Comic Art as Fine Art

[krazykat-migration]

 

 

[october]

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"

 

That's the way most people outside of the hobby would look at the pieces.

[Timulty]

Okay, KK. Yes, I believe some Comic OA is definitely Fine Art. Some is not. Also, I am really getting a feeling that you are a.....

[Solar]

These threads suck. The art is what it is. Who cares if it's fine art or a trash byproduct of pamphlet production? Collect what you like and let other people waste their lives classifying and categorizing as they see fit.

[Kermit the frog]

why you people waste your time/patient on these type of threads goes beyond me...when you already know the absence of communication is a constant factor!!!

 

it's already sad to reduce OA to the exaustion only as $$$, but to engage constantly on a doomed discussion like these ones is even more (when you know what outcome is...)!!!

 

regards

[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"

 

That's the way most people outside of the hobby would look at the pieces.

 

Well, they MIGHT look that way at the pieces that ARE dirty (none of us can say for sure- although anecdotally amongst all of the comments I've had about the originals hanging on my wall none of them have been condition related), but what about the volumes of CLEAN artwork? When you guys get into it with KK you act like everything looks like a Golden Age page rescued from underneath a bus, when that's simply not the case.

[COMICKINGS]

And why is it bad to collect OA as an investment?? Probably half of the fine art that is worth millions,trades hands every couple years,for more money each time. Those guys could probably give a ratsass if it's Picasso or Dali or whomever. They are big money hustlers and that stuff is just a commodity just like this comicart is to some of us little guys.

[Jolly Roger-migration]

from -- http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/press_release_25.htm

 

MASTERS of American Comics on view at Hammer Museum and The Museum of Contemporary Art From November 20, 2005 through March 12, 2006

The extensive exhibition provides an in-depth view of 15 artists who are among the most masterful creators to influence the ongoing development of the American comic strip and comic book

 

April 14

Los Angeles, CA—The Hammer Museum and The Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) jointly announce a major institutional collaboration, MASTERS of American Comics. Co-organized by the Hammer Museum and MOCA, this large-scale exhibition comprises in-depth presentations of work by 15 artists who shaped the development of the American comic strip and comic book during the past century. With over 500 objects on view, the exhibition provides understanding and insight into the medium of comics as an art form. The exhibition will be on view simultaneously at both venues from November 20, 2005, through March 12, 2006. Special admission offers and shared membership benefits will be available during the run of the exhibition.

 

“Among the most innovative and influential art forms of the 20th century, comics have made a singular impact on visual culture that continues to this day,” said MOCA Director Jeremy Strick. “This unprecedented museum partnership underscores the importance of the art form, and the extraordinary contributions of these 15 artists.”

 

“Comic strips and comic books are quintessential components of American culture,” said Hammer Director Ann Philbin. “We are very pleased to present an extensive exhibition that brings to light the work of these 15 cartoonists and establishes their roles as significant American artists with mesmerizing storytelling abilities, brilliant draftsmanship, and often biting social commentary.”

 

Comic strips and comic books were among the most popular and influential forms of mass media in the 20th century. The exhibition is an in-depth examination of work by 15 key American artists. Their masterful innovations defined an original form and raised it to the highest levels of artistic expression, reflecting on American culture with critical insight as well as popular appeal. The exhibition features an extensive selection of over 500 original drawings, progressive proofs, printed Sunday pages, and comic books by Winsor McCay, Lyonel Feininger, George Herriman, E.C. Segar, Frank King, Chester Gould, Milton Caniff, Charles Schulz, Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Harvey Kurtzman, R. Crumb, Art Spiegelman, Gary Panter, and Chris Ware.

 

Comic strips from the first half of the 20th century will be shown at the Hammer Museum, and comic books from the 1950s onward will be featured at MOCA. At the Hammer, the exhibition traces the beginnings of American newspaper comic strips through the influential work of pioneering comic artists such as Winsor McCay ("Little Nemo in Slumberland") and George Herriman ("Krazy Kat"), who set the stage by defining the formal attributes of the genre in the early 1900s. Focusing on the great achievements of this new art form through the century’s first decades, the installation also includes the groundbreaking work of Lyonel Feininger (“The Kin-der-Kids” and “Wee Willie Winkie’s World”), E.C. Segar (“Thimble Theatre”), Frank King (“Gasoline Alley”), Chester Gould (“ Tracy”), Milton Caniff (“Terry and the Pirates”), and Charles Schulz (“Peanuts”).

