Hate mail?

[Esrever]

Grant, if you want to ascribe some kind of additional qualitative dimension to an existing word with a well established dimension, then go nuts. But don't expect to find a lot of support for it among other people, most of whom probably wouldn't have much difficulty saying, "Man, that new Ultimate Spider-man has pretty good art," or "Dilbert is pretty funny, but the art sure is bad."

And definitely don't expect to find support from people like me -- artists who have chosen to devote a good portion of their life to drawing comics, and who don't really like it when their work is equated to your ability to cook fucking pop tarts.

Does that mean achieving true art in the comic field is impossible? Or is real literature impossible to make as a fan fiction? No. It isn't the medium's fault. But I have yet to find any that I would consider real art or literature. Mainly, I think it's because most brilliant artists or writers are above these things.

When I read that, I'm overwhelmed by an urge to punch you in the face. Either you haven't read anything other than shitty super-hero comics, or your a moron.

[Delphine]

Dude, don't even bother. Just have a nice calming glass of Pepsi and smile at the fact that damn, you're <i>good</i>, and some idiot in some stupid online forum saying that comic art is not 'real' art based on some pseudo-idealistic definition of the term means nothing to you.

[Esrever]

You're right... and in hindsight, I wish I hadn't said I wanted to punch him in the face. That was totally uncalled for. I'm sure he's a fine updstanding young man, even if he has crazy ideas. CRAZY.

[Light Speed]

I'm overwhelmed by an urge to punch you in the face.

I see it as a metaphor.

[Popcorn]

I basically want to punch everyone in the face all the time. The reason I spend so much of my time online is to allow myself to socialise to some extent without being frequently arrested for GBH.

I'm actually sort of Grant's side here, at least in some respect.

Esrever wrote a song where one of the lyrics was:

"Grant, if you want to ascribe some kind of additional qualitative dimension to an existing word with a well established dimension, then go nuts."

But the word 'art' really doesn't have a well-established dimension to it, hence the problem here. You guys are just trading punches over your differing definitions of the word-- and I mean everyone has their own personal definition of it. Fanfic isn't it, btw.

[Bo]

One thing that always gets me is that one must often preface a statement with "I think..." or "To me...", or else it comes off as arrogant and offensive. If I say "The band Nirvana always sucked total ass," I'm obviously voicing my own opinion. The response is invariably something like "that's just your opinion!" Well, duh... for whom else could I be speaking?
Anyone who says fanfic/ comics/ whatever are/ aren't art are merely stating what they think. It's fine to try to convince them another opinion is correct, but acting one person's disagreement over the meaning of a term is maddening.

[plasticwingsband]

You can make your superhero a psychopath. you can draw gut-splattering violence, and you can call it a "graphic novel," but comic books are still incredibly stupid. - Bill Watterson, The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Year Anniversary Book

[Crazy Penguin]

Music is stupid. - Some guy.

[Esrever]

Yes, yes, it's all subjective, and everyone's opinion of what the definition should be is equally valid. I know we all love relativism. But once you're all done saying that you believe an apple is a sausage and that only good television shows are actually television shows, lets come back down to the real world.

There is a broadly accepted, albiet somewhat vague, understanding of what "art" means. That second grade class where you made fingerpaintings was called Art class. That guy who does all the drawings for Penny-Arcade is referred to as Penny-Arcade's Artist. When someone auctions off a TV storyboard drawing on ebay, it's called an original piece of storyboard Art. Over at the Art gallery, they call it an Art exhibit when they show off some Artist's work. It doesn't matter if you think it's "beautiful" or not. Quality doesn't enter into the equation because it's not related to how the word is commonly used. Hell, that's why we have the term "Fine Art" in the first place.

Maybe you're on some kind of moral crusade to reinvent the word, but when your definition excludes 90 percent of what most people are already calling art, then no, it isn't as legitimate as mine, even if it is "just your opinion." If you want to have an actual argument, then a real gray area in the commonly used definition of the word is that guy from Australia who hangs himself off of meathooks and calls it art. And quite frankly, I bet he'd be a much more interesting thing to talk about than what this seems to have devolved to.

I'll stop now.

