Captioning: more is it art?

In my last posting, I talked about Ryan North’s Dinosaur Comics, in which captioning of a piece of clip-art takes the place of drawing fresh images. I noted that I myself have used simple captioning of found images and created collages that were only a bit more complex than simple captioning. Most of these are meant to be wry or flat-out funny.

In the same vein are the Blunt Cards I posted about here and here. These appear to be images from old ads, captioned to make humorous note cards. There are many lines of these things, ranging from simple captioning to complex captioned collages. In any case, the wording of these creations is central to their effect; for Dinosaur Comics, the words are all there is, the fixed images serving entirely as a constraint on how the words can be deployed.

At the other end of the scale are things like Roy Lichtenstein‘s Pop Art paintings, many of which are captioned (though many are not), for instance this one:

Many of these Lichtenstein images have appeared on notecards, postcards, t-shirts, and the like, and still other cards etc. have been created in the style of Lichtenstein’s paintings.


2 Responses to “Captioning: more is it art?”

  1. Conceptual art « Arnold Zwicky's Blog Says:

    […] Captioning: More is it art? (link): Blunt Cards and […]

  2. Comic machines « Arnold Zwicky's Blog Says:

    […] postings: “Captioning: more is it art?” (here), on Blunt Cards and Lichtenstein; and “The commencement pun crop” (here), on (inter […]

Leave a Reply