心怡

knowing i can't have you sometimes makes me want someone else just like you

uhm.

misterpulis:

xinyi:

misterpulis:

so, this site is pretty cool.

but im not sure on how to communicate with people through it.

so could someone help me? i would be very thankful!

ill keep posting stuff. reblogs and likes are well appreciated!

so thank you, (:

has anyone answered this for you yet ?

you communicate through reblogs (like what i’m doing now) and most people have formsprings :)

oh! i see, (:

i dont quite get the form spring though? :o

formsprings are basically a way to send (usually anonymous; you can include your name/tumblr url if you’d like, of course) notes to people who have created their own formspring. these notes can be questions (ie, how old are you? cats or dogs? what does your username come from?) or comments (ie, you are cute! i like your tumblr.) or anything really. after you ‘formspring’ someone, wait a bit and they will soon respond via a post on their tumblr (usually in the form of your Q followed by their A). if you want to continue the conversation, formspring them again, making some reference to their A so that they know what you are talking about. :)

my fs is at http://bit.ly/fsxinyi, if you want you can type gibberish just to see how it works haha (it’s real easy!)

an easy way to see other examples of formsprings/responses is by looking at posts tagged w/ formspring: http://tumblr.com/tagged/formspring

hope that helps !! :)

ps! http://formspring.me is a less customizable, basic version of formspring. easy to set up and use. :)

DOWN WITH BOURGEOIS CRITICISM

nosex:

the only thing that holds s&s (sight and sound) together is the bullshit bourgeois principle of “high art.” i’ve never seen a list that struggles so hard to assure itself that it truly has a position of privileged insight, only to, ultimately, narrowly, & boringly define cinema. if you have to stress yourself to find genre, or radicalism in a top 100 list, the list is probably full of shit (& itself). the exclusion of so-called “low art” is nothing but complete fascism; it’s puritanical, it’s elitist, it’s classist, & it’s boring as shit. i mean, most of these movies are directed by the same five people. it’s just a monotone & obvious list —- replicated over & over again, publication after publication.

& as to your comments on subjectivity & objectivity: you’re just accepting a culturally relative definition of what good cinema is. it may deny subjectivity or taste, but it establishes an oppressive standard — which chokes and ignores important and beautiful areas of artistic expression; it’s an antiquated and inadequate theory of film, much like new criticism is to literary theory. you aren’t gaining any privileged objectivity because, ultimately, the principle (itself), on which this narrow analysis of cinema is based, is wholly subjective ( i.e. the preference to ‘high art’ or ‘cannonism’ ). worse, it is a principle that has been long exhausted, film needs a new theory —- film needs its roland barthes, its stephen greenblatt —- not a roger ebert, not an andrew sarris.

you can like casablanca & citizen kane or whatever all you like, but just make sure you aren’t neglecting greater films just because s&s or afi hasn’t told you to watch them yet; there is a great deal of beauty to be found in so-called “low brow” art.