naomi 23, u.k.

hello stranger

early posts.

ask.

submit.

...and upstairs, nurses

_______________________________

some things i have made, sorted by keywords;

MISSISSIPPI

LANDSCAPES

PORTRAITS

COLLAGE

INK DRAWINGS

PEN DRAWINGS & RECENT

SCANNED//TEXTURES

TEXT

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from with 9 notes

boskojackson:

Hookin people up.. #shipping #extrastuff #zine #boskojackson #bjv2 #da #doomcrew #drawing #doodle #stickers #posters #40oz #monsters #barf
BOSKOJACKSON.VOL.2.

boskojackson:

Hookin people up..
#shipping #extrastuff #zine #boskojackson #bjv2 #da #doomcrew #drawing #doodle #stickers #posters #40oz #monsters #barf

BOSKOJACKSON.VOL.2.

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from Athena, holding your hair, whispering in your ear with 108 notes


Max ErnstHuman Figure, 1931.

Max Ernst
Human Figure, 1931.

(Source: iffranco)

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from Athena, holding your hair, whispering in your ear with 948 notes

blackpaint20:

Pedro de Camprobín
The Knight and Death , oil attributed to Camprobín, Sevilla, Charity Hospital.

blackpaint20:

Pedro de Camprobín

The Knight and Death , oil attributed to Camprobín, Sevilla, Charity Hospital.

(Source: abinferis)

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from Athena, holding your hair, whispering in your ear with 188 notes

the-two-germanys:

The Hand of Illumination - The Divine Hand; The Shadow of which is Error and Impurity - The DevilPhallic Worship, an Outline of the Worship of the Generative OrgansRobert Allen CampbellSt. Louis: R.A. Campbell & Co., 1887.

the-two-germanys:

The Hand of Illumination - The Divine Hand; The Shadow of which is Error and Impurity - The Devil

Phallic Worship, an Outline of the Worship of the Generative Organs

Robert Allen Campbell
St. Louis: R.A. Campbell & Co., 1887.

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from ///H U M/A N//C O M P/U T E R with 13 notes

(Source: pixelives)

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from ///H U M/A N//C O M P/U T E R with 989 notes

(Source: 2087)

22nd November 2013

Link reblogged from mmg62ui35gyu24 with 7 notes

Guest post: The precariat needs a basic income | FT Alphaville →

whatmakespistachionuts:

pasting the whole thing cos you need to register to see the post:

By Dr. Guy Standing, professor of development studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies and author of The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, in which he argues that society must share the rental income gained by finance and capital investment in the global economy.

All over Europe, the precariat has grown sharply since 2008, although this emerging class, which has education but only intermittent, unstable labour, has been growing since the beginning of globalisation. The precariat faces chronic uncertainty, about what to do, about what incomes to expect, about state benefits that might be their due, about their relationships, their homes and about the occupations they can realistically expect.

Many are bewildered by lack of control over their time, suffering from what should be called a precariatised mind, not knowing what to do to give themselves a chance of a dignified life. Worst of all, they are learning that a large class of people habituated to a life of unstable labour is wanted by the globalised market system.

The precariat is not part of the squeezed middle, and accordingly has faced an increasingly hostile social protection system. Across Europe, not just in the UK, the old Beveridge and Bismarckian variants of the welfare state have been dismantled. In their place has been erected a mish-mash of means-tested, behaviour-tested social assistance, with a growing tendency to force young unemployed into workfare schemes, which are helping to depress real wages.

There is the rub. Globalisation began what should be called the Great Convergence, creating a globalising labour market in which wages in emerging market economies slowly converge with wages in rich economies, generating a steady drop in real wages across Europe.

Technological change has helped, by making production more scattered and mobile. But the drop in wages in the lower end of the labour markets of the UK and elsewhere, including Germany, reflects the cruel economic logic stemming from the trebling of global labour supply since the 1980s. Making it more painful is the fact that productivity is rising rapidly in those emerging market economies.

A feature of the globalising labour market is that the old link between productivity and wages stopped in the 1980s. Up to then, a graph of productivity growth and wages showed the two lines moving together. Since then the curves have diverged, leading to economists referring to the opening jaws of the snake – the wage curve has been flat or declining, the productivity growth curve has been accelerating northwards.

(Chart courtesy of the Economic Policy Institute.)

Governments have acted like Canute, trying to hold back the waves of downward pressure on real wages, through cheap credit, labour subsidies and the scam of the era, tax credits. But, to mix metaphors, the Faustian bargain this represented, by allowing an orgy of consumption, ended with a bang in 2008.

Since then, poverty, inequality and economic uncertainty have all risen remorselessly. Even if economic growth picks up, that will continue until governments change their thinking quite dramatically. Regrettably, there is not much intellectual courage around in our political establishment.

The current great white hope is the living wage. It is a good idea being oversold. In the UK, Ed Miliband has promised to introduce fiscal subsidies for “employers” (probably not including small firms) if they pay new employees the hourly living wage, which is higher than the statutory minimum wage. It sounds attractive to non-economists and politicians. Let me be a spoil-sport and be one of the first to predict it will lumber in for the first round, connect with a few hits and then prove a costly way of generating little benefit to a tiny fraction of the precariat.

