How People In The USA Loved Nature And Knew The Ways Of The Plants In The Past Vs. Nowadays

How people in the USA loved nature and knew the ways of the plants in the past vs. nowadays

I have been in the stacks at the library, reading a lot of magazine and journal articles, selecting those that are from over fifty years ago.

I do this because I want to see how people thought and the tools they had to come up with their ideas, and see if I can get perspective on the thoughts and ideas of nowadays

I've been looking at the journals and magazines about nature, gardening, plants, and wildlife, focusing on those from 1950-1970 or thereabouts. These are some unstructured observations.

The discourse about spraying poisons on everything in your garden/lawn has been virtually unchanged for the past 70 years; the main thing that's changed is the specific chemicals used, which in the past were chemicals now known to be horribly dangerous and toxic. In many cases, just as today, the people who opposed the poisons were considered as whackos overreacting to something mostly safe with a few risks that could be easily minimized. In short, history is not on the pesticides' side.

Compared with 50-70 years ago, today the "wilderness" areas of the USA are doing much better nowadays, but it actually appears that the areas with lots of human habitation are doing much worse nowadays.

I am especially stricken by references to wildflowers. There has definitely been a MASSIVE disappearance of flowers in the Eastern United States. I can tell this because of what flowers the old magazines reference as common or familiar wildflowers. Many of them are flowers that seem rare to me, which I have only seen in designated preserves.

There are a lot more lepidopterans (butterflies and moths) presumed to be familiar to the reader. And birds.

Yes, land ownership in the USA originated with colonization, but it appears that the preoccupation with who owns every little piece of land on a very nitpicking level has emerged more recently? In the magazines there is a sense of natural places as an unacknowledged commons. It is assumed that a person has access to "The creek," "The woods," "The field," "The pond" for simple rambling or enjoyment without personally owning property or directly asking permission to go onto another person's property.

There is very little talk of hiking and backpacking. I don't think I saw anything in the magazines about hiking or going on hikes, which is strange because nowadays hiking is the main outdoor activity people think of. Nature lovers 50-70 years ago described many more activities that were not very physically active, simply watching the birds or tending to one's garden or going on a nice walk. I feel this HAS to do with the immediately above point.

Gardening seems like it was more common, like in general. The discussion is about gardening without poisons or unsustainable practices, instead of trying to convince people to garden at all.

Overall, the range of animals and plants culturally considered to be common or familiar "backyard" creatures has narrowed significantly, even as the overall conservation status of animals and plants has improved.

This, to me, suggests two things that each may be possible: first, that the soils and environments of our suburbs and houses have sustained such a high level of cumulative damage that the life forms they once supported are no longer able to live, or second, that our way of managing our yards and inhabited areas has become steadily more destructive. Perhaps it may be the case that the minimum "acceptable" standard of lawn management has become more fastidious.

In conclusion, I feel that our relationship with nature has become more distant, even as the number of people who abstractly support the preservation of "wilderness" has increased. In the past, these wilderness preservation initiatives were a harder sell, but somehow, more people were in more direct contact with the more mundane parts of nature like flowers and birds, and had a personal relationship with those things.

And somehow, even with all the DDT and arsenic, the everyday outdoor spaces surrounding people's homes were not as broadly hostile to life even though the people might have FELT more hostile towards life. In 1960, a person hates woodpeckers, snakes and moths and his yard is constantly plagued by them: in 2024, a person enjoys the concept of woodpeckers, snakes and moths but rarely sees them, and is more likely to think of parks and preserves as the place they live and need to be protected. Large animals are mostly doing better in 2024, but the littlest ones, the wildflowers and bugs and birds, have declined steeply. It's not because "wilderness" is less; it seems more because non-wilderness has declined in quality.

Hanfu in Components: Sleeve Shapes (pt5)

navigation: hanfu in components 1 2 3.1 3.2 4 5 ...

Review on sleeve structure (接袖/jie1 xiu4/sleeve connection) from part 2, structure conventions:

"Hanfu sleeves, on the other hand, are never connected at the armpit—they are connected halfway down the arm. In other words, the piece of fabric that forms the body extends to also cover the upper arm part of the sleeve. The actual sleeve piece is connected to the body at the bicep/elbow area via a flat seam. (In the case of half- or no- sleeve garments there might just not be a separate sleeve piece.)"

Sleeve pieces are also draped over the shoulder with no shoulder piece. Most sleeve shapes fall very roughly into the categories of小袖/xiao3 xiu4/'Small Sleeve' or 大袖/da4 xiu4/'Large Sleeve' types, though this can vary, and some sleeve shapes can be regarded as kind of a middle size, but there are so many ways to categorize them (size? Popularity? Chronology?), so here they are in no particular order.

I'm not gonna use pictures of clothing on people with this one, mostly because the shape is really hard to discern when the fabric draped and folds as hanfu is wont to do. Instead you get my shitty handwriting and graph paper drawings. Sorry.

