comics ain't art? grrrr.

So, I'm not even reading the piece of ballast that kicked off the latest round of "can comics be art?" pinging around the blog world. Why would I? On its face, I find the assertion that comics can't be art stupid, or to be fake-nice, misguided. I've started comments in people's posts on this and thought better of posting them, or just gotten that feeling that they were getting too long and rambly and so delete, delete, delete. But. Against my better judgement, I'm going to say a few things about this here, none of them about justifying why comics are art. Nor do I feel the need to throw out a bunch of great titles to support this argument because I. Don't. Need. To. Lots of other people have. It's not that hard to find out what the really good stuff is, and again, that's not at issue -- it is out there.

(Corollary: Would anyone really care to argue in an age when the focus is shifting to how, how, how do we get teenage boys to read that comics and film scripts aren't going to be taught in classrooms within the next 50 years? When my mom, high school principal in an extremely rural place, asked us how to get h.s. boys to read we said graphic novels. I say bring it on: the canon will still be the canon.)

Anyway, this is a post I almost made last night in Ed's comments.

I refuse to get sucked into this teapot (ha) because I'm done having arguments about: what is art? Because this is not a sitcom, Edie Brickell is not involved and &tc. I believe just about any damn thing can be art. The question is always whether it's good art or not, and maybe how good or how bad if you want to get more complicated. (In the Eye of the Beholder, which is Me. Or You. Or the Good Art Movement(TM).) So, I say fuck off to people who make too many distinctions about what can and can't be art and what's high art or what's low, because they're mostly just missing the point. (And no fun at all.) I don't understand the desire to approach art dismissively, to out of hand make judgments about art based on medium. It's absurd.

For c===st's sake people, there's a "King of the Hill" episode that's sort of about this. If someone uses propane tanks to make art, well, it's still fucking art and it may be great art. If someone uses comics to make art, likewise. Saying that no one has judged the great masterpiece of comics seems to me to be a fictious argument too, or at least an elitist one. So, the people who actually read comics aren't fit to judge whether they're art or not? Someone who doesn't like them gets to do that?

Right. That makes sense.

Next, start telling me that video games will never have the capacity to evoke an emotional response. I don't play them, have no desire to, but I'm not willing to stick my head that far in the sand. Wake up. These distinctions are meaningless. Seek out what moves you. In every possible medium.

Or be boring and miserable.

Your choice. I've made mine.

p.s. I would like to say that most of the responses I've read I couldn't agree with more. Bookslut, Weirdwriter, Scribbling Woman and Ed (Return of the Reluctant) have all said interesting stuff.

Now I have to go kick myself for giving in to my weaker nature. Oh, and get some sleep.