Why comic OA is better than fine art 1 1

[suspense39]

On 9/10/2017 at 0:50 PM, drdroom said:

This marketplace which measures everything according to it's distance from an ideal hero pin-up is theoretically immature. The comics medium is so much greater than that.

I very much agree with what you said. This is where comic art falls into and gets stuck in the realm of collectibles, first appearance, big image of a favorite hero etc.,  doesn't have much to do with how it serves as a piece of art. Comics are so much greater than that and I think one of the places it falls short in convincing "the fine art world", or whatever you want to call it, is that the large majority of people in this hobby (at least it appears to me) have a hard time seeing past their favorite characters and books and having a more objective view of the history of the and scope of the genre. 

[Bronty]

I get that emotional and/or 'comics as (A)rt' angle to it.   But the simple fact of being part of a long running series adds tremendous value, and heroes lend themselves to that.     I suppose you could have a long running western too if the demand was there, but a Rawhide Kid, well, that's pretty much a hero in cowboy boots, right?   

Just coming out month after month, every month, adds tremendous interest and value.    Its why Marvels and DCs and Spidermans are worth a lot, and why comparatively speaking, Dells, Fiction House, and Combat Casey are not.   

That is completely separate and apart from whether Combat Casey is any good and whether the art is Art or a collectible.   It could be the best (A)rt in a comic and it would still be halfway forgotten because it isn't part of a long running series.    That's more human nature than anything, IMO.    One of the reasons Kirby and Schulz are well known is because they drew for 40-50 years.    One of the reasons Picasso is well known is because he painted for 50+ years.    There are reasons beyond that, of course.    But the value of a large overall body of work for an artist or character can't be overstated.   (sure there are lots of exceptions, but the general point is there).

Edited September 14, 2017 by Bronty

[vodou]

28 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I get that emotional and/or 'comics as (A)rt' angle to it.   But the simple fact of being part of a long running series adds tremendous value, and heroes lend themselves to that.     I suppose you could have a long running western too if the demand was there, but a Rawhide Kid, well, that's pretty much a hero in cowboy boots, right?   

Just coming out month after month, every month, adds tremendous interest and value.    Its why Marvels and DCs and Spidermans are worth a lot, and why comparatively speaking, Dells, Fiction House, and Combat Casey are not.   

That is completely separate and apart from whether Combat Casey is any good and whether the art is Art or a collectible.   It could be the best (A)rt in a comic and it would still be halfway forgotten because it isn't part of a long running series.    That's more human nature than anything, IMO.    One of the reasons Kirby and Schulz are well known is because they drew for 40-50 years.    One of the reasons Picasso is well known is because he painted for 50+ years.    There are reasons beyond that, of course.    But the value of a large overall body of work for an artist or character can't be overstated.   (sure there are lots of exceptions, but the general point is there).

Only 30-50 years after the death of comics as a physical collectible (so back to just reading virtually, for kicks) will the market tell us what is and is not most appreciated in physical comic art. First the 'best' (whatever that is) will become harder and harder to find, seemingly mysteriously, for the same money (Gresham's Law), then the prices will break out into tiers, eventually, very large multiples accruing to the new version of "A++". To think any of this will have anything to do with the criteria we use today to do this, as primarily comic book fans/collectors first and foremost...only time will tell but I'm thinking - probably not.

[ESeffinga]

I'd wager this is why you are seeing folks like Crumb, Burns, Ware, Bagge etc. with more "highbrow" exhibits at museums and galleries. When I see folks wonder why that is, and not Ditko, McFarlane, Miller, etc to the same degree, I'm left with the sense that it is because the "art establishment" sees them as telling stories of the human condition. They aren't playing with the usual narrative tropes, recycled, repackaged and reissued with new first issues, and new costumes, and new galactic space battles. And I realize it's highly reductive and oversimplified description, but you take my point.

