The word “creative” is a great leveler. It locks art in the closet of “creative work” with fields like shoe design and advertising, and as a result such fields get elevated beyond belief thanks to their association with art, whereas the latter gets violently downgraded. No one considers it out-of-place anymore when a respected art museum organizes screenings of award-winning advertisements, or exhibits of expensive designer dresses. Just like art, those things are made by creative professionals, so why not? At the same time, decorative and techno-gimmick works that otherwise would be termed design and entertainment, now bear the name of art. The category of art gets muddled; many people get disappointed by “serious” art exhibitions that feature neither high entertainment value, nor displays of “mad skills,” nor technical innovation. (This might seem to contradict the claim made in the previous post, that people do not go to art exhibits in search of entertainment. There is actually a paradox: people indeed tend to hold art in higher esteem than, say, Hollywood movies, but they often leave art shows complaining that the works on view are “boring.”) But art is not at all about that. Instead of “creativity,” the word I would prefer to see in press releases and articles is a really unfashionable one—“intelligence.”

Unlike decorative painting or advertising, art is able to critically reflect on itself and the world around it, that’s why it doesn’t fit too squarely into capitalism. By labeling art just “creative work” capitalism limits it, by locking it in an apolitical field. Art, though, is able to serve as a critical practice and point to the political dimension of things. In other words, “creative thinking” is essential for the functioning of capitalism, whereas “critical thinking” is not. Art strives to create a space from which we could look at our market-governed world as if from outside, to see the familiar as strange and problematic. No, I’m not saying that art should hide in an ivory tower. Quite the contrary: it invites other “creative practices” to look at themselves with a critical eye, too.

Consider, for example, the Soviet avant-garde era (roughly, the 1920s to the early 1930s) when accomplished artists such as Lyubov Popova and Varvara Stepanova designed fabrics for mass production. Their work was part of the large project of egalitarian society, and they did not feel disadvantaged because of that. For them the work was valuable not because it was art but because it was design for the proletarian masses. Another example is the British music magazine Wire, whose writers often engage with their subject from a socio-political point of view. To them, adventurous music and music writing can be on par with art (and not simply “entertainment”) because of their complexity, intelligence, and cultural value, not by birth right (as in, “all creative activities should be respected just because they fall under the rubric of creative.”) Quite a contrast with, say, advertising, which obscures the blatant fact that it’s, basically, a “making money for corporations” type of activity with a fig leaf of “art” or “creativity.” This is basically what the latter word does: it obscures the difference. It hides the uncomfortable truth.

Dale would probably say that “creativity” is an indispensable part of what you need in order to make art. I agree, but I would underline that it’s only a part. It takes care of how the artist wants to say something, not of what they want to say, and in art the most crucial thing is the what. And, I would add that a lot of contemporary artists now do not “create” in the strict sense of the word: they appropriate from various sources. Other “creative practices” do that too: design, for example, is hugely indebted to art. And speaking of advertising, I have seen too many advertisements that had meaninglessly stolen ideas from artworks, and I don’t even own a TV.

In other words: to hell with creativity, as says the best Russian art critic Ekaterina Degot, whom I admire. Intelligence is much more interesting, and to my mind “intelligent” is a much more fitting compliment to a work of art that you find important.

Posted by Julia Glosemeyer

“No” by Santiago Sierra

The characters from NOgoodDEED and Hellbound Heroes

On January 27th 2012, Astra Price and I went and saw NOgoodDEED, a comic book play (or should I call it a Graphic Novel Theater Presentation?). Whatever you call it, it was really good - smart and incredibly self-aware, it poked great fun at comic books, drug abuse and the news media while honoring the sequential art medium in the shear fact that the play was written and produced. If you like comic books / graphic novels / sequential art and have even the slightest distaste for pop culture media, then this play is for you.

