Comic Art as Fine Art

[delekkerste]

I guess it depends on how you work your sample. I recall the 1980's talk about how "quality" used coins outpaced the stock market, precious metals, and just about everything else. The way they got to that was to take the kinds of pieces that had the most appreciation and called that "quality" ignoring the fact that nobody much was recommending them as quality at the time and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of coins were a lousy investment.

 

My source is an article in http://www.artrenewal.org/ and unfortunately, that site is huge and I can't find it.

 

You would be hard-pressed to find a Picasso original that is 8.5% off its peak value, much less 85%. The Wall Street Journal published an art index for a few dozen major artists about a year ago and Picasso was one of the strongest performers. Pick up any issue of Art+Auction and you'll see that the market for his work keeps going from strength to strength. In fact, the last list I saw based on sales data showed that his work is now the priciest in the market (Van Gogh was #2), even more so than the Old Masters (though, granted, some of those artists may have been excluded due to lack of sales data).

 

I agree with you that most collectibles prove to be lousy investments, but the market for Picassos and many other fine artists has not peaked...yet, anyway.

[Foolkiller]

There's been postings and threads on these boards before about the differences between fine art and comic book art, and I don't have any interest in getting into another protracted debate on the subject. If you enjoy and want to spend your money on comic book art, that's great. If you believe it's fine art and will be accepted by a majority of art collectors, I sort of doubt it, but hey, I certainly could be wrong.

 

Two main points:

 

1) Comic art was done for one purpose: story telling. There's no deeper meaning in a Rhino/Spidey cover. Thus, illustration art that seems to have transcended into fine art (think Rockwell) did so because it captured some truism about humanity. What seperates much of fine art is the message the artist was trying to convey or what the artwork captured. I'm sorry, but no piece of comic book work can really put claim to that, nor can the artist really state that was their intent. That's why I don't believe the majority of people are ever going to accept the work as "fine art". Same for Alex Ross. The paintings Ross does are nice to look at, but they are really devoid of much else other than a means to an end to tell a story. There's no deeper thought, no commentary on a particular subject.

 

2) The fine art that does not have some human commentary is far more technically brilliant than any piece of comic book art. Romita, Ditko, Kirby are all artists who were rushing to meet deadlines, not trying to put out some fine piece of work they could labor over on a non definite deadline. Look at the brilliance of many painters compared to the remarkly mediocre work by most comic book artists in comparison. Sorry, they draw nice, but nothing compared to many of the works that we see in museums.

 

Look, this is not to denegrate comic art. It is what it is. And it should be enjoyed for what it is. Why feel the need to raise it into some other artform? Why not love it for everything it is? The whole problem is that there is obviously always going to be some subjective element in art evaluation, but I'm wondering what objective qualities that go into comic book art those defenders of comic art as fine art believe the two share?

[scourge456789-migration]

While not necessarily 'fine art' there is little doubt Ancient Greek pottery, Roman sculpture or Byzantine relics are priceless and tell us something unique about the psychology of man in the era of the arts creation. Similarly, Original art is priceless and worthy of 'fine art' status because it tells us something unique about man's psychology in the 20th century. Comparing an ASM 41 Cover to Dali when they are different expressions of art (which is artistically more worthy a Greek Urn or a Lalique water glass) or narrowing definitions of fine art to be constrictive so that if there was 'a purpose' behind the arts creation seems very suspect. I am an original art collector and it seems a lot of animosity is being directed on this forum at OA because of krazykat, or jealousy, or something else ? Needless to say, disparaging the art is tacitly insulting to the relevance of comic OA and its collectors, imho.

[delekkerste]

, Original art is priceless and worthy of 'fine art' status because it tells us something unique about man's psychology in the 20th century.

 

...

 

I am an original art collector and it seems a lot of animosity is being directed on this forum at OA because of krazykat, or jealousy, or something else ? Needless to say, disparaging the art is tacitly insulting to the relevance of comic OA and its collectors, imho.

 

If we are going to call comic book OA "fine art", what else is fine art and what isn't fine art? What about magazine/book illustrations? Advertising art? Pin-up art? Paperback book cover art? Airbrushed van art? Food packaging art? Tattoo art? Pulp illustrations? Dorm room poster art? Isn't it the sad truth that many of the above types of art are closer to fine art than comic book OA?

