email

my art tag

society6

twitter

ask

archive


↓↓↓ BLOG ↓↓↓


ya-haaa:

artistsalleyinfo:

teelowegreen:

If you’re tabling at a con as a Li’l Rookie, get ready to experience these 12 Stages of Feels exactly like this.

A comic about an experience we’re all familiar with. Hang in there, guys! We’re all in this together!

okay, stop. S T O P.

first off, if you want to sell/be known, don’t ever call yrself “Li’l Rookie.” this completely prostrates you, immediately, before other people can make a judgment call themselves. why would i ever be interested in yr work when right off the bat you’re debasing it? if you don’t care enough to be confident at all, why should i care enough to buy it?

also, don’t be such a sad sack because people spring for more mainstream or interesting-looking work. the truth of the matter is that many people you meet, whether in day-to-day life or at cons/festivals, will not care about you or yr work. that’s it. that’s how it is. not every person who walks by yr table is going to buy something or compliment you. many people won’t! instead of looking like a sad puppy when they walk away disinterested, be proud of yr work and focus on the people who do want to see. and don’t blame yr audience for not being interested in yr personal experience. they don’t know you! and they don’t owe you anything because you chose to be vulnerable. don’t expect them to; that’s self-centered and shitty.

if you want to sell, and you want people to be interested, understand that independent comics, even sensitive comics about yr personal life, are only half about art — the other half is business. at this stage in the game, you are yr own artist, writer, manager, secretary, publicist, and financial department. this is a lot of work. don’t expect to immediately soar and make bank just because you put in time drawing — you have to put the time in for everything else as well. manage yr time so you’re not spending too much time editing yr scans. if you fuck up yr printing, do it again. package yr work so it looks unique and interesting. even basic practices like this will help immensely.

basically: learn up and toughen up, or be miserable. the choice is yours!

I definitely see where you’re coming from but this is pretty harsh. For one thing you can be a rookie and still be a professional. Rookie doesn’t mean amateur, it just means new or rather let’s think of it as “fresh” maybe. Some people have a lot of success in their rookie years, some don’t until later. Considering yourself a rookie says nothing about how you feel about the quality of your work, just the amount of time you’ve experienced the business side of things. 

I also think a lot of this comic is just about initial and immature feeling you might have as someone new to working conventions. It misses the opportunity to say “THIS IS ALL STUFF YOU WILL NEED TO GET OVER” but it’s not unusual to feel irritated by the fact that people gravitate toward fan art and other work that is pandering or less creative than your own work, but it’s definitely something you get over once you realize that’s how it is. It doesn’t make you a bad person or self centered for feeling this way initially though.

The one thing about this comic that really DID irk me is the part about presentation and printing.  In this day and age, it’s not so expensive to spend a little more on a color cover or to be more creative with paper stock or book construction.  When I see a black and white, copy paper, xeroxed comic at a show I don’t even bother looking at it.  If you don’t feel like the art was worth presenting nicely it’s not worth anyone looking at.  Honestly, if you don’t have time or money to make your book or zine look 100% as good as it can before a convention, don’t have it for that convention.  I’ve made that mistake in the past and regretted it. You always want to present yourself and your work to the best of your abilities, otherwise people will assume you actually ARE this lesser presentation you put out there.

But most of all just make the work that feels right for you no matter what. People will eventually come around to your work if you put your all into it, and even if the outcome isn’t what you expect, you’ll feel a lot better than if you made some pandering crap just to get extra attention (and if it’s money you’re worried about you’re in the wrong business).

(Source: tynelowedraws)

paranoia-girls:

Paranoia Girls: Page Four

Art: Yunico Uchiyama

Text: Patrick Macias

Paranoia Girls on facebook 

(via hassavocado)

altcomics:

Sarah Ferrick & Andy Burkholder

altcomics:

Sarah Ferrick & Andy Burkholder

(via oireau)

anujink:

plslala:

My new comic “JANUS” is headed off to the printers this week, hopefully it comes out at CAB looking something like this (but longer)

:|

More power from Lala.