 

At MOCA, the second part of the exhibition will consider comic books from the early Golden Age to the rise of the independent comics movement. Comic books began as a form in which newspaper comics were reprinted and, with the rise of such series as Jack Kirby’s “Captain America” and “Fantastic Four”, became the dominant popular medium for narrative illustration. In addition to Kirby, particular attention is also paid to Harvey Kurtzman, whose “Mad Magazine” transformed the medium into one capable of great artistic expression and social commentary beginning in the early 1950s. By the mid 1960s, R. Crumb’s work in “Zap Comix” added a new level of personal expression and extended the significant role of independent and underground comic books, and graphic novels. This medium continues to be revolutionized today by the innovations of such major artists as Art Spiegelman (“Maus”, “In the Shadow of No Towers”); Gary Panter (“Jimbo”), and Chris Ware (“Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth”).

 

MASTERS of American Comics is co-curated by scholars John Carlin and Brian Walker, and is coordinated by MOCA Assistant Curator Michael Darling and Hammer Museum Deputy Director of Collections and Director of the Grunwald Center Cynthia Burlingham.

 

The exhibition will be accompanied by an extensive, fully-illustrated catalogue co-published by Yale University Press. It features an essay by John Carlin and contributions on the individual artists by a variety of novelists, historians, and artists. Contributors include Tom DeHaven on Winsor McCay, Brian Walker on Lyonel Feininger, Stanley Crouch on George Herriman, Jules Feiffer on E.C. Segar, Karal Ann Marling on Frank King, Robert Storr on Chester Gould, Pete Hamill on Milton Caniff, Patrick McDonnell on Charles Schulz, Raymond Pettibon on Will Eisner, Glen David Gold on Jack Kirby, J. Hoberman on Harvey Kurtzman, Françoise Mouly on R. Crumb, Jonathan Safran Foer on Art Spiegelman, Matt Groening on Gary Panter, and Dave Eggers on Chris Ware. Designed by award-winning graphic designer Lorraine Wild, the publication will feature 185 color reproductions and will retail for $45.

 

MASTERS of American Comics is jointly organized by the Hammer Museum, Los Angeles and The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. This exhibition is made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Arts.

[Aman619]

not ALL comic art is without merit and will fail to ultimately gain wider acceptance as "fine art.' I think Frazetta inked covers will be SOme of the first examples to break out of the ghetto. And a few other bigtime comic covers as well. But it will be a cold day in hell before a Trimpe Ghost Rider cover, or an interior page will ever be on a museum wall next to a (you name it) piece. Or on a blue-haired old lady on Park Ave collector's living room walls. Unless its Mrs Herb Trimpe, that is, or his granddaughter.

[Aman619]

500 original drawings, progressive proofs, printed Sunday pages, and comic books by

Winsor McCay,

Lyonel Feininger,

George Herriman,

E.C. Segar,

Frank King,

Chester Gould,

Milton Caniff,

Charles Schulz,

Will Eisner,

Jack Kirby,

Harvey Kurtzman,

R. Crumb,

Art Spiegelman,

Gary Panter,

Chris Ware.

 

nice list. Not too many superhero artists on there though.... but its a start.

hey KK - - besides Kirby, how many pieces by these OTHER guys do you own? Wouldnt it be a kick if you amassed all the wrong artists work all these years?? Like th erest of us finding out that DCs and Marvels were worthless compared to Charltons and Dells someday!!!

[Timulty]

Alex Ross. Fine Art. Frazetta, Fine Art. Bisley, Fine Art. Carl Barks,(preparing for onslaught of Ducks, lovers), not a frickin' chance. Now, enjoy and discuss.

[comicdonna]

Gees KK it's about time you finally post some scans of OA. Was their a yellow pencil in there somewhere?

[CW]

Ah at least we saw some art in one of these threads finally thanks KK. I think it would be interesting if someone in this section of the boards became the antithesis of KK by posting every piece of art they own. Flood the board with pictures of art. That would make for an interesting dichotomy.

[B-Smooth]

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?

sorry KK but hes right on the money. Ditko is great but Van Gogh he aint!

