While we're sharing art, in 1620 Artemesia Gentileschi painted herself as the biblical Judith beheading Holofernes, except Gentileschi in her work is decapitating her own real-life rapist, Agostini Tassi.
Gentileschi also painted two other versions of the scene, in which the two women move to dispose of her assaulter's decapitated head.
I guess I'll just point out puppets (in entertainment, in therapy, etc) are bits of felt onto which we project human qualities and characteristics and that it is v interesting to me which human qualities and characteristics ppl decide are allowable ones.
I also think re: Bert/Ernie, "Puppets don't have an orientation" is an EXTREMELY HILARIOUS way to describe puppets when you consider their function for most of western theatrical history has been to be extremely horny.
Also you will then have to explain Miss Piggy.
Like, what this discussion actually is about, when you push past its grasping and pointless claims upon canonicity, is whether queer people are allowed to see themselves in art - and, in this case, in art made and shaped in large part by queer creators.
whispers: "canonicity" wrt fiction is an invention of capitalism.
*ripcords back up*
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @mattryanparker view original on Twitter
I don't have to "queer" Jean Grey; from X-MEN #1 Jean's arc is the question and interrogation of gender normativity: what does it mean to be the "girl" on the team? How do these men regard her? What do they see, and what does it mean to be seen?