Last week I posted this fantastic trailer for Warren Ellis’ new book, Gun Machine. It is a brilliant collaboration between Jim Batt, Ben Templesmith, and Wil Wheaton. This week a new trailer was released by independent filmmaker and photographer Clayton Cubitt. It’s takes a much more expressionistic approach than the first trailer did, but it is quite chilling and perhaps even more intriguing.
Vulture.com has the exclusive release and you can watch the video here. Enjoy!
Leave a Comment » | 
art, books, entertainment, Literature, Uncategorized | Tagged: books, Clayton Cubitt, film, Gun Machine, Warren Ellis | 
Permalink
Posted by tvgilbert
A few days ago Mulholland Books released Gun Machine, a new novel by Warren Ellis. Here’s the premise, it sounds pretty awesome:
Warren Ellis reimagines New York City as a puzzle with the most dangerous pieces of all: GUNS.
After a shootout claims the life of his partner in a condemned tenement building on Pearl Street, Detective John Tallow unwittingly stumbles across an apartment stacked high with guns. When examined, each weapon leads to a different, previously unsolved murder. Someone has been killing people for twenty years or more and storing the weapons together for some inexplicable purpose.
Confronted with the sudden emergence of hundreds of unsolved homicides, Tallow soon discovers that he’s walked into a veritable deal with the devil. An unholy bargain that has made possible the rise of some of Manhattan’s most prominent captains of industry. A hunter who performs his deadly acts as a sacrifice to the old gods of Manhattan, who may, quite simply, be the most prolific murderer in New York City’s history.
Warren Ellis’s body of work has been championed by Wired for its “merciless action” and “incorruptible bravery,” and steadily amassed legions of diehard fans. His newest novel builds on his accomplishments like never before, announcing Ellis as one of today’s most daring thriller writers. This is twenty-first century suspense writ large. This is GUN MACHINE.
I haven’t read Ellis’s other acclaimed novel, Crooked Little Vein, but I am a huge fan of his comic book work (you can read my piece on his steampunk graphic novella, Aetheric Mechanics here). I was intrigued by Gun Machine’s concept when I first heard about it but this trailer may have inspired me to knock it up a few rungs on my “to read” list.
I’m excited by the recent resurgence of collaborative music videos and trailers and this one features some serious talent. In addition to Ellis’s writing, we are treated to beautiful illustrations by Ben Templesmith (30 Days of Night, Wormwood), narration from Wil Wheaton (Star Trek: TNG, Big Bang Theory), and animation by Jim Batt (whose video collaboration with Molly Crabapple and Kim Boekbinder I featured here).
1 Comment | art, books, entertainment, Literature, Uncategorized | Tagged: Ben Templesmith, Gun Machine, Jim Batt, Mulholland Books, Warren Ellis, Wil Wheaton | Permalink
Posted by tvgilbert
There are so many reasons to recommend this video, not the least of which is the talented group who collaborated on it. The music is by Kim Boekbinder, a fabulous solo artist whose first album, The Impossible Girl, can be bought here. She recently completed a successful kickstarter campaign for her forthcoming space-themed album which I expect to be pretty awesome. Molly Crabapple is responsible for all the illustrations. She is a fabulous artist whose work can be found nearly everywhere you look these days from the cover of Steampunk Magazine to The Wall Street Journal . Her detailed and somewhat bawdy style that employs decadent 19th century motifs is very recognizable and her work on this video is truly breathtaking. Find out more about her work at her website. Finally, Jim Batt is an accomplished and versatile filmmaker who has worked with Amanda Palmer, among many others, his website has lots of his videos to watch and all manner of news and updates.
I love this video because it is such a genuine collaborative effort, each artist putting their unique stamp on it. It’s exciting to see this kind of effort and care put into the music video medium, an art-form suffering over the last decade or so. Enjoy! Tell your friends, and support these artists.
1 Comment | art, entertainment, music, Steampunk | Tagged: entertainment, film, Jim Batt, Kim Boekbinder, Molly Crabapple, music, steampunk | Permalink
Posted by tvgilbert
I’ve recently bought Amanda Palmer’s new record, Theatre is Evil, and attended her recent show in Philadelphia. I have a lot of respect for how she conducts herself as an artist and a performer and the unorthodox way that she has managed to put together this album. Her recent work has been extremely inspirational to me as both a creator and an individual, and I have been genuinely surprised to see the flurry of negative reactions surrounding her recent endeavors. For those who haven’t been following this, Amanda had a fantastically successful Kickstarter campaign for the new record that raised more than a million dollars. There was some controversy surrounding this at the time that seemed mainly to stem from misunderstandings about how the Kickstarter system works and what it really takes to make an album and tour happen, along with some other (highly offensive, in my opinion) comments suggesting that her husband, author Neil Gaiman, should be footing the bill.
