saw this post referenced recently and I've been having some thoughts about it

of course I really like the conceit here, and afaict I have one of the most expansive conceptions of "art" in my milieu. so of course I think that painted-over glow-in-the-dark stars in your airbnb can be art, I love this

but op actually doesn't call the thing "art," they call it a "poem," and that's really interesting!

a part of me wants to be critical of this, like, the aspects of poetry that I really like are sonic and verbal and just as much about presentation as they are about content, and I do believe you could take this idea and make a really good poem about it

and this part of me wants to say like, this is emblematic of exactly the things I dislike about much contemporary poetry, where there is I feel very little attention actually given to presentation, to the sound and rhythm and structure of the words themselves, where those things are neglected in favor of directness and cheap emotivity

buuuuut

at the same time I can't deny that there's something really compelling about calling this experience a poem, specifically. it's a metaphor, it draws attention to specific features of the thing that wouldn't be captured by using the more general word "art" and in doing so reveals some things about the way op thinks about poetry. in a word, it's poetic

and I do believe that there are interesting, valuable things about this contemporary idea of poetry, which treats a poem not as an intentional linguistic craft but as something more epigrammatic, juxtapositional

I want to draw a comparison to photography, which I think can be used in a similar way: drawing attention to specific visual features of an object or scene without being distracted by the crafts of expressive or realist painting (both of which can often obscure more than reveal the object being presented)

as op says: the themes are already there. what they want to present is context, is juxtaposition: an airbnb, a ceiling that's been painted over, a missed star. a photograph's lush visual detail would drown out the idea; a ballad's rhythm and imagery would distract from it

you can and I even think should make beautiful things out of ideas like this. but the idea itself is already beautiful, and there's a real artistic craft to noticing that, and presenting it without ornamentation. just, "look at this beautiful thing."

I watched Starship Troopers tonight.

so listen. we all know that if they ever made a tlt show it would be bad pretty much no matter what. so my pitch is let’s just give the project to steven moffat and see what he does with it. by the time he’s done we’ll have a show called “john” all about how tragically and manlily sad jod is and how you know what maybe imperialism is ok sometimes. tamsyn gets buckets of cash, some white guys get acting roles that they’ll regret the rest of their career, and i get a new hbomberguy video essay to rewatch every six months or so. someone call the fucking bbc ive solved this.

As a creator it's important to remember that people viciously attacking media because they personally didn't find it relatable is almost exclusively the province of professional critics and ultra-niche weirdos on the Internet. They can seem omnipresent because they're so vocal, but in practice, when confronted with a piece of media so intensely personal that it vanishes up its own arse with self-referentiality, 90% of people will just shrug and assume the reason they don't get it is because it's too deep for them.

breakthrough

“Just take it. It’s called a Lantern Lily.”

I have had a frustrating week IRL and needed to draw something cute. SO, TIME FOR ASHRYM CONTENT. I also enjoy designing fantasy flowers! The Lantern Lily is not actually a lily, despite it’s name. Technically a type of bellflower. It gives off a faint glow during summer nights to attract pollinators.

Image description below the cut!

Medium: Copic markers, Sakura Micron pens, white gel pen, and metallic and color shift watercolors by Iuile.

[Image Description: An embarrassed Ashton leans against a lone tree with his hammer slung over his shoulder, shoving a large flower at Orym and not making eye contact with him. The glass portion of his head glitters, but instead of the usual round bokeh-lights, they give off little heart shapes. The bellflower has purple petals, transitioning to a vibrant yellow at the edges, similar to a sunset, and has heart-shaped leaves. Blushing, Orym smiles, reaching out to take the gift.

Second image is a closeup of Ashton, from the waist up.]

my own rough take on our favorite were-tree's new (or not so new at this point lol) form of dread :) kinda gnarly and driftwood-y

This would make a great six-hour YouTube video.

jester :-) shes not my fav m9 character (i do still love her dearly) but i find i draw her the most… shes like a blueberry to me :]

Coddling Colonizer Guilt

"Performative diversity is when MAWS features a Native American variant of Lois Lane in the multiverse episode only to end the season on a Thanksgiving episode."

...is something I like to joke with my friends as a shorthand for referencing MAWS' squeamish approach to politics while still trying to reap the clout of "diverse representation". I want to get my thoughts out there and perhaps start a discussion over why this feels off.

