I know there are some really good comics, but can it actually be called art? And compared to declared art, like paintings and sculptures? Do you think one day people will look at comicks like we look at caveman wall scribbles?

"one day" i think people are already looking at them that way . rite?
anyway , i don't see how comics are any less "art" than a painting , music is art , dance is art , why the hell not comics , Xept spite comics cuz thats just internet barf

Anything is art if you really want it to be(that doesn't make it good art, obviously). And comics are a pretty neat sort of art.

Yep, they're art.

Yes.

Next question.

comics is considered to be 2d design, which falls under art. so yes.

DefaultNick
Do you think one day people will look at comicks like we look at caveman wall scribbles?

Scribbles? Those actually are comics:

Look, there's some antlope and here's some guys with spears, no wait, the guys with spears are going after the antelope and - look out, he's got one!

Ok, the plot was a bit thin in places, but they had some pretty good artwork.

The best answer I've ever seen to that question was from Stan Lee (who else?!) who answered it with a question of his own:

If you had a comic written by Shakespeare and drawn by Michaelangelo, would there be any doubt that it was art?

DAJB
If you had a comic written by Shakespeare and drawn by Michaelangelo, would there be any doubt that it was art?

I would have some reservations, since the artist died before the writer was born, but I'm sure Stan wouldn't consider that an issue!

DAJB
If you had a comic written by Shakespeare and drawn by Michaelangelo, would there be any doubt that it was art?

Poor Mikey... the poor dude would have no idea what the hell Billy was saying.

To paraphase Terry Pratchett: It's better to aim for literate that Litarture.

New Age Hemingway

DAJB
If you had a comic written by Shakespeare and drawn by Michaelangelo, would there be any doubt that it was art?

Poor Mikey... the poor dude would have no idea what the hell Billy was saying.

True. But isn't that true of most artists and writers!
;-)

Phillby
image

I'd buy that.

If it was hanging in a gallery.

DAJB
The best answer I've ever seen to that question was from Stan Lee (who else?!) who answered it with a question of his own:

If you had a comic written by Shakespeare and drawn by Michaelangelo, would there be any doubt that it was art?

That's funny. After they did the "restoration" of the Sistine Chapel in 1984 and all the colors popped, I couldn't help but think it looked like comics art. It's like a big holy splash page.

parkbenchbook
That's funny. After they did the "restoration" of the Sistine Chapel in 1984 and all the colors popped, I couldn't help but think it looked like comics art. It's like a big holy splash page.

Well it is narrative sequential art, which is what comics are. Quite a lot of (but by no means all) Western 2D art all throughout history was narrative sequential art.

According to Wikipedia, art is "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics."

By this definition, comics are a form of art, since it involves graphic representations and literature in order to tell a story.

However, not all comics INTEND to be art, like some paintings, music and movies aren't intended to be. In the other side, some critics think that Videogames should be included as art (my 3D design professor mentioned this idea several times in classes).

Also, the pop artists came along in the 60s, took comics and said this is art.

everything is art, and art is everything.

lock the thread.

i actually got into an argument that almost turned shouting match, with my drawing 3 professor in college. she told me that comics had "no artistic merit". i got her admit that they are "forms of art" but she was steadfast on saying that the audience takes nothing away with them from looking at comics. my ultimate response was that different people like different things and different different tastes for works of art.....while she may not have liked my drawings of a post apocalyptic future (which i drew in my free time, not in her class), i told her i didn't like her paintings and her subject matter didn't appeal to me or my tastes but i wouldn't say her work had no artistic merit just because i didn't like it. i when then "asked" to leave her classroom.

so, i agree with NickGuy. everything is art, and everything you see was designed by and created by an artist.

Whoever says this isn't art?

Eunice P
Whoever says this isn't art?

It's cleverly done, but I hate that guy's style...

My negative opinion doesn't invalidate its artistic merit though :)

json
she told me that comics had "no artistic merit".

she shouldn't have been teaching.
-not just for saying that about comics, rather for the idiot blanket statement.

I won't speak for Reva but I will defend comics as an art form. I'm with Nick Guy and pretty much everyone else here. So a big resounding yes.

