Of course I’m doing a lot of my own research as well, but I always appreciate help from everyone else. Upon embarking on 1965, which films should I make a point to see? As of right now, providing there’s no year mix-ups, I’ve seen 16 films from the year; hoping to get that number up to 30-35 by the time this is over.
Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
Loves of a Blonde
Story of a Prostitute
Sword of the Beast
Le me, surfin’ the web : “Oh DeviantArt released their new Commisions portal… let’s check it out! WAIT WHAT DID I JUST SEE? Are they out of their minds?”
Lemme translate those pricing tiers for you DeviantArt.
- $0.02 - $0.37
- $0.38 - $1.24
- $1.25 - $3.12
- $3.13 - $12.49
Way to encourage artists to underprice their work, DA! And I’m not even sure “underprice” is a strong enough word for that.
Oh and let’s not forget they’re taking a 20% commission on everything you “earn” (hahahaha) with their commissions widget. I wasn’t too fond of that but I thought “okay I guess you’re kinda paying for a service?”.
But this, this is just too much. See, I don’t really care about artists who choose to set low prices. It’s their decision, and I used to do it as well.
What I do care about, however, is the fact that more and more artists feel like they HAVE to underprice their work.
As if you were being greedy for wanting more than 10 dollars for a piece you worked on for several days! No, you don’t and you aren’t. Your art, your work, your prices.
But when one of the biggest art websites, one I’ve be using for 7 years, deliberately worsens the situation, then it becomes a problem.
how much do you charge for commissions?
Oh my thats too high, i was only looking to spend 37 cents…
this is fucking disgusting
I have a new print in my Society 6 Store. It’s a portrait of Debbie Harry as Nikki Brand from David Cronenberg’s film, Videodrome. Available as prints and the usual print-shop geegaws (it looks particularly fine as a coffee mug). Also: if you buy something from me before Sunday at midnight, everything is $5.00 off if you follow this link.
(via Long Live the New Flesh 1 Art Print by Christianne Benedict | Society6)
Happy Krampusnacht, everyone.
(via Christianne’s Art and Comics: Happy Krampusnacht)
Krell Laboratories: Dying in Dallas -
Looking at Dallas Buyers Club on my movie blog today. Not a film I like overly much.
The second kind of film this resembles is the “walk a mile in my shoes” film. Classic examples include Black Like Me or Gentlemen’s Agreement, but the film it really reminds me of is the first segment of The Twilight Zone: The Movie, in which outrageous bigot Vic Morrow finds himself placed in the role of the very minorities he hates. In this, Dallas Buyers Club is a blunt instrument. Ron Woodroof’s heterosexuality isn’t merely asserted by the film. It is aggressive; it’s in your face from the opening frames onward. To borrow a common phrase from homophobes across the country, the filmmakers shove it down our throats. It’s downright menacing. And if that weren’t enough? It contrasts that menacing heterosexuality with a variety of homosexuality that is its antipode. Rayon is as far from masculine heterosexuality as you can get, and the film plays this up by indulging in the hyperfeminine stereotype of trans women on film. She’s an explosion of laddered stockings, fuchsia eye shadow, and queenie overcompensation, often seen putting on make-up or wearing too much of it, as if to code her as NOT masculine and NOT hetero (but still male). These aren’t naturalistic depictions at all. In building this contrast, this film indulges in a number of fallacies of depiction. First, it doesn’t seem to have any understanding of the difference between identity and orientation, that trans women and gay men are not the same thing and are not even necessarily related to each other. Second, we never see Rayon’s interior life except as it relates to Woodroof’s. Oh, the scene where she confronts her father has the kernel of a more rounded character, but nothing comes of it except a plot expediency. Third: the film has no conception of Rayon as a gendered person. It’s one thing for resounding bigot Ron Woodroof to misgender her through the entire movie, it’s quite another for Dr. Saks—allegedly her friend—to do it, and that disrespect has encouraged writers to follow suit when writing about the film. This has real-world consequences that are not always merely benignly annoying. Fourth: This is a film that’s drenched in biological essentialism, complete with a horror of what Rayon might eventually want to do with her body were she not dying of AIDS. Oh, sure, it’s cute when she’s mooning after a barmaid in envy of her breasts, but when Woodroof threatens to blow her genitals off and give her “..that sex change operation you’ve always wanted,” it’s conflating such an act with mutilation. Depictions of trans women generally fall into specific types, and this one is no different. We have here the pathetic trans woman archetype, a victim of both the disease and of her own self-hatred. She has no agency of her own. She exists in this film as a foil for Woodroof. No other reason. Woodroof needs to come around, you see? He has to shed his bigotry for the film to grant straight cis people their absolution. Rayon is sacrificed on that altar.