Excited!

(via grahamsig)

(Source: rammiel, via milkattack)

dwdesign:

By Kilian Eng
jonnynegron:

Song of Mercury, page 11
The first installment of Song of Mercury will debut at this year’s CAB

jonnynegron:

Song of Mercury, page 11

The first installment of Song of Mercury will debut at this year’s CAB

the-sockdrawer:

the-sockdrawer:

THANK YOU FOR 1000 FOLLOWERS!!! 

In honor of this follower milestone, we have decided that a giveaway is in order! And, why not with some of our favorite socks in the store?

Rules

  • Must be following us
  • Likes and reblogs count (Doing both doubles your chances!)
  • Reblog as many times as you like
  • Must have your ask box open
  • Must be 18 and over OR have parental permission to enter
  • Must be willing to give us your mailing address (So that we can get your socks to you!)

The winner will receive 5 pairs of our popular art socks to cozy and class up their feet! The giveaway ends Wed. October 15, 2014! If you are not confident in your luck, all of these socks are also available for purchase online at our store!

Sunflowers // Starry Night // The Scream // Mona Lisa // Birth of Venus 

Thanks again to all our sock loving followers and good luck!!!

For those of you who didn’t see it last time. One week to go!!!

(via yung-dick-king)

Page 43 of Pearlescent Gray just went up for Patreon subscribers.
Check it out now for only $1!
Osamu Tezuka - Hi no Tori

Artworks of Meka Chan project by italian artist Claudio Acciari (he made a fake opening, and he also works on a comic book).

(Source: ca-tsuka, via constellation-funk)

taishou-kun:

Yamamoto Mizuki 山本美月 japanese model & actress in Maetel メーテル cosplay - October 2014

(via dvvglvs)

jazorspark:

dominobooks:

slaut:

slongo:

benneb:

mothersnewsofficial:

condolences to Leslie Weibeler and Dane Martin, who each caught inept reviews in the LA Review of Books today. Leslie gets the old “comics are supposed to be easy to read”, and Dane’s comics get called “automatic poetry”, which, are they automatic? they seem really thought out. and why is this review in the form of a comic? comics can do a lot but they aren’t very well suited to the review format. when i saw the thumbnail for this review on the site, i was looking forward to a thoughtful review of these comics, good or bad, which is what i’ve come to expect from the LARoB. instead i got a bowl of tepid slop. oh well! i guess criticism is tough.
ps- my blurb edit for Dane Martin is: “Effective” - LA Review of Books. for Leslie: “Weibeler’s lines… buzz with energy” - LA Review of Books.

I dunno, are either of these reviews actually negative? I was turned off by the critic’s opening (distinguishing “comics” and “not comics” is one of the most useless and distructive things you can do in comic criticism), but the reviews engage both books on their own terms. The formal logic of Leslie Weibeler’s work is described more clearly than I’ve seen done before, and the critic gets at what makes the work compelling; “it’s hard to read” is stated less as a scruple than as part of the comic’s experience, albeit an offputting one. And, okay, I wouldn’t describe Dane’s comics as “automatic poetry” (which I think suggests they’re written randomly or compiled from other writing?) but I don’t think describing it as such is necessarily negative, and the critic goes on to make observations about Dane’s craft I never would have considered but find really compelling; I’ve never seen the repetition of panels compared to the droning of a guitar. So yeah, not much in the way of “opinion” but plenty of formal analysis. Which is kinda what I’d prefer comic criticism to be??

