A propos song.

foluktoma:

roy lichtenstein from oriental landscape series

Saw one from this series in DC at the National Gallery, it was huge and awesome.

foluktoma:

roy lichtenstein from oriental landscape series

Saw one from this series in DC at the National Gallery, it was huge and awesome.

snubpollard:

(Shiroi Ekitai, Ryōichi Ikegami c. late ’60s)

Would love to see how Ikegami transitioned from this to the Crying Freeman style. Saw a few of his Garo pages at the show at the Print Center years ago and they were slightly less cartoony than this, but still not his later style.

snubpollard:

(Shiroi Ekitai, Ryōichi Ikegami c. late ’60s)

Would love to see how Ikegami transitioned from this to the Crying Freeman style. Saw a few of his Garo pages at the show at the Print Center years ago and they were slightly less cartoony than this, but still not his later style.

whitecomics:

Here is the cover and a few sample pages from my new comic, titled My Name is Martin ShearsYou can order it online here. 

This is a story about identity and perception, told in a series of short vignettes. It is 22 pages long. The covers are individually hand drawn, which is something I’ve wanted to do for a while and which seemed to be a good fit for this project.

I also cut the price on my Variations/Deconstructions flipbook, because I want to unload the last several copies, so maybe pick that one up too if you haven’t.

Thank you!

Andrew is hand drawing every cover. That’s a lot of work. I did back covers for one of my comics and it got tiring really fast.

aubreylstallard:

Peter Funch

That’s my sweet spot: cloud photocomics.

aubreylstallard:

Peter Funch

That’s my sweet spot: cloud photocomics.

(Source: etudes-studio, via aidankoch)

NY Times Style Section Halfheartedly Fellates Old Rich Man With Large Yacht

stylesuction:

We all know that the point of the NY Times Style Section is to fellate the rich. That is, to reflect back on our New Gilded Age overlords an image that both flatters and also, if possible, justifies their existence.

Because that’s what our betters want. And giving it to them means that every week tens of thousands of well-manicured fingers will page or click through the Style Section, viewing the insanely expensive ads for insanely expensive luxury goods that only this small group can possibly afford.

It’s one of the few growth businesses in newspapering these days, and the Times has a lock on it.

That said, for all its ability to generate cash, the Style Section is a persistent embarrassment. And this week’s best/worst Style Section article is one of the most embarrassing things to appear in the paper in … at least three weeks. Or maybe two, actually.

The piece, which you can read here, is about Dennis Jones, a standard-issue ultra-rich man with a boat. A very large, absurdly expensive ($34 million), and painfully tacky (judging by the pictures) boat.

Dennis Jones wants to talk about the social meaning of his very large, expensive, and tacky boat. And for some reason the New York Times is providing precious column inches for him to do so. (Just how many fancy lunches did the Times reporters eat at the expense of the zillionaire’s publicist?)

In any event, the Times dutifully fellates Dennis Jones, but you can tell that there’s no love in it. Why? Because the pitch that Jones’ publicist demanded is so transparently ridiculous that even the writers and editors at the Style Section, a group with deep experience in writing puff pieces about unattractive and inconsequential rich people, can’t really pull it off.

The piece argues, in essence, that if you’ve been suffering under the illusion that Dennis Jones’ decision to spend $34 million on a yacht is the nautical equivalent to public masturbation, think again! Yes, a $34 million yacht may seem like at best a giant waste of money and at worst a conclusive argument for punitively progressive taxation. But really it’s not. It’s a social good!

Why? Because by spending $34 million on this toy, super-hero Dennis Jones kept a struggling builder of luxury yachts afloat. And so, if you think about it a little bit (but not too much), it’s Dennis Jones, the new Tribune of the Working Class, who really pays the salaries of the shipwrights and cabinboys and yachtscrubbers, etc. etc. etc. who must pool their efforts so that Dennis Jones has a place that floats to store his Viagra. 

All of which is nothing more (or less) than a particularly obnoxious form of the tired old trickle-down economics argument. Old rich guy spends zillions on mega-yacht — and the floodtide of cash lifts all dinghies!!!

Yes, that is ridiculous, for a bunch of reasons. Here’s one:

Imagine we had a rational tax system in this country, one which taxed the super-rich at more than the 15% rate on carried interest that many of them pay, or the 20% maximum rate on capital gains that the rest of them pay for most of their income.

And then imagine that we take all that money that higher taxes on the wealthy would raise and and give it to working people. Directly. Through lower tax rates, perhaps on payroll taxes (i.e., Social Security and Medicare), which every working person pays and which are anti-progressive (rich people pay far less, as a percentage of income, than working class people do).

What would that money do in the hands of the working class? It would be spent. And in spending it, the working class would be *creating jobs*.

Do you see the implications? It’s not rich people who create jobs. It’s consumer spending that creates jobs. Rich people only *seem* to be creating jobs because they have all the f*cking money to spend. If the working class had more disposable income, their spending would do the same socially beneficial work. Not that the Style Section would give a shit. Money is only interesting to them when pooled in large amounts in the bank account of one random dude.

