"Learning from Comics"...
Semi Anne
...that's the title of the review by Frances Colpitt
of the show, "Splat, Boom, Pow" which had its debut
at the CAM in Houston, Texas recently. See "Art in America"
for October, 2003. It's no secret that comics have
long ago found a place in the "fine arts" - most
famously in the works of Roy Lichtenstein.
Unfortunately, the show did not include one of the
finest and most intellectual of comic artists working today,
Chris Ware. And that's unfortunate, considering that
Ware is a product of the University of Texas at
Austin fine arts program.
Frances Colpitt is an often-published reviewer of
various art venues who recently was appointed chair
of the Dept of Art and Art History at UT San Antonio.
palmer.william
"Semi Anne" <a...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3f74...@news.zianet.com...
>
> ...that's the title of the review by Frances Colpitt
> of the show, "Splat, Boom, Pow" which had its debut
> at the CAM in Houston, Texas recently. See "Art in America"
> for October, 2003. It's no secret that comics have
> long ago found a place in the "fine arts" - most
> famously in the works of Roy Lichtenstein.
This situation has interested me for a long time.
The work of Lichtenstein is very worthwhile, and in
fact I have a reproduction of one his pictures on a
wall in my home. However, my own angle is that
there were (and perhaps are) working comic book
illustrators who were great illustrators in their own
right. I have seen many comic panels that I would
like to have blown up repros. of to hang on a wall.
These might be pictures from science fiction,
werid, crime, and romance comics.
And it does seem to me that some comic
book illustrators were artists of great genius.
For instance, Graham Ingels, the renowned EC
Comics horror illustrator, was, in my view, to
art what Poe and Lovecraft are to weird
literature. In some ways, Ingels can be said
to be a legitimate heir to Dore and Alberto
Martini and other "fine art" illustrators of the
weird. But will someone whose significant
work is found in the illustration of horrific
comic book stories ever be widely recognized
as a truly great artist? Right now, that doesn't
seem to likely. After all, even the great illustrator
Alberto Martini is scarcely a household word,
Anyway, getting back to the main point, I do not
mean to suggest that the only authentic comic
art has been done in the weird field. There are,
for instance, many "romance" comics and "crime"
comics from the 1950's which contain panels,
I would argue, fully as interesting as any
Lichtenstein picuture (and which actually
influenced Lichtenstein).
I think part of what I am getting at is that for the
authentic artists, the art sort of takes over and
emerges, whatever medium they are working in.
Ingels, basically, was hacking out a living doing comic
stories. Yet, in the course of doing that, certain
forces deep within him took over and led him
to produce truly terrifying, genuinely nightmarish
art. (If you are interested in terrifying art, I
would recommend Ingel's "Horror We? How's
Bayou?" and "Ooze in the Cellar?" as
interesting examples for study. You can find
them in comic book stores with EC reprints.)
If you don't like weird art, then stay away from
them. They will scare the hell out of you.
Semi Anne
palmer....@sbcglobal.net says...
>I think part of what I am getting at is that for the
>authentic artists, the art sort of takes over and
>emerges, whatever medium they are working in.
That's a given - and
only Mani Deli would argue with you about it.
I am not a cartoonist and really haven't had much
of a chance to really get to know one, but I'd
guess that most who earn their living at it don't
much care if it's seen as art. I'd guess they are
more interested in entertainment - and the subtle
instillation of 'ideas' through their comic strips.
For example: political cartoons.
Looking at web sites that pop up when I type "Chris Ware"
into Google, I find web sites by fans of his who
have framed his published comics and are bartering
on the web for other stuff of his they don't have. So there
is a "cult of collectors" for comic strips, just as
there is for every other imaginable thing.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <pxjdb.3876$8s4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> palmer....@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>
>>I think part of what I am getting at is that for the
>>authentic artists, the art sort of takes over and
>>emerges, whatever medium they are working in.
>
>
> That's a given - and
> only Mani Deli would argue with you about it.
>
> I am not a cartoonist and really haven't had much
> of a chance to really get to know one, but I'd
> guess that most who earn their living at it don't
> much care if it's seen as art. I'd guess they are
> more interested in entertainment - and the subtle
> instillation of 'ideas' through their comic strips.
> For example: political cartoons.
I've been around quite a few cartoonists over the years, and I must say
their is a strong anti-artist crowd. Dan O'Neil told me on more than
one occassion how much he despises artists. The last time was when I
was trying to set-up a visiting lectureship for him at UC Davis art,
working through Wayne Thiebaud (who is a strong cartoonist advocate.)
The sentiment was best expressed in one of R. Crumb's splash panels on
the back of one of the early Zap Comix: "Don't listen to this Guy!" and
a bold arrow points to a stereotypical artist standing on an Ivory
Tower, "Anyone can draw!" It was very funny. On the other hand, Spain
Rodreguez' work is full of art history references. I think he had one
story about the Venus of Wallendorf attacking civilization or something.
>
> Looking at web sites that pop up when I type "Chris Ware"
> into Google, I find web sites by fans of his who
> have framed his published comics and are bartering
> on the web for other stuff of his they don't have. So there
> is a "cult of collectors" for comic strips, just as
> there is for every other imaginable thing.
Chris Ware is really hot, just as you say. Very beautiful work. But
there's always a Maginot line that Comix can't cross and remain Comix.
But no one really knows where it is.
Erik
>
>
>
Mani Deli
>In article <pxjdb.3876$8s4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>palmer....@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>>I think part of what I am getting at is that for the
>>authentic artists, the art sort of takes over and
>>emerges, whatever medium they are working in.
>
>That's a given - and
>only Mani Deli would argue with you about it.
Yes the statement means nothing and is in a category I consider art
school double talk.
All Lichtenstein ever did was color in comic blowups. This gave
critics orgasms as they thought is was super original. The only thing
I found duller was Warhol's stupid soup cans.
You will note that Artzy fartzy "originality" fans rarely address this
crap.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
palmer.william
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:m1kenvscg35kqbkm7...@4ax.com...
Well, Mani, perhaps my language was imprecise,
but I think I was at least touching on something
significant. Let's move over to photography for
a moment. Consider Atget, who is regarded
almost universally nowadays as a great
photographic artist. Yet, when he was doing
his major work--which was mainly what today
would be called "commercial photography"
(only more for public records of buildings and
so on, than for selling), the "real artists" of
photography (the ones who put on the airs
of fine artists) were taking photographs that
were intended to look like the same sort of
lanscapes that Academy painters painted.
Nowdays, most of those pictorialist photograhphers
of Atget's day are considered very dull, while
"commericial artist" Atget's work would seem
to become more interesting to each new generation.
It is like I said, Mani, the art just sort of takes
over. I maintain that much the same thing
happened with "comic book horror hack"
Graham Ingels. The artist inside him could
not be contained....