Poll: Are Comics Art?

[Buccura]

If the artwork is good and tells a good story then certainly, I'd say they are art.

 

[Zhukov]

Technically yes.

In some cases, actually yes.

PS. Please define "art".

 

[Thaluikhain]

So you, and only you gets to decide what is, and what isn't, art? Does that not seem a little unfair? Imposing your subjective restrictions upon other people? Does it not make sense that, since no single person can state what is and isn't art within a given medium, that it is all art? With the bits that you personally consider art to actually be your ideas of good art within the medium?

To impose such subjective restrictions is insanity, considering the number of different viewpoints available.

Oh yes, it's totally unfair, but I see no other way of doing it, really.

Saying this or that medium is art isn't really different from saying this or that example is art, it remains purely subjective, and hotly debated by everyone.

Unless a consensus can be reached on what constitutes art, the definition remains (as with everything else yet to be defined) on what I and/or some authority figure says it is.

 

[GiantRaven]

Technically yes.

In some cases, actually yes.

PS. Please define "art".

There is a difference between 'technically' being art and 'actually' being art? I don't follow...

Unless a consensus can be reached on what constitutes art, the definition remains (as with everything else yet to be defined) on what I and/or some authority figure says it is.

That's easy. Everything, in some way, shape or form, can be perceived as art. That encompasses every single person's idea of what art actually is (unless there are people that seriously believe that there is no such thing as art). Anything that a person doesn't think is art? Does it really matter to them if it's considered art or not? Chances are they don't like it and consequently probably wouldn't spend much time pondering about it.

Simple and concise. Should please everyone.

 

[freakydan]

(blech) Final Crisis.

Hey now, let's not say things we can't take back in the future.

Sorry, but I thought Final Crisis was a mess, confusing as hell, and downright disrespectful of some great characters, such as Martian Manhunter. For what it's worth, I'm very much not a fan of William Carlos Williams or ee cummings, but I recognize both of them as artists, just the same as Neil Gaiman, Frank Miller, and Darick Robertson.

If the Final Crisis thing really turned you off, go ahead and pretend I said The Dark Knight Strikes Again.

 

[Thaluikhain]

[That's easy. Everything, in some way, shape or form, can be perceived as art. That encompasses every single person's idea of what art actually is (unless there are people that seriously believe that there is no such thing as art). Anything that a person doesn't think is art? Does it really matter to them if it's considered art or not? Chances are they don't like it and consequently probably wouldn't spend much time pondering about it.

Simple and concise. Should please everyone.

If everything is art, then the word "art" becomes totally meaningless.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Well, the answer is yes, but I figured I'd share this anyway.

Love this.

Anyway, I would say yes, for the same things that make anything art. Art itself isnt a subject, its the exchange between the subject and the viewer.

 

[Zhukov]

Technically yes.

In some cases, actually yes.

PS. Please define "art".

There is a difference between 'technically' being art and 'actually' being art? I don't follow...

"Technically art" is the stuff that I have to admit is art even though I think it's kind of crap.

"Actually art" is the stuff I can call art with a straight face.

That's easy. Everything, in some way, shape or form, can be perceived as art.

Wouldn't that render the term entirely meaningless?

See that dog turd on the foot path over there? Totally art.

 

[GiantRaven]

"Technically art" is the stuff that I have to admit is art even though I think it's kind of crap.

"Actually art" is the stuff I can call art with a straight face.

So, to you, art that is actually art only applies to what you like? That's a bit of a slap in the face to people who like what you consider to "technically" be art.

Wouldn't that render the term entirely meaningless?

See that dog turd on the foot path over there? Totally art.

Pretty much. No two ways about it.

and downright disrespectful of some great characters, such as Martian Manhunter.

Seriously? Disrespectful? To a completely non-existent character? How, exactly, does one 'disrespect' a fictional character? Especially in a medium where alternate character interpretations and ideas are used all the time.

If the Final Crisis thing really turned you off, go ahead and pretend I said The Dark Knight Strikes Again.

DKSA was not terrible. It wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination but it certainly wasn't terrible.

 

[Doffa]

In my opinion any form of expression, no matter what medium it takes can be art, as long as it actually means something. If you want to ask me what I mean by that...I have no freaking clue, but I know it when I see it. It's been a while since I was into comics, but I would definitely count the Death of Captain America arc as art
(clarification: not because I hate Captain America, it's because I found it a particularly compelling piece)
and Watchmen, which pretty much goes without saying

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes. If we take the anthropological view of art wherein art is actually a construct by the culture and our culture happens to be people who read comics. No if we take the same approach but from different eyes. Yes if take the institutional approach and use the comic industry as our institution. No if our institution is some other anti-comics group. In short, art is what we define as art and that means art reflects who is doing the defining. (of course I think they're art personally).