The Ninth Art at the Centre Georges Pompidou:
A Review of Comics 1964-2024
Mark
David Nevins

Fig. 1
One could say that comics and art museums have had an
uneasy relationship--but the reality is, they’ve mostly had no relationship at
all.
One of the first large-scale attempts to bring comic art
into museums in a serious way was MoMA’s 1990 show “High/Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture.” This
ballyhooed exhibition aimed to show how pop culture shapes “high” art,
juxtaposing fine artists, such as Picasso, Warhol, and Lichtenstein, with comic
strips and newspaper ads--some of which had served as sources or “swipes” for those
artists’ work. From scholars to fans, reception was scathing. Roberta Smith famously
sneered in The New York Times that
it was “at
best, the wrong exhibition in the wrong place at the wrong time.”1
Me? I didn’t really care. I was 25, completely unconcerned
about esoteric intellectual debates, and awestruck to be able to spend hours
looking at “Krazy Kat” original
pages.
A less intellectually encumbered celebration of comic art
came 15 years later with “Masters of American Comics,” which was shown
across two venues in Los Angeles: the
Hammer Museum and MOCA. This 2005 show highlighted 15 comics “masters”--from
Winsor McCay and George Herriman to Jack Kirby, Art Spiegelman, and Chris Ware--with
each essentially given his own mini-retrospective. A sprawling “greatest hits”
of American comic art, the show was praised for its attempt to legitimize comic
art as museum-worthy while faulted for presenting a canon that was, without
exception, white and male. (Even early in the 21st Century, Herriman
was still “passing,” posthumously.)
Unlike “High/Low,” the “Masters” show presented some
problems for me--40 years old and in possession of a Ph.D. in Literature--due
to its lack of any curatorial framework or “idea” behind the exhibit: no examination of commercial or cultural
contexts; no argument for the development of an art form; no attention to the various
marginalizations that had shaped the medium of comics. That said, I left my
pretensions at the door to bask in the glow of hundreds of pages of original
art--and left with some insights that still inform my passions and opinions to
this day: Frank King and Milton Caniff
are absolute geniuses; Lyonel Feininger is criminally underrated, while Will
Eisner is a bit overrated (sorry); and Winsor McCay’s work really must be seen
in color to be fully appreciated--the black-and-white original art mostly sits on
the wall and disappears.
This past year, nearly two decades later, France raised the
stakes with a compendious and ambitious exhibition at the Centre Pompidou
titled “Comics 1964-2024,” curated by Anne Lemonnier,
Emmanuèle Payen, Thierry Groensteen, and Lucas Hureau.2 Billed as a
celebration of 60 years of le neuvième art (“the ninth art,” a term
adopted in the 1960s by Francophone critics seeking to legitimize comics), the
show gathered hundreds of works from around the globe and across a remarkable
range of styles, formats, and movements. This was not the Pompidou’s first
foray into comics: previous exhibitions included
shows in the 1970s and 1980s on comics and everyday life and comics from the 1950s,
as well as a blockbuster Hergé show in 2006. But “Comics 1964-2024” has been by far the most ambitious European
effort to present comics holistically as a mature art form.
Thanks to some serendipitous business travel, I was lucky
enough to have a free day in Paris on literally the last day of the Pompidou show,
thus giving me a trifecta of the most important museum shows about comics in my
lifetime … so far.3 I stayed inside the museum for the entirety of
its opening hours on Sunday, Nov. 3, 2024, exhausting the friends who had
joined me--and I could easily have spent three or four more days at the show
without getting bored. Indeed, surrounded by more than 1,000 comic pages,
covers, illustrations, sketchbooks, printed books, and other ephemera, I’d have
happily been locked into the museum for a week!
After passing through a “portal”--an homage to the 20th-Century
master Jean-Claude Forest by beloved and prolific 21st-Century
cartoonist Blutch--the visitor entered an initial room that presented a
powerful argument: the global upheavals
of the 1960s--cultural, social, political, and artistic--had catalyzed a new
kind of comic art.

