w/e dude i guess you accomplished you goal of coming in here and irritating people. you're obviously some pathetic idiot Extravert Sensor moron "xxxx" give me a break, mr too cool to have a type.
Hey now. We'll have none of that.
Edahn could have been referring to comics (or sequential art) not being very modern or recent at all and that some of the first "comic" artists were given lots of credit (though they were not considered comic artists at the time--they could have been called anything from a scribe to an illustrator). One could consider Trajan's column (c. 100 AD) a work of sequential art, and thus, a comic*. And then of course there's the work of William Hogarth (c. 1720). And the myriad of other artists who have used images to sequentially tell a narrative not to forget Egyptian hieroglyphs as perhaps the oldest of all cultures.
So, the idea of sequential images being used to tell a story is not new at all. It is not modern. However, what
is modern is the compression of these image-stories into "standardised" book/strip format, which is what we now usually consider a comic.
I think this childish stigma got attached to comics when someone somewhere realised that the medium could have considerable popularity among young boys, and so the industry sort of bent in that direction. What's happening now is a shift from an audience that is expected to be young boys, to an audience that can be anybody. The industry is slowly expanding into something where there will no longer be this core group of popular artists.
But as for the stigma. I think it will be another generation before it fades away.
Please keep in mind, though, that I'm not entirely sure if all the facts presented above are correct. If I am factually wrong, feel free to correct me.
*Comic: a work of art that seeks to tell a narrative through sequential images and may or may not be combined with text. In recent history, a comic usually refers to comic books and strips.