I'm also in agreement with ozone, that's not a teacher that's an idiot.

Well I used to teach art and I regard comics as art. I regard the work I do on The Chronicles of Wyrden as having as much artistic merit as the work I do for books and roleplaying games.

One of my friends has just finished an art degree (first with honors) where her prime element of her final exhibition was comic illustration and it was damn fine as well. So I am glad that not all art teachers think alike.

Art is a creative process and in this day and age art teachers should be prepared to think outside the box. If comic art has no merit (and thats a load of rubbish IMHO) then I'd hate to think what that particular teacher thinks of some other art styles!

But there again I have a problem with art teachers;) Mine told me I would never get anwhere as an artist, I wasn't good enough....

I'd love to show them what I made of myself today;)Their judgements aren't the be all and end all!

Anything creative-related could be considered art.

Such as, making music. Interpretive dancing (or any form of dancing, for that matter). Because art is the only form of entertainment (that I know of) that you can express yourself. And art isn't just drawing, it's the form of expression.

So, with that being said, can you express yourself with comics?

I personally believe you can. There are quite a few comics out there (especially here on DD) that a lot of people seem to express themselves with. I suppose with story comics it's a bit harder, because you can't really change the story with how you feel at the moment (I mean, I suppose you could, but it'd turn out terrible), but with strips, with each one you make, it could represent your feelings on that day, or whatever.

Actually, I take back what I said about story comics. Dialogue. You can change the dialogue according to how you feel. I know Rob Schrab actually used to do that, back when he worked on Scud. Only problem with that is, if you do that, it may (or may not) change the pacing of the story. I mean, if your protagonist is in a battle with your antagonist, everything is gonna be intense. They're just going to keep battling and say, "HEY, I LIKE YOUR HAT." "WHY THANK YOU GOOD SIR. OUCH. WHY, YOUR PUNCH REALLY HURT. GOOD WORK."

Not that you'd actually say it like that, but you just have to be careful about it.
So, comics is most definitely art.

Whoever says this isn't art?

That's illustration, IMHO!

Ironscarf
Whoever says this isn't art?

That's illustration, IMHO!The Sistine chapel ceiling was illustrated from bits of the bible...

Not that I'd compare that musclehead superman with the Michelangelo's work in any way. It's just that being an illustration isn't an artistic disqualification. :)

ugh i cant stand alex ross' style. he took the whole "photo realism" to its catastrophic peak.

Ozoneocean
It's just that being an illustration isn't an artistic disqualification.

Verily 'tis true! I simply meant to imply that Ross's work qualified as one, but definitely not the other!
To illustrate this point, here's an illustration of real quality:


Thus proving that Ross's lifeless brushwork couldn't sell smokes to a baby. %)

json
i actually got into an argument that almost turned shouting match, with my drawing 3 professor in college. she told me that comics had "no artistic merit". i got her admit that they are "forms of art" but she was steadfast on saying that the audience takes nothing away with them from looking at comics. my ultimate response was that different people like different things and different different tastes for works of art.....while she may not have liked my drawings of a post apocalyptic future (which i drew in my free time, not in her class), i told her i didn't like her paintings and her subject matter didn't appeal to me or my tastes but i wouldn't say her work had no artistic merit just because i didn't like it. i when then "asked" to leave her classroom.

so, i agree with NickGuy. everything is art, and everything you see was designed by and created by an artist.

"no one takes anything away from comic art."? huh, i suppose all the movies and games and books and even fine art peices that've been inspired by comic art doesnt matter. Superman's one of the GERATEST American icons in art OR otherwise along with Batman, Wonderwoman and a few others and i critisize her ability to teach art for not knowing that.

she may have been very talented, but it she misunderstood something.

The earliest form of art, was cave drawings, Egyptian glyphs and etchings and things of that nature....each one of those kinds of art would be considered "graphic storytelling, or, telling a recent or past event with pictures........JUST LIKE COMICAL BOOKS!! Gasp!!! Read Scott McClouds Book, UNDERSTANDING COMICS, and then let anybody try to convince me that it isn't art.