Before the play started, Astra asked, “When was the last time you saw a play?” Her point was well taken, I’ve seen very few plays and when I do see them, they’re generally experimental with multimedia aspects - it’s what I dig. That having been said, I can’t say a whole lot about the direction and acting about NOgoodDEED but that it was at least satisfactory enough for me to enjoy the show and not think too much about the technical aspects. I had little room to talk and had no real complaints

Now, I’ve already said that I like multimedia plays - the last one that I remember seeing was in fact a shadow-puppet play up at the California Institute of the Arts and it was pretty damn cool. So, NOgoodDEED really fit my bill. To me, one of the most amazing parts of the play were the live and pre-recorded video projections that lit up the stage in many ways: the main-stage backdrop, then on an upper level to the stage, there was a single large panel and 3 movable panels. The panels on the upper level served to establish simultaneous location context as well as made the stage look like a comic book page.

NOgoodDEED image from LA Stage Times article by AMY TOFTE | January 19, 2012

OK - I need to come clean and fully admit that I did do some consulting for the play but it was only about their comic book that accompanies the play where my company, DWAP Productions has an ad as compensation. Either way, I definitely recommend that you see this play if you’re interested in any of the following: comic books, sequential art, multi-media plays, theater, art, and puppy dogs. Below is the pertinent information about the play.

January 18 at 8:00pm until February 26 at 8:00pm
Where
[Inside] the Ford, 2580 Cahuenga Boulevard East
Description
Furious Theatre Company is back with an epic World Premiere…don’t miss this darkly comic production that is part play, part graphic novel.

NOgoodDEED image from LA Stage Times article by AMY TOFTE | January 19, 2012

NOgoodDEED
Written by Matt Pelfrey
Directed by Dámaso Rodriguez

Starring:
Nick Cernoch, Shawn Lee, Troy Metcalf, Johanna McKay Katie Marie Davies, Dana Kelly, Jr., Robert Pescovitz, Danny Lacy, Brian Danner, Stefanie Demetriades, Adam Critchlow and David C. Hernandez.

The Production Team includes:
Susan Coulter, Christie Gilmore, Jason Thompson, Dan Weingarten, John Iacovelli, Doug Newell, Ben Matsuya, Deidre Works, Brian Danner, Christy Hauptman and Shannon Dedman

For tickets and showtimes go here:
http://fordtheatres.org/en/events/list

For more info about the show go here:
www.iamhellbound.com

For the FaceBook Invite, go here:
https://www.facebook.com/events/158871397555661/

Absolute Monsters "Eat Me!" bag detail

Looking for an eco-friendly, reusable, canvas bag that can be used for books, groceries, dog toys, and other fun? Want your bag to to be quirky and silly? DWAP Productions and Taco Comics have the bags for you. Conceptualized by dale wilson and printed at the Taco Comics factory in Southern California, this bag is sure to remind you of the laughs and giggles you had every time you read Absolute Monsters, the comic by dale wilson and DCASTR. This bag features both Smoking Pancake and Big Beefy Recall, the socio-political wrestlers of Absolute Monsters. Unlike the comics, Smoking Pancake has only words for Big Beefy Recall. The bags are limited so order now.

Absolute Monsters "Eat Me!" bag side 01

Absolute Monsters "Eat Me!" bag side 02

Why do PR people of art organizations imitate those corporate tactics? Do they seriously hope that a person in search of fun will choose their debate on Conceptual art or avant-garde dance performance over a Hollywood movie or a party? When people want fun, they don’t go to see art. Period. Even those who are not art geeks in any way go to museums or galleries expecting to find there something other than entertainment. They go there to broaden their cultural or intellectual horizons, get to know more about history, find transcendence, provocation, or just plain beauty. In other words, an encounter with art is generally perceived (by the right and the left alike) to be something deeper and more meaningful than entertainment. And art should take advantage of this fact, instead of trying to compete with corporations over who can provide the most fun.

Probably the word “fun” is used in newsletters just to appease the corporate sponsors, as if: look, we’re doing something to attract new audiences. Hmmm, that is kind of absurd. If there are indeed such art noobs who will go to an exhibit in hope to find divertissement, they will leave confused. I know because I once was such a noob myself. Some years ago, when I was still blissfully ignorant regarding all things contemporary art, I was invited to an opening, with an assurance that it will be “a lot of fun.” Naturally, I left the event weirded out, not because of the crowd or ambience (they were all right), but because I just did not know how to mentally approach the work that I saw. Maybe a better strategy to lure new audiences would be to stress the importance (or, if the institution is bold enough, the indispensability) of the stuff on view.

