Debate and Discussion

Art and comic et
TheTopHat at 4:24PM, April 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 172
joined: 2-22-2007
Hi all.

Could I please have your opinion on something? I'm writing a report for collage about different art forms and how they affect new art coming into the world.

Now my main problem with this is that a lot of people at my uni only consider ‘true’ art (ie: stuff in a gallery) as innovative(?) in their art process.

I want to know people's opinions on this from an non-art collage view. So feel free to rant about this as much as you like. you'll be helping me a lot. And hopefully you'll give me a point I can use against them!!!

So, simply put: Are galleries the only place that you find real art?

-edited by Ozoneocean for clarity (original text bellow)

Hi all.

Could i please have your opinion on something. I'm writting a report for collage about how differnet art forms and how they effect new art coming into the world.

Know my main proble with this is that a lot of poeple at my uni only consider ‘ture’ art (ie-suff in a gallery) as inverentional in there art proess.

I wanna know poeples opinions on this form an none art collage view. So feel free to rant about this as must as you like your be helping me a lot.

And hopeful you give me a point i can use agains them!!! :)

So simple put. If the only ‘real’ art the suff you find in gallers?

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:28PM
Aurora Moon at 4:50PM, April 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
could do with an spellchecker, but I understand you well anyway lol.

that aside… no, I don't think the only true art you find are in Galleries. In fact, I find plenty of Crap in Art Galleries.
Take the whole Astract thing that seems to be so popular with some people. there's a lot of people that doesn't seem to understand the difference between bad and good art.

There's good astract, and then there's bad astract.

allow me to explain:
Good Astract is where it has an very surreal twist on normal images. like an painting that had nothing but squares and trangles, where viewed at an certain angle, could start to form images such as an person. even an splatter artwork could be good provided that you were able to pick out patterns, shapes, people, etc out of it. That way every person could see something intersting and still have it be regonizable to them.

Bad Astract, is something that a lot of artstic hacks seems to be misusing a lot. It's nothing but paint litterally thrown puropsefully into an cavnas straight out of the bucket. it's just blobs of paint that doesn't even seem to form images or any patterns. it's just… blobs of colors and splatters. Sure, the colors themselves could be pleasing to the eye, but it wouldnt really invoke any personal feelings in people as seeing the majority of them would just see blobs of colors and splatters.

Much to my dismay, Bad Astract art like that seems to becoming more popluar and more of them are shown in Art galleries… so this is the reason why I have stopped going to art galleries, as seeing they are places that no longer inkoves any feelings in me as art is supposed to do!

lately I find that the artwork of comics and the story contained within inokves those feelings more than when I would walk into an art gallery and see bad astract stuff.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
ozoneocean at 5:05PM, April 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Sorry Top Hat, I edited your post a little for clarity's sake :)
There's only one word I couldn't make out.

The art in galleries is rather a narrow slice of the art world in general. But what kind of galleries are you talking about? Galleries that are publicly funded, private collections, endowed, or commercial all have different types of art for different reasons: ie: art of “historical” importance, collections that reflect a particular taste, art collected purely for investment, art displayed and promoted in order to make a name for an artist and to sell their work at a high price… Then there's art outside of galleries like publicly commissioned sculpture projects etc…

But “art” is a wide church isn't it? You're primarily talking about “visual art” though, so that's a small limiter. Hmm, well creative people work in many fields and you'll find many visual artists working the commercial sphere as graphic artists, video editors, architects, games designers, furniture designers, fashion designers and even product designers, the list goes on and on of course. They will often incorporate their art practice into their commercial work and vice versa, and because they aren't creating purely for the esoteric and often insular world of fine art, you'll find that what they produce may have broader appeal and will very likely be more innovative than much fine art intended only for the fine art world.