[delekkerste]

nice list. Not too many superhero artists on there though.... but its a start.

hey KK - - besides Kirby, how many pieces by these OTHER guys do you own? Wouldnt it be a kick if you amassed all the wrong artists work all these years??

 

I know you meant this half-jokingly, but isn't there some real truth to this? Are fine art collectors who are not comic fans (i.e., nearly all of them) really going value a page as highly as a comic book enthusiast would just because it comes from a fanboy favorite artist or a key issue or features a first appearance of a non-mainstream character? Like a page from Iron Man #55 featuring Thanos may be some comic art collector's Holy Grail, but is a fine art collector really going to care? Or how about that Watchmen page that Hari just bought - it's a great Rorschach origin page, but is a non-comic fan going to know how that page fits into the larger whole or the impact that the whole had on the medium afterwards?

 

Let's face it, fine art is fine art and comic art is comic art. On an artistic basis, a comparable panel page from Giant-Size X-Men #1 and X-Men #98 have no discernible difference in quality and yet the former will sell for multiples of the latter. Is the fine art world going to embrace comic art and study the history of the Marvel and DC Universes in order to comprehend why a page from X-Men #94 is worth so much more than a page from X-Men #95? It's never going to happen. Comic art will always be dominated by comic book enthusiasts and comic art collectors.

 

As for collecting the "wrong" artists, just look at the comic artists who command the attention of the artistic establishment - as you mentioned, there's not a lot of superhero artists there. Jack Kirby gets some attention for his unique blocky style and volume of work for Marvel's key books, but John Romita does not, probably because his style is too conventional for the fine art crowd. So, Romita gets ignored while edgier talents like R. Crumb and Art Spiegelman get noticed. I have a feeling that Ditko's style might be unique enough to be appreciated as a little outside of mainstream...Neal Adams would probably be recognized for his realism and his pioneering layouts...I bet the fine art crowd wouldn't give the time of day to Frank Miller's Daredevil work, but they might appreciate his later, more stylized drawing (these examples are all assuming that the fine art world ever did look into comic art to any great extent).

 

KK, beware of what you wish for. If the fine art crowd ever did embrace comic art as fine art, it will probably be in a way much different than you expect. Not that you should hold your breath waiting for it to happen...cause it isn't. And, no, I do not consider an exhibition at the Whitney or the MoMA to legitimize comic art as being fine art. When a Kirby or Ditko or Romita cover is on permanent display next to a Picasso or Renoir, then we'll talk.

[*paull*]

Dele, great points. It's not going to be Kirby and Romita that get noticed. It's going to be Ware, Crumb, Spiegelman and a few others. Super-hero art always gets shorted in these exhibitions.

 

The Batman film came out in 1989 and there have been 4 other films since. Two X-Men films, two Spider-Man films, the FF, Daredevil, blah blah blah. When exactly is the world supposed to catch on to how great original comic art is? How much more exposure can super-heroes get? The world simply doesn't care. I bet that a small prop from any of these movies would command much more money than an original Ditko page.

[tth2]

Are fine art collectors who are not comic fans (i.e., nearly all of them) really going value a page as highly as a comic book enthusiast would just because it comes from a fanboy favorite artist or a key issue or features a first appearance of a non-mainstream character? Like a page from Iron Man #55 featuring Thanos may be some comic art collector's Holy Grail, but is a fine art collector really going to care? Or how about that Watchmen page that Hari just bought - it's a great Rorschach origin page, but is a non-comic fan going to know how that page fits into the larger whole or the impact that the whole had on the medium afterwards?

 

Let's face it, fine art is fine art and comic art is comic art. On an artistic basis, a comparable panel page from Giant-Size X-Men #1 and X-Men #98 have no discernible difference in quality and yet the former will sell for multiples of the latter. Is the fine art world going to embrace comic art and study the history of the Marvel and DC Universes in order to comprehend why a page from X-Men #94 is worth so much more than a page from X-Men #95? It's never going to happen. Comic art will always be dominated by comic book enthusiasts and comic art collectors.

Great points, Gene, and definitely one of the responses that immediately came to my mind amidst all of KK's nonsense about the value of OA having nothing to do with comics (but which I never voiced because there's simply no point in trying to hold a serious conversation with him).