Some disclaimers: Firstly, I'm not Native American. Understand this is an observation I'm making from an outsider perspective with no personal authority. I'm just a disappointed Asian Lois Lane fan. Secondly, I know the MAWS crew/creators had no malicious intent in any of these (what I consider) poor writing decisions. I'm simply here to challenge and analyze these narrative and visual choices.

MAWS takes a fairly controversial take on Superman mythos so far. Unlike Superman's historic roots as an allegory for Jewish immigrants with Clark coming from a Kryptonian socialist utopia (leading the imperfect people of Earth to a better tomorrow), MAWS chooses instead to reimagine Superman as a descendant from a planet of "alien invaders". If the leaked(?) concept art (warning potential spoilers for s2) is to be believed, Clark is the direct descendent of the leaders of the "Kryptonian Empire". Supposedly gone are the parents of Superman being scientists that warn of the destruction of their home planet- instead we have the "proud, loving, brilliant" "leaders of the Kryptonian Empire".

While we don't know if this is the direction the show is going in, there are already cryptic hints of it being planted and thematic elements set up that point to it being a possibility. Clark had spent a majority of the season wondering what/who he is (being incapable of talking to Jor-El's hologram because of a language barrier) only to find out his supposed origins in episode 9. He's devastated learning that he's an alien invader and, once he regroups with his friends, angsts about believing he's a weapon sent from Krypton to invade Earth. Asian-Lois Lane and Black-Jimmy Olsen assure White-passing-alien-man Clark Kent that he's different and not like other colonizers. Clark ultimately saves the day, proving he's an exception. It's curious then that the season ends on Thanksgiving.

As I've mentioned before, MAWS is exhaustively squeamish with getting political. Whatever happens in the show that resembles "themes" is quickly contradicted with very little consistent internal logic. One minute Superman is supposedly a threat that "wipes out good American jobs", should "go back to where he came from" and Lois makes a hope speech about how we shouldn't treat people who "are different" and "don't look like us" (??) with cruelty (so Clark's an immigrant going through xenophobia?) and the next he's a redeemed colonizer (a more prominent thematic arc). One minute Clark is "different" and scared of being othered- likened to a gay couple and allegorically closeted, and the next his friends call him out for being a lying liar for not disclosing his marginalized identity within a week (the narrative frames Lois and Jimmy as being in the right). This show's writing is non-committal with what it wants to say, and largely goes on vibes. That is to say I don't think the writers intended for the themes of colonizer guilt to accidentally tie into Thanksgiving as a set piece for their final episode.

I'm sure the reason the writers chose Thanksgiving as their final episode is because it's "relateable". Half the episode is dedicated to slice of life family reunion shenanigans and the dang turkey still not being cooked through. But in choosing Thanksgiving, the writers told on themselves here with their biases. The existence of Thanksgiving implies the existence of genocide (of Native American people) by colonists in the MAWS universe. And yet Black Jimmy Olsen doesn't know what racism is (Mallah and the Brain give him a judgmental stare as Jimmy admits he can't relate to being violently marginalized) and Asian American Lois Lane doesn't understand immigration and xenophobia (constantly being entitled to Clark's immigrant identity, being incapable of comprehending why he would keep it a secret, because secrets are lies). The MAWS crew wanted a "relateable" set piece but in doing so ended up reinforcing the historical revisionism the holiday entails. A foreign colonizer sharing a meal with his friends of color on Earth, whose culture, history, and identity are all white washed.

I would like to challenge this idea that Thanksgiving is somehow the "relateable" choice. Why pick this holiday? Why not celebrate Thanksgiving as a National Day of Mourning (as some Native Americans do)? Why not pick any Jewish holiday as a nod to Superman's creators (ignoring this version's colonizer interpretation for a second)? Why not pick Lunar New Year, a holiday celebrated by many people including Koreans (Seollal in South Korea)? It could've been another fun opportunity to showcase Lois' heritage, and create a fusion of cultures from Jimmy and Clark's families. At its most non-political and secular, why couldn't they pick any weekend? This is what happens when a show doesn't consider its world building and setting in a holistic way. MAWS will nod to xenophobic rhetoric, portray allegorical queer marginalization, and make the vaguest nods to systemic bigotry (Prof Ivo displaced a whole neighborhood! Yet we never hear from those figurative displaced people). But it does nothing to discuss any of that on a deeper level. Its characters of color don't know what racism is and Thanksgiving is just a fun family reunion, guys.

