Crumb

I found Mr. Natural, and other of Crumbs comics to be rather tasteless and offensive. The actual aesthetic of the comic isn’t terrible; Crumb’s style is interesting at times. In reading this comic though, I have to wonder what Crumb’s motives are for publishing such crude art. In his comics we see various illustrations of rape, fecal humor, and general indecency. I have to wonder why Crumb chooses such subject matter. It may be that crumb wants to illustrate such subject matter in an attempt to shock his viewers, perhaps to widen the reader’s perspective. On the other token, it may just be that Crumb is illustrating his own sick fantasies. At any rate, I have to conclude that Crumb’s comics are what I would consider sick and antisocial. I have never condoned censorship, yet at the same time I wouldn’t condone any media that endorses or flaunts acts of rape and mutilation. I was most shocked when during the documentary we watched the development of Crumbs comic wherein a character had sex with a decapitated woman. I find this, and similar comics extremely offensive and tasteless, and find much difficulty in classifying this example of personal expression as art. Crumb relinquished his title of artist when he allowed work that may be harmful to the general public to be published. This in turn, however, presents an interesting question; at what point can media become considered harmful to its viewers or humanity in general. I may not have the most objective opinion in this matter, as my views on art and censorship have been influenced by years of videogames and violent movies. I personally feel that the line should be drawn where media profits on depictions of rape or violence lacking narrative or cause. If an artist or author wants to depict such heinous acts for no cause greater than shock value or his own amusement, I feel that greater means of censorship should be taken on such media.