Certainly when you come across these exciting pieces they'll tend to fire your imagination and you'll have more of a connection with them than a bisected cow or a perfectly preserved unmade bed. I think of Gaudi's cathedral, or Jamie Hewlett's work with Damon Alban on their Gorillas project.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
TheTopHat at 5:22PM, April 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 172
joined: 2-22-2007
Thank for that ozoneocean. I know how bad my spelling are but the spell cheaker has die! (OHNO!) So thanky!

And yes im taking about all sorts of galleries. really anthing you can think off that you would class as a inperation. And what would be seen as more vaild?

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:28PM
Alexis at 5:33PM, April 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 314
joined: 1-15-2007
I just graduated from college after studying art, so I feel your pain. I think that by no means is art only found in galleries. Think of all of the artists who are now considered great who never showed in galleries during their life. Everyone has heard about how Van Goh never sold a painting in his life, but just think of all of these outsider artists who show now in places like the American Folk Art Museum. There are also a number of artist who made what some people call “low” art who then made the jump to galleries, like R. Crumb and Alberto Vargas.

In conclusion, there is pleanty of good art in galleries, but there is also a ton of great art that isn't in galleries, and lots of people who toil in obscurity for years before the art world recognizes them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
Phantom Penguin at 12:27PM, April 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Not all “true” art is hanging in nice little rooms. Remember when a painted can of tomato soup was high art?

Yeah.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Custard Trout at 7:45PM, April 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
I have a very basic view of art, basically if it's something you have created for the purpose of being looked at, listened too, felt, smelt or even tasted, it's art. I might not be good art, but it's art nevertheless, and it can have a huge influence whatever it is, which might not necessarily be a good influence either. But I don't really care about it enough to talk about it much.

Not surprisingly, a lot of art students don't like me.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:59AM
Zac at 7:14AM, April 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,307
joined: 10-14-2006
Hey, I just did a research paper with this information.
I'll put some of it up in a few hours, after class.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:53PM
aquacow at 9:54AM, April 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 14
joined: 1-12-2006
REAL art is anywhere and everywhere if we choose to open our eyes to it. Art in the streets is much stronger and more meaningful to me than 83% of the art in galleries.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:54AM
Priest_Revan at 4:18PM, April 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,339
joined: 12-31-2006
Well, art, for me at least, is whatever you make it.

I don't think you have to go to galleries to find great art. I'm only in high school right now and I've seen things that students have painted (and sketched) that were beautiful.

But, I guess some of the “better” art might be found in galleries…
Updates Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday's (depends).

7/0

Offering Project Wonderful Ad space on my website.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:48PM
Zac at 11:08AM, April 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,307
joined: 10-14-2006
These passages are only excerpts from the paper. The whole paper is like 17 pages long.
Please don't steal anything word for word, but you're welcome to borrow.



"There must be a quick easy way to produce a comic book. This is an argument commonly seen coming from people who oppose comic art, or sequential art if you’re using the professional term, as a true art form. People tend to believe that serialized things are less creative and don’t capture the essence of art. Well, what is art to begin with? Encyclopedia Britannica suggests that art is: “a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation”. Basically, art is an experience that the artist tries to relay to the audience through different medias (media being pen, pencil, etc.), which requires a certain understanding of the crafting of imagination. Viewing the definition of art may help one understand why some people don’t believe comic art is true art. It’s easy to casually suggest that since so many people work on one weekly issue for comic that it requires less skill than a painter that works years on a masterpiece. However, this is not particularly accurate. The thing about art is all forms of it have different requirements. That’s why there are so many different kinds of art. If everything were the same, then just think of what a boring world we’d live in. The same rule applies to art. If all art looked similar, then no one would be interested in it. Will Eisner, a renowned pioneer in the sequential art field, acknowledges the fact sequential art has been ignored and offers a solution:
For reasons having much to do with usage and subject matter Sequential Art has been generally ignored as a form worthy of scholarly discussion. While each of the major integral elements, such as design, drawing, caricature, and writing, have separately found academic consideration, the unique combination has received a very minor place (if any) in either the literary or art curriculum. I believe the reason for this sits as much on the shoulders of the practitioner as the critic. (Eisner 1)
What can the artists of the comic do to make the book as a whole shine as a piece of artwork? Again in order to reach this understanding, now that we have a definition of art, we need a definition of sequential art which we will hear from Will Eisner: “a means of creative expression, a distinct discipline, an art and literary form that deals with the arrangement of pictures or images and words to narrate a story or dramatize an idea” (Eisner 1). So sequential art is more than just how pretty the drawing is in the panels, it’s about the actual story told within the book, the timing of the panels, and the ability to express the proper emotion to the reader through all the different medias presented."