I believe the art establishment (if there is such a thing really) sees these other creators as speaking to something more deeply personal, and using what was (and in many ways still is) a throwaway vehicle for streamlined stories, to make a buck.

At the risk of bad anaolgy... in the way that Kubrik, Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, etc. have done with film.

Kirby, Ditko, Romita et al. might prove to be the Lumiere Bros., Fritz Lang, Georges Melies of the medium, whose influence is everywhere, and showed ways the medium could be used, and sent the groundwork for all cinema.  I acknowledge a poor comparison, but I think the wider point stands.

 

[delekkerste]

7 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I'd wager this is why you are seeing folks like Crumb, Burns, Ware, Bagge etc. with more "highbrow" exhibits at museums and galleries. When I see folks wonder why that is, and not Ditko, McFarlane, Miller, etc to the same degree, I'm left with the sense that it is because the "art establishment" sees them as telling stories of the human condition. They aren't playing with the usual narrative tropes, recycled, repackaged and reissued with new first issues, and new costumes, and new galactic space battles. And I realize it's highly reductive and oversimplified description, but you take my point.

I believe the art establishment (if there is such a thing really) sees these other creators as speaking to something more deeply personal, and using what was (and in many ways still is) a throwaway vehicle for streamlined stories, to make a buck.

At the risk of bad anaolgy... in the way that Kubrik, Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, etc. have done with film.

Kirby, Ditko, Romita et al. might prove to be the Lumiere Bros., Fritz Lang, Georges Melies of the medium, whose influence is everywhere, and showed ways the medium could be used, and sent the groundwork for all cinema.  I acknowledge a poor comparison, but I think the wider point stands.

 

I think the subject matter (commercialized spandex vs. tales of the human condition) is definitely part of the issue.  But, I think an even bigger issue is what you highlighted with your film analogy - Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc. are renowned as artists/auteurs.  They worked collaboratively, but their films are viewed as the end products of their singular vision.  A similar case can be made for Crumb, Ware, Clowes, Herriman, etc. where they didn't even work much collaboratively (or at all in some cases), and where their end product is 100% viewed as the products of their singular vision.  Can the same be said of Jack Kirby (who my friend Arlen Schumer argues in his "Auteur Theory of Comics" should be considered as such) given Lee's vision/input (clearly not as much as Lee claims, but far from zero either), the embellishment of his various inkers, letterers, colorists, etc.?  Definitely debatable, and that's talking about the pre-eminent artist of spandex-clad characters that ever lived, so the arguments get weaker for almost everyone else.

As for the likes of, say, McFarlane...he is best known for his work on Spider-Man, of course.  But, he didn't create Spider-Man, and he wasn't even the writer on many of the issues/stories for which his art is most associated with.  And, in any case, he merely added to decades of storytelling associated with the character.  Sure, he went on to create Spawn...but no one is seriously arguing that Spawn should be in the Museum of Modern Art.  Similar arguments can be applied to Miller, given his collaborations with other artists (Janson, Mazzucchelli, Sienkiewicz) working on long-established characters (e.g., Daredevil, Batman), though, his later body of work would give him more of an argument for inclusion as a true artist in the sense that museum curators can appreciate.  Not easy to explain to them the "Marvel Method" and how Kirby and Ditko were actually the driving forces behind their respective '60s output despite not having writing credit and often/usually collaborating with other artists and hands.  Not to mention, the association with a monthly commercial newsstand publication directed towards children...easier for them to swallow the auteur working on his direct sales "graphic novel" argument that more recent indie artists and critics can claim.  

