Comics = Art?

[thegreensquid]

everybody is an artist tho, they just express themselves in a different way, some people actually don't bother sharing due not havin' the convidence to do so...

Did I narrow down a list of skills one could be pursuing? No. Which means that just about anything could be included. People who can program for instance. Each and every programmer is trying to perfect their craft of programming. They represent who they are by programming what they want, be it videogames or anti-virus software. It could be just about any skill. Whether or not people have the confidence to share their pictures or whatever, doesn't mean it isn't an art. Degas used to make sculptures out of wax and then melt them and start again just for the hell of it. Sharing something doesn't make it art.

[apsyse]

i hate to burst everyones' bubbles, but i don't really think it matters if comics "art" can be considered art at all. it's sort of like categorizing for no reason other than categorizing. if you like the comics then lucky you. if you don't then you won't look at them unless you're pondering their inferiority to paint thrown on canvas or somesuch.

on the other hand, if for some reason you find the categorization intriguing then you'd probably have to define art as ananth said. and as he also said, that's just not happening. dictionaries can't even agree with their multiple definitions and it's probably best not to worry too much about it.

if you really want to dig yourself a nice, deep hole, you can always contemplate this statement: " . . . comics are one of the highest forms of art . . . "

wow, that's a hefty claim (or opinion, even). what if you grab two comics and compare the two? are they both of the highest form of some nebulous concept of art? story and personal connection certainly count, as do drawing, inking and coloring styles. let's say you grab sketches of the comics in question. are those as equally high art as the finished comics themselves? end conclusion, it's not very practical to label one branch of "art" as a highest since that would be generalizing in an inaccurate fashion and works of art should be compared on an individual basis.

[thegreensquid]

i hate to burst everyones' bubbles, but i don't really think it matters if comics "art" can be considered art at all. it's sort of like categorizing for no reason other than categorizing. if you like the comics then lucky you. if you don't then you won't look at them unless you're pondering their inferiority to paint thrown on canvas or somesuch.

Arrogant and presumptous to assume that there is a bubble to burst. If a discussion doesn't matter because it has no real world application or eventual "winner" then ALL of the topics on this forum "don't matter." This entire discussion is exclusivly opinion.

on the other hand, if for some reason you find the categorization intriguing then you'd probably have to define art as ananth said. and as he also said, that's just not happening. dictionaries can't even agree with their multiple definitions and it's probably best not to worry too much about it. This is all just rhetoric.

That's where the discussion was going. Skimming is bad.

if you really want to dig yourself a nice, deep hole, you can always contemplate this statement: " . . . comics are one of the highest forms of art . . . "

wow, that's a hefty claim (or opinion, even). what if you grab two comics and compare the two? are they both of the highest form of some nebulous concept of art? story and personal connection certainly count, as do drawing, inking and coloring styles. let's say you grab sketches of the comics in question. are those as equally high art as the finished comics themselves? end conclusion, it's not very practical to label one branch of "art" as a highest since that would be generalizing in an inaccurate fashion and works of art should be compared on an individual basis.

That was a generalized opinion, and attempting to refute it is asinine. How do I know it's his opinion? He was the one that said it and there is no way to prove or disprove which form of art is the greatest. Besides I'm willing to bet he was referring to it as a genre not each comic individually. This is far different than saying each comic is the greatest form of art. It's similar to saying "Sci Fi is the greatest genre of them all" that doesn't mean that all Sci Fi movies are the greates movies of all. It means that the genre in which those movies exist is the greatest of them all.  I agree that each bit of art should be judged individually, but each person has their own prefrences for certain genres. I personally hate "modern art" as a whole, but I accept the possibility that there are some modern art pieces that I do like.

[Rudeboy]

Did I narrow down a list of skills one could be pursuing? No. Which means that just about anything could be included. People who can program for instance. Each and every programmer is trying to perfect their craft of programming. They represent who they are by programming what they want, be it videogames or anti-virus software. It could be just about any skill. Whether or not people have the confidence to share their pictures or whatever, doesn't mean it isn't an art. Degas used to make sculptures out of wax and then melt them and start again just for the hell of it. Sharing something doesn't make it art.

Different things apply to different people, you might happen to like van Gogh and I might hate his stuff. If others wouldn't praise it as art then it will simply not be called art, tho it is to that person.

And I actually can understand the example of programming, making huge projects gives more fulfilment, to me it might be a masterpiece to some it's just a stupid line of code.

This is probably what Ananth ment with defining art, for different people it has a different meaning. I just feel that art is just more then pictures that hang in a museum.

[ananth]

i hate to burst everyones' bubbles, but i don't really think it matters if comics "art" can be considered art at all.

