Spiegelman's comics: High or Low Art

I found that Spiegelman’s essay, entitled “The Comic Supplement,” provided some interesting insights into the form and content of his art. Giving the history of the evolution of comics, Speigelman describes comics as a result of the failed intent of Pulitzer to educate the masses through recreations of “high art.” Due to the lack of technology, the he was unable to fulfill his plan, but the color drawings of political and social commentary that filled the place of “high art” grew with increasingly popularity. Thus, “comics,” as we know them, were born. Spiegelman, however, in his description of the intended comics as “high art,” implies that both historically, and to some extent presently, the comics that actually appear in the paper are “low art,” which is often intended to appeal to the masses. To me, this raises the question of who the intended audience of Spiegelman’s work is meant to be.

In pages 1-10, Spiegelman’s comics are both abrasive and funny, often leaving no party out in his criticism of the public and the government during 9/11. His primary targets are the actions of the government and the public officials of New York City during 9/11. I found it interesting that he separates himself from the media response to 9/11. In a number of panels, Spielgelman portrays the media and the news reporters as warmongers. On page 4, he shows a panel of a man with a vulture on his hand taking a picture of the “twin towers,” presumably invoking the term “media vultures” in the mind of the audience. Given his own position as a comic artist, it seems to be a slippery slope that separates Spiegelman from the rest of the media, but the artistic and historic sensibility of his panels carry this position well. However, Spiegelman’s separation of himself from the media also has the effect of separating his audience from the public, who might be presumed to consume “low art” and an educated, New York- centric elite, who would consume the “high art” message and historical allusions of Speigelman’s ironic guise of the “low art” comic form.

I find I agree and appreciate some of Spiegelman’s political commentary, particularly his criticism of the mass hysteria of the public and frantic ill-informed actions of the government after 9/11. However, I also feel that he shuts himself away from a broad section of the American public in the almost clique-ish isolationism that is clearly written for the well-educated, middle to upper middle class New York City set. While he criticizes the public of New York, especially on pages 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, the criticisms seem to be more forgiving then the way Spiegelman portrays the rest of America, especially in the condescending “Ostrich Party” panel on page 5, which seems to laugh not only at middle America’s response, but also its lifestyle and way of dress. It is debatable whether this is fair or not, and the trauma that New Yorkers experienced due to their proximity to the events certainly makes their actions more excusable, but I feel that Spiegelman’s intelligent political commentary is sometimes lost in his separation between the New York “Us” and “Them” or “high” and “low” art.