Comic Book Resources

I like a lot of what you’re saying and where you are coming from.
Holding out ‘Eightball’ as something that is objectively ‘good’ undermines almost every other sentence you posted though.

Not every issue of Eightball’s a masterpiece, clearly, but it’s hard to find a creator right now who’s more on his game, whose art and whose writing craft are both as good as Clowes.

I think there is a difference between “ART” and artwork. I think one of the main differences between the two is intention. Sure if you sketched a cartoon it wouldn’t look as pretty as a hot woman done by Quitely. However, what’s the context of the two pieces of artwork? Is yours intentionally drawn “poorly” to make a statement? Is Quitely’s done just to look pretty? Or is yours done poorly because you can’t do better and is Quitely’s done pretty to make a statement? …I think the “artists” intension is relevant. If the artist is trying to make “ART” then that’s different from a piece of “artwork” done for a paycheck.

Scott, I’m not really sure the point of what you’re saying.

I was referring to the statement that art isn’t subjective but one’s reaction to art is subjective.

My point was that sometimes it’s not up to just the reader/viewer to determine if something is art or not. Sometimes it’s the artist’s intentions that qualify something as “ART.”

Just because person A doesn’t feel something is art doesn’t mean it isn’t. Or if person B feels something is art, doesn’t mean it is. Classifying something as “art” also depends on the person who created it.

—does that get my point across better?

If you guys drew a clearer line between appreciating craftsmanship/technique and declaring something is capital-A ART that will last the ages when you use the word “good,”, I daresay a lot of these arguments would disappear.

Like someone else said, with “Art” intent counts for a lot. Honesty counts for a lot. Innovation counts for a lot. You do your best to assess those things along with craftsmanship when you write a review and that’s where good criticism comes from.

There’s also a great deal to be said for the kind of reviews where you know going in that the reviewer likes certain things; that’s his area of expertise, his opinion carries some weight there. There’s nobody to touch Mike Barr when he writes about mystery fiction. He knows it forward and backward. Something like that, the question of whether or not it’s ‘art’ isn’t even on the table — you want to know if the expert thinks it matches what he, in his expertise, knows is the best-crafted examples of that genre.

This is why I get peevish with many reviewers in the comics press — they don’t seem to have a clear grasp of the kind of reviews they are writing or what the criteria is for the genre they write ABOUT. You can always judge craft. Hell, you can even TEACH craft. A creator has to hit certain marks in commercial fiction — mystery, superhero, romance, whatever — and a reviewer can judge whether or not those were done well.

So, you know, there’s some of us that are more interested in THAT kind of review. “Is it well-crafted?’ That’s honestly where my interest lies, I have more fun talking about pulp adventure fiction with no lasting literary merit whatsoever. I know it’s kind of off-message for the blog. But my excuse is that I at least try to make it diverting. Personally, I kind of like the spectrum we have here — I don’t know that my taste matches ANYONE’s here, I’m really pretty stolidly mainstream. (Although it always surprises me that more weird little indie books cross my path than most of the rest of you.) But I enjoy reading both Joe’s AND Burgas’ reviews. I generally think that the wider a spectrum of taste represented, the better off we are. Whether that’s, you know, in keeping with the mission statement or not.

Ah, I got you now. Yeah, I agree pretty much. However, I also think that the artist’s intention isn’t paramount either. People can think very little of what they make and end up with something others recognize as great.

I haven’t completely shaken my dadaist roots so I still think it’s ALL art. Just, some of it is better art. And intention can play a role in that, yes.

Whether the standards used to judge art are objective or subjective or some combination of the two, if the only justification of why someone thinks a work of art is good is “I like it” that’s not particularly *interesting*. Its just an assertion of opinion folks can take it or leave it. When a critic explains what they like about something and relate it to how they feel about other works of art, readers can weigh the critics opinion against their own reactions and pass their own judgement. On a large scale, this sort of sets the bounds of consensus.

Its not like there is a God of Comic Books who can pass objective judgement on things as if it were a natural law. But that doesn’t mean that all opinions are equal, either. Or that people have to *like* something to see it as having merit or value. I do think that calling an opinion about art “right” or “wrong” is only useful in a humorous way. The issue isn’t whether something is right or wrong, but whether its arguable, just plain stupid, or merely a statement of personal enjoyment (ie useless).

William and Greg, I am with you entirely. It’s very good to read people who see this.

the point is there are brilliant artists working in the comic industry and there are also the mediocre ones who makes us cringe with their half-assed works.

The problem here is that the conversation about comics online has degenerated to the degree that any critique is immediately interpreted as attack by SOMEone.

