|
|
Post by seanlandis on May 23, 2006 12:06:18 GMT -5
As someone who couldn't even call myself a novice on this topic, I thought I'd pose the following question to you experts. What is the role, if any, of newspaper comic strips in the development of art comics from the 60's to today? This article made me wonder: www.vqronline.org/articles/2006/spring/heer-little-nemo-comicsland/My uninformed intuition was that art comics came more out of a comic books tradition than a comic strips one, but the article suggests that strips were pretty influential, too. Of course, the article's author is making a career out of lit-critting comic strips, so he has some stake in legitimizing the medium. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Harker on May 23, 2006 15:01:05 GMT -5
As far as the history of independent or underground comics in America goes, I think it starts with Bob Crumb. To trace Crumb's influence backwards, the first thing that comes to mind is MAD and Harvey Kurtzman. I think also that Art Speigleman is important for being one of the first cartoonists to bring a modern art sensibility to American comics.
As far as "art comics" go, I think Europe has always done it better than America. The history of these comics in Europe I am not as privy to. However, I read once about a big comics expo in Paris in the 60's that helped spur the first generation of European cartoonists with an "art sensibility." I don't know many details, but I know Harvey Kurtzman's work was heavily featured.
You would be correct in believeing that cartoonists prior to the 60's viewed themselves as entertainers rather than artists. In alot of ways even Crumb embraces this perception.
There was a healthy amount of intellectualism in comic strips prior to "art comics", particularly Krazy Kat & Peanuts, but not exactly an art sensibility.
I still believe however that cartoonists are struggling to understand the artistic identity of their medium. Just because an artist drags an art gallery vibe into their work doesn't mean it translates as great comic art. The greatest masters in my opinion are the likes of Eisner & Tezuka who make art out of the invisible magic that makes a comic work.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanlandis on May 24, 2006 9:37:22 GMT -5
Yeah, my clunky term 'art comics' was meant to denote the independent American comics of Crumb, Spiegelman, et cetera (I say 'et cetera' despite having only heard of one other artist in that category -- the famous movie one). I didn't know there was anything in Europe that could fit the term 'art comics.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Harker on May 24, 2006 10:11:35 GMT -5
All of these non-mainstream (which in America means no tights) comics could probably fall under the title "Indie." Even though as a self-publisher I point out the stark difference between people like myself that publish mini-comics that are hand-produced & hand-distributed and indie publishers like Top Shelf, Fantagraphics etc., who despite their relative small size (as compared to Marvel & DC) mechanically produce & corporately distribute their books.
So yeah, that's a bunch of semantics!! LOL
But anyway, within this Indie realm, there is definately a sub-genre of comics that make it their sole point to be "artistic." I generally dismiss this B.S. as pretentious crappolla. To me, the true tradition of Underground American comics (that actually has teeth) is represented by the MAD/Harvey Kurtzman-begets-Bob Crumb-begets-Peter Bagge-begets-Johnny Ryan tradition.
The values represented by this tradition are a politically-incorrect irrevorence & a comittment to the entertainment of the reader. They make you think AND laugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by wowposter on Sept 8, 2008 14:11:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wowposter on Oct 28, 2008 6:57:41 GMT -5
|
|
