Post Calendar

January 2022
« Aug    

Retroactive Divorce

Centotrypt Adversus Haereses (triptych)

“Centotrypt Adversus Haereses” is engineered to partially answer a deceptively simple question: How might a science fictional work be effectively inoculated against political appropriation? The work incorporates attributes of early Christian visual art and poetic forms, sampled text fragments, and traditional printmaking techniques to generate a conceptual speculative work that can pass as art rather than junk culture.




Centotrypt Adversus Haereses, 2015
7.5”x10” (each panel)
Triptych relief print on paper

Centotrypt Adversus Haereses (cover)


Centotrypt Adversus Haereses cover, 2015
HP Latex 360 inkjet print on paper

Cthulhu in the Club

Stop The PRINCE Act

(Seth Poppel/Yearbook Library Prince (No. 3 on the right) played for Minneapolis’ Bryant Junior High in 1972.)

As one of the millions of his fans around the world who wept upon learning of his death on April 21, I’m still struggling to come to grips with Prince’s passing. The outpouring of condolences and appreciative gestures has been striking, including those from government officials. Minnesota Senators taking time on the senate floor to read a resolution honoring the artist, and pausing their busy schedules for a moment of silence indicate genuine respect and adoration for the departed.

But the so-called “PRINCE Act” should not be counted among such respectful responses. It’s more of a perverse and ironic appropriation of his persona. The bill is purportedly designed to protect Prince’s heirs and his estate by preventing unauthorized posthumous use of his image, name and other aspects of his public persona to make money. But if passed this bill would likely have the opposite effect. In fact, there are several signs that the PRINCE Act has hardly anything at all to do with protecting any artists.

The first indicator of this bill being designed without concern for Prince is apparent in its very name. A superficially clever acronym for “Personal Rights In Names Can Endure,” the title actually does exactly what the law it names is supposed to prevent: commercially exploit an individual’s name without that individual’s consent. According to the Minnesota legislators that introduced and sponsored the bill, Republican Representative Joe Hoppe and Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Senator Bobby Joe Champion, it’s prompted by Prince’s death and would protect his persona. Considering the history of these key players, it is clear that the likelier beneficiaries of the PRINCE Act would be professional sports teams in Minnesota. These organizations tend to control the publicity rights of their athletes, and those rights would become much more valuable if the bill passes.

It may be no fortuitous coincidence that both Representative Hoppe and Congressman Champion were 2015-2016 members of the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Sports Facilities, a rather moribund body according to media accounts. This Commission is charged with protecting Minnesota taxpayers during the building of the new Vikings football stadium. More importantly, Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Champion’s committee service suggests that managing the financially critical relationship between the state and the professional sports franchises it hosts are infinitely more important than Prince’s estate, or that of any other Minnesota artists.

The law firm representing the special administrator overseeing Prince’s estate also has a strong connection to the professional sports industry. Take a look at Stinson Leonard Street’s own description of the scope of service of its “Sports and Entertainment Business” practice on the firm’s website. It lists major league sports teams, college coaches, NCAA member institutions, sports commissions and other sports related entities, but it does not mention anything concerning visual arts, performing arts, theater, film, photography or any other artistic domain one would expect a law practice genuinely concerned with arts and artists to cover. Despite all the media headlines that claim the bill would protect Prince’s legacy or “artists’ rights,” it seems likelier that the interests of Big Sports will benefit.

But, for true Prince fans, the worst thing about the PRINCE Act is that it may have already done irreversible damage to Prince’s legacy.

Because right of publicity laws are state-based, they’re also subject to being limited by the U.S. Constitution. First Amendment protections for free speech are strongest when the relevant speech concerns political figures or matters of public concern. By appropriating Prince as the effective mascot for their effort to get the PRINCE Act passed, the legislators have effectively turned Prince into a political figure, at least for constitutional law purposes. Prince is now intimately associated with publicly debated matters of policy and law. As a result, his name and his image are now fair game for political speech concerning those matters. And, unfortunately, such speech can take the form of t-shirts, mugs, bobble-heads dolls, ink pins, baseball caps, life-size standing poster figures and most other forms that have been used to express political views.

In effect, supporters of this bill have very likely irreparably harmed Prince’s persona by opening the gate to unauthorized uses of his name, image and voice. PRINCE Act backers are rushing to pass this bill, and for good reason. They know that if Prince fans see these signs, they’ll stop it.

They Live: Frank Armitage Was Here

My They Live essay is now live on Medium. Bear three things in mind as you read it:

1. the first inspiration for it is a Gertrude Stein axiom: “The paragraph is the emotional unit of the English language”;

2. the second inspiration for it is the drabble form (the essay is composed of strict 100-word drabbles); and

3. the third inspiration for it is Zizek’s reading of They Live (to which Frank Armitage Was Here responds)


The Detroit artist Saint XYZ has been tagging the city with her philosophy-motto “It is not what it is not” for sometime now. I’ve always loved it. Now I’ve quoted her in one of the chapters of a new work I call “Seasons 1 thru 3.”



Stay tuned for a short essay on John Carpenter’s masterpiece. For now, here’s a Zizek snippet to which my piece will be responding.

Afrofuturist NYC

Upcoming Publicity Rights lecture at Southern University’s Law Center


So excited to be visiting my friends and colleagues at Southern University’s Law Center soon. On Wednesday, November 4, I’ll deliver a lecture there on the interaction of technological flux in social media and simulation technologies on the one hand, and publicity rights of athletes from marginalized communities on the other. This talk builds on some of the concepts I’ve tried to work through at the intersection of celebrity political figures (especially President Obama), IP and science fiction (i.e., the concept of artificial immanence).

Hope to see you in Baton Rouge.