I don't think I can be as vehement as thegreensquid because I don't care as much, but I think you're wrong.

Financially speaking, being considered "art" open a lot of doors, especially if you're good. If comics were considered "art", you could get art scholarships to study comics. If they were considered "art", then you might be able to get in gallery time somewhere, which is fantastic for exposure. And more exposure = more money, which means that said comics artist can go on making a living doing what they love. Let's face it, comics are wonderful, but they don't always pay the bills.

In that sense, comics art being considered "art" would make a world of difference.

[Firewalker]

You know, when you're in film school, you CAN get a scholarship based on sequential art design, why? Because of storyboards. I know someone who works for Frantic Films here in my home town, they said that if I wanted to get a job there, as an artist, I should have some sequential art experience, which means, in a more layman's term, I should be able to draw comics...

Comics are considered a form of Visual Art, this is undeniable, but to define art as a whole, you'd be stumbling into a philisophical quagmire (no not the guy from family guy ). My personal view of art is something creative that has been made into a concrete form, and by concrete form I mean something you can hear, see, taste, smell and/or touch. Now, the elitists will try to convince you that you have to have some form of talent behind the creation before it can be considered art, but that's not the case, just as a 5 year old's painting is stuck on their mother's fridge, it can be admired for being creatively produced...

That's just my $0.02

[Rudeboy]

I don't think I can be as vehement as thegreensquid because I don't care as much, but I think you're wrong.

Financially speaking, being considered "art" open a lot of doors, especially if you're good. If comics were considered "art", you could get art scholarships to study comics. If they were considered "art", then you might be able to get in gallery time somewhere, which is fantastic for exposure. And more exposure = more money, which means that said comics artist can go on making a living doing what they love. Let's face it, comics are wonderful, but they don't always pay the bills.

In that sense, comics art being considered "art" would make a world of difference.

So in what you are saying, art is all about the money? ghehe... cause then I'm totally not agreeing with you

Besides, scholarships is a typical american thing... if you are good at sports in holland, then tough cookie... you are still getting the same treatment as a computerg33k

[ananth]

So in what you are saying, art is all about the money? ghehe... cause then I'm totally not agreeing with you

I'm by no means saying that. But for many people, art is not about the money - so much so that they're willing to make near-to-no money. I think that's the wrong way to look at it. It's a mentality that encourages the concept of the starving artist, and furthermore encourages the idea that artists shouldn't get paid for their work. Why should artists have to starve?

I just don't like the idea of the starving artist. Artists need to not only be good, but also market themselves properly. Again, the starving artist mentality encourages the "*sigh* one day I'll get discovered, I just know it!" thought process. The point is, these people are good. Their skills, especially in this day and age (with the film and video game industries raking in billions of dollars) are well in demand.

So I guess to answer you more properly ... no, it's not all about the money. But it's not all about starving for your art either. There's an in-between, and that's where you make your living.

Truthfully, if someone was doing art all for the money, then chances are the stuff they're churning out is god awful recycled rhetoric and cliches, since they'll just be tapping everything that popular culture wants. And when you tap what everyone else wants, you're putting none of yourself/your experiences into your work. The result is probably going to be very 'flat' and very boring.

I don't want anyone to get ahead and think that this means we're trying to do Applegeeks to make a living. Nope. It's a hobby, and it's fun. Not all art has to be done for money - my point is that all artists shouldn't have to starve either.

[Firewalker]

I barely eeked out a living as a graphic artist in the freelance world, it's impossible to ever make a living doing just art and being fair as well. Seriously, you could take advantage of the less savvy folks and charge $100/hour on a 10 hour piece, but that wouldn't be right unless you were well known. Now this also creates the problem of artist fame that perpetuates the starving artist thing as well... It's all fine and dandy to live off your art, but not everyone can do this, and no one should ever expect to do this.

I'm, by all means, not even close to being at hawk's level, yet I've made money on my art because I was offered it... Hell, if you're gonna offer to pay me for a drawing, I'm not one to turn down money I need. I do free art all the time, but as it is, time is money, not so much the art... I like to get paid for time spent not working on websites, which are my main cash cow, but I'm not about to turn down something that sounds fun...

It's a matter of judgement when it comes to money and art, you really can't be expecting to make it as a full time artist unless you're someone like Frank Frezzatta, Boris Vallejo, Craig Mullins, Feng Zhu, etc. And that takes a lot of time, practice and effort. And even these guys are working their assess off with 16+ hour days, many of them working harder than the average person should ever have to... I wouldn't expect them not to be making money on efforts such as that, but when you sit back and draw misproportioned, anatomically incorrect, pseudo-anime drawings for your "web manga" and expect to start raking in the cash, you really need to wake up... That's more of a hobby/fun thing to do than a way to make a living, and it's people who expect to rake in the cash using this kind of art that seriously bother me...

