A few graphic novels i've enjoyed,

Armin Greder - The Island (think this is a kids book-but the art is great)
Rutu Modan - Exit Wounds
Etgar Keret - Pizzeria Kamikaze
Yoshihiro Tatsumi - Abandon the old in Tokyo
Andrzej Klimowski - Horace Dolan

thats only 5, i need to read more...

frank miller's ART rules

Peter David and Gary Frank's run on The Incredible Hulk in the early 90's
Cerebus
JSA
The Watchmen
Cable & Deadpool
JLA
Infinite Crisis
Grant Morrison's Animal Man
Firestorm
Black Hole

Ah a dc person?
Where did you go?
YOu haven't posted in a while I don't think.

I converted to DC right before Infinite Crisis; Marvel isn't what it used to be.

Oh, I've been lurking....

Eh Marvel is picking up again.
Secret Invasion is fucking amazing.

Not around my bushes I hope.

I've been burned by Marvel many times, and the last few years have been so horrid, e.g., House of M, Civil War, World War Hulk.

Secret Invasion is garnering a lot of praise, but i sampled it at my local comic shop and the artwork is not to my liking.

DC is consistent quality-wise and usually comes through on all of its promises -- except with Countdown, ugh, A Great Disaster, indeed -- so, I think i'm through with marvel.

Eh I just like marvel having a more consistent universe.

World war hulk was pretty thouroughly dissapointing... I mean that had no lasting impact on much of anything.

"more consistent universe"? ummm, ask 10 marvel fans about the origins of Wolverine, heck the origins of anything in the Marvel universe, and each fan will give you a different answer.

The DC universe has an estabilished history, for the most part, and that's one of the reasons I love them so much.

I always thought dc reboots alot?

Well, they do make small changes to the universe with the "Crisis" events, but after the crisis the changes are made known and fit in with the story due to the nature of the crisis events.

Marvel retcons the hell out of their universe and gives no reason for doing so. The editors expect the fans to just forget all of that "stuff" from the past. pisses me off. Goodgod im a nerd.

Ha thanks for proving my point. The second one is halfway decent and the other three are ridiculous.
Oh, and I don't care about what the half-baked storyline called for, Batman shouldn't look like that.

And, at the risk of once again repeating myself, comic book illustrations rarely if ever approach anything remotely resembling fine art. Funny that I get flak (and from a person that regards themselves as an artist no less) for merely expressing a concept that is so intrinsically basic. A hoot I say!

I do agree about the vast majority of comic book illustrators being overrated. I would however say that the likes of Steve Ditko and, say, Moebius are fine artists, regardless of whether we want to call what they do 'fine art', which has always struck me as a rather pointless term anyway.

It may seem a bit pointless these days with what passes for fine art, but c'mon, of course there's a difference. True, far too often so-called fine art follows the formulaic rules of craft in the end analysis.

But truly fine art is an expression of chaos within unity, of felt weights and balances, emotive logic, and ultimately of the artist's enigmatic and elusive inner life. There are aesthetic 'rules' with emphasis on form and formal qualities, but the visionaries are able to break them to move art forward through history.

Illustration, by contrast, is craft and draughtsmanship according to the stylistic rules of the genre. It's purpose is to stress the subject (over form) and accompany textual information. There is a threshold, however. After all, this thread is all about ranking comics. How one comic book compares to another comic is determined by the illustrator's experience and sensitivity to the medium, and in this way, an estimation of the illustrator's craft is formulated. And in some cases, the craft is so wonderful that one may even say it's the illustrator's art that separates an average comic from a great one; but of course, the story, the literal narrative invariably has a lot to do with one's estimation as well.

Both have some level of narrative, (even non-objectivist abstract expressionism has some degree of narrative) but the content of each have essential differences and characteristics.

Let's just examine an abbreviated relatively recent history of fine art painting, say, El Greco to Manet to Van Gogh to Cezanne to Kandinsky to Duchamp/Picasso to Abstract Expressionism to Johns/Rauschenberg to Warhol to Basquiat. Will comic books change like this? No. Will they ever? No.

