Where to Follow Me-
Hello, good chance my blog may be flagged --- Art Mastodon @ [email protected] Personal/trash 🐦 @ gomu Personal/Music IG @ ghost_person
One Nice Bug Per Day
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
NASA
Stranger Things
Cosmic Funnies

blake kathryn
Game of Thrones Daily
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
noise dept.

Discoholic 🪩
Sweet Seals For You, Always

No title available

Janaina Medeiros
$LAYYYTER
styofa doing anything
tumblr dot com
Show & Tell
Xuebing Du
RMH
seen from France

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from Spain

seen from Türkiye
seen from Türkiye

seen from Germany

seen from Indonesia
seen from Lithuania

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Japan

seen from Czechia
seen from Poland

seen from Türkiye

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from Japan
@magicalbagofghosts
Where to Follow Me-
Hello, good chance my blog may be flagged --- Art Mastodon @ [email protected] Personal/trash 🐦 @ gomu Personal/Music IG @ ghost_person
Always be Garfin
Since I'm not into Mario I made a princess inspired by Animal Crossing. She's Princess Nook and supports herself by predatory real estate practices and shady shell companies.
Garfield but also st sebastien but laso not really paying attention, a 15 min work doodle
Creepy minion. It's like a kinder egg, inside, many smaller minions come out of it.
Another watercolor portrait sketch from when I watched Hannibal, this is of Abigail.
Some watercolor sketches I did while watching hannibal a while ago
drawiing at an easy pace! some characters I am working out...
I made a fanart for the game Dangan Ronpa V3! I really liked all the fun characters and the new story.
Show poster I made for and upcoming show with #cleopatrick and my band, #NaturalVelvet ! It’s in DC, if you are around you should come and say hi! Look out for the posters too :-P
Seeing Red 👀 follow me on insta at ghost_person for info on my life and more frequent updates! #illustration #digitalillustration #fightscene #originalcharacter #flats #red
Natural Velvet - It’s All Mine (official music video link to vimeo) <3 NEW SONG <3 NEW ALBUM OUT JUNE 2 <3 NEW VIDEO <3
:3 new music video!
I’d like to remind people again that Allen Ginsberg was a pedophile and rapist, got off on sexual abuse, and supported NAMBLA. That’s the face his victims saw above them. Think about him raping kids while you see how “deep” and “cool” he seems as played by Daniel Radcliffe.
Don’t see Kill Your Darlings.
I’m sick of seeing this utter shit on my dash and no discussion of this.
ugh i hate the beat poets
This.
(Text from Andrea Dworkin’s memoir, Heartbreak, FYI).
I remember having this really long, drawn out argument about the Beat Generation with an old college acquaintance who idolizes them, with the sole exception being Amiri Baraka, who he insists on still calling LeRoi Jones. This was in my more naive days, but I should not have been surprised that the lone black person was the problem in his eyes. He said he hated Baraka because he was racist against whites and abandoned the Beat movement.
This guy was willing to look over the fuckery of many of the Beats, but Baraka was just too much for him. William S. Burroughs shot his wife (Joan Vollmer) in the head, killing her. Some of his fans even say that this was the turning point for Burroughs, because it made him a better writer. Yes, put exactly like that. They just gloss over the fact that he killed his wife, or mention it in passing. Nothing brings out the writer in you like shooting your wife in the head.
Lucien Carr killed a man in Riverside park, and dumped his body in the Hudson river, and was then aided by Jack Kerouac in disposing evidence from the murdered man. Carr claimed it was self-defense from unwanted sexual advances. Yeah, but that still did not explain the whole chain of events after the murder. Ginsberg was a child molester advocate and proud NAMBLA member. He championed child rape, and he thought that the sexualization of children was fine, and that laws on the books against child rape was oppression. When I brought that up, my college acquaintance said “putting that aside, he was a brilliant man.” Yes, just put aside his penchant for fucking little boys.
Many of the Beats were fucked up, but they were white, so they get to be “tortured artists”. Nothing is put aside for Baraka though, and there is nothing Baraka has done that even comes close to what many of the white beats did. The hatred for him solely stems from him not wanting to be with the white beat poets, and breaking away to focus on cultivating the black arts movement and black nationalism. It started when Baraka became involved with the Umbra Poetry scene, and it radicalized him, and I mean that in the most complimentary way. ‘Radical’ is no pejorative from me. Baraka was angry, and rightfully so. I mean, he didn’t have civil rights. This act is seen as unforgivable and too much to bear. Almost treason like with many white groupies of the beat writers. The white beats though? They are free to murder, rape, steal, and molest. They still get a pass. Baraka won’t. Amazing how that plays out.
