Yeah, my page rate wasn’t great in ‘92, but I made up for in royalties that were more than what I initially made on the whole book. But by ‘95 though, that all went away because the whole industry cratered and prints run were low. Most people weren’t getting royalty checks by then.

So much Gadsby hate here. They were involved in a thing that wasn’t perfect. I don’t know if that makes them “insufferable”. I found “Nanette” equal parts funny and angry, and ultimately cathartic. It’s too bad this attempt was so clumsily executed. I am curious how the feminist artists involved in the show feel about…

I spent 3 years working in comics in the 90's and I know very few people who stayed in. The ones who did though, tell me what page rates from the Big Two are these days and it’s insane that they are sometimes actually lower than when I was still in the industry over 25 years ago. Comics is an awful business run by…

Not surprising. Either that she would sue or that the Judges would side with her previous employer. I get she lost out due to her actions, but even if she had won; she’s just keeping herself in the news cycle longer. Making finding other opportunities less likely.

I dunno man, random shit kills young people all the time. Just in the past year I had 4 friends die sudden and unexpectedly. All in the 38-41 range. Cancer. Menegitis. Boat accident. OD.

If someone completes “racial bias therapy” but then carries on with their lawsuit claiming “white bias”, did that original “racial bias therapy” actually take?

Only the media gave up. Covid just doesn’t bring in the ratings that Trump and his MAGA cult are currently doing.

“I was struck by Gadsby’s anger. “I don’t like Picasso. I fucking hate him. I really... I just... He’s rotten in the face cavity. I hate Picasso! I hate him!”

I’ve never had that precise thought, but ‘Self-seriousness tends not to be a conduit for humor’ is definitely something that sounds true.  It seems like funny people are usually able to keep - or fake - a sense of humor about themselves. 

Jesus christ, he was exactly one week younger than me. Ugh, this is terrible. That’s way too young.

Unfortunately, this man was another victim of creative overwork in an industry that does not care for him one bit. It just goes to show you that we’re not in a meritocracy when people as skilled as him while promoting a positive influence are quickly swept under the rug.

If you attended college or spent any time in liberal spaces, you have been around someone like Ms. Gadsby: An utterly insufferable bore that thinks they are more intelligent and interesting than they truly are. Even if you agree with the person, their personality is so offputting, you end up resenting them. Hannah and…

She has a degree in art history and curatorship, and while this exhibit is higher profile than someone with her cv is unexpected, it’s not just anything. What success she’s had in her style is in re-working context. Sounds like it didn’t work for this, but I wouldn’t say this is out of left fiend.

I studied under Linda Nochlin & her husband Richard Pommer at Vassar. He was an architectural historian. They were great but can’t figure out why their portrait is here besides Linda’s groundbreaking support of women’s art. Is there a label that explains it? 

This never really occurred to me until I read your comment, but I think this is why I don’t find conservative humor or “satire” (Babylon Bee, etc.,) funny. It’s ultimately all way too outraged and self satisfied with its own moral superiority to be funny.

How much effort do you think she put into this show?    Those jokes were so lazy.  

Looks like she put zero effort into this because those jokes are hack and she found nothing insightful to say about Picasso. Artists who put in zero effort in a cashgrab to rip off their fans are despicable.

The “funny” signs could’ve used some good jokes. “Meta? I hardly knew her!” isn’t one.

Exactly. It’s bleak, and it doesn’t do a thing to actually uplift artists who deserve better than to be part of a gimmick show.

This article really gets to the fundamental contradiction of this show: it simultaneously tries to bring artists out of the shadow of Picasso, but at the same intentionally puts all that art under his shadow, and does it to sell tickets.