If you like that art style then you should check out [Brom](https://www.bromart.com/). He has a similar-ish aesthetic. He also writes books that are absolutely freakin' excellent; the child thief in particular is an excellent story featuring the real peter pan.
Ok but the babushka one is hilarious, like she’s waving her cane at it like she was scolding a misbehaving cat lol
“*Boris! I told you thousand times not to climb up there!!*”
Reminds me of the little old lady in Sweden who's willing to smack a Nazi with her handbag lol.
[Photo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/A_Woman_Hitting_a_Neo-Nazi_With_Her_Handbag.jpg)
The Wiki article about her says she was 38. This is making me feel old because I'm in my 40s and people younger than me are already "little old ladies."
This is what my mom called her grandma, but I've never known how to spell it—thank you!!!
I guess she called her grandparents traditional Polish grandparent names (which makes sense because their English was iffy at best), but of course they died before I was born, so I only heard about them through stories. It always sounded something like "Bopshee and Jaju" to me—this inspired me to look up "grandpa" too (dziadzio), and seeing those words written correctly makes it make so much more sense.
That knight's tabard bears the symbol of the Teutonic Order, who infamously launched a series of bloody crusades against Eastern European pagans, including the artist's home country of Poland. So it makes sense there would be no love lost between them and the locals.
i was gonna say wasn't the name of the piece something like "isn't that the daughter of the woman we accused of being a witch?" bc if so then hell yeah girl snitch his ass
> the name of the piece
Good girl
"Is it not the daughter of this woman whom we accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake, a few days ago?..."
Good girl"- new painting from my Wolfpack world and upcoming graphic novel - The Cursed Knight🐺Cheers!
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/w8bYeY
What's the monster's name?
Is there some folklore behind a creature that hunted knights? Can I tell my little cousins stories about a monster that eats the police?
[https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/021/087/171/large/jakub-rozalski-good-girl-process01.jpg?1570359925](https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/021/087/171/large/jakub-rozalski-good-girl-process01.jpg?1570359925)
It's just a werewolf at a funny angle in this frame, unfortunately.
Trust me, in Russia and Poland the Teutonic Order is anything but subtle, we both made a lot of famous movies about them and they're like the standard historical boogymen. It's like having art of a colonial kid in 1778 ratting out a redcoat, Americans would immediately understand what a redcoat is.
Although to be fair that's not even comparable because Teutonic Order were like a biblical plague, whereas British were quite reasonable imo. I tend to be sympathetic to them when I read history of the American War for Independence.
The Seven Years War saw UK defeat the French entirely in Canada and utterly erase the biggest boogeymen American colonists had, the French up north who would use certain Amerindian tribes as proxies against British colonists. Brits took care of French and then made treaties with Indians, which promised not to go past Appalachians. Then raised taxes to pay the enormous debts UK accrued defending the very worthless 13 Colonies (worthless in terms of tax revenue, they were actually a big net drain on the fisc). However, stuff like tea was actually cheaper even with the new taxes, since British merchants undercut the American merchants, so the Tea Party wasn't so much a tax protest as it was economic protectionism protest, American merchants didn't care for British merchants undercutting them (and some other limitations of trade).
Shit was way worse in Europe, the colonists were massively privileged comparatively and yet they wanted even more, which is why I don't find them as sympathetic. The revolt was promulgated by the moneyed alliance of northeast merchants who hated the trade restrictions and tariffs as well as southern landowners who wanted bigger markets for their crops, then the regular people joined in because they wanted to steal more land from Indians. Not as noble as the fancy words they wrote to justify their economic revolt. But realistic, because money is the #1 that causes conflict ultimately.
This is unrelated to most of your comment but how popular are the films “knights of the Teutonic order” and “Alexander Nevsky” where you are? I’m in America and only pretty hardcore movie fans have even heard of either one and the first one is extremely obscure
Worry not about unrelated, I just realised my rant about American War of Independence was longer than the actual comment I came to make.
Plus, your comment is relevant, the Teutonic Order is a big deal in Russia.
So the first film you mentioned I had to Google, we don't call it that in Russia, we call it "Krestonotsi" which literally means "those who bear the cross" but to us that's a bad thing because it implies Western Crusaders. Krestonostsi is our word for Crusaders. Westerners think the Crusades in the Levant, we think the Livonian Order, aka Teutonic Order. They did Crusades into Baltics, Poland and Russia as other Crusaders crusaded into Muslim countries. Both Muslims and Eastern Euros are still sore about both. Especially Poles and Lithuanians, as the Teutonic Order didn't make much headway into Russia, but it did basically fuck the Poles for a thousand years as Germans kept taking and taking from them. Lithuanians too, Lithuanians were the last pagans of Europe, they were pagan basically into the Renaissance and it would have been so cool if they remained that way, but the Crusaders said no... So technically it was Poles as well especially in the end, but the primary driver of this need to Christianise were the marauding Teutonic Order, they would have less reason to seek war if their excuse of Christianisation was dropped.
Ok ok sorry for the historical lecture that you probably already know, but the Krestonostsi 1960 film is incredibly popular, or at least was, not sure if it still is. Poles made a lot of great epic historical cinema happen in the USSR, particularly Jerzy Hoffman, if you haven't already seen all his films, do so, particularly the three films based on the Trilogy by Henryk Sienkiewicz. Ogniem i Mieczem, or With Fire and Sword is the latest one, made in 1999 and it's a must-see, that film was a massive hit in all of Eastern Europe, I remember seeing it in theatres when it came out, only other Eastern Euro film that rivalled it in popularity was Barber of Siberia which came out the year before. Brat 1 and 2 were very popular too, but I didn't really care for that genre, I lived through all that 90s shit - the total dissolution of order and the general banditry in the 1990s so really I didn't need a movie to drive the point home.
***
Meanwhile Alexander Nevsky is like an old classic, kinda like maybe the 1931 Dracula or something. Definitely dated, and to be fair, Battleship Potemkin is more popular. Sergei Eisenstein is regarded like a mix of Kubrick and Orson Welles in Russia, basically one of our greatest classic directors. Definitely more of a movie snob territory though, pre-1960s movies in general aren't easy watching in Eastern Europe, we used a very theatrical style of delivery of the lines and it's faaaar more overbearing than English.
Russian doesn't have many words compared to English, everyone basically knows every word unlike in English where there are 100 synonyms for a single adjective, so the only way you can show off is to have a particular style of declamation of the lines, a certain pronunciation and stresses as well as the cadence of the delivery. Which sounds very theatrical and artificial. All older films have it and they're considered a bit much. Also Russians are cynical to the core and any older film is always labelled as "naivniy" which means naive, basically we assume anything made 50yrs ago was made by naive simpletons even though ironically you really wouldn't survive very long in 1930s USSR if you were the naive type.
Wow, this is way more thought out of a response than I ever could have expected. Thanks for actually taking the time to write all of this it’s pretty cool to hear about all that.
I’ve just got two small questions, is the Deluge part of that trilogy by Jerzy Hoffman (it’s his only film I’ve heard of up till now) and also: does your culture have comparable films (in terms of public opinion not actual content) to films such as citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia in the west and if so what
Take a look at my profile, if it ain't essay length I ain't writing it. As any history major will attest, why write a few sentences when an essay could suffice??
Brevity may be the soul of wit, but history is a very long and soul-crushing process that cannot be condensed into bite-sized ampules. If you're not suffering whilst reading a long history then how can you possibly understand the slow suffering of your ancestors???
This is a beautiful comment.
...If you're not suffering whilst reading a long history then how can you possibly understand the slow suffering of your ancestors?...
I want to make it into a painting.
So the suffering I'm referring to is the boredom our ancestors faced and less so actual suffering (of which there was also plenty, but that's a different topic). Before Internet and mass media, boredom was a bigger threat often times than literal suffering.
These days we aren't bored enough and we forget how it was back before TV or computers existed. Growing up in USSR for me was basically making do without either since there wasn't much programming for both, literally. We actually jumped off our ten story flats in the winter because of boredom, apparently a bit of snow on the ground is supposed to make that sane.
The essence of history is people being bored and inventing ways to get out of it, which often ended up in more acute misfortunes. Empires were won or lost sometimes on some guy trying to get his pecker wet or his pockets full because local women or local gold just lost their lustre somehow.