Fig. 2
Or, perhaps put more daringly: catalyzed by those events, comics as a form
had become something completely different from its historical roles as
children’s entertainment or an occasional diversion for adults in daily
newspapers.
As linguists and anthropologists talk about polygenesis,
there was something going on in the zeitgeist or collective unconscious during
this decade that sprouted distinct but essentially related sequential narrative
traditions. In France, a touchstone was the rise of Hara-Kiri, a
self-proclaimed “stupid and nasty” magazine featuring bandes dessinées mocking
bourgeois politics and aesthetics. In Japan, Garo magazine presented a showcase for
introspective, radical manga for adult readers. And in the United States, the Underground
Comix movement exploded with Robert Crumb, Justin Green, Trina Robbins, and other
over-the-counter pioneers who irreverently satirized mainstream American
culture and mores.
That opening salvo for “Comics 1964-2024” was
strong: the claim that these
simultaneous cultural eruptions laid the foundation for what was to come in
sequential art over the next half-century. Just a few decades later, the world
would witness the almost unimaginable flowering and maturation of the graphic
novel, the literary comic, and the hybrid artistic experiments that represent
comics as a medium and an art form in the 21st Century. From origins
at the margins of proper society--countercultural ’zines, head shops,
underground presses--comics have evolved into a medium now worthy of being
presented in one of the most admired museums in the world.
For better or worse, that opening argument dissipated as
one got deeper into the show. As the exhibit unfolded, the programming shifted
to a loosely structured sequence of theme-based rooms, seemingly committed to
displaying a “greatest hits” of stunning comic art rather than exploring any
cohesive story about the medium’s development. For visitors newer to comics,
the sheer variety must have been thrilling--if perhaps overwhelming--but for
those with more knowledge of comics’ history, its major works and key creators,
the lack of historical or conceptual throughline was frustrating. Or that was
certainly my own feeling, as well as the report I heard from more than a few knowledgeable
friends lucky enough to see the show.
With “Contre-culture” (Counterculture) as the first room, the
themes of the following rooms ranged from “Fiction du future” (Future
Fiction or science fiction) and “Rêve” (Dreams) to “Villes” (Cities)
and “Géométrie” (Geometry). This selection of themes felt arbitrary--if
not uninteresting. While the whole exhibition gave the attentive viewer both
visual delight and historical range, it came at the expense of clear
intentionality and without much curatorial apparatus.
The early countercultural material was rich with context
and layered juxtaposition. Seeing French underground comics alongside American
and Japanese works from the same era revealed not just parallel energies but
fundamentally different--and even orthogonal--artistic responses to the global
cultural moment. Where American underground comix leaned into psychedelia,
drugs, and sexual liberation, French artists channeled their energy into
political dissent and aesthetic innovation, as in the case of Forest’s Barbarella or Peellaert’s Jodelle. Japan’s Garo
offered yet another track: class
struggle, existential introspection, and artistic minimalism, perhaps taking
cues from contemporary national writers and filmmakers, such as Kenzaburō Ōe
and Nagisa Oshima. This juxtaposition was brilliantly instructive--as the wall
text explained:
The 1960s saw the development of forms of free expression
and protest all over the world, going against the values and hierarchies of
establishment culture. This counterculture was the identity marker of a
generation and especially permeated the field of comics, which until then were
considered as being for children by their very nature.

Fig. 3
In France, Japan, and then the United States, new forms of
comics appeared on the fringes of mainstream production. They expanded comic
readership and sowed the seeds for themes that would take on considerable
significance around the turn of the century, defining the contours of modern
comics: graphic journalism, confessional
style, addressing major societal issues, and mixing comics with other forms of
art. The 1960s also marked the start of the process of cultural legitimisation
that would lead to the recognition of “the ninth art.”