I like what Ben’s saying above. It’s encouraging to see a review focus on the formal elements of a comic. Too often book reviews seem to unintentionally recreate a commercial model of writing intended to sell books, but in this small community it just doesn’t make sense to me to frame the discussion that way. I’d prefer a comics essay or something — anything that avoids plot summary. Sara’s reviews are thoughtful and personal, and even though I don’t completely agree with each point she makes, the authentic dialogue she’s going for is a welcome relief.
It’s like, the thought I’m always left with after reading an exchange like this is that there’s an overwhelming amount of quality work being made in contemporary comics, and there’s almost no real discussion about it. To my knowledge, this is the only time Leslie’s comic has been talked about on a formal level outside a living room, or an email, or a blog post that I might have co-authored. There’s a real gap between what’s capable of being said and what actually trickles out into the world.
Proof in point, take a look at Dane’s LARB profile page and you’ll see a picture of Frank Santoro’s head in a nice, beige fedora. That’s what we’re working with. No one is going to be able to talk about these comics with as much insight and depth as us. So why wait around? Any comment at this point seems to be a positive comment. And to be fair, people are talking. I guess, for whatever reason, this whole thing stirs up a desire in me to start earnestly writing my own comics reviews. So this is more of a response to myself than anything else.

Much of what happens in making illustrated critical writing is research. Some of it works, some of the time. It is a willful form of writing. Does literary criticism “need” to be executed in comics? Of course not. But it is an interesting new way for me to think about using drawings to help explain abstractions. And with the work that comes out of this community, there’s a lot to talk about.
I was warned by my prescient editor at LARB that this review might come off as negative. Perhaps I should have included an anchor frame that clearly stated which direction my thumbs were pointing. I love reading Dane Martin’s comics. I force my studiomates to listen to me read aloud from Horror of the Gag. The artwork flattens me. Bow vs Bow, as I took up much more space saying in the review, is a beautiful, resistant thing that offers strong opportunity for growth, which may account for the “buzzing” in the line. It’s wasn’t the line that’s buzzing, it was me experiencing growing pains. 
Writing reviews that tell people to buy books or not buy them is not a goal of mine. I’m a gushy advocate for all the books that I care about enough to write about. Otherwise the projects wouldn’t hold my interest.
Scott mentioned how writing about books, even in a publication context where critical analysis is encouraged, often falls into the commercial model of reviews intended to advertise (thumbs up/thumbs down). To the best benefit of art that itself is a form of research (I would definitely count BvB in that category, as well as my LARB review), writing a straight PR piece seems more than beside the point. It seems like a missed opportunity.
A couple of notes: Instead of “automatic” writing, perhaps I should have called Dane’s writing “prose poetry with an associative quality.” Automatic suggests that no attention has been paid to craft, and that’s certainly not true in regard to his work. 
The beginning of the BvB review does acknowledge the “comics/not comics” bugaboo. I see how this binary is false and agree that we don’t need to spend much of our time on it. However, since I was anticipating the expectations that a wider audience might bring to an article called Approaches to Comics, I felt that addressing the term was worth a frame. 
I also took care to note that the category was misleading rather than incorrect. That slippage indicates to me that it’s okay to spend time grappling with what we call comics and not comics. We develop more specific and better language this way. 

A lot to think about

i can’t like this again so reposting

Reblogging for excellent discussion on comics crit and hilarious Dane Martin x Frank Santoro LARB profile page

jazorspark:

dominobooks:

slaut:

slongo:

benneb:

mothersnewsofficial:

condolences to Leslie Weibeler and Dane Martin, who each caught inept reviews in the LA Review of Books today. Leslie gets the old “comics are supposed to be easy to read”, and Dane’s comics get called “automatic poetry”, which, are they automatic? they seem really thought out. and why is this review in the form of a comic? comics can do a lot but they aren’t very well suited to the review format. when i saw the thumbnail for this review on the site, i was looking forward to a thoughtful review of these comics, good or bad, which is what i’ve come to expect from the LARoB. instead i got a bowl of tepid slop. oh well! i guess criticism is tough.

ps- my blurb edit for Dane Martin is: “Effective” - LA Review of Books. for Leslie: “Weibeler’s lines… buzz with energy” - LA Review of Books.

