Shared posts

27 Jan 02:08

merlin: Day: made. [via] Revisiting the tumblr I made back...



merlin:

Day: made.

[via]

Revisiting the tumblr I made back when I used to like stuff.

06 Jan 00:05

Resolution #2

by laurenrweinstein


Resolution #2

06 Jan 00:05

Resolution #3

by laurenrweinstein


Resolution #3

06 Jan 00:05

Resolution #1

by laurenrweinstein


Resolution #1

05 Jan 18:26

Kazuo Umezu qilinas: by Kazuo Umezu



Kazuo Umezu

qilinas:

by Kazuo Umezu

04 Jan 01:05

Jaime Hernandez, Love and Rockets



Jaime Hernandez, Love and Rockets

23 Dec 19:57

noahberkley: Lose poses by Kinu Nishimura for Street Fighter 3...





















noahberkley:

Lose poses by Kinu Nishimura for Street Fighter 3 Next Generation. Stilling waiting for an arcade fighter with battle damage and stamina bars in game. 

Kinu Nishimura

23 Dec 19:56

petetoms: I didn’t draw a Xmas card this year because I was...













petetoms:

I didn’t draw a Xmas card this year because I was just too busy and completely dead inside, but these are the ones I’ve drawn (usually with Aleks) in the past 7 years.

Happy holidays, everybody.

23 Dec 17:17

BEST LICENSED MANGA OF 2013 Gold Pollen and Other Stories, Seiichi Hayashi, Ryan Holmberg...

BEST LICENSED MANGA OF 2013

Gold Pollen and Other Stories, Seiichi Hayashi, Ryan Holmberg ed.

Sunny, Taiyō Matsumoto

The Strange Tale of Panorama Island, Suehiro Maruo

Helter Skelter, Kyoko Okazaki

World Map Room, Yuichi Yokoyama

The Passion of Gengoroh Tagame, Gengoroh Tagame, Graham Kolbeins, ed.

Mobile Suit Gundam: The Origin, Yoshikazu Yasuhiko

One-Punch Man, ONE & Yusuke Murata

Knights of Sidonia, Tsutomu Nihei

Unico, Osamu Tezuka

***

SPECIAL COMMENDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN PRESENTATION: The Ten-Cent Manga line, PictureBox Inc. (R.I.P.)

THE KAZUO KOIKE AWARD FOR MOST PROBLEMATIC GUILTY PLEASURE: Mysterious Girlfriend X,  Riichi Ueshiba

ALSO BY KYOKO OKAZAKI: pink

ALSO PREFERABLE TO BATTLING BOY: Toriko, Mitsutoshi Shimabukuro

EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT: Little Fluffy Gigolo PELU Vol. 2, Junko Mizuno

***

I DIDN’T YET READ CHILDREN OF THE SEA VOL. 5 BECAUSE I AM OLD AND SLOW BUT IT’S PROBABLY REALLY GOOD OR AT LEAST I’M SURE IT LOOKS NICE AND I’M WAY WAY BEHIND ON BLADE OF THE IMMORTAL AND BERSERK AND VAGABOND AND BASICALLY ALL THE SHIGERU MIZUKI STUFF AND I ALSO MISSED THE FIRST VINLAND SAGA BUT I’LL GET TO EVERYTHING EVENTUALLY! MANGA CRIT HULK OUT [drops mic]

16 Dec 17:02

Throwin’ out some more positive energy!

by laurenrweinstein


Throwin’ out some more positive energy!

16 Dec 17:00

azertip: Taiyō Matsumoto

12 Dec 01:18

Columbia Records Christmas illustration. Posted to the Antique...



Columbia Records Christmas illustration. Posted to the Antique Phonograph Society Facebook page by Randy Morris.

10 Dec 14:22

Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower

by Tarzie

Chris Hedges, writing in TruthDig, has raised an issue that will be familiar to my regular readers:

It is argued that Snowden, in exposing the National Security Agency’s global spying operation, judiciously and carefully leaked his information through the media, whereas WikiLeaks, Assange, Manning and Hammond provided troves of raw material to the public with no editing and little redaction and assessment. Thus, Snowden is somehow legitimate while WikiLeaks, Assange, Manning and Hammond are not.