Most of all, in my communication with an arts institution I want to be treated like an equal. An artist is not a service provider, and an arts organization shouldn’t aspire to be one, either. As I said before, contemporary capitalism views us as creatures that constantly need to be seduced, served, and pampered, and are always in pursuit of fun; art should be a counterpoint to that. I don’t want it to look at me with misty eyes from below, begging for attention and promising pleasures. We are needy rich children surrounded by servants in our leisure time, while being screwed by “job creators” at work. This situation is totally schizophrenic, and it’s in a desperate need of being acknowledged and articulated.

Posted by Julia Glosemeyer

All-Star Western 1: Inventive. When DC first restarted Jonah Hex a few years ago, I was a fan. It was good stuff and I liked the unspoken Clint Eastwood as Jonah Hex. Eventually the title dried up a little for me when it started to become predictable so I dropped it. With this new All-Star Western, the character and his world are new and interesting again. Dropping the most bad-ass cowboy into a Sherlock Holmes/Jack the Ripper story is brilliant. Also - Moritat is one of the most amazing artists in the biz and that does not hurt my opinion of the book at all. Great read.

Aquaman 1: Revenge? Take an otherwise disrespected water-hero, make his world a little dark, show that he is kick-ass, reiterate that he does not talk to fish and make him a romantic, what do you have? A healthy remake of what used to be a key character for DC. I liked it. I liked that he was super-strong, that he carried a slick trident and that he seemed to be a family-man (an interesting trait). I also really dug that the villains were a little creepy and dark. So what’s the problem? It’s pushing the character but right now, I don’t see it pushing the medium and I just don’t have any interest in the book.

Batman: The Dark Knight 1: Batman Was Darker. Back to Batman, again. I’m not going to recap the problem I have with his recurring iconography but I will say that there was another break-out at Arkham Asylum - wasn’t that part of the problem in another Batman book? Maybe not - they do all blend together after all and maybe it was the same breakout. Either way, that place needs new security. My gripes and gratuitous shots of women’s legs and butts aside, the book looks good and reads well, there’s just not a whole lot here for me. They are not doing anything particularly new with the character of Batman - although, they do seem to be experimenting with the villains again, and I get bored with repetitious characters and story-lines.

Blackhawks 1: Well-Done But Not My Thing. Blackhawks is one of those strange para-military science fiction team books where everyone dresses in similar but personalized uniforms. In some ways, it’s exactly what I’d love to see in this kind of book - somehow more realistic. It’s also pretty well-executed - good writing with smart art but for some reason, I feel no inclination toward this book. Why? Because it’s exactly what it needs to be and is missing quirks. I need some specific idiosyncrasies. Maybe. I’m not 100% certain why this book is not on my pull list but I can say that it is well crafted. Oh, and how does Andrew Lincoln keep his glasses on?

The Flash 1: Not Very Quick. Yeah, I’m a minimalist but is it too much to ask that a book about a fast-guy be smooth and sleek? The art is often overly functional in that it does little more than drive the story along and then there are moments when the art is great but the bad parts out weight the good parts. A particular thing that really bothers me is that there is a flashback where we are supposed to gain empathize with the main character and learn about a new, important character and it only takes up half a page. Regardless of my disdain for a location transition to happen in the middle of a page, it really bothers me that I a supposed to care about a character after a half page of flashback. The book is also awfully wordy and I get that this is at least a little intentional in that a fast man is probably at least a little jittery but it is not sustaining. I’m also not all that interested in the accidental slipping away to change costumes; it just comes off as silly and a few decades old. This book would have probably been pretty good in a past decade but is not very interesting to me today.