[Popcorn]

Over at the Art gallery, they call it an Art exhibit when they show off some Artist's work. It doesn't matter if you think it's "beautiful" or not. Quality doesn't enter into the equation because it's not related to how the word is commonly used.

No. There are two uses of the word 'art' involved here: the arbitrary term we attach to generically creative processes (such as you describe), and another, different, special kind that we attach to things we think are 'art'. You say that '90% of most people' have a shared standard regarding what 'art' means, but you're only referring to the first kind-- the Art Class, the Art Exhibit, Art Garfunkel, the Artist Formerly Known as Prince. But I challenge you to locate this same 90% of people who also have completely identical taste in everything at all.

The whole 'art' argument is so completely nebulous it's not even worth bothering about, but here you're trying to suggest that there is some kind of universally-accepted standard. And there freakin' ain't.

[Esrever]

I am definitely only referring to what you describe as the "first kind" of art. Of course everyone has different tastes!

All I was trying to say is that just because you don't personally like something doesn't mean it's not art -- and there I meant art as in your "first kind" of art. I just didn't realize you had a special second definition of the word that included only the art you yourself found to be exceptional. (Personally, I've always just referred to that as "art I like.") In any event, Grant made no such distinction between two kinds... he said there was no "bad art," if he didn't find it "beautiful" then it wasn't art at all, and thus, that no comics were really art. Period. And that's what got me riled up.

I understand you think this is a pretty stupid argument to have, and maybe you're right. But I imagine you'd get pretty argumentative too if someone attacked your chosen vehicle of artistic expression as somehow devoid of artistry, just because they don't personally like it.

[Popcorn]

But the term 'art' itself is dependent upon individual taste and perception-- that's my point. Anything else is just a term we tack onto a bunch of make-and-do activities.

[Esrever]

Then I guess it does just come down to personal definitions after all. I've always gauged what is and isn't "art" based on the intent of the creator, not the perception of the audience. I'd always consider a drawing made by a human being to express themselves as art -- and I mean ART art -- no matter how bad it is. Conversely, I'd never consider raindrops to be music or a sunset to be art, even if I did percieve them as being very beautiful. I guess that's just me.

[Grant]

When I read that, I'm overwhelmed by an urge to punch you in the face. Either you haven't read anything other than shitty super-hero comics, or your a moron.

Aside from being quite surprised, I was hurt by this comment. In no way did I critique your art. I specifically said that true art isn't impossible in the comics field; I just haven't seen it. And I read more than just shitty super-hero comics, just like I read more than shitty fanfics.

You've dropped a hundred stories in my opinion of you (I'm sure you'll say you don't care, so don't bother). I'm sorry for that.

Dude, don't even bother. Just have a nice calming glass of Pepsi and smile at the fact that damn, you're good, and some idiot in some stupid online forum saying that comic art is not 'real' art based on some pseudo-idealistic definition of the term means nothing to you.

Unbelievable. I tried to be nothing but polite (in a GHZ kind of way, which [so I'm not attacked for my "pseudo-idealistic definition of the term"] is also trying to add some humor, as well), yet I receive physical threats of violence over the internet as well as being called an idiot.

Also, I should add that I (nor Popcorn, nor anyone else) didn't just make up this second definition of art. For god's sake, it's in the friggin' dictionary along with the many other definitions for the word.

I think I understand why you two are upset. Delphine was defensive, though it wasn't ever personal (towards her), because she's probably written fanfics that she's proud of. When I bashed fanfics (half-jokingly at first, then delving into my own thoughts on the subject later), she took it as an indirect attack on her. Which it wasn't, I've never read anything of hers if she's written any. I can't say I care to now, but that's beside the point.

Same goes for Esrever. I never attacked any of his art. But I attacked comic art, and since he draws online comics (which, I'll point out, I haven't read either), he took offense.

In other words, you guys are way too sensitive, can't take criticism and were looking for things that weren't there. But don't worry, I won't threaten to punch you or call you an idiot.

All I was trying to say is that just because you don't personally like something doesn't mean it's not art -- and there I meant art as in your "first kind" of art. I just didn't realize you had a special second definition of the word that included only the art you yourself found to be exceptional. (Personally, I've always just referred to that as "art I like.") In any event, Grant made no such distinction between two kinds... he said there was no "bad art," if he didn't find it "beautiful" then it wasn't art at all, and thus, that no comics were really art. Period. And that's what got me riled up.

