|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 20:52:50 GMT -5
I would distinguish between "poor art" and "art that is not to my personal liking". The former is technically flawed and/or is so unappealing that it actually interferes with the clear understanding of the story. The latter is art which, though I might not find the style to be especially appealing, is functional in the sense that it conveys the meaning of the story and the emotions and actions of the characters. I wouldn't be able to enjoy a book with poor art defined as such, but have enjoyed plenty of books where the art wasn't necessarily my cup of tea, yet it also didn't interfere with the story either. The latter group includes, for example, plenty of stories drawn by John Romita Jr after the mid-1980s. I would add that the distinction outlined above gets harder to make when you're talking books that are done in the Marvel method. In those instances, the lines get blurry since the artist makes so many more storytelling choices. Yes! I can deal with art that is just not appealing (Calimee on Alpha Flight did some truly unappealing work). But some of the 90's art (as I stated either in this thread or another) actually bothers my eyes and makes following the story difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 11, 2014 20:54:33 GMT -5
I get the sense from older fans and fanzies that everyone used to be (sensibly) on my side - that the artist was always a bigger draw than the writer. And I'm wondering why that changed?
I think I blame Who's Who and those Marvel books with the digagrams that were all text - I think they might have taught fans to completely ignore how the story is told and only view books as a chunk of continuity, hence making the writer more important.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 11, 2014 20:59:04 GMT -5
I will also give the edge to art. Comics are an art form to me...heck, some issues I buy alone for the covers. I still read every issue I buy, but I can forgive them if they are average or worse so long as the art is good.
Maybe this is spinning off on a tangent, but can anyone think of a story that generally is perceived to have great art but has a terrible story? I'm talking iconic or noteworthy covers that, were it not for the art, they likely would have flopped hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 11, 2014 21:23:33 GMT -5
The most obvious example I can think of is Bernard Krigstien's work for Marvel in the '50s. He'd take scripts for theses cheesy little horror stories and turn in formalist masterpieces. Still it's a tough question - Made harder still 'cause the artist (even in modern comics) does a lot of the "writing." Setting the scene, deciding on the point of view character, pretty much all of the "mood" work - again, equivalent to cinematography in film - making directorial "camera" choices - the final comic is a lot more of the artist's view of the world than the writer. Which means that an artist who makes poor directorial/casting choices, or one who doesn't understand what the writer is looking for - can make the greatest script read like a total failure on page. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 21:32:57 GMT -5
Agree on the first...am a bit more lenient with the second  Well, I mean, I'll LOOK at something that, well, looks great. But I won't buy a comic based solely on art. At least I do not think I will. I don't buy the current series of Ghost Rider because the art is awful in my book...although GR is one of my favourite characters (even the Danny Ketch books from the early 90s were okay). And then...I bought Batman: Odyssey which is by one of my favourite artists of all - Neal Adams, and yet the storyline whatever-it-is is absolute bonkers and makes you feel like you're on acid or something.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 21:34:47 GMT -5
Well, I mean, I'll LOOK at something that, well, looks great. But I won't buy a comic based solely on art. At least I do not think I will. I don't buy the current series of Ghost Rider because the art is awful in my book...although GR is one of my favourite characters (even the Danny Ketch books from the early 90s were okay). And then...I bought Batman: Odyssey which is by one of my favourite artists of all - Neal Adams, and yet the storyline whatever-it-is is absolute bonkers and makes you feel like you're on acid or something. Okay, there may a *few* exceptions. Because: That art is yum. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 11, 2014 21:37:46 GMT -5
Writers...by a country mile. I'll try anything by Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis...And probably more, even if I don't care for the art.
There are very few artists who can make up for poor writing.
I'm good with a number of cartoonists, Eisner, Barks, Chaykin, etc.