A small part of me dies when I see some black folks romanticizing the beat generation, whose non-conformity was a hodgepodge of appropriations from black culture, musicians in particular - especially black jazz musicians. Herbert Huncke, Burroughs, Kerouac and many in their circle were obsessed with black jazz musicians, and took liberally from the culture. They dressed like them, talked “jive” like them, and used dope like some of them. It was part and parcel of their identity, and the trendsetters were black jazz musicians. They weren’t going to see white folks playing jazz. No. It was Lester Young, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Dexter Gordon, Billie Holiday and other ambassadors of black hipness. Huncke even once got arrested with Dexter Gordon. An event that was meaningless to Gordon, but was not for Huncke. If you got arrested with a well known jazz man, you have a story to tell for the rest of your life. What was Gordon supposed to say? He was slumming with some ofay junkie derelict, trying to get a fix and ended up arrested by the cops? Not exactly reputation building stuff. Now, Huncke telling it on the other hand… Exactly.
Part of their non-conformity was not being in line with white society’s norms, so that meant emulating what the white mainstream rejected and what they considered to be “seedy” black culture, the polar opposite of who they really were; white people running away from squareness. Norman Mailer, who I don’t care much for wrote ’The White Negro’ in 1957, and it’s pretty much an inside look into their minds and their behavior. It might be old, but it’s still relevant today.
The beats also took liberally from various Eastern religions, bastardizing sacred beliefs and traditions in the process. Ginsberg, the child rape advocate claimed to be a buddhist and dabbled in hinduism. These religions were exoticism for them, and nothing more.
Back to Ginsberg, he’s really a despicable person. As if being a proud pedophile isn’t enough, he once said that the beat movement was responsible for black liberation and social justice. Yeah, tell that to Toussaint Louverture and Harriet Tubman. I really cannot associate with anyone that looks up to these people. The beats are the absolute worst. It really tells me a lot about you if these are your heroes.
tl;dr - Fuck Allen Ginsberg.
Cw pedo mention but yeah
Fans are the worst. An Article.
There’s been a lot of discussion in comics this week about what fan culture should or should not be entitled to. This Nick Hanover article kind of summarizes all of the disparate threads. I don’t think it is very complex though. The viewer is entitled to the feelings that a piece of art invokes in them–whatever those feelings are. But that’s it. They are not entitled to any interaction at all with the artist who made the art. Regardless of what feelings the art has stirred in them. Social media has made viewing art feel like the viewer can be a part of the process and that the role of the critic is the same as the role of editor. It’s also conflated the role of artist with the role of celebrity. A celebrity gives time to their fans, signs autographs, and largely positions their presence ahead of art as anything meaningful in people’s lives. Which is bullshit. There’s no difference between you and the person on the other side of the table. You’re all just stupid people. Flesh and blood. Flawed in all kinds of stupid ways. The creation of the celebrity out of the human is an absurdly dehumanizing process for both the person made into the celebrity, and the people who contort themselves into fans. These aren’t human interactions. Never put anyone else above you or below you. I think there is a temptation to view art as the act of a human being. Like a comic about a fire in a theater, is the same as going into a theater and yelling fire. But I think the benefits of allowing art to explore and express behavior that is outside of what we deem appropriate yields the possibility of the sublime experience of art. Like for example, Picasso’s work about bullfighting–bullfighting is brutal and wrong–but this art can still touch you, and move you to a place that is beyond yourself. Sometimes the crossing of the taboo is actually a part of the building of this experience. So while it is important to demand that DC appologize for say a systemic history of violence and oppression against women in their editorial offices. It isn’t important to demand that James Robinson issue an apology or even explanation for transmisogny in his comics. Which isn’t to say that you can’t or shouldn’t write about those themes within the comics. Because that falls under your reaction to a piece of art. But where the line gets crossed is when people start harassing an artist on twitter or elsewhere for something they’ve created. Now what is interesting is when we get to