But, as the
exhibition unfolded, its themes became more diffuse. “Rire,” the room
dedicated to humor, gathered pages by Claire Bretécher, André Franquin, Bill
Watterson, and Albert Uderzo, among others--but presented them with no logic or
framing. Which caused the viewer (or me, at least) to start a little mental
game: “Which creators should or could
have been included in this room, and why were they omitted?” As I proceeded
through the rest of the exhibition, that game took up more and more of my
mental attention. In the section on “black and white,” for example, to illustrate
how comics intersect with film and roman noir, I’d have preferred less
Frank Miller (who has always struck me as overly derivative of his forebears)
and more Jose Muñoz (Fig. 4), Baru, Didier Comes, Alex Toth, or even
Darwyn Cooke’s masterful interpretations of Richard Stark’s brilliant series of
hardboiled novels about a thief named Parker.

Fig. 4
To continue, while hopefully not complaining overmuch, the 1980s
“realistic” branch of Franco-Belgian comics, not so fashionable these days, was
completely overlooked (no Jean Giraud, no François Boucq, no Hermann), as
was much of the kids’ section (no Peyo, no Quino). While that first room had implicitly
set the show’s parameters as Western Europe, Japan, and North America, the
utter omission of comics from Africa (with strong traditions in South Africa,
West Africa, Nigeria, and Algeria); China, Korea, or the rest of Asia outside
Japan; or South America (aside from the few creators published in Europe like Muñoz
and Alberto Breccia) was puzzling. The United Kingdom also got short shrift. The omission of inarguable giants and massive influencers
like Jaime and Beto Hernandez (USA), Max (Spain), Joost Swarte (Netherlands), and
Dylan Horrocks (New Zealand) was mystifying. And there not even a glimpse
of the Italian Milo Manara, one of the biggest names in latter-day European
comics--though perhaps for an all-ages show a 13th room on Erotica
was understandably vetoed.4
While the European curators made efforts to include plenty
of North American cartoonists, their perception of 21st-Century work
from the new world felt dated. Creators, such as Eleanor Davis, Sammy Harkham,
Dash Shaw, or Jillian Tamaki, could have settled nicely into more than one of
the thematic rooms and offered a more contemporary look at how comics creators across
the Atlantic are engaging with the form. What’s been happening in
English-language comics in the latest generation is as exciting as anything coming
from the continent, but you wouldn’t know it from this show.
One side note on the exhibition’s physical space: clearly the desire to show as much original
comic art as possible was paramount. But each room--even the makeshift ones set
off by curtains--felt cramped and claustrophobic, especially with the masses of
enthusiastic crowds. Artwork was hung tightly arranged, with little breathing
room for the material or the viewers. The original works were mostly presented
simply--often without frames at all--but the density, along with the lack of
commentary, again made it difficult to discern patterns or threads, never mind arguments.
One could happily lose hours in any room, nose inches from stunning originals--seeing
the actual ink on paper in the hand of the artist is transporting--but the
exercise felt more like rummaging through some lucky collector’s trove than engaging
in a museum show.
A section on horror or fear, “Effroi,” followed
suit. With work from the EC Comics of the 1950s (which, it should be noted fall
well outside of the show’s stated timeframe!), Japanese masters Junji Ito and
Hideshi Hino (Fig. 5), and Charles Burns, it was packed with macabre
brilliance but, again, no curatorial logic. Horror is not a monolithic genre--it
spans the grotesque, the psychological, the physiological, the absurd, and more--and
without guidance, the viewer was left to make sense of jumps from, say, Swamp
Thing to Daniel Clowes without
much sense of relation. That said, highlights abounded, including 110 pages
from Hino’s Hell Baby, which held my
attention for a good half hour. Oddly, the curators offered a full wall of the
spellbinding work of the German master, Anke Feuchtenberger, in this section,
where it felt out of place. Perhaps “Dreams” would have been more suitable.