I dunno, are either of these reviews actually negative? I was turned off by the critic’s opening (distinguishing “comics” and “not comics” is one of the most useless and distructive things you can do in comic criticism), but the reviews engage both books on their own terms. The formal logic of Leslie Weibeler’s work is described more clearly than I’ve seen done before, and the critic gets at what makes the work compelling; “it’s hard to read” is stated less as a scruple than as part of the comic’s experience, albeit an offputting one. And, okay, I wouldn’t describe Dane’s comics as “automatic poetry” (which I think suggests they’re written randomly or compiled from other writing?) but I don’t think describing it as such is necessarily negative, and the critic goes on to make observations about Dane’s craft I never would have considered but find really compelling; I’ve never seen the repetition of panels compared to the droning of a guitar. So yeah, not much in the way of “opinion” but plenty of formal analysis. Which is kinda what I’d prefer comic criticism to be??

I like what Ben’s saying above. It’s encouraging to see a review focus on the formal elements of a comic. Too often book reviews seem to unintentionally recreate a commercial model of writing intended to sell books, but in this small community it just doesn’t make sense to me to frame the discussion that way. I’d prefer a comics essay or something — anything that avoids plot summary. Sara’s reviews are thoughtful and personal, and even though I don’t completely agree with each point she makes, the authentic dialogue she’s going for is a welcome relief.

It’s like, the thought I’m always left with after reading an exchange like this is that there’s an overwhelming amount of quality work being made in contemporary comics, and there’s almost no real discussion about it. To my knowledge, this is the only time Leslie’s comic has been talked about on a formal level outside a living room, or an email, or a blog post that I might have co-authored. There’s a real gap between what’s capable of being said and what actually trickles out into the world.

Proof in point, take a look at Dane’s LARB profile page and you’ll see a picture of Frank Santoro’s head in a nice, beige fedora. That’s what we’re working with. No one is going to be able to talk about these comics with as much insight and depth as us. So why wait around? Any comment at this point seems to be a positive comment. And to be fair, people are talking. I guess, for whatever reason, this whole thing stirs up a desire in me to start earnestly writing my own comics reviews. So this is more of a response to myself than anything else.

Much of what happens in making illustrated critical writing is research. Some of it works, some of the time. It is a willful form of writing. Does literary criticism “need” to be executed in comics? Of course not. But it is an interesting new way for me to think about using drawings to help explain abstractions. And with the work that comes out of this community, there’s a lot to talk about.

I was warned by my prescient editor at LARB that this review might come off as negative. Perhaps I should have included an anchor frame that clearly stated which direction my thumbs were pointing. I love reading Dane Martin’s comics. I force my studiomates to listen to me read aloud from Horror of the Gag. The artwork flattens me. Bow vs Bow, as I took up much more space saying in the review, is a beautiful, resistant thing that offers strong opportunity for growth, which may account for the “buzzing” in the line. It’s wasn’t the line that’s buzzing, it was me experiencing growing pains. 

Writing reviews that tell people to buy books or not buy them is not a goal of mine. I’m a gushy advocate for all the books that I care about enough to write about. Otherwise the projects wouldn’t hold my interest.

Scott mentioned how writing about books, even in a publication context where critical analysis is encouraged, often falls into the commercial model of reviews intended to advertise (thumbs up/thumbs down). To the best benefit of art that itself is a form of research (I would definitely count BvB in that category, as well as my LARB review), writing a straight PR piece seems more than beside the point. It seems like a missed opportunity.

A couple of notes: Instead of “automatic” writing, perhaps I should have called Dane’s writing “prose poetry with an associative quality.” Automatic suggests that no attention has been paid to craft, and that’s certainly not true in regard to his work. 

The beginning of the BvB review does acknowledge the “comics/not comics” bugaboo. I see how this binary is false and agree that we don’t need to spend much of our time on it. However, since I was anticipating the expectations that a wider audience might bring to an article called Approaches to Comics, I felt that addressing the term was worth a frame.

I also took care to note that the category was misleading rather than incorrect. That slippage indicates to me that it’s okay to spend time grappling with what we call comics and not comics. We develop more specific and better language this way. 

A lot to think about

i can’t like this again so reposting

Reblogging for excellent discussion on comics crit and hilarious Dane Martin x Frank Santoro LARB profile page