Manga Shouldn’t Pretend to Be High Art

An overview of a museum exhibit of manga, the (after reading the article, I'd say clickbaity) title isn't addressed until the very end of the article:

>Critics will lament that such a disposable medium does not belong in an esteemed, if controversial, museum. Yet if you wish to remotely understand a place and time (and those who lived there), it is unwise to dispose of disposable things. They tell us a great deal. The temptation is to respond to derision or faint praise with claims that manga can rise to the level of great art, providing stunning examples such as the neo-Piranesi atmosphere of Tsutomu Nihei’s Blame! (1996-2003) or Moto Hagio’s exquisitely florid ongoing work, which reaches deeper into human souls than most of the practitioners of Art Nouveau or the Pre-Raphaelites ever did. This is to play the wrong game however; one that constricts while pretending to elevate. Manga doesn’t need to be high art. Manga is manga. It has different ways of being appraised. It has different functions, strengths and rules to fine art, as this exhibition studiously shows.

This passage pretends to say something while, I'd argue, saying nothing at all. It exists to justify the title of the article.