I thought that this controversy had largely abated but now a new one has surface. Amanda has been asking her fans, or other interested musicians in the cities she plays, to volunteer their time and talent on stage to fill out the string and horn sections for some of the numbers. This has caused quite a stir in professional music circles, where many outspoken musicians have chastised Amanda for not compensating her talented labor with anything other than beer, high-fives, and a good time. Some of the criticisms have been quite venomous, insinuating that Amanda Palmer is preying on the naiveté of struggling artists, making them believe that this could lead to their big break. Others have taken a more principled approach, arguing that Amanda Palmer’s refusal to pay musician’s union wages makes her no better than the traditional corporate gate-keepers who exploit under-paid labor. Either way, the general attitude of critics is that Amanda Palmer is more concerned with her bottom line profits than with the ethical treatment of her musicians.
This is absurd to me for a plethora of reasons. In fact, I was so floored by the outrage that all of this has caused that I felt compelled to write a blog piece in Amanda’s defense. Since my initial reaction, however, Amanda Palmer and Unwoman have both written terrific responses (see links below) and I no longer feel the need to expound detail by detail why I believe her choice to call for volunteers is perfectly acceptable, however, I think there are still a few important angles to consider here that are getting overlooked in the jumble of angry message board comments, yet have a significant impact on the larger creative culture in America, and probably the world.
What it comes down for me is that the social, cultural, and economic paradigms surrounding creativity need to be broken down and reconstructed. From my perspective Amanda Palmer is trying to do just that while few other artists are. It’s a work in progress and there is considerable grey area, Amanda has admitted as much herself. Furthermore, the broader sociocultural infrastructure stands in direct opposition to such change, but that doesn’t mean that the creative community, including creators and audience alike, shouldn’t try, learn, grown, adapt and do better next time. Here are some of the realities as I see them as they relate to this specific controversy, as well as the general struggle for sustainable, meaningful creative output in the future.
First and foremost is the fact that creative endeavors (a term which I’m going to be using in place of “art” because that term is too 
narrow for what I want to discuss and often evokes an unfortunate air of pretension) can’t happen without help. More specifically, they can’t happen without free help. This covers the entire spectrum of creative expression. Independent filmmakers often rely on friends and family who are willing to act for free, assist with make-up for free, provide places to stay and eat when shooting on location for free, lend use of homes or property as shooting locations for free. I don’t mean to say that this is how movies are made, major studio films certainly aren’t. Many independent films are well funded and actors and actresses can be well-paid, but I would bet that if asked, directors will tell you that they relied on some level on charity during their career, even if it was just lending equipment or giving their feedback after a test screening. Writers rely on support constantly, they expect friends and family to read first drafts and provide feedback, they expect fans to write reviews, make podcasts, tweet about their work, all of which requires time and talent that is not being compensated. Using free musicians on stage is nothing new. I know competent musicians who have played for free for friends and family, have offered their talents as a studio engineer to record for free, who have provided the use of their equipment to other musicians for free. It may be new to ask for free help on this scale, with this level of transparency. That’s a positive step if you ask me.
So why do it? Why contribute your talents for nothing? As I mentioned, there has been some rather malicious suggestion that Amanda Palmer is dubiously promising exposure and connections to struggling artists. My guess is that there are as many personal motivations for performing in this capacity as there are performers. Some may see it as a potential opportunity to enhance their careers, others may see it as an opportunity to practice performing in a live venue, maybe they listened to a tarot reading or their horoscope and felt like it was part of their spiritual path, I really don’t know and neither does anybody else, though I’m guessing a lot of people just thought it would be fun. But there is another incentive of real value for musicians: contributing to the creative communities to which they belong. Amanda’s volunteers have chosen to contribute to this community. It would be nice to say that things come out positively in the long run, that you give a little and you get a little back. There is no doubt that this does happen, and how much it happens depends on a lot of variables, luck and timing being just two of them. However, in order for creative communities to truly flourish, the contribution itself needs to be the only expectation.