I blame this on two equally to-blame parties: the extremists on both sides. those who HATE mainstream comics unconditionally, and those who LOVE mainstream comics unconditionally.

in the middle is where the conversation happens. it’s also where a lot of things ARE, in fact, subjective. because art may not be subjective, but OPINIONS are.

i’m glad you wrote this, joe. i was in on the ugly thread of last week re: the DC teaser image (DarthAstuart) and I really regretted a lot of what I posted, or rather, the tone of it. so it gives me an opportunity to apologise for that, to you and especially to Kid Omega on the boards, if he ever reads this.

the other piece to consider: it is possible to enjoy the dumbest of dumb comics for one reason, and the highest of highbrow comics for other reasons. high art, trash culture–everything can be enjoyed for some reason or another by someone, and as long as we’re talking about the whys and why nots instead of the “OH EM GEE YOU ARE DUM CAUSE YOU LIKE IT,” things stay interesting.

just my two cents.

I totally agree. I love some stuff that is awful, that is stupid, and such. But I try to make sure I don’t pretend they’re better than some very good things I don’t care for.

I don’t even see this as a mainstream/indie issue. This debate can be had internally in each.

Apology totally accepted, by the way. Thanks.

The way I see it is this- there can’t be a final word. There are objective standards, but our evaluation of how a work meets those standards will be subjective enough for two people to hold completely different evaluations without either being wrong. Take, say, dialogue. You can say dialogue is good because it’s realistic or it advances the story or it’s just well written in a stylized way, but what if the dialogue is realistic at the expense of advancing the story (like a lot of modern banter), or advances the story at the expense of realism (like a lot of Silver Age talk)? And what is realistic dialogue anyway? We all have slightly different senses of how people “actually” talk, based on our cultural backgrounds.

There’s also how standards go together- is a work with bad art but great writing better than a work with bad writing but great art? Can the strength of one area make up for deficiencies in the other?

Of course it’s not entirely subjective, otherwise there’d be nothing to talk about because the work wouldn’t exist outside of our perceptions. But I like to think, if only for the sake of allowing healthy debate and the retention of personal taste, that two people can construct equally valid and reasoned arguments supporting two entirely opposed opinions, and neither has to be right.

I agree, Evan. It’s when folks try the “all opnions are equal” crap that I’m bothered. Support your opinion with evidence and we can talk.

okay, I have a little more.

1) the problem with the “art is not subjective” statement is that we all have to come to some kind of consensus on WHAT the standards are by which we judge “good” or “bad” art. obviously, there are basic technical rules–if someone draws people without noses, that’s probably bad.

beyond the obvious amateur/awful mistakes, whose standards are we using to determine “good” art? and who got to pick them? and why?

I mean, if you want to make an intelligent argument to defend or condemn just about ANYTHING, that’s good reading and good writing. but to then say “well, here’s all this, and this is also just GOOD art,” it’s like, why do you need to make that supposedly “objective” statement in addition to your critique? does it need to have a place in the pantheon of art, or can it just stand on its own, good or great or bad, and be talked about for its own sake?

2) I can recommend a comic I don’t particularly like, because I can ascertain it is objectively good.

but WHY would you want to???

listen, if all this shit is about anything, it’s about getting jazzed on what you like, and ranting on what you don’t, and getting into the whys and the wherefores of it. hopefully the diversity of writers and voices here means that a fair amount of different perspectives are being represented.

but really, i don’t think a critic’s job is to recommend good stuff even if he/she hates it; it’s to discuss REACTION to the work, backed by KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE. and if you still hate something you recognize as being Great Art, then I guess it’s your choice to even write about it or not.

there’s critique in the mere choice of what to write about–do you bother bagging on a shitty comic? or writing crap about a middle of the road one?

anyway.

I completely disagree, but it’s especially strange to me that you use Quitely as your example, since I was just thinking about this topic in regards to him. There are several popular comics artists I don’t like, but I see why others like them. For some reason Quitely the only artist that I despise and strongly feel (though I know better) an urge to declare that his art is objectively bad.

As I try to read a Quitely book, my brain is screaming to me, “How could ANYBODY like this stuff??? Not only are his figures bloated, stiff and aesthetically repugnant, but the much-vaunted storytelling is atrocious, with most panels being 90% dead space! This is OBJECTIVELY bad! ANY sensible person who know anything about the tool of comics storytelling would feel the same way!!!”

Then, just to remind myself that there’s no such thing as objective standards in art, I hop on the internet where Quitely chi is considered to be like unto a thing a iron.

It’s a shame too, because I love Morrison, but I’ve never gotten to the last page of any issue of New X-Men, We3, or All-Star without fleeing in horror from (what I consider to be) the atrocious art and storytelling.

1. Centuries and centuries of studying art have refined what makes it good. And it runs the gamut from technical stuff (lighting, rendering, drawing the eye) to more ephemeral but noticable stuff (aesthetic, creativity, etc). Comics are just as relatable to art history as anything else, but they also have the added benefit/standard of storytelling, of which there’s even MORE study.

2. Just because I don’t like a great work doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be lauded. I can’t stand the movie 8 1/2, but it’s a great damn film, no ifs about it. It’s important both to keep perspective and to recommend what might be liked rather than what I like.

I generally try to avoid getting shitty comics just to rag on them. I used to do it when I started blogging, but there are much better places for my money. If I see something particularly dumb, I may comment, if only because it’s funny like that guy getting hit in the nuts on AFV.

