2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[Illiterati-migration]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

[THE_BEYONDER]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

[Illiterati-migration]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

 

Yeah. Take another look at the lazy-eyed spaz case in your sig line and tell me differently.

[THE_BEYONDER]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

 

Yeah. Take another look at the lazy-eyed spaz case in your sig line and tell me differently.

 

[Illiterati-migration]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

 

Yeah. Take another look at the lazy-eyed spaz case in your sig line and tell me differently.

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

I just bought the original art they used for this cover...

 

[Aman619]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

"classically trained????" WHo the heck is classically trained anymore? and what does that even mean? Have you been to art school? Thats what passes for training today... and they pretty much give you assignments and you all get tohether and teacher (a failed artist) critiques the work. Theres noone there qualified to tell a student what to paint or HOW to paint lest they interfere with their "creativity." Its a hands off policy at work...teachers are guides, not 'masters' sharing secrets anymore.....

 

Classically trained used to mean apprenticing to a Master. Dont see much of that anymore...

[delekkerste]

Just kidding, guys! There was no fighting. The two of us are both so scrawny that it would have been humorous at best.

 

Hey Hari, my rippling musculature was covered up by the 5 layers of clothing I had on to protect myself from the snow!! Too bad for the Playboy Playmates there at the Con.

 

 

"You know, Gene here thinks you guys suck. He prefers chubby, pale women from the 1700s instead."

 

Hey, not all the women are chubby and pale...sometimes they're only chubby and sometimes they're only pale.

 

[Illiterati-migration]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

"classically trained????" WHo the heck is classically trained anymore? and what does that even mean? Have you been to art school? Thats what passes for training today... and they pretty much give you assignments and you all get tohether and teacher (a failed artist) critiques the work. Theres noone there qualified to tell a student what to paint or HOW to paint lest they interfere with their "creativity." Its a hands off policy at work...teachers are guides, not 'masters' sharing secrets anymore.....

 

Classically trained used to mean apprenticing to a Master. Dont see much of that anymore...

 

And what's your point, exactly? Or were you just getting really worked-up while helping me make my point?

 

(And I don't see many art school grads floating around here either.)

[krazykat-migration]

I take umbrage. I'm a art school grad. And I am following this thread because I think there are valid points being made.

[Illiterati-migration]

I take umbrage. I'm a art school grad. And I am following this thread because I think there are valid points being made.

 

Then chime in and provide us with some insight.

[Aman619]

I take umbrage. I'm a art school grad. And I am following this thread because I think there are valid points being made.

 

Then chime in and provide us with some insight.

 

Im an art school grad too, and I gave my opinions twice here about the art school experience. I think when you mean art school you are referring to a Liberal Arts degree specializing in Art History. They would be in good shape to discuss the merits of comics art (or lack of) from a "classically trained" museum employee to be's perspective. In art school we all take studio classes in our major, plus electives in other majors, plus a small requirement of regular textbook-style history classes. As I say, Its not a real rigorous 'training' period... more like a coddled "you are ARTISTS!" in creative isolation from the real world, a gestation period for a career in art to develop a style or direction, or realize you oughtta just get a regular job and forget it!!

[Aman619]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

"classically trained????" WHo the heck is classically trained anymore? and what does that even mean? Have you been to art school? Thats what passes for training today... and they pretty much give you assignments and you all get tohether and teacher (a failed artist) critiques the work. Theres noone there qualified to tell a student what to paint or HOW to paint lest they interfere with their "creativity." Its a hands off policy at work...teachers are guides, not 'masters' sharing secrets anymore.....

 

Classically trained used to mean apprenticing to a Master. Dont see much of that anymore...

 

And what's your point, exactly? Or were you just getting really worked-up while helping me make my point?

 

(And I don't see many art school grads floating around here either.)

 

you used that old chestnut about how EASY art is. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training.. So many people say this stuff, and it gets old. Sorry MK, its just NOT that easy, it only looks that way sometimes. Heres an idea, you know that drippy guy? Jackson Pollack? Go buy a bunch of paint and a canvas and spend some time dripping the paint like he does and come back and show us what youve got. Bet you'll soon realize that even to drip paint in a controlled way and so it lands in an interesting composition will take some time to 'master'. As for abstract expressionists who merely juxtopose a couple of large colored blocky areas next to each other.... EASY right? My kid could do that!! Well, you may not like the results, but the artist spent months developing the ideas behind the shapes and colors. He may be a crack, but he put in the effort cause he was trying to discoverr something different...and of course sellable.

 

just dont take the easy route. Even comics artists spend years kearning. Even Adams clones do too! No small amount of training will do the trick. But its mostly self-taught.

[Illiterati-migration]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

"classically trained????" WHo the heck is classically trained anymore? and what does that even mean? Have you been to art school? Thats what passes for training today... and they pretty much give you assignments and you all get tohether and teacher (a failed artist) critiques the work. Theres noone there qualified to tell a student what to paint or HOW to paint lest they interfere with their "creativity." Its a hands off policy at work...teachers are guides, not 'masters' sharing secrets anymore.....

 

Classically trained used to mean apprenticing to a Master. Dont see much of that anymore...

 

And what's your point, exactly? Or were you just getting really worked-up while helping me make my point?

 

(And I don't see many art school grads floating around here either.)

 

you used that old chestnut about how EASY art is. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training.. So many people say this stuff, and it gets old. Sorry MK, its just NOT that easy, it only looks that way sometimes. Heres an idea, you know that drippy guy? Jackson Pollack? Go buy a bunch of paint and a canvas and spend some time dripping the paint like he does and come back and show us what youve got. Bet you'll soon realize that even to drip paint in a controlled way and so it lands in an interesting composition will take some time to 'master'. As for abstract expressionists who merely juxtopose a couple of large colored blocky areas next to each other.... EASY right? My kid could do that!! Well, you may not like the results, but the artist spent months developing the ideas behind the shapes and colors. He may be a crack, but he put in the effort cause he was trying to discoverr something different...and of course sellable.

 

just dont take the easy route. Even comics artists spend years kearning. Even Adams clones do too! No small amount of training will do the trick. But its mostly self-taught.

 

Aman, again, I think we're "arguing" the same point. Your examples of Pollack and abstract expressionists are exactly the reasons WHY comic artists, in my mind, are inferior to "true" artists. (The fact that comic artists are "mostly self-taught" is exactly what I'm talking about. Comic art, at least the vast, overwhelming majority of it, is not as difficult to produce as "real" art.)

 

It is for this same reason that people like E.E. Cummings and other "abstract" poets are so revered (and reviled) in the world of poetry. It seems that there is NO skill involved in the writing, while in fact there is more going on in each poem than the untrained mind can see. Similarly, One cannot simply pick up a paint brush and begin producing masterpieces... one can, with a small amount of in-home "schooling" (doodling), however, pick up a pencil and begin working as a comic artist.

 

Consider artists like Erik Larsen, Rob Liefeld, and even the "great" Todd MacFarlane. All were hot artists at one point, and one STILL is (for whatever inexplicable reason). These guys CLEARLY have no concept of anatomy and form and dimension... yet they have been, at one point or another, hailed as "great" artists.

 

Greg Horn would be another excellent example of this phenomenon. Clearly the man has some amount of talent, but very little training. (And if he has a lot of training, then he simply has very little talent.)

 

Or let's consider a few others, shall we? Alex Ross is a fine cover artist, and I'm sure he can produce all manners of fine quality work away from comic book covers. His interior work, however, sucks. Everything he does looks very static, very dead. Contrast him with a "cartoonier" artist like Mike Wieringo who has a more "comic-appropriate" style. Would Wieringo ever be able to translate his style to a "high art" type medium? No. But is Wieringo a better comic book artist? I would say absolutely yes.

 

And that doesn't have to simply apply to the "cartoony" artists like Wieringo and Cho and others... it also applies, in my opinion, to people like Eduardo Risso and Sienkewicz (?) and artists like that.

 

These people are not producing masterpieces on a monthly basis, just the same as Stephen King is not writing brilliant, high-art novels. There is a difference, though many may not realize it.

[Aman619]

Im glad we are agreeing more than disagreeing! I found myself reading your last post with you on most, but I still think you are being too hard on some of the comic artists, and on making it sound so easy. Also, back to the discussion at hand, if comic art will be accepted, I dont think it will be comic pages that make it. So talking about how some artists page+panel work is better than others is IMO irrelevant. The main question is whether ANY comic book artwork will be considered on a par with Fine Art, and if so, it would be covers, splash pages etc, pieces that serve a comparable purpose as a painting as ONE image not something that by definition is more than one panel to tell a story. But even here there are exceptions like Chris Ware's pages that stand on their own. I wonder too if a Sunday comics Page (Foster, Krazy Kat) while being made of panels might still stand up well against a cover.

 

And I still take umbrage at singleing any of the names you merntioned as having little or no talent. I know we are fans, and we have our favorites, and our personal lists of hacks, but we do have to try to remember that just like in professional sports, that lousy end of the bench substitute that we groan when he gets in the game is still BETTER than the best player we have ever played with 99% of the time. Just to make the pros means he was/is an awesome talente dplayer. Same thing for comics artists. There are so many thousands of really bad wannabees for DC and Marvel to choose from that even th eworst we see was chosen from many just to get a shot.

 

Of course a few of those you listed truly do suck! Even tho they draw better than you or me.

[heartened]

They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean.

 

This is the meat of the matter. Comic artists are not classically-trained artists. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training... the reason why this argument is dragging on for so long is that no one here has the small amount of training required to explain WHY comic artists are so bad in an intellectually satisfying manner.

 

"classically trained????" WHo the heck is classically trained anymore? and what does that even mean? Have you been to art school? Thats what passes for training today... and they pretty much give you assignments and you all get tohether and teacher (a failed artist) critiques the work. Theres noone there qualified to tell a student what to paint or HOW to paint lest they interfere with their "creativity." Its a hands off policy at work...teachers are guides, not 'masters' sharing secrets anymore.....

 

Classically trained used to mean apprenticing to a Master. Dont see much of that anymore...

 

And what's your point, exactly? Or were you just getting really worked-up while helping me make my point?

 

(And I don't see many art school grads floating around here either.)

 

you used that old chestnut about how EASY art is. They are doing something that virtually ANYONE could do with even a small amount of training.. So many people say this stuff, and it gets old. Sorry MK, its just NOT that easy, it only looks that way sometimes. Heres an idea, you know that drippy guy? Jackson Pollack? Go buy a bunch of paint and a canvas and spend some time dripping the paint like he does and come back and show us what youve got. Bet you'll soon realize that even to drip paint in a controlled way and so it lands in an interesting composition will take some time to 'master'. As for abstract expressionists who merely juxtopose a couple of large colored blocky areas next to each other.... EASY right? My kid could do that!! Well, you may not like the results, but the artist spent months developing the ideas behind the shapes and colors. He may be a crack, but he put in the effort cause he was trying to discoverr something different...and of course sellable.

 

just dont take the easy route. Even comics artists spend years kearning. Even Adams clones do too! No small amount of training will do the trick. But its mostly self-taught.

 

Aman, again, I think we're "arguing" the same point. Your examples of Pollack and abstract expressionists are exactly the reasons WHY comic artists, in my mind, are inferior to "true" artists. (The fact that comic artists are "mostly self-taught" is exactly what I'm talking about. Comic art, at least the vast, overwhelming majority of it, is not as difficult to produce as "real" art.)

