Rotundlr

View Separately

Previous Next

takeitbacktobeauty:

thatgirlannabagelhead:

therotund:

kinkyturtle:

howtobeterrell:

dominiquetheuniquefreak:

secret4reason:

UMF Being bad looks really good right now

they don’t look half bad but um… Scar was a black lion, just sayin’

ursela was thicker than that

Here’s Ursula’s reaction to that thin imposter:

And yeah, I seem to remember Scar being a lion in Africa—idk how that translates to “a white European guy”

I don’t know how “lion in Africa” translates into ELF. He looks like an illustration in a table-top role-playing game sourcebook from White Wolf.

Which, I mean, that’s cool and all but I feel like there are some severe missed opportunities here. I mean, Jafar is looking pretty pale, too.

Hook looks good. And Hades. He looks like he’s all “Hey, ‘sup?”

But Ursula. Ugh. Yes, fine, whatevs, it’s not a bad illustration. But it’s entirely unrelated to Ursula. Ursula was a) not thin b) not conventionally beautiful and c) not all that youthful.

Ursula doesn’t even have particular beef with Ariel. Mermaid princess, whatever, whatever - Ariel is a tool of Ursula’s revenge against King Triton. Ursula is King Triton’s age.

Yeahh, why the hell is scar a white elf? Ummm what?

why is everyone bashing these beautiful paintings?? were you the artist? do you know what they were trying to portray with these portraits? do you understand the term ‘artistic freedom’? no? then shut up.

Hi, 17-year-old Juliet who is “on a journey to be thin”. It sounds like we have a big ol’ fundamental difference of opinion right there, what with my belief that all bodies are worthy bodies (and, you know, attractive). But, that aside, I assure you that I do indeed know what “artistic freedom” means.

And I will most assuredly NOT shut up.

Juliet, let me tell you in a friendly fashion: there’s this trend toward making characters of color look like white folks. That’s actually hella racist. I get that the artist might not have INTENDED it to be racist, I really do. But that doesn’t change the outcome.

There’s this concept called the Intentional Fallacy. This isn’t a lit theory survey course, so I’m not going to ask if you know what that is and then try to insult you if you don’t. I’m just going to explain that it means intent doesn’t matter because the author or artist or whoever created a thing isn’t there to explain it to each and every person who reads or views or whatever the creation.

That means our creations have to stand on their own.

That means if a person makes a black lion from Africa into a white Elf from a World of Darkness sourcebook, people are probably going to have some questions about why that was done. It’s not an obvious choice - unless you take into account racism.

Also, let’s talking about “bashing” - which is generally synonymous with trashing, bad talking, dissing, and otherwise saying something is shit.

No one has actually done that. In fact, the reason I mentioned my issues with the pieces is because they are very well executed. A thing does not have to be poorly done to have some problems.

I understand artistic freedom, Juliet. Do you understand art critique?

Source: pixiv.net