Why? First, there are always huge deadweight effects with such subsidies. In other words, many of the tax rebates will go to employers who would have paid that wage anyhow. So, for every job actually created the fiscal cost will rise.

Second, there will be huge substitution effects. Employers will displace some employees with new hires who will entitle them to the tax rebate. That will hardly be fair. But again it will raise the effective cost of each extra job funded by the scheme.

Third, a wage subsidy lowers the dynamic efficiency effects of a normal wage rise. If, for example, labour costs rise as a result of a wage rise induced by bargaining, an employer will be under pressure to raise productivity. If the wage rise is financed by a subsidy, there is no such pressure. It is called the soft budget constraint.

Fourth, increasingly labour is being externalised, so that more and more workers are labouring from a distance, making it harder to ascertain what hours are being worked and what are being remunerated. Already, many workers are paid part-time but expected to labour many more hours. So, if an employer wants to put someone on the living wage, he can simply shorten the contractual hours.

Being entrepreneurial, employers will always stretch the rules. It is possible that the living wage will prove regressive, expensively worsening inequality in the lower rungs of the labour market. One hopes not, but it will not strengthen the bargaining position of the precariat one iota.

Living wage advocates should not misread this. We should favour the campaign. But it should not be oversold or financed by subsidies to employers, to capital. This was the folly of New Labour and its tax credits. It is the inequality that should be the primary target for reforms.

This leads to an option that should tick the boxes of progressives, once they accept that labour subsidies, tax credits and workfare are an ugly concoction that worsens inequalities.

Progressives and disillusioned social democrats should reflect on the thought that each type of economy has a distinctive system of distribution. Twentieth-century welfare state capitalism was historically unique, in that national income was split between wages and profits, labour and capital.

With globalisation, the share going to labour has withered everywhere, in countries as diverse as China, India, the UK, USA and Norway. In the future, the only way those relying on labour could raise their living standards will be by sharing the rental income gained by finance and capital investment in the global economy. We must imagine a new system of distribution, in which the whole of society receives a share of the rental income currently being taken wholly by financial capital.

This could be done by establishing a universal floor of basic security, through provision of a basic income for all resident citizens, or all legalised residents. It could start at a modest level, as it was in Alaska when it set up its Permanent Fund in 1976. It could be built up as subsidies to the rich and to large corporations were phased out.

It could have a fixed component set to rise as national income per capita rose, set by an independent committee, analogous to the current monetary committee. And it could have a second component, perhaps 20 per cent of the total, which could be adjusted counter-cyclically so as to make it a macro-economic stabiliser. It could even be labelled an Economic Stabilisation Credit (ESC), to give it legitimation.

Moves in this direction could be made by phasing out the array of regressive subsidies that never reach the precariat. It could also be partially funded by a Sovereign Wealth Fund, as now exist in over 60 countries. The Norwegians set one up with their North Sea oil, whereas Britain’s oil has ended up largely owned by Chinese state capital. But however funded, nobody should be allowed to deceive us by saying it is unaffordable. Soon it may be essential. Remember the billions given out to the failed banks?

Among the many benefits of moving towards an individual, unconditional basic income, or an ESC, would be that it would provide the precariat with an increased incentive to labour, whereas today millions of people face the opposite, confronted by poverty traps and precarity traps, as discussed in my recent books.

In the UK, the main poverty trap facing the precariat is a marginal tax rate of over 80 per cent, according to the government’s own estimates. If we are to believe Ian Duncan Smith, it might fall to 65 per cent if the ill-fated universal credit is ever implemented successfully. Meanwhile, the government eagerly cuts the tax rate for the rich to below 40 per cent, claiming that anything higher would be a disincentive to work and invest. And they wish to cut corporation tax to 20 per cent.

With a basic income, there would be no poverty trap. All earned income could be taxed at the standard rate, after tax allowances are taken into account. Today, the precariat has no incentive to take low-paying jobs of the type that will proliferate. So Duncan Smith resorts to coercion instead, with heavy-handed sanctions against the precariat, denied any due process. It is a shoddy way to treat people, and all of our major political parties support it.

There are other reasons, ethical and instrumental, for supporting a move towards a basic income. Psychologists (e.g., Frohlich and Oppenheimer, 1992) have shown that people with basic security work harder, are more productive, and are more altruistic and tolerant. They also have more confidence, which means they will be more likely to bargain for decent wages and working conditions, and join organisations that wish to do so. And people with basic security do more work that is not labour, such as caring for relatives and their communities. In having more control over their time, they can be more rational and plan their lives better. Progressives should wake up.

Anybody who thinks this might be a valuable move should sign the European Citizens’ Initiative. With enough signatures, the EU Commission will be obliged to examine its feasibility.

NICE

Tagged: THANKYOU FOR ALL YOUR POSTS EVER

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from δiαloφhoƒt with 46 notes

photomusik:

William Burroughs with knife in his New York City apartment, which was named “The Bunker.” The apartment was a converted YMCA building.
Photo by Victor Bockris

photomusik:

William Burroughs with knife in his New York City apartment, which was named “The Bunker.” The apartment was a converted YMCA building.

