First of all, I think that being deeply offended by the themes exhibited in Robert Crumb's work is the natural and indeed commendable response that any decent human being should feel when looking at one of Crumb's cartoons. Nobody in their right mind would defend incest or rape. I full-heartedly agree that Crumb's cartoons are incredibly vile and in many cases, deplorable.
With that said, we must bear in mind how influential he eventually proved to be to the comic book world. We shouldn't diminish his work to reckless vulgarity. Ultimately we have no idea what his most inner and true intentions were considering he is such an evasive, mysterious, inconsistent, and (most notably) eccentric man. Obviously his work has struck a chord with American culture, or else he would not be as well-known as he currently is. I'm not defending his messages or condoning his perspectives on women and minorities, but I do defend the University in choosing to discuss his work since it has embedded itself into underground American culture so deeply. Any conversation about counter-cultural popular art imagery would be severely lacking if R. Crumb was excluded.
If we were to strip R. Crumb's work of its historical relevancy and ultimate influence over an entire generation of graphic novelists and comic book artists, then yes... all that we have is a collection of disturbing images with questionable motives and twisted views on morality. But the fact of the matter is that R. Crumb's work has long since been vaulted into the realm of the art community, so we must at the very least entertain the suggestion that this is "art." Objections and arguments are obviously encouraged, but we cannot entirely dismiss it at this point because Crumb has made such a definitive mark on American culture. Whether you see it as a distasteful stain or an infamous legacy, it is an important mark nonetheless.
And to those who question its validity as "art" at all, I ask you this: What is "art" other than work presented to us within the context of "art?" From its most primitive origins, art history has always been an institution that has vaulted certain individuals into the annals of history while others remain neglected. The reception of work as valid "art" is ultimately just a construction of the human perception and is entirely dependent on immeasurably complex circumstances. Marcel Duchamp's urinal was only elevated to the status of high art after he deliberately chose to display it in an art gallery and titled it "Fountain." Likewise, Crumb's work, though it is indeed tremendously grotesque, has been elevated to the status of art partially through a process of intentional exhibition as such. Of course, intention alone might not always work, as was the case with the hanging doll in Modlin Center for the Arts. However, couple this fascinating concept of "intention" with the undeniable influence Crumb has had on other cartoonists over the years, and I don't see any reason why University of Richmond was wrong for inviting him here to speak.
Support independent student media
You can make a tax-deductible donation by clicking the button below, which takes you to our secure PayPal account. The page is set up to receive contributions in whatever amount you designate. We look forward to using the money we raise to further our mission of providing honest and accurate information to students, faculty, staff, alumni and others in the general public.
Donate NowRead More
OPINION | The sustainability standoff
By Taylor McKie | April 14, 2024
Regrets? I've had a few
By Joe Hoyle | April 9, 2024