Hedges too charitably calls this argument ‘misguided’ and wrings his hands accordingly, correctly noting that “it lends credibility to the relentless attacks by the government” against whistleblowers who don’t meet the Snowden standard.  But Hedges is timid about who exactly injected this extremely toxic Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower notion into the discourse in the first place. ‘It is argued…’ he writes. But by whom Chris, by whom? He doesn’t say, even though the record could not be more clear. Indeed, Hedges seems to deliberately muddy the waters of responsibility when he quotes an equally vague Michael Ratner, a lawyer for Wikileaks, who says:

It sounds to me like the so-called Fourth Estate protecting its jobs and ‘legitimacy.’

But Hedges’ misdirection doesn’t end there. By introducing hacker Jeremy Hammond into the discussion, he also misleads on the extent to which Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower aims at mischaracterizing Chelsea Manning and Cablegate. Having been injected into the discourse, it now serves usefully against Hammond, but that is certainly not how it started.

Hedges’ half-baked handwringing has garnered a fair bit of attention, which is a good thing. But since it is half-baked and since I may be the world’s foremost expert on The Snowden Spectacle’s Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower motif,  I feel duty-bound to return to the car wreck I swore off in my last post and trace the provenance of this meme for Hedges’ readers and anyone who’s not up to speed.

Before tracing the history, I should first point out that Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower is predicated entirely on lies. The first lie is that Snowden reviewed every NSA document in his cache. We now know that the trove is far too big for him to have done that within the time he is said to have done it. The second lie, mostly promoted by implication, is that Manning was indiscriminate in her selection of documents. The third lie, also promoted by implication, is that Wikileaks dumped Manning’s trove onto the internet without review or redaction. I have covered these matters in detail here and here. It is remarkable that the baldly false and easily refuted assertions of Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower have passed for six months almost entirely without scrutiny.

It’s also important to point out that Manning’s trial — in the words of Leak Keepers Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewan MacAskill — “coincidentally began the week Snowden’s leaks began to make news.” But by what coincidence, exactly? We know why Manning’s trial had to begin on June 3, a date which was known months before. Less obvious is why the NSA stories had to begin the same week and with a prolificacy that would later prove highly uncharacteristic.

This coincidence merits scrutiny, if only because venerable media watchdog Project Censored chose Manning’s trial as the most censored story of 2013. Certainly media abuse of Manning didn’t begin with the onset of the Snowden stories, but surely the NSA deluge the week her trial began was a devastating blow. This Buzzfeed article credits the timing of the first NSA story to Greenwald, who, by his own account, strong-armed his editors, because he was “eager to have the world learn about this spying as soon as possible.”  But this urgency seems an odd alibi for this ‘coincidence’, given that six months on, the world is only privy to 1% of the Snowden documents.

Considering that the timing of the NSA stories was likely squashing the last chance that Manning’s humanity might intrude on the public, one might have hoped that Snowden and his elected interpreters would at least vocally and unequivocally ally themselves with her. But that’s not what they did.  Two days after strong-arming his editors into publishing his first NSA story, Greenwald administered the first injection of Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower (hereafter GW/BW)  into the chatter, though without naming names, via a June 8 Buzzfeed post:

“We’re not engaged in a mindless, indiscriminate document dump, and our source didn’t want us to be,” said Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian writer, in an email to BuzzFeed Saturday. “We’re engaged in the standard journalistic assessment of whether the public value to publication outweighs any harms.”

The next day,  Barton Gellman, Snowden’s contact at the Washington Post, wrote this:

Snowden said he did not intend to release a pile of unedited documents upon the world. “I don’t desire to enable the Bradley Manning argument that these were released recklessly and unreviewed,” he said.

This is quite the deft smear: Snowden vaguely suggests Manning has been aspersed in bad faith, while accepting the aspersions at face value and giving them new life.

The same day that Gellman published his article, The Guardian published a story by Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras that contained this:

…[Snowden] admires both [Pentagon Papers whistleblower, Daniel] Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private.

“I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest… There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.”

