Honestly, if you ever see a manga character and think “Damn, their style is dope as fuck” 9 times out of 10 their fit comes directly out of a fashion magazine. Sailor Moon was wearing Dior. JoJo was wearing Missoni.
Not to downplay the skill of the artists adapting those styles to their characters, but that is why the drip is so clean.
Like, this is a piece of trivia I love to share and I think it’s important for a few reasons. One is because it emphasizes how much great art is about study and reference. Artists learn from artists and it elevates their work.
Two, because fashion *is* art (which is maybe a less controversial take now than it was a decade ago) and it’s important that we recognize when great fashion inspires us.
Three, because acknowledging how much time great mangaka spent studying fashion *is* recognizing just how much hard work and effort goes into their creations.
And also I just think it’s cool as fuck.
Is someone gonna post some examples? 👀
From Sailor Moon at least these are probably the most relatively famous examples.
For instance! ☝️🤓
- Sailor Pluto wears the Karl Lagerfeld-designed Chanel gold chain dress from their Haute Couture Spring/Summer 1992 collection. Even the jewelry takes cues from the runway styling as worn by Christy Turlington
- Neo-Queen Serenity’s dress is inspired by the Il Palladio gown from Dior’s Haute Couture Spring/Summer 1992 collection. It’s not a full lift— the manga’s version plunges in the back whereas the neckline of the original is fully straight, among other stylizing on the details of the gown
- Black Lady’s outfit was inspired by the styling done for Kate Moss for YSL’s 1994 print advertisement campaign for their Opium perfume
- Koan’s whole look was based off the sheer jumpsuit with the feathered tutu worn in Mugler’s debut collection from Haute Couture Fall/Winter 1992 (for the life of me I cannot find this model’s name 😭)
Here’s an example from JJBA. Araki references fashion media a LOT in his art, especially with the signature JoJo poses people know and love. Here’s some more:
When my grandmother was sent a death threat through text message, I reported it to the police. The officer told me that “it’s not considered a death threat unless the message mentions a weapon and a deadline”.
As a result, they didn’t do anything. Not even a verbal warning to that person.
Or, there’s a double standard when it comes to billionaires and big corporations. Who’d have thought.
I’m going to keep screaming from the rooftops:
They are treating these CEOs as if they’re members of our government. The cops don’t touch threats unless they’re made against political leaders. They don’t shut down cities for a manhunt unless the victim is a political leader. They don’t charge people with terrorism unless the target is political. They are admitting publicly that CEOs and corporations are the ones running this country.
Briana Boston is pretty much being charged with threatening the crown. And that should scare the hell out of people.
50% of cybersecurity is endlessly explaining that consumer VPNs don’t address any real cybersecurity issues. They are basically only useful for bypassing geofences and making money telling people they need to buy a VPN.
Man-in-the-middle attacks on Public WiFi networks haven't been a realistic threat in a decade. Almost all websites use encryption by default, and anything of value uses HSTS to prevent attackers from downgrading / disabling encryption. It's a non issue.
For more than a decade, we’ve brought photographers hundreds of innovative features in Lightroom and Photoshop without changing the price of our photography plans. Today we’re announcing an update to these plans to better reflect the value that the apps deliver. These plan updates come into effect for new subscribers on January 15, 2025, and will become effective for existing members only when your plan next renews.
[…]
Photography Plan (20GB) — The pre-paid annual plan remains unchanged at $119.88/year (equivalent to $9.99/month). Monthly billing remains an option for existing members with an updated price of $14.99/month, with an annual commitment, effective at your next renewal. Existing members who pay monthly can switch to the pre-paid annual plan to maintain the $9.99/month price. We will continue to support this plan for existing customers, however this plan will no longer be available to new customers.
