Phoebe Gloeckner and Flesh

UPDATE: I originally spelled this artist's name wrong in the post title. I sincerely apologize, and have corrected it. -- sarah Check out this video interview with graphic novelist Phoebe Gloeckner (via playgallery.org):

Ms. Gloeckner sounds like an interesting person: opinionated, slightly prickly, and possibly lots of fun after a margarita or two. After watching this a couple of times, I realized what strikes me about her work. She draws women as if they were real people. I don't mean photorealistically, but like something other than overgrown baby dolls. Why does it seem like to be taken seriously as a female artist, I have to either paint sex kittens, look like a sex kitten, or both?

The post-feminist riot grrrl on my shoulder chimes in at this point, reminding me that it's okay to be sexy and feminine and flirtatious without being a socioeconomic doormat. I agree. But that doesn't mean that I have to exude hyperfeminity in every aspect of my life and work. I can own my sexuality without letting it define me.

Take, for example, this set of artist portraits by Tatiana Wills and Roman Cho. As I mentioned in my last post, I love seeing artists who look like normal people in real life. (It's a crying shame when someone's wardrobe or hair is more interesting than the stuff they make.) The Heroes and Villains portfolio shows a nice mix of ladies and gentlemen, and only one of them is naked. And I'm fine with that.

I also like the ways that Julie Speed, Eleanor Davis, and Joan Linder depict the body.

Related: Sarah's sites tagged "body" on del.icio.us

What Artists Really Look Like

Check out this spectacular portfolio titled Heroes And Villains: photographic portraits of artists by Tatiana Wills and Roman Cho, opening at Corey Helford Gallery. I love love love it when artists who create fantastical images of impossible characters look like normal schlubs in real life. The dorkier, the better, I say. It's an advantage to the artist's profession that because we don't have movie star status, we don't have to look like movie stars. Hooray!

Hey, Charities: Direct Mail Stinks

Listen up, non-profit organizations, I'll lay it out for you. Sending me address labels in the mail is a one-way ticket off my Christmas card list. They're not recyclable and I don't like putting them in the trash.* Your direct mail is a direct cause of my decision not to give you any more money. I've already written to the Direct Marketing Association and told them to opt me out of mailings from non- and for-profit companies alike. (And, hey, charities, thanks for renting my address and many others to the DMA when I specifically asked you not to. Did they send you thirty pieces of silver?)

A 2004 article in the New York Times notes the declining response charities are getting from direct mail, especially mail containing address labels:

Five to seven years ago, the [Paralyzed Veterans of America] group received donations from 15 to 20 percent of people who got its mailings for the first time. "Those numbers are now probably 50 percent of that," Mr. Dowis said. Older donors respond strongly to label mailings, he said, while younger people — whom charities want for future growth — "tend to be very cynical, and we tend to be much more discerning."

Check the date again: this quote is three and a half years old. So address labels in direct mail are probably even less effective in soliciting donations now, yet they keep on a-comin'. Every week. I'll say it again: the more mail I get, the less likely I am to give back. And I'm not alone:

"We're hearing that more and more," said Sandra Miniutti, a spokeswoman for Charity Navigator, an organization that monitors nonprofit groups. "It's a commonly held belief that the more times you ask, the more times you'll get, but people are withdrawing their support."

It's safe to say that I'm a member of that more-cynical younger demographic with whom charities hope to foster long-term giving. Here's a tip for the orgs: People my age also tend to pay bills online. We have even less need for envelopes, stamps, and, you guessed it -- return address labels.

Here are some things you can do to cut down on the amount of material that arrives in your mailbox:

1. Write to the Direct Marketing Association to opt-out of all unsolicited offers.

2. If you like a charity but don't need all that mail, contact the organization and tell them that. Many charities offer you the option of receiving information just a few times a year, or by email only.

3. Charities target first-time givers, because those are the people most likely to give again. If you are considering donating for the first time, try doing it over the phone with a credit card. That way you can connect with a human on the other end and make sure they know you want to opt out of mailings.

4. Focus your giving on organizations that are visible in your community: local food banks, animal shelters, your church, Boys and Girls clubs, the YMCA, Habitat for Humanity, and so on.

5. Check up on your chosen charitable recipients at Charity Navigator. They have nifty stats like how much money an organization raises versus what they spend, how they spend it, and how much their CEO makes. Cool.

6. Speak up. I've contacted the charities I gave to last year, and told them that the mailings affected my decision not to give to them again. I may be just one of many, but I have a voice, and if I don't use it, I guarantee they won't hear me.

Speaking of money, I've really been enjoying Trent Hamm's blog The Simple Dollar. (He updates every day! Wow!) The Starving Artist cliche may be a myth, but that doesn't mean I can't learn to be smart with my money.

*Nature Conservancy, I'm looking at you.

Top 5 Desert Island Images

If I were imprisoned in a comfy little five-sided tower, away from the crush of humanity, and if I were to be kept there for the rest of my life, and if I could choose five pictures to hang on my five little walls, these are what I would choose. 1. Workshop of Raphael, St Margaret

This is not the usual St. Margaret that we see from Raphael. In fact, the authorship of this piece is disputed. (The best guess by a professor of mine was Giulio Romano.) The loops and folds compel me. Margaret's stance demonstrates the central impulse of Mannerism as described by Peter Schjeldahl -- when primary content is set aside in favor of secondary pleasures.

2. Workshop of Botticelli, Simonetta Vespucci

Again, this piece is not one of Botticelli's canonical works, and the authorship (as well as the sitter's identity) is disputed. For me, it's all about the hair. I've copied it several times.

3. Joe Sorren, Portrait of Roger Meanie

Have you seen what Joe Sorren is doing lately? His paintings are so beautiful they hurt. The one pictured here never fails to make me smile. It's gotten me through some tough times.

4. Bob Dorsey, 55

Bob Dorsey is a former professor of mine from the Rochester Institute of Technology. He taught me that it's not onl viable but a pretty good idea to try and make a living as an artist. Who knew? Bob's painting technique is alarmingly proficient. He's a consummate craftsman, making it appear as though the brush knows where it wants to be set down before each stroke takes place. And yet he retains an aesthetic freedom that shows up in his choices of tone, color, and texture. (Maybe someday he'll sell me this painting.)

5. Wild Card. I'd take anything from Saul Steinberg, Maira Kalman, Gustav Klimt, Wayne Thiebaud, Diane Arbus, or August Sander.