To the increasing alarm and bewilderment of Manning supporters, Greenwald — who was tirelessly making himself the avatar of the Snowden Leaks — promoted GW/BW more vigorously than anyone, each time placing particular emphasis on the importance of journalists to the whistleblowing enterprise. From a June 10 MSNBC appearance:

if you ask [Snowden] what the difference is [between Manning and himself], he will say that he spent months meticulously studying every document. When he handed us those documents they were all in very detailed files by topic. He had read over every single one and used his expertise to make judgments about what he thought should be public–and then didn’t just upload them to the internet–he gave them to journalists who he knew, and wanted to go through them each one by one and make journalistic judgments about what should be public and what wasn’t, so that harm wouldn’t come gratuitously, but that the public would be informed, and that he was very careful and meticulous about doing that

In addition to the quaint notion that each of 50,000+ documents can be ‘meticulously studied’ in ‘months’, these comments are notable for the exceptionally thick layer of  self-promotion. The clear message is that Snowden is better than Manning — that is, unlikely to bring “harm” “gratuitously” — because, in addition to reading all his documents, he chose Greenwald and Co specifically for their fine “journalistic judgments.”

Bear in mind that while this campaign continued to some degree in the ensuing months, everything I quoted above came out between June 8 and June 10. Obviously a messaging strategy had been decided upon and pursued from the start with a great deal of discipline. Clearly we can’t blame Ratner’s too general ‘Fourth Estate’ for this, though I think he has pegged the motive exactly. 

Unsurprisingly, members of the mainstream media instantly saw a cudgel to use against Manning, and how convenient for their purposes that  the start of her trial and Snowden’s arrival so elegantly coincided. Chris Hayes, Radley Balko and Ari Melber were among the journalists who promoted GW/BW on Twitter.  Within days, articles appeared in The New Republic, The New York Times, Talking Points Memo and elsewhere expounding on the same theme, all taking Snowden’s unverified self-assessment as established fact.  From The New York Times, June 10:

[Snowden] was also not nearly as reckless as Bradley Manning, the soldier on trial on charges with giving classified materials to WikiLeaks, who seemed not to know or care what secret documents he was exposing.

That Greenwald and Snowden mixed their smears with professed admiration for Manning made it easy for their more credulous advocates to blame the mainstream entirely for this too predictable result. Even after the beatdown got underway, Greenwald had clearance from his adoring fans to sing the same song, though with Manning now established as meticulous Snowden’s reckless antithesis, he mentioned her less by name; instead he would return to the phantom indiscriminate dump of that first Buzzfeed mention, juxtaposed against the wise, leak-tempering journalists to whom Snowden had so prudently entrusted his trove. From a July 31 CNN appearance:

If you have access to classified information, you could just spew it out all into the ether … [Snowden] could have uploaded it onto the internet en masse…he could have given it to Wikileaks and asked them to just publish it all. He did none of that. He came to established media organizations and said ‘please be extremely careful.’”

In September, WaPo Leak Keeper Barton Gellman said something strikingly similar in an NPR interview, citing Manning by name:

Let’s consider what [Snowden] could have done. If Chelsea Manning was able to exfiltrate and send to Wikileaks and publish, in whole, half a million US Government documents, Edward Snowden who is far far more capable, had far greater access…he could have sent them to Wikileaks…That’s not what he wanted to do.

It is a tribute to both GW/BW’s sticking power and its perniciousness,  that servile WaPo hack Richard Cohen parroted these talking points three months after Greenwald had introduced them on CNN:

[Snowden] has been careful with his info, doling it out to responsible news organizations — The Post, the New York Times, the Guardian, etc. — and not tossing it up in the air, WikiLeaks style…

Shortly after Cohen had declared his new-found love for Snowden, the whistleblower himself returned to GW/BW with explicit reference to Manning — at least as paraphrased by fellow NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake — in a Washington Post piece published on October 25:

“[Snowden] made it quite clear that he was not going to compromise legitimate national intelligence and national security operations,” said Thomas Drake, a former NSA executive.

Indeed, Drake said, Snowden made clear in their conversation that he had learned the lessons of prior disclosures, including those by an Army private who passed hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables to the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks, which posted them in bulk online. “It’s telling,” Drake said, “that he did not give anything to WikiLeaks.”