That is absolutely not true. I was the one that brought up that there's more than one definition in the first place! Go back and read the post in question. I said something along the lines of that if all we're arguing about is the definition, in the English language, most words have more than one definition. People call Dilbert art not because they necessairly think of it as "true art" (psst, that's the "second definition"), but because we don't have a better word for 'creative drawings not thought of in qualititive terms'.

I think you're back-pedaling, personally.

I understand you think this is a pretty stupid argument to have, and maybe you're right. But I imagine you'd get pretty argumentative too if someone attacked your chosen vehicle of artistic expression as somehow devoid of artistry, just because they don't personally like it.

Again, if you go back and read the actual post (and you actually quoted this part, too, I think), I said that it isn't impossible to achieve "true art" in the comics or fanfic field - just that I haven't seen it. Maybe your online comic is the best thing since Michaelangelo. I don't know. I haven't seen it, and now I don't care to.



Hmm. I had more, but it looks like Popcorn and Bo essentially covered the rest of what I was going to say.

[Popcorn]

Don't take us so seriously, man. Del's problem is the same as Gibs': she's really horny all the time. Just call her fat and insult her sexuality (the second part is tricky, but can be done), and she's effectively neutralised.

Esrever's more slippery-- I suggest saying "You've been found out, admit it" and "Come on!!" over and over again until he shuts up. Or sort of hum "derderly-der, derderly-der" over and over again, or something.

[Green Gibbon!]

Del's problem is the same as Gibs': she's really horny all the time.

That's a problem?

[Delphine]

I can't understand why you're so upset, Grant. I never directly attacked you, I attacked idiots on the internet on stupid forums. You, seemingly being an idiot on the internet on a stupid forum, simply took personal offense to what was a general argument.

(And if you really want a serious reply? I don't have an opinion on you one way or the other, I don't know you, and I honestly don't mean to offend you but you haven't done anything that's made me want to know you. The whole point of my post was to make Esrever feel better, because he's nifty. It's not my fault you're the one who pissed him off.)

Which it wasn't, I've never read anything of hers if she's written any. I can't say I care to now, but that's beside the point.

Not that you would've in the first place, since you think all fanfic is shit.

Del's problem is the same as Gibs': she's really horny all the time.

That's a problem?

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Esrever]

Grant, I am truthfully quite sorry about the punching comment. Earlier, I considered editing it right out of my post, but as you can see, I decided to leave it in and simply mention that I was sorry I'd stooped to that in my next post. It just felt dishonest to just remove it and pretend I hadn't said it at all. Like Pop says, you shouldn't take that kind of talk to seriously here.... but I still shouldn't have said it. Obviously the two of us don't know each other well enough for you to know that I would never mean a comment like that seriously.

That asside, you're damn right that the reason I got so mad was because I am a comic artist. No, you never attacked my work directly. You just said that you had read plenty of comics and didn't consider a single one of them art. Sure, you admitted that the medium could have potential, but you then followed up by saying it would likely never be realized because "most brilliant artists or writers are above these things."

You say you're not judging the comic medium itself, but then go right ahead and do it anyway by commenting that any brilliant artist and writer would be "above" making a comic. So yes, as a comic artist, I kind of take it personally when someone implies that I'd have to be some kind of artistic hack to want to draw comics instead of "real art."

Believe it or not, I do care what you think about me, and about my profession. If I didn't, I wouldn't have responded to your post at all. But what you said made me very angry, and so my response was full of a lot of angry words. Yes, you definitely took the high ground, here, and you didn't call me names. But then, I never directly attacked the value of something you had spent nearly your entire life pursuing, and I never said that your chosen method of artistic expression was "beneath" people who were smarter or more talented. It's very hard to be reasonable in the face of that kind of thing.

But the most frustrating part of this is that, even putting all of that other stuff asside, I still don't agree with your definition of art! ISN'T THAT ANNOYING? You say we only call the art in Dilbert "art" because we don't have a better word for 'creative drawings not thought of in qualititive terms'. I'd argue it's exactly the opposite... that you are calling exceptionally beautiful works "art" because you don't have a better word for 'art that is particularly exceptional'. Hell, maybe it's just because I've come from an art-school background, which naturally defintes art as being inclusive so as not to exclude the work of young or untalented students. But, well, I've just never thought of art as a qualitative term, I've never struggled with the ideas of relatively "good" and "bad" art, and I've never talked with anyone whose ideas were so completely the opposite until today.

