Portfolio

the Renaissance
SUPERHERO!

ART

Comic Art vs. "Real" Art
by Jerry deCaire

Followed by Samples of deCaire's "ART"

Many people in the United States, and even the world, rarely regard comic book art as "real" art. I am often accused of being a cartoonist at worst and an illustrator at best. Quite frankly, I'm not sure where I fit in the grand scheme of things. One thing for certain, I am a draftsman, for better or worse.

As a boy and even a younger man, I had a deep residing respect for the old masters and especially for those who hailed from the Renaissance: da Vinci for his scientific skew on art, and Michelangelo for the purity of his craft. I personally maintain that Michelangelo was the finest sculptor that ever lived. Who can deny the expertise inherent in works like The David and even more, The Pieta? As for painting, the impressionists move me most where foundational technique and the emotional handling of the medium reach an agreement and are happily married. Extreme realism lacks interpretation whereas abstraction, if it is "bad", lacks foundational understanding. I respect realism for it's technical accomplishment and abstraction for its radical departure from readily available reference which suggests a unique perspective on behalf of the artist. But it is the likes of Renoir, Morisot, Mary Cassatt and Edgar Degas who move me in a manner like no others can. Light, itself, seems to dance and flicker on their finest works creating a haunting image reminiscent of a partially lost memory, or a dream incompletely reassembled thus conjuring up a sense of wonder and mystery. Oh yes, these were the giants, men and women who were the trend setters and the great minds who have forever changed the landscape of art.

Fine art, by some, is considered to be primarily concept-based and thus superior to works exhibiting sound technique. And that is fine, except sometimes this position is so extreme that the person who maintains this outlook can be inclined to evaluate a piece by its surface value and will neglect to investigate, what may or may not be, an ingenious process present in any given illustrated work. A case in-point would be a contemporary of mine, Armin Mersmann http://www.arminmersmann.com/. One might be inclined to write him off as a Superrealist until realizing that his works follow an intense investigation into the subject's knitted fabrics and even their very own flesh (Pores and all). Armin is a creative and inventive scientist in his own right. His research gives us something more than a flat, academic and non-inspired work. Furthermore, each work has a well studied purpose, a meaning that transcends mere utility. In this instance, and others, an illogical assumption based upon an often reasonable premise can develop where one might maintain that the presence of one element (technique) precludes the absence of another (concept). Or even worse, one might assume that the absence of technique guarantees the heightened quality of conception. To make light of what I mean, imagine some self-styled connoisseur of the arts approaching a work "gallery style" and saying, "Bravo! This is truly a work of genius"! A layman standing nearby asks, "How can you tell?" And the pompous breathing ego replies, "It's terribly drawn, sir". All bad drawings are brilliantly conceived and all good drawings are only posers of real art". Of course, such a comment is a simplistic cartoon of a point and would raise the eyebrows by even the most artistically daft. But too often it is this kind of prejudice that bars the illustrator from being included amongst the ranks of whom are considered to be, "real artists". Armin is indeed an artist, but he would make for an excellent illustrator by any measure as well.

Before we turn to my art, and most of it unrelated to comic art, I have what may be a stunning revelation; the closest I've been to "fine art" (whereupon concept is present as much as technique) is when I have produced some of my best comic art. Visual storytelling satisfies my need to be imaginative and, if one can believe it, affords me the greatest level of ingenuity and originality (at least relative to representational illustration). Comics are a genre, for sure, but so are any of the traditional schools of art and their accompanying "isms". And if you will look closely at my David and Goliath venture and pages from the Werewolf publication, I am sure you will find compositional merit and a vision that transcends the typical Sunday morning cartoon or a flashback to the naive artwork seen in the original Superman series.

If conception is identified by one's ability to conceive, even the mechanics of how I personally illustrate any graphic narrative demonstrates how comic art is a genuine brother to the arts. I loosely storyboard all of the sequential panels in preparation for illustrating the various compositions and these are then imbued with a sense of intense drama and a "feeling" that parallels the more abstract figurative works to be found amongst some of our contemporary figurative artists. I then photograph models or render the figures and backgrounds without reference. So with a defensive posture I am compelled to ask, if photographers have no problem being counted as "real" artists, how is it that the additional step of translating a photograph into a graphic character automatically disqualifies the comic book illustrator from being counted as an artist? As for the figurative work in a graphic story, and especially the many figures that are conceived without reference, the ability to create these have taken many years of studying the human figure, mathematical perspective, foreshortening, modeling, formal and informal composition, etc. (And no more, no less than the figurative artists in the hallowed ranks of respected academic studios and universities everywhere).

In summation, it seems the presentation itself is what qualifies you as an artist or an illustrator; if your conceptions hang in a gallery, you are a fine artist, whereas art that is given narrative and dialogue text, a cover, and an index, is quietly taken backstage to the less respected and less revered members of theatre. It is my conviction that comic art has the potential to rise above the mere recording of pre-existing references. For that reason alone I believe the best sequential art is innovative if not inventive. And here's the real stunner, never have I labored so feverishly as when I am illustrating a comic. More than any other time must I reach deep into what one might regard a "soul" to find that special imagery that will convey the emotions demanded by a story. A singular image is difficult enough, but panel-to-panel imagery will try even the most seasoned amongst us and I will forever carry the torch for the struggling comic artists out there who are too often under-appreciated.

Nevertheless, here are some samples of my past work that many would regard as "superior" to comic art. I truly feel that if more people realized that many comic artists have studied "serious art" as a basis for their craft, they might take a second look at comics and realize that our kids might indeed be reading them, but it isn't our kids that are making them.

DRAWING

“Ballerina” Graphite / Jerry deCaire / 2002