Note that Manning has almost no existence here beyond Snowden/Drake’s familiar, power-serving mischaracterization. The Post even omits her name, along with any mention of her 35-year sentence, handed down in August.

Finally, Janet Reitman, in her December 4 Rolling Stone Greenwald-Snowden hagiography, mashes up both of Snowden’s above-cited June 9 Manning quotes to explain why he didn’t go to Wikileaks. She then quotes Greenwald who, with his patented yappy hyperbole, extols yet again Snowden’s superhuman ability to un-Manningly download, read, and meticulously file tens of thousands of documents in mere months:

“…every last motherfucking document that he gave us was incredibly elegant and beautifully organized.” Greenwald had no doubt that the leaker had read every page; not a single one was misfiled. “It’s 1,000 percent clear that he read and very carefully processed every document that he gave us by virtue of his incredibly anal, ridiculously elaborate electronic filing system that these USB sticks contained.” (h/t Jay23)

‘Incredibly elegant and beautifully organized…1000 percent clear…ridiculously elaborate…’ Greenwald’s vulgar hucksterism is firing on all cylinders here but Reitman — true to the strict ethical code of resurgent journalism — doesn’t do the simple math that quickly reveals how flagrantly dishonest and stupid this legend truly is. So GW/BW finishes the year emanating from the same source with whom it began, unexamined as ever.

Thus ends the history of GW/BW to date. As I have written elsewhere, the Snowden Spectacle is unique as dissidence in the degree to which its stars repudiate dissent and accede to, and even promote, state and corporate power. Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower embodies this more dramatically than any other aspect, being nothing less than the mendacious, calculated erasure of Manning except as a bad example, in a power-appeasing bid  for legitimacy and status.  It is, as a friend noted recently, the Leak Keepers’ original sin.

For more details, read these related posts, listed in the order they were posted:

Confronting Edward Snowden’s Remarks on Manning

Fuck the Guardian: Take Your Drip and Stick It

Another Snowden News Story, Another Lesson in Proper Whistleblowing

The Pejorative Use of ‘Dumping’

In Conclusion


10 Dec 00:28

Stroll on Tatooine by Ulises Farinas



Stroll on Tatooine by Ulises Farinas

28 Nov 00:25

mixtapecomics: After a discussion last week with several of my...



mixtapecomics:

After a discussion last week with several of my cartoonist peers (and at the behest of Steve Bissette): I want to talk about image theft and uncredited content on social media. I’m only going to speak from personal experience (and only about the one image posted above) but I hope that this example will show the disservice this causes to any artist whose artwork is edited and reposted without credit.

[Disclaimer: I post all my work online for free. I want people to read, enjoy, and share my work. I have no problem with people reposting my work if it’s credited and unaltered. (That way new readers can find their way to my site to read more.) My problem is when people edit out the URL and copyright information to repost the images as their own for fun or profit.]

Below, I’ve listed the sites where my comic was posted and how many times it was viewed on / shared from each of those sites. (The following list was composed from the first ten pages of Google.) Let’s take a look at the life of this comic over the last 11 months.
 

On January 23 (2013) I posted the comic on my journal comic website, Intentionally Left Blank, and on my corresponding art Tumblr (where it currently has 5,442 notes). The same day, it was posted (intact, with the original URL and copyright) to Reddit. (There, credited, it has received 50,535 views.)

The Reddit post alone was exciting but on January 24, someone posted an edited version of the image (with the URL and copyright removed) to 9GAG. That uncredited posting has been voted on 29,629 times and shared on Facebook 22,517 times. That uncredited image caught on and spread like wildfire:

January 25: LOLchamp (39 comments. Views unknown.)
January 26: WeHeartIt. (With the 9GAG ad at the bottom. Views unknown.)
January 26: Random Overload (2 Facebook likes. Views unknown).
January 26: CatMoji (41 reactions. Views unknown.)
January 26: The Meta Picture (1,800+ Facebook likes. 6,000+ Pintrest shares)

February 5: damnLOL. (929 Facebook shares. Views unknown.)
February 7: LOLhappens. (1,400+ Facebook shares.)
February ?: LOLmaze (121 shares)
February ?: LOLzbook (37 likes and 37 shares).