 

It is for this same reason that people like E.E. Cummings and other "abstract" poets are so revered (and reviled) in the world of poetry. It seems that there is NO skill involved in the writing, while in fact there is more going on in each poem than the untrained mind can see. Similarly, One cannot simply pick up a paint brush and begin producing masterpieces... one can, with a small amount of in-home "schooling" (doodling), however, pick up a pencil and begin working as a comic artist.

 

Consider artists like Erik Larsen, Rob Liefeld, and even the "great" Todd MacFarlane. All were hot artists at one point, and one STILL is (for whatever inexplicable reason). These guys CLEARLY have no concept of anatomy and form and dimension... yet they have been, at one point or another, hailed as "great" artists.

 

Greg Horn would be another excellent example of this phenomenon. Clearly the man has some amount of talent, but very little training. (And if he has a lot of training, then he simply has very little talent.)

 

Or let's consider a few others, shall we? Alex Ross is a fine cover artist, and I'm sure he can produce all manners of fine quality work away from comic book covers. His interior work, however, sucks. Everything he does looks very static, very dead. Contrast him with a "cartoonier" artist like Mike Wieringo who has a more "comic-appropriate" style. Would Wieringo ever be able to translate his style to a "high art" type medium? No. But is Wieringo a better comic book artist? I would say absolutely yes.

 

And that doesn't have to simply apply to the "cartoony" artists like Wieringo and Cho and others... it also applies, in my opinion, to people like Eduardo Risso and Sienkewicz (?) and artists like that.

 

These people are not producing masterpieces on a monthly basis, just the same as Stephen King is not writing brilliant, high-art novels. There is a difference, though many may not realize it.

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to this. So I won't bother.

[Norrin_Radd]

I would nominate Alex Ross as an artist who is talented enough to crossover into fine art (if he wanted to).

 

[shrunkenhead]

Im an art school grad too, and I gave my opinions twice here about the art school experience. I think when you mean art school you are referring to a Liberal Arts degree specializing in Art History. They would be in good shape to discuss the merits of comics art (or lack of) from a "classically trained" museum employee to be's perspective. In art school we all take studio classes in our major, plus electives in other majors, plus a small requirement of regular textbook-style history classes. As I say, Its not a real rigorous 'training' period... more like a coddled "you are ARTISTS!" in creative isolation from the real world, a gestation period for a career in art to develop a style or direction, or realize you oughtta just get a regular job and forget it!!

 

This is very true. There is a world of difference between art history and art school. It's the same difference as getting a PhD in literature or an MFA in creative writing. One is serious, rigorous, and academic, and the other is a comfy-cozy, non-agressive "let's talk about writing" session that lasts two years. There are exceptions, (like the MFA programs at U. of Iowa or U. of Wisconsin), and I'm sure there are some exceptional art schools too, but generally that's the game.

 

Sorry to be slightly

[Illiterati-migration]

I wouldn't even know where to begin in responding to this. So I won't bother.

 

That's an incredibly well-thought answer. Thanks for your input. From your response, I can only gather that Gene's usual line about "collector's anxiety" or the "comic geek inferiority complex" is both stunningly accurate AND rearing its ugly head right here and now.

 

Naturally you're defending your position and taking this argument to illogical extremes-- you've clearly got a buttload (damn metric system, how does that convert?) of money "invested" in this artwork. But here's an idea: Love it because it's yours. Love it like a parent loves their child's macaroni masterpieces. Understand that it's aesthetically pleasing to you as well as possessing an enormous sentimental value and stop crying about how it's "Real Art" despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

 

No matter how much money comic art collectors throw at individual pieces, it's not going to change the fact that comic art is, for the most part, the crudest of the crude.

[Illiterati-migration]

I would nominate Alex Ross as an artist who is talented enough to crossover into fine art (if he wanted to).

 

 

I'd be interested in seeing his non-comic work, for sure.