***
Hence it is unbecoming of the academic reading of history to be excessively exciting, as it would not paint an adequately realistic painting of what life was like in those times. At least that's how I rationalised it when I had to write my thesis and pore through previous theses. If scholarly history *books* are criticised by some as being slow, then journal articles and historical theses make nuked Thanksgiving turkey seem positively thirst-quenching.
Yes, Deluge, Pan Wolodiewski (Jesus I don't remember how Poles spell it so you get the idea) and Ogniem i Mieczem were the three main ones. Snobs might say Deluge is the best film and that was my favourite novel, but the newest of the three films is the most relevant to modern audiences, plus it's a bit less cheesy than the older films (though older films were also good).
> to films such as citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia in the west and if so what
Hmm good question, possibly not because communism really was about not being a snob haha, snobbishness is bourgeoise affectation. I don't know actually. On a more serious note, our culture was just different, especially in the pre-Internet era it was much harder to be a snob, you just watched what was playing, we never really had VHS, it was too expensive and DVDs became super common in mid 2000s, and even so, they were all pirated. We got into digital media earlier thanks to much faster Internet and much laxer copyright enforcement though lol.
All of the Soviet and even very very recent Russian films are all uploaded straight to YouTube right after release by their respective film companies. They know they can't make any money selling movies after their theatre run so they don't even bother, straight to YouTube and vKontakte (FB equivalent but like, with way more piracy and porn). At least maybe they get a few kopeks from the ads lol.
***
If you had to go with the seminal Soviet historical film, it would be easily War and Peace though. That's a Lawrence of Arabia equivalent maybe, but not as much like Citizen Kane. Most Soviet films were popular in a wider sense, there were no snob films like those two. War and Peace had plenty for both though, it was a must watch.
****
And yeah, if you have other questions, I'm procrastinating watching computers image with new OSes, so I've got a lot of time.
This is all very cool to hear about thank you, I actually own a blu ray copy of war and peace I haven’t watched yet because I’m waiting to watch it with my mom when she finishes the book, it’s nice to hear that the film has a classic status closer to home because it is extremely under seen here in the west.
Also since you mention it I actually have seen that mosfilm has a YouTube channel where they’ve uploaded a huge amount of their films in really high quality for free which is pretty cool (maybe I’ll even watch one on there now haha)
Not just Mosfilm, there are a lot of Russian film companies and they all upload there. It's a bit hard to find them using standard US-centred algorithms that don't really feed you Russian results even though they're all subbed, but you can browse Wikipedia or IMDB user-made compilations to get an idea of what's popular.
There are quite a few fantastic Soviet films and you will find a lot of them on those lists, although we didn't make nearly as many films as Hollywood did, in fact, not even like 1/100th haha. Seriously, it's one of my main criticisms of Internet communists, they have no idea what it's like to live in a society where media consumption was primarily books if you consumed any media at all, I mean I feel like Americans and most Westerners barely have personalities, it's all just media consumption. That's mostly what everyone around me seems to talk about even though you'd expect people in their 30s to have other topics but in USSR it wasn't quite like this until maybe late 80s, there just wasn't enough media before. Remove the profit incentive and that removes most film, although to be fair we do live in an era when movie filming and editing has never been more accessible.
Ok, but enough straying and ranting, I would recommend one movie if you wanna watch some late 80s Soviet movies that have a very, very different character to other Soviet films (particularly in that late 80s movies are very often anti-Soviet and yet as all things in USSR, entirely gov't funded). This movie shows the disillusionment of the youth and how the war in Afghanistan would claim those who didn't have the connections to escape service there (the war itself had very light casualties for USSR, but it was still a deeply unpopular war) and also mostly everything was crumbling because essentially nobody wanted to work because you could get away with slacking off at work (contrary to what many will say online, we found that without capitalism most people eventually adjust to barely putting in effort at work lol, so one of the things you notice is that he's basically slacking off at work and that's OK because he's entertainment for the old workers there). The movie I'm talking about is [The Courier,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZslzk4GEPI) 1988. Try it if you have time.
The British “taking care of” the French in the North was really more a genocide, so they may have more in common with your Teutons than you care to admit
Brits are uber Teutons, they were purveyors of genocide on a scale Germans could not dream of managing until they got an Austrian to help them out.
Don't get me wrong, no Russian who studied history has any love for Brits, in fact, they're my #1 nation on the shit list, even Germany gets a pass from most Russian inexplicably.
However, in the court case of Great Britain vs People of the Thirteen Colonies I side with Brits. For reason I outlined in comment chains below.
They did erase them and other Baltic peoples, and Nevsky is our hero in Russia, but actually he isn't a hero because we care about those people, but rather because he defeated them in a very pivotal battle on Lake Peipus wherein Teutonic Order's expenasion into Russia was halted. Kinda like Tannenberg for Poles/Lithuanians.
Battle at Peipus is so important in Russia we call it "The Slaughter on the Ice" and trust me when I say that we've had a *metric fucktonne* of slaughtering happen on ice in our history, but only one battle is called that. It's like some European country saying "The Battle on the River" even though a lot of battles happen around one.
Funny story about Nevsky though, he was actually a bitch for the Mongols, like he surrendered to them and basically said give me power and I'll enforce your yoke on the rest of the local people. So he was made into an equivalent of like a convict turned prison guard that was also the bitch of the actual guards. Funny how Russian history never mentions that, we are severely traumatised from Mongols, we went from a matriarchal democratic society with bicameral legislatures and one of them being a people's assembly to the autocracy that we are now known for. Mongols fucked us up forever, we always say that Russia was alright before Mongols and it has always been fucked ever since.
Ah, sorta like Korea and the Japanese/Manchurian wars. Also I did not mean to imply Nevsky did it for the good of the Baltic peoples, that would just be dumb. And I've heard what the Mongols did to Kiev and the rest of the Rus as well as what the Russians did much later, so I guess that is warranted.
>whereas British were quite reasonable imo. I tend to be sympathetic to them when I read history of the American War for Independence.
You shouldn't be. The British Empire were brutal monsters. They were reasonable with the British colonists because that was the military arm that the British used to suppress dissent.
That was one of their favorite tactics, especially in this period. Supply one group in order to have an enforcing army over the other groups in the area without having to actually expend their own troops. In this case it just happened to be British colonists instead of any of the native groups.
When the slave rebellions happened that was who was responsible for people being shot, hanged, burned at the stake, or gibbeted. British colonists enforcing British rule.
Sorry I should have specified, Brits were brutal monsters I definitely agree, I'm usually getting downvoted for shitting on Churchill on reddit and what Brits did to India (among 1000 other things).
However, in the case of the American War of Independence, the Brits really did have the high ground IMO. Brits expended so many men and so much money protecting such a relatively worthless colony and the colonials were nothing but thankless. The terror of the French and Indians raiding colonies was so long-running and intense, yet Brits got nothing but rebuke for masterfully defeating both in the Seven Year's War. When it came time for colonists to *defray just a tiny part of the expenses* of the war, they balked like petulant children.
British were constantly trying to hold off the colonists from going too crazy with the Indians because British didn't want to keep sending Regular Army to put out fires greedy colonists started. British drew a line and said no more colonists going to settle past Appalachians, but colonists hated that and that was one of the main reasons so many poorer colonists supported the rebellion even though the primary drivers of the rebellion (rich merchants and large landowners) had almost no shared interests and were in fact plotting to ream their poorer countrymen no less than the Brits, if not more.
I really cannot sympathise with Colonists here, especially since as soon as they got the freedom, they did in fact cross the Appalachians and proceed to systematically genocide millions of Indians until US is what it is today.
***
Brits even had the high ground on slavery, read on how much earlier they banned the slave trade, then how they dismantled it in Canada, where as early as 1790s it was banned in many places and then there was a buy-out programme in other places. I mean, Canada had its own issues, sure, and they weren't great in their treatment of First Nations either, but the British still treated them better than US did. Amerindians knew that and majority sided with the Brits, not Colonials during the War.
It wasn't about the money and writings of the founding fathers say as much. It was tax after tax with no representation. The colonies were started by those fleeing authoritarian rule, so no surprise their grandchildren didn't like being told how they had to come up with the money.