On March 25, I was lucky and this comic was featured in a Buzzfeed post 36 Illustrated Truths About Cats.” The comic was featured alongside work by a 35 other artists who I admire and aspire to be. (Exciting!)

Buzzfeed was able to trace the uncredited image back to me and listed a source link to my main website but still posted the uncredited version of the image. The post currently has 6,000+ Facebook shares, 14,000+ Facebook likes, and 727 Tweets. Ever the optimist, I’ll count those numbers in the “credited views” column.

The problem with Buzzfeed posting the uncredited image and only listing the source underneath was: people began to save their favourite comics from the article and repost them in their personal blogs without credit. (13, 3, and 60 Facebook likes, respectfully.) I’m mentioning this not to target Buzzfeed or the individuals reposting, but to show the importance of leaving the credits in the original image.

March 30: FunnyStuff247. (47,588 views.)
March 31: LOLcoaster. (1 Facebook like. Views unknown.) 

April 5: ROFLzone. (1,200+ Facebook shares. Views unknown.)
April 26: LOLwall. (70 Facebook likes. Views unknown.)

July 23: The uncredited image was chopped into four smaller pieces and posted on the Tumblr of TheAmericanKid, where he sourced it to FunnyStuff247. (124,786 notes and featured in #Animals on Tumblr.)

Aug 21: Eng-Jokes.com. (87,818 views and 41,400+ Facebook shares.)

Oct 2: MemeCenter. (284 Facebook likes. Views unknown.)
Oct 5: FunnyJunk. (3,327 views.)
Oct 10: LikeaLaugh. (1,486 views.)

Nov 20: Quickmeme(280,090 Facebook shares. Views unknown.)
Nov 20: JustMemes. (6 Facebook shares.)

There were 14 other sites which listed uncredited versions of the image within the first 10 pages of Google, but they were personal blogs so I’m not going to include them here.

One additional website I haven’t mentioned was Cheezburger, who originally posted the uncredited version of comic on January 23; but later modified it to the credited image after I contacted them. They didn’t contact me when they made the change but the image currently has 2,912 votes and 4,700 Facebook shares. Let’s be optimistic and count those as credited views and shares.
 

That brings us up to the current views and shares of the comic. Now let’s do some math.

I’ve removed the comments and reactions (because they could already be accounted for in views). I’ve left in votes, however, because some sites list votes instead of views.

Taking into consideration that Tumblr notes are made up of both likes and reblogs, let’s be conservative and say the Tumblr notes are twice as high as they should be. (That every single person that has viewed the image on Tumblr has liked the image and reblogged it.) Dividing the Tumblr notes in half, that leaves us with:

Posts using the credited image:
2,912 votes
2,721 Tumblr notes
50,535 views
727 Tweets
0 Pintrest shares
14,000 Facebook likes
10,700 Facebook shares

Posts using the uncredited image:
29,629 votes
62,393 Tumblr notes
140,219 views
0 Tweets
6,000 Pintrest shares
2,085 Facebook likes
347,984 Facebook shares

Adding those up and treating them all like views (assuming that every shared post was viewed once):

The original (unaltered, credited/sourced) version of the comic has been viewed 81,595 times.

The edited, uncredited/unsourced version of the comic has been viewed 588,310 times. (That’s over half a million views. Seven times more than the original, credited version.)

What does that mean for me as a creator? On the positive side, I created something that people found relatable and enjoyable. I succeeded at that thing I try to do. But, given the lack of credit, it also means that 88% of 669,905 people that read this comic had no chance of finding their way back to my website.

This was a successful comic. I want to be able to call this exposure a success. But those numbers are heartbreaking.

Morally, just the idea of taking someone’s work and removing the URL and copyright info to repost it is reprehensible. You are cutting the creator out of the creation. But worse yet, sites like 9GAG are profiting off the uncredited images that they’re posting.

9GAG is currently ranked #299 in the world according to Alexa rankings. As of April of this year, their estimated net worth was around $9.8 million, generating nearly $13,415 every day in ad revenue.