The Fury of Firestorm 1: Batgirl Was Better. I know that it is pretty unfair to judge one title against another but that was my first reaction to having read this book. I was interested in Firestorm because the main character is a cool, unconventional hero with an interesting background but also because Gail Simone had crafted such a surprisingly smart book with Batgirl. But The Fury of Firestorm seemed to be missing some of what made Batgirl good. I think that my biggest hangup about this book was that the two main personalities that went into forging this new incarnation of Firestorm were too easy - high school/social stereotypes. And maybe they are going to flush these characters out as the book progresses but I probably won’t be reading it.

Green Lantern: New Guardians 1: Another Green Lantern Success. As I’ve said before with great unpopularity, I am not a Hal Jordan fan. That having been repeated, I did find New Guardians 1 interesting in that it seemed to build on the rainbow of new ring possibilities with lots of cool aliens and other fun. What is my problem with this book (because I always seem to have a problem with every book)? Why does Earth have to be the center of the universe? Have we not proven already that it is not? I mean, in the real world. I know that writers try to tie readers to books by giving them something they can understand, something they can hold onto but aren’t there plenty of books out there that don’t use Earth as the way-station for all important activity in the massive universe? Anyway, New Guardians is well crafted good writing and art with a jump right into action fun and twists and turns to bring readers back.

I, Vampire 1: Joshua Hale Fialkov. Even though I was “buying and reading all of The New 52”, I almost did not read this book. Based on the title, I lived in absolute fear that it was going to be sparkly. But wow, it turned out to be interesting and new - particularly for a vampire book in today’s market. The writing and art were smooth, it is not a superhero book and it is a horror-alternative so I am leaning toward picking up this trade paperback.

Justice League Dark 1: Predictable Mystery. Can there possibly be a problem that The Holy Trinity of Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman can’t handle? Well, maybe. So who would you call in then? Justice League Dark, right. Sure. Where do you find this team? Dig up some Vertigo characters - haha. But, yeah, that’s pretty much it. Do I sound like I have a problem with this book? No, not really. I guess my problem is with the publishers. I don’t know why they have this book in the DCU. What is the point? Not sure. Just leave the characters in Vertigo where they will get the appropriate editorial love. My concern is simple in the end: Will John Constantine be allowed to smoke and cuss? I just hope that Justice League Dark is not what the people in the team call it.

The Savage Hawkman 1: Biggest Disappointment. There is something about me that loves this character concept and I feel like it has never been treated correctly. Let’s put it this way, I read (past tense because it is not part of The New 52) Justice Society of America because Hawkman was one of the key characters. So, here we go. In the new book, they’ve made him Wolverine, kinda. They have put his weapons and costume in his body so that he can Hawk-out at any point and does not have to suit up. I like when he wore armor and felt like a warrior because of it. And would Carter Hall really destroy all of his weapons and with only a bottle of gasoline and a flare gun? The story really just bothers me a good bit with a bunch of jumping around, some unnecessary coincidences, a seemingly ultimately powerful new villain and a poor cliffhanger.

Superman 1: Over-written. I’m really not sure what to say about this book. There is SO much text, I feel like nothing is left of interpretation, the editor needed to do some slashing and I came out not really caring. There is voice-over at the same time at dialogue and Superman inner dialogue and in one panel, we get both inner dialogue and voice-over. What are the perks of this book? The overshadowed art is nice, the twists and turns of the new Superman are relatively interesting and Lois Lane is more interesting than I remember her from older books.

Teen Titans 1: Super-powered Mini-Me’s. How do you capitalize on your existing popular heroes without just making another Justice League or individual character spin-off? Make the Muppet Baby version by taking the existing characters, changing them very little and making them younger. Yawn. Complaining done, the book is done pretty well. The art is nice, the writing is pretty good. I might be interested in reading more if the characters weren’t so boringly 1% and white bread.

Voodoo 1: All The Right Parts. Sexist pun aside, the book is pretty well crafted if not for the overt audience-catering of the making a book about an exotic-beauty-stripper. Much of this book looks like the lingerie magazines that most of the audience was looking at before they were able to get a hold of at least a soft core porn mag or had the gumption to look at nudies on the web and clear the browser cache afterward. This book is particularly frustrating to me because I was a WildCATS fan from back in the day, I liked Voodoo, the art, page/panel layout and even the mystery of the book are well done and interesting but I cannot keep reading a book that essentially just proves that sex sells.

