Comic Art as Fine Art

[krazykat-migration]

Just curious,...if a major curator,..like the 'Whitney' or 'MOMA' ran an exhibit on comic art,..would this fact solidify the belief that Comic Art is Fine art ? Anecdotally, I have on very good authority that this will in fact be the case within the next 18 months.

 

KK

[Timulty]

Didn't MOMA actually run one not too long ago?

[*paull*]

Let me clarify things for you, Brad:

 

1. Comic book original art is PRODUCTION art, not fine art. No one but a comic fan will look at a fingerprinted, white-out covered, blue pencilled piece of bristol board and consider it fine art.

 

2. Non-comic fans can't tell the difference between Jack Kirby, Gil Kane, Jim Steranko, Steve Ditko and Barry Smith.

 

3. Non-comic fans don't know anything about comic book history. So-and-so was an innovator? Who cares! What might be interesting to a fine art collector? Maybe the covers to Action #1 and Detective #27. That's it.

 

4. Original comic art doesn't look like the finished product: No color and sometimes no lettering! See #1... PRODUCTION ART.

 

5. The world doesn't read comic books. The world doesn't even realize that comic books are still made! These heros only exist in movies that last 3 weeks at the metroplex and are then sent to DVD. America's heros? Hahaha. No one gives a s-h-i-t.

 

and lastly:

 

6. To the world, comic books are for kids.

 

The fact that you are crying about the world not appreciating your piles of bristol board makes me think that you realize the world never will appreciate it. It's a niche art field that will never break its bonds. It hasn't in 100 years, why should it now?

[krazykat-migration]

Let me clarify things for you, Brad:

 

1. Comic book original art is PRODUCTION art, not fine art. No one but a comic fan will look at a fingerprinted, white-out covered, blue pencilled piece of bristol board and consider it fine art.

 

2. Non-comic fans can't tell the difference between Jack Kirby, Gil Kane, Jim Steranko, Steve Ditko and Barry Smith.

 

3. Non-comic fans don't know anything about comic book history. So-and-so was an innovator? Who cares! What might be interesting to a fine art collector? Maybe the covers to Action #1 and Detective #27. That's it.

 

4. Original comic art doesn't look like the finished product: No color and sometimes no lettering! See #1... PRODUCTION ART.

 

5. The world doesn't read comic books. The world doesn't even realize that comic books are still made! These heros only exist in movies that last 3 weeks at the metroplex and are then sent to DVD. America's heros? Hahaha. No one gives a s-h-i-t.

 

and lastly:

 

6. To the world, comic books are for kids.

 

The fact that you are crying about the world not appreciating your piles of bristol board makes me think that you realize the world never will appreciate it. It's a niche art field that will never break its bonds. It hasn't in 100 years, why should it now?

 

OK,..dont believe. I think I have sited enough sales data of the last 10 years to rebutt your argument. If you dont see the growth pattern of 20 percent annually than it seems you are biased towards denying the empirical economic evidence that OA is valued in the market. Asto your belief that no one cares about 'America's God's',..you couldnt be more off. Lastly, if you choose not to consider/ or believe the aethetics critics will ever consider OA to be fine art,...that is your choice as well. I happen to disagree with your conclusions.

 

KK

 

KK

[october]

Let me clarify things for you, Brad:

 

1. Comic book original art is PRODUCTION art, not fine art. No one but a comic fan will look at a fingerprinted, white-out covered, blue pencilled piece of bristol board and consider it fine art.

 

2. Non-comic fans can't tell the difference between Jack Kirby, Gil Kane, Jim Steranko, Steve Ditko and Barry Smith.

 

3. Non-comic fans don't know anything about comic book history. So-and-so was an innovator? Who cares! What might be interesting to a fine art collector? Maybe the covers to Action #1 and Detective #27. That's it.

 

4. Original comic art doesn't look like the finished product: No color and sometimes no lettering! See #1... PRODUCTION ART.

 

5. The world doesn't read comic books. The world doesn't even realize that comic books are still made! These heros only exist in movies that last 3 weeks at the metroplex and are then sent to DVD. America's heros? Hahaha. No one gives a s-h-i-t.