As a creator of content that they use on their site: I see none of that. And I have no chance of seeing any kind of revenue since readers can’t find their way back to my site from an uncredited image.
 

I don’t want to sound bitter. The money isn’t the point. But this is a thing that’s happening. This isn’t just happening to me. It’s actively happening to the greater art community as a whole. (Especially the comics community. Recent artists effected by altered artwork/theft off the top of my head: Liz Prince, Luke Healy, Nation of Amanda, Melanie Gillman, etc.) Our work is being stolen and profited off of. Right this second.

I do my best to see the positive in these events but the very least I can do as a creator is stand up in this small moment and say “This is mine. I made this.”

Something need to be done by the community as a whole: by the readers as well as the creators. We need to start crediting our content/sources and reporting those who don’t. Sites like 9GAG need to be held accountable for their theft of work. If you see something that’s stolen: say something to the original poster, report the post, or contact the creator of the artwork.

If you have an image you’d like to post but don’t know the source: reverse Google image search it. Figure out where it came from before you post. If you like it enough to share it, it means there’s probably more where that came from.

That sucks.  Compare that to this dick who I asked to credit his posts yesterday:

“at the end of the day i do not have time to credit every single person involved as i work 6 days a week and have other blogs to run and an xbone to play on.

And I very rarely see people credit anyone never mind everyone.”

The Internet has lots of people proud to not give credit.  How else will they find time to play X-Box One?

23 Nov 00:16

Barbra Steisand by Lawrence Schiller



Barbra Steisand by Lawrence Schiller

20 Nov 01:57

Process post for the big Run-DMC splash page in this...



















Process post for the big Run-DMC splash page in this week’s HHFT.

17 Nov 22:34

The Man That Dances In The Meadow, 2013



image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

The Man That Dances In The Meadow, 2013

15 Nov 18:39

Sarah Gorby - Chansons russes et tziganes

by zero

"There can be no-one better than Sarah Gorby for interpreting these popular Russian and Gipsy songs which she collected and selected so lovingly, for Russia was the land of her childhood and Russian her mother-tongue.

With its exceptional sensitivity the voice of Sarah Gorby clearly expresses the feelings of the Russian soul: Melancholy, violence and nostalgia, the language of passion, the spontaneous appeal which is both strong and gentle in these popular songs whose synthesis engendered Russian lyrical writing.

In its sincerity are to be found the gravity, the emotion, the fervur and all the riches of the Slav soul.

Sarah Gorby died in 1980." - From the booklet.

Sarah Gorby - Chansons russes et tziganes
(320 kbps, cover art included)
15 Nov 18:38

Miss Lonelyhearts #18, adaptation of the Nathanael West...

by gabriellegamboa


Miss Lonelyhearts #18, adaptation of the Nathanael West novella. Updated every weekday.

by Gabrielle Gamboa for Comics Workbook

15 Nov 17:08

theporkchopexpress: Please let it be real. ENYA FOREVER.



theporkchopexpress:

Please let it be real.

ENYA FOREVER.

09 Nov 02:19

Heidi McDonald wrote an excellent piece in reaction to Sean Collins, what’s the most polite...

Heidi McDonald wrote an excellent piece in reaction to Sean Collins, what’s the most polite way to say stupid, piece about the lack of female critics in comics.

It includes this stunner from Tom Spurgeon’s interview with Gary Groth:

SPURGEON: Do you have any response to the criticism — I think it was Heidi MacDonald that was public with this observation — that this latest issue lacked women writers, cartoonists and even subject matter? I know that Esther Pearl Watson was scheduled but there was a hitch there.

GROTH: Yeah, Esther was supposed to be in it. I have to admit I’m gender-blind when it comes to good writing. And to subject matter.


Which is almost word for word what Dan Didio said when asked the same question about women at DC.

The most stunning thing about this though isn’t per se about Groth’s publishing attitudes—but instead, the notion that you could have these huge TCJ tomes devoted to hundreds of pages of writing on comics—and just completely ignore women.  Within that scene of comics that TCJ covers, you’d find it almost impossible not to say that women aren’t a dominant force within it.  Most of the best alt-comix or whatever that scene is cartoonists that are working today ARE women. 