I don’t even see this as a mainstream/indie issue. This debate can be had internally in each.

fair enough. i just feel like there is something gurgling at the heart of online comics discussion that affords a higher standard to be placed on even a bad indie comic than on a decent mainstream one.

i’m struggling with this, but there’s just an attitude I smell sometimes–and again, this is on both sides of the debate–where you either have to embrace one side or the other, the snobby indie side or the slurpy mainstream side, and it’s impossible to realistically have diverse taste.

one other thought: maybe we can all agree that the real issue on this stuff takes place in the great void of middle work–for the most part, we can agree on the classics, and we can agree on the absolute garbage. it’s in talking about the random good to great to okay stuff all along the spectrum that it gets harder to comment.

Wow, Mr. Bird, you’re pretty far off here. Quitely’s control of his “actors’” body language is sublime. His storytelling is almost a natural evolution of his pen. And he gets that “detail” doesn’t mean “over rendering.” You’re letting personal taste get in the way of objective viewing.

Matt: I TOTALLY agree with that. The extremes are easy to recognize and are more objective. The middle-ground, that’s where it’s tough, and, thus, interesting.

1. Centuries and centuries of studying art have refined what makes it good. And it runs the gamut from technical stuff (lighting, rendering, drawing the eye) to more ephemeral but noticable stuff (aesthetic, creativity, etc). Comics are just as relatable to art history as anything else, but they also have the added benefit/standard of storytelling, of which there’s even MORE study.

again, though, we can all SAY these things are true, but once we get inside it, what are the specifics? Where’s the irrefutable list of what makes, say, how to draw an eye Good versus Bad? Who wrote that list? Based on what? Realistic depiction against the true human eye?

I’m not trying to be argumentative–I just think the objective standards of what makes good Art of any kind are an elusive and maybe impossible goal. They may be there, I can agree on that, but once we start bringing them up, we have to wonder WHAT they are, and then I start saying I prefer large irises in my eyeballs, and you prefer large corneas, and then the whole thing’s shot to hell.

I can be a bit of a critic geek–if I like someone’s writing on film or music or comics or whatever, I will follow them around like a fool. What I think a good critic does, rather than aspiring to some general standard of Good Art in analyzing work, is to articulate THEIR view of what makes Good Art through what they write about, and how they write about it. Whether you realize it or not, Joe, you do that because you’re a good writer. The online comics writers/critics/posters/whatever who fail at that are the ones who can’t articulate their view through what they write, becaue they don’t have the knowledge and experience and interest in creating that level of analysis.

2. Just because I don’t like a great work doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be lauded. I can’t stand the movie 8 1/2, but it’s a great damn film, no ifs about it. It’s important both to keep perspective and to recommend what might be liked rather than what I like.

that first part is true…but the last part, you lose me. I guess it’s okay for you to say, “I didn’t like 8 1/2, but you might like it,” but I’m not sure I want to read why you think it’s great if you don’t yourself like it.

Maybe part of the distinction we’re running into here, too, is a more academic view of criticism versus a more popular mainstream view? You can write an academic analysis of 8 1/2 discussing why it’s a great film even if you yourself don’t like it–but why review it, unless there’s something of interest in the gulf between its greatness and your opinion of it?

On what basis would you say that Tron is terrible? It was pretty innovative for the time, and I think that as an adventure pic geared toward adolescents, it met its objectives pretty well.

Yeah, you’re wrong. Just plain wrong.

Art is entirely subjective. You know why? Because the determination of what is and isn’t art is entirely subjective. And I mean entirely.

Someone paints a picture of a can of soup? Art. Someone piles a bunch of junkyard refuse together and takes a photo? Art. Jackson Pollock splatters paint on a canvas all willy nilly? Art. I don’t personally care too much for any of that stuff, but I’m not arrogant enough to claim that it isn’t art. It’s just not my bag.

If someone, anyone, believes that something is art, it is. And there’s no argument. You can say you don’t like it, you can even hate it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not art, and it doesn’t mean it’s not good art. When the very definition of something is subjective, how can you try and impose objective standards of quality on it? The idea that one person’s opinion about something like this is somehow more valid than another’s is elitist and narrow minded.

Sure, you’re talking about comic art, specifically, but the same principles apply. I can’t remember who, but someone on CSBG really seems to dislike Humberto Ramos as an artist. Personally, I like him. The fact that someone doesn’t like his style, doesn’t make him bad, he’s just not to their taste. In fact, I can only assume that every working comic book artist has fans somewhere, or they wouldn’t be working.

The one area where your argument might have some validity is if you consider the artist’s purpose (which you touched on briefly). One drawing may tell a story better than another, but you can really only know that if you know for sure the story being told. Even that has a lot of subjectivity to it, though. Two people can easily get two completely different stories from the same picture.

I like this blog and its writers quite a bit, and I don’t want to seem too upset here (because, really, I’m not), but this column doesn’t read like you’re explaining any great truth about art, it mostly sounds like you’re just posting an articulate (not to be confused with accurate) argument as to why your opinions (and, presumably, those with whom you agree) should be held above those of others.