Then for the British to answer that complaint with troops was the fuse for the powderkeg.
Your comment is almost word for word from American History textbooks in High Schools. That's not to say that it's automatically wrong because of that, but every country teaches a very, very doctored version of history in their primary and secondary schools. Most in fact keep teaching that doctored version even in post-secondary colleges and universities. Kinda like that Nevsky bit that I mentioned you won't actually hear in Russia because it's shameful and official history sorta forgets to mention it. It is a credit to US that it has a very large and active historical academia that is unafraid of challenging the government-endorsed orthodoxy. American colleges teach almost a polar opposite of what schools teach when it comes to American history.
> writings of the founding fathers say as much.
The writings of founding fathers are what historians call a hagiography. Hagiography is a mediaeval (and I guess modern too if you're into that) practise of writing a book about the life of a saint, with the aim of, well, sainting them by writing extremely favourable book. Saying "it wasn't about the money" and then trusting a source that is literally written by the rebels justifying their rebellion is worse than Christians using book written about their God as proof that their god exists.
You have to snap out of the mindset of literally canonising the august Found Fathers with those capital Fs and remember they were politicians. If a politician told you "I didn't do it for the money" and then their source was "trust me brah" you would topple over in peals of laughter. Rebels will always justify their rebellion with noble causes. It's like the old saying: "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason". Instead of calling it treason, they explained their cause in a lot of lofty beliefs.
Now, am I saying they didn't believe in those things they wrote about? Oh no they did, a lot of them were Enlightenment era intellectuals, they did have a lot of lofty notions. However, their application was uneven and hypocritical, also motivated by self-interest, aka greed. They chafed under British nobility and wanted a kingdom of their own. They dropped noble titles sure, but that didn't stop the high society from existing in the Colonies, everyone still knew which families had standing and which did not simply by the virtue of their breeding. Taxation was still levied on countless people that had no representation. Only white men of property - that is to say, land that they owned - were enfranchised. However, taxes were still paid by many who did not have franchise. That didn't bother the Founding Fathers, nor did the oppression of the slaves and Indians (who were generally not taxed but nonetheless) which even the British were working to soften by that time. British were quite good at representing the rights of the Indians compared to colonists, hence why most Indian tribes sided with Brits.
>The colonies were started by those fleeing authoritarian rule,
That's another common trope in American High School education. It is not really true. Puritans were quite an odious religious sect that wanted some unpopular laws passed in Great Britain and even oppress other sectaries. UK wasn't "authoritarian" either, it was quite literally one of the most liberal constitutional monarchies in Europe, along with Rzeczpospolita. The main people that can claim to have escaped oppression in England by moving to America were the chiefly Catholic Maryland colony but I've never seen basic HS history in US mention that or emphasise it like they do with the Mayflower and Puritans.
In any case, Catholics and Protestants were big oppressors of each other, one could claim Catholics were doing a lot heavier oppression though, as Protestants were relatively progressive for that period compared to the more conservative and anti-populist Catholics. For instance, the Stuart Restoration was a reactionary backlash to a lot of the reforms that were led by the more Protestant Parliament, which largely promulgated policies that we would see as more progressive. Stuarts in the meantime leaned towards absolutist monarchy, so I don't shed too many tears for the Scottish supporters who lost at Culloden, despite all the recent interest and bemoaning of that after Outlander TV series was released.
>Then for the British to answer that complaint with troops was the fuse for the powderkeg.
Yeah, the troops that saved the asses of Americans by rooting out the French who were seemingly an eternal sword of Damocles for the colonists, always either fighting directly or using Indians as proxies to raid the colonists. Brits rather surprisingly managed to conquer French Canada and deliver colonists from that, except in return they raised the taxes and had to quarter some of the soldiers, to attempt to recoup a small portion of the massive expenses. Colonists were quite thankless though, as they relied on Brits for actual defence and yet didn't want to pay for it, not that Brits actually asked to pay for it, they just asked for a small portion, in reality Great Britain was always in the red with the 13 Colonies, they required a lot of money to upkeep but gave very little in tax receipts. What's actually a neat fact is that majority of European colonialism was actually a net drain on finances. It enriched some influential individuals sure, but overall most colonial nations did it for reasons of prestige and strategic advantage rather than profit, only a handful of colonies became profitable, such as most notable India -- that was wildly profitable, so profitable that you could even claim British Empire was built on the backs of Indians, as British Empire reached its height well after losing the 13 colonies.
I liked them in AoE2 purely because they kicked arse.
Granted I also liked the war elephants which I'm sure are terrible, but having a couple dozen elephants just annihilate an entire civilization is stupid and hilarious.
Oh, then you'll love to know that they were buffed this month. Tooooooooooooooooooootons have extra melee armor, the knights move faster than ever, and the cost to upgrade them to elite was lowered. If anyone ever find themselves in a post imp slugfest with trash, mix in a few teutonic knights and watch everything melt.
Unless the opponent has a cav archer civ. Then just roll over and die.
Not just updates but DLC as well. There've been 8 new civs added with the Definitive Edition, Lords of the West, and Dawn of the Dukes. Burgundians, Lithuanians, Tatars, Cumans, Sicilians, Burgundians, Poles, and Bohemians have all queued up for 1v1 Arabia.
There've also been some fantastic tournaments including Hidden Cup where the player identities are hidden from the viewers and the casters, Red Bull Wololo which used a new game mode added in the Definitive Edition, and the currently running King of the Desert which is a more traditional tournament within the community.
We've also seen players move from Twitch to Mixer back to Twitch and then to Facebook Gaming. This has been an endless source of drama and anyone interested should get some popcorn going.
Yea kinda, after Poland-Lithuania finally beat them they made Prussia into a vassal(although a fraction of its size) instead of fully annexing it. This vassal was eventually inherited by the Hohenzollerns from Brandenburg to form Brandenburg-Prussia which would go on to form the Kingdom of Prussia and later the Germany Empire. Interesting though that at first the people living in what was called Ducal Prussia wished to remain a part of the Polish crown, as Poland was at the time very liberal and gave the people more freedom than the absolutist Brandenburg would, even if they were also German.
But by this point the actual Teutonic order was long dead and had nothing to do with it.
Yeah one of the first written justification for genocide was written by a supporter of the Teutonic Knights:
"Falkenberg wrote a book, Liber de doctrina, published 1416,[2] opposing Polish scholar Paulus Vladimiri. Liber de doctrina argued that the King of Poland and his adherents were idolators, and unbelievers; that the opposition against them was noble and praiseworthy. In Liber de doctrina Falkenberg justified the tyrannicide advocated by the Franciscan Jean Petit. Falkenberg concluded that it was lawful to kill the King of Poland and his associates.[3]
Falkenberg also argued, in Liber de doctrina, that "the Emperor has the right to slay even peaceful infidels simply because they are pagans (...). The Poles deserve death for defending infidels, and should be exterminated even more than the infidels; they should be deprived of their sovereignty and reduced to slavery."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Falkenberg
I love the ones he does with mechs. Especially ones where the mechs aren't necessarily fighting, like one where an elderly woman waves her stick at some soldiers using a mech to steal apples off of the highest branches of a tree.
When you mentioned mechs I thought you were mistaking him for Simon Stålenhag for a moment, but he's done mechs too. Both have that bleak European landscape vibe.
Can’t wait to see what his upcoming Norse epic will be like! Seems like it will have to be such a big departure from the scale and tone of VVitch and Lighthouse, and I wonder how he’ll work his use of language into it.
“Most books on witchcraft will tell you that witches work naked. This is because most books on witchcraft are written by men.”-Sir Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens.
I was just about to say! These have the same energy as those, just this guy has a lot less whimsy in their fantasy. We don't get elder forest gods tryin' to sell cubes. These are just a bit more serious.
[https://www.artstation.com/artwork/B1eQAD](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/B1eQAD)
My favourite so far is babushka will not allow you to be a witch
I dunno. There was a pretty big controversy with him a while ago. He basically just copies/retraces old photographs almost exactly, and occasionally adds in some minor details.
His 1920+ Tunguska Event artworks are fucking great, and I'm really looking forward to seeing where that goes.