criticism itself. Because criticism is not art. It’s the analysis of art, and a huge part of what criticism is, is a discussion meriting peer review. So there’s more of an element of earnest debate within criticism than there is when you are talking about the relationship between critics and artists. Artists really shouldn’t respond to their critics, and critics shouldn’t expect to be read or listened to by artists they are writing about. But with critics, there is as part of what criticism is, an aspect that is critics responding to critics, and the expectation for fair debate. But where that gets screwed up, is again, you’re entitled to respond to someone’s criticism, debate it vigorously. But you are not entitled to go after that person outside of the bounds of that debate. What happened this week though was that because the discussion had gotten so meta that people were no longer talking about art or specific criticisms, but behavior–it got personal for people. Dunno how you solve for that one. Beyond just knowing when to fold em, and realize that you’re in that situation, and it’s going to help no one, especially yourself. I think what happened this week, was two groups of people in pain, both refusing to empathize with the pain of the other. Artists were in pain because fan culture treats artists as celebs, and that relationship lacks boundaries–so you get things like death threats, and just people thinking they deserve to be in your space just because you made some art. Critics were in pain, because they felt like they were being told to sit down and shut up, and that they too are the victims of people who overstep the boundaries of critical debate, to harass and send death threats. It’s funny really, because at the end of the day, it’s two groups in pain at the same thing–which is that social media has eroded the sense of boundaries that people have in both of these modes, resulting in these harmful interactions. For me, I think both ends of it are tied to a poison that sits at the root of fan/nerd culture. This poison that measures worth in obsessive devotion, and operates at this idea that if only you can give enough of yourself over to this obsesssion, that the pain of your existence will be erased. So what happens is that people, rather than dealing head on with very real mental health issues at the core of their being, they attempt to replace and repress that pain with the mania of this fanaticism. So what happens is that your interaction with art or criticism becomes entwined with this pain you are trying to repress and forget. So someone telling you that there are white supremacist elements in a comic that you like, is them telling you that YOU are a white supremacist. And then on the flip side, your expectation is that the artist needs to maintain a kind of art that maintains the values that you hold dear, but have projected through this fandom. So you need for example, Kelly Sue to always walk this perfect line and manifest your perfect ideal as a feminist, because if she didn’t, it would somehow undermine your own values, because you aren’t living for yourself, you’re living through someone else and the idea that they should live a perfect life to validate the self that you have sacrificed in your devotion based solely upon the affect of their art, not them personally. So the dynamic that you would give up yourself for devotion to the cult of an obsession of something that is completely outside of your control–this is unhealthy. You should be working to bring your feelings, perspectives, and impulses under your own control. To understand them within the context of your own life and your own pain. Fanaticism is this urge to replace the self with a self which is not the self. So even at it’s greatest ideal, you are asking for an impossiblity. You can never escape yourself, and your devotion will never consume that part of yourself you wish to escape through this obsession. That’s fucking Kierkagaard. So when you give up that humanity, when you give up that knowledge of self, for the devotion to a “higher” power–you lose boundries, you lose perspective, but you don’t lose the pain of living. It sits behind you growing in its represssion, and allows you to become possessed by these demons that are outside of your experience. Your lack of control, comes from the control of the self that you refuse control of. So when you become a fan, you lose track of boundries. You stop seeing Nick Spencer as someone’s son, as someone’s friend, as a human being–but you also don’t respect him as an artist, and allow his art to breathe out and exist in all of its flaws without the need for repercussions. Because there is no difference between the pain he causes you as a man, and the pain his art causes you. You’ve lost discernment. And in that, is where you start causing real pain to real human beings. And this is the same in criticism. A critique of art that moved you, shouldn’t push you to a place where you need to attack the critic who wrote the piece