I co-founded an independent film magazine called Lunchmeat. The goal for our project was really just to have a venue to talk about the movies that we love and to reach out to others who share the same interests. The magazine has been well-received, its readership has grown, and it continues to be published, even though other responsibilities have limited my contributions to it of late. The magazine has never made a dime in terms of profit, even though it regularly sells out. I have never regretted the hard work I have put into it without making any income off of it. One thing I know is that we could not have made it if we didn’t have a LOT of people helping us with it, either for free or virtually free. We wrote the first issue, but did not know how to design it, there is no way we could possibly have paid a professional designer and we were fortunate enough to have a friend with professional design experience who shared our interests and was willing to design it for free. He put in over 20 hours of unpaid work to do that magazine for us because we asked him to and because he shared our enthusiasm for the project. The opportunity to contribute and be listed in the credits was the only agreement we ever made. Sure, the magazine could have exploded, and his design work in it could have led to a dream job. It didn’t. I don’t think he expected it to, and I don’t think he regrets having been a part of something cool.
Other graphic designers could argue that his free work degrades the paid work they do, as many musicians have said about the musicians who are volunteering for Amanda Palmer’s tour. However, the fact of the matter is that without the free design job, our magazine wouldn’t have happened; any way you cut it, no graphic designer was going to get paid. Of course Amanda Palmer’s tour would happen with or without volunteers, but it very well could have happened without an orchestra, or at least without an orchestra in certain markets. Some, no doubt, will argue that it would be better for her to play without the strings and horns than to play with free labor. The opinion is valid, but hardly clear cut. It warrants discussion, not anger.
There has been a considerable attempt to guilt the volunteers for performing for free. Apparently it’s an epidemic that musicians are too often asked to pay for free and many see Amanda’s request as likely to reinforce this notion. I’m not a musician so I don’t know the real extent of this problem; I do know that the mantra of “musicians should never play a free gig” has been touted liberally about message boards. There have also been comments from photographers and writers on both sides of the argument and I find it interesting that it’s so intensely polarized. It’s never been uncommon for a photographer to take photos of a band they are friends with or fans of without any financial exchange, maybe just spots on a guest list or copies of the album. This has always been a positive thing. It allows bands with little or no finances to have professional quality releases while both parties get to contribute to something they consider worthwhile. Another comment suggested that a writer would never expect their work to be published without compensation; this made me laugh out loud. Many publications offer little to know compensation for high quality stories. Writers often publish pieces in outlets that pay far less than others they have also been published in. The reasons why this happens are complicated. Sometimes the writer wants to be part of a particular publication, even though it pays less than they are used to; some writers will take whatever they can get because it’s a tough industry to break into; others may be looking for an outlet that would give them more creative freedom than they are used to. Some writers flat out give their work away for free. Lately I have been reading a lot of web-comics available for free to the public with no compensation going to the writers or artists. I’m not talking about amateur fan-fiction either, I’m talking about highly regarded professionals telling some of the best stories of their careers for free because of the creative freedom, the opportunity for collaboration, or the accessible platform. Are they devaluing the careers of those who chose to work in an only paid capacity? Some will say so. But I come back to the idea that those stories may very well not exist if they weren’t offered for free, and that seems like a shame to me.
Volunteering is certainly acceptable in a lot of facets of society, why not in this capacity? There have been a lot of comments that try to make sense of this question, largely by justifying the volunteer structures of non-profit ventures vs. commercial ventures. Here too, however, there is a lot of gray area that needs to be navigated. Is using the tax-status of a given organization really the best way to determine where and how we should spend our time? I love non-profits; I believe they contribute enormously to society as a whole. But non-profit does not mean non-paid. Many non-profit staff members receive nice salaries and many have considerable budgets. Could non-profits shuffle around some finances in order to pay more of their volunteers or open up more paid positions? Probably sometimes, though it seems a little socially taboo to suggest this. But let’s not forget that even the largest corporations – yeah I’m talking about the same ones that have received government bail-out money and pay their executives exorbitant bonuses – hire unpaid interns. Nobody makes those interns feel guilty about their service. Quite the contrary, people who accept these internship are usually commended for taking initiative for their future. True, these internships look good on a resume, can often lead to paid positions or college credit, but not always, and god knows these institutions could come up with some extra finances to pay college students for their work.
But should creative endeavors be considered in the same way? I think they fit into an entirely different category. Our society does seem to value creative output as a commercial endeavor and this has been the sad, sad state of creativity in America for a long time. I have always felt that creative output should be considered more of a social service. I know people will disagree, that’s fine, but this is the conclusion that my experiences have led me to. I have had great teachers, and great college professors, but the writers, filmmakers, and musicians that I grew up with undoubtedly contributed and continue to contribute as much or more to my education and self-development. I don’t think Bank of America has done that for anyone. Some of the creators that I’m referring to have had successful careers, some have not. Many moonlight with their creative projects while holding down day jobs, many have spent their lives in poverty, some have unfortunately died that way. If we believe in these communities and their value to culture on a larger scale, then we need to give our full support to the communities from which these projects grow.
Does Amanda Palmer have enough money to pay her volunteer musicians? I don’t know. I don’t think that’s really the point either. She has made choices about how the money for her tour is managed. Because we have been taught to identify creative success with commercial success, channeled through monolithic examples like Metallica, Stephen King, and Stephen Spielberg, our perception of the financial realities of creative projects has been horribly distorted. We tend to distrust creators the same way we distrust corporate CEOs. I spent two years working for an independent record label that had a very solid reputation, generally positive feedback from the musicians with whom it worked, and a lot of credibility in terms of its integrity. I quickly learned when I started (initially as an unpaid intern) that there is a certain illusion of professionalism that creators are forced to maintain, but is not really representative. We see albums on the racks at Best Buy with professional caliber packaging and production, or we see books featured on a display table at Barnes and Noble and we assume that the creators behind them, if not wealthy, must at least be making a comfortable living off of their work. It’s not true. In fact I’ve even had people react that way to Lunchmeat, which is flattering but again, not true. The reality is that the bulk of “successful” musicians and other creators work day jobs and spend money out of their often limited pockets to complete their projects. In fact, some of the artists at the label I worked for were actually in debt to the label against royalties that they were not able to earn, despite a degree of critical success and a loyal fan-base. Believe it or not most creators don’t strive for fame or fortune. In many cases just the ability to make their work in any capacity is enough, and being able to devote their efforts to doing it as a full time job is the dream. Amanda Palmer has achieved this, and more power to her for it. Does she have fame and fortune? The former to a limited extent, but probably not the latter by most standards. I don’t know how much money she is making, is she lining her pockets with the money she has saved by not paying supporting musicians? I really doubt it. I trust her, not because I am a fan, but because I believe in the community she is building and contributing to. If I felt like she wasn’t contributing to the community in the same way I would probably lose trust in her. I don’t feel that way, but of course that’s just my opinion. What I do know as a fact is that what I have invested in her financially has been returned to me exponentially, though I could never put a price tag on such a thing. I did not contribute to her Kickstarter; I didn’t know it existed at the time. I pre-ordered a digital copy of her album for 5 dollars and I paid 20 dollars to attend her show. As somebody who has spent a lot of money on concerts and records, in both large and small dollar amounts, I can honestly say that this has been one the most worthwhile investments I’ve made. I have spent hours of introspection enjoying the album over the last week, I participated, as an audience member, in what was one of the most memorable, intimate, and passionate live shows I have ever experienced, and I have had the pure joy of watching my one and a half year old son dancing enthusiastically to her music. It has undoubtedly enriched my life.
I realize that this has dragged on for a bit, it turns out I had more to say than I thought. What I want to end on is a note about the economic structures that define our musical experience as a culture. Much has been made of the issue of musician’s union wages during all of this. I’ve been a member of a teacher’s union in the past. Unions are important. Unions began in response to the fact that in capitalist societies a small group of wealthy factory owners owned all of the factors of production (i.e. factories). As a result, the only factor of production that the rest of the population owned was their labor. Because that labor’s value is defined solely by the owners of the factors of production unions became necessary in order to ensure that laborers were compensated and treated fairly. It’s worth noting, however, that many of the more radical members of the labor movement believed that unions and their victories were a travesty, that they were merely reinforcing the idea that humans could be considered commodities. They viewed union victories as a compromise that still catered to the established conditions. They believed that the system as a whole needed to be overhauled and replaced by one based on mutual aid, cooperation, and above all, trust in your fellow man (and woman). Is Amanda Palmer analogous to the wealthy factory owners who exploited cheap labor for their own profit? Personally I don’t think so. She holds no monopolistic power over professional musicians; In fact it seems more accurate to say that the successful execution of her creative vision is at the mercy of their charity. I do think that the vehement denial that anyone should exchange their talent unless they are compensated to a certain financial standard reinforces the idea that creativity is a commodity and as I’ve said I believe that the creative sector is really more akin to a service market, but one that has no legitimate home in the current economic landscape. If we want creators to realize their full creative potential, to offer new and unique visions, to touch our lives in real, meaningful, personal ways, we need to be willing to experiment with this system. We need to be open to the idea of breaking down established models and rebuilding them. We can’t be afraid to make mistakes, and ruffle some feathers along the way. We need to form strong communities and we need to trust them.