Edited September 15, 2017 by delekkerste

[PhilipB2k17]

2 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I think the subject matter (commercialized spandex vs. tales of the human condition) is definitely part of the issue.  But, I think an even bigger issue is what you highlighted with your film analogy - Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc. are renowned as artists/auteurs.  They worked collaboratively, but are their films are viewed as the end products of their singular vision.  A similar case can be made for Crumb, Ware, Clowes, Herriman, etc. where they didn't even work much collaboratively (or at all in some cases), and where their end product is 100% viewed as the products of their singular vision.  Can the same be said of Jack Kirby (who my friend Arlen Schumer argues in his "Auteur Theory of Comics" should be considered as such) given Lee's vision/input (clearly not as much as Lee claims, but far from zero either), the embellishment of his various inkers, letterers, colorists, etc.?  Definitely debatable, and that's talking about the pre-eminent artist of spandex-clad characters that ever lived, so the arguments get weaker for almost everyone else.

As for the likes of, say, McFarlane...he is best known for his work on Spider-Man, of course.  But, he didn't create Spider-Man, and he wasn't even the writer on many of the issues/stories for which his art is most associated with.  And, in any case, he merely added to decades of storytelling associated with the character.  Sure, he went on to create Spawn...but no one is seriously arguing that Spawn should be in the Museum of Modern Art.  Similar arguments can be applied to Miller, given his collaborations with other artists (Janson, Mazzucchelli, Sienkiewicz) working on long-established characters (e.g., Daredevil, Batman), though, his later body of work would give him more of an argument for inclusion as a true artist in the sense that museum curators can appreciate.  Not easy to explain to them the "Marvel Method" and how Kirby and Ditko were actually the driving forces behind their respective '60s output despite not having writing credit and often/usually collaborating with other artists and hands.  Not to mention, the association with a monthly commercial newsstand publication directed towards children...easier for them to swallow the auteur working on his direct sales "graphic novel" argument that more recent indie artists and critics can claim.  

I think OA and Comic Books in general have more in common with Film than with Fine Art. Film is a collaborative medium, no matter who the director is, and how much control he or she has. You have actors, production designers, cinematographers, editors, etc. all adding something to the finished product. Imagine The Godfather without Gordon Willis' immortal cinematography, or the acting of Pacino, Brando, etc. No matter how great a job as director Coppala did on that film, it's the collaborative effort that makes it such a great film.

Comics are mostly the same way. There are some "auteurs" that do everything, such as a Stan Sakai (who pencils, inks and letters all of his books - but even he has someone else do the coloring).

But, in most cases, you have the collaboration of a writer, a penciller, an inker, a letterer, and a colorist (not to mention an editor) all making individual decisions on a collaborative product.

And even modern novel writing, which is generally thought to be a singular vision of a writer, often benefits from the hand of a talented editor. The best modern example of that is the profound effect the Editor's suggestion that Harper Lee change the focus of To Kill a Mockingbird from Atticus' perspective to Scout's.

I do agree, however, that people like Crumb are given more weight because they "do it all," as opposed to most comic book artists, who have collaborators. How do you differentiate what Kirby did vs what someone else added to it? If you're a gallery owner, how do you explain the difference between Kirby/Sinnott and Kirby/Colletta to a person who isn't versed in comic books,. or the medium? How do you sell that as a singular art piece? You'd probably de-emphasize the artists a bit, and focus more on it being a singular example of the artform. And comic book art pages have more value because of their historical contest, whereas a Crumb piece really isn't so much. Take away that contest, and you are left with the intrinsic artistic value of the page, which may mot hold up to scrutiny for future generations unfamiliar with or ignorant of the material and the context of its creation.

I find myself focusing more and more of my collecting on pages that can stand on their own as art pieces. Something a lay person, with little to no knowledge of who the characters are, or what the story is, can look at and appreciate for its own sake.

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[PhilipB2k17]

2 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I think the subject matter (commercialized spandex vs. tales of the human condition) is definitely part of the issue.  But, I think an even bigger issue is what you highlighted with your film analogy - Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc. are renowned as artists/auteurs.  They worked collaboratively, but are their films are viewed as the end products of their singular vision.  A similar case can be made for Crumb, Ware, Clowes, Herriman, etc. where they didn't even work much collaboratively (or at all in some cases), and where their end product is 100% viewed as the products of their singular vision.  Can the same be said of Jack Kirby (who my friend Arlen Schumer argues in his "Auteur Theory of Comics" should be considered as such) given Lee's vision/input (clearly not as much as Lee claims, but far from zero either), the embellishment of his various inkers, letterers, colorists, etc.?  Definitely debatable, and that's talking about the pre-eminent artist of spandex-clad characters that ever lived, so the arguments get weaker for almost everyone else.

