Comments on: Chris Butcher on Best of 2005 Lists

By: Michael Denton

Michael Denton — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:03:00 +0000

Uh – oh, here we go with defining things as art or artful – always a potential pitfall.:)

Seriously, though, to me, entertainment and artistic merit are independent. I can appreciate the artistry of a work, but not find it entertaining and be entertained by things most people wouldn’t consider art.

I don’t know if one is easier than the other – my gut says that entertainment _seems_ to be easier (judging by the masses of people who claim to be entertained by television shows that I would consider boring or even dreck) but then there’s a lot of stuff that’s called art and shown in modern art museums that I question the artistry of – sometimes modern art tends to be a question of what bizarre thing can I convince people of as being high-brow.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:36:19 +0000

Considering how many movies, books, comics and tv shows entertain but are nowhere near ‘artistic’, I would say, not too difficult. To do both, however, takes quite a bit more skill.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:15:04 +0000

Barney, I liked the idea of it better than the execution. I think later volumes would likely be closer to what I was looking for.

Barry, art doesn’t have to be entertaining to be relevant or important or many other things. But by this point, I’ve read plenty of art that left me cold, so that’s not what I’m looking for.

And I sometimes wonder if it isn’t harder to entertain than to be “artistic”.

By: Barney

Barney — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 05:43:24 +0000

Am I the only one who liked Walt & Skeezix? I feel sad now.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:59:47 +0000

I think another question that deserves some discussion is, does all art need to entertain to be relevant? I’m sure there are many who would say, without question, that the answer is ‘no’.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:22:53 +0000

That’s a better, more in-depth analysis than my off-the-cuff comments deserve. :)

The “will I read this again?” is a great test to use, especially with so much material out there, always with the lure of the new.

By: Michael Denton

Michael Denton — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:20:23 +0000

There are several scales to evaluate comics on – just as with any media. You hit upon an important one (and one that, yes, oddly, seems to be often pushed to the side), which is “does this work entertain?”

But I do find it important to ask “how does this work contribute…” to society, the medium in general, to some vein of discourse, to the elevation of the human condition (which I’m using as a pretentious way of trying to say “is it art”), etc..

Something can be entertaining and be vapid – and that’s okay, but some of us (you included, I believe) look morso for works that are meaningful, say something meaningful, or at least say something in a different or clever way (and thus contributing to either the medium or that work’s specific genre).

That said, yes, Time Comix’s list is awfully predictable, but I just finished reading Black Hole and it IS wonderful. It’s probably the best thing I’ve read in a while – so good I literally couldn’t put it down and now that I’m finished, it bears a second reading. Very rare in comics.

I also enjoyed Mome, although some of its entries were misses for me, the vast majority of it was excellent work.

I would add some more standard super-hero fare, notably almost any of Grant Morrision’s work this year.