Fine art is structured and formal like classical yet free and open like jazz. It's alchemy; it's reconciliation of perceived opposites. It's like fine poetry or literature compared to pulp fiction. It's like Sonic Youth as compared to Pat Boone. It's like art rock compared to heavy metal. Just because a bunch of characters in the sixties started doing some "underground" comics that pushed the envelope of societal convention and the norms of the comic book genre, don't get inextricably confused. That is not to say I do not enjoy comics when they are done well. Picasso liked them himself. The hero system has a powerful and important psychological allure. But don't kid yourself that comics have a broader cultural palette than they actually do.

But the above are just quick examples by way of analogy to hopefully further an understanding. Fine art is ultimately rather indefinable. And this is not so with comic books which are much more readily analyzable as a sum of their very much more definable parts.

---

No one else seems to be mentioning Moebius. He was my introduction to the whole thing. Came across him in the late eighties.

Yes, of course I ultimately agree with you. There is a difference. Although, as I'm sure you'd agree, I do think it's more of an institutional rather than creative one a lot of the time.

Speaking about Moebius, I came across his stuff through that magazine Heavy Metal, which I think is still going and was, back then at least, a real showcase for innovative comic arts.

The thing I find problematic with a number of the current illustrators is that I get the feeling they learned to draw by looking at comic books (lending itself almost to a state of post Ditko-Mannerism).

The great illustrators, in which I do include Ditko, but others too, like Moebius, clearly found inspiration elsewhere.

I've got a mate who had 2 graphic novels of "Heavy Metal", and he was told he wasn't "allowed" to sell them because they were (and I quote) "paedophile comics"! Unbelievable. I bought both of them off him , and there be zero dodginess on that front in them whatsoever. Fucking English comic shops...

How funny. They still sell it in most big newsagents. I've never noticed anything dodgy like that. Although thinking back to some of the ones in the 80s, they could be seen as a being bit dodgy I suppose, although I don't recall anything specific. Sort of glad I never kept em now. lol. Isn't it actually a French publication that's translated?

My friend went understandably mental when he was effectily accused of being a child-botherer. And this from a shop which sold lots of Japanese "hentai" comics. Hypocrisy, anyone?

I was just gonna mention the manga stuff. Some of that I'm actually surprised is allowed to be sold so openly here. Right now I'd say you're more likely to find dodgier stuff in Forbidden Planet than you are in some bookshop in Soho.

Me too. I think it's the case of the "other" being tolerated (y'know, those "wacky" Japanese, eh?).

Bah - the whole "my mate" incident stank to high heaven.

If anyone's seen the Allan Moore DVD 'The Mindscape of Allan Moore', there's a great disc in that of interviews with his various artist collaborators. Really good stuff.

Actually, I think one of Moore's recent books has been refused publication in the UK because of its dubious content. It's talked about a lot in the DVD.

I wrote a bunch more.

Um, it can be "institutional" or an "academic" dividing line...it often is, but no, the differences are most certainly creative as well.

repost:
It may seem a bit pointless these days with what passes for fine art, but c'mon, of course there's a difference. True, far too often so-called fine art follows the formulaic rules of craft in the end analysis.

But truly fine art is an expression of chaos within unity, of felt weights and balances, emotive logic, and ultimately of the artist's enigmatic and elusive inner life. There are aesthetic 'rules' with emphasis on form and formal qualities, but the visionaries are able to break them to move art forward through history.

Illustration, by contrast, is craft and draughtsmanship according to the stylistic rules of the genre. It's purpose is to stress the subject (over form) and accompany textual information. There is a threshold, however. After all, this thread is all about ranking comics. How one comic book compares to another comic is determined by the illustrator's experience and sensitivity to the medium, and in this way, an estimation of the illustrator's craft is formulated. And in some cases, the craft is so marvelous that one may even say it's the illustrator's art that separates an average comic from a great one; but of course, the story, the literal narrative, invariably has a lot to do with one's estimation as well.

Both have some level of narrative, (even non-objectivist abstract expressionism has some degree of narrative) but the content of each have essential differences and characteristics.

Let's just examine an abbreviated relatively recent history of fine art painting, say, El Greco to Manet to Van Gogh to Cezanne to Kandinsky to Duchamp/Picasso to Abstract Expressionism to Johns/Rauschenberg to Warhol to Basquiat. Have comic books changed like this? No. Will they ever? No.

