Only one chance in this lifetime…
Like watching sunset at the beach from the most foreign seat in the cosmos, I couldn’t resist a cell phone video of Earthset. You can hear the shutter on the Nikon as @Astro_Christina is hammering away on 3-shot brackets and capturing those exceptional Earthset photos through the 400mm lens. @AstroVicGlover was in window 3 watching with @Astro_Jeremy next to him.
I could barely see the Moon through the docking hatch window but the iPhone was the perfect size to catch the view…this is uncropped, uncut with 8x zoom which is quite comparable to the view of the human eye. Enjoy.
There are many examples of classical art that evoke disgust. For instance, Goya’s "Saturn Devouring His Son," Rubens’s "Massacre of the Innocents," and Géricault’s "Anatomical Pieces." I suspect you would know this if you were better educated in the subject you talk about. In slide one, I’ve attached a photo of Titian’s The Flaying of Marsyas, which depicts the satyr Marsyas being flayed for challenging Apollo. The imagery is obviously designed to evoke disgust.
However, the simple answer to your question is that modern and contemporary art is often entangled in discourse (e.g., theory, media, conceptual frameworks, and so on). It’s not just about depicting a patron’s wealth, devotional images, or government propaganda. We can call these forms of expression “visual languages.” If you don’t understand these languages or are not engaged in the discourse, then some of these pieces may seem as foreign to you as hearing someone speak French or Chinese.
To me, the question is: why do people who purportedly value classic aesthetics so thoroughly abuse and twist these aesthetics? For instance, Pete Hegseth festoons his attire with USA flag belts, pocket squares, and pins. He wears “fun socks” and tan shoes with dark suits. Many nowadays also get contrast-colored buttonholes or wear “dress sneakers” with tailoring. Pourquoi? Why are the most vociferous defenders of “classical aesthetics” so poorly educated in the subject? And why do they so rarely stick to such aesthetics when it comes to decorating their homes or dressing themselves? Everything is twisted beyond recognition.
In my own space (menswear), the best-dressed men in the classical Western tradition tend to be based in East Asia. For instance, Yuhei Yamamoto, founder of Tailor CAID, a bespoke clothier in Japan, does classic American style better than American clothiers. We see him in slide three. Many people in East Asia seem to take these aesthetics much more seriously than their US counterparts.
In my opinion, the answer to this is very simple: people online who purport to love classical aesthetics are not actually interested in art, architecture, or tailoring. They are, instead, culture warriors primarily interested in politics. Classical art and tailoring only serve as ways for them to signal their political identity. It’s the difference between someone who loves mechanical watches for the horology and someone who buys a Rolex because they want people to know they’re rich and successful.
Such people are charlatans and hucksters who use these topics to build audiences, then release a 29.99‑dollar PDF and a line of supplements for their get‑rich schemes. The only thing these people genuinely value is money.
"Can we get rid of this ayatollah T-shirt? Khomeini died years ago."
"But, Marge, it works on any ayatollah-- Ayatollah Nakhbadeh, Ayatollah Zahedi. As we speak, Ayatollah Razmara and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power."
"I don't care who's consolidating their power."
regardless of what happens to the tarrifs, they're doomed from the start bc the average conservative holds all three of these positions at once:
— virtue signals about supporting US manufacturing
— against increasing the minimum wage
— buys foreign imports because they're cheap