直袖 / ZHI2 XIU4 / STRAIGHT SLEEVE

Hanfu In Components: Sleeve Shapes (pt5)

Very basic straight sleeve. It's a rectangle. Usually narrow (30-10cm wide in my experience in the industry), but there are also straight sleeves that are super wide (Famensi pishan, various Song beizi). The main requirement is that the bottom sleeve seam is parallel to the shoulder line. Pretty much timeless.

窄袖 / ZHAI3 XIU4 / NARROW SLEEVE

Synonymous with 箭袖 / jian4 xiu4 / 'Arrow Sleeve.' Very similar to a straight sleeve, but the sleeve cuff is slightly narrower than the root, so the line made by the sleeve seam is slightly tilted rather than straight across. The cuff is usually between 20-10cm wide, and the root is usually under 30cm. If the cuff is more than twice the width of the root I would be more inclined to call it a feijixiu (see below), but there's some overlap between these categories. Also pretty much timeless, usually used for inner layers or dailywear.

More specific names may describe variations of narrow sleeves like 羊腿袖/yang2 tui3 xiu4/sheep's leg sleeve from the Song dynasty, a super-narrow form-fitted narrow sleeve.

飛機袖 / FEI1 JI1 XIU4 / AIRPLANE SLEEVE

Can be considered a type of 窄袖, with a straight but diagonal sleeve hem. The cuff is typically about half the width of the root; the root is usually at least 25cm wide in my experience. 'Airplane sleeve' is a modern colloquialism that became popular because the sleeve's shape looks like an airplane wing.

This is very specific to Song Dynasty women's wear (and Yuan Dynasty women's wear, if you consider Yuan Dynasty hanfu). The artifact directly supporting this sleeve shape is the Huangshengmu zhaixiu duanshan.

垂胡袖 / CHUI2 HU2 XIU4 / DROOPING SLEEVE

Mid-width sleeve usually characteristic of the earlier dynasties, from the earliest times up to the Wei/Jin dynasties. Characterized by a fairly wide sleeve root and a narrower sleeve cuff, with a curved belly-like shape. The midpoint of the sleeve may or may not briefly widen beyond the width of the root before narrowing back down at the cuff, giving it a 'drooping' appearance.

廣袖 / GUANG3 XIU4 / VAST SLEEVE

Catch-all term for extremely wide-cuffed sleeves, commonly known as 大袖/da4 xiu4/large sleeve. Usually has a root of at least 30cm and a sleeve opening of 60-120cm. Present throughout most dynasties in different forms, most often as formal outerwear (大袖衫）in the Tang, Song, and Ming Dynasties. The shape connecting the

Most guangxiu from the Ming Dynasty are 廣袖收祛/guang3 xiu4 shou1 qv1/closed vast sleeves, meaning that the front of the sleeve is closed, sewn up to a small opening for the wrist to come through.

窄臂大袖 / ZHAI3 BI4 DA4 XIU4 / NARROW-ARM LARGE SLEEVE

Mostly specific to the Northern & Southern Dynasties, though I've seen a couple Tang figurines with similar silhouettes. Has a fitted sleeve root typically under 30cm, sometimes as narrow as 15-20cm, that opens up after the elbow to a wide 60-120cm sleeve opening.

琵琶袖 / PI2 PA2 XIU4 / PIPA SLEEVE

Mostly specific to the Ming Dynasty, an iconic sleeve shape named for its resemblance to the shape of a Pipa instrument, a plucked string instrument sort of like a lute. The sleeve root is normally between 30-45cm, opening up slightly to a maximum width of between 35-65cm, and then curving smoothly back up to a sleeve cuff normally between 10-25cm. Can vary wildly in size—there are 'small' pipa sleeves and 'large' pipa sleeves, with the large ones normally being part of formal outerwear.

弓袋袖 / GONG1 DAI4 XIU4 / QUIVER SLEEVE

Also mostly specific to the Ming Dynasty, can be considered a Pipa sleeve that doesn't widen far beyond the sleeve root, instead curving back up gently towards the sleeve cuff. Sometimes there's a pleat made at the root of the sleeve to help with movement. Often seen as a more convenient alternative to the Pipa sleeve. The quiver here is referring to the bag you put arrows in (not the movement 'quivering') because the shape looks similar.

半袖 / BAN4 XIU4 / HALF SLEEVE

The name 'half-sleeve' is actually fairly misleading, because most 'half-sleeve' garments are either closer to 1/3 sleeve or 3/4 sleeves. The important thing to remember is that short sleeve garments are almost always outerwear—with some exceptions (Tang mens banbi for example) they're usually meant to be worn over a long-sleeved inner layer. Ming Dynasty half-sleeves tend to be closer to 3/4 sleeves, some reaching almost to the wrist, but because long-sleeved Ming Dynasty garments often extend past the fingertips by a significant amount, you still get a decent amount of layering.

Half-sleeves may or may not have a 接袖/jie1 xiu4/sleeve connection piece; the sleeve may just extend out from the main body piece if the fabric width allows for it. They may be curved or linear, slightly flared (as with garments worn over pipa sleeves for example) or straight across.

