Is Alicia Masters a Good Sculptor? ; or ; Art In Mainstream Comics

also the fact that comix artists are trained in representational art doesn't neccessarily mean they prize it more highly than the other, just that they're better at doing it themselves!

(Plot alert - Colossus becomes pin-up artist (ho ho 'becomes') and starts selling to magazines specialising in mutant porn. Cue long discussion about whether this is okay or not. Finally there is a FITE as it turns out Mister Sinister is modelling for the sleazy mag under the name of Sven.)

I think what a lot of this comes down to is the simple fact that the art world, like any subculture or profession, has its own internal values and trends and lingo and so forth. If you don't keep abreast of that stuff and do the research, attempts to represent the subculture in fiction will inevitably come off as phoney to those in the know. So we're in kind of the same territory as when a physicist or somebody steps in to point out all the bad (or, more analogously, vague) science in comics. They may well be right, but ultimately one imagines that the creators of the book figure they can get away with vague, since for most of their readers, it doesn't have to be OTM to work as a plot point. I imagine it's more striking in this case because comics are themselves a visual medium - but as has been pointed out upthread, there's a huge world of difference between the cultures of graphic design, illustration, and contemporary "art."

Another problem, of course, is that even if you are tuned into art, if the plot calls for you to have Alicia Masters becoming famous as an artist, are you really up for the challenge of creating good art for her? If you were, wouldn't you be out there creating it yourself and getting gallery shows or whatever it is artists do? Safer to play to your strengths and render a very realistic horse sculpture.

Possibly more meta answer: in the superhero world, freaky conceptual shit has been devalued considerably by how freaky life itself has gotten. Many of the traditional themes to be explored by conceptual art (identity, life versus death, blah blah) have been rendered moot by time-travel, mind-control, and repeated resurrection. The people clamor for art that presents the world in clear, Platonic ideals - art that they can feel 65% confident won't turn into a monster while they're looking at it on the wall.

can't believe i posted itt without thinking to bring up j.j. caucus: joanie's estranged daughter, mike doonesbury's ex-wife, and, since early on, trudeau's parody of the "new york art world."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3crFiQEhhBA/UwsrYhFoiuI/AAAAAAAAPSs/YcJ-d-KQI9o/s1600/doonesbury+large.gif

in the later 80s she turned to large-scale custom pieces for wealthier clients, and her work turned more figurative, naturalistic and classical.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMM57Z4WsAEPiEF.jpg

https://media.npr.org/assets/artslife/books/2010/10/doonesbury/db881129.jpg

it's a good question & definitely one that applies to movies as well. it goes for writing too--in movies where the protagonist is a writer the book they always write at the end is the story of the amazing events that we have just seen unfold on the screen! (i guess that makes it "representative" writing)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, March 6, 2005 3:31 PM (thirteen years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

slocki's post really foreshadows the ridiculous narrative device on the tv show Riverdale. presumably the Jughead character's narrative is from articles he's writing or a journal he's keeping, but it's nonsensical drivel that barely makes sense even when read over montages

Relevant to this thread, Douglas Wolk's "Marvel vs. Museum" posts at hilobrow.com --

http://hilobrow.com/tag/marvel-museum/