Er, by “drawing the eye” I meant “making the viewer look where you want them to look.” Not literally sketching or rendering an eyeball.

I don’t mean to say I think there’s this concrete list written somewhere that makes ART. But there are general things that can either add or subtract from the quality of a piece. If the lighting is inconsistent, that’s generally a bad sign. If there are huge plot holes, that’s generally a bad sign. If you do not follow the rules and logic you set up yourself for a story, that’s not good. Again, as you’re saying, the discussion of this is interesting and not everyone’s going to agree on every specific point. But there are general agreements mankind has had for centuries, literally, and they’re not about to change either.

Aside–I hope no one takes this as anti-experimental or -expressivist or anything. I actually prefer expressive renderings to “realistic” ones, but they have their own set of standards as well.

You yourself may not want to read why I think 8 1/2 is great, but there are folks that do. And I think it’s important for me, as a critic, to keep in mind that me liking something doesn’t mean it’s great, and vice versa. “The Final Countdown” won’t be passed down the ages like a Mozart opera, no matter how much I rock out to it. In this way, it is more of the critic’s responsibility than the reader’s desire.

As for Tron, hey, I think it’s fun, but it’s extremely derivative with some shoddy acting that hangs to much upon its (at the time great) effects. It’s fun and does something nice, but isn’t a great movie by any standard. “Terrible” might be a bit much.

Jim would almost have a point if I had ever questioned whethere something was art or not. I absolutely do not question it. Everything from the scribblings of my students to the paintings of Da Vinci to the ready-mades of the Dadaists is art. I will never deny anything it’s, uh, “art-hood.”

But just because it’s art doesn’t mean it is as good as every other piece of art. Those youngster scribblings, adorable as they are, do not match up with a Rembrandt. It is well within my rights to love them more, but my love for them does not alter what they are.

Sure, you’re talking about comic art, specifically, but the same principles apply. I can’t remember who, but someone on CSBG really seems to dislike Humberto Ramos as an artist. Personally, I like him. The fact that someone doesn’t like his style, doesn’t make him bad, he’s just not to their taste. In fact, I can only assume that every working comic book artist has fans somewhere, or they wouldn’t be working.

This is part of my point. Everyone’s free to like or dislike whatever they want. But at this site, I say, if we’re going to discuss it, let’s raise the game beyond “I like/dislike.” Give us some real critiques. What makes Ramos’ art work or not work? What is he going for? Does he accomplish it? Does he stay consistent to his own artistic logic? Liking something is great. To explain what about it you like enhances the depth of your feeling, draws out more, and helps you find more of what you like.

A while ago I had a discussion online with some people about the current run of (Supergirl and the) Legion of Super-Heroes, a frequent topic of mine. Among the people in the conversation were some who claimed that there was nothing good about the comic at all, that it was devoid of even attempts at doing anything good. Which was something I thought I could argue with, because it didn’t depend on the subjective question of who likes the book and who doesn’t.

The points I ended up making were that I could show actual examples of symbolism and subtle characterization in the comic book. That is, I could make the objective artistic statement that the comic book had certain characteristics. I don’t know if I convinced anybody of anything, but the point is that it’s possible to figure out objective things about art, even if we can’t always go on from there to put artworks in the Good or Bad categories. We can still discover interesting true things.

Well put, Matthew. I’m not a fan of the book in question, but I’d never say there was nothing good about it. It’s better than a lot of things out there.

Everyone’s free to like or dislike whatever they want. But at this site, I say, if we’re going to discuss it, let’s raise the game beyond “I like/dislike.” Give us some real critiques. What makes Ramos’ art work or not work? What is he going for? Does he accomplish it? Does he stay consistent to his own artistic logic? Liking something is great. To explain what about it you like enhances the depth of your feeling, draws out more, and helps you find more of what you like.

this is great, but I would guess most of us have no educated background in art. if someone has taken art classes, or has a masters in art appreciation, or has drawn comics professionally for thirty years, then maybe they could really analyze this in a way that relates to Art as a whole, from an objective perspective.

but if I say I like Humberto Ramos’ work because its exaggerated style exhibits a flamboyance that feels natural for superhero stories, is that a valid critique? i have no art training. i can’t talk about drawing the eye (or the eyeball), perspective, lighting, etc. does that make me ill-equipped to discuss my opinions?

Bravo, Joe. “It’s all subjective” is the last, desperate plea of the critically bankrupt before they start swearing at their betters.

I think, if you read enough comics and look at enough work, you know more than you think you know. And the more you think about it, the more you exercise your brain in this way, justifying opinions or critiques with technique, facts, etc., you get better at it. I’m far from an expert myself, but it’s something that I constantly try to improve.

Thanks, Alan. Who’d've thunk that I’d still be writing a variation on this all this time after that first piece I wrote for you?

You’re right, you didn’t question whether or not something was art, and I wasn’t saying that you did. Rather, I was simply saying that if the very definition of art is so completely subjective, how can you claim that the value of it can be objectively determined? Matthew E is right, you can determine objective things about it, but you can’t really draw lines directly from those objective facts to the “Good” and “Bad” buckets.