Characters are matters of almost complete indifference at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 11, 2014 22:43:01 GMT -5
I lean towards the writing, though I have bought individual issues or even entire runs for the artwork - Paul Gulacy's Catwoman, for example: didn't know the writers or care about the title character enough to follow the series for either of those reasons, though it's possible I wouldn't have bothered with it if I had actively disliked .
I don't think I've followed a series just for the character since I was a teenager, and even then I'd soon give up on even my favourites if I didn't like what I was reading and looking at on the page - Doctor Strange after Englehart's departure, for example. But I am interested in my favourites enough to be curious about what's being done with them, so the characters are still something of a factor for me. If I hear about a new Eternals appearance I'll likely check out the preview or something.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 11, 2014 22:58:30 GMT -5
There are inevitably outliers. Someone who leans towards writers is probably still going to take note when the artist is someone like JH Williams III, and someone who leans towards artists is probably still going to take note if Neil Gaiman is writing.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Nov 11, 2014 23:14:17 GMT -5
Jezzie's Adams example is dead on. Who doesn't love Adams work, and yet, that Odyssey series is crazy, from what I hear.
I have bought most of his Continuity comics too, even though, kind of like Image, the story, and especially dialogue, were pretty weak but the layout and art was pretty good.
Early Image however, I traded after trying the first 6 months worth or so. They were pretty bad.
There are always exceptions, but overall I'll sooner take a solid writer with a so-so artist. Case in point, the original Valiant universe. The writing was always really good with tight continuity and consistency, however, a lot of the artists were on the lackluster side. Those are still some of my favorite comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 1:12:59 GMT -5
As far as bad art goes, there's bad art I can tolerate and bad art I find it difficult to suffer through. Four uniform panels on a page with a no-frills policy regarding cinematic angles can be handled well with someone who scribble-illustrates or uses too few embellishments, like no backgrounds.
Someone who likes to get cute with panel shape and placement, cinematic angle, placement of speech bubbles, and so on are hard to suffer through. The flashy kind of overly dramatic illustration by artists imitating McFarlane but without even his talent. That stuff I can't stand. If you ever have to turn the comic sideways to read it. Or if they ever have to use arrows to point to the next panel. If they neglect the arrows even though they would have done some good, none of that works for me. And there are some renown artists who do these kinds of thing. The most notable would be Barry Windsor Smith in Weapon X. There was no reason to get funny with the panels other than "It's what Liefeld and them were doing at the time."
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Nov 12, 2014 2:11:37 GMT -5
Both. With the amount of content out there I see no reason to compromise on story or art when making my purchases. To name a few modern examples, anything Greg Land touches is instant death no matter how great the story is while Chris Samnee's brilliance is not enough to keep me invested in Mark Waid's Daredevil run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Nov 12, 2014 6:20:00 GMT -5
"Artists Vs Writers Which attracts you most?"
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 12, 2014 6:59:22 GMT -5
I fall in the "writer" camp.
The art can be prettier than anything, but if the writing sucks, I'm out, while I will endure lesser art if the writing is top-notch, which is where I feel that dupont makes an important distinction. I don't particularly "like" Chris Bachalo's artwork, but that's a matter of personal taste, as it is technically acceptable, while "art" produced by Rob Liefeld or Greg Land (in his porn-tracing mode) is just unacceptable.
That said, I tend to follow characters pretty strongly, so I endured Land on both Uncanny X-Men and Iron Man because of my love for the characters, but then throw into the mix the idea of a favorite writer on a character I don't care about. I'm a huge fan of Peter David and will read pretty much anything he writes, but if they announced a new Wolverine or Silver Surfer book tomorrow with him writing it, I would avoid it due to the characters.
|
|
fuzzyblueelf
Full Member
People of Color doesn't mean Red Plastic
Posts: 124 
|
Post by fuzzyblueelf on Nov 12, 2014 10:29:37 GMT -5
I'm more attracted by the art given how Comics are a visual medium that being said if certain writers I dislike are on a book with beautiful artwork that's enough to repel me.
|
|