. Each visual art has a different set of rules they must adhere to, while still following the basics of artistic theory. Jerome Hill, a graphic designer and comic writer, reminds us that the debate against comics as an art form “comes down to proper use of logic”. Hill agrees with the importance of defining the terms. He suggests that people without a clear understanding of definitions are just arguing from a completely biased, subjective, opinionated view point. He gave me “an expanded and more traditional definition of art: ‘a creative exercise resulting in something significant or beautiful’." When asked if a scribble on a piece of paper would be art, Hill states: “your scribbled circle would still qualify so long as the artist either intended on creating art OR someone else beholds it as significant and/or beautiful”. Therefore the question moves away from, ”are comics considered a true art form” and becomes: “How do comics and cartoons differ from other art forms. This brings us back to comic books.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:53PM
Black_Kitty at 12:45PM, April 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
One of my majors was visual art (studio art) so I don't know if you're looking for my opinion in this matters especially since you wanted a non-art college point of view.

I do however remember that one of the first things I learned in modern art history class is that art becomes art through many different ways. Art going through art institution is just one of them so to suggest that the only innovative art out there are those institutionalized by galleries and museums turns a blind eye towards other pieces of art that did not go through that process. Keith Haring for example did not initially start out in an art museum and the dadaists may have thrown a fit (or a happening?)

I didn't really read through all the comments here since I wanted this to be sort of what I think and not a reflection of what other people think. However, I did notice someone mentioning soup cans which I can only assume is a reference to Warhol's Campbell soup collection.

The thing about private galleries and museums in my opinion is that a lot of the times, it's very historically based. One reason why there's such a huge gap between viewers and modern art these days is because modern art has become increasingly conceptual and personal. If you go further back, a lot of modern art was also historically based but still highly conceptual. You generally cannot fully understand a piece of modern art unless you make the effort to think beyond the surface of what's presented.

That's why pop art, abstract art, and especially dada art is incredibly frustrating to viewers. Marcel DuChamp's works are my favourite examples. What's so special about a bicycle wheel on a stool? Fountain, a urinal turned on its side and signed “R Mutt”, (which was coincidentally rejected from an art show initially) was voted a few years ago to be the most influential piece of modern art work of all times. And this drove my students INSANE.

But think about it this way: a urinal turned on its side and signed is more influential than Keith Haring's work. More influential than Oldenburg or even Picasso! And yes, more influential than Warhol's soup cans.

But it also makes a great deal of sense. DuChamp's Fountain really was a very influential piece of art work. It was one of DuChamp's readymades which were supposedly everyday mass manufactured objects made into art. DuChamp's suggestion was that anyone could make art and anyone can make art so long as the artist deems it to be art. It simply drove the art world insane at the time and it had a huge influence on how artists created art later on.

But would a viewer know this simply by looking at Fountain? Would they know about the historical context or anything about the dada art movement? Probably not. They also wouldn't have known that DuChamp was an expert in forgery and was interested in the concept of immortality (not living forever but being remembered beyond death.) There have been research suggesting that a lot of the readymades that DuChamp claimed was just something he picked up at the local store were actually handmade objects designed to LOOK like mass manufactured products. (I like to think of this as DuChamp's ultimate dada joke on the world.)

