On cartoonist Robert Crumb, from "The Life and Times of R. Crumb: Comments from Contemporaries", edited by Monte Beauchamp (St. Martin’s Griffin / New York, 1998), 181-2.
Back in the mid-to-late-seventies, when I was a student at Columbia College, I wrote a paper for a course called “Contemporary Civilization,” or something like that. Anyway, the subject of my paper was the work of R. Crumb, and after reading it the professor (whose name I don’t recall) called me in for an appointment. He informed me that he had no choice but to give me an incomplete for the course because the subject of my writing was unacceptable. I really don’t remember anything about the paper itself - most likely it contained comparisons of Crumb to the likes of William Hogarth, George Grosz, Max Fleischer, et cetera - but I do recall the professor telling me that, although my paper was “interesting,” a ”contemporary cartoonist” was not the proper focus for the course. I don’t remember if I argued with him or just walked out like a zombie, but I imagine that I probably had thoughts along the lines of: “Shit. I know he’s not gonna accept something on Albert Ayler or the MC5. I guess he wants something on Roy Lichtenstein or Le Corbusier ... Oh well, fuck it.”
Now, twenty-plus years later and looking back, I realize I had every right to kick that professor’s ass. Hogarth, Grosz, the Fleischer brothers, Tex Avery, Charles Addams, et cetera are great artists. And so is R. Crumb. In certain ways, he may even be the greatest of them all. But hell, this isn’t some contest, or some damn awards ceremony. This is just my opinion. The editor of this book asked for it, so there it is. R. Crumb is an original. He’s a great cartoonist, and that, in my book, deserves great respect. Our “contemporary civilization” is lucky to have him, and to have his work.