Steampunk inspired art prints to benefit EFF
Heather sez, "A new painting & print from the fabulous Suzanne R Forbes is on Etsy. $10 of each print purchase goes to the EFF. "
Link (Thanks, Heather!)
Miss Eva G posed for me in her SOMA loft, dressed in her own fabulous steampunk finery, with an antique crossbow she brought back from China. The painting took several sittings with Miss E and then many hours of work painting in the detailed background. She is defending early implements of the computer revolution, Jacquard punch cards and IBM cards, a CDV of Ada Byron, and Charles Babbage’s Difference Engine No. 2. An apple core represents Turing, eaten up by the intolerance of his era. Also prominently displayed are some wonderful modern creations- The Steampunk Laptop by Datamancer and the Steampunk Flatpanel and Keyboard by Jake Von Slatt- who were kind enough to allow me use their work in the painting. The packet-sniffing rat under the desk is a nod to the EFF’s most recent victory; the EFF logo appears among the luggage stickers on the trunk. I added the bullet shells at the last minute when I learned that Miss E. is a crack shot.
the latest
latest episodes
thanks so much Cory for putting this out there!
I want to let folks know that I will be at Maker Faire in San Mateo California on May 3&4, showing the painting in person!
http://makerfaire.com/pub/e/1306
and so will the EFF, with a booth where you can learn more about their work. And of course Jake Von Slatt and Datamancer will be there as well!
Awesome. Now BB has moved from "anything Steampunk" to "anything Steampunk inspired". Great!
Hey El Stinko, I LIKE the painting, I LIKE the EFF, I was thinking about ordering a print (Subject to wifely approval, of course).
What is your fucking problem?
KILL HIM! KILL HIM WITH FIRE!!!
What is your fucking problem?
The absence thereof?
At the risk of being disemvowelled, I must say I am sick of jackasses like you. Why do you people always have to whine about "steampunk", people promoting their own books, and anything else they don't care for? Who cares?!!!
Don't read if you don't like. I DO like most things I read here, and I say so. If I'm not interested I just skip it. I don't go out of my way to say that I'm not interested in something. Because I know nobody GIVES A SHIT.
Whew... I fell better now. I hope you guys will intercede with Teresa for me.
hah! you think he's bad, seems there's this loser animation project about - get this - "a one eyed robot" running around desperately trying to get noticed. HAH!
Oof, now that I'm coming off my self-righteous high, I see that I spelled feel as fell. I guess I fell off my high horse. That's what getting mad will get you. Arrrr.
my tiny ego is stroked by having recognized most of the motifs contained in the work
Takuan, you are my favorite pickle on the whole internet.
This is just about the perfect Boing-Boing headline. I would have liked it for that reason alone, even if I didn't like the print. Me happy.
Thanks, El Stinko! You can't have a movement without a backlash!
yes, yes...the harvest will be good this year... after El Stinko comes to the Gathering.....
Argh. I can't be the first dork to point out that "defending the electronic frontier" is something of a malapropism, what with the whole steampunk mechanics and all?
Also, steampunk is a "movement"? Artistic? Political? Err, doesn't matter. Hey! OW! What the hell is that, another gray hair? Aaargh, must not ponder. Avoid!
I'll refrain from actually discouraging anyone from actually painting anything or engaging in steampunk anything - art is more personal process than not - but I can't help but take a bit of umbrage at the continually silly amount of self-regarding seriousness of everyone I've ever met who was into steampunk.
(Also, I observe that Eva G's finery is less "steampunk" and more "random SF/Oakland mutant/clown" garb. I'm not using "clown" as an epithet, here. Postmodern circus-skill folk. They're all over the place around here, and they dress like that.)
Ah, well. That's one view on the long tail.
Me, I like critique. I especially like productive, astute criticism of my own work. Recieving honest, useful criticism is one of the most valuable processes to arts and sciences of all kinds. I like giving criticism and applying something called "critical thinking" to the world at large.
It seems to be a skill that is growing rusty in this world as I grow older with it. Somehow it has been erroneously taught that criticism is inherently negative, and, well, that's a bunch of happy horseshit if you ask me. (And, well, you kind of did with your post.)
Otherwise we end up breaking Sturgeon's Law and ending up with more than 90% of everything that is utter crap. I try to hold the line at least 10% of everything not being crap, or I get cranky.
Does that articulate the issue of criticism to you a little more clearly, jake0748, or would you like a few book recommendations to go over the issue in finer detail?