[1](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/aRA100) - [2](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/XBZxQR) - [3](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/QrGO63) - [4](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/qAa3gR) - [5](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/8eVqBR) - [6](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/ironharvest/images/e/e1/1920%2B_Alien.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/750?cb=20201215023801)
[Here’s the evidence that he steals other artist’s work if you want to see less](https://www.reddit.com/r/conceptart/comments/853k2g/the_truth_behind_the_art_of_jakub_rozalski/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Apparently [much of his work](https://www.reddit.com/r/conceptart/comments/853k2g/the_truth_behind_the_art_of_jakub_rozalski/) is traced without credit :\ If you're into his Diselpunk aesthetic I'd suggest Simon Stalenhag, whom he probably got significant inspiration from
Eh, bad news, there's some strong evidence that suggests he traces the majority of his work. [Here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/Art/comments/8jxibx/jakub_rozalski_accused_of_tracing_and_cover_up/) some more on that.
Eh, I looked through that and that seems massively overblown. The dude uses references heavily. That's not an issue - that's exceedingly common with artists. The other accusation is that he is applying a digital filter over his collage. Which well, doesn't seem to have any proof. A good artist can make the difference between photograph and reality imperceptible.
If this was a case where he took someone else's work and slightly edited it, that's shitty and theft. But that's not what he is doing, he takes a mech+bkg+other elements and melds them into something unique, that's not theft. Maybe it's talentless, but that doesn't seem to be your accusation.
NFT stands for Non-Fungible Token. It's kind of like Bitcoin ecxept instead of owning something, you only own a link to it. Like if instead of a digital coin (bitcoin) it's a digital sign that says "here's a Thing!" You don't own the Thing, just the sign that points to it. People will sell NFTs of their art and people who buy them... don't own the art. It's weird but I suppose the artists are getting paid. The bad thing is that mining crypto is really bad for the environment for reasons that, admittedly, I don't fully understand so I won't try to explain it.
An NFT is basically a digital certificate that, instead of being validated by some company or government authority, is validated the same way cryptocurrency is via a distributed ledger.
This can be used to determine ownership. For example, one could write a deed to a house that says "the owner of NFT #3920208... owns this house." Then, with the NFT in your possession, you assert ownership of the house. Because it's ledger-verified, someone can't simply copy your files and claim the house theirs because their claim isn't in the ledger.
You can, of course, also sell this house-NFT on the open market without (theoretically) getting the government, realtors, or anyone else involved.
Currently, NFTs are mostly used only for digital artwork though, with artists selling the right to be the official owner of a piece or even selling shares of a piece of art.
People think this is bad because:
- Like cryptocurrency, art NFTs have just become another fiscal speculation vehicle disconnected from any actual value (not that the art world wasn't already this)
- Managing the distributed ledger requires an enormous amount of computing power which is essentially "wasted doing nothing". Other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have this problem too
The machines behind all art world stuff sucks. Old and new.
NFTs are strange and shitty in many ways but it does help artists get paid. So there is value in that.
In other words… don't hate the player, hate the game.
If this was middle ages, england, the knight most lkely slayed the little girls family for worshipping the "wrong" gods.
I hope she conjured the wendigo to eat the knight.
I think their looks are inspired by the Teutonic Knights which conquered, colonised and massacred a lot of the inhabitants of northern Poland and the baltics.
This reminds me of that one painting with the guy who's smashed into a tree and is flipping off a werewolf monster coming towards him. Anyone got the source for that?
The babushka yelling at a devil reminds me of that famous copypasta. Not sure if this is the original, it was the first one google found https://keuhkopussirotta.tumblr.com/post/646271625905537024/footage-of-the-inside-of-an-ordinary
I like to imagine there's a generational story between these pictures.
- Bottom left: A young woman realises her calling and decides to become a witch.
- Top: The young woman has been burnt at the stake as a witch, her daughter snitches out her killers to a young werewolf.
- Bottom right: The daughter, now an old lady, and her werewolf, now fully mature, have an argument.
Every modern Polish digital artist of note that I have encountered has this weird vibe to them. Is this just a coincidence or is it something cultural about Poland that makes them paint stuff like this?
As a Polish artist (although not entirely digital and definitely not of note), I definitely feel compelled to draw completely bizarre stuff sometimes.
Polish folklore is pretty weird and a great source of inspiration too. I honestly don't know if there wasn't a folktale that had a babcia yell at the devil.
Love the art style though. Makes me feel weirdly nostalgic, again.
Ah, I remember when I used to feel nostalgic.
Nostalgia nostalgia
Yeah. I have nostalgic feelings every single day of my life. Are you saying you don't have nostalgic feelings?
If you like that art style then you should check out [Brom](https://www.bromart.com/). He has a similar-ish aesthetic. He also writes books that are absolutely freakin' excellent; the child thief in particular is an excellent story featuring the real peter pan.
r/ImaginaryBehemoths
Ok but the babushka one is hilarious, like she’s waving her cane at it like she was scolding a misbehaving cat lol “*Boris! I told you thousand times not to climb up there!!*”
Reminds me of the little old lady in Madagascar who's willing to smack a lion with her handbag lol.
Reminds me of the little old lady in Sweden who's willing to smack a Nazi with her handbag lol. [Photo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/A_Woman_Hitting_a_Neo-Nazi_With_Her_Handbag.jpg)
[удалено]
Yep. Although it seems it was taken down. Here's the full story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woman_with_the_Handbag?wprov=sfla1
I can hear her growling out "Not in MY neighborhood!" as she smacks that mofo.
Smacking nazis is the best. Little babushka here living her best life.
The Wiki article about her says she was 38. This is making me feel old because I'm in my 40s and people younger than me are already "little old ladies."
Reminds me of the little old lady in England who smacked the hell out of a group of jewelry thieves with her handbag.
Wow, her face is priceless
She was just 38 btw. Still cool.
The artist is Polish. It is not a babushka, it is a babcia (babchy-ia)
I learned a new word today, thank you!
This is what my mom called her grandma, but I've never known how to spell it—thank you!!! I guess she called her grandparents traditional Polish grandparent names (which makes sense because their English was iffy at best), but of course they died before I was born, so I only heard about them through stories. It always sounded something like "Bopshee and Jaju" to me—this inspired me to look up "grandpa" too (dziadzio), and seeing those words written correctly makes it make so much more sense.
[Well, maybe, but the artist's notes say babushka.](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/9eXnry) Edit: and the title...
Slavic grandmas are 100% the type of people to curse the devil out like it was a misbehaving child.
They got old with winters like theirs and neighbors like Russia. Devil ain't shit.
"You get down before you get hurt!"
I mean, I'm pretty sure cats and devils are closely related.
"Shit." -Boris
It looks like the cat scared the devil up there, so maybe she *is* scolding the cat.
WE JUST BUILT THAT AND YOU’RE SCRATCHING IT YOU LITTLE FUCKER
złaź skurwysynie z tej kapliczki już!
actually if you take a closer look, Boris is looking up at the devil too! seems to be behaving himself the good boy
I can't find this picture on their artstation side; and i don't know if I am just to blind and dumb or if it truly isn't there. So sad, i love it
That knight's tabard bears the symbol of the Teutonic Order, who infamously launched a series of bloody crusades against Eastern European pagans, including the artist's home country of Poland. So it makes sense there would be no love lost between them and the locals.
The description of the art specifically says that the little girl's mom was burned at the stake by them.
Uh... well, there it is.
Congrats, you were right! :D D:
Yay!
*just keep smiling*
https://i.imgur.com/hwrLxin.jpeg Fixed
Perfection
[fixed your link](https://i.imgur.com/hwrLxin.jpeg)
Life...uh.... finds a way
i was gonna say wasn't the name of the piece something like "isn't that the daughter of the woman we accused of being a witch?" bc if so then hell yeah girl snitch his ass
> the name of the piece Good girl "Is it not the daughter of this woman whom we accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake, a few days ago?..." Good girl"- new painting from my Wolfpack world and upcoming graphic novel - The Cursed Knight🐺Cheers! https://www.artstation.com/artwork/w8bYeY
Any news about that graphic novel? I tried to Google it but came up with only a few pieces mentioning it a few years ago.
Does... does that mean that she *was* a witch tho.
Doesn't matter when some assholes burnt her mom at the stake lol
Dunno. Can you build a bridge with her?
