So much artwork feels entirely devoid of substance, so much made hastily and quickly, so much work made with style in mind over substance. Like in every field of work, art is a job. Not everyone is willing to spend their life devoted to mastering their craft and if they’re satisfied with where they stop then there are no issues with choosing to cease before incredible work is made (although that does not prevent bad work from being critiqued, after all if the work sucks, then the work sucks). This is not a problem subjective to just the current art being made, I am just around to see all that people have to offer, good and bad. Bad art has always been prevalent, although it is not prone to last. Art without substance will be forgotten by the passage of time, so too will the people behind its creation. When people look to the art of the past what they see is less of a representation of the pieces of the time and more of a “best of” compilation made by that generation’s most talented individuals. It is easy to forget that there were artist alongside masters like Rembrandt or DaVinci when in all the time since their lives, they were the only ones worth remembering. The final pages of Understanding Comics go into great depths to describe the evolution of the artists, starting with an innate desire to create “surface” works, the goal being work that only looks aesthetically pleasing, without the substance to go down in history, and working down to creating pieces which have “purpose” and “form” to them, pieces that say something about the individual and of the society that surrounds them. Pieces made to last beyond when they were made.
Not all bad artwork is created without passion. Deep down every artist started down their path out of a sense of desire and want, but few have the passion to dig deeper past what is beyond that surface level, beyond the skin of the apple. No one is born creating The Mona Lisa. Picasso spent a lifetime deconstructing his artwork to its barest elements, creating pieces that focused less on things that looked good and more on pieces that were good. In spite of that, success does not play fair. Van Gogh was very unpopular throughout all his life, and he did not become popular until he had already died and he is what many consider one of best painters of all time. The creme of the crop rarely rise to the top. What appeals to the most people is “the surface”. Many people are successful based solely on their appeal to the general public. People do not know what they want, nor are most willing to put the time into something with “purpose” and “form” to it and will often be in awe of things that are flashy and eye catching. Even when great art is successful, the people behind it are not always heroes in capes, but can end up being criminals with a gift for camouflage (ex. John Kricfalusi, creator of Ren and Stimpy).Understanding Comics is not about the author’s desire for more masterpieces to be created, he does not ask upon the reader to make anything, nor beg them to bring back the good ol’ days of the medium. Rather, he wants the reader to understand that good work comes and goes, and it comes through further understanding of the medium being worked with. Over time and through creators with a yearning to do more with the medium, it can evolve further into art which future generations can continuously work to and improve upon.
No comments:
Post a Comment