However, I’m with you that if someone is going to argue the value of something, they should bring reasoned and detailed arguments to the table. Without that, discussions would quickly degenerate into the realm of “You’re stupid.” “No, you’re stupid.” And what’s the point of that?

“Er, by “drawing the eye” I meant “making the viewer look where you want them to look.” Not literally sketching or rendering an eyeball.”

AWESOME.

Hey! I like Manhunter!

The point is determining who’s stupider, duh.

Kidding.

I reiterate that I don’t think all art is easily placed in black and white columns of good and bad. But SOME of it is. You look at a true masterpiece and you know it. It works. And you look at pure drek and, if you can separate yourself from some emotional tie it may have on you, you can see it.

But don’t you think that if you “separate yourself from some emotional tie it may have on you” you’re actually removing much of its value as art?

Why would anyone want to do that?

and ultimately, isn’t it just as impossible to create an objective standard of Good Art as it is to simply throw up one’s arms and say, “well, it’s all subjective, so we’re all right?” in other words, aren’t they both at extremes?

just enjoying the give and take here, by the way.

No, I don’t. By “emotional tie” (bad phrasing, I admit) I didn’t mean “how it makes you feel” as much as, like, someone’s nostalgiac attachment to Rob Liefeld or Robot Jox or something.

Actually, it still seems like we disagree, Joe. I don’t think even the extremes are obvious. As I said, there’s ALWAYS room for dissent.

I remain convinced that David Lynch’s version of DUNE is one of the finest science fiction films of all time. This is not a consensus opinion- it has a cult following, but is not held in esteem as a classic of genre cinema.

One could make a case against WATCHMEN. You could hang on to the loose thread of the work’s unusual ending or the apparent tonal incongruity of the fake alien tentacle monster. Any work has that kind of crack you can hang onto and argue as undermining the whole. Similarly, there’s no work that doesn’t have ANY potentially redeeming feature to it whatsoever.

Like I said, it’s not a black and white issue. It’s not completely either, but (on the internet at least) I see more denials of objectivity entirely than vice versa. In fact, I’ve never seen ANYone say that it’s completely objective.

But don’t you think that if you “separate yourself from some emotional tie it may have on you” you’re actually removing much of its value as art?

Why would anyone want to do that?

For the purpose of coming up with some kind of cogent evaluation. Which is not to say that you’re forbidding yourself from experiencing the emotions the artwork inspires in you; of course you wouldn’t do that. But you can recognize that the emotional tie is only of interest to you.

“Genre” cinema is a bit tougher than actual cinema criticism. Different standards, and usually kind of inbred, nerdy ones.

I think “Dune” is a better movie than a “sci fi movie” if that makes sense. It certainly reaches further.

I’ve never read a critique of Watchmen that adequately put aside the complete mastery of craft displayed by the creators. You can critique bits–it’s not perfect, nothing is–but as a whole, it works.

For the purpose of coming up with some kind of cogent evaluation. Which is not to say that you’re forbidding yourself from experiencing the emotions the artwork inspires in you; of course you wouldn’t do that. But you can recognize that the emotional tie is only of interest to you.

Thanks, exactly. I still rock out to “Final Countdown” even if I know it’s terrible.

“In fact, I’ve never seen ANYone say that it’s completely objective.”

You’re right, and I’ve probably approached this as though you did say it was completely objective, and that’s not really fair. I honestly believe, though, that it is entirely subjective, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.

I really enjoyed the discussion.

Thanks.

No problem, Jim. Discussion is why I posted this. Not just to discuss this, though, but to discuss comics better.

I’ve never read a critique of Watchmen that adequately put aside the complete mastery of craft displayed by the creators. You can critique bits–it’s not perfect, nothing is–but as a whole, it works.

But my point is, “bits” can be seen as much more important by some than by others. They’re part of the craft, too, so if they don’t work, that’s a flaw in the craft.

That’s stretching it, I think. I mean, no, nothing is perfect. But saying Watchmen isn’t great work because the ending is wonky TO YOU isn’t that substantial.

Yeah, that was me who doesn’t like Ramos. Exaggerated figures, weird anatomy, poor use of panel space. But that’s just me.

I figured I would weigh in since this is directed at me. Of course you’re right, Joe, when you say ART isn’t subjective, but our reaction to it is, but those two things are so interconnected that it’s almost pointless to try and make a distinction. We can discuss lofty principles all we want, and Alan can chime in and call people critically bankrupt, but ultimately it comes down to: “Do I like it?” That’s just the way it is.