personally, and harass them off of their life. But when you are a fan, that’s not a boundary you can easily set. Because the pain you have allowed yourself to manifest is so profound, and so personal, that it doesn’t seem to you that it is anything less than the person behind the criticism or behind the art, coming to your door and punching you in the face. But it isn’t the same thing. And this is the poison that fandom brings. The trade off that fandom offers and why it is so tantalizing is this idea of community and that in your obsessiveness you can elevate yourself above the mundane despair of your own life, and you can find an importance to living. For a lot of people, this is nothing to shrug at. It’s the same offer that organized religion makes incidentally. And depending on the level of what you’re running from, that tends to measure how much of a fanatic you will become. And whether you are ready to blow up a mosque to get away from that pain, or whether you’re willing to go assassinate some cartoonists. So I dunno. I think it’s worthwhile to make an effort as thinkers in this world, to try and allow people to understand that there are options outside of fanaticism. And that being a fan or being a nerd, is not something to aspire to. Mental health, knowledge of self, expression of self–these are important things. Devoting yourself to a god, to a celeb, to a fictional universe…these are paths that devour the most vulnerable, and swindle the rest.
Take or leave a weird ramble based on this post. Never text ramble usually. I really liked your response to this whole weird comics thing that's happening right now. The whole culture surrounding entertainment / media has gotten so intense and crazy lately. It made me think about a lot of stuff so I put it in a ramble essay. Sorry for blobbing all over your post. (long time follower / one of the people from gothsummer blog).
Weird Ramble on Comics and Art 1
I think part of the discussion that is missing is the way people approach art, especially media and "pop" media. When art exists in the "hallowed" realm of museums and academia, people are taught to process and appreciate it as art-- something both inside and outside of culture, something that may make you feel uncomfortable or challenge your values. Or something that makes you feel indifferent. The dialogue between the creator, object/experience and the viewer (and the society at large) is in fact the total aspect (?) of the art. Biases and predilections of the artist confront the identity of the viewer and the conversation, spoken or unspoken, is kind of the point.
Within that, it's (almost) totally understood that what is a Great Work for many won't be for all. Culturally, we understand art as specific, ego-formed / personal, and intentioned.
Pop media is art too, whether movies, comics, music, etc. I think one of the biggest differences between "pop media" and "art" is the capitalist/consumerist mentality. Obviously this isn't the hard reality of the situation-- both pop media and art are industries, both driven by moneyed people and geared towards making more of it, using artistic/creative labor as the "product". But!! the framing devices which people are conditioned to appreciate work are so much different. "Art" vs. "entertainment".
I think this alternate framing of "consumer" instead of "viewer"/"appreciator" is something that allows these negative fan/celebrity cultures to thrive. It's critical to understand that people aren't seen as human beings in this context but as consumers / producers. As a viewer of entertainment/pop-media, you are identified as responsible for witnessing the work- via exchange of literal capital (cover charge) but mental/emotional capital as well (spending time caring about the work, socially or privately). In our society, we are conditioned to believe that any time spent outside of labor is waste (unless it is necessary to continue labor). This anxiety conditions every interaction we have, whether it's fast food culture, social media interactions (gaining social capital), even friendships or religious/spiritual practice. In this context, the "product" must be "of worth". For entertainment, it MUST offer, at the root, gratification and comfort. When it does not, the anxiety and existential terror of doing something "fun" or "non-productive" takes over.
What do we "Buy" when we buy entertainment? What do we "Buy" when we buy art?
Entertainment is tied to release, comfort, support, happiness, catharsis, and gratification. We are conditioned to see it like a product - it must be useful and it must be of high quality. I think of the attitude of people at restaurants or grocery stores. They want a product that satisfies their needs-- at the bare minimum something to satiate their hunger and not make them sick, but ideally something that brings great pleasure. The audience for entertainment is "the masses", but generally anyone in society (ie: everyone must eat food, everyone must watch the news). With this analogy, there's a lot of negative social energy around both over-consumption and under-consumption of entertainment/media. "Fans" are "over-consumers" in this analogy and suffer for it as identified social outcasts. People who don't consume average amounts of media are both admired as ascetics, and also ostracized (what do we talk about then?). The social-moral high ground is with those who abstain or only consume what is necessary, although much like "foodies", a consumer-expert is also seen as powerful and admired for their knowledge.