I know I went on a tangent but I'll try to pull this back on topic…

Art museums/galleries can be a place where you find innovative art. The Art Gallery of Ontario got a lot of complaints and was generally mocked for buying Oldenburg's Giant Hamburger at the time. But now a gallery would have to be a fool to sell the soft sculpture. So yes, an art gallery/museum is a place that you can find art…but it's also a historical time capsule. Sometimes it may be ahead of the game…but sometimes it's way behind.

And this concludes my mini-rant about art. >.>

[Edit: Okay, I totally lied. I'm really off topic in this but I saw it in the replies here and I'm like some moth to a flame.

A lot of the times, people walk into art galleries expecting to see pretty pictures. Now there's nothing wrong with that nor are there anything wrong with pretty pictures. If you like pretty pictures, all the power to you. But it means that the average viewer expects art to have a pictorial quality to them. If it's not pictorial, then they expect an emotional quality to substitute it.

The problem is that modern art sometimes isn't about the pictorial or the emotional. It's about ideas and historical context. And honestly, some people give art the 10 second judgement stare: if in 10 seconds it doesn't appeal to them, then they automatically dismiss it. I've yet to meet anyone who can gleam the historical and conceptual background of an unfamiliar modern art piece in ten seconds.

But this is not purely a viewer issue. The problem with modern art is that it's a two way street but neither the artist nor the viewer wants to walk the walk.]
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:24AM
ccs1989 at 6:52PM, April 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
I won't lie. I hate 99% of modern art. I think it's self indulgent crap built upon pretentious ideas by people who think they escape from the system by making this stuff. A lot of it also seems propped up by an artist's ego, relying on how much the artist can make themselves seem deep in order to help sell their work or convince people that it's meaningful.

For example a canvas that's painted totally blue is supposed to make people “think about the color blue”. Think about the color blue? What the hell? I look at a piece like that and wonder what the point of it is. Is it supposed to make me angry? If it incites anger has it accomplished it's goal by inciting emotion from me? Is emotion what art is about? Does the emotion incited by it make it worthy to be called art? Does it take on the guise of art in order to make me angry and therefore prove it's worth as a piece of art?

And then we get to why I like comics. I like storytelling much more than I like art. My love of art is limited to respecting everything up to photorealism. Once you get beyond that into the realms of “modern” art, I start getting bored. So if everything in art has already been done, and there's nowhere for art to go aside from doing that transcendentalist “modern” stuff, then why not put art and story together and give the art a new purpose? Of course mainly people see comics as a vehicle for guys with big muscles punching each other, but you do get great stories once in a while like Ex Machina or Berserk.

That's my feelings on art. I'm taking an Art History course next year as well as a Cross Cultural Aesthetics course, so maybe my views will change. However at the moment this is how I feel.

http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Black_Kitty at 3:18PM, April 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
ian_feverdream
If it takes me longer than 10 seconds to figure out a comic book panel, I generally drop the book or webcomic.

I would too. Comics are a medium that uses both narrative and pictorial techniques. It also has its own visual language that is pretty close to being universal. If a single panel can't convey what you want in ten seconds using words, symbols, and pictures, then it's not worth my time.

Comparing comics to modern art is like comparing apple juice to apple pie. Sure they're both made of apples but they're not the same thing. You use a straw to drink apple juice and a fork to eat apple pie (each form requires different tools to digest it.) One's for eating and the other's for drinking (different purpose, different expectation.) One requires a dollar and the other three dollars (different value.) Neither however is superior then the other.

We don't understand the cultural context of the old masters any more. Like that the angel has brown sparrow wings and a blue robe means the figure is St. Justin Timberlake of the Swamp of Detroit, patron saint of Flash artists. But we can still see and admire the craft and composition. With modern art, once we strip off the cultural context, there is nothing left but a hunk of rusted metal or a broken urinal falling off the wall. Modern art doesn't have the craft, composition or language to support it. In a 100 years, who's going to care or keep them?

