In Plagiarism and You(Tube), Hbomb says "If you consider something so obscure you can get away with stealing it, you do not respect it." Save that line for the next time someone tries to tell you that Roy Lichtenstein brought respect to comics as art.
It's since been pointed out that while Lichtenstein did copy one of Russ Heath's drawings of an airplane getting hit, the painting depicted above was actually copied off Irv Norvick, because Lichtenstein did this so many times to so many comic artists.
In Lichtenstein's defense, he was doing this in a time when comic artists frequently weren't even credited in the issues themselves. In his condemnation, he never even tried to check, nor has he made any move to pay or credit any of the comic artists who recognized their own work later on. Rather than elevating the "low art" of comics, he was widening the gap of financial success and respect even further.
The Hbomberguy of this story is art historian David Barsalou, who has now spent decades tracking down the original art and the names of the original artists used in Lichtenstein's most famous output. Here's the flickr gallery for the Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Frequently copied were Tony Abruzzo, Ted Galindo, Mike Sekowsky, Joe Kubert, Jerry Grandenetti, and dozens more Golden Age artists who aren't very well known in comics circles, let alone art history books. Many of them died in poverty. That's something that the Hero Initiative, mentioned in Russ Heath's comic above, aims to prevent.
Also, Lichtenstein didn't even paint Ben-Day dots. That's a specific thing.
13K notes
·
View notes
hello hi it has been a while, i am still hyerfixating on Hades but i got a little guy for you! Leaellynasaura! i have no idea how to pronounce it and the fact that i memorized how to write it is good enough for me
this is a collab with a friend of mine who made a plush that i designed! go visit @bladespark he makes amazing things and this was super fun
525 notes
·
View notes
So much of the group interactions are spurned on by Damian and Anya (for obvious reasons!). I would love to see some Becky, Ewen, and Emile friendship moments. Do they even have any?
Rich people play golf I think? Full color is for previous supporters of all forms on Ko-Fi!
278 notes
·
View notes
one line in trimax that's always stuck with me is from chapter 65, right after wolfwood's death. when vash is sticking the punisher by his grave and he says "it was part of his life". that phrasing is so interesting to me. the neutrality of it is one thing that gets me, i think. it was part of his life. for better or worse, whatever it was, the punisher was wolfwood's.
It's pretty easy to think that the punisher might represent violence, the eye of michael, the role of assassin that was forced onto wolfwood, the loss of childhood. but it's not really presented that way, not overtly anyways. we never see wolfwood shun the punisher, he's not conflicted by his use of it. he never considers abandoning it for some other weapon. it's his weapon. he doesn't discard it when he eventually decides to take a more vash-like approach and actually let people live. he pretty easily accepts it as his own, a tool he can use. (to be fair, at least part of that is probably because the punisher is a very good gun.)
the punisher can still represent the harsher aspects of wolfwood's character, the violence he's committed, that he's capable of. that's an important part of his life! and the idea of it as representative of his violent adolescence, childhood that was stripped away, goes along with this - it's literally a cross to bear. but besides showing his past as a burden, i think of the punisher as being a cross of responsibility. when you have a gun you have power, agency - you have a responsibility to make a choice. that's what wolfwood tells vash in chapter 4.
the ability to take a life, the burden of it, is literally his cross to bear. that ability - and that responsibility - was given to him by the eom, literally in terms of the gun, and in terms of his skills. but the eye doesn't think twice about killing people. for them it's not really a choice, a responsibility, it's just a given. but wolfwood can't accept that. he's constantly considering the choices he makes.
so the punisher isn't only a symbol of the eye of michael, of the path that he was forced onto. it's also a way of expressing autonomy. the eye gave wolfwood the gun, but he decides how to use it and what it means. for much of the story wolfwood struggles to decide what to do, he's a very conflicted character. but eventually he resolves to use it against chapel, against knives, to help vash, and protect the orphanage. the gun gives him agency.
so the punisher was part of his life. it was the tool that he used to commit acts of violence, acts that he was forced into, but also the tool he used to break free.
it's heavy for vash, too. he's not exempt from that idea, the idea of responsibility. as wolfwood said much earlier in the story, vash has always been able to sidestep the question of "what do i choose?", because he's only ever given himself one option - everybody lives. and he's always succeeded. but as wolfwood says, "the day will come when you'll have to choose". one day, it's not going to work.
and of course the story progresses, the stakes ramp up, and vash learns more, goes through more, and is pushed to his limits. i think by this point, by wolfwood's death, and maybe because of it, vash has realized that he might have to make that difficult choice in the near future. that's one reason why he wants to "do him proud". he has a lot of reasons to say this of course - to not let wolfwood's sacrifice go to waste, for example. but if we're thinking of the cross as responsibility, then vash is saying he doesn't want to forget the lessons he learned because of wolfwood. wolfwood has always grappled with responsibility, with what the right thing to do is. and the right thing is often not easy. vash hopes that when the times comes for him to make a choice, he'll make a good one, one that does right by wolfwood's memory.
427 notes
·
View notes
I wasn’t going to comment on the @wearewatcher situation because if people don’t know how to run a business/listen to their very supportive fan base, then that’s their cross to bear.
However, to everyone making the comments that artists can charge what they want and deserve to be fairly compensated for their work
1) they’re being fairly compensated, they simply expanded their business model (ie hiring more people) before their revenue could support it and are now acting as though their business was never generating enough and it’s the fans fault for not subscribing to a Patreon that they had almost zero advertising for
2) art is a luxury. Period. Full stop. No one needs Watcher content to survive, especially in the current economic climate and to act as though they’re doing us a favor by making it only $6 a month is really tone deaf and out of touch
3) you can set your prices at whatever you feel is fair. And the consumer can decide if they think your content is worth the set price. If they say, hey I’m not paying $6 for this, then that’s all there is. Art is worth what someone will pay for it
4) the fundamental misunderstanding of what their fan base is wanting/cares about just goes to show that it was never about fostering a community, it was only ever about doing what they wanted, and if the community turns on them, then that’s something they should have been able to anticipate
5) we don’t know these people. They’re grown men, no one is being held hostage. No one is being forced. They all agreed to do this, and if it tanks their careers. Well, that’s the price of doing business
I for one will not be supporting this move, and will not be consuming the content left on YouTube as it will still generate them revenue
You can do what feels right to you
57 notes
·
View notes