This isn't steampunk; it wasn't painted with steam.
Very well done though. I'll talk to the wife, we needs more arts in the house.
Jake0748, I don't think the moderator would argue your point. It's interesting (from a group dynamics perspective), how a certain kind of person rise to the defense of the group's values.
But then again, this isn't just show-and-tell for fans, but for is also for the person who may want to comment negitively on the group esthetic. Reading the comments that steam punk anit-fans leave can be interesting too. They may be making valid points, the same kind of points one can hear at any high-end art-crowd cocktail party/gallery show. The highly educated, heavily invested art-crowd can be very to-the-point about art they don't like. There is an entire lexicon that people use for art they do not think is worthy. If it's validation that we require, then judging art by what Art critics have to say might be a good place to start. All my choices need to be validated. Cory Doctorow has validated my current interest in steam punk. I'm going to build a coal-burning steam-powered lawn mower. It will increase my carbon footprint ten fold, but it'll be worth it.
just wait till you see my redesigned steampunk penis, steampunk minnesota twins poster, steampunk pancakes, steampunk pinky toe, steampunk martin luther king day.....
I'm going to make a steam powered easy bake oven.
Isn't this piece just wonderful? Thanks for posting it, Boing Boing! Susanne Rachael Forbes isn't just an amazing artist, she's also one of the nicest people you will ever meet. ;) Kudos, Sura!
SKG!
It's pretty cool, in the "find the references" puzzle illustration sort of way.
However the big question is - #3 and #16 - you have to ask spousal permission to buy a $20 print?
It's not the twenty bucks, V. I just usually try to buy stuff that we will both enjoy.
I really liked this piece...it definitely has something special something special. Thanks for posting this. (And hey, most of you, don't you think you're somewhat impolite? Doesn't such an artist deserve better than serving as a pretext for your ego-inspired blah-blah's?)
Looking at the rest of this artists work I like the subject matter, I certainly like their style and use of color but the subjects themselves are usually somehow off. I don't know if its done purposely but they seem to have all the humanity of a mannequin. Am I the only one seeing this?
note: I have 3 years of art college so I'm not completely ignorant to critiquing art.
boingboing, now with 50% more steampunk
I know I can't get enough
you steampunk haters should be desevoweled...or banned! you are not adding anything to the comments.
Or perhaps punked by being steamed.
This painting does seem sort of 19th century, though, because of all the obscure iconography that you need to be knowledgeable about to understand what's going on (Kind of like Pre-Raphaelite paintings, where it's like "This type of flower symbolizes love, and the mirror she's holding is vanity!")
yeh, dat's da ticket
jake0748 and Jeff had posts long enough to capture my interest, but not so long I neglected to read them. [pause]
I went back and glanced over loquacious' post after I wrote the previous paragraph, mainly because it was so long there had to be something heartfelt in it, thus I felt like a bad registered user if I neglected it.
I have to agree full-bore with loquacious that proper criticism is becoming a lost art, and I think those who're afraid of enduring it suffer, and thus, those who blindly endorse their work. I agree to an extent with jake0748 that "if you can't say something nice..," but have to make an exception if the opinion is well-stated and served in a palatable manner (this is probably an over-statement--I have YouTube comments in mind right now).
Jeff's post cracked me up with its candor and correctness. I see people wearing special clothes and adornments who fulfill special societal requirements get all enthused about garbage and eye-rolling good stuff all the time, from old money to new money to "Harley people" to the myriad types of rockers, etc.
I'll be the first to tell you crap is crap, and I know it when I see it, and that my opinion is crap too, yet sometimes crap is manipulated; nuances and micro-nuances make crap gold in the eyes of a specific segment. When that happens, it's "gold enough."
Once something is "gold enough" no one can tell its admirers elsewise. Those I-don't-get-it appeals create defenses which when stimulated make objectivity is impossible. NASCAR is the best thing ever to those who like it; others will fist-fight you for dissing their favorite rapper. And so it goes.
I'm not of the opinion that steampunk is crap; I think steampunk is some pretty cool stuff, and in addition to being some pretty intricate work sometimes brings a new idea or two about in relation to object function.
With that in mind, Steampunk is a "scene" much the same as furryism. Don't fight it, just enjoy the stuff you like and leave the yiffing to the devotees.
what a good post King, I actually feel after reading it that you did me a favour. I, too, enjoy actual thoughtful critique done with a minimum of polite respect.
If only the limitless supply of ill-mannered, fast-mouthed and unaccountable dipshits out there would take the lesson you so freely give.
