The theme of the comic as an artistic work can develop in completely different planes. You can go from the academic side and try to understand what comics are, study their genealogy, history. Or you can approach from the other side and start talking about why comics are not considered art, that is, try to refute those objections that very often come from people who are skeptical of comics. This is not only the audience that is completely unfamiliar with comics and picks them up for the first time, but also often the audience is academic, serious, people who understand art, literature and are generally quite “on the topic”, but they categorically do not accept comics as art.
I was once approached by a philosophy student who wrote a master’s thesis on comics, where he examined comics from a phenomenological point of view. When he defended his work before the commission, the teachers did not fully understand the feasibility of such work, although this did not prevent him from receiving the highest grade. We see that there is opposition to such a topic in a serious academic environment. If we take into account the statistics of publications and books about comics, we will find out that there are extremely few of them.
What are the reasons that stop the serious/non-serious academic audience and ordinary readers from perceiving comics as a separate art form? In my opinion, there are three such reasons.
The first and most standard reason, say, comics for children or teenagers. This is not so much related to the themes or plots that are present in the comics. The matter is different — in the history of the medium. The official history of comics begins with the so-called strips (Strip, Comic strip) – from small stories that were published in newspapers or magazines. These were large columns intended for an undemanding audience to round off a news release with something. It so happened that this format was intended to entertain or to criticize. Very often he was associated with a caricature.
Caricature is also a fairly close-in-origin form of art, which the same Art Spiegelman classifies as a grassroots genre, along with advertising and graffiti. It is clear that newspapers are circulated, strips are seen by many people, and this also calls into question the quality and status of comics, which cannot be art, because art is unique, original, somewhat anti-circulation. In this way, replication and mass also impose a certain stereotypical imprint on comics.
The second reason is more methodological: what to do with comics – read or watch? Is it visual media or literature? Actually, none of the above, but rather something synthetic. Therefore, it is very difficult to write down the tradition of comics in the history of visual culture. On the one hand, they are not included either in painting or in literature. Although they try to classify them in both ways, which only adds to the comic’s harmful effects. And on the other hand, they need a separate space, their environment, which is still being formed.
And thirdly, if this is art, how should it be exhibited? Offer separate panels (frames) for display? Should we exhibit the first copies of, say, “Tentena” by Hergé? Show only covers? In any case, these are quite difficult questions. And which galleries should exhibit comics? Because galleries focus mainly on so-called high art, and the stereotypes of the first point prevent comics from being taken seriously.