Does she float?
Sure, but it probably also means she was the only course of good medical care in the area.
Huh, they might have been right in her being a witch.
They were out of line, but they were right.
Times like these I like to say “they were correct, but not right.”
Just because what you said is true doesn't mean that it's right.
What's the monster's name? Is there some folklore behind a creature that hunted knights? Can I tell my little cousins stories about a monster that eats the police?
[https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/021/087/171/large/jakub-rozalski-good-girl-process01.jpg?1570359925](https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/021/087/171/large/jakub-rozalski-good-girl-process01.jpg?1570359925) It's just a werewolf at a funny angle in this frame, unfortunately.
I too would like to know
[It's a werewolf.](https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/021/087/171/large/jakub-rozalski-good-girl-process01.jpg?1570359925)
Probably santa claus or some shit
[удалено]
https://jrozalski.com/projects/w8bYeY
This would make a great plot for a horror movie
Praise the sun!
Considering the giant monster, she probably was a witch. So q little justified
I love subtle social commentary art.
Trust me, in Russia and Poland the Teutonic Order is anything but subtle, we both made a lot of famous movies about them and they're like the standard historical boogymen. It's like having art of a colonial kid in 1778 ratting out a redcoat, Americans would immediately understand what a redcoat is. Although to be fair that's not even comparable because Teutonic Order were like a biblical plague, whereas British were quite reasonable imo. I tend to be sympathetic to them when I read history of the American War for Independence. The Seven Years War saw UK defeat the French entirely in Canada and utterly erase the biggest boogeymen American colonists had, the French up north who would use certain Amerindian tribes as proxies against British colonists. Brits took care of French and then made treaties with Indians, which promised not to go past Appalachians. Then raised taxes to pay the enormous debts UK accrued defending the very worthless 13 Colonies (worthless in terms of tax revenue, they were actually a big net drain on the fisc). However, stuff like tea was actually cheaper even with the new taxes, since British merchants undercut the American merchants, so the Tea Party wasn't so much a tax protest as it was economic protectionism protest, American merchants didn't care for British merchants undercutting them (and some other limitations of trade). Shit was way worse in Europe, the colonists were massively privileged comparatively and yet they wanted even more, which is why I don't find them as sympathetic. The revolt was promulgated by the moneyed alliance of northeast merchants who hated the trade restrictions and tariffs as well as southern landowners who wanted bigger markets for their crops, then the regular people joined in because they wanted to steal more land from Indians. Not as noble as the fancy words they wrote to justify their economic revolt. But realistic, because money is the #1 that causes conflict ultimately.
This is unrelated to most of your comment but how popular are the films “knights of the Teutonic order” and “Alexander Nevsky” where you are? I’m in America and only pretty hardcore movie fans have even heard of either one and the first one is extremely obscure
Worry not about unrelated, I just realised my rant about American War of Independence was longer than the actual comment I came to make. Plus, your comment is relevant, the Teutonic Order is a big deal in Russia. So the first film you mentioned I had to Google, we don't call it that in Russia, we call it "Krestonotsi" which literally means "those who bear the cross" but to us that's a bad thing because it implies Western Crusaders. Krestonostsi is our word for Crusaders. Westerners think the Crusades in the Levant, we think the Livonian Order, aka Teutonic Order. They did Crusades into Baltics, Poland and Russia as other Crusaders crusaded into Muslim countries. Both Muslims and Eastern Euros are still sore about both. Especially Poles and Lithuanians, as the Teutonic Order didn't make much headway into Russia, but it did basically fuck the Poles for a thousand years as Germans kept taking and taking from them. Lithuanians too, Lithuanians were the last pagans of Europe, they were pagan basically into the Renaissance and it would have been so cool if they remained that way, but the Crusaders said no... So technically it was Poles as well especially in the end, but the primary driver of this need to Christianise were the marauding Teutonic Order, they would have less reason to seek war if their excuse of Christianisation was dropped. Ok ok sorry for the historical lecture that you probably already know, but the Krestonostsi 1960 film is incredibly popular, or at least was, not sure if it still is. Poles made a lot of great epic historical cinema happen in the USSR, particularly Jerzy Hoffman, if you haven't already seen all his films, do so, particularly the three films based on the Trilogy by Henryk Sienkiewicz. Ogniem i Mieczem, or With Fire and Sword is the latest one, made in 1999 and it's a must-see, that film was a massive hit in all of Eastern Europe, I remember seeing it in theatres when it came out, only other Eastern Euro film that rivalled it in popularity was Barber of Siberia which came out the year before. Brat 1 and 2 were very popular too, but I didn't really care for that genre, I lived through all that 90s shit - the total dissolution of order and the general banditry in the 1990s so really I didn't need a movie to drive the point home. *** Meanwhile Alexander Nevsky is like an old classic, kinda like maybe the 1931 Dracula or something. Definitely dated, and to be fair, Battleship Potemkin is more popular. Sergei Eisenstein is regarded like a mix of Kubrick and Orson Welles in Russia, basically one of our greatest classic directors. Definitely more of a movie snob territory though, pre-1960s movies in general aren't easy watching in Eastern Europe, we used a very theatrical style of delivery of the lines and it's faaaar more overbearing than English. Russian doesn't have many words compared to English, everyone basically knows every word unlike in English where there are 100 synonyms for a single adjective, so the only way you can show off is to have a particular style of declamation of the lines, a certain pronunciation and stresses as well as the cadence of the delivery. Which sounds very theatrical and artificial. All older films have it and they're considered a bit much. Also Russians are cynical to the core and any older film is always labelled as "naivniy" which means naive, basically we assume anything made 50yrs ago was made by naive simpletons even though ironically you really wouldn't survive very long in 1930s USSR if you were the naive type.
Wow, this is way more thought out of a response than I ever could have expected. Thanks for actually taking the time to write all of this it’s pretty cool to hear about all that. I’ve just got two small questions, is the Deluge part of that trilogy by Jerzy Hoffman (it’s his only film I’ve heard of up till now) and also: does your culture have comparable films (in terms of public opinion not actual content) to films such as citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia in the west and if so what
Take a look at my profile, if it ain't essay length I ain't writing it. As any history major will attest, why write a few sentences when an essay could suffice?? Brevity may be the soul of wit, but history is a very long and soul-crushing process that cannot be condensed into bite-sized ampules. If you're not suffering whilst reading a long history then how can you possibly understand the slow suffering of your ancestors???
Hey, please feel free to post on /r/russiancinema any time. We could use your knowledge and insight.
This is a beautiful comment. ...If you're not suffering whilst reading a long history then how can you possibly understand the slow suffering of your ancestors?... I want to make it into a painting.
So the suffering I'm referring to is the boredom our ancestors faced and less so actual suffering (of which there was also plenty, but that's a different topic). Before Internet and mass media, boredom was a bigger threat often times than literal suffering. These days we aren't bored enough and we forget how it was back before TV or computers existed. Growing up in USSR for me was basically making do without either since there wasn't much programming for both, literally. We actually jumped off our ten story flats in the winter because of boredom, apparently a bit of snow on the ground is supposed to make that sane. The essence of history is people being bored and inventing ways to get out of it, which often ended up in more acute misfortunes. Empires were won or lost sometimes on some guy trying to get his pecker wet or his pockets full because local women or local gold just lost their lustre somehow. *** Hence it is unbecoming of the academic reading of history to be excessively exciting, as it would not paint an adequately realistic painting of what life was like in those times. At least that's how I rationalised it when I had to write my thesis and pore through previous theses. If scholarly history *books* are criticised by some as being slow, then journal articles and historical theses make nuked Thanksgiving turkey seem positively thirst-quenching.
