I read all three of these articles within about a 12-hour span. They all kind of tie in to the same theme, so I'm grouping them together:
"Fuck Them": Times Critic On Hollywood, Women, & Why Romantic Comedies Suck (h/t to Rich Watson for this one)
Why James Chartrand Wears Women's Underpants
Marvel's Girl Comics Announced -- The lineup sounds great, and I'll most likely be picking up the series to support all my friends and acquaintances in the book... but dang, I'm with Johanna on this one:
I dream of a day when a comic created only by women doesn't get tagged with a stupid title like Marvel's Girl Comics. In fact, I dream of a time when it's not even special enough to remark upon, instead of being some kind of attention-getting stunt that ends up resembling a plea for charity. "Please pay attention to us -- look! we're letting the women do superheroes!" But we're not there yet, still.
Also, I saw two good articles describing hipster racism today, in regards to crafters. Anyone who's stood within earshot of me knows that I'm all in favor of both DIY projects and art-for-art's-sake -- but these articles serve as a reminder that art (including your art's "branding" and your own self-presentation) doesn't exist in a societal vacuum. In addition to being responsible to our "artistic vision" or "muse" or whatever hackneyed metaphor we use to describe our inspiration, artists have to consider how our art affects those who receive it, no matter how cute or clever we think we're being. (And yes, I'm feeling especially pricked by this article, because I used to think stuff like this was cute and funny, until I started looking at it with a more critical eye. So now it is my duty to spread The Gospel of Pants.)
It's good to read a perspective from someone who is explicitly pro-art and your assertion that "Art (including your art's "branding" and your own self-presentation) doesn't exist in a societal vacuum" I think is an important one that is not at all at odds with art for its own sake.