Okay. What I mean is, if there were a special number of DC comics that were going to be an art exhibit for a sum of time in a high end museum, witch comics would you choose? Would you consider any covers or comics art at all? As in, hang up at a museum wise. I would choose the art from Arkham Asylum, by grant morrison, but that’s my opinion.
Probably anything Alex Ross related would be more palatable to a mainstream audience? A lot of things can be featured in an exhibit though, so I don’t see why iconic sequential panels can’t either. There definitely is precedence.
Hey, @bat-pug! First, LOVE the screenname!
I completely think that comic book art is considered art. I’ve had the pleasure of being close friends with several artists in the business and, I feel, that comic artists put more time and effort into their art than a lot of “regular” artists. While we have lots of different types of art on our walls, what one considers “Comic book art” far outweighs the regular.
Thanks for starting such an awesome topic!
I think the GL/GA cover with Speedy as a junkie. It is socially significant. Possibly the most socially significant cover in comics history. The watchmen issue 1 cover, its repurposing of such an iconic image is significant. Also just about any action panel of Batman by Neal Adams, his anatomy is on par with the best of the renaissance, Raphael. And frankly, better than Michelangelo when it comes to drawing/painting.
Comic book art is indeed something to be admired. The styles of vary throughout each artist and each one seeming more and more beautiful and gaining their own unique style. There is so many as us fans consider our personal Mona Lisa’s or Starry Night’s.
I absolutely consider comic book art its own field of art.
The following artists should have their work in museums:
-Jack Kirby (his Fourth World output deserves a wing of its own)
Roy was definitely controversial.
I’d choose many stills from the long Halloween. Actually an endless hall filled with the pages from the novel, Dark Victory too.