Art is tied to growth, education and expansion, and sometimes religious devotion. We are conditioned to see it like a class or instruction. To understand that the whole of the feelings experienced art worthwhile, including things like discomfort, malaise and disgust. Of course, this framing device is aimed at specific types of people, and is in service of other specific people. The viewer is the "pupil" and the artist is the "teacher". Underneath, it is understood you may not like the lesson or think it was worthwhile, but it is considered healthy, normal and most of all _productive_ to have spent the time "learning". The over/under consumption analogy works here too, but the imagery for it is different, I think it's tied more to class than something like eating habits. The greater the appreciator of art, the more desired-- feelings of jealousy "who has time/etc to go to the museums" // "who would spend $$$$ on that??". People who don't understand the art world or don't spend time with it are rubes, idiots, etc. (odd that the positive/over-consumption aspect is tied to wealth but the under-consumption aspect is tied to perceived intelligence--- at least for me personally).
The creator of entertainment is seen not as an artist, nor a human, but as a product-maker. They are a chef, a doctor, or a teacher. They provide a product to the consumer in exchange of capital, for the consumer to be sustained or improved (so that they may continue to do labor). At the very least the product must do no harm and must sustain the individual. Ideally it will improve or expand them in some way. The key is this attitude of entitlement fueled by society's collective anxiety of not-working or leisure. As a consumer, you are entitled to a product that does not harm you -- fair enough in most contexts-- poisoned/spoiled food, pills that give you bad side effects, teachers that do not help you learn or are not properly trained to teach in the given setting. Within society there is (or should be) recourse for such things. Gov organizations that protect from bad food/pills, even just reviews of restaurants.
But what harm if any comes from "spoiled" entertainment? Entertainment that tastes bad…? What is one Really seeking from entertainment/media? And what is the effect on one when you do not receive this? And who is the creator of the art to you?
I'm not sure I know the answer but I do know the way we are approaching entertainment, media and art as a society at large is not healthy. I do think changing the expectations and framing devices we use to approach art is going to be critical to the well being of the human spirit lol. Which is being crushed under the weight of oppressive social structures. lol.
Kim
Canada loses an entire city due to wild fire -- Yes you read that correctly.
Within the last week Canada has lost an entire city due to wild fire and it is rapidly spreading, and expected to double in size. Fort McMurray has been ablaze all week and the fire is spreading towards Saskatchewan. Attempts to put the fire out have been failing because the fire is so hot water it is evaporating before it can do any good.
Dry and extremely windy conditions are fueling the blaze, which has already scorched more than 1,560 square kilometers (602 square miles) and displaced tens of thousands of people.
These people are no longer evacuees … They’re refugees.
Rain is to be expected next week, but a downpour is needed to tame a monstrous fire – which is the size of Hong Kong and is almost 25% bigger than New York City – that has displaced about 88,000 people, wiped out 1,600 structures including homes, schools and hospitals, and sent plumes of smoke as far away as Iowa.
Here is a link if you want to help, please share this, this is a huge tragedy and these people need help.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/want-to-help-those-fleeing-fort-mcmurray-heres-how/
These aren’t screen captions from a movie this is happening RIGHT NOW less than 1000 miles away from my own home.
Show at Windup in a few weeks me and friends set up! Some of my fave bands are playing~ so I did the poster! - kim
**tw: food/gross food**
NATURAL VELVET - Fruits (june 2015)
video by Chris LaMartina
Hey guys--- super long time no post! (I wonder if my blog evn comes up on dashes anymore... haha)
after a long work, the video from my band’s 3rd release is out! It’s taken a long time but I’m really proud of this album. ;-) please take a listen!
-kim
Listen/Download Here on Friends Records!