Krell Laboratories: Ragnarok and Roll -
Finally getting around to Thor: The Dark World on my movie blog today. In particular, I have this to say about Jane Foster (I know, I know: something, something Loki, and all that).
When I wrote about the previous film, I mentioned that I might like to watch a film about Jane Foster and her friends, one in which Thor doesn’t even appear. that’s still true of this film. In truth, the comics’ version of Jane Foster is a standard hero’s girlfriend type, but these films have managed the not inconsiderable feat of transforming the character into Lois Lane. A comic called “Jane Foster: Girl Scientist” is one that I would have bought as a teen-age girl. That she has sidekicks of her own in a kind of mirror image of Thor and the Warriors Four is telling when it comes to assessing her role in this film. In some ways, she is a co-hero, just as Loki is the film’s shadowy anti-hero. Certainly Darcy Lewis is a terrific comedic foil, while Eric Selvig manages to chew the scenery with aplomb. Both would be fine supporting characters even without the Asgardians. Natalie Portman, Kat Dennings, and Stellan Skarsgard could have done a LOT worse for big tentpole-movie characters, because all three of them manage to hold the screen not only against Hemsworth, Hiddleston, and Anthony Hopkins, but against the big special effects, too.
Untitled. Mobile Alabama. 1956. Gordon Parks.
(via Police mugshots in the 1920s… - The Meta Picture)
Criminals used to be dapper.
Unfit Transportation Art Print by Christianne Benedict | Society6 -
Since I won’t be doing any work on Black Friday, I figure I better get the rest of my shameless self-promotion out of the way today. This is also in my Society 6 store, where you can get it as an art print or any of the other geegaws Society 6 sells (including mugs, totes, iPhone and device cases, throw pillows, t-shirts, hoodies, and greeting cards). A bit more benign than my horror art.
Fearless Monster Hunters Art Print by Christianne Benedict -
Please pardon the shameless self-promotion, but I’m putting stuff up into my Society 6 store, including this print. If you like horror art, this is available as art prints or on various geegaws. I’m getting a coffee cup for myself. Society 6 has free shipping until Monday, so if you like something from me or from someone else, now’s the chance.
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:
2,721 Tumblr notes
0 Pintrest shares
14,000 Facebook likes
10,700 Facebook shares
Posts using the uncredited image:
62,393 Tumblr notes
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.
This is long. Please read the whole thing.
This is something that is near and dear to my heart. As someone who has had several of my comics go viral, my work has been stolen across the internet with little or no credit to me, and I cannot stress enough how much this kind of treatment hurts artists.
Myself and hundreds/thousands of artists today put our work online for free because we want to share it with the world. That doesn’t mean it is up for grabs, nor does it mean we do not expect credit. This is our livelihood. Not all of us are lucky enough to have a day job that pays the bills, and even with a 9-to-5, we rely on our art to make a living.
Sites like BuzzFeed and 9GAG make a profit off of our work with no credit to us, no permission from us, and often no intention to ever rectify those things. This is theft.
It’s not just about money. It’s about respect and credit where credit is due.
Please, for the love of God, stop supporting the casual theft and disrespect the internet shows to artists who are sharing their work with you. Don’t reblog art that isn’t credited to the artist. Don’t repost art from creators. Reblog from the source. Don’t delete artist’s comments.
If you like the art, support the artist.
Central to my interests. I had a piece go viral a couple of years ago. Did it come from a page I maintained myself? No. It was very annoying.
Drawn to Comics: Em Carroll’s Comics Bring Nightmares To Life In The Most Beautiful Way
Welcome to Drawn to Comics! From diary comics to superheroes, from webcomics to graphic novels –…
Krell Laboratories: The Modern Prometheus -
In which I go on at ridiculous length about James Whale’s 1931 version of Frankenstein.
Both Fritz and Dr. Waldeman are murdered by the monster. Fritz represents Frankenstein’s derangement, Waldeman represents Frankenstein’s reason. The monster destroys both of them. (as a side note, I’ve always thought that Waldeman’s death was wholly deserved; he knows that the monster is dangerous, but does not take precautions against the monster waking up, the fool). I have some reservations about even calling Waldeman’s death a murder, given that he was preparing to dissect the monster while it was still alive. It’s easy to look at Frankenstein as a scientist with corrupted morals, but what does that make Waldeman? The monster’s reaction to this seems entirely reasonable when faced with a man holding a scalpel over him.