Applegeeks with their great artwork, awesome stories, and wonderful crew might make money, but I seriously doubt it'd be enough to support the living expenses for all of you, but it would help pay for the nescessities I would imagine... Hell, it's the least anyone can do for these -FREE- comics, I am all about giving money for the time spent for my enjoyment, but no one should ever expect it...

pah, I've rambled enough...

[Rudeboy]

art shouldn't be about money tho, making money with it or not... I would really love to see how applegeeks started and see how happy you guys were with being noticed by the crowd...

That's what you were set out to do... I'm sure. Eveybody wants their art to get noticed

[apsyse]

squid, i'm not sure you understood what i meant on my last post. if i had meant that there was no value in discussing the intrinsic value or definition or art then wouldn't have bothered to post anything. however, i think i've bust your bubble, though not quite in the way i had in mind since i wasn't trying to invite a flame.

i was not and am not assuming that a lack of real-world application or "winner" somehow demeans all discussion here. you merely assumed that i assumed that despite my second paragraph clearly stating my intent to carry on with the discussion despite my opinion on the matter.

i don't really understand your critique of the second quote (and it think it's misquoted as well), but i don't find rhetoric to be automatically a bad thing.

pertaining to the third quote, i don't think that it's asinine to refute an opinion (considering that you refuted three of mine) or that it's arrogant to present a view that says either side of an argument has no value based upon my own opinion. clearly some opinions are not really open to debate (like, "red is my favorite color") but others are fair game. that statement wasn't meant to tell everyone on the forum to shutup, it was meant to tell anyone who read it that i feel no particular compulsion to label art.

in regards to ananth's position on comics being seen as art, i suppose that from a financial point of view it would make a difference in getting publicity, et cetera. on the other hand, whether or not it is considered art may not be the sticking point, it may just be whether universities and other academic institutions would pony up the funds and see if they could make money off of the comics industry.

there are, after all, a number of programs for people to enroll in that are springing up that people wouldn't usually consider mainstream academia. a few hacking schools i know of as well as a videogame (designer i think?) program at rensselaer polytechnic institute and i doubt that any more people deem hacking or videogame design to be as artistic as comics (web or otherwise). but that's off the beaten track. so, yeah, i guess if people choose to designate comics as art in their minds it would probably bring comics to a higher level of social conciousness which would benefit those artists.

[thegreensquid]

Did I narrow down a list of skills one could be pursuing? No. Which means that just about anything could be included. People who can program for instance. Each and every programmer is trying to perfect their craft of programming. They represent who they are by programming what they want, be it videogames or anti-virus software. It could be just about any skill. Whether or not people have the confidence to share their pictures or whatever, doesn't mean it isn't an art. Degas used to make sculptures out of wax and then melt them and start again just for the hell of it. Sharing something doesn't make it art.

Different things apply to different people, you might happen to like van Gogh and I might hate his stuff. If others wouldn't praise it as art then it will simply not be called art, tho it is to that person.

And I actually can understand the example of programming, making huge projects gives more fulfilment, to me it might be a masterpiece to some it's just a stupid line of code.

This is probably what Ananth ment with defining art, for different people it has a different meaning. I just feel that art is just more then pictures that hang in a museum.

I do agree that art can mean different things to different people. Though I'd have to say whether or not you like van gogh has nothing to do with whether or not it is art. I know Andy Warhol's stuff is art, and I understand his overall message of the flaw in mass production. That doesn't change the fact that I loathe the stuff that man made.

art shouldn't be about money tho, making money with it or not... I would really love to see how applegeeks started and see how happy you guys were with being noticed by the crowd...

I totally agree. I draw and paint because I love to. I'm pretty sure no one is saying art is about making money. I'm pretty sure ananth's point was (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that artists should make money for their art and that is why this conversation does matter.

Oh and apsyse, you didn't burst my bubble.   You had, and continue to have, an overall arrogant tone that I find irritating. I didn't spell everything out in my response to your post. I'll try to now. To me, you came in to a philisophical discussion and said, "What you two guys are talking about doesn't matter." Of course it doesn't matter. It's arrogant to assume that they don't know it doesn't matter. You're assuming people aren't just being entirely rhetorical. Rude and I will probably never agree on what exactly is art. That's not the point. The point is the exchange of ideas and philosophies. Attempting to undermine or stop that exchange is insulting, to me.