 

There seems to be an inherent insecurity among comic book OA collectors that they feel the need to elevate comic book OA into something that it's not. I think there is, on some level, the need to have high $ values and the "fine art" tag attached to the hobby so it is not stigmatized as "kiddie stuff" by non-comic book fans. I also think that since the OA world is such a small pond that a lot of people are able to make a splash in it that they could never dream of doing in the real fine art world, and so they want to believe that they are a part of something serious and worthy of scholarly analysis and debate. They start mumbling something about linework this and brushwork that when, in reality, it's really just the love of the stories, characters and nostalgia that makes most pieces worth what they're worth. I mean, hey, Frank Miller's Daredevil run is probably my favorite comic book run of all-time, but I'm not going to try and convince anyone that Miller's art is anything beyond good storytelling in the comics medium. It certainly doesn't belong in the MoMA anymore than should the original drawing of the Jolly Green Giant from a package of frozen green beans.

 

Why can't we just enjoy comic art for what it is? Let's not claim that comic book artists can paint every bit as well as the top fine artists in history (but they simply choose to work in pen & ink), as one misguided Comicart-L zombie suggested earlier this year. It is a niche segment of the art world, more dependent on nostalgia than anything else. Beware of the pump & dumpsters out there who'll try to convince you that "one of a kind" justifies paying stupid money for art. Many things that are one-of-a-kind don't sell for that much because they're not worth that much and many things that aren't one-of-a-kind sell for a ton of money because there is a ton of demand relative to supply. Let's not forget that.

[Foolkiller]

What exactly does it tell us about the psychology of man? sure, it gives some minor insight into what children's tastes were. But so do toys and a multitude of other things.

 

There's no animosity directed towards OA by me. I love OA. But it's comic book illustration and I enjoy it for what it is, not trying to pump into something it's not.

 

I actually like KK. I don't always agree with him, but I think he adds something very unique to the forum.

[westform]

I for one, have been quite vocal over the years about NOT needing to elevate comic art to 'fine' art status. I'm quite happy collecting comic art for what it is.... frankly, I don't see the need for the comparison. But, some collectors do. I think that without the stories, the characters, and the nostalgia there is no context for enjoyment... But, thank God we have the stories, characters and nostalgia! Makes life somewhat more enjoyable to me in a way that so called 'fine art' does not. While I'm thanking,.. thank God for Stan the Man and Jack the King! Our mental states would be quite different today had they never been. If Picasso had never lived, nothing in my life would be any different now. Comic art is not the same as 'fine' art, it is Better! Imperious Rex!

[delekkerste]

Hey, I'm with you, man! Comics have added a lot to my life...I love the stories, the art, the characters, etc. If they had never been, my life and a lot of others would be poorer for it. Best to just enjoy it and let others tilt at windmills...

[Bronty]

Amen!

[Kermit the frog]

to better have a more oriented/conclusive conversation/communication, it would be wise to start by replying to the simple question:

 

What's fine art?! What defines it?!

 

then we can try to move one a little bit

 

regards

[Kermit the frog]

What exactly does it tell us about the psychology of man? sure, it gives some minor insight into what children's tastes were. But so do toys and a multitude of other things.

 

There's no animosity directed towards OA by me. I love OA. But it's comic book illustration and I enjoy it for what it is, not trying to pump into something it's not.

 

I actually like KK. I don't always agree with him, but I think he adds something very unique to the forum.

 

Your opinion/view of the subject is an itneresting one, but imho a rather reducionist too.

 

what can comic art present/provide to the attentive eye/mind rather than just "a minor insight into children's taste"?!

 

man i feel i can write a theses about social psychology and comics as an answer to your comments...

 

i understand your position of "comics OA isn't fine art because it doesn't has a message" (even if it's hard to accept, ), maybe a clear one in your therms, but if you look a little bit into it, you'll find thousands of them...

 

Comics are imho, like every other artefact produced by man to communicate/interact, an antropological/social and psychological tool to better understand/comprehend each time period, each social event or simply (in this case) a country's society/history (and therefore the way it influences/influenciated other societies/countrys).

 

In an era where human rights were fought by the black american society to conquer their righteous place in the american social tissue: FF 52.

The mouvement of the black panthers.

 

The introduction of a new plague in the teens: AMS and Green Arrow/Green Lantern drug issues/storys.

 

The changing of a family classical status, the breaking of the perfect couple with 2 blonde childrens. The wife who waits at home cooking/cleaning for his husband returns: FF where the roles/social patterns are changed!!!

 

The differences between what's normal and what's abberant, disformed, outcast to society: FF 51

 

Pick up the premisses of the hulk character and some Jung/Freud books and you'll have plenty of thinking/reading to do.

 

Artistically?! Techniques?!

Andy Warhlo and Steranko.

You can either like or dislike, but...Kirby...Frazetta...Bernie W...and many others. these fellas did some extraordinaire work.

 

of course you can pick up the argument of quantaty vs quality, but comics and art can be different tools (or not) with different financial/artistic goals.

 

Imho both are valid to be considered forms of art, they are different, sometimes yes, but they are both forms of art.

 

regards

 

ps- you can also use comics OA to understand the mechanical ways to produce/print paper, the way paper was produced, it's economical impact, etc... but that's another part of the cake.