無袖 / WU4 XIU4 / SLEEVELESS

Why stop at reducing sleeve length—get rid of them completely! Almost every dynasty has their own vest-like garment, whether it's the Ming Dynasty's 比甲/bi2 jia3, the Song Dynasty's 背心/bei4 xin1, or the Tang Dynasty's 唐褙子/tang2 bei4 zi0. Some may have a very small sleeve connection piece to extend the shoulder line outwards. Having a curved arm opening with a narrow shoulder width is very uncommon before the Qing Dynasty but not completely unheard of.

Note: Sleeve Construction

Just so you can see how these pieces actually look in the context of hanfu construction: this is fairly similar to how modern sleeves are made. The sleeve piece is just a mirrored double of how the sleeve looks from the front, you cut the whole thing out, drape it over the shoulder and then sew the bottom together.

Ok I procrastinated on this post for weeks but it is finally done!!! There are definitely some sleeve shapes that I didn't list out here, but most other shapes can be described as variations on the most common ones. Shoot me an ask if there's a sleeve shape that you really want to know about and I'll add it, or if you're having trouble identifying one :)

navigation: hanfu in components 1 2 3.1 3.2 4 5 ...

171 notes View Post

mlcly-bloo

11 months ago

Can't afford art school?

After seeing post like this 👇

And this gem 👇

As well as countless of others from the AI generator community. Just talking about how "inaccessible art" is, I decided why not show how wrong these guys are while also helping anyone who actually wants to learn.

Here is the first one ART TEACHERS! There are plenty online and in places like youtube.

📺Here is my list:

Proko (Free)

Marc Brunet (Free but he does have other classes for a cheap price. Use to work for Blizzard)

Aaron Rutten (free)

BoroCG (free)

Jesse J. Jones (free, talks about animating)

Jesus Conde (free)

Mohammed Agbadi (free, he gives some advice in some videos and talks about art)

Ross Draws (free, he does have other classes for a good price)

SamDoesArts (free, gives good advice and critiques)

Drawfee Show (free, they do give some good advice and great inspiration)

The Art of Aaron Blaise ( useful tips for digital art and animation. Was an animator for Disney)

Bobby Chiu ( useful tips and interviews with artist who are in the industry or making a living as artist)

Second part BOOKS, I have collected some books that have helped me and might help others.

📚Here is my list:

The "how to draw manga" series produced by Graphic-sha. These are for manga artist but they give great advice and information.

"Creating characters with personality" by Tom Bancroft. A great book that can help not just people who draw cartoons but also realistic ones. As it helps you with facial ques and how to make a character interesting.

"Albinus on anatomy" by Robert Beverly Hale and Terence Coyle. Great book to help someone learn basic anatomy.

"Artistic Anatomy" by Dr. Paul Richer and Robert Beverly Hale. A good book if you want to go further in-depth with anatomy.

"Directing the story" by Francis Glebas. A good book if you want to Story board or make comics.

"Animal Anatomy for Artists" by Eliot Goldfinger. A good book for if you want to draw animals or creatures.

"Constructive Anatomy: with almost 500 illustrations" by George B. Bridgman. A great book to help you block out shadows in your figures and see them in a more 3 diamantine way.

"Dynamic Anatomy: Revised and expand" by Burne Hogarth. A book that shows how to block out shapes and easily understand what you are looking out. When it comes to human subjects.

"An Atlas of animal anatomy for artist" by W. Ellenberger and H. Dittrich and H. Baum. This is another good one for people who want to draw animals or creatures.

Etherington Brothers, they make books and have a free blog with art tips.

As for Supplies, I recommend starting out cheap, buying Pencils and art paper at dollar tree or 5 below. For digital art, I recommend not starting with a screen art drawing tablet as they are more expensive.

For the Best art Tablet I recommend either Xp-pen, Bamboo or Huion. Some can range from about 40$ to the thousands.

💻As for art programs here is a list of Free to pay.

Clip Studio paint ( you can choose to pay once or sub and get updates)

Procreate ( pay once for $9.99)

Blender (for 3D modules/sculpting, ect Free)

PaintTool SAI (pay but has a 31 day free trail)

Krita (Free)

mypaint (free)

FireAlpaca (free)

Libresprite (free, for pixel art)

Those are the ones I can recall.

So do with this information as you will but as you can tell there are ways to learn how to become an artist, without breaking the bank. The only thing that might be stopping YOU from using any of these things, is YOU.

I have made time to learn to draw and many artist have too. Either in-between working two jobs or taking care of your family and a job or regular school and chores. YOU just have to take the time or use some time management, it really doesn't take long to practice for like an hour or less. YOU also don't have to do it every day, just once or three times a week is fine.

Hope this was helpful and have a great day.

99K notes View Post

mlcly-bloo

11 months ago

Girls who keep forgetting about art fightttt

22 notes View Post