Your attempt to continue the conversation in the second paragraph came across to me as a passive aggressive way of saying the subject doesn't matter. Thus continuing what you said in the first paragraph.  This is how I interpretted it:" You'd have to define art if you were going to define comics in art and no one can agree on what art is. Not even dictionaries. It doesn't matter so why bother." I'll admit I could be entirely wrong. I'm just saying that's how it came across based on the tone of the rest of the post. If I am wrong and there was no passive agressiveness in that paragraph then I asssumed that you hadn't read the most recent posts. We were discussing the definition of art and your reply hardly continued that conversation. Saying "skimming is bad" was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were trying to carry on the conversation and not continuing your initial stance of "this discussion doesn't matter."

 I agree that some opinions are up for debate. Your opinion of my response to your post for example. To me, someone saying "This is my favorite genre" falls in to the same category as "red is my favorite color." Who knows I may be insane to think both are generalized opinions. I suppose we got our signals crossed in the way in which it was worded. To me, saying "Red is one of the best colors of them all" is the same as saying "red is my favorite color." I'm not trying to flame, I'm just trying to clear things up. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed. I'd rather not turn this discussion, which I find incredibly interesting, in to a some sort of pointless arguement between you and I. (Oh and before you say it, yes this discussion is pointless too.)

[apsyse]

on the contrary, squid, the debate (or argument) we're having is actually reflective of the argument on art. neither are pointless, they're meant to make you think and maybe even change your mind.

i am of the opinion that comics are indeed art as you also believe. we also agree that opinions are occassioanlly debatable. it is my opinion that whether comics are art does not matter from a philosophical point of view (i agree with ananth's perspective from a practical, financial viewpoint). that does not mean that the debate itself is meaningless.

for example, if a person thought that applegeeks comics were utter crap, and another person thought it was the pinnacle of comic perfection, their opinions would not matter insomuch as their own opinions are equally valid. mainly because they're opinions. this differs from another sort of debate about something such as abstract as a favorite color. if one person says his/her favorite color is red and another contradicts him/her, then we probably should not accept the latter's opinion as equally valid as the first's.

but the debate about comics and art is not as abstract as that. we have some empirical examples of art (few to none would not call the renaissance painters artists, for example) which provides us with leverage by which we can assess comics.

my tone of voice, though arrogant it was not meant to be, is irrelevant unless i was being sarcastic. what matters is what i said and whatever support i give for it. and here is where the two arguments align. on the one hand we have two people who fully agree that comics are an artform. on the other hand one of those two people (that'd be me) finds it inconsequential that people agree/disagree over something that cannot be proven one way or the other. the other person (that'd be squid) chooses to disagree on the basis that if the opinions are inconsequential then it follows that the debate in which the two opinions are embroiled in are rendered meaningless.

my rationale is as follows. debates have meaning (even the argument we have here, squid) for the simple fact that information is exchanged and that always matters. you can sit around debating the most ridiculous things you can think of, but that doesn't make them pointless because they're ridiculous. if we can agree that debates have meaning, then all we have left to decide is whether the opinions matter in said debate.

if the opinions do matter, then clearly they have validity relating directly to the topic at hand. if they do not matter then their validity is reduced to nothing. as squid states (and i agree) that art means different things to different people then it is very unlikely that people will agree on one cosmic definition of art. therefore, the debate itself has no evident conclusion, at least none that everyone will agree to. it then follows that while the debate still retains meaning, the opinions of the conclusion of the debate are inconsequential.

this isn't meant to be a rigid, logical proof so i wouldn't try to think of it that way. it's meant to detail my thought process on the thread. clearly if you disagree that debates do not automatically have intrinsic value then everything after falls apart. but assuming that you do agree with what i have said there are then two consequences.

firstly, your opinion on comics as art carries intrinsic value not in a relevant debate but as a catalyst for further debate (you'll never know until you offer a contrary position. no one ever started a debate by saying something everyone agreed with).

secondly, your opinion is only valid to yourself. this is no small statment. if your opinion applied to everyone and the debate that would mean that you were right and comics are art, period. that not being a universally-held notion it is imperative that you opinion stays an opinion. could you imagine if your opinion changed reality? how kewl.

[Hawk]

ok....

you know what...nobody in here is "arrogant" or whatever. this is suppose to be a FRIENDLY discussion. everybody in here has the freedom to state their own  opinion on the subject matter....and yes,  a lot of us might not agree with each other. BUT you still need RESPECT each other opinion.

So lets leave it like that.

thank you.

[Dark Prism]

-hands Hawk his poster bat as he leaves-

Sorry.

-as soon as he is out of site, picks up a box of Spiderman the Movie comics-

ALRIGHT, WHO WANTS SOME?!?!