Some thoughts on comics as art.

Snipped from a debate over at CDP; some won't make sense, but there ya go -

Art is all relative and perception based.
There is no good or bad, no right or wrong.

However there is the general consensus of 'normal' 'and the majority view, thereupon on.
Where something is widespread and generally agreed upon it becomes the standard which everything else is based upon.
Because of this, society has a tendancy to brand things as bad, as wrong.

Another problem is the constant comparison between art styles.
For some reason it's natural to look for similarities.
When describing things we (humanity, society, whatever) will always look for something similar to help the description and relating to, of.
This then tars things with the same brush, and the two always being connected.

On a more comic related focus, the problem with comics art is that while it's (mostly) fictional and will have magical powers and strange creatures and so on and so forth, it's 99% rooted in reality.
The main focus is (usually) people.
So the obvious point is going to be representation.
If a human figure doesn't resemble a human figure then all point of contact is lost.
The reader/viewer has no connection.
They don't see a human, so can't identify with the human.
Something that the story quite obviously intends to be human, looking wholly un-human. Or at least too un-human for enjoyment.

I'd like to see more abstraction in comic art, but then that makes linear story telling hard.
Very few artists can pull it off.

But that then leads into the whole area of comics not being art.

Comics are storytelling.

They're sequential art.

Which makes them "arts" rather than "art" ?

Then there's the issue between splashpages/pin-up's/covers vs the actual storytelling and just create a whole comic full of splashpages and call it sequential.

None of this of course is me trying to say that comic artists aren't artists.

I'm not a big fan of portraiture.
Probably because I was born and raised in the age of the camera.
For me (the majority of) portrait paintings (tend to) hold no excitement, because they're simply capturing an image. There's no emotion, no personality, no style.

I'm a big fan of expressionism and surrealism, abstraction and 'modern' art.
I love the personal take on artwork, and the many different meanings different people can take from artwork.
This'd be where I get my love of Sienkiewicz, Wood and Templesmith from.

But that doesn't mean I don't like more traditional artists.
Comics thrive on being able to produce anything they can imagine.
If it can be thought of, it can be drawn.
For me, that's enough individuality and personality; converying something which can't be real, yet looks it.
Capturing raw emotion.

In fact I don't even know what it is I'm trying to say here, which is probably the reason this debate exists.

However, I'd probably rather see a photgraph of shit in a can, than generic superhero female with breasts cliché pose #32873268732643756438765435.

Would I buy either? Doubtful...