Today i had an interesting discussion with Christopher Ouzman, editor at the publisher I work at. Talking about the recent media buzz concerning the new Comics Council, I mentioned the odd juxtaposition of one headline mentioning “comic art” (as in “high art,” not the generic English use of the word meaning any visuals applied to comic form) and an image sequence from Danish comic creator Palle Schmidt’s recent “Blodets Konkubine” (Concubine of Blood).
While I enjoy Palle’s work and eagerly await new material from his hand, said work is by his own admission an attempt at the Hollywood thriller; a great romp, superbly narrated, and an obvious candidate for American publication at Image or other big houses in that vein — but not necessarily fine art despite its qualities.
I believe Palle has gone for a blockbuster rather than a gallery hanging, and there’s no quality judgment in that, just different parts of comicry.
My esteemed ed. agreed to a point, but went on to debate whether comics *as such* could be seen as art, considering most comics are mass produced. Now, I don’t know how the general consensus is in the art world but I don’t think there is much disagreement about the standing of someone like Andy Warhol (Christopher contested that, too, but I believe he was just enforcing his point).
Printmaking artists printing small runs of individual pictures, say 150 copies; aren’t they making fine art? I believe that would depend more on their artifice than on the multitudinous nature of their work. And none of the 150 copies would be less a piece of art than a single, unique print.
The question is the old one of original vs reproduction. Having seen a real live Monet, I’ll agree that a poster of his waterlilies are a far cry from the oil paintings. It could even be argued, particularly in that case, that the original works have been devalued by the sheer amount of reproductions.
But what of the work that is intended for reproduction? Sketched up in blue pencil to dodge repro cams and scanners, and touched up with whiteout? Those are methods invented for and applied by industrial/commercial artists, true, but I would argue that great art *can* be produced with those tools.
We might as well discuss whether literature or film can be considered art. Those are mass media which, on occasion, produce masterpieces in between direct-to-DVD releases and Airport paperback thrillers. I’m not terribly interested in either medium, and will not attempt to point out artistic high points, but I do know there are certain strata of the culture sphere that think very highly of movies and books, respectively.
In all of the examples above, there can be no doubt that the instances of actual, immortal artwork are less than one in a thousand. Being mass media, comics as well as cinema and literature cater to the lowest common denominator — or, if that cannot be identified, the lowest *possible* denominator, just to be on the safe side.
There can be little doubt that fine art in comic form is less like a needle in a haystack, and more like a diamond in a shit heap, but to my eyes it does exist. And quite importantly, parallel to it there is a current of substantive, craftful comics that rise above the dreck, much like “Blodets Konkubine”, for which we should be grateful.