What did I learn after all of this? There are lots of straight forward books that are well done but I’m just not that interested in them. The holy-trinity of the DCU permeates everything in DC Comics; it maintains the audience that can come back to something they know and love but it constrains he growth into new markets and concepts of thought. There is plenty of sexism/sex being sold as part of the existing iconography. But there are also some well-crafted books that live within and break the bounds of all of the positive and negative things that I have mentioned above.

Who am I to speak so blatantly of DC Comics and the DCU? How can I bash and praise the luminaries in the same series of paragraphs? I am an opinionated lover of the comic book medium, having been reading comics off and on for as long as I can remember. I have been a comic book small publisher for more than 5 years now having published mostly my own material but I have also ventured into publishing works by friends/co-creators. I have published my own and other people’s works online at http://www.MagnificentCreatures.com and in print at http://www.DWAPproductions.com. I have a literature and language degree from Webster University where I also minored in comparative religion. I also work at The Search Agency as a creative editor focusing in SEM and have dabbled in the study of SEO. I write, I market, I write, I think.

Batman 1: I have not been shy about my disdain for Batman appearing in every book. I essentially see it as writers/DC Comics relying on iconography rather than trying to create new characters that are just as interesting as old ones but that is a gripe for later. That having been said, Batman is good - well-constructed and smart with appropriate transitions and a smartly put together reveal. The art is smooth with appropriate changes to distinguish different times in Bruce Wayne’s life. In some ways, this book is really frustrating because it’s well done but I want new characters in my reading so I won’t be buying this Trade Paperback.

Birds of Prey 1: Action-packed Fun. Admittedly, I had some trouble with a few of the right-side-of-the-book location transitions and surprise-reveals but overall, I really dug this book. Great drive. Cool art and fun writing drew me in and a roller coaster ride kept me. And the not-overly-sexy but still cool main characters also give the book points - look at the cover and recognize how much skin isn’t shown. This book kicks ass, it does not sell ass.

Blue Beetle 1: A Good Beginning. Action-packed, cool alien beginning and a Green Lantern Corps mention, smooth art and generally good writing with an introduction to the human side of what will be the new guy wearing the Blue Beetle guise. I was really keen on the unusual villains, their powers and costumes seemed strange and enticing. This makes for a good core superhero book but I as with some of the other well-done but otherwise uninteresting and not very challenging books, I don’t have a whole lot of reason to look forward to reading it any further.

Captain Atom 1: All the Right Atoms. The first thing that strikes me about this book is how appropriate the art style is for the story and character. Nicely done. This book has solid writing if a little dialogue heavy and as I said, the art is appropriate but also well done. The panel layouts stick out as smart and page/location transitions are strong. What is my concern about the book? That the main character is a science project in a bottle with a limited amount of access to other characters which means a limited number of relationships that can easily be built. This concern is further compounded by the amount of internal dialogue that appears in the book. Worth reading in the book? Sure but it may have a limited shelf-life.

Catwoman 1: Much Ado About Sex. There were a lot of complaints and conversations bantered around Facebook and what not concerning how this book ends - Catwoman and Batman make a cross-species porn. So what. Catwoman’s book/character is cheapened by her being a single-dimensional character with nothing but sex to sell her books. I can’t help but feel that DC sometimes only has a single character to “make books worth buying” - Batman. In the end, I don’t care that DC has cheapened another female character - they do it all the time. I’m really just getting tired of Batman being the only character that can do anything interesting in the DCU. I’d think that Bruceman would be tired at this point too - when does he sleep? After sex with Catwoman? Probably not.

DC Universe Presents 1: HAHA, The Deadman Book. Why do I laugh when I talk about this book? I’m not really sure. Deadman just kinda feels like a 70s (first premiered in 1967) character that never grew up DC seems to refuse to update his look (that of a superhero circus act) and keeps putting him books - comes off as “one of those relatives.” Said and done, I dig that the character is dark and strange and that they are pushing pretty hard to make him interesting. Since I don’t know much about the history of the character and there’s a lot of “voice-over,” the read is a little confusing. I also feel like the Iraq War reference is somehow too easy. I feel no need to read any further.

