A toddler's painting really can't be considered art because really there is no skill or purpose behind it. The kid is just taking a crayon and drawing some lines on a piece of paper
But then how do you define art brut?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art
"Outsiders", yes Wikipedia defines them as mental patients but their real merit comes from their lack of knowledge of artistic style and thus an ability to create an art completely detached from the confines of the artistic community. Children's drawings exhibit substantial motor skills that are far above drawing lines on a piece of paper, and they are detached from expectations of society's definition of "art".
This is not to say that children's art should be defined as art brut, but it is to say that, as a devil's advocate argument, you can't really say that children cannot create art.
Art is representation of an idea and a form, whether it be in music, or in writing, or otherwise.
To an extent Angel Corps fulfills the criteria for "art"-it has a form, and a very simple idea behind its creation-but if we were to call it art I would have to conclude that it is incredibly shallow art, art whose ideas are very basic and insubstantial.
I think it's pretty obvious that this comic needs a review on this website post-haste. As pornography, it is repulsive. As art, it is at best compromised by its attempts to engender eroticism through mutilation. At worst, I personally think it's shallow, inexpressive, lacking in emotion or emotional depth, with vapid characterization, inane dialogue, boring settings and situations, and generic storylines. It never fleshes itself out beyond pornography.
Even if you get over the guro, and see it as a tasteful expression of it, the bottom line is very simple, I think: This comic is well-drawn, with nicely-done anatomy and good style. But that is its only real positive. Everything else is thoroughly lacking.
(account deleted)
