ranga-sauce:


Fred Armisen imitates a decomposing fox.


He looks older all the time. I like the way his jaw goes all gape-y though.

ranga-sauce:

Fred Armisen imitates a decomposing fox.

He looks older all the time. I like the way his jaw goes all gape-y though.

(via bbook)

bbook:

Personal Style Icon: Martin Blank

Black on black on black on sunglasses on gun.

A movie I am desperate to see on netflix.

zachlinder:

Every day of my life.

Holla. I did this today while a girl was yelling to the A&P prof about not explaining how we need to include signs and symptoms on a power point about a medical issue. It was just like girl, what chu gon write about? How your disease makes fluffy bunnies?

zachlinder:

Every day of my life.

Holla. I did this today while a girl was yelling to the A&P prof about not explaining how we need to include signs and symptoms on a power point about a medical issue. It was just like girl, what chu gon write about? How your disease makes fluffy bunnies?

(via bbook)

youredoingitright:

calivintage: natalie fine photographed by refinery29.

Damn. Really makes me regret not getting that American flag sweater I had my eye on last week.

I’m pretty sure those mittens are the real star.

21,884 plays 21,884 plays [Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

Luke Bryan // Country Girl (Shake It)

Instead of getting Mr. Bryan’s album Tailgates & Tanlines, that ampersand is intentional, I have been trying to trick Pandora into playing it. You cannot trick Pandora apparently. I will just try to play you the same Santogold song over and over again. I’ve become  country person. By a country person I mean the beat in most of the songs just make want to do my white girl groove all over the place.

Cast of Star Trek XII (2013)

unexpected.

entertainmentweekly:

Nice Boots

ANOTHER PERFECT COUPLES SPOTTING!

i love that this has become a thing.

womensweardaily:

Prada: A Stellar Cast Walks the Show

Adrien Brody

This is singly, hilarious.

thatkindofwoman:

Date must haves. 

We’ve done all this aside from the beer. And water balloon fights always feel too scary for me. I really love these though, they’re so cute.

katespadeny:

stripes from our spring 2012 presentation.

read more on our blog. 

seejadeblog:

I will not sleep until this dress is hanging in my closet.

seejadeblog:

I will not sleep until this dress is hanging in my closet.

bbook:

A) This is incredible. B) I’m pretty cool with operating on a constant Bel Rowley.

MARTHA JONES SAVED THE WORLD!TWICE! THE REAL WORLD!

Martha Jones should always be first. Aside from that this is really cute.

theclotheshorse:


I have certain issues with the Rodarte sisters. Issues born from their “Mexico inspired” collaboration with MAC featuring ghostly nail polish and blood-streaked eyeshadow inappropriately titled “Juarez” to their blatant self-promotion of Black Swan that discredited the work of other costumers involved in the project. However, I still really enjoy their clothing designs. So the question is: are certain allowances appropriate to make for “creative geniuses?”
I often find that we do make allowances for brilliant people or artists, perhaps because their contributions to society are supposedly greater than their faults or because their personal lives shouldn’t be a factor when we judge their work. Still, I find it puzzling that girls who participate in Slutwalks to reclaim the term slut and stand by sexual assault victims who have been told that their attacks were their fault, enjoy and support films by Roman Polanski (who was convicted of statutory rape but fled the country to avoid imprisonment). Another example (from the fashion world): John Galliano’s anti-Semantic rant in a Parisian cafe nearly a year ago. Of course, for every example we have there are dozens of untold stories—if John Galliano had never opened his mouth, he’d still be designing for Dior. Further, both of these examples are of personal lives/beliefs; if they don’t behave like that in their work-space can we separate their work lives from their personal lives? Besides, who among us is blameless and innocent; we all make mistakes, so who can judge?
Of course, one difference between Galliano and Rodarte is: John Galliano has been ousted by the fashion community, sentenced by the French government for his crime, and generally made to suffer for his racist rant. The Mulleavy sisters continue to collaborate with MAC, receive credit for the costume design of Black Swan, and generally remain darlings of the fashion community. My issues with Rodarte stem not from their personal lives, but is directly related to their work. As of now, I enjoy the designs of Rodarte, but I feel uncomfortable posting on them (although I still do on occasion).
Yet one final worry that arises for me is, why do we make these allowances for geniuses of the arts or science when we wouldn’t make them for an “ordinary” individual? What makes the artist an exception to basic rules of morality? Are they somehow above the rest of us?
So, I’m really just wondering aloud where do we draw the line—when do we stop making exceptions for “creative genius” and why do we do it to begin with? I certainly don’t have an answer.


I hate rodarte simply because if you’re a big girl shouldn’t you design clothes the would look good on big girls? Unless she knows shes doing wrong by herself and that’s why she always looks angry.

theclotheshorse:

I have certain issues with the Rodarte sisters. Issues born from their “Mexico inspired” collaboration with MAC featuring ghostly nail polish and blood-streaked eyeshadow inappropriately titled “Juarez” to their blatant self-promotion of Black Swan that discredited the work of other costumers involved in the project. However, I still really enjoy their clothing designs. So the question is: are certain allowances appropriate to make for “creative geniuses?”

I often find that we do make allowances for brilliant people or artists, perhaps because their contributions to society are supposedly greater than their faults or because their personal lives shouldn’t be a factor when we judge their work. Still, I find it puzzling that girls who participate in Slutwalks to reclaim the term slut and stand by sexual assault victims who have been told that their attacks were their fault, enjoy and support films by Roman Polanski (who was convicted of statutory rape but fled the country to avoid imprisonment). Another example (from the fashion world): John Galliano’s anti-Semantic rant in a Parisian cafe nearly a year ago. Of course, for every example we have there are dozens of untold stories—if John Galliano had never opened his mouth, he’d still be designing for Dior. Further, both of these examples are of personal lives/beliefs; if they don’t behave like that in their work-space can we separate their work lives from their personal lives? Besides, who among us is blameless and innocent; we all make mistakes, so who can judge?

Of course, one difference between Galliano and Rodarte is: John Galliano has been ousted by the fashion community, sentenced by the French government for his crime, and generally made to suffer for his racist rant. The Mulleavy sisters continue to collaborate with MAC, receive credit for the costume design of Black Swan, and generally remain darlings of the fashion community. My issues with Rodarte stem not from their personal lives, but is directly related to their work. As of now, I enjoy the designs of Rodarte, but I feel uncomfortable posting on them (although I still do on occasion).

Yet one final worry that arises for me is, why do we make these allowances for geniuses of the arts or science when we wouldn’t make them for an “ordinary” individual? What makes the artist an exception to basic rules of morality? Are they somehow above the rest of us?

So, I’m really just wondering aloud where do we draw the line—when do we stop making exceptions for “creative genius” and why do we do it to begin with? I certainly don’t have an answer.

I hate rodarte simply because if you’re a big girl shouldn’t you design clothes the would look good on big girls? Unless she knows shes doing wrong by herself and that’s why she always looks angry.

(via youredoingitright)

katespadeny:

pretty enough to eat.

I once elbowed a Rothko, it was painful and exciting.

katespadeny:

pretty enough to eat.

I once elbowed a Rothko, it was painful and exciting.