I like this closing part:
"But heed me well, young women of tumblr, this is how women get forgotten and marginalized. They get left out of history. Over and over and over, and have to prove over and over and over that they belong in discussion. Women cartoonists and women comics critics have as much to say and as much wit to say it as a jackass showboat like Matt Seneca who once burnt and ate a book because he didn’t like it."

But yeah.  It’s amazing the insane pervasiveness of this kind of thing.  It’s bad enough that publishers are boys clubs.  You can’t have the ones deciding critical canon also be running the same game.  It gets to the point where it’s just white dudes writing about white dudes to perpetuate white dudes.

And then if you scroll down you can read Sean Collins come up with new reasons for how he wrote about me in his article.  I’m fascinated how the reasons seem to be changing by the day.  First it was because I’m an artist as well(like Matt Seneca and Frank Santoro?), now it’s something about me only focusing on older genre work.  As if that’s even true.

And whatever.  It’s crazy that I even got mentioned in an article about women critics.  If you can only think of two names for critics who are women, and I’m in your two—you need to get out more.  I have in no way paid anything like my dues to be in that spot.  And there are many many many women who are doing a lot more work than me in the field, and have been doing it consistently for a lot longer.  I’m mystified both by the fact I was mentioned, and the way I was mentioned.  And the way I continue to be mentioned.

It’s all ridiculous.  You people are ridiculous.  This is why I mostly just keep to my blog instead of continuing with more high profile work.  I hate all of the bullshit.  It’s so much easier just to write about whatever I want to write about, however I want to write about it, and just feed it directly to the people who are most interested in what I have to say.  It’s not like most of this work is even financially rewarding.   And the extent that I have respect for half of the people I’m supposed to have respect for, is pretty minimal.  I feel like a lot of dudes on lists are being propped up by institutional factors that have little to do with how shitty their taste is and how blunted and boring their analysis is.  Idiots.

03 Nov 19:08

Poster for Tsui Hark’s Zu Warriors From Magic Mountain...



Poster for Tsui Hark’s Zu Warriors From Magic Mountain (1983).

All time great movie poster.

30 Oct 20:46

koalaparties: Emily’s new Halloween comic!



koalaparties:

Emily’s new Halloween comic!

29 Oct 02:15

My third and final Ladydrawers strip, written by Anne Elizabeth...



My third and final Ladydrawers strip, written by Anne Elizabeth Moore for Truthout. This one looks at the secondhand clothing industry. (via Ladydrawers: The Business of Thrift)

28 Oct 02:59

sophiefranz: More lunch comics.



sophiefranz:

More lunch comics.

25 Oct 18:38

Valentine Gallardo

24 Oct 14:51

ungoliantschilde: Moebius ~ “It’s a small Universe.”

















ungoliantschilde:

Moebius ~ “It’s a small Universe.”

14 Oct 23:33

Janet Gaynor & Charles Farrell in “7th Heaven”



Janet Gaynor & Charles Farrell in “7th Heaven”

13 Oct 19:21

EDNA II – by Sophie Goldstein

by zacksoto

David chose to live his life outside the domed city, giving up medically-maintained eternal youth in his search for God. When his robot companion, Edna II, is damaged in a fall he must venture into civilization to face the ghosts of his past.

EdnaInks001_Studygroup

EdnaInks002_Studygroup

EdnaInks003_Studygroup

EdnaInks004_Studygroup

EdnaInks005_Studygroup

EdnaInks006_Studygroup

EdnaInks007_Studygroup

EdnaInks008_Studygroup

EdnaInks009_Studygroup

EdnaInks010_Studygroup

EdnaInks011_Studygroup

EdnaInks012_Studygroup

EdnaInks013_Studygroup

EdnaInks014_Studygroup

EdnaInks015_Studygroup

EdnaInks016_Studygroup

EdnaInks017_Studygroup

EdnaInks018_Studygroup

EdnaInks019_Studygroup

EdnaInks020_Studygroup

EdnaInks021_Studygroup

- YOU CAN OWN EDNA II IN IRENE ANTHOLOGY #3 -