Are Comics an Art form? Is it Art?
ConversazioniComics
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1Artymedon
I visited Comics museums in Belgium and in L.A. but this does not prove Comics is Art. Herge, a comic artist from Belgium is to my knowledge the only one to have his own museum. Should Comics be in museums? Such an inferior art form compared to the Old Masters?
2.Monkey.
Depending on the artist, it is in no way inferior. What it is, is different. If I go to a museum with paintings by "Old Masters," I am certainly not there looking for the kind of art that is in any comic book. Just like one who goes to a museum of modern art is not looking for paintings by those aforementioned "Masters."
3TLCrawford
Yes, comics is an art. It combines literature and visual art to make something unique from either of them. Now the question of its quality? Maus is not the same as Archie and Jughead even though they are both comics. I think that there are many works here, http://postermuseum.com/ that are not to different from what is in comics.
4apokoliptian
Considering that art is an expression for feelings and thoughts, I think, yes, Comics is an art form.
Judging art is not easy. You have commercial art, that can spin from Caravaggio's comissions, Hollywood movies and, why not, Super-Hero comics. On the other hand, you have people pushing boundaries, without references to where or who they can reach like Velvet Underground, Art Spiegelman, Basquiat or Bunuel.
On the commercial side of art, for me, it is interesting how some artists can generate perennial art in disposable media, like Charles Schulz, Bill Watterson, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, etc.
Check the documentary Dear Mr. Watterson. They treat his originals like a sacred scripture.
Judging art is not easy. You have commercial art, that can spin from Caravaggio's comissions, Hollywood movies and, why not, Super-Hero comics. On the other hand, you have people pushing boundaries, without references to where or who they can reach like Velvet Underground, Art Spiegelman, Basquiat or Bunuel.
On the commercial side of art, for me, it is interesting how some artists can generate perennial art in disposable media, like Charles Schulz, Bill Watterson, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, etc.
Check the documentary Dear Mr. Watterson. They treat his originals like a sacred scripture.
5apokoliptian
Talking about museum for comics, is very important create an enviroment in which the visitor can imerse in the context of object studied, like Bjork on MoMa.
It is also very pleasant to check the originals. You can learn a lot of creation process by checking the master, they being Picasso or Jose Delbo.
It is also very pleasant to check the originals. You can learn a lot of creation process by checking the master, they being Picasso or Jose Delbo.
6DanieXJ
Y'all are assuming that 'art' can only be in the visual arena too, which, as a writer I have a small problem with :).
A novel can be art, and, honestly, if a pile of dung or a lightbulb that's on in the middle of an empty white room can be art, than the amazing stuff that I love from Amanda Connor and David Aja is most definitely above and beyond what I consider art.
So I guess my answer is, of course comics are art. Some may be more 'fine' art than others, but, art is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Some of the 'old masters' I can barely stand, but, that's just me.
A novel can be art, and, honestly, if a pile of dung or a lightbulb that's on in the middle of an empty white room can be art, than the amazing stuff that I love from Amanda Connor and David Aja is most definitely above and beyond what I consider art.
So I guess my answer is, of course comics are art. Some may be more 'fine' art than others, but, art is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Some of the 'old masters' I can barely stand, but, that's just me.
7.Monkey.
Comics are what the question was, not writing or any other art form, of which there are many.
8AnnieMod
>1 Artymedon:
Inferior according to whom?
If you ask me all the works of those masters that could not paint a tree that looks like a tree need to be called trash and not art but a lot of people like them. Tastes differ.
Inferior according to whom?
If you ask me all the works of those masters that could not paint a tree that looks like a tree need to be called trash and not art but a lot of people like them. Tastes differ.
9.Monkey.
>8 AnnieMod: Quite.
10Artymedon
>DanieXJ
I could not agree more but I am not assuming anything by asking a question to generate a debate.
In fact one of my favorite comics from Jason Latour called Southern Bastards opens up with a dog taking a shit in the Southern Country side.
While German Artist Martin Gostner made a recent exhibition and in my view quite interesting exhibit of blue piles of dung -forturnately fake - in a Berlin Gallery to commemorate the disappearance of Franz Marc 's painting "The Oriel of the Blue Horse" branded inferior Art by the Nazis.
However my question was about Art in museums and the place of Comics in them.
Artists who are in major museums like Roy Lichtenstein inspired themselves from Comics modes of expression and in his last uncompleted opus Tintin and the Alph-Art an anxious Hergé was wondering if his most famous character would end up in a museum.
Comics have their own museums but are not figuring in major museums, unlike the blue pile of dung. Should not they?
Personally, I found comics in museums useful especially when you see an original drawing on an inked page.
Seeing the hand of the Artist rather than a printed page does make a difference. I am still to this day reminiscent of Hal Foster's Prince Valiant original I saw in L.A. I therefore concur with apokoliptian.
But as more Artists create with softwares seeing the hand of the Artist may become a different experience.
I could not agree more but I am not assuming anything by asking a question to generate a debate.
In fact one of my favorite comics from Jason Latour called Southern Bastards opens up with a dog taking a shit in the Southern Country side.
While German Artist Martin Gostner made a recent exhibition and in my view quite interesting exhibit of blue piles of dung -forturnately fake - in a Berlin Gallery to commemorate the disappearance of Franz Marc 's painting "The Oriel of the Blue Horse" branded inferior Art by the Nazis.
However my question was about Art in museums and the place of Comics in them.
Artists who are in major museums like Roy Lichtenstein inspired themselves from Comics modes of expression and in his last uncompleted opus Tintin and the Alph-Art an anxious Hergé was wondering if his most famous character would end up in a museum.
Comics have their own museums but are not figuring in major museums, unlike the blue pile of dung. Should not they?