Green Lantern Corps 1: What Green Lantern Should Be. Aliens and willpower. A series of super-powerful extra terrestrial Green Lanterns have been offed by some mysterious assassin in black. The human Green Lanterns are bored on Earth so they come in just in time to rescue Oa. I sound a little sour about this and I am. With the vast imagination that we all have, can’t we imagine incredible worlds with creatures alien to ourselves but with similarities enough that we can see them as metaphors for ourselves - sure, why now? But other than humans coming to the rescue, I dig this book.

Legion of Super-Heroes 1: Cool But Busy. Again, my inclination is to explore new worlds, unusual characters and teams so this book automatically gets extra points from me. We are however, dropped right into the middle of storylines and character interaction that seem to require some knowledge of previous books in order to properly understand what is happening. This book also drops the reader right into the entire team which means a good bit of jumping around from location to location. There’s also a ton of dialogue and character description boxes that make the pages a little busy at time, causing some clunkiness in the way the book reads. Overall, I am intrigued by the characters and team but not sure that this is the place for me to start reading.

Nightwing 1: A Batman Alternative. Strong book with good page placement, not too rushed, strong art. There is only one page payout foible that bothers me. Otherwise, I like it. Look, he’s essentially Batman but with a different costume so that DC Comics can have Batman but not Batman. It’s really no different than Midnighter (an interesting take on Batman). OK, I will leave my seeming-hatred for Batman for another article (honestly, I don’t hate him). In the end, I like the book and if I am in the mood for a Batman fix, rather than feeding the beast of conservatism, I will give Nightwing a try.

Red Hood and The Outlaws 1: Overshadowed by More Sex. Is this book any good? It’s hard to know with all of the online sex-scandal hype and Playboy like-images of Starfire. Is there something wrong with Starfire’s promiscuity? No, not really. But the way she is portrayed is definitely problematic to me - there is not a single image of her in the book that is not objectifying. So, what’s wrong with that? Other than the objectification of the character, it takes away from what might otherwise be a good book. The writing is not altogether bad and the art is actually pretty interesting. There are even a few characters including another woman named Essence that in her few seconds of appearance, she is at least relatively interesting. In the end, this book comes off as having potential but cluttered by soft-core porn.

Supergirl 1: Super-surprise. This book felt so efficient. Smooth. Although I do like this book, my first, immediate thought is that I am happy that she is no longer wearing the cheerleader skirt - that thing was just icky and kept me away from the book for many years, no matter who was writing or drawing it. Am I completely happy with the bathing suit look? No but the skirt is gone and we can all rejoice that much. About why the book flows so well: it is certainly in part due to the wonderful sense of space that the art provides; it is in no way cluttered and that is just exquisite. The writing is simple and straight forward, also without clutter. It is basically Supergirl landing on a new planet, discovering where she is, that she is crazy-powerful and facing off against a bunch of mega-powerful mecha-suits. One flaw aside form the swimsuit aspect not being perfect? Superman’s center-of-the-DC-Universe-beside-Batman appearance. Otherwise, I am buying this trade paperback.

Wonder Woman 1: Not Azzarello’s Best. Look, I don’t expect everything he writes to be 100 Bullets goo but he did set the bar, right? It is an interesting new take on an old standard super-heroine, tying her contemporary heroics into a crazy mythical world but how does that make her want to fight alongside Superman and Batman? We’ll leave that up to the DC writers. It’s also pretty damn dark considering how Godfather they went to open a portal to Earth. I also like the overall personality that they gave the lead-damsel in distress. OK, here we go again, what’s wrong? Did the damsel in distress really need to be dragged around in her underwear and why does Wonder Woman wear a corset? I was a fan of the pants with legs. Sure, Wonder Woman’s look is probably an editorial/corporate choice that Azzarello had no control over but it is sad nevertheless. As a bit of an addendum, I will admit that I liked the book more when I went back to it after some time and I will consider buying/reading the trade paperback.