 

and lastly:

 

6. To the world, comic books are for kids.

 

The fact that you are crying about the world not appreciating your piles of bristol board makes me think that you realize the world never will appreciate it. It's a niche art field that will never break its bonds. It hasn't in 100 years, why should it now?

 

OK,..dont believe. I think I have sited enough sales data of the last 10 years to rebutt your argument. If you dont see the growth pattern of 20 percent annually than it seems you are biased towards denying the empirical economic evidence that OA is valued in the market. Asto your belief that no one cares about 'America's God's',..you couldnt be more off. Lastly, if you choose not to consider/ or believe the aethetics critics will ever consider OA to be fine art,...that is your choice as well. I happen to disagree with your conclusions.

 

KK

 

KK

 

How does citing value and sales data refute his argument that comic art isn't fine art? Nice straw man.

[krazykat-migration]

Dim-wit. It refutes his argument that the world doesnt care. Why are you so dense ? Than, if you recall,...I went on to discuss the supposition that OA is fine art. A debate is multi-layered with various opinions on various issues. Why dont you start paying attention to the ideas instead of your sheep emotions.

 

KK

[*paull*]

Exactly. Citing sales data within the comic market does nothing to help your argument. Feel free to try again.

[TLC55555]

Hey, who is this KK? I've never read a post from him before.

 

By the way, what did you all have for lunch?

[october]

Dim-wit. It refutes his argument that the world doesnt care. Why are you so dense ? Than, if you recall,...I went on to discuss the supposition that OA is fine art. A debate is multi-layered with various opinions on various issues. Why dont you start paying attention to the ideas instead of your sheep emotions.

 

KK

 

So by that logic, the world cares about Edgar Church pedigree copies because they demand a high price? Here is a newsflash for you, though one you will probably ignore: a market only needs a few thousand people to care in order to sustain high prices, especially with the limited supply that exists in the OA hobby. Comics are a niche market of a few hundred thousand people, tops. OA is a subset of that. The world at large doesn't give a damn about your glue stained drawings by obscure artists nobody has heard of outside of a few thousand geeks.

 

You know, there are a wide variety of medications currently available to treat delusional individuals like yourself. I suggest you try one.

[rob_react]

One of the things that most annoys me about KK Flame wars is the venom that it inspires for THE ART itself. When talking to KK it's always "glue stained this and crappy white out covered that"

[krazykat-migration]

The OA forum seems to have more and more of you guys here so Ill let you draw your own conclusions. Moreover, if you think Spider-Man, Superman, Bat-Man are irrelevant (A) you are in the wrong hobby (B) You havent paid attention to the Mega-Franchise distribution of these images/characters © you are in denial about the consistent increases in OA prices over 20 years AND lack imagination about how markets work (D) All of the above.

[SandBat-migration]

It is possible that an artist could rise above the conventional trappings of comic art and achieve "fine art" status, but I imagine it would take something truly avant-garde with an extremely solid philosophical theory. Something that engages contemporary fine art thought and pushes boundaries. Draftsmanship alone will not reach it, of course. Or prices for that matter.

 

Or, maybe something similar to how folk art is treated will happen, a sort of seperate category that doesn't really engage the discourse of art history but is deemed art museum worthy for other reasons.

 

or not...

 

it is up to comic art itself to prove itself.

[krazykat-migration]

One of the thigns that most annoys me about KK Flame wars is the venom that it inspires for THE ART itself. When talking to KK it's always "glue stained this and crappy white out covered that"

 

Heck,..if you were in a hobby where condition was the sole basis for product diffentiation and the product naturally was (A) ephemeral/ unstable (B) manipulated/ reconfigured to maxizme profit © at a mature stage in the product life-cycle,....

 

you'd vent out at the competiting market segments that were doing well too.

 

KK

[Point Five]

The crucial difference between OA and fine art is that OA can be devalued merely by being shown on an internet message board. I think that as long as this is the case, OA will continue to remain an inherently unstable niche market.

[clickhere-migration]

Where do painted covers fall into this then?

