|
Words: Amy Cross A new exhibit at the Winnipeg Art Gallery presents the funnies as high art Duncan Macpherson, Untitled, 1978, from the Winnipeg Art GAalery. Art (art) n. 1. A skill acquired by study or practice; natural aptitude; knack: the art of sewing 2. The body of knowledge and experience related to a particular occupation or profession: the art of war. 3. The study or creation of beautiful things, as in painting, drawing, sculpture, architecture, music, literature and dancing. 4. The work produced by painters, sculptors, musicians, etc. How can it not be art?
Would you consider comic books, political cartoons and graphic novels high art?
For years, comic books, cartoons and graphic illustrations have been refused entry by the art world, which claims that they’re ubiquitous pop culture basement collections that feature kitschy aesthetics at best. But why can’t they be considered high art?
The Winnipeg Art Gallery’s Contemporary Art & Photography Curator, Mary Reid, has compiled a new exhibit entitled Funny Papers: Marvel Comics, Canadian Political Cartoons and Contemporary Art? The exhibit opened on May 27 and has generated quite a buzz in the art world and among the public. The funnies as high art may sound like a new idea, however the debate has existed since the early ’70s.
Faced with a gap in exhibition space, Reid went to the Winnipeg Art Gallery’s (wag) vault in order to get ideas from the gallery’s permanent collection. After a few weeks of searching, she came across three exhibits from the ’70s: 1) The Structure of Comics (1973), 2) Canadian Political Cartoons (1977), and 3) Streranko: Graphic Narrative (1978).
The Structure of Comics (1973) first introduced the idea of “high vs. low art” by exhibiting a collection of comic book images from Marvel Comics in New York. The exhibit was compiled by then-wag curator Philip Fry, and approved with some trepidation by wag director Ferdinand Eckhardt. The exhibit was comprised of 50 works, from original inked drawings, panels and progressive proofs to final prints. The exhibit brought the popular images from the morning funnies and comic books into an art gallery for the first time, challenging the public’s notions of art. The Structure of the Comics became one of the most critically and publicly successful exhibits in the wag’s history. In fact, Marvel Comics were so impressed with the exhibition, they offered the images to the wag for a very reasonable price. Although the exhibit was successful, Fry still had to defend its worthiness to the gallery’s skeptical purchasing jury. See, the thing is, although Marvel was offering the collection to the gallery for a good price, most works offered to gallery’s are donated, and even then have to be defended as a work of art to the gallery’s jury. The main question asked is: “Is this work worthy of being in our collection?”; or, “Are these works worthy of being called art?” Did the jury doubt the worthiness of its own exhibit? Although Fry was successful and the gallery agreed to purchase the works, The Structure of Comics images have remained in the vault for over 30 years.
Canadian Political Cartoons (1977) addres-sed the illustration vs. art debate by focusing the exhibition on the issue of Separatism in Canada, supported by drawings from editorial cartoonists across Canada. The works of Peter Kuch (1917–1980) from The Winnipeg Free Press and Duncan MacPherson 1924–1993) from The Toronto Star make up this exhibit. This part of the exhibition humorously pokes fun at politics. How can it not be art?
Due to the success of Fry’s The Structure of the Comics exhibit, the wag wanted to put on another exhibit that was as successful and accessible to the public. So they commissioned an exhibit with Jim Steranko, a grapic novelist, called Streranko: Graphic Narrative (1978). In order to promote the exhibit the wag commissioned two works by Steranko. Steranko created film noir styled images heavy with shadows and hidden corners. The wag found the images too dark and evil and requested that Steranko change them… not an acceptable request for a patron to make to an artist! “I am sorry Mr. Dali, but your images are just too confusing.” Can you imagine? If galleries would never make such requests to “high,” artists why make them of any artist? And especially an artist with whom you are commissioning an exhibit. Why can’t cartoons and graphic images be considered high art? This is the question Reid proposes with her exhibit.
Funny Papers: Marvel Comics, Canadian Political Cartoons, and Contemporary Art? Combines images from all three past exhibits with a contemporary collection of works by the Royal Art Lodge, Pierre Ayot, Laurent Roberge, Michah Lexier and Winnipeg’s own Marcel Dzama. Put together, these images incorporate aspects of graphic storytelling, comics, cartooning and illustration to poke a finger at politics, humour, production, pop culture and nostalgia.
How could they not be art? Not only do these works have incredible aesthetic and color, they’re also rich in humour and emotion, political and social ideas. I would argue that any group of creative work that withstands over 30 years of debate as to whether or not they can be considered art, most definitely is high art. After all is art not provocative, controversial and inspirational?
Although the art vs. illustration debate has lost some steam among the general public, the debate continues in art schools, art museums and in artists’ studios worldwide. While most of the critics and public agree that comics and graphic illustrations are an art form, their consent does not come easily. Considering that Reid felt the need to include a question mark at the end of the exhibit title, one cannot say the battle is over yet. While illustration may now be accepted as an art form, it has yet to be awarded the status of high art. Acceptance into the art world takes time, but illustration artists continue to create work that pushes the boundaries… so chances are it shouldn’t be much longer now.
For those who love comics and graphic novels and for those who continue to argue that illustration is not art, I highly suggest visiting Funny Papers: Marvel Comics, Canadian Political Cartoons and Contemporary Art? It runs until September 10, 2006, at The Winnipeg Art Gallery, or if you can’t make it down, call the curator Mary Reid directly. She has already received a lot of public calls in regards to this exhibit. However, if you are calling to argue against the notion of illustration as high art be prepared to be argue your case: Reid puts up a good fight, and keep in mind she’s got a powerful exhibit with years worth of work to back it up.
|
|
|