My hero as far as aesthetic "criticism" goes is Jim Leff. He invented Chowhound and he's a hero for our time. His philosophy is kind of like this: if you see someone liking something that sucks (his typical example is McDonald's), don't spend your time explaining to them why it sucks. That would be a recipe for reducing the amount of joy in the world. Instead, expose them to something REALLY great, something you love, and explain why you enjoy it - that increases their joy, and the joy of the world, without anybody's Wheaties getting pissed on.
This is also what Dave Eggers was talking about in that interview with that kid from the Harvard Advocate years ago, that was in Harper's - hey here it is, yay the Internet: http://www.armchairnews.com/freelance/eggers.html
I only think this applies to AESTHETIC criticism, not MORAL criticism. But I think it's a great model.
As for NASCAR - I think when someone likes something we don't, we try to come up with a reason for it - "pretension" or "social proof" are frequent candidates. Rarely do we suppose that the person likes it simply because it pleases him.
precisely good Sister (even though you haven't given only one more lousy little clue).
If you've nothing good to say, let silence speak, take your energy to uplift something you feel good about boosting. So, if this is so obvious to you and me and the King and others, why is it not in some others? What happened,or didn't happen to them?
It wasn't obvious to me. I had to learn it and I'm still learning it. I still find myself pissing on people's Wheaties sometimes, especially if the Wheaties in question are works of realist fiction written by MFAs. I try not to, though.
What probably did the most to put me on this track was coming to genuinely love things that I used to detest. Like shitake mushrooms and Joanna Newsom.
But yeah, a comment of the form "if you like fu try bar, here's why it's great" is more interesting than a comment of the form "here is why fu is dumb and so are you for liking it."
I can only hope... someday... someone much more eloquent than I...
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/
I could, but it would be implicitly disrespectful to the main subject of the thread - on which I have not yet done the real work of appreciating. "Ya dance with the one that brung ya"
proper criticism is becoming a lost art
When Impressionism burst onto the art scene, well-respected art critics of the time published vitriolic comments with arguments along the lines of, "there's too much blue in it." So art criticism is ultimately pretty silly and subjective. And in that case, as well of most of the cases of what passes for criticism on BB, it boils down to "I don't like it. Why are you making me see something that I don't like?!?" Or, more primally, "Do not want!"
Conversely, it is quite possible to engage in art discussion. Sister Wendy is a great example. She examines an artwork, makes theories about what the artist is trying to accomplish and gives an opinion about how successful she feels the artist has been in accomplishing those goals. I don't see much of the latter kind of discourse going on here. Which naturally leads to the pearl of wisdom: "If you don't like it, don't look at it."
I think the approach sister y advocates is good one, not only for the nice way it avoids pissing on people's wheaties ie. making them angry/sad/upset (which as nice people we don't like doing), but also because it is a pragmatically more effective way of getting people to change their opinions than straight criticism.
When you criticise/attack someone directly, their defences come up, and they are less likely to hear anything you have to say, and hence their opinion will never change, whereas by demonstrating the 'better' alternative without attacking their existing beliefs, they are more likely to come to see the qualities of what you are advocating.
by demonstrating the 'better' alternative without attacking their existing beliefs, they are more likely to come to see the qualities of what you are advocating.
Doesn't that make the gigantic assumption that your opinion is superior to theirs? In art, there's I Like It, I Don't Like It and the continuum in between. There's no objective standard for virtue in art, only personal taste. All that one can intelligently do is state one's reaction to it.
The was, about 8 years ago, in the UK, a TV series called "art Marathon" in which a group of people from a Northern England city who had no connection with the "Art world" were asked to spend several months and several hundred thousand pounds to travel around the UK and curate an exhibition of the work that moved them most, for a show in Newcastle. The curators were drawn from a range of walks of life in much the way that a UK jury might be selected.
It was fascinating to see what they decided upon; there was a pattern that became established, where the consensus changed radically over a piece of work from: "we don't understand nor like this work" to "we love it". The catalyst in every case was meeting the artist and talking to them about their references, inspirations and intentions.
I'm sorry I've had a go at searching for any reference to the programme, and have come up blank. It's possible (but deeply imaginative of me) that I invented the whole thing.
It's amazing to me how the depth of appreciation of a work of art has so many layers, from the initial intuitive reaction all the way through to a lifetime of study.
I just want to say that #31 may be one of the best blog comments that I have ever read.
This thread made me laugh out loud all the way through. It did it to Patrick, too.