I've put "NSFW" in the names of a few of the blogs I list over there. (Basically, that's the list of blogs I regularly visit.) It was a bit of a weird thing to have to do, because none of them are really about not-safe-for-work stuff, exclusively, but a few of them mention it from time to time. Also, of course, there's nothing stopping one of the other ones I haven't labeled from posting something, um, interesting. So, just a guideline.
the series, when shown on a single surface, carries with it a kind of implicit satisfaction that a series disseminated over time does not.
The first thing that struck me when I read this, after the satisfaction of, "Hmm, yes, she's right," was, "She's talking about comics." Except she isn't. She talks about Warhol, and repetition in grids, but she never mentions comics. I don't know why. It seems an obvious connection to make. Maybe it just didn't fit well into her thesis.
Why does a comic book feel different from a book with words describing the same action, but also have a different (and sometimes stronger) appeal than a moving image, animation or live action, that portrays the same scenes and images? It's the satisfaction of the series, grouped together, progression visible on the page. And it suggests why, even with animation, movies and books, there are still reasons to write and draw comics.
This one is actually turning out pretty well, I think. I particularly like how those bracelets turned out. (At least for now. We'll see how I feel in the morning.)
If I may be allowed a moment here, this is approaching, a bit, what I wanted when I started working on this. By "this" I mean digital painting. Look at those bracelets, and the hair, and her chest (no, no, really, this is Art). I think what I didn't like about a lot of digital painting was the way nobody seemed willing to stop. Those areas I pointed out are pretty chunky if you look at the larger size. Some artists would go on, smoothing things out, adding detail, but I think that deadens the thing. I want to keep those big, visible brushstrokes, because they give it vitality, and that's what I think is missing in some Photoshop Art. I may go a little further, and fix a few things with the hair, but basically I'm pretty much finished on those parts.
Maybe I'm crazy. There's still lots of room for improvement, of course, and lots of people do great digital art without overworking it. Anyway, back to the grind, after some sleep.
I can't say I blame them, but Photobucket removed one of my pics recently, because it had boobies in it. One of those rare didn't-cover-them-up moments, but it was about as titillating as a naked Barbie™ doll. Still, I'm not going to blame them. It's their policy.
The thing I wondered, though, was what triggered it. The picture itself had no keywords or title attached to it, except a number, and had been up for almost a year. Does someone have a job of going through everything for violations? Do they Google™ for pictures associated with "naked lady" served by them? Is it a random sampling thing? Do they look at every single goddamn picture eventually? Well, I hope they enjoyed some of the other ones, anyway.
Thanks again to my wonderful feedbackers. Extended discussions have lead to new insights into the main character (new for me, anyway). Suddenly, she seems more real, and a bit more frightening, actually. Hopefully it comes out in the rewrites, and makes her more interesting to the readers.
Talk of two separate problems (a slow start problem, and a problem with a certain part not being "baroque" enough) lead me into a significant rearrangement of the first part of the book, and an addition which, I think, helps a fair bit with the slow start problem while also helping with the baroqueness. At least, it does mean that somebody gets shot much earlier on. And if there's one thing that helps a book it's gratuitous shootings.
Some other bits are re-crystallizing as well, in new configurations, after being smashed to bits. It's all very exciting.