Fine art is structured and formal like classical yet free and open like jazz. It's alchemy; it's reconciliation of perceived opposites. It's like fine poetry or literature compared to pulp fiction. It's like Sonic Youth as compared to Pat Boone. It's like art rock compared to heavy metal. Just because a bunch of characters in the sixties started doing some "underground" comics that pushed the envelope of societal convention and the norms of the comic book genre, don't get inextricably confused. That is not to say I do not enjoy comics when they are done well. Picasso liked them. The hero system has a powerful and important psychological allure. But don't kid yourself that comics have a broader cultural palette than they actually do.

But the above are just quick examples by way of analogy to hopefully further an understanding. Fine art is ultimately rather indefinable. And this is not so with comic books which are much more readily analyzable as a sum of their very much more definable parts. But, ah, excuse me, I didn't mean to end on an "academic" note ha. Comic books have a literal narrative. And there you have it.

atari2600 - I respectfully disagree with your point. Is a Rauschenberg illustration any "less" a piece of art than a Reubens painting? Art for me should move on a visceral or emotional level (which my examples do for me). All else is conjecture...

Huh?

Just to let you know, I love Rubens. I love Rauschenberg even more.
After all, I'm a modern fellow, aren't I? Moreover, the invention of the photographic camera occurred in-between their lifetimes.

Rauschenberg used silk screening in many works. Richard Prince upon occasion employs a jet ink printer. It doesn't matter if the result is successful as fine art. Both have their fair share of misses, by the way. Art, as indefinable, is like that. One has to endure many misses before hitting that elusive mark. And it's exceedingly difficult to know when and if one even hits it. Comic books are altogether a more paint-by-numbers affair.

Crazy you said Rubens because one of the paintings I lost in a fire had Rubens' The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau amid abstract painterliness and some hard-edge all juxtaposed with Native American art. It was called Red Cloud, after the Sioux chief.

And with that, I say "we agree totally". Cheers, ataridude! You keeping OK Stateside?

as well as can be expected

Oh, and as an addendum, too many fine artists throughout history (but much more these days) seem to think they crap gold bricks. But then again, it's not all that easy to tell when you have something or not, so...

And, oh yeah, I donated a less successful version of the Red Cloud painting to a Mental Health Benefit auction years ago.

Me too, apart from the old insomnia strking again (3 hours sleep a night is not exactly fun....) - you've given me a good kick up the arse to go see some more art exhibitions in London, so seriously, thank you for that.

Comic books haven't progressed, and i agree will not progress, in the way that fine art has. Ultimately I think that the comic book industry is one in which creativity must be 'smuggled' in beneath the radar of the medium's governors. Fine Art, on the other hand, at least in its post-Romantic form, promotes creativity above all else.

Of course, we could transfer this over to a comparison within cinema: between the Art House tradition, and the Hollywood studio system and remind ourselves that some of the greatest pieces of film art have emerged from some of the most ruthlessly cynical corporations imaginable. The fact that someone such as Fritz Lang had to smuggle his ideas against massive oppostion into a film like The Big Heat, while someone like Hal Hartley is given relative freedom to express his does not make Hartley the greater artist.

Hmm, that's an interesting argument you've got percolating there. It's valid food for thought. Although I didn't remark as such, I swear I sort of felt you were going to the film thing eventually with your thinking.

Cinema may go back to the shadow play, but getting real, film, like comic books, is also an art form with a literal narrative that relies more heavily on craft and subject than fine art which deals with the indefinable, yet defines an age.

Film is interesting in that it has a potential to influence the masses, involves more senses, and is, in that respect, far more phantasmagorical than fine art. But at the end of the day, like comic books, film just isn't fine art. Good film, like good comic books, has elements of fine art aesthetics that shape the result. Film is more readily dissected than fine art, but yet the immediate emotional impact has the potential to be and usually is far greater than viewing a painting or sculpture. And good cinema is, like modern art, influenced heavily by process. Cinematic undertakings also, like architecture, (and moreso than graphic novels (storyboards, in the case of film)) involve huge hierarchical teams of people working towards a result.

But excuse me, these are all mental notes to an argument I can't seem to put into words all that well.

I'll assume that you're referring solely to more conventionally narrative film (which both the Classical Hollywood style, and the 'Art house' style are) without moving into areas such as that populated by some avant-garde filmmakers.