[Foolkiller]

Yes, they are both art.

[Aman619]

In an era where human rights were fought by the black american society to conquer their righteous place in the american social tissue: FF 52.

The mouvement of the black panthers.

 

i HOPE YOURE not actually saying the Black Panthers took their name from the FF character... are you???

 

From Wickipedia:

 

Origin of the name

 

SNCC (The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) workers, including Stokely Carmichael were working to register voters in Lowndes county, Alabama. Following the success of the Mississippi Freedom Party, the organizers worked to create the Lowndes County Freedom Organization as an independent party. Alabama law required that all parties have a visual emblem for illiterate voters. Courtland Cox contacted a designer in Atlanta for a design. The designer originally came back with a dove, but the SNCC organizers in Lowndes thought it was too gentle, so the designer suggested the black panther, the mascot of Clark College in Atlanta. The Lowndes County Freedom Organization became the Black Panther party, and soon there were Black Panther parties coming up around the nation. Many were unconnected with the SNCC, and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was not officially connected to any of the other parties or to SNCC.

[*paull*]

The problem of classifying comic art with the work of fine art masters is that comic book OA was not intended to be the final piece for display. It's only an early (albeit main) piece of the puzzle. Obviously the coloring, editing, paste-ups, etc. are missing.

 

If you asked Romita, Steranko, Adams, Wrightson, etc. to produce gallery/museum quality work, do you think they would have left the work with white-out, fingerprints, tears and smudges? Hell no! Obviously they would have done something that was more presentation worthy. Ink on bristol board is for the most part is production art. None of these artists were intending this work to be displayed as it was.

 

The work that these artists did as finished presentation art could, in my opinion, be classified as fine art, not the stacks of bristol that they produced as work-for-hire artists as part of a production line.

[Aman619]

I object to the hardsell tactics used here to convince us that OA is 'fine art'. But I dont have a problem blurring the lines between the two. Quite a few comics artists were very talented guys who created many very tasty and tasteful pieces of work. Of course they did it for a dime, and on deadline... so 'intent-wise' they were worlds apart fron the so-called 'real' artists thru history. But many of those jobs were created from the heart REGARDLESS of the paycheck and deadlines that commissioned them.

 

So, yeah, I think a few artists and a number of comics-related works of art ARE 'fine art'.

 

But, isnt this whole discussion missing the point? The point the pro- "comics as fine art" people are REALLY making is that their pieces are EQUAL in quality so that they will be equal in VALUE! They only care for the end result of wide public acceptance of comics OA - - that end of course being BIG MONEY.

 

They think the key to that BIG MONEY is to seek acceptance as fine art. Isnt it obvious that If the key to that money were something else, theyd be trying to prove that instead??

 

I think so.

[scourge456789-migration]

The definition of fine art is continually evolving. I think too many here are biased in their understanding of what qualifies as fine art. If one goes to the Guggenheim one would see many, many, many abstract pieces that are simple that are deemed fine art (I site this only because someone posted the ASM 41 Cover and compared it to a Dali -- I could easily have compared the ASM 41 Cover to much minimalist art).

 

I base my belief that Original Art qualifies as 'fine art' on the fact that the deeper meaning of the images presented chronicle man's pathology and anthropological under-pinnings in a unique, new way that is a 'break-through' on how man defines himself - similar to Monet, Picasso, Degas, Van Gogh. Also, I do not believe the fact that the work was commisioned detracts from categorizing the work as art. Were not Rembrandt and Michelangelo commissioned ? Also, the fact that the comic is the 'end product' of the art similarly doesnt lead me to reason that OA is not art - I honestly find such reasoning to be constrictive, dated and flawed.

 

Someone here said the art cant be taken seriously because it is really mere 'men in tights'. I find this rationale off-base and incomprehensible. Why is any particular topic 'juvenile' ? It seems perhaps that such critics have their own 'issues' that need working out because in true art --- NO TOPIC IS OFF LIMITS. I believe the relationship between 'Childhood' & 'Art' is a valid topic for art that probably will be seriously examined in the coming years. Such a study undeniably must focus on comic art. This is one of the chief reasons why I believe OA is relevant to the fine art canon. And yes, I do believe Original Comic Art will continue to rise in value as its meaning becomes not understood but perhaps approached as a valid and wholly unique expression of Man.

[scourge456789-migration]

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/11/26/business/12700735&sec=business

[Aman619]

The definition of fine art is continually evolving. I think too many here are biased in their understanding of what qualifies as fine art. If one goes to the Guggenheim one would see many, many, many abstract pieces that are non-complex that are deemed fine art. I base my belief that Original Art qualifies as 'fine art' on the fact that the deeper meaning of the images presented chronicle man's pathology and anthropological under-pinnings in a unique, new way that is a 'break-through' on how man defines himself - similar to Monet, Picasso, Degas, Van Gogh. Someone hre said the art cant be taken seriously because it is really mere 'men in tights'. I find this rationale off-base and incomprehensible. Why is any particular topic 'juvenile' ? It seems perhaps that such critics have their own 'issues' that need working out because in true art --- NO TOPIC IS OFF LIMITS. I believe the relationship between 'Childhood' & 'Art' is a valid topic for art that probably will be seriously examined in the coming years. Such a study undeniably must focus on comic art. This is one of the chief reasons why I believe OA is relevant to the fine art canon. And yes, I do believe Original Comic Art will continue to rise in value as its meaning becomes not understood but perhaps approached as a valid and wholly unique expression of Man.

 

they are considered juvenile for the simple reason that they were created for sale and interest of children! Today, Comics are no longer made for kids, but for most of the industry's existence they were... ANy acceptance outside of the ghetto comics have been in will have to overcome 60 years of ostracism. But keep in mind that for most of that time, the industry itself wasnt even TRYING to be considered 'fine art'. When Stan Lee called them 'Pop Art Productions, it was just a short term marketing gimmick. Its only lately that there is a 'push' for acceptance.

 

 

also, as to your definition of fine art, its like porno as seen by the Supreme Court: you know it when you see it.

[shrunkenhead]

 

But, isnt this whole discussion missing the point? The point the pro- "comics as fine art" people are REALLY making is that their pieces are EQUAL in quality so that they will be equal in VALUE! They only care for the end result of wide public acceptance of comics OA - - that end of course being BIG MONEY.

 

They think the key to that BIG MONEY is to seek acceptance as fine art. Isnt it obvious that If the key to that money were something else, theyd be trying to prove that instead??

 

I think so.

 

Absolutely spot-on. If the most vocal proponents of this "comic art as fine art" theory were led to believe that the best way to pad their bank accounts was to make sure that comic art was NEVER considered "fine," then they'd do a 180. It's hilarious that some folks are banging this drum so loudly, so eager to be included in a category that they also acknowledge knowing nothing about.

 

I'd love to see someone from the boards go to the louvre, make an appointment with the curator, and try to make this argument with a copy of heritage's auction archives in hand as "evidence." You couldn't get security called any faster if you walked in naked and proceeded to smear your body with peanut butter.

[Aman619]

yeah, but thats mostly cause he's French!!!

[scourge456789-migration]

 

But, isnt this whole discussion missing the point? The point the pro- "comics as fine art" people are REALLY making is that their pieces are EQUAL in quality so that they will be equal in VALUE! They only care for the end result of wide public acceptance of comics OA - - that end of course being BIG MONEY.

 

They think the key to that BIG MONEY is to seek acceptance as fine art. Isnt it obvious that If the key to that money were something else, theyd be trying to prove that instead??

 

I think so.

 

Absolutely spot-on. If the most vocal proponents of this "comic art as fine art" theory were led to believe that the best way to pad their bank accounts was to make sure that comic art was NEVER considered "fine," then they'd do a 180. It's hilarious that some folks are banging this drum so loudly, so eager to be included in a category that they also acknolwedge knowing nothing about.

 

I'd love to see someone from the boards go to the louvre, make an appointment with the curator, and try to make this argument with a copy of heritage's auction archives in hand as "evidence." You couldn't get security called any faster if you walked in naked and proceeded to smear your body with peanut butter.

 

My motivations are not economic. I could just as easily say your motivations are premised on the fact that OA is over-taking comics and thus comic collectors are upset and jealous. This type of argumentation doesnt serve anyones interest but merely promotes bad blood between two independent collecting interests.

 

The fact that I believe Original Art holds a relevant place in the art canon is simply my understanding of art history and comic art. I am not attempting to vindicate my position for any reason other than that it seems apparent that many of the comic collectors here hold a animosity towards comic art and are thus biased from perceiving that perhaps OA will in the future be deemed relevant as a unique and relevant artisitic expession of man.

 

I am somewhat amazed how many comic collectors are now coming onto the OA forum and declaring the topic of super-heroes to not be worthy subject matter for 'True' art status. That seems very strange to me. I find mankind's expression and creation of super-heroe's and SciFi creatures to be extremely worthwhile topics for analytical discussion. It seems to me perhaps many here are ashamed, embarrassed of their childhood ? ? ? And for a comic message board I find that particular thought very nauseating but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am willing to bet art critics and art historians will be alot kinder than many of you comic collector's.

 

I do admit, I am somewhat amused by the irony that comic collectors are so quick to dismiss the significance of their favourite childhood heroes. Perhaps, this paradox speaks volumes about how traumatic an experience childhood is.