Anyhow, Grant, I am sorry I called you names... it was pretty immature. But I still think you're wrong, about comics and about art. I'm never going to change your mind on the later of those two, I imagine, but I can still take a stab at the former if you're looking for any comic recommendations and aren't sick of hearing me talk yet. ;)

[Grant]

Believe it or not, I do care what you think about me, and about my profession. If I didn't, I wouldn't have responded to your post at all. But what you said made me very angry, and so my response was full of a lot of angry words. Yes, you definitely took the high ground, here, and you didn't call me names. But then, I never directly attacked the value of something you had spent nearly your entire life pursuing, and I never said that your chosen method of artistic expression was "beneath" people who were smarter or more talented. It's very hard to be reasonable in the face of that kind of thing.

I guess you're right. I can't fault you for your reaction too much, really, because I probably would've done something just as impulsive and emotional. I guess my problem is that a lot of times, I just don't think about who I might potentially offend before I voice my opinions.

You say we only call the art in Dilbert "art" because we don't have a better word for 'creative drawings not thought of in qualititive terms'. I'd argue it's exactly the opposite... that you are calling exceptionally beautiful works "art" because you don't have a better word for 'art that is particularly exceptional'.

I still maintain that both definitions are correct. Words have more than one meaning. That's the funny thing about communication, especially with the English language; too few words and too much to say. Just be glad we weren't arguing about the definition of "time" or "run" or something that could mean tons of different things.

Anyhow, Grant, I am sorry I called you names... it was pretty immature. But I still think you're wrong, about comics and about art.

I appreciate this post and I honestly think that we're closer in opinion than we realize on comics, because I really do love them (although I haven't had enough time or money lately to read as much as I'd like). I didn't mean for a second to sully the medium or the people that work in it. We just can't seem to communicate on our "rating scale" effectively, I think.

Anyway, I say we just bury the hatchet, make out, dry hump and move on.

[Segaholic2]

Fags.

[Zeta]

Anyway, I say we just bury the hatchet, make out, dry hump and move on.

I don't know art, but I know what I like . . .



Yeah, that was cliche. But it was perfect.

And if you're looking for comics that are truly works of art, read Sandman or Bone or Calvin & Hobbes. There are many, many others - but I think those are the most well-known and easiest to aquire.

Although I have to say that Bill Watterson is quite the hypocrite. He judged comic books as a childish medium, when he constantly complains about people being prejudiced against comic strips and seeing it as a childish medium. Heh. "My work is a fantastic achievement because it's published in newspapers instead of in books". Oy.

[Esrever]

No worries, Grant, we're cool. Hugs all around. Even for Segaholic. (Bitch!)

Watterson is a bit of an oddball. That line of his about comic books always stung a bit. A great artist, of course, but probably a bit too reluctant to look much further past the comic strips he read as a kid.

Bone is great too. Oh, and did anyone here ever read Blankets? It's quite charming, and a brisk read considering it's the size of a bloody phone book.

[Zeta]

"The Books of Magic" kick ass, too. At least, the first few compilations do.

It started to get weird and sucky after that very strange issue with the abandoned children who worshiped a snack machine. That story line sucked, had no resolution, and made no sense, and the whole thing jumped the shark right there.

If I remember correctly, were the kids abandoned because their parents were involved in a nazi-like human breeding program in which everyone with the slighest defect was cast out? I can't really remember that far back . . .

I find it a little more than suspicious that Tim Hunter and Harry Potter could be indentical twins . . . but let's not go down that dark road.

It's funny, though, I can't really think of any manga series that stick out in my mind as "truly great". Although "Ogre Slayer" is pretty good. Imagine "Samurai Jack" if they had the cojones to show actual carnage . . .

[Green Gibbon!]

It's funny, though, I can't really think of any manga series that stick out in my mind as "truly great".

I guess you've never read Maison Ikkoku, then? Yes, it is a soap opera. But it's fucking awesome.

[Ngangbius]

^Nor, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.