To address some of your specific complaints: the weekly posts I do aren’t supposed to great critical readings of the fine comics art that is out there. That’s why they’re called “What I bought.” It’s simply a list of comics I purchased and what I thought of them. Sometimes I don’t even do that and focus on a specific point about them. I’m not holding up any of the books as high art - maybe I should, because as you put it, that ought to be the point of the blog, but I don’t. I try to explain what the book is about and let people make up their own minds. You can pick on the selections all you want, but so far the only one you’ve bashed is Moon Knight, and I freely admit that I enjoy it more than it probably deserves. (I’m sure you hate a lot of other books I read, so I don’t need a list.) Part of the point of the weekly post is to give people an idea about what’s out there that they might have missed - I don’t give a rat’s ass whether it’s ART or not. A lot of people on-line have been flogging Mouse Guard, and if that gets more people to buy it, all the better. People who read this blog regularly know what kind of books I like, and I hope that they pick up some comics they might have missed but would still enjoy because of my posts (or someone else’s, too - I’m not singling myself out). I’m not about to go into a grand dissertation on why this book works or this book doesn’t. Maybe that means I should stop posting my weekly haul. I’m not going to, but maybe that’s what it means.

The contention that how we judge ART is objective is flawed because of our human emotions, which we cannot separate out. You talk about people with more experience than I have and respecting their opinions more, which I agree with. I have read very good art critics who think, say, Guernica by Picasso is crap, and they can prove it. I have also read very good art critics who think Guernica is a masterpiece, and they can prove it. How do I choose? I look at the damned painting and respond emotionally. It’s the same thing with comic books. Of course I can’t defend some of my purchases. I don’t try to. I say why I like them, I don’t claim they’re the greatest thing in the world, and I let the reader decide.

I can’t judge art as well as I can judge writing, because I’m not an artist. I get ripped for not reading The Spirit, and my credentials as a reviewer questioned. That’s fine. I will say that I’ve read a very small selection from Eisner, and I didn’t like it. If I look at it objectively, I will say that his art is fine, but his writing is heavy-handed, far too expository, overly pedantic in places, and lacking in narrative tension. But I come to those conclusions because viscerally, I just didn’t like the writing. Is Eisner OBJECTIVELY a bad writer because I don’t like him and see the flaws in his work? I don’t know. I imagine I’m in the minority about that opinion. Maybe I have to read more of his work. My point is that I can explain WHY I don’t like the writing, but is it because I reacted poorly to it or because, in a world of Platonic ideals, it’s bad writing?

I do try to look at certain comics objectively, and that’s why I do longer posts about Comics (I Think) You Should Own. I explain WHY Elektra: Assassin works as a comic book. I think I did a pretty good job, but you may disagree. If you have read Elektra: Assassin and hate it, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. But at least I tried.

To paraphrase Alan, saying “it’s objective” is the last, desperate plea of the elitist who can’t understand why Infinite Crisis sells so well and [insert their favorite book] doesn’t. Why don’t all you people read All Star Superman? Can’t you tell it’s OBJECTIVELY better than Civil War?

Lots of good points being made here, and so far it’s a lot more rational a discussion than some of the threads I’ve seen lately on this topic.

But yeah, the objective standards are there to help give us a common language to discuss art in a way that has some meaning beyond the immediately personal.

Not that the immediately personal isn’t of value - speaking as an artist, I’m quite interested in the emotional impact that art has on people. But if everyone’s speaking ENTIRELY from within the realm of their personal opinions, it’s like the Tower of Babel.

Wow, this has generated alot of reaction. Here’s my twopence:

I actually disagree that a Comic can be seen (in toto) as objectively good or bad. It is only legitimate to talk in terms of objective quality with regard to technical aspects of Comics.

For example, it would be correct to say that Rob Liefeld has a poor grasp of anatomy, but it would not be correct to say that this makes his comics objectively bad. Now, in fact, I think that most of his comics ARE bad, but that is my subjective opinion, and it would be just as legitimate to take the opposite view.

Likewise, although I often find Grant Morrison’s writing somewhat disjointed I still enjoy his writing a great deal.

If we are honest with ourselves technical considerations have only a small infuluence on our artistic opinions. Whether we like somthing or not is largly a visceral reaction, that is to say it’s subjective.

My thinking, though (and I think WATCHMEN’s great, and just picked that out as an example so I can’t do the best job arguing it) is that the degree to which imperfections matter is one area that is subjective. It’s like how my enjoyment of MATCH POINT was ruined by the last few scenes, wherein Woody Allen tells us exactly what the correct reading of the film’s philosophy is.

i think, as much as it pains me to say it, we need to draw a line between a Critic and a Reviewer.

It’s the job of a Critic to analyze art and examine why it is good or bad based on his/her best understanding of the objective goodness or badness of it, and by doing so, to attempt to place it inside some kind of larger context of an artform, the artists practicing that artform, etc.

It’s the job of a Reviewer to talk about why they like or dislike art, which may or may not employ objective standards.

at the end of the day, I think I’m more in line with Greg’s way of thinking. I’m a huge Roger Ebert fan, and he’s a great movie critic, but first and foremost he’s a reviewer–he believes that what readers want isn’t a cold, clinical analysis of a film, but his reaction to it, and his attempt to reconcile that reaction to his standards for film and objective standards for film. He will say he enjoys a big dumb movie, or that he dislikes a small smart movie, and will say why. Fundamentally, it comes back to the personal reaction for him, a big part of the reason why I love him.