Please feel free to share comments and opinions to this post in a respectful and thoughtful way.
Here are links to some useful statements from Amanda Palmer and Unwoman, as well as the associated message boards:
http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120913/
http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/why-i-am-not-afraid-to-take-your-money-by-amanda/
Here is the link to Lunchmeat, the magazine I work on with the help of coutless volunteers:
Here are some fantastic FREE webcomics, enjoy:
http://www.ineffableaether.com/
3 Comments | art, entertainment, music, Steampunk | Tagged: Amanda Palmer, anarchy, Kickstarter, socialism, steampunk | Permalink
Posted by tvgilbert
I am in many ways a romantic when it comes to print media, though I try to fight this tendency knowing that our society is making an unstoppable forward march into a digital world. Even I, through my clouded perception, can honestly see so much of the positive potential this shift has in store. I was, however, still surprised and excited when I first caught wind of, Creator-Owned Heroes the new collaborative project from Jimmy Palmiotti, Justin Gray, and Steve Niles, along with others, being published through Image Comics. I first heard about this project, not through Comic Shop News, or from my local retailer, or even in an advertisement in another monthly book, I heard about it on some comics website or another (though I can’t remember specifically which one), which really brings me to my point: despite the fact that it is backed by an established publisher and has a decidedly pro-look, this magazine is essentially a throwback to the indie fanzines of yore, which the wide reach of the blogosphere has more or less eradicated with a few remarkable exceptions.
The concept is straightforward, but enticing. Each issue features two 11-page ongoing creator-owned comics, along with a slew of other material ranging from interviews to op-eds all with the intention of promoting and supporting not just the creators themselves, but the whole concept of creator-owned comics. Last week marked the second issue of Creator-Owned Heroes and already, I am pleased to say, I see substantial growth in the content and execution of this magazine. First I am going to take some time to review the non-story content of the magazine.
First up is the interview. An interview with a noteworthy member of the comics community has been a staple of the first two issues and the creators seem to view it as a cornerstone of the publication since it is has been the only content, other than the comics featured prominently on both covers. Issue number one included an interview with Neil Gaiman. I certainly see the benefit of putting the name of such a rockstar of the industry on the cover to help boost some first issue sales, and it was a fun interview, but I did find myself asking, “OK, so it’s Neil Gaiman, but what’s the point of putting an interview with him in this magazine? What comics fan is not already acquainted with his work and why should I pay $3.99 for it rather than read one of dozens of interviews I could easily find with a simple Google search? This is really the important question that this magazine’s success hinges on: what can it provide, in this day and age, that can’t be found for free and immediate consumption all over the World Wide Web? This issue, I think stepped it up a notch by featuring an interview with Paul Pope, an indie comics maverick responsible for Heavy Liquid, 100%, and one of the less conventional, more memorable Batman interpretations Batman: Year 100. Pope is an underexposed writer/artist who’s every word is not instantly reported through sites like Bleeding Cool and Newsarama. He is a creator who I had never read an interview with and who fits the spirit of the book exceptionally well. The interview itself was a nice mix of nuts and bolts comics industry fair about his working habits and inspiration with some more “out of left field” type questions not found as frequently in your typical interview. This makes for a fun read, but it’s also fair to say that some of the non-sequitur style questions posed gave nice insights into Pope’s personal values and attitudes.
Much of the content of both issues has been made up of opinion pieces written by Palmiotti, Niles, et. al. that I don’t want do injustice to by calling rants, but have lacked a certain focus and have seemed a little bit pre-occupied with hammering home the idea of creator-owned work. I think it’s typical of new publications to spend some time emphasizing their mission statement and it can be difficult to bring outside voices into a publication that hasn’t fully taken root yet. I also appreciate the fact that much of the comics reading public may have a genuine need for some creator-owned comics 101 to help them fully understand the concept and the value of this approach. That being said, I hope the content continues to branch out to other writers and that the focus in individual articles begins to narrow within the context of creator-owned publishing.