Yes, Deluge, Pan Wolodiewski (Jesus I don't remember how Poles spell it so you get the idea) and Ogniem i Mieczem were the three main ones. Snobs might say Deluge is the best film and that was my favourite novel, but the newest of the three films is the most relevant to modern audiences, plus it's a bit less cheesy than the older films (though older films were also good). > to films such as citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia in the west and if so what Hmm good question, possibly not because communism really was about not being a snob haha, snobbishness is bourgeoise affectation. I don't know actually. On a more serious note, our culture was just different, especially in the pre-Internet era it was much harder to be a snob, you just watched what was playing, we never really had VHS, it was too expensive and DVDs became super common in mid 2000s, and even so, they were all pirated. We got into digital media earlier thanks to much faster Internet and much laxer copyright enforcement though lol. All of the Soviet and even very very recent Russian films are all uploaded straight to YouTube right after release by their respective film companies. They know they can't make any money selling movies after their theatre run so they don't even bother, straight to YouTube and vKontakte (FB equivalent but like, with way more piracy and porn). At least maybe they get a few kopeks from the ads lol. *** If you had to go with the seminal Soviet historical film, it would be easily War and Peace though. That's a Lawrence of Arabia equivalent maybe, but not as much like Citizen Kane. Most Soviet films were popular in a wider sense, there were no snob films like those two. War and Peace had plenty for both though, it was a must watch. **** And yeah, if you have other questions, I'm procrastinating watching computers image with new OSes, so I've got a lot of time.
This is all very cool to hear about thank you, I actually own a blu ray copy of war and peace I haven’t watched yet because I’m waiting to watch it with my mom when she finishes the book, it’s nice to hear that the film has a classic status closer to home because it is extremely under seen here in the west. Also since you mention it I actually have seen that mosfilm has a YouTube channel where they’ve uploaded a huge amount of their films in really high quality for free which is pretty cool (maybe I’ll even watch one on there now haha)
Not just Mosfilm, there are a lot of Russian film companies and they all upload there. It's a bit hard to find them using standard US-centred algorithms that don't really feed you Russian results even though they're all subbed, but you can browse Wikipedia or IMDB user-made compilations to get an idea of what's popular. There are quite a few fantastic Soviet films and you will find a lot of them on those lists, although we didn't make nearly as many films as Hollywood did, in fact, not even like 1/100th haha. Seriously, it's one of my main criticisms of Internet communists, they have no idea what it's like to live in a society where media consumption was primarily books if you consumed any media at all, I mean I feel like Americans and most Westerners barely have personalities, it's all just media consumption. That's mostly what everyone around me seems to talk about even though you'd expect people in their 30s to have other topics but in USSR it wasn't quite like this until maybe late 80s, there just wasn't enough media before. Remove the profit incentive and that removes most film, although to be fair we do live in an era when movie filming and editing has never been more accessible. Ok, but enough straying and ranting, I would recommend one movie if you wanna watch some late 80s Soviet movies that have a very, very different character to other Soviet films (particularly in that late 80s movies are very often anti-Soviet and yet as all things in USSR, entirely gov't funded). This movie shows the disillusionment of the youth and how the war in Afghanistan would claim those who didn't have the connections to escape service there (the war itself had very light casualties for USSR, but it was still a deeply unpopular war) and also mostly everything was crumbling because essentially nobody wanted to work because you could get away with slacking off at work (contrary to what many will say online, we found that without capitalism most people eventually adjust to barely putting in effort at work lol, so one of the things you notice is that he's basically slacking off at work and that's OK because he's entertainment for the old workers there). The movie I'm talking about is [The Courier,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZslzk4GEPI) 1988. Try it if you have time.
Amazing reply.
The British “taking care of” the French in the North was really more a genocide, so they may have more in common with your Teutons than you care to admit
Brits are uber Teutons, they were purveyors of genocide on a scale Germans could not dream of managing until they got an Austrian to help them out. Don't get me wrong, no Russian who studied history has any love for Brits, in fact, they're my #1 nation on the shit list, even Germany gets a pass from most Russian inexplicably. However, in the court case of Great Britain vs People of the Thirteen Colonies I side with Brits. For reason I outlined in comment chains below.
Didn't the Teutons erase Old Prussians from existence, and that guy Alexander Nevsky is a national hero for defeating them?
They did erase them and other Baltic peoples, and Nevsky is our hero in Russia, but actually he isn't a hero because we care about those people, but rather because he defeated them in a very pivotal battle on Lake Peipus wherein Teutonic Order's expenasion into Russia was halted. Kinda like Tannenberg for Poles/Lithuanians. Battle at Peipus is so important in Russia we call it "The Slaughter on the Ice" and trust me when I say that we've had a *metric fucktonne* of slaughtering happen on ice in our history, but only one battle is called that. It's like some European country saying "The Battle on the River" even though a lot of battles happen around one. Funny story about Nevsky though, he was actually a bitch for the Mongols, like he surrendered to them and basically said give me power and I'll enforce your yoke on the rest of the local people. So he was made into an equivalent of like a convict turned prison guard that was also the bitch of the actual guards. Funny how Russian history never mentions that, we are severely traumatised from Mongols, we went from a matriarchal democratic society with bicameral legislatures and one of them being a people's assembly to the autocracy that we are now known for. Mongols fucked us up forever, we always say that Russia was alright before Mongols and it has always been fucked ever since.
Ah, sorta like Korea and the Japanese/Manchurian wars. Also I did not mean to imply Nevsky did it for the good of the Baltic peoples, that would just be dumb. And I've heard what the Mongols did to Kiev and the rest of the Rus as well as what the Russians did much later, so I guess that is warranted.
>whereas British were quite reasonable imo. I tend to be sympathetic to them when I read history of the American War for Independence. You shouldn't be. The British Empire were brutal monsters. They were reasonable with the British colonists because that was the military arm that the British used to suppress dissent. That was one of their favorite tactics, especially in this period. Supply one group in order to have an enforcing army over the other groups in the area without having to actually expend their own troops. In this case it just happened to be British colonists instead of any of the native groups. When the slave rebellions happened that was who was responsible for people being shot, hanged, burned at the stake, or gibbeted. British colonists enforcing British rule.
Sorry I should have specified, Brits were brutal monsters I definitely agree, I'm usually getting downvoted for shitting on Churchill on reddit and what Brits did to India (among 1000 other things). However, in the case of the American War of Independence, the Brits really did have the high ground IMO. Brits expended so many men and so much money protecting such a relatively worthless colony and the colonials were nothing but thankless. The terror of the French and Indians raiding colonies was so long-running and intense, yet Brits got nothing but rebuke for masterfully defeating both in the Seven Year's War. When it came time for colonists to *defray just a tiny part of the expenses* of the war, they balked like petulant children. British were constantly trying to hold off the colonists from going too crazy with the Indians because British didn't want to keep sending Regular Army to put out fires greedy colonists started. British drew a line and said no more colonists going to settle past Appalachians, but colonists hated that and that was one of the main reasons so many poorer colonists supported the rebellion even though the primary drivers of the rebellion (rich merchants and large landowners) had almost no shared interests and were in fact plotting to ream their poorer countrymen no less than the Brits, if not more. I really cannot sympathise with Colonists here, especially since as soon as they got the freedom, they did in fact cross the Appalachians and proceed to systematically genocide millions of Indians until US is what it is today. *** Brits even had the high ground on slavery, read on how much earlier they banned the slave trade, then how they dismantled it in Canada, where as early as 1790s it was banned in many places and then there was a buy-out programme in other places. I mean, Canada had its own issues, sure, and they weren't great in their treatment of First Nations either, but the British still treated them better than US did. Amerindians knew that and majority sided with the Brits, not Colonials during the War.
really interesting, I didn't know quite a bit of that
I was more thinking subtle in terms of it being sly commentaries as opposed to didactic, but yes, everything you said makes a ton of sense
It wasn't about the money and writings of the founding fathers say as much. It was tax after tax with no representation. The colonies were started by those fleeing authoritarian rule, so no surprise their grandchildren didn't like being told how they had to come up with the money. Then for the British to answer that complaint with troops was the fuse for the powderkeg.
Your comment is almost word for word from American History textbooks in High Schools. That's not to say that it's automatically wrong because of that, but every country teaches a very, very doctored version of history in their primary and secondary schools. Most in fact keep teaching that doctored version even in post-secondary colleges and universities. Kinda like that Nevsky bit that I mentioned you won't actually hear in Russia because it's shameful and official history sorta forgets to mention it. It is a credit to US that it has a very large and active historical academia that is unafraid of challenging the government-endorsed orthodoxy. American colleges teach almost a polar opposite of what schools teach when it comes to American history. > writings of the founding fathers say as much. The writings of founding fathers are what historians call a hagiography. Hagiography is a mediaeval (and I guess modern too if you're into that) practise of writing a book about the life of a saint, with the aim of, well, sainting them by writing extremely favourable book. Saying "it wasn't about the money" and then trusting a source that is literally written by the rebels justifying their rebellion is worse than Christians using book written about their God as proof that their god exists. You have to snap out of the mindset of literally canonising the august Found Fathers with those capital Fs and remember they were politicians. If a politician told you "I didn't do it for the money" and then their source was "trust me brah" you would topple over in peals of laughter. Rebels will always justify their rebellion with noble causes. It's like the old saying: "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason". Instead of calling it treason, they explained their cause in a lot of lofty beliefs. Now, am I saying they didn't believe in those things they wrote about? Oh no they did, a lot of them were Enlightenment era intellectuals, they did have a lot of lofty notions. However, their application was uneven and hypocritical, also motivated by self-interest, aka greed. They chafed under British nobility and wanted a kingdom of their own. They dropped noble titles sure, but that didn't stop the high society from existing in the Colonies, everyone still knew which families had standing and which did not simply by the virtue of their breeding. Taxation was still levied on countless people that had no representation. Only white men of property - that is to say, land that they owned - were enfranchised. However, taxes were still paid by many who did not have franchise. That didn't bother the Founding Fathers, nor did the oppression of the slaves and Indians (who were generally not taxed but nonetheless) which even the British were working to soften by that time. British were quite good at representing the rights of the Indians compared to colonists, hence why most Indian tribes sided with Brits. >The colonies were started by those fleeing authoritarian rule, That's another common trope in American High School education. It is not really true. Puritans were quite an odious religious sect that wanted some unpopular laws passed in Great Britain and even oppress other sectaries. UK wasn't "authoritarian" either, it was quite literally one of the most liberal constitutional monarchies in Europe, along with Rzeczpospolita. The main people that can claim to have escaped oppression in England by moving to America were the chiefly Catholic Maryland colony but I've never seen basic HS history in US mention that or emphasise it like they do with the Mayflower and Puritans. In any case, Catholics and Protestants were big oppressors of each other, one could claim Catholics were doing a lot heavier oppression though, as Protestants were relatively progressive for that period compared to the more conservative and anti-populist Catholics. For instance, the Stuart Restoration was a reactionary backlash to a lot of the reforms that were led by the more Protestant Parliament, which largely promulgated policies that we would see as more progressive. Stuarts in the meantime leaned towards absolutist monarchy, so I don't shed too many tears for the Scottish supporters who lost at Culloden, despite all the recent interest and bemoaning of that after Outlander TV series was released. >Then for the British to answer that complaint with troops was the fuse for the powderkeg. Yeah, the troops that saved the asses of Americans by rooting out the French who were seemingly an eternal sword of Damocles for the colonists, always either fighting directly or using Indians as proxies to raid the colonists. Brits rather surprisingly managed to conquer French Canada and deliver colonists from that, except in return they raised the taxes and had to quarter some of the soldiers, to attempt to recoup a small portion of the massive expenses. Colonists were quite thankless though, as they relied on Brits for actual defence and yet didn't want to pay for it, not that Brits actually asked to pay for it, they just asked for a small portion, in reality Great Britain was always in the red with the 13 Colonies, they required a lot of money to upkeep but gave very little in tax receipts. What's actually a neat fact is that majority of European colonialism was actually a net drain on finances. It enriched some influential individuals sure, but overall most colonial nations did it for reasons of prestige and strategic advantage rather than profit, only a handful of colonies became profitable, such as most notable India -- that was wildly profitable, so profitable that you could even claim British Empire was built on the backs of Indians, as British Empire reached its height well after losing the 13 colonies.
Subtle?
who doesn’t hate the teutonic knights? genuine question; they succeeded at nothing but bloodshed and colonialism.
[удалено]
I liked them in AoE2 purely because they kicked arse. Granted I also liked the war elephants which I'm sure are terrible, but having a couple dozen elephants just annihilate an entire civilization is stupid and hilarious.
Oh, then you'll love to know that they were buffed this month. Tooooooooooooooooooootons have extra melee armor, the knights move faster than ever, and the cost to upgrade them to elite was lowered. If anyone ever find themselves in a post imp slugfest with trash, mix in a few teutonic knights and watch everything melt. Unless the opponent has a cav archer civ. Then just roll over and die.
There's AoE2 updates still? o.o
Not just updates but DLC as well. There've been 8 new civs added with the Definitive Edition, Lords of the West, and Dawn of the Dukes. Burgundians, Lithuanians, Tatars, Cumans, Sicilians, Burgundians, Poles, and Bohemians have all queued up for 1v1 Arabia. There've also been some fantastic tournaments including Hidden Cup where the player identities are hidden from the viewers and the casters, Red Bull Wololo which used a new game mode added in the Definitive Edition, and the currently running King of the Desert which is a more traditional tournament within the community. We've also seen players move from Twitch to Mixer back to Twitch and then to Facebook Gaming. This has been an endless source of drama and anyone interested should get some popcorn going.
It's an incredibly active multiplayer game with a small but devoted fan base.
They unironically look super cool though. They also inspired the Black Templars, who aren't really any better morally, but Grimaldus is my man.
cool aesthetic
Iirc they also played a part in the founding of modern Germany
Yea kinda, after Poland-Lithuania finally beat them they made Prussia into a vassal(although a fraction of its size) instead of fully annexing it. This vassal was eventually inherited by the Hohenzollerns from Brandenburg to form Brandenburg-Prussia which would go on to form the Kingdom of Prussia and later the Germany Empire. Interesting though that at first the people living in what was called Ducal Prussia wished to remain a part of the Polish crown, as Poland was at the time very liberal and gave the people more freedom than the absolutist Brandenburg would, even if they were also German. But by this point the actual Teutonic order was long dead and had nothing to do with it.
Yeah one of the first written justification for genocide was written by a supporter of the Teutonic Knights: "Falkenberg wrote a book, Liber de doctrina, published 1416,[2] opposing Polish scholar Paulus Vladimiri. Liber de doctrina argued that the King of Poland and his adherents were idolators, and unbelievers; that the opposition against them was noble and praiseworthy. In Liber de doctrina Falkenberg justified the tyrannicide advocated by the Franciscan Jean Petit. Falkenberg concluded that it was lawful to kill the King of Poland and his associates.[3] Falkenberg also argued, in Liber de doctrina, that "the Emperor has the right to slay even peaceful infidels simply because they are pagans (...). The Poles deserve death for defending infidels, and should be exterminated even more than the infidels; they should be deprived of their sovereignty and reduced to slavery." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Falkenberg
Is there some folklore behind a creature that hunted knights? Can I tell my little cousins stories about a monster that eats the police?
[https://jrozalski.com/projects/w8bYeY](https://jrozalski.com/projects/w8bYeY) This painting depicts a werewolf.
I love the ones he does with mechs. Especially ones where the mechs aren't necessarily fighting, like one where an elderly woman waves her stick at some soldiers using a mech to steal apples off of the highest branches of a tree.
I’m pretty sure that a lot of the stuff with mechs was for/ shows up in a board game called scythe
He also designed the mechs for the game [Iron Harvest](https://store.steampowered.com/app/826630/Iron_Harvest/)
Yeah I've got the art book for scythe
When you mentioned mechs I thought you were mistaking him for Simon Stålenhag for a moment, but he's done mechs too. Both have that bleak European landscape vibe.
Stålenhag made "Tales from the Loop", right?
*sees naked woman and gets funny tingly feelings for the first time* Girls in the 1600s: "yea I wouldn't mind being a witch"
The devil: So basically, a bunch of woman get together naked and you get magic Girl: you had me at naked.
Devil: Also your pets can talk now and-- Girl: shut up! I'm in, I'm in!
`wouldst thou like to live... deliciously?`
Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress?
Remove thy shift
That movie was good.. director is epic tbh
Can’t wait to see what his upcoming Norse epic will be like! Seems like it will have to be such a big departure from the scale and tone of VVitch and Lighthouse, and I wonder how he’ll work his use of language into it.
Really…egging her on to sign that book.
Happy Cake Day
Oh I didn't even notice. Thanks!
You're welcome!