Either way, no, these kinds of films are not 'fine art' in so far as 'fine art' is an institutional idea that prohibits the inclusion of such films in accordance with a set of extremely vague ideas regarding what 'fine art' actually is at a given time. Despite what somebody like Greenberg might say, there really is nothing remotely teleological about the practice of art.

Sorry, all this is incredibly vague. Like you, I'm just externalising stuff while working it out in my head, rather than presnting some fully formed position.

Interesting discussion.

Oh, I softened my post, but you quoted the first version...doh!

Mel Gibson: Movies are that important to you Homer?

Homer: They're my only escape from the drudgery of work and family.

Haha, but It's probably fair to say that Homer was referring to the types of film made by Mel Gibson rather than those by, say, Tarkovsky. Not that this observation has any real bearing on the topic in hand. But like you say, food for thought indeed.


If I may use the word bourgeois without being publicly flogged, I'd have to say that, by giving ultimate significanceto the 'artist's enigmatic and elusive inner life' you've just presented the most bourgeois definition of art possible. This isn't a criticism (well it is actually). In fact my own use of Lang and Tarkovsky as counter-examples to yours was just as reliant upon such bourgeois notions (for which I'm deeply ashamed to be honest).


This argument (and it's a strong one i believe) would ultimately hinge on whether we should think of something like icon painting or the bayeaux tapestry as illustration or art? This isn't a question I expect anyone to answer, in so far as I don't think there is an answer to it, well a correct answer anyway.

Une Semaine de Bonté (A Week of Kindness) by Max Ernst published 1934 (he has earlier ones too)
A Surrealist Graphic Novel in Collage

http://laboiteaimages.hautetfort.com..._de_bonte.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0486...pt#reader-link

Those Ernst panels make me think of how the comic strip missed a real opportunity early in its genesis. By abandoning the path laid out by the likes of Ernst it chose the route of superheroes and a younger audience. I have nothing at all against superheroes, but to have tied a medium so closely to a single type of content is the equivalent of cinema being reduced simply to a role of churning out variations on the Western or animation to the depiction of cuddly rodents. Even the likes of Alan Moore and the Hernandez Brothers (who I admire greatly) are merely tinkering with a pre-existing paradigm, rather than blasting it wide open - which is as necessary now as it's ever been, if the medium is to fulfil its genuine artistic potential. One Maus does not a revolution make, after all.


I can't agree with this. It would ultimately deny a whole tradition of artists replicating their world as closely as technically possible.

Admittedly, illustrations such as these have been rendered largely pointless with the invention of photography, but it does show that art was for a time more concerned with issues of education than it was creative or emotional expression.

This will mostly just show I'm pretty out of touch with the medium these days, but what the hell...

1. Swamp Thing (Rick Vietch and Alan Moore runs in particular)
2. Hate - Peter Bagge
3. Doctor Strange (various runs from the beginning on)
4. Elric - the Making of a Sorcerer - Michael Moorcock script/Walt Simonson art!
5. The Book of Jim - Jim Woodring
6. Fritz the Cat - R. Crumb
7. Neat Stuff - Peter Bagge
8. Meatcake - Dame Darcy
9. Eightball - Danielle Clowes
10. Underworld - Kaz

im pretty much familiar with the american and european 'classics' or canon, but can anyone recommend some of the japanese 'essentials'?...i've heard osamu tezuka's name kicked around a bit...

Book series:

The Fourth Realm Trilogy by John Twelve Hawks. (The Traveler, The Dark River) third installment coming soon.

Graphic Novel:


The long halloween.

that's why I loved The Dark Knight.

As a kid I read a buttload of Spiderman. These days I have no interest in Marvel or D.C.

My two favorite graphic novels / manga are (and this simultaneously answers your question, chairman of the bored) 'Akira' and 'Lone Wolf and Cub.'

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned 'Lone Wolf and Cub' yet. The story is amazing, the history is impeccably researched, the characters are great, and the art work is beautiful. Looking back, in the first volume they're clearly breaking into things... the writing, but mostly the art, but it pretty much becomes and remains stellar for the remaining 27 volumes. I alternately wish Ogami Itto was my father, and that Daigoro was my son. You know, like, if I was ever forced to have a kid or if the chick was like "Yeah, I thought I was down with abortions before, but I don't know anymore..." and then ruined both of our lives.


This picture is from the second volume.

Some more 'Lone Wolf and Cub' panels: