http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2...ely-subjective/



There's more at the link.

Thoughts?

Of course. ALL expressions are subjective.

He's full of shit, but understand, that is the default model for most Internet communities because it provides not only fodder for interminable "debates" (i.e. traffic) but also justifications for eliminating posts and/or members who disagree with what's been "proven" (i.e. the official house position). So I don't wonder why that graces one of the website's columns today.

Did my little post from yesterday inspire him?

http://www.imwan.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10537

I'm sorry, I really have no patience for people who are so full of their artistic knowledge that they reach a point that they believe that something can be objectively better than another. It's bullshit ~ people want it to be true so they can win worthless arguments of personal taste. In his own example, if I hated Quitely's style (BTW I don't, I love it ) then it's likely I'd find this guy's stick figures to be more appealing. A trained artist might be mechanically superior according to certain generally accepted standards for specific genres of art, but objectively better as this guy is describing the term? Impossible.

I think the guy is talking in absolutes with regard to a matter of aesthetics and taste ... and that makes him wrong.

Now, the technical specifics of art are not subjective; if you're talking specifically about, say, anatomy, there sure is "correct" and "incorrect" ... but "incorrect" may be pleasing to the eye or accomplish some goal outside of getting perfect anatomy, making even such objective criteria useless when judging something as "art".

Certainly there are criterion one could apply to a given form of art that may allow one to more objectively compare two pieces of art. The thing is, even those criteria would be a matter of debate for most people. It gets to the old unanswerable question, 'What is art?' We've all a take on that one. Few of those takes will match.

The guy is probably right that anything he produces will be worse that what Quietly does, but that's because he is not versed in expressing himself in drawing. He does not speak the language of drawn artwork.

We've come to measure comic art by a certain set of standards, but even those standards change with each generation. Further, those standards SHOULD change depending on the story and the goals of the creators. John Romita Jr. would be a "better" artist for Spider-Man than Bill Sienkiewicz, by the standards of what we expect from a Spider-Man story, but Sienkiewicz would be a "better" artist for some other kind of tale.

So which is the better artist?

There is no "correct" answer.



(Did I blow "criteria" and "criterion" here? I usually do.)

All I know is, I am objectively better than all of you

What Eric said.

English 101. The comparison essay.

There is fact, and there is opinion. One, by definition, can be proven objectively. The other, by definition, is 100% subjective, and therefore incapable of being proven in any reasonable definition of the word.

So, no, you knuckleheaded seventeen-year-olds, you will not be writing an essay in which you prove that Christina Aguilera is "better" than Lindsay Lohan.

And pull your pants up, for Cruise's sake. It's called a waistband for a reason, Marky Mark.

I think there are some things you can objectively say about art, but there is a danger when a critic tries to argue that he is objectively right in all things, as in the following.

You get a Quitely page and stack it against a Williams III page, they are so similar in quality that it would be nearly impossible to objectively rate them against each other. They clearly both are better than, say, a Greg Land tracey-porn page, a muddled teaser poster with inconsistent lighting and anatomy, or David Finch’s weird line-filled work. And, once again, if someone likes any of those latter three more, that is perfectly fine. Your taste is subjective, but has no bearing on the quality of the work.

Based on the article I have as little interest in reading his reviews than I do the reviews of the people he criticizes.

Ditto.

I should note that there should be some things you can prove objectively right/ wrong when discussing art. For instance- the famous claim that an artist/ writer has no talent. It should be pretty easy to prove whether an artist has any talent (the subjective part is whether the artist's work lives up to his/ her talent, and the exact degree of his talent.) Other objective aspects which may be discussed in reviews would be whether a creator is familiar with a character/ medium/ genre, or how much a creator loves (or hates) a character, although in many cases the reviewer doesn't know this to be true.

However there's always danger when making objective statements about art. You can have something that's objectively perfect (perfect anatomy/ storytelling/ understanding of plot structure/ use of pre-existing characters) and still flawed (perhaps it's boring/ repetitive/ formulaic/ whatever.) And there may be work that fails by objective standards that's still worth reading.

50 Posts!

My opinion, for what that's worth, is that *response* to art is subjective - my definition of art may not be yours. The art itself is just ink on paper, paint on canvas, etc.

Joe

Wrong. That's not how art works.

One thing that you can do is to stop calling comic book illustration 'art'. Then it becomes possible to make all kinds of objective statements about perspective and anatomy.

But fact and opinion are indeed different things - the question is how much value one places on an individual opinion. Then one has to take into account all kinds of things- the opiners education, experience, itelligence, sanity.... Unless one argues that all opinions are equal, a position with which I would take issue.