All I can say is that people be trippin. When I have asked people why they call them that, the usual is “I dunno, I guess they look like pumpkins, that’s just what my family called them, so I do too”.
I suspect that it comes down to nobody really remembering why a bug is called its colloquial name, nor bothering to ask or explain, and after while, the mistake becomes the norm. Kids mislabel stuff a lot, and spread things faster than they do germs. Easy for weird things to slip in.
We didn’t have a single term around here.
Most common was punkin bug, or pumpkin bug for you damn yankees.
But, roly-poly, tomato bug, and pill bug were all in common usage.
What’s interesting to me is that they were also called doodle bugs, despite a completely different bug also being called that. Doodle bug is also used for ant lions around here; indeed, that’s what they’re called almost exclusively.
They were both called that for the same reason, the little doodly tracks they leave in fine sand and soil, though if a punkin bug is on that, they’re going elsewhere because they don’t really like those conditions.
Well, you absolutely have control over splatters once you understand the way they happen. A liquid at a given viscosity moving at a given speed will have predictable, but minutely variable, outcomes.
In other words, every raindrop hits in a predictable way, and the only reason you can’t predict exactly how the resulting splash will look is a lack of ability to make the same predictions on a molecular level. But, if you could see and hold in the human brain, the outcome is absolutely predictable even at that level; we just can’t pull it off without outside assistance.
Look at airbrushing. It’s tightly controlled spatter. You’re using air to make the drops so small that we can predict and control the outcome so that it can be used to give a range of end products. But if you get in really tight to what’s going on, it’s high speed splattering.
I would also disagree that a happy accident can’t have depth visually. But I think you likely misread how I was emphasizing, so it isn’t really useful to say more than that.
However, Judge for yourself if he was bullshiting about his degree of intent in his efforts. It isn’t like there aren’t other interviews and information about what he did, on both technical and analytical levels. Him saying he has intent doesn’t mean he’s speaking truth, nor would it being truth change whether or not one agrees with his intent, or how successful one feels he was in achieving it.
But he at least came up with an explanation of intent, and his movements when working are controlled enough to indicate he at least thought he was working with intent, and isn’t that the same thing as intent on a practical level?
Pollock hits harder in person tbh.
Prints and photos don’t really work; it ends up looking flat and empty. But in person, there’s more “depth” in both a literal and figurative sense. You can see more of the intent put into the methodology.
Mind you, I agree with the idea that he’s over hyped. He wasn’t exactly breaking new ground, and there’s plenty of other artists that explored abstract painting with more satisfying and effective results.
But I don’t think it’s accurate to call it shit either. As much as people love to say it, no a kindergartener couldn’t do it. Even high schoolers have trouble making something that looks similar enough to carry the same visual effect. Some art students at a collegiate level can’t.
Turns out you do have to have some degree of development in your techniques at the very least to get the same results, no matter how much raw talent you have.
Now, don’t ask me if I really like his stuff. I mean, I’m going to say it anyway, but still. My take on his body of work is that he fully explored the “drip” technique way before he quit doing it, and likely could have stopped after the first one because the only real differences between them amount to nothing more than the difference between most hotel and doctors’ office wall hangings. You see one, you’ve seen them all.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt that he got something more than money out of the process. I make bland and basic art myself, and IDGAF about the results as much as the enjoyment of making. Every art student I’ve ever known gets super into the process of creating and that’s a wonderful thing; dissecting what they’re doing as they do it.
But that value isn’t something that carries on beyond the process itself.
Dem tiddies doe
Pfft, my coffee mug has octopoids, I’m rich beyotch
That was fucking brilliant!
Legit, a master class in short story effectiveness.
To be fair, a lot of musicals are kinda shitty because they try to have too much standard acting. If you need more than a brief spoken intro to the next song, you’re fucking things up. There’s exceptions, but very, very few because switching back and forth is just a hard thing for an audience to do, even if they enjoy musicals (and I do).
It isn’t even about empathy imo, it’s about sustaining the flow of a story. Something like Willy Wonka can work because the songs are supposed to be a break in the flow of the story. The oompa loompas serve a specific role, and thus the movie isn’t really a musical.
Something like rent, though, there’s very few breaks between the songs, and they’re structured well enough that most people aren’t jarred out of the immersion. But most isn’t all, and it really doesn’t mean anything if musicals don’t work for you; it isn’t some kind of flaw.
And thus the eldritch horror that is existence pulled yet another drip of unnoticed life into its gravity
Every time I go to my kid’s school, I am amazed at the difference between my day and now.
That time I went, there were kids just in pajamas and slippers. Not just one or two, dozens, and it wasn’t some special day.
Then there’s the dressier kids in lounge pants and whatever giant tshirt they pulled out of a drawer (or laundry basket) that were obviously their version of pajamas. Shit, one girl had very obviously rolled out of bed, thrown some leggings under her nightgown, slipped into crocs and jumped on the bus.
It’s pretty cool tbh. Just no fucks given for meaningless frippery unless the individual kid/family wants it. Most of the kids were relaxed, nobody giving them shit for the way they’re dressed, staff not even noticing at all. That’s the way it should be imo. Whatever gets the kids in their seats and keeps everyone relatively engaged.
Yeah, there were still plenty of jeans and t-shirt sorts, a few of the button up shirt variants, and a handful of clothes hounds. But nobody was giving anyone shit about the clothes. From what my kid says, that wasn’t just the case for the hour or so i was there that day.
We insist on clothes that are weather appropriate and acceptable for an emergency, but beyond that after seeing the norms there, we stopped giving a fuck.
Is this targeted harassment?
It feels like I’m being targeted here.
Pew pew
Don’t forget the Tick and that one BPRD agent in the Hellboy movie
Break the shaft in half, now you have two spears.
Only one problem with this.
A spear is superior to a gladius any day. I will fight on that hill. And win, because I have a spear, obviously.
Ikr?
I’d be impressed as hell, and at least salute them as I died from my severed arm bleeding me out
Are we talking about the iris again?
Ahhh, 30-06, god’s own rifle calibre.
Dude. Whatever.
Ikr?
Though you gotta be careful. Anything that hard can damage the colon.