I think it’s easy to look at something and take out our emotional reaction, or at least look at what is causing it and taking that into consideration. And I HAVE had my mind changed about works after discussing them. A lot, I think it’s important as a reader/viewer to let that happen. This is the kind of discussion I’m craving here. Any guy with a blog can just list what they like every week. As one with a bit more prominence, I think the onus is on us to do a bit more.

Not to say there’s no place for that ever, but we CAN raise our game, including me.

A lot of Liefeld’s comics ARE objectively bad. Enjoy them all you want, that’s great, but it doesn’t make them good. If the story is disjointed, the art is inconsistent, and it fails to make some sort of meaningful point, it is bad.

I approach criticism as an ongoing conversation about comics in general. “I like it” isn’t a criticism about something and is leaving the reviewer/critic and easy out. “I didn’t say it was good. I just said that I liked it.”

But for those who are really good at writing about comics, it’s not necessarily about the particular comic that they’re reviewing but about its place along the comics continuum and, however sublimely, it relates to other books and stories. When we’re writing about comics, we’re hopefully writing about what works and what doesn’t work. We’re working toward definitions of what is good and what isn’t. And just maybe we’re contributing to a much larger conversation about comics, one that will make them better. Then again, this may just me me being overly optimistic about it.

Some point in the past couple of years, Chris Butcher at Comics212.net had a post about what his ideal comic website would be. In that post, he talked about the authoritative voice of the critic. To much criticism is wishy-washy, leaving both the reader and the writer too many outs for disagreement without engagement. Maybe all comic reviewers need to take refresher courses in writing argumentative essays.

How is Liefeld NOT objectively bad? Even within the specific confines of sequential art, he still has a poor grasp on anatomy, perspective, composition and mood. His storytelling is always a mishmash of techniques he’s “borrowing” from whoever he’s been reading lately, and even then he’s obviously just picking up on the most superficial aspects of those techniques, rather than understanding what’s happening below the surface.

A good critic strives to be as objective as possible, using standards that everyone can use as a basis for discussion. Personal opinion shouldn’t enter into it. That’s why the “look at what I like!” school of bullshit Burgas bloggery “criticism” is boring and inane.

To wit…

The discussion of art is a discussion of Subjective Interpretations of Objective Standards, and how an Object Itself achieves certain objective goals.

The Subjective interpretation is the simply a matter of being human. it happens in Science, it happens in math, Individual pereceptions color the way you perceive information.

But the objective Standards still exist. This is why talking about art, as divorced from opinion, is important. Two people can look at a comic, and using the same Objective Critical Criteria, can come up with differing ideas and interpretations. This does not mean that “everything is sunjective”. It means that objective criteria have allowed a common ground for discussion. the converstation and analysis of those two people is going to be Far More interesting, informed, and constructive than two people saying “I liked it” and “I hated it”.

The goal of any critic is to divorce personal taste from analysis. This is difficult. It is not a thing we, as humans, can do easily. But the furtherance of Art, and how we eductae ourselves about art, and even a fundamental understanding of how humans relate to creative acts… this comes from Objective Study.

For example:
Book A has a plot.
Does the plot make sense?
If not, where does it fail?
Does the failure of the plot hinder the narrative?
Is the narraitve informed by a wayward plot?
Did the author intend the confusing plot to show something about the characters through their interaction?
Is the character informed by the wayward plot?
Is this even the point of the novel?

And on and on, using subjective perception to analyze Objective Criteria to come up with an Objective Conclusion based on Objective Discussion. Whether or not I enjoyed the novel never comes into play. The only subjective element is my understanding of plot mechanics, which is really only a fraction of the discussion, and one that could easily become Objective as my understanding grows, through Objective analysis.

This is why two critics will disagree on the success of certain things. But the discussion is the important part of the equation, and that is wholly based on Objectivity in Analysis. Without it, we’re only learning about the personal leanings of the critics, and nothing about the Art Itself.

So GUERNICA can be crap to one critic and gold to another, but all that proves is that art is an interesting thing to discuss, with a lot of variable reactions, as long as you have the right objective tools to start with.

I just find the whole idea of objectivity to be a bit of a chimera. What does it matter? Our subjective opinions are what really matter because that is what we FEEL.

It’s only reviewers who get anxious about objectivity because they like to feel that they are doing more that giving their own subjective opinion, but at the end of the day that’s all you can do. Some people will agree with you others will not.

What we FEEL is important, but objective standards can help you see WHY you feel something. What about art is working and not working.

Meh. I think a lot of the praise lavished on Quitely is worship-by-association due to the huge stamp of approval the man receives from Grant Morrison. Morrison’s treated as a god around these parts, and if the god you worship holds another guy in high esteem how can you not worship that guy too.

That being said, I don’t see him being as great as he’s made out to be. When he’s on, he’s REALLY on, you can isolate some panels of his work that are sheer brilliance. I remember a battle scene in We3 and a chase scene in New X-Men Riot at Xaviers (Xorn, Beast and Cyclops chasing down a car) that were awe-inspiring. But his work falls flat quite often too. Oddball expressions, inconsistent faces and sizes, deformed bodies like his White Queen rendition, ugly chins and puffy bloated looking scrunched up faces, dull panels, unclear storytelling…he’s not as “objectively good” as people here would like to say.

