I think this is as good as a SNSD infographc as we’ll get. Amazing. 
soshigasmic:

magspitas:

fueledbyramyun:

 ♥ 

LOVE LOVE LOVE.

I think this is as good as a SNSD infographc as we’ll get. Amazing. 

soshigasmic:

magspitas:

fueledbyramyun:

LOVE LOVE LOVE.

Tags SNSD Comments (View)

Family win. 
Unreality

Family win. 

Unreality

Tags Family Meme Comments (View)

An inspired piece of satire from the Onion. 

Tags Humor Comments (View)

Tags Delicious Things Comments (View)

Tags Delicious Things Comments (View)

So true.
peterfeld:

NY mag’s Emma Rosenblum with a smart analysis of the giddy delight from the smart media set that has greeted Cathy Horyn’s Snooki takedown in the NY Times. (Although she frames it as having been slammed - I have seen plenty of the opposite, still, her explanation is very incisive.)
(The “new niceness” = creative elites praising each other effusively for their dexterity at mocking the little people.)
In addition:

A regular celebrity profile goes something like this: The writer has a  meal with him or her (carefully orchestrated by the celeb’s publicist),  in which the writer is charmed by the relatability/candor/humor of the  celebrity. The writer meets with the celebrity one more time, and  finally gets to the big reveal: The celebrity probably wants to have  kids in the near future/wants to stay single forever/loves having sex.  And while there are exceptions to this rule — Lynn Hirschberg on M.I.A., GQ’s famously candid 1996 profile of Mira Sorvino — the majority fit into the overpraising pattern.
So Horyn’s Snooki piece is shocking in that we hardly ever read  anything about a famous person that’s less than totally positive. It’s  easy to see why Snooki could be afforded full candor: The Times doesn’t have to worry about treating her well. She’s a national punchline, one Times readers  can feel comfortable feeling superior to. There will be no  ramifications to the piece — no angry publicists to appease, no future  access to be cut off — which was why it could afford to be so harshly  reflective of the author’s feelings. And yet, it wasn’t quite a breath  of fresh celebrity-profile air. The very fact that such candor is only  seen when the subject has no real power is what makes it a cheap shot.  Can you imagine reading this line about Snooki, “She is really only  responsive to her own immediate needs and desires. She is not  self-centered, but she is used to acting out and getting away with it,”  in regards to, say, Cameron Diaz? Jennifer Aniston? Angelina Jolie?  Unlikely, unless it was the very last issue of a magazine, the ones the  editors put out right before becoming car mechanics.

So true.

peterfeld:

NY mag’s Emma Rosenblum with a smart analysis of the giddy delight from the smart media set that has greeted Cathy Horyn’s Snooki takedown in the NY Times. (Although she frames it as having been slammed - I have seen plenty of the opposite, still, her explanation is very incisive.)

(The “new niceness” = creative elites praising each other effusively for their dexterity at mocking the little people.)

In addition:

A regular celebrity profile goes something like this: The writer has a meal with him or her (carefully orchestrated by the celeb’s publicist), in which the writer is charmed by the relatability/candor/humor of the celebrity. The writer meets with the celebrity one more time, and finally gets to the big reveal: The celebrity probably wants to have kids in the near future/wants to stay single forever/loves having sex. And while there are exceptions to this rule — Lynn Hirschberg on M.I.A., GQ’s famously candid 1996 profile of Mira Sorvino — the majority fit into the overpraising pattern.

So Horyn’s Snooki piece is shocking in that we hardly ever read anything about a famous person that’s less than totally positive. It’s easy to see why Snooki could be afforded full candor: The Times doesn’t have to worry about treating her well. She’s a national punchline, one Times readers can feel comfortable feeling superior to. There will be no ramifications to the piece — no angry publicists to appease, no future access to be cut off — which was why it could afford to be so harshly reflective of the author’s feelings. And yet, it wasn’t quite a breath of fresh celebrity-profile air. The very fact that such candor is only seen when the subject has no real power is what makes it a cheap shot. Can you imagine reading this line about Snooki, “She is really only responsive to her own immediate needs and desires. She is not self-centered, but she is used to acting out and getting away with it,” in regards to, say, Cameron Diaz? Jennifer Aniston? Angelina Jolie? Unlikely, unless it was the very last issue of a magazine, the ones the editors put out right before becoming car mechanics.

Tags Writing Comments (View)

Let’s Be Friends (by powerpig)

Tags Star Wars Photography Comments (View)

‘structure of shadow’ by bohyun yoon, 2009 (silicon, wire, steel, light bulb, motion sensor, motor) (via bohyun yoon: structure of shadow
)

‘structure of shadow’ by bohyun yoon, 2009 (silicon, wire, steel, light bulb, motion sensor, motor) (via bohyun yoon: structure of shadow

)

Tags art Comments (View)

BMW M3

BMW M3

Tags Automobiles Photography Comments (View)

Tags Automobiles Photography Comments (View)

Hunt.

Hunt.

Tags Automobiles Photography Comments (View)

The Yatch of Roman Abramovich. 
via iconwerk.de

The Yatch of Roman Abramovich. 

via iconwerk.de

Tags Illustrations Comments (View)

blog comments powered by Disqus