[…]
Lightroom (1TB) — The pre-paid annual plan remains unchanged at $119.88/year (equivalent to $9.99/month). Additionally, this plan is expanding to now include Lightroom Classic. The monthly plan is updating to $11.99/month, with an annual commitment, effective at your next renewal. Existing members who pay monthly can switch to the pre-paid annual plan to maintain the $9.99/month price.
Emphasis added. So there are a few weeks left if you want to sign up for the plan with both Lightroom and Photoshop.
If your Photography plan (20GB) is currently on an annual plan, paid monthly, you can switch your billing to annual plan, prepaid, by visiting your Adobe Account page and following these steps: Select the Manage Plan button, then the Update Subscription button.
That’s the plan I’m on, but there’s no Update Subscription button. I chatted with Adobe’s AI assistant, and then with a person who initially told me that I had to cancel my current plan and that the price would change. After 24 minutes, and re-entering my credit card information even though it was already current, I think they switched me over.
In the state of nature, if someone does you wrong, it’s up to you and your mates to deal with it. This often means violence.
For most of English history there was no police force. Republican Rome had no police. There was law, but it was often privately enforced and often families and friends would take vengeance for wrongs. This led to rather a lot of violence and death, as well as feuds, where violence would continue long beyond the original offense.
Private justice; private vengeance thus comes with huge downsides, so in many societies we give up our right to use violence to right wrongs. We give that right to government in some form, and we reap the benefits of safety and that, in principle, stronger groups can’t bully those who are too weak to obtain their own justice.
The benefits are huge and everyone with sense recognizes that going back to private justice, to saying “they did me or mine wrong, I should beat or kill them” will mean a huge loss of public safety.
But whenever there’s a situation where changing from the status quo entails a huge cost there will be those who say “in that margin, I can benefit. All I have to do is take just a little less than the cost of change.”
How many people does private insurance and denials of care kill? It’s certainly, at least, in the tens of thousands.
What happens is simple enough. Some people, rich and powerful, get the right to harm others for money: the government doesn’t go after them for killing or hurting people. This is true of private equity buying companies, larding them up with debt then running them into bankruptcy so that many of their employees wind up impoverishing and homeless, for example. It was true of bankers causing a financial crisis. It is true of pharma jacking up prices or bosses stealing employees wages and water companies in the UK dumping sewage into the river and giving the money intended to clean sewage to their executives and investors.
None of this is punished by the law, yet people suffer.
But the cost of going back to private justice is HIGH and the transition cost, where the police and courts will charge those who enforce private justice with crimes, while not charging those who kill thousands with crimes, is awful.
So the bet by those who commit what has come to be called “social murder” is that they can get away with it: the cost of private justice is too high.
Still, there’s always the temptation to take a little more, then a little more and then a little more. To think, “well, I’m so rich I can have bodyguards and travel by helicopter and private jet and armored limo. The peons can’t get to me.”
But slowly (then all at once) ordinary people realize it’s not a good deal for them. Americans come to realize that Putin and Xi aren’t their real enemies, because their real enemies are those who are actually going to kill them or make them homeless, and those people are the rich and powerful in their own country.
Elon Musk, right now, is trying to cut Social Security and Medicare. If he succeeds a lot of people will wind up in pain, homeless or dead who wouldn’t have otherwise. He’s a direct threat to many, many people.
Putin isn’t going to make you homeless or kill you or deny you health care.
And when this switch flips, well, perhaps people decide that the high cost of going back to private justice is worth it and that when they gave up their right to private justice, they gave up their power. It was a good deal, as long as they could keep control of government and use government to control the wealthy and powerful, but once government control was lost, well, the power they gave up was used against them.
And this is, maybe, where we are. If more and more executives, CEOs and politicians wind up targets of extra-judicial justice, we’ll know it’s happened.
This isn’t, of course, an endorsement. It’s analysis. It’s in no one’s interest for the situation to become so awful that ending the state monopoly on violent justice makes cold hard rational sense for millions of people.
But that appears to be where we’re heading, if we aren’t there already.
Log in