Personally, I found comics in museums useful especially when you see an original drawing on an inked page.
Seeing the hand of the Artist rather than a printed page does make a difference. I am still to this day reminiscent of Hal Foster's Prince Valiant original I saw in L.A. I therefore concur with apokoliptian.
But as more Artists create with softwares seeing the hand of the Artist may become a different experience.
11apokoliptian
>6 DanieXJ:
Totally agree about the writing being integral part of the art in comics. Mostly, the visuals are more eye-catching (sorry for this one), but the reading experience is a package.
There is a movement of re-writing some comic books in prose form, like Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic, which can be seen as trying to reach another public or trying to show that its content deserves a more respectful format. No feelings about it, once there are also novels adapting films to prose form, but in the case of comics I think that the media still not have its due respect.
Totally agree about the writing being integral part of the art in comics. Mostly, the visuals are more eye-catching (sorry for this one), but the reading experience is a package.
There is a movement of re-writing some comic books in prose form, like Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic, which can be seen as trying to reach another public or trying to show that its content deserves a more respectful format. No feelings about it, once there are also novels adapting films to prose form, but in the case of comics I think that the media still not have its due respect.
12apokoliptian
>10 Artymedon:
Regarding digital art, the worst part for the artists is that does not exist an original to be sold anymore. Brian Bolland tells it in his Cover Story: The DC Comics Art of Brian Bolland.
But one can't say that the result isn't art once you see the Richard Isanove or Clayton Crain's paintings.
Regarding digital art, the worst part for the artists is that does not exist an original to be sold anymore. Brian Bolland tells it in his Cover Story: The DC Comics Art of Brian Bolland.
But one can't say that the result isn't art once you see the Richard Isanove or Clayton Crain's paintings.
13BruceCoulson
It's art. It's creative, so it's art. Most new genres have had to overcome the disdain of established critics to become 'acceptable'.
14DanieXJ
>7 .Monkey.: Gotta say that most comics would be helluva boring without the words in them...
>11 apokoliptian: I've read comics (from the big two mostly) in prose form. Some writers can do it, others really cannot.
>10 Artymedon: I wasn't responding directly to your original post at the top of the thread, but to where others had taken it. People were debating whether or not comics were art, and seemed to be basing a lot of their opinions on the visual art in comics. That's fine, I simply wanted to point out that a comic is not simply a visual medium, but one with writing as well.
Should they be in museums. Sure, why not. With some of the crap that gets called 'fine visual art' and sold for thousands and thousands of dollars I'd love to go see an exhibit full of David Aja's stuff, or Michael Oemings or artists like them.
>11 apokoliptian: I've read comics (from the big two mostly) in prose form. Some writers can do it, others really cannot.
>10 Artymedon: I wasn't responding directly to your original post at the top of the thread, but to where others had taken it. People were debating whether or not comics were art, and seemed to be basing a lot of their opinions on the visual art in comics. That's fine, I simply wanted to point out that a comic is not simply a visual medium, but one with writing as well.
Should they be in museums. Sure, why not. With some of the crap that gets called 'fine visual art' and sold for thousands and thousands of dollars I'd love to go see an exhibit full of David Aja's stuff, or Michael Oemings or artists like them.
15Artymedon
>DanieXJ I do think Comics should have a department in "Fine Art" museum. In fact the best of the world MET NOMA, Louvre, etc. etc. There are Prints department that have William Hogarth prominently displayed, an ancestor of Comics. Why not Stan Lee. Segregating Comics from Art is for the visitors a miss. By the way I was forgetting the Charles M. Schulz Museum in Santa Rosa, CA which has an amazing digitally accessible collection. I could not find the exact dialogue about "This is art" from Lucy about a painting but in Wikipedia they quote this one about music:
Who cares about money?!? This is ART, you blockhead! This is great music I'm playing, and playing great music is an art! Do you hear me? An art! (pounding on piano) Art! Art! Art! Art! Art!" Who says comics are only visuals.
Francophone Tintinologists can have entire dialogue made out of the French script of the comic strip.
Who cares about money?!? This is ART, you blockhead! This is great music I'm playing, and playing great music is an art! Do you hear me? An art! (pounding on piano) Art! Art! Art! Art! Art!" Who says comics are only visuals.
Francophone Tintinologists can have entire dialogue made out of the French script of the comic strip.
16Tolkienfan
Yes, I see comics as an art form and should be considered art. The comic books are created by artist and is made up of pictures and scenes.
The definition of art is: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. This defines what a comic book is to me!
The definition of art is: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. This defines what a comic book is to me!
17EnidaV
>1 Artymedon: Artymedon
The Art Gallery of Ontario, of one the biggest art galleries in North American, has giant excerpts from Louis Riel by Chester Brown on permanent display. In the past it has also shown works by Seth and had a retrospective of Art Spiegelman in Dec 2014.
So yes, comics are art (how can anyone doubt it when they look at books like Beautiful Darkness?) and the big-cheese art establishment thinks so too.
The Art Gallery of Ontario, of one the biggest art galleries in North American, has giant excerpts from Louis Riel by Chester Brown on permanent display. In the past it has also shown works by Seth and had a retrospective of Art Spiegelman in Dec 2014.
So yes, comics are art (how can anyone doubt it when they look at books like Beautiful Darkness?) and the big-cheese art establishment thinks so too.
18Artymedon
After seeing an interview of now deceased creator Moebius, Gir, I am now utterly convinced that Comics is not "An Art". Rather I would argue it is an "Applied Art". Meaning that contrary to the pile of dung an artist may decide to exhibit in a modern art museum after having painted in blue, a Comic has a chain of creation and a public that make it an "Applied Art".