All this and they had the audacity to sneak in a Native American Lois Lane in the multiverse episode?? Why is she, out of all the Lois Lanes in this screencap, the only one in full traditional wear? Why isn't she in a smart casual business fit like Black Lois and STAS white Lois? Would she not have been recognizably Native American to the non-Native audience otherwise? Isn't this tokenizing? Do you think she has a xenophobic dad in the military like Korean American Lois does?

But that fits MAWS' approach to diversity, doesn't it? Surface level cultural nods, maybe make Lois wear a hanbok one time, and let the audience eat it up. Never mind that both Korean American Lois and Native American Lois have been stripped of their culture and history in every other aspect.

I use the word "relateable" a lot here, but I think the important question to ask is "relateable for who?". 'Immigrant' is too charged a word, so MAWS universalizes Clark's marginalization to "being different". Superman isn't even an immigrant in this version, that was all a smokescreen for the twist that he's actually a descendent of colonizers! Being wracked with colonizer guilt is way more relateable to the white audience than being an immigrant, surely. Thanksgiving is more relateable than celebrating any culturally specific holiday our "diverse reimagining" could have represented. Characters of color being functionally white (in a way that doesn't threaten middle America) is way more relateable. MAWS is a show that doesn't want to delve into Native American history. It would rather put a Native American Lois hologram on a pedestal and call it a day.

I am hyperfixated on a show that I hate and love at the same time? Yes

Did I mixed it with my religion? Maybe

Redesigns of Lucifer and King Paimon, just for fun.

LUCIFER ☆

Duller colors and appereance to give a more "intimidating" essence.

Mix of a lion and a goat. The serpent is part of him too.

The black tears are permanent.

He has wing scars on his back.

KING PAIMON ☆

I gotta be honest. I hate Viv's version, mostly because King Paimon is my patron and ummm yeah

Anyways, based on how he has presented to me (and others) he is now a fox!!!

Extroverted 200%, loves Lucifer too.

He has appeared to me as a Indian and middle eastern man, so I give him features of those regions! Simplified to make him "animator friendly" (His clothes are also based on antique illustrations of him).

Not a bad dad anymore!! He can be distracted, sure, but not neglectful.

Stolas you are next.

there's a register people go into when they are trying to "sound poetic" that hinges on a particular fascination with certain "poetic" (i.e., unusual or archaic) words, and while I have certainly been guilty of this myself I more and more try to use the plainest language possible in my poetry, focusing instead on sound and imagery to create the poetic effect I want

You know, I really think that critics and artists need to come together to form the wall against AI art. It's rare, I know, but this is one place where I think we have a common enemy.

As an artist, you don't want your work stolen and used without compensation or credit to churn out soulless consumerist trash.

Me, I'm a critic. And you know what? I don't want to review the mass-produced garbage utterly devoid of artistic meaning or value that would be produced in this manner.

You pour your heart and soul into the art you create. And it's that very heart and soul that I'm looking for when I'm critiquing your work. I know I can be harsh at times. And I know it may sometimes feel as though we are natural enemies. But without that sincere, honest human expression that you pour into your work, my field wouldn't even exist.

And I promise you, even when I don't like what you've put in front of me, I would rather sit through it a thousand times than have to scrutinize a bastardized Frankenstein's Monster of ideas created by a soulless computerized husk that can't even comprehend the words being regurgitated from its automated mouth.

Every critic needs to stand behind creators against this digital invasion of our spaces.

Even the moon and her stars have their favorites (Finished piece)

Making money off art does not make it impure. Something being produced under capitalism does not make it less valuable as art. Your art isn't devalued by you selling it. A book/movie/play/show isn't less artistically valuable because it was distributed (I am deliberately not using the word "made") by a company.

The idea that monetization is antithetical to art is not a leftist idea. It is a deeply reactionary idea, that finds the idea of artists also being workers are scary.

If you view art that people make money off of as invalid. Then you inherently only view art made by people with the privilege it takes to have time and resources to make art without having to sell it as valuable.

"This isn't real art, it's just a product" might look like hatred of capitalism, but in practice it is hatred of workers.

A little note to all who care.

Unsolicited critique can be the reason people block you.

I'm just having fun drawing my blorbos and sharing my art with people who like the same stuff as me.

I'm doing this for free and I'm especially just doing this for myself.

My art is my way of expressing my love for something, so unless I ask for help or inspiration, kindly keep you critique to yourself.