vs. 
Me: Mommy, mommy, Scott McCloud called me stupid.
Mom: Did you call him a name first?
Me: No. All I did is express doubt that comics are "art."
McCloud: You're stupid! There are those who ask the question, "can comics be art?" It's a really STUPID question!
Of course, in order to go along with Scott McCloud on his string of theories at the beginning of Chapter 7, one has to agree that art is anything that doesn't help in either eating or making babies. Unfortunately, I don't agree.
If I draw a stick figure, it doesn't aid me in either one of these pursuits. But is it art? No way!
I think there has to be some level of talent to be taken into consideration.
Of course, comic artists are extremely talented and I'm quite sure that I could never do what they do. But is it on the same level as, let's say, the Mona Lisa?
I say no. Maybe comics are art, but all art is not created equal.
2 comments:
I disagree. I think "art" shouldn't be a qualitative value. I'm OK with a hierarchy of some sort; obviously Starry Night is somewhere above porno on the art scale. But I'm cool with McCloud's definition of art. Art itself is neutral - you have to add modifiers like "good" or "bad" for it to be otherwise.
What would you call these things that are "not art"? For example, if a 6 year-old is incapable of writing a good short story but he tries his best and creates something he put his heart into, do you tell him that what he just did is something which is not art because it's too immature or undeveloped? No, it's still art, it's just not "high art." Same with even the lowliest comic book.
pat brings to light an interesting question, which is how good would starry night porn be?
would it just be all blurry?
Post a Comment