 

The irony in all of KK's nonsensical shills/posts is that he himself can't disassociate the OA from the comic from which it came. Obviously he can't bring himself to do so, otherwise he'd have to acknowledge that on a purely aesthetic basis, X-Men #1 is no better than and perhaps inferior to quite a few other X-Men covers, and Captain America #1 is no better than many other Captain America covers (GA, SA and BA), thus they could (shudder) very well be less valuable.

 

There are only a few covers so iconic even to the general public that they might retain their value and prestige notwithstanding that aesthetically they might not command the same value on a purely objective basis. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Action #1 and Superman #1 as definites. Fantastic Four #1, AF #15 and Four Color #199 are maybes. Not Detective #27, or ASM #1, or virtually any of the other keys.

[Aman619]

nice list. Not too many superhero artists on there though.... but its a start.

hey KK - - besides Kirby, how many pieces by these OTHER guys do you own? Wouldnt it be a kick if you amassed all the wrong artists work all these years??

 

I know you meant this half-jokingly, but isn't there some real truth to this? Are fine art collectors who are not comic fans (i.e., nearly all of them) really going value a page as highly as a comic book enthusiast would just because it comes from a fanboy favorite artist or a key issue or features a first appearance of a non-mainstream character? Like a page from Iron Man #55 featuring Thanos may be some comic art collector's Holy Grail, but is a fine art collector really going to care? Or how about that Watchmen page that Hari just bought - it's a great Rorschach origin page, but is a non-comic fan going to know how that page fits into the larger whole or the impact that the whole had on the medium afterwards?

 

Let's face it, fine art is fine art and comic art is comic art. On an artistic basis, a comparable panel page from Giant-Size X-Men #1 and X-Men #98 have no discernible difference in quality and yet the former will sell for multiples of the latter. Is the fine art world going to embrace comic art and study the history of the Marvel and DC Universes in order to comprehend why a page from X-Men #94 is worth so much more than a page from X-Men #95? It's never going to happen. Comic art will always be dominated by comic book enthusiasts and comic art collectors.

 

As for collecting the "wrong" artists, just look at the comic artists who command the attention of the artistic establishment - as you mentioned, there's not a lot of superhero artists there. Jack Kirby gets some attention for his unique blocky style and volume of work for Marvel's key books, but John Romita does not, probably because his style is too conventional for the fine art crowd. So, Romita gets ignored while edgier talents like R. Crumb and Art Spiegelman get noticed. I have a feeling that Ditko's style might be unique enough to be appreciated as a little outside of mainstream...Neal Adams would probably be recognized for his realism and his pioneering layouts...I bet the fine art crowd wouldn't give the time of day to Frank Miller's Daredevil work, but they might appreciate his later, more stylized drawing (these examples are all assuming that the fine art world ever did look into comic art to any great extent).

 

KK, beware of what you wish for. If the fine art crowd ever did embrace comic art as fine art, it will probably be in a way much different than you expect. Not that you should hold your breath waiting for it to happen...cause it isn't. And, no, I do not consider an exhibition at the Whitney or the MoMA to legitimize comic art as being fine art. When a Kirby or Ditko or Romita cover is on permanent display next to a Picasso or Renoir, then we'll talk.

 

Yes it was half jokingly, in an effort to merely poke, not attack. And I agree with your points, thats what I was trying to suggest. So far, and probably for some time to come, whatever "mainstream Fine Arts' interest comics art gets will be these famous and innovative Strip artists getting th enod. Kirby and a handful or superhero Gods will trickle in if and when the Strip guys sucessfully are assimilated. Kirby for sure as he is credited with being the Da Vinci of Superhero comics artist/creators.

 

As for the comment about Ducks and Barks? WELL, Im in no way a duck fan - - dont collect em and have never read them, and dont even think Barks is all THAT much different from all the other duck artists (sorry)... but in 50 years I do think his oils will survive as very collectible and sought after pieces. There arent that many of them and they are a direct connection to the heyday of 20th Century animation, and even better - - DISNEY animation which will have secured its place in film history as being as influential (seminal actually) as Hitchcock, Welles, Capra etc etc.

[clickhere-migration]

Saw this on a site. A Legion cover. This looks pretty "FINE" to me.

 

[Timulty]

Yeah, I was going to mention just about any of Alex Ross' painted stuff. Splashes, pages, covers etc. Probably the same with Simon Bisley too. Yeah, that's right Bisley.