As for the likes of, say, McFarlane...he is best known for his work on Spider-Man, of course.  But, he didn't create Spider-Man, and he wasn't even the writer on many of the issues/stories for which his art is most associated with.  And, in any case, he merely added to decades of storytelling associated with the character.  Sure, he went on to create Spawn...but no one is seriously arguing that Spawn should be in the Museum of Modern Art.  Similar arguments can be applied to Miller, given his collaborations with other artists (Janson, Mazzucchelli, Sienkiewicz) working on long-established characters (e.g., Daredevil, Batman), though, his later body of work would give him more of an argument for inclusion as a true artist in the sense that museum curators can appreciate.  Not easy to explain to them the "Marvel Method" and how Kirby and Ditko were actually the driving forces behind their respective '60s output despite not having writing credit and often/usually collaborating with other artists and hands.  Not to mention, the association with a monthly commercial newsstand publication directed towards children...easier for them to swallow the auteur working on his direct sales "graphic novel" argument that more recent indie artists and critics can claim.  

As a follow up, I don't really think the "commercial art directed at children" aspect is really that dispositive. What are Theodore Geisel original drawings and illustrations from his Dr. Seuss books going for? Not cheap, I suspect. Schultz strips are still in demand as well. And so on. Comic Art is Pop Art.

 

[delekkerste]

10 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

As a follow up, I don't really think the "commercial art directed at children" aspect is really that dispositive. What are Theodore Geisel original drawings and illustrations from his Dr. Seuss books going for? Not cheap, I suspect. Schultz strips are still in demand as well. And so on. Comic Art is Pop Art.

 

Sure, but market value is not the point.  A lot of comic art is going for big money too - every Heritage sale seems to have at least one or more pieces which outprice probably 95-98% of pieces being shown in Manhattan art galleries.  

The question is what kind of illustration art (including OA) makes it past the gatekeepers in the fine art world.  So far, not most comic art, and not Dr. Seuss. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by delekkerste

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

Sure, but market value is not the point.  A lot of comic art is going for big money too - every Heritage sale seems to have at least one or more pieces which outprice probably 95-98% of pieces being shown in Manhattan art galleries.  

The question is what kind of illustration art (including OA) makes it past the gatekeepers in the fine art world.  So far, not most comic art, and not Dr. Seuss. 

I disagree on Geisel (Seuss). He's sold and exhibited fine art galleries, and has crossed that threshold.

Edited September 15, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[ESeffinga]

56 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I disagree on Geisel (Seuss). He's sold and exhibited fine art galleries, and has crossed that threshold.

Gene can speak up as well, but I for one have never seen Seuss/Geisel exhibited in what the folks I know would consider a true high end art gallery.

There are all kinds of "art galleries" out there, but most are little more than stores for "low tier" art sales. That sounds nastier than I mean it, but most galleries wouldn't lift a finger to look at most of the work I myself have bought and collected from art gallery spaces over the years. Just because the word gallery is in the name doesn't elevate it to the sort of thing that brings out the real art cork sniffers. Most of the Seuss exhibitions I've seen have been through small local galleries (stores), little museums that cater to niche markets, and children's museums or scholarly exhibitions that show the work more for it's sociological and cultural impact than as "Art" with a capital A.

It's pop culture, not unlike comics, most movies, etc.

The Met did a show about Tim Burton a while back, but it was again mostly centered on the pop culture aspects of the work. It's another case of putting feet through the door than saying Burton is as important to art in their minds, as say Twombly or Van Gogh.