I’ll take the argument further. If the working class spent the money, rather than a few ultra-rich yacht-buying a-holes, we’d all be far better off. A few extra dollars worth of consumption means a lot to a working class family struggling to put food on the table and heat the house. That’s especially true given that middle class household incomes aren’t “stagnating”, as commentators often claim. They are dropping. According to a study underwritten by the Russell Sage Foundation and just released this week, the inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household fell 36 percent in the 10 years ended in 2013. That means that the typical American family is in excess of one-third more miserable than they were a decade ago. Frankly, I would not have thought that to be possible. 

The 1%, on the other hand, are rolling in it. Over the same period virtually all of the economic growth that we’ve experienced in the United States has gone to the people at the top. And that  means that as the rich get a lot richer, the next dollar means comparatively little in the life of the super-rich — they already have all the money they need to buy all the pleasures they have time for. Economists call this the “diminishing marginal utility of wealth.” But no need to put a fancy label on it. Everyone knows that any non-sociopathic person gets a lot more happiness out of buying his first Mercedes versus when he already owns nine and toddles off to buy his tenth.

So taxation and redistribution of wealth from the very top, at least up to the point of outright confiscation, is good policy. It barely hurts those from whom we take and provides an enormous boon to those to whom we give.

And don’t give me any crap about “freedom”, etc. No ultra-rich person has a right to any particular rate of taxation. No rich person has a right to a $34 million yacht. Or to a private jet. Or to any of the other things that the Style Section exists to justify and celebrate. If rich people live that way in our society, it’s because we allow them to. If we decide to tax away great wealth there’s nothing to stop us. 

One final note … The Times article tells us that since 2000 Dennis Jones has donated $34 million to charity, precisely the same amount that he spent on the yacht. As if that’s some kind of mitigating factor.

It’s not. Philanthropy is vastly overrated as a social force. Private philanthropy didn’t end poverty among the elderly — Social Security did. And it didn’t end untreated illnesses among the elderly — Medicare did. And it won’t solve our healthcare crisis, or our homeless crisis, or stagnating middle class wages, or our malfunctioning education system, or really any other social problem of note.

Philanthropy serves two functions in our society. First, to put a fairly small band-aid on a bunch of bleeding wounds that we could do a much better job healing if we had the political will to tax our way to a real European-style social welfare state. And second, to give rich people in New York City a series of parties to attend, which the Style Section will cover. Because a party among New York 1%ers is never just a party — it’s always about a “cause”. More precisely, it’s about spending a zillion dollars on gowns and Hamptons estates and other frippery to raise a lot less than a zillion dollars for charity.

Let’s just raise taxes on the rich. It’s much more efficient.

(via craghead)

1 month ago - 8

.38 Airweight - Single | Doomtree

New Doomtree song!

1 month ago - 1

Jesse Marsh | HiLobrow

I can pretty much leave (as in “take it or leave it”) all golden/silver/bronze/whatever-the-hell comics, but damn I love Jesse Marsh’s work. Here’s a short appreciation by Gary Panter.

1 month ago

Comics Workbook Magazine Submissions Guidelines

madinkbeard:

madinkbeard:

comicsworkbook:

Full submissions guidelines for Comics Workbook Magazine are now online (click through and scroll down). To be clear, this is ONLY for the print magazine – the Tumblr is not taking submissions at this time. These formal guidelines should have gone up sooner, as we have always been open to new writers. We apologize for the oversight. Please let us know if anything is unclear.

- Andrew White and Zach Mason

They published me, so you know they have a low bar! Submit away.

Edit: Ok, I lied. It was actually because I know one of the editors. That’s the only real way to get published, isn’t it?

Ok, I wasn’t attempting to insult Comics Workbook or the editors or anything (I enjoy the magazine and the blog more than most comic magazines or blogs/tumblrs I read). Just being a little self-deprecating about my own work and, honestly, truly, I have almost literally only been published or gotten into shows via an acquaintance with the people publishing or curating.

1 month ago - 35

Comics Workbook Magazine Submissions Guidelines

madinkbeard:

comicsworkbook:

Full submissions guidelines for Comics Workbook Magazine are now online (click through and scroll down). To be clear, this is ONLY for the print magazine – the Tumblr is not taking submissions at this time. These formal guidelines should have gone up sooner, as we have always been open to new writers. We apologize for the oversight. Please let us know if anything is unclear.

- Andrew White and Zach Mason

They published me, so you know they have a low bar! Submit away.

Edit: Ok, I lied. It was actually because I know one of the editors. That’s the only real way to get published, isn’t it?

1 month ago - 35

Twombly Graphite drawings | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Rights issues mean that these images are ultra-super tiny, so not worth reposting here. But check out these great little Twombly drawings (results 2 - 15), like a whole series of abstract comics.

1 month ago - 3