My Modern Metropolis

Are comic books art?

Would you consider comic books art? I'm sure can agree that there are some out there that can definitely be considered art but what about more mainstream ones like X-Men or Superman? I ask this after reading X-23 One Shot which combined traditional comic book art with some more meta art. Here's are two examples of the more untraditional art the comic book featured when dealing with one of the character's mind.

Here's my two cent, I think that comic books are very much art. I think some have more artistic value than others but in the end they are both are and literature (even if just fast food literature).

Tags: art, books, comic, x-23, x-men

Views: 298

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by stephanie on March 20, 2010 at 11:58pm
I'm not able to draw even such books and to make people laugh or smile. It's way to transmit humor feelings so it's art for me.
Permalink Reply by Martin on March 21, 2010 at 2:32am
David McKean's artwork for 'Arkham Asylum' was a revelation to me back in 1990. True art inspires us, and alters our perceptions, and I think comic books can be as good a medium as any.
Permalink Reply by Kevin on March 21, 2010 at 5:25am
Defining art can be a very tricky thing and for me it comes down to the intention. If the creator says it's art then it's art. Now whether something is good art or not is another question. As for comic books there are some amazing artist out there in this medium. Martin mentioned David McKean's work and i have to agree. I also really like David Mack's work.
Permalink Reply by Rachel Anne on March 21, 2010 at 2:50pm
Absolutely. There is some amazing artwork in comic books!
Permalink Reply by Ronald Rodriguez on March 22, 2010 at 6:02am
We may find that comics stories or illustrations are beauty and aesthetically impressive but that does not mean that it is art. Sometimes, art is terrific, depicting terrible scenes, and feelings, and not always is carrying its message in a nice package...

According to Wikipedia, art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. In that strict sense, comics are a form of art. But we better read further in Wikipedia, and at the end of the reading, we may conclude that comics are a form of applied commercial art : craft work for sure but not fine art, in any case.

As long as any kind of illustration, mass produced and for mass consumption (sales), mainly aimed for making profitable revenues is considered not to be a form of art, then comics are definitely not an art, even if they are aesthetically nice.

IMHO, comics are not fine art but a kind of applied graphic art or commercial craft.
Permalink Reply by sAm on March 22, 2010 at 11:43am
Absolutely agree with you, comic books are very much so art. The two samples you posted above are amazing!
Permalink Reply by Ronald Rodriguez on March 23, 2010 at 8:59am
yes, I completely agree that the two posted comics illustrations above are amazing. but still a good appreciation does not make of them a piece of artwork. These two images above have a commercial, an utilitarian, and an illustrative goal... therefore, they are graphic art in the sense of craft-work but not artwork in the sense of fine art.
Permalink Reply by Conor Campbell on March 23, 2010 at 5:18pm
thats an assumption

comic artists are not all fueled by commercial goals. I would say most comic-artists are doing what they love: drawing pictures and portraying a story in the unique medium of sequential art. Many of the most simple forms of comics, art that would definitely be considered "low-brow" when taken out of context, are able to pull such an empathetic response from the reader that they could not be considered anything other than true art. Take Art Spiegelman's Maus, for example. It is drawn so simply, so child-like in its depictions, that is hard to believe that it is the medium for such a serious subject as the Holocaust. But, instead of demeaning the seriousness of the event, it personalizes the story much more for the reader, letting the reader insert their own person onto the vague depictions of people( or should I say, animals) in the comic.

Comic artists enjoy the feeling of being considered "low-brow" art. They use it as a guise, a veil which covers much deeper and more complex ideas. Its subtle, but you will find characteristics of every major art movement across the comic-genre horizon. Just in the examples Jose presents, we see a highly expressionistic attitude. Dark, deeply-drawn lines used collaboratively with light-to-dark red shows an increase in passion; words aren't needed, neither are the main characters, The background's emotion and distortions are almost enough to tell what is going on in the story, if not entirely essential to push forward an idea. It screams (pardon the pun) Edvard Munch To me this is art.

And it isn't merely imitation! There is a great degree of comix avant-garde going on here too. The fact that there isn't the conventional frames to lead the reader through each page says a great deal about how much this particular artist relies on the human mind to follow the story. To advance the mind in this sort of closure, in my opinion, is something that most "artists" today are incapable of. And this is from what can be considered "mainstream" comics.

All that being said, art is subjective. A Wikipedia article is not sufficient enough to define something as personal as art. Art is what you believe art is, even if some museum curator tries to tell you otherwise.

RSS

ADVERTISEMENT

© 2013   Created by alice.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service