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by ESeffinga

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I disagree on Geisel (Seuss). He's sold and exhibited fine art galleries, and has crossed that threshold.

We'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "crossing that threshold".  Just because something appears in a temporary exhibition in a fine art museum does not mean that it has been accepted by critics, gallerists, curators, auction houses, collectors, etc. as "fine art".  Kirby's art has been shown in museums and even been written about in Art in America.  Few would seriously argue, however, that he has "crossed that threshold" and been widely embraced by the fine art Establishment in the way that, say, Crumb or Norman Rockwell have over the past 10-15 years.    

9 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

Gene can speak up as well, but I for one have never seen Seuss/Geisel exhibited in what the folks I know would consider a true high end art gallery.

There are all kinds of "art galleries" out there, but most are little more than stores for "low tier" art sales. That sounds nastier than I mean it, but most galleries wouldn't lift a finger to look at most of the work I myself have bought and collected from art gallery spaces over the years. Just because the word gallery is in the name doesn't elevate it to the sort of thing that brings out the real art cork sniffers. Most of the Seuss exhibitions I've seen have been through small local galleries (stores), little museums that cater to niche markets, and children's museums or scholarly exhibitions that show the work more for it's sociological and cultural impact than as "Art" with a capital A.

It's pop culture, not unlike comics, most movies, etc.

The Met did a show about Tim Burton a while back, but it was again mostly centered on the pop culture aspects of the work. It's another case of putting feet through the door than saying Burton is as important to art in their minds, as say Twombly or Van Gogh.

I think it was MoMA that did the Tim Burton show; I remember they were showing a lot of his films at the museum in conjunction with the exhibition (they do some really great film screenings there, worth checking out).  It was definitely one of those exhibitions to get feet through the door, like the widely-panned Bjork retrospective a couple of years ago.  

I recall that they also had a small exhibition about the James Bond film Goldfinger a few years ago as well.  A crowd-pleaser, sure (I enjoyed it), but no one will conflate the film with being Art with a capital A.

Edited September 15, 2017 by delekkerste

[Nexus]

For whatever it's worth:

http://www.tate.org.uk/visit/tate-britain/display/spotlights/art-ray-harryhausen

http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2017/09/harryhausen-at-tate.html

Nothing will happen overnight, but...baby steps. As with Kirby exhibits, it's a foot in the door. Perhaps only for cynical reasons (i.e. driving traffic via the Tim Burton exhibit), but it's exposure nonetheless. And, like it or not, the public perception is that the institution lends legitimacy to whatever they're hosting.

I do tend to believe that the definition of "Art" will expand over time. How and why, to be determined.

[Bronty]

2 hours ago, Nexus said:

For whatever it's worth:

I do tend to believe that the definition of "Art" will expand over time. How and why, to be determined.

Absolutely.   Art used to be oil on canvas and that was about it.   When poop and cut up sharks and the like became art, it became difficult to defend the position that other creative mediums couldn't be art.    As the various mediums used branched further and further away from simply oil on canvas to light and video installations and such, the position was weakened further and further.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

6 hours ago, Nexus said:

I do tend to believe that the definition of "Art" will expand over time. How and why, to be determined.

That is likely to be the case, but I suspect that it will be more in terms of bringing new techniques, technologies, materials and mediums under the Art umbrella (e.g., 3-D printed art) rather than co-opting things from the past.  Not that the latter hasn't occasionally been done (e.g., Norman Rockwell), but, I'd say it's infrequent enough to qualify as exceptions that prove the rule. 

Museums (both great and small) have temporary exhibitions of non-core material all the time, whether it's borrowed/traveling exhibitions like "Masters of American Comics" or showing off ephemera accumulated over the years themselves like the Jefferson Burdick collection of baseball cards periodically exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  The reasons are many - get bodies through the door, indulge a particular donor or curator's fancy, or just keeping the offerings fresh for potential museum-goers.  I'm not sure that showing off movie props or videogames at MoMA; baseball cards, comic books or superhero costumes at the Met; or Harryhausen's stop-motion animation designs and models at the Tate is really doing much to co-opt any of these into the Art with a capital A fold, though.  Might be more revolving door than baby steps forward, I'm afraid.  

[SquareChaos]

There doesn't appear to be any reason to believe that art will always grow more expansive. In fact, it seems more likely to me that it should contract and kick some of the more ridiculous items out from under it's currently very broad umbrella.

[vodou]

2 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

There doesn't appear to be any reason to believe that art will always grow more expansive. In fact, it seems more likely to me that it should contract and kick some of the more ridiculous items out from under it's currently very broad umbrella.

Interesting observation. As we're all aware, as Gene points out all the time, the 'everything' of life/interests is becoming less concentrated and more niche - but via remote access (like how we all do this chatty thing on this board now, daily, instead of meeting up locally monthly or quarterly at comic clubs or cons). On the one hand I'm seeing that libraries, supposedly, are more popular than ever. But on the other hand, the job of 'librarian' is right at the top of the 'most threatened' list by technological advancements, most likely to disappear altogether or be replaced by automation. So...museums? John Q Public...does he really have to see multiple John Singer Sargents in person at the Boston MFA or is online good enough? Does he even go there just for JSS or is it more that it's a trip to MFA and they filled a room (one of many) with JSS? So that's what John Q looks at...cuz it's what's in front of him?

Does the public even like art - in 50 years - if all (or just 90% of) the museums go away? Or do they just go because it's already there and it's something different "to do"? What happens to museums (and/or high end galleries now too) if budgets (over time) shrink by 50% "just cuz it's the economy, stupid"? I think they compress back, in a defensive posture to what Art is most widely accepted as (not comic books and baseball cards, nor the endless -and boring as hell- rooms of 'historically relevant' Revolutionary War era dining and living room settings at MFA!)

[SquareChaos]

6 hours ago, vodou said:

Interesting observation. As we're all aware, as Gene points out all the time, the 'everything' of life/interests is becoming less concentrated and more niche - but via remote access (like how we all do this chatty thing on this board now, daily, instead of meeting up locally monthly or quarterly at comic clubs or cons). On the one hand I'm seeing that libraries, supposedly, are more popular than ever. But on the other hand, the job of 'librarian' is right at the top of the 'most threatened' list by technological advancements, most likely to disappear altogether or be replaced by automation. So...museums? John Q Public...does he really have to see multiple John Singer Sargents in person at the Boston MFA or is online good enough? Does he even go there just for JSS or is it more that it's a trip to MFA and they filled a room (one of many) with JSS? So that's what John Q looks at...cuz it's what's in front of him?

Does the public even like art - in 50 years - if all (or just 90% of) the museums go away? Or do they just go because it's already there and it's something different "to do"? What happens to museums (and/or high end galleries now too) if budgets (over time) shrink by 50% "just cuz it's the economy, stupid"? I think they compress back, in a defensive posture to what Art is most widely accepted as (not comic books and baseball cards, nor the endless -and boring as hell- rooms of 'historically relevant' Revolutionary War era dining and living room settings at MFA!)

I also believe that some non-trivial amount of actual tourism will be consumed by virtual tourism. I don't think we're a great many years away from solving clunky VR hardware and interface issues while also achieving 'human-eye resolution'. There are startups and established businesses working on both items as we speak, and at that point the view and sensory experience should rival physically visiting a museum or exhibit half a world away.

[kav]

On 9/14/2017 at 11:35 AM, kav said:

I do however have one splash page.  Its a Mahnke GL splash it was just amazing so I had to have it.

 

[delekkerste]

Ad Reinhardt!  Snapped these pics at the Whitney Museum of American Art this past weekend and thought of Kav's head exploding.  

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by delekkerste

[suspense39]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

Ad Reinhardt!  Snapped these pics at the Whitney Museum of American Art this past weekend and thought of Kav's head exploding.