The Pains of Having Painted Art

JLA: Cry for Justice # 1 has produced some of the most widely varying reactions I have seen in a long time. Some critics love it - witness CBR's Five-Star Review for the issue. Others find it so horribly bad as to be ripe for instant and unstinting mockery - Douglas Wolk's "Crying Congorilla", Digital Femme's "Superman Smackdown," and, best of all, Every Day Is Like Wednesday's "Misfits Remix". It seems that everyone thinks this is epically good or epically bad - with no in-between.

Without having even read the book (though I'll probably have to read it now, just to say how good/bad it really is), I had to wonder why this is the case. Why would this book be hailed as a conqueror or mocked mercilessly, with no one stating a case for mere mediocrity?

My theory is that its all about the art. Painted art, or even "painterly" styled art, simply cries out to be taken seriously. When the accompanying story is epic enough to justify these heavy, portentous images, the entire package can be elevated (a la Marvels, or Kingdom Come). When the story isn't very good, or even if the story is good but more limited in scope, this artistic style can collapse under its own weight. What might otherwise seem epic now seems pretentious. What might otherwise exude real gravitas now only signifies an inflated sense of importance just begging to be punctured by, say, a photoshopped version replacing actual dialogue with lyrics by Glenn Danzig.

It seems pretty likely to me that some of the people who read this book believe that the story justifies the epic treatment, and half the people don't. This is one instance where all press is good press for DC, because without these wildly divergent reactions, I would have been unlikely to buy this book. As it stands, I am curious enough now that I have to read the whole thing.