 

Anyone want to post examples of those?

[rob_react]

Where do painted covers fall into this then?

 

Anyone want to post examples of those?

 

I'm sure that hatred for KK would make people rag on painted pieces as well

[DNAgent]

Let me clarify things for you, Brad:

 

1. Comic book original art is PRODUCTION art, not fine art. No one but a comic fan will look at a fingerprinted, white-out covered, blue pencilled piece of bristol board and consider it fine art.

 

one may argue that it is illustration art. there are plenty of pieces that are not fingerprinted, white out covered, blue pencilled etc. anyway, a painting of the ocean, a landscape or of the civil war could be considered production art, or illustration

 

2. Non-comic fans can't tell the difference between Jack Kirby, Gil Kane, Jim Steranko, Steve Ditko and Barry Smith.

 

non-art fans can't tell the difference between miro, mondrian, legere and kandinsky. (what is your point here?)

 

3. Non-comic fans don't know anything about comic book history. So-and-so was an innovator? Who cares! What might be interesting to a fine art collector? Maybe the covers to Action #1 and Detective #27. That's it.

 

non-art fans don't know anything about art history, (especially americans). additionally, noone cared about many fine artists until the past 50-100 years. i would say non superhero comics may be interesting to a fine art collector, rather than your examples. think of a scientist/doctor who falls in love with a weird science cover, or a mortician/pathologist/horror film or novel writer or whatever finds a vault of horror or weird mystery cover fascinating. i could go on...that's it?

 

4. Original comic art doesn't look like the finished product: No color and sometimes no lettering! See #1... PRODUCTION ART.

 

there are plenty of unfinished works of art, but that it isn't colored is doubtful a reason for it to not be considered fine art...or only production art.

 

5. The world doesn't read comic books. The world doesn't even realize that comic books are still made! These heros only exist in movies that last 3 weeks at the metroplex and are then sent to DVD. America's heros? Hahaha. No one gives a s-h-i-t.

 

the world does read comic books. have you been to europe? or japan? you may have a point that american superhero are the ones no one gives a merd about. it may be more 'correct' to say america doesn't read comic books, they are indeed read in europe and japan for example. we all live in our own little world, sure, but do not forget, america is not the world

 

 

6. To the world, comic books are for kids.

The fact that you are crying about the world not appreciating your piles of bristol board makes me think that you realize the world never will appreciate it. It's a niche art field that will never break its bonds. It hasn't in 100 years, why should it now?

 

i point to europe again, comics are not only for kids (but maybe superhero comics are), many many many european comics are not superheroes. there are many examples of these comics, which deal with concepts such as religion, sciences, human life here on earth, the struggles humanity etc. concepts that are dealt with in more 'elite' media such as novels, paintings and film, are also found in comics, i guess you have not found them yet...

there are some of these comics here in the usa too...try 'metal hurlant' , 'blankets', 'goodbye chunky rice', 'maus', 'berlin', and 'jar of fools' and tons more...

 

you really lost me with 'It hasn't in 100 years, why should it now?' my simple mind fails to understand that, why, if something hasn't broken it's bonds in 100 years, 'it will never break its bonds' , if you could elaborate...

 

 

 

[CW]

Anyway, I'm getting tired of reading anybody got any pictures of OA for us to look at. You would think a whole message board devoted to OA would have more pictures of OA and less bickering. At least the comic section has some pictures we can all comment on in a positive way.

[*paull*]

Rob, I love original comic art. You love original comic art. But let's face it, most original art is fingerprint smudged, white-out covered, and has a pale resemblance to the colorful covers of the printed comics. The fact that we love the work doesn't mean that the fine art world should. They are going to look at it as messy production artwork.

[blowout]

Rob, I love original comic art. You love original comic art. But let's face it, most original art is fingerprint smudged, white-out covered, and has a pale resemblance to the colorful covers of the printed comics..

 

Personally I don't think that is true at all.

 

In fact, there are numerous pieces of Original Art that are far superior to the final published versions. The production process often destroys a lot of the detail that is present in the original pieces.