So hand making a urinal doesn't take craft and composition? Sure it's a urinal and not the twin winged angel of the heavens touching the face of God but hey, it made a bunch of you think it was the real deal.

When you strip art, be it modern or classical, of its cultural and historical context, then I don't see how different it is from a forgery. Why should art galleries care who has the real Mona Lisa then? Just get some guy to paint another one and hang it up. If he's good enough, nobody would know the difference. The average viewer wouldn't be allowed to breathe on it let alone touch it and they wouldn't possess the skills to tell a forgery from the real thing. And why should anyone care? Not as if you would understand the cultural and historical significance anyway right?

What are you buying when you buy an Oldenburg or a Michelangelo? Are you buying their works because you think nobody in the history of mankind (past, present, future) would ever be able to create the works they have created? You think nobody can carve a David? Make a soft sculpture? Create the Pieta? Or are you buying their ideas, its cultural/historical influence?

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't dislike modern art. Neither am I suggesting that people shouldn't like classical art. And I'm definitely not suggesting that people should carry history textbooks when they visit the art galleries. But to separate the cultural and historical significance from the artwork? That's like telling me we should cut out all the words to a comic and just look at the pictures. Unless that comic was designed to not have words to accompany it, then cutting out the words would not give you the full intended impact of the comic. The comic is basically crippled and isn't whole anymore.

And I disagree. I think if anyone cares enough to, they could read up about classical paintings by old masters. Maybe they won't get to read about all of its cultural and historical significance but some of it is out there.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:24AM
ccs1989 at 4:37PM, April 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Alright, you make a good, BK. Although I've gotta say that one of the reasons I like comics so much is that most of the time the work speaks for itself. Historical significance may add to the work, but comics are something that are meant to be universal. That's something that also makes people label them simplistic. However I like the fact that I can pick up a book from whatever time and read through it, provided it's in English.

But they're two different mediums, that's for sure. I guess I just haven't learned to appreciate art on it's own enough.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
TheTopHat at 3:51PM, April 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 172
joined: 2-22-2007
Thanks all. Theres a lot of things to get me thinking here and belive haveing opinions of poeple who aren't within the same ‘you have to lean this’ lectores i go to.

althought today i got the offial writtrn up quition and that by itself is half a page! :dizzy:

And because i started this i belive its about high time i gave my opinion on this. I'm at the point were i love most art forms, form callial painting, monden art, vidio, sound art et. And of couse comics. However I find that unless your work fits into a certon band that the work is very badly show.

Not gally would consider showing work of a web-artis. they also mass up royol when they try and show vidio art (yes we will sick this in thew back were no one will find it) i have only ever seen sound art show well ones.

And when i when to london i wanted to beat the cerreter of the Tate Mondon for messing up big time by over packing some off the greates pices of art like sardeens!

Yes i have a wee-promble with the art world off today. Ill take it drown for the inside I serpose. :)

Thats why i like place like this. You can do what you want and it can be view easly by anyone. But i think free-art pactic need to get into the Uni's and art world.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:28PM
ozoneocean at 7:01PM, April 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Tophat
Not gally would consider showing work of a web-artis.
You be surprised. There are a few galleries that have taken digital art and web published artists to heart. I've had a few offers for showing work at them over the years. ;) (they specifically wanted digital and web work)
Tophat
they also mass up royol when they try and show vidio art
That depends on the place really. I seen some quite decent shows with video art as part of them, it's usually well presented in the better galleries I've been to, where I've see it badly done are student shows where space is a priority and not the work. Even the purely digital work (interactive computer programs) were displayed well.

-Although video and computer displays are prone to glitches.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
marine at 10:16PM, April 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,425
joined: 1-6-2006
I don't care what anyone else in this thread has said.

Performance art is a type of art that has to be seen live, and cannot be hung in a gallery. Thusly, art cannot be only found in gallery's.

Also its bad when even I say “wow” to the abuse of the engrish language.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:52PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved