When I was in my ninth grade art class, we had a small unit where we learned about some of the classic artists of the ages. At the start of the unit, our teacher asked everyone who our favorite painter was. Without hesitation, I answered "Joe Jusko". Pretty sure that's not what she was looking for.
Before Alex Ross, the Hildebrandts, Boris Vallejo and others started using their talents to render photo realistic paintings of comic book heroes, Joe Jusko was already doing it.
I don't understand why art-critics can't consider one of their pieces just as much of a classic as so-called "artsy" painters. It takes just as much skill and talent, and it is just as pleasing to the eye.
Similar situation: I had a college teacher in community college that was teaching a creative writing class. Of course, being the geek I am, I veered towards fantasy, sci-fi, and even some super-hero esque stuff. One day we were to read aloud a short story, and the rules were to use already established stories and characters and make something new out of them. So of course I picked comic books. I wrote a JLA story with Parallax (Hal) as the villain, and gave it an authentic, comic book, cliff-hanger ending.
The teacher tells me, "You have real potential, but you need to put away childhood things and join the rest of us in the adult world and you could be a real success." Well, I told her what I thought of that, and told her that apparently I've gone as far as I can go with this class.
Afterwards a lot of the students talked to me afterwards, told me they though that was awesome that I told her that, and even wanted to know what was gonna happen next in the story (at this point Parallax had absorbed the sun energy for himself and his plans, and left the JLA floating in space unconscious).