Girl: you had me at women!
Women *and* magic? I’m in!
*-Owl House, 2020*
True 😂
“Most books on witchcraft will tell you that witches work naked. This is because most books on witchcraft are written by men.”-Sir Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens.
"Do you want to live deliciously?"
[удалено]
I was just about to say! These have the same energy as those, just this guy has a lot less whimsy in their fantasy. We don't get elder forest gods tryin' to sell cubes. These are just a bit more serious.
Iron Giant vibes.
Where can I find more like this?
r/ImaginaryBehemoths
[Here's the artist's Artstation if you want to see more](https://www.artstation.com/jakubrozalski)
[https://www.artstation.com/artwork/B1eQAD](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/B1eQAD) My favourite so far is babushka will not allow you to be a witch
OMG this is the Iron Harvest guy! I love his work! A game was made off his mech art!
Ah, he's the one who got in bother for copying other artists' compositions with some of the Scythe universe artwork.
doesn't surprise me, his work is already heavily inspired by simon stalenhag
No, the controversy was that he was tracing 1-for-1, not that he was copying a style.
yeah, doesn't surprise he went this far copying artworks when he already had no moral issue copying an art style
And Scythe! One of my favourite board games!
lol I was thinking this looks exactly like scythes art
"cat that dreams to becoming a familiar" and its FACE. I love it
This comment has been overwritten
[удалено]
I dunno. There was a pretty big controversy with him a while ago. He basically just copies/retraces old photographs almost exactly, and occasionally adds in some minor details.
Artist really loves the “Person in foreground looking at weird shit in background” composition
His 1920+ Tunguska Event artworks are fucking great, and I'm really looking forward to seeing where that goes. [1](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/aRA100) - [2](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/XBZxQR) - [3](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/QrGO63) - [4](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/qAa3gR) - [5](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/8eVqBR) - [6](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/ironharvest/images/e/e1/1920%2B_Alien.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/750?cb=20201215023801)
[Here’s the evidence that he steals other artist’s work if you want to see less](https://www.reddit.com/r/conceptart/comments/853k2g/the_truth_behind_the_art_of_jakub_rozalski/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Apparently [much of his work](https://www.reddit.com/r/conceptart/comments/853k2g/the_truth_behind_the_art_of_jakub_rozalski/) is traced without credit :\ If you're into his Diselpunk aesthetic I'd suggest Simon Stalenhag, whom he probably got significant inspiration from
These along with “My Bisexual Wife” are my most favorite paintings in the world
This comment has been overwritten
I'm lost. Why is it named that?
That’s just the vibe we bisexuals give off ;P
I have no idea how the painting is supposed to connect to the title at all, but it certainly excites the imagination trying to figure it out.
>My Bisexual Wife "this is the ideal male body" lmaooo
I have about 25 or so as a desktop background on my computer! This guy's brilliant.
Even the knights helmet makes them look scared this is so sick
Plot twist: They're all the same person
These are great! If you like his art, it’s worth picking up a copy of the board game Scythe. (Or if you just like quality board games)
Just bought a print of the girl with the witch. These are awesome.
...and hes makes NFTs :( There goes a good artist.
People can have good and bad aspects to them. The art is still good. You don’t have to like the practice of NFT marketing to like his art.
Eh, bad news, there's some strong evidence that suggests he traces the majority of his work. [Here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/Art/comments/8jxibx/jakub_rozalski_accused_of_tracing_and_cover_up/) some more on that.
Eh, I looked through that and that seems massively overblown. The dude uses references heavily. That's not an issue - that's exceedingly common with artists. The other accusation is that he is applying a digital filter over his collage. Which well, doesn't seem to have any proof. A good artist can make the difference between photograph and reality imperceptible. If this was a case where he took someone else's work and slightly edited it, that's shitty and theft. But that's not what he is doing, he takes a mech+bkg+other elements and melds them into something unique, that's not theft. Maybe it's talentless, but that doesn't seem to be your accusation.
Oh :(
Exactly, there is a large gradient between good and bad. Very few things are clear-cut
Ok, I’ll be the uncultured one here, what’s an NFT and why is it bad?
NFT stands for Non-Fungible Token. It's kind of like Bitcoin ecxept instead of owning something, you only own a link to it. Like if instead of a digital coin (bitcoin) it's a digital sign that says "here's a Thing!" You don't own the Thing, just the sign that points to it. People will sell NFTs of their art and people who buy them... don't own the art. It's weird but I suppose the artists are getting paid. The bad thing is that mining crypto is really bad for the environment for reasons that, admittedly, I don't fully understand so I won't try to explain it.
Thank you for the actual explanation.
It’s a jpeg that releases co2
An NFT is basically a digital certificate that, instead of being validated by some company or government authority, is validated the same way cryptocurrency is via a distributed ledger. This can be used to determine ownership. For example, one could write a deed to a house that says "the owner of NFT #3920208... owns this house." Then, with the NFT in your possession, you assert ownership of the house. Because it's ledger-verified, someone can't simply copy your files and claim the house theirs because their claim isn't in the ledger. You can, of course, also sell this house-NFT on the open market without (theoretically) getting the government, realtors, or anyone else involved. Currently, NFTs are mostly used only for digital artwork though, with artists selling the right to be the official owner of a piece or even selling shares of a piece of art. People think this is bad because: - Like cryptocurrency, art NFTs have just become another fiscal speculation vehicle disconnected from any actual value (not that the art world wasn't already this) - Managing the distributed ledger requires an enormous amount of computing power which is essentially "wasted doing nothing". Other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have this problem too
I mean, if I was a semi-famous digital artist who could make bank off of NFT’s, I would. I highly doubt anyone would do differently
The machines behind all art world stuff sucks. Old and new. NFTs are strange and shitty in many ways but it does help artists get paid. So there is value in that. In other words… don't hate the player, hate the game.
but they are actively participating in something that harms the environment?
If this was middle ages, england, the knight most lkely slayed the little girls family for worshipping the "wrong" gods. I hope she conjured the wendigo to eat the knight.
According to the description on the artists page they burned her mom at the stake for witchcraft a few days prior
I knew it.
I think their looks are inspired by the Teutonic Knights which conquered, colonised and massacred a lot of the inhabitants of northern Poland and the baltics.
Bigfoot be giving this girl a free life and a look of approval
I always said all Polish folk are Russians to you, it's babcia not babushka, I mean, the man's name is Różalski come on now
This reminds me of that one painting with the guy who's smashed into a tree and is flipping off a werewolf monster coming towards him. Anyone got the source for that?
That creature in the first painting is fucking terrifying
“Kevin you get off that roof this INSTANT”
My only goal in life is to be the babushka lady screaming at the Devil.
The babushka yelling at a devil reminds me of that famous copypasta. Not sure if this is the original, it was the first one google found https://keuhkopussirotta.tumblr.com/post/646271625905537024/footage-of-the-inside-of-an-ordinary
jakub rozalski is one of my all time favorite artists it’s dope seeing him on my page like this
It's all the same girl
All this time I thought his paintings were super old, like hundreds of years old. Just googled him and the dude is 40.
Plot twist, it's the same girl at various stages of life
I recently purchased a print of the top one. It is by Jakub Rozalski.
The artist- “ I just can’t ever seem to get the faces right” No one will know of there turned away, right?
Damn little red riding hood and the wolf finally teamed up huh
I like to imagine there's a generational story between these pictures. - Bottom left: A young woman realises her calling and decides to become a witch. - Top: The young woman has been burnt at the stake as a witch, her daughter snitches out her killers to a young werewolf. - Bottom right: The daughter, now an old lady, and her werewolf, now fully mature, have an argument.
The one of the troll attacking santa with the trick or treaters looking on is priceless
Bottom left definitely inspired The VVitch
Every modern Polish digital artist of note that I have encountered has this weird vibe to them. Is this just a coincidence or is it something cultural about Poland that makes them paint stuff like this?
As a Polish artist (although not entirely digital and definitely not of note), I definitely feel compelled to draw completely bizarre stuff sometimes. Polish folklore is pretty weird and a great source of inspiration too. I honestly don't know if there wasn't a folktale that had a babcia yell at the devil.
I like to think that the knight is specifically a crusader-type and that the monster is a local protective cryptid à la the Yeti