Photo by Victor Bockris

22nd November 2013

Text

uk apparently so pissed off about phone hacking

but police quietly hand over damning text messages of ppl straight to the press before investigations even get underway

not only that but i’m certain a follower i gained about an hour after the gchq post, which only had one post itself, seemed just like a bot, and part of the list of urls it was following appeared to be based on my recent debit card purchases, one of the list was someone i had just reblogged, the rest was humour blogs and blogs with “teenage” in the title. so ty for showing your hand despite the obvious plausible deniability.

the character assassination ongoing of that co op shithead is a very telling diversion. side by side w/ feature on goldmann sachs and how they’re helping small businesses and have “learned so much” and how they will ditch us if we leave the eu. they’re sponsoring a project in birmingham recruiting young people to “gain experience” with small businesses/”entrepreneurship” with the tagline “(hashtag)myyearofservice” 

meanwhile, i apply for two weeks unpaid work experience at pound land rather than four weeks unpaid work experience at mcdonalds, and

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from MadInkBeard with 42 notes

madinkbeard:

comicsworkbook:

Andrew White 
"Flashes"
Images from here
Made for Comics Workbook

There’s that moment again.

madinkbeard:

comicsworkbook:

Andrew White 

"Flashes"

Images from here

Made for Comics Workbook

There’s that moment again.

22nd November 2013

Photo reblogged from The Art from Siberia with 29 notes

nataliakoptseva:

Rackham Arthur
The Fairy’s Tightrope.

nataliakoptseva:

Rackham Arthur

The Fairy’s Tightrope.

22nd November 2013

Text with 2 notes

"an ideology of privatisation" phrases being bandied about on radio 2 rn by some professor or some shit

"this ideological obsession with selling everything off.. clearly isn’t working"

KICK EM. KICK EM.

it’s about the priswans. why kick off on that and not on the children’s services. easier to associate with the phrase “ideology” when you can back it up with the phrase “prison industrial system”? so why didn’t you use the words prision industrial system?

dickheads

more pls thanx god.

ps. late. late. you’re so late.

people i told literally didn’t believe me that the ideology was present before/during/after the election. where is the sense in waiting for them to thoroughly act on it before you fucking talk about it.

then it was five mins about football, now they’re talking about a washing machine that dogs can operate. the bark only starts the washing machine if the door is shut, don’t worry.

22nd November 2013

Link reblogged from mmg62ui35gyu24 with 11 notes

Threepenny: Clark, Malevich →

whatmakespistachionuts:

=O

!!!

ooh

but but but~ the cinema that leans on its own formal construction for its interpretation boldly asserted itself as not only possible but necessary in film art- not to say that the “high art” end of cinema (if experimental cinema is even regarded as “high art” yet) can possibly be held up as a rival to big budget, but its deconstructions certainly informed all aspects of cinema far more than the author allows.

also the formalism of light/space is a formalism of manufacture u fetishist

not only that but it is a “felt materiality” even if its sensation is considered “intangible”(airy)

i’m sick of this bullshit

the biggest chunk of cinema’s formal construction is narrative, to be sure, but i would argue it slides itself apart secretly in any good film once you can get over the disconcerting sensation of that occurrence. and need i say filmic narrative, narrative of any sort, is by no means immaterial.

i enjoyed this essay as it began, and initially all i wanted to tack on to it was a brief comment of the materiality of the digital screen, then all i wanted to do was ask why they hadn’t even written about crts, but on final reading it strikes me as distinctly revisionist of the same old copy writing brand. a dismissal of any further possibility.

should cinema as a whole or in the mainstream be regarded as having failed to fulfil the “utopian” visions of heady abstraction plunging and tugging itself and others apart in order to show the face of life- this can only have been inevitable if it was the semi-conscious intent of the gatekeepers of mass media to restrict, ration, and utilise the power of this process by their categorisations and their insistence upon tightly referenced lineages.

the author asserts and understands that abstraction in cinema has long since been achieved and incorporated- but chooses to deny it any rightful place by invoking “a lack of materiality” and “a failure to become a rival” to  the rest of cinematic art. surely this space would be better occupied by an investigation of the ways in which such visionary work has been assimilated, and utilised, than by an unspoken assertion of its lack of a competitive edge i.e. distribution funding and an “oh no of course i’m not making a value judgement, don’t be silly, i just don’t like it”. “deeply disappointing, deeply repetitive and insubstantial.”

also, buddy, i’m pretty sure it has nOT “failed to establish itself, as it did in painting and sculpture, as a strong contrary mode; one which has a history, one which renews and questions and reinflects its own past, in the way that continues to happen with Gerhard Richter, say, or Robert Ryman, or Bridget Riley.” i think, rather, you are, simply, a fucking crackhead.

Tagged: expanded cinema

22nd November 2013

Text

"Praise and Worship Leader"
“no!”

Tagged: job titles as propaganda vol. 356

21st November 2013

Text

Some people get to write those patterns for video game walls ! Not me. My GCSE maths teacher and I… disagreed.

and the one before that got done for taking a fifteen year old on a date in the woods. Disgusting.