl:dr; We asked for 2¢ on the streaming dollar. …They said “Nope, can’t afford it.” …As we say in New York: “…Yeah, no.”
Time to take a stand. Not just for ourselves, but also for the writers who’ll come after us… and who, unless we draw a line in the sand here, will never make enough to establish even middle-income careers.
*The people who, when we proposed that we should have a guarantee of a paid second-draft rewrite on scripts instead of the too-routine demand for multiple “free tweaks”, refused to even consider it… but suggested they were willing to do a meeting to educate execs on why screenwriters don’t want to work for free. (...DUH.)
For more details about what we asked for, and the producers’ (non-)responses, see below.