I went to the comic shop with a friend and he picked up Ultimate Power. He’s not as well-versed in comics as I am. He asked “What’s this?” and proceeded to flip through it. He was wowed by the Greg Land art. In my knee-jerk comics snobbery mode, I proceeded to say that the art was bad. He asked why. I said that the guy just traces photos and the stuff is stiff and unnatural and all photoreferenced, etc., etc. He just responded, “Why should that bother me? It looks cool.” And it hit me: if it pleases people, how can I say it’s objectively bad? If something displeases people, how can I say it’s objectively good? Who am I to tell someone that they’re wrong for enjoying something? Now if he said something specific like “This Greg Land artwork is incredibly original and drawn freehand,” then I could disagree about those specific claims. But as far as the general claim of “good,” that just means too many different things to too many people for anyone to say what’s a right and wrong opinion. Different people judge things by different standards.

For example I bash Jeph Loeb a lot here, I think he’s the worst writer in comics save for Ben Raab. I do this because I think he’s along the lines of Greg Land, he does the writing equivalent of “tracing.” He takes whole scenes, plot elements and chunks of dialogue from Godfather I and II, Presumed Innocent and Silence of the Lambs, sticks in a bunch of gratuitous fight scenes to please fans and gives us Long Halloween. Hardly a bit of it isn’t lifted directly from somewhere else. But the more I think about it, does that make it bad? How does the fact that it’s all compiled from other works mean that it’s wrong for people to enjoy it and find it good, especially if they aren’t aware of the works it lifts from? Just because I care about the writer’s individual voice and originality doesn’t mean I should demand other fans judge on those same standards. If people actually find Loeb’s work good, then his stuff is good and I have to accept that.

Chuck Austen is a person that most people seem to hate. I personally don’t think that he’s so bad because although his execution is horrid, he does seem to have some unique ideas and takes risks. So who’s right, the guy that judges based on originality more than execution or the guy that judges on execution more than originality? What’s more worthy of reward, aiming low and hitting the mark or aiming high and missing entirely? Too many grey areas out there to call anything objectively good, you risk entering the realm of snobbery to even try.

Nobody’s saying subjective opinions are irrelevant. And nobody’s getting anxious.

“If something displeases people, how can I say it’s objectively good? Who am I to tell someone that they’re wrong for enjoying something?”

Nobody’s saying they’re wrong to ENJOY it.

Nobody’s saying they’re wrong to ENJOY it.

In fact, I’ve repeatedly said the opposite.

A lot of the problem here comes from people putting words in my mouth, and inferring untrue reasons behind beliefs or statements. One man doesn’t like Quitely for his own reasons, thus those that think he’s great at what he does are merely dupes of a hivemind system.

Objective standards help get past this kind of rhetorical bullshit.

Wait a minute, here. Are you saying that objective standards aren’t merely a way of picking on the people we don’t think are cool?

Let he that is without back issues cast the first stone.

I’ve still got sealed copies of YOUNGBLOOD #1.

Which is objectively bad, by the way.

I’m with Joe here but I’d spin it a little bit differently. I’ve been noticing that in the comics blogosphere there has been the sort of thing where a comic is praised because it’s someone’s favorite character. Yet there are an equal number of reviewers who condemn books out of hand because they are “avoiding Civil War” or crossovers in general, or they dislike spandex, or feel that the sociological treatment of teenage girls in Supergirl comics sucks. It’s the anti-Supergirl crowd who spell out their complaints most clearly, and half the time they do it in the context of valid genre criticisms. They critique Supergirl as a superhero comic and as a treatment of the way teenage girls are represented. For the most part, however, dismissals are wholesale because people write from their guts.

I’m actually enjoying the way certain comics have been sucking lately and I wish people would be more specific about their complaints. Marvel editorial, for example, is now being dominated by a cadre of talented writers who are devolving into a set of cliches (at the level of dialogue, one example is overuse of the word “wow.” And Bendis isn’t the only perpetrator who gets lost in his own sense of “wonderment” at a completely contrived moment… generally these cliches are thematic, though). It’s interesting to see what cliches are dominating the entire line now and how those cliches have had the privilege of being repeated into comic book truths. The same goes for the major DC publications these days, and, naturally, Fantagraphics has its own set of truly annoying cliches. Naturally, these outnumber real innovation but those become hard to pin down when people are murkily general about their commentary. Doesn’t mean people can’t be witty; it just means people need to write less elliptically.

It is not possible for Art to be intrinsically, objectively good or bad because good and bad are subjective concepts.

You can make up whatever “objective” standards for good that you wish but all those standards are subjective. If the “objective” standard for good is fewer lines then I conclude your little cartoon is far better then the Quitely piece.

Good and bad are merely common standards for evaluation and are not objective concepts. Civilizations usually agree on common standards for evaluation but these are entirely subjective and could easily be changed. In my made-up civilization I be