My favorite piece in each issue has been what I am going to call the “outside of the box” article. Issue number one featured an interview and photo-shoot with a cosplayer who had put together a costume based on Trigger Girl 6, the titular character from the Palmiotti / Gray / Noto comic. This article was fun for the geek in me who loves to see comics characters come to life in all their black-leathered glory, but I think it was also successful in exploring a comics-culture phenomenon that is not often looked at from the creative end, and hopefully encouraged readers to exercise their own creative muscles when it comes to cosplaying. Issue number two went in an even less conventional direction by featuring an interview conducted by Jimmy Palmiotti with his friend Victoria Pal, an LA area personal trainer. I will admit when I first saw this piece I thought “boy, they’ve already run out of material so they’re calling in personal favors to fill space.” I really shouldn’t be so cynical, but I learned my lesson and it won’t happen again, at least not in relation to Creator-Owned Heroes. The interview fit because it was predicated around the idea of recognizing those who have taken risks to make alternative career choices that have paid off. In addition to learning about a very interesting person, the interview left me motivated and inspired. That’s what I like most about the tone of this magazine, despite at times drifting dangerously close to desperation and crankiness, it manages to, on the whole, create an atmosphere of excitement and encouragement. It is all about empowering readers to be active members of the comics community as consumers, of course, but also as creators, cosplayers, spokespersons, and essentially as fans. This is the real answer to what this magazine can deliver that the internet cannot, or at least has not so far. Fan-interaction sites exist, and people are certainly talking about these topics, but there is also something to be said for the solitary experience of reading a print magazine and being given the space to let these ideas percolate without the constant presence of message boards and user-comments that can quickly turn a good thought into a divisive battle before anybody has really internalized what’s being presented.
The comics aren’t bad either. I was already familiar with most of the creators involved before reading their stories in the first issue. I’ve enjoyed their output and respect them as creators, but most of what I have read was in a mainstream context so it was exciting for me to read some of their more personal output. Both stories are a lot of fun so far, and I have really enjoyed them equally, though they are very different. This publication is first and foremost about the unadulterated fun of engaging with the comics medium as both creators and readers so it is fitting that both stories are visceral off-the wall thrill-rides. American Muscle, written by Steve Niles and illustrated by Kevin Mellon is a post-apocalyptic road adventure about a band of runaways who have fled the closed compound in which they live in hopes of finding something else for them in the wide-open world. So far they have found only devastation and radioactive mutants! The artwork is gritty and minimalist with just the right splash of gore and camp. Though it treads well-worn territory, the well-developed characters, break neck pace, and unbridled enthusiasm lends a freshness to the execution. The second story, Trigger Girl 6 by Jimmy Palmiotti, Justin Gray, and Phil Noto is an espionage thriller set in either a near future or alternate world. This story features a cool aesthetic that mixes spy motifs, science fiction, and a twist of social satire. This story hits the ground…err… glass…err… undercarriage of a jet… running with no exposition or background. The reader is immediately mesmerized by the high stakes of the action and by a dozen questions including: who is Trigger Girl? Why is everyone either terrified of her or infatuated with her? And why does she want to kill the president? Eagerly awaited answers seem to be coming next issue. With two short stories that feel like issue-length narratives and loads of extra content, Creator-Owned Heroes is really a steal at $3.99. This book is a spark that comics needs right now and I look forward to watching it grow in the coming months.
Leave a Comment » | art, books, Comics, entertainment, Literature, Sci-fi / Fantasy | Tagged: comic reviews, comics, creator-owned heroes, fantasy, fanzines, horror, image comics, jimmy palmiotti, justin gray, kevin mellon, phil noto, reviews, science fiction, steve niles | Permalink
Posted by tvgilbert
It’s no secret that I love popular entertainment. I hesitate, however, to use the term popular, because in the grand scheme of things most of what I love isn’t all that popular. Comics, science fiction, horror; the standards of success in each of these modes are much lower on the whole than in, say, network television. But I don’t like the alternate terms too much either. Mainstream is a term that’s just completely absurd; mainstream comics and mainstream metal are both oxymorons as far as I’m concerned. The term commercial has some appeal, because there is a certain degree of accessibility built into the art that I’m referring to, but it also implies a profit to be had which in many cases is not a primary, or even reasonable objective. Genre entertainment could work too, but for my purposes it’s too broad: romance novels are an example of genre fiction
that I have essentially no interest in. So popular entertainment it is. But don’t be misled by the general connotations of that word. Popular entertainment to me means entertainment that operates within generally recognizable narrative or aesthetic frameworks, not entertainment that is defined by its conformity or palatability. On the contrary, the best popular entertainment is highly subversive, a quality ideally strengthened by the surface familiarities of the art itself.