Fig. 5
To be fair, every section of the exhibit pleased,
once the viewer gave up looking for a curatorial argument and simply enjoyed
the work. “Rêve,” the room on dreams, included some of the most
imaginative work on display--from Fred’s surreal Philémon strips to Julie Doucet’s dream diaries to
David B.’s Les Incidents de la nuit (Nocturnal
Conspiracies).
In this area, an oneiric anthology, comics’ unique power to
blur inner and outer worlds was on full display. A towering installation,
perhaps ten feet tall, of the first 32 pages of “Les Cauchemars de l’amateur” (Fig.
6), a never-published nightmare comics story by Killoffer, was one the
highlights of this section, and indeed the entire show. (How is it possible
that this work has never been collected into a book?!)

Fig. 6
Another triumph was the room dedicated to “Couleur,”
which traced how artists from Moebius to Brecht Evens use color not just
decoratively but narratively and emotionally. Seeing original pages from the
illustrator/cartoonist Lorenzo Mattotti (Fig. 7), Nicole Claveloux’s The
Green Hand, and Moebius’s ground-breaking Arzach (Fig. 8)
in their unmediated, physical form offered a rare treat: mechanical printing
simply cannot capture the nuance of these richly painted colors.

Fig. 7 Fig. 8
Autobiography (Récits personnels) was a
particularly strong section. Works by David B., Alison Bechdel, Fabrice Neaud,
and Dominique Goblet, illustrated how comics can be a powerful medium for
emotional intimacy, psychological inquiry, and self-reinvention. The
juxtaposition of Bechdel’s Fun Home and
Neaud’s diary comics underscored how different cultural contexts may shape
confessional storytelling--even in what some viewers might (falsely) assume
would be a leveling category such as queer comics. But again, the lack of a
curatorial thesis led to puzzling omissions and lost teaching moments. It’s no
surprise, of course, that this section was so strong, since autobiography has
in many ways been the foundational mode for comics’ self-reinvention since the
1990s. As such, autobiography isn’t just a one category among others--it
is, arguably, one of the central evolutions of comics in the last 30
years, and that argument could and should have been made.
The section, “Histoire et mémoire,” powerfully elucidated comics’ relationship
with history and memory. Pages from Art Spiegelman’s Maus, Keiji
Nakazawa’s Barefoot Gen (Hadashi
no Gen), Emmanuel Guibert’s La guerre d’Alain (Alan’s War, Fig. 9) and Jacques Tardi’s World War I
narratives (Fig. 10) traced how cartoonists have tackled historical
trauma with depth, immediacy, and moral urgency. These works stand not only as
documentation, but as emotional interpretation--and they remind us how comics,
through juxtaposition and layering, are uniquely suited to convey the
fragmented nature of recollection. However, since war comics have been such a
dominant genre over the last half-century, including in the mainstream, a savvy
viewer was likely awkwardly reminded of how much was left out.

Fig.
9
Fig. 10
To my dismay as an English Ph.D., the “Littérature” room felt the least essential. It
presented capable adaptations of works by Poe, de Maupassant, Flaubert, and
Steinbeck--alongside satirical appropriations, such as Winshluss’s Pinocchio and Posy Simmonds’s Gemma Bovery--but
didn’t offer much insight or commentary into anything novel such adaptations might
produce. Hunt Emerson’s sly and sometimes scandalous retellings of classics,
such as Lady Chatterley’s Lover and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,
would have been much more illuminating, not to mention David Hughes’s
magnificent Othello. (Both artists are British.) While there’s nothing
wrong with showing comics’ engagement with literature, the underlying message
here seemed to be one of validation: “Look,
comics can do literature too!” Yet the deeper truth--that comics can do many
things that traditional words-only prose cannot--was left unexplored.
The section missed an opportunity to explain the medium’s distinctive
capabilities: its ability to collapse
time, blend narration and image, and structure perception spatially as well as
temporally.
By the final few rooms--which focused on geometry, cities,
and formal experimentation--the show began to feel more like a sprawling
cabinet of magnificent curiosities than a presentation of ideas organizing the
displays. I suspect most viewers, whether comics experts or casual visitors,
were running out of gas by this point--yet perhaps they might not have been,
had there been a clearer explanatory thread or conceptual map running through
the exhibit. Indeed, the back end of the show featured some of the most
visually inventive objects on display--including pages by Chris Ware, Jochen
Gerner, Yuichi Yokoyama, and Marc-Antoine Mathieu--which dazzle in their conceptual
complexity. Seth’s surprisingly large and meticulous model of his imagined city
of Dominion (Fig. 11) was stunning, but must have been lost on some
visitors who had by now reached complete cognitive saturation.

Fig. 11
For all its bounteous riches, I admit that “Comics 1964-2024” nevertheless left me with the feeling of a
missed opportunity. The show began with a sharp idea: that comics around the
world had collectively responded in a unique and unexpected way to the shocks
and possibilities of the 1960s and have since matured into a complex, global,
and increasingly popular set of languages and media--no longer an overlooked
little sibling to more serious modes of high art. That idea could have carried
through the exhibition, but, instead, the show followed a more traditional
retrospective model: gather as much
great work as possible and organize it loosely by theme. The result was often
stunning--but rarely instructive.
However, being more generous, perhaps the exhibition’s
biggest flaw--its lack of sustained argument--was also, for some viewers, its
strength. Over glasses of wine after the show, one of my companions said to me,
“I don’t know a lot about comics, but moving from room to room
what was most amazing to me was how very different all of the work of the different
creators is and what a vast universe of ideas and styles and subject comics can
embrace.” No, the show did not lay out a coherent history or thesis, but
it certainly conveyed comics’ astounding depth and breadth. And it did so with
affection, admiration, and an earnest desire to elevate the medium.
So, a positive and optimistic conclusion. It was absolutely
thrilling to see almost the entirety of a major art museum, like the Pompidou, turned
over to comic art for the better part of a year, and “Comics 1964-2024” is
truly unprecedented in its scope, depth, and sheer celebration. As comics
continue to gain cultural legitimacy, we can hope that exhibitions like “Comics
1964-2024” may become more common. The Pompidou show may not have achieved the
full integration of narrative and form, of ideas and images, that the best
comics themselves offer--but it did bring graphic narrative into the halls of
one of the world’s great museums, with no need of a Trojan Horse like
“High/Low,” and put its diversity on display for a wide public. That alone is
an achievement. The Ninth Art, like the curators who care for it, is still
evolving. May the next major comics exhibition be even more beautiful--and a
bit braver in its storytelling.
Endnotes
1 “High and Low
Culture Meet on a One-Way Street.” The New York Times. Oct. 5, 1990.
2 It should be noted
that “Comics 1964-2024” was just one part of a broader program at the Pompidou,
“La BD à tous les étages” (Comics on Every Floor), which ran from May 29
to Nov. 4 of 2024. In addition to a series of lectures and performances,
ancillary exhibitions included Corto Maltese: Une vie romanesque, focused on Hugo
Pratt’s iconic sailor; “Tenir tête,” an immersive installation for children
designed by the remarkable Marion Fayolle; a showcase of the avant-garde comics
from the magazine Lagon; and “La bande dessinée au Musée” or
“Comics at the Museum.” I was able to spend some time at this last show as
well, which paired contemporary comics artwork with masterpieces of modern art.
While I liked the concept, the promised “dialogues” didn’t really impress.
3 For those less lucky, a sumptuous catalogue was produced
for “Comics 1964-2024.” Like the catalogues for the two earlier American shows,
it deserves to be in the library of any committed comics aficionado.
4 On the other
hand, another great Italian comics artist known for his erotica, Guido Crepax, was
included. And rightfully so: once you
get past the kink, Crepax is one of the most innovative and influential masters
of page composition in all of comics history.
________________________
Mark David Nevins is a
professor at Holy Cross College and heads a consulting group.