
57
Image [&] Narrative - n°25/2 2024
had frequent historical interaction, from Lionel Feininger to Gary Panter (for a historical
overview, cf. Molotiu), their relationship is more akin to a game of citations and borrowings
than to a dialogue.
Painting and the art world are frequent enough subjects, both in comics and in bande
dessinée, from Hergé’s unnished Tintin et l’Alph-Art to Manu Larcenet’s La ligne de front,
to many Carl Barks stories, to the celebrated pastiches in the Sunday pages of Gasoline
Alley. Groensteen, building on Sylvain Bouyer, has argued that the rise of such subjects is
tied, at least for bande dessinée, to the period during which it was trying to construct its
cultural legitimacy, by celebrating other, better established, forms of cultural production
(Groensteen, “Figures de l’artiste”). e culmination of this process is to be found in the
albums commissioned by museums, and in particular in the series of albums produced by
Futuropolis for Le Louvre or the Musée d’Orsay. In this case, the implicit appeal to the
cultural potency of the ne arts has been turned into an explicit cross-promotional strategy.
Interestingly, none of the twenty albums produced since 2005 involve any creator associated
with American comics, be they mainstream comic books or graphic novels, though most
of these albums are available for an American readership in translation.
ough such generalizations are to be treated cautiously, there does seem to be a
dierence in attitude between European and American artists regarding their perception
of the art world, correlated with a “relative visual quietness” of the US alternative comics
(Baetens 105). In Comics versus Art, his study of the vexed relationship between comics and
the “art world”, Bart Beaty notes that “at present, it is common for [feelings of resentment]
to play themselves out as an absolute rejection of the art world by those working in the
comics eld.” (Beaty, Comics versus Art 52) is deance and resentment are grounded in
a long-standing tradition of mockery, expressed in popular comics such as Archie (Beaty,
Twelve-Cent Archie 44–46) or Donald Duck, and reinforced by the misunderstandings over
the appropriation of comic book imagery by pop artists (Beaty, Comics versus Art 55–59).
ough Andrei Molotiu argues that Jack Kirby silently reworked Lichtenstein’s technique
in his own comics, reinjecting the experiments of the art world into mainstream comics
(122), this resentment is still vividly present in the work of such prominent gures as Chris
Ware, Peter Bagge and Daniel Clowes. ough he was English, Steve Dillon, who drew
and inked Preacher, seems to align with this American stance. Espousing the “resolutely
anti-intellectual” stance of Preacher (Licari-Guillaume 103), he describes his role as crafts-
manship rather than artistry: “is isn’t art with a capital ‘A’, people have to remember that.
It’s done for publication on a regular basis, and ultimately you’re getting paid to put stu
on the shelves every month.” (Salisbury, Artists on Comic Art 64; 8).
Notwithstanding cultural dierences between European and American comics, it is
striking to note that representations of the ne arts in comics tend to cluster around two
functions: they tend to serve as the subject of the narrative or to be assimilated into the
visual idiom of the comics, as “silent” references.
Even the celebrated Gasoline Alley pages in the manner of modernist paintings or
woodcuts (Nov. 2, 1930; Nov. 30 1930), which function rst and foremost as visual explora-
tions, make art the explicit subject of the story: they are framed by introductory discourses,
in which Walt and Skeezix, the two main protagonists, are shown looking at paintings
and identifying them as modernist. is is also true of the many instances in which the
art world is presented within a squarely parodic or satirical mode. In comic books, the