This weekend I had the pleasure of attending a sheer marvel of popular entertainment, The Squidling brothers Circus Sideshow Presents: Carnivolution. This sideshow is a low budget, high value spectacle that celebrates a whole host of popular formats including the freak show, vaudeville, Burlesque, and fire dancing, among others, infused with a delightfully low-brow punk rock attitude. This was my second Carnivolution after discovering it last year towards the end of the season. This troupe of misfits performs every second Friday of the month from May through October in West Philly. The diverse acts that make up the three hour show are strung together along an absurd ongoing storyline that continues from month to month, season to season. The performers are so terrific that the low-budget and amateur feel actually intensify the passion and enthusiasm they put on display, which in turn rubs off on the crowd.
For fans of performance art of any kind there isn’t anything better than the live show. When I attend a live performance I am looking for one thing: that special electricity that live performers make that cannot be reproduced any other way and is made all the more special because it lasts only during that moment. I am not interested in virtuosity, or production quality, just that elusive, intangible energy. It’s rarer to come by than one may hope and it may have as much to do with the momentary mindset of the audience as it does with anything intrinsic to the performance. During the best live performances, however, I find myself thinking, “my god! This is the best thing in the world!” Hyperbole aside, it’s that moment when nothing else seems important but what you’re watching, when you’re completely transfixed by the moment you’re in. Alcohol helps to get you to this place – but I swear there is 
more it than that. Carnivolution did that to me this weekend. The whole event is such a celebration of self-pride and individuality that one can’t help being at least a little transported. Carnivolution takes its cue from some of the other sideshow revivals that had their heyday in the 90s, but they imbue it with a playful camp and punk recklessness that makes it feel fresh, while never making us question the sincerity of the whole project. A few highlights include a variation on the old human blockhead routine in which troupe leader Jelly Boy the clown drills a screw up his nose with a power drill, a variety of feats of piercing and pain performed by The Illustrated Penguin, a foulmouthed, armless, tattooed midget, and the mesmerizing sword swallowing and fire dancing of the talented and gorgeous Betty Bloomers. I am not
going to go into detail describing the acts themselves because: A) I don’t remember the names of all the performers and I want to give credit where credit is due, and B) my words can’t really do them justice. Hopefully the pictures I’ve attached will help you get a sense of the look and feel of the show, but your best bet is to go see it live! For more info check out the website at: http://squidlingbros.com/
Leave a Comment » | art, entertainment, Steampunk | Tagged: burlesque, carnivolution, circus, entertainment, punk rock, sideshow, steampunk | Permalink
Posted by tvgilbert
I wanted to take a few moments to provide some thoughts on the post I reblogged below this. I stumbled across it while I was browsing the steampunk entries on WordPress, and though I am not a huge fan of reblogging someone else’s material, I couldn’t resist posting it here. This clip deals with two of my favorite things (at least for the time being): steampunk and burlesque. One can find a lot of each on the world wide web these days as both are making quite a cultural comeback; of course a lot of the material in each category is dull and uninspired. This clip, on the other hand, is quite a bit of fun. There is a lot of burlesque out there that is really just campy striptease. Good burlesque, however, has a narrative, or spins a satire, even if it’s never fully coherent. That being said, it should also be sexy, but preferably in an unconventional or unpredictable way. Steampunk and Burlesque are perhaps perfectly suited for each other, given the former’s tendency towards the re-appropriation of gender constructs and the playful anachronism that is already in play in the latter. This video clip is a delight, and I would love to see more of this type of thing happening at Burlesque performances.
Leave a Comment » | art, music, Sci-fi / Fantasy | Tagged: entertainment, steampunk | Permalink
Posted by tvgilbert
I say, good morning dear fellows! Allow me to taint your morning brew with a hint of...debauchery. With added cogs for the echo of adventure!
Connie
X
The Underground, every Wednesday from 7 ’til 8.30, with Connie on ILH Radio.
Leave a Comment » | art, music, Sci-fi / Fantasy | Tagged: entertainment, steampunk | Permalink
Posted by tvgilbert
You are currently browsing the archives for the art category.
