Calvin and Hobbes discussion

When I was a child, I could not relate to Calvin and Hobbes. It may have something to do with the fact that I am not a wild person, and so I could not relate to Calvin's shenanigans. However, now that I am older, and I am a father to a rather wild child, I find the book absolutely delightful. I feel like Bill Watterson clearly understands what it is like to be a wild child and what it is like to be a parent to a wild child.

This is my question: can something like a comic book be considered high art? There has been some talk recently of C and H being high art.

(http://www.theamericanconservative.co...)

What do you think?

I really think it can.. I read almost all of the books when I was younger, even though I wasn't a "child" anymore and I do think it's meant for older people, much like other books that are usually thought of to kids (like Alice in Wonderland or The Little Prince) - I think the meaning and the message and more profound than what sometimes appears...
I'm not a parent yet, but I do agree that Bill Watterson portrays childhood in a beautiful magically accurate way and that is why those books are so endearing and good to me.

In the case of Calvin and Hobbes, a label like high art can be considered, although I don't know if Watterson himself would agree to any pedestal for C&H.
I think for a comic to be considered high art, it has to be 'layered', so I'd include Calvin & Hobbes, but not Garfield. However, it would still be an 'opinion'.

For some people the 'anxiety' over high art/popular art distinctions will never abate. Hierarchical systems based on genre, media, subject, gender, class, geography and so forth have all proved illusionary and arbitrary over the years.
It's telling that author of the article Tiberius linked to has to reference a 1913 dictionary for a definition of high art in order to make his point.

Still the the necessity of making critical assessments seems to remain.
So how do we make decisions about what is good and worthwhile, art for the ages, and what is rubbishy disposable dreck. And even whether it's that black and white and not full of in-between nuanced grey.

Plenty to debate here.

I'll just quickly propose that good art, high or low, possesses a couple of discernable features.

There is something inevitable about it. That is even when freshly made it feels like it had been there all along.

It rewards repeated exposure. It is somehow greater than the sum of it's parts.

No matter how shocking, disturbing, puzzling or for that matter anodyne it is there is a sense of coherent intent discernable.

I think Calvin and Hobbes ticks some of those and perhaps more.

Oh absolutely. A few of the modern literary masterpieces are comic books: Watchmen, V For Vendetta and Maus. I would also consider Bone to be in those ranks, but I don't know how others feel about that. And Calvin & Hobbes is certainly a literary classic. Everyone knows what it is, the characters are immediately recognizable and the situations are unforgettable. It may very well last in the minds of humans for a very, very long time. Also, it's culturally important and relevant and has been for a long time and will be for the foreseeable future.

That's the interesting thing about both Calvin & Hobbes and The Peanuts: they are unique in that they are appropriate for anyone during any part of their life, anywhere in the world, at any time and are instantly recognizable. And as I said prior, both the characters and situations naturally stick with most people. Also, as someone else mentioned, they are both pretty layered.