Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 1243960" data-attributes="member: 8461">See, and therein lies your error (as I see it): Who said anything about holding comics to the same standards as literature?I think McCould was right in his premise that comics are not a subset of an existing medium. Comics are not a subtype of literature, nor radio nor television. They should not be held to those standards. They have their own strengths and weaknesses, their own way of expressing communication. Comics should be held to the standards of comics as art. So you're saying you can't compare "Call of Cthulhu" to "Catcher in the Rye"?Just because works in the same medium deal with different genres, that doesn't make them incomparable. And even if it does, there's nothing inherently "unfair" about it. This is not a reason why comics can't be art.  I disagree with both of these. We have plenty of comics that could be entailed as "high art", its just that they become obscure almost immediately. It's killing me that I can't recall the examples, but they're in McCloud's book.Likewise...an established form of criticism? What established form? Criticism is people saying what they think and feel. There is no "established form" for that.The fact that its flawed and tries to distance itself from its subject matter (which is your opinion), doesn't really mean much. Every other art form has people who are just like that.That said, we don't need any sort of official body to tell us what art is and is not. I can't imagine some group trying to definitively stating exactly what paintings were actually art and which weren't. They'd be laughed out of existence. Art doesn't require authoritative legitimacy.The same could be said for the fact that editors often make large changes to novels. And cinema? Don't even get me started. The actors, the director(s), the producer(s), and on and on. So, the whole multiplicity of people angle doesn't hold up. And yet comics still appear in the newspapers, for one. Likewise, graphic novels still sell very well, and they're just comics in a thicker form. And webcomics...well, their time has just begun! Likewise, I don't exactly see the portrait business as booming. After all, portraits are expensive, and you just don't see as many people doing that nowadays...and yet you never see anyone saying that portraits are on the verge of disappearing forever.This isn't a transient art form that only appeared recently, and it isn't limited to the 32-page, stapled-together, for-sale-monthly format.I don't think you're giving your kids enough credit. That's like saying they'll never enjoy movies like you do...it's too widely-encompasing of a statement to be taken seriously. Comics are so ubiquitous, and cover such a diverse range of genres, that its impossible to rule them out so completely like that. Comics are here to stay, in one form or another. I just feel that they deserve the same recognition we give to the rest of art.</blockquote>

Verification