How important is art to you?

[BubbaGump]

How important is the art in a comic book to you?

To me, it's very important. Seeing as it occupies pretty much 85% of your vision when your reading a comic book, I want the art to be good (who doesn't?).

A good story isn't complete without good art. Eye pleasing visuals are always a plus. I'll buy anything Bruce Timm, Jim Lee, Tim Sale, Brian Bolland, or Andy Kubert--no matter whether the stories are good or not. However, I'm more likely to hesitate to look at something if ir has bad art (despite if it's a good story). And there are just some comics you want to drop, you know (DKSA)?

I think great stories are made even more memorable with great artwork. DKR (some of you may disagree, that's okay), The Long Halloween, Killing Joke, Monster Men, Man Who Laughs (gritty but good), Year One--all the basics.

So let's discuss. Posting pictures won't hurt either.

 

[Fledermaus]

I agree. I think a lot of people will agree. Even if they won't admit it. For example, see all the bit#in' that took place when Morrison's prose story appeared in Batman.

 

[Telekinetic]

To me art is everything.

If i dont like how the characters are drawn. ill put it down.

 

[deathshead2]

Art is really important. If the art is crap im not going to buy the comic.

 

[CConn]

I used to think art meant nothing to me, but now I'm starting to realize it does make a difference.

While there's certain great stories that had (IMO) crappy artwork - DKR - on the whole, I'm much more likely to be into a story with great art rather than bad.

 

[Malone]

I think that art work is important because it helps you tell the story; however, different stories require different artwork. For example, I think that Jim Lee is a great artist, but "The Long Halloween" wouldn't have been as good if he did the art because he has a different style than Tim Sale. Tim Sale's artwork fit the mood of the story.

 

[Motown Marvel]

being an artist myself, i'd say its pretty f**king important.

 

[Zombie_samurai]

agreed

 

[hippie_hunter]

I prefer story over art. I can tolerate bad art but there have been instances where I couldn't even read a story simply because the art was just plain horrible. Morrison's Batman #663 is the prime example of this.

 

[BubbaGump]

I prefer story over art. I can tolerate bad art but there have been instances where I couldn't even read a story simply because the art was just plain horrible. Morrison's Batman #663 is the prime example of this.

I agree. I can tolerate to a certain degree. 663 was pushing it. I don't care if anyone says the story's great. There was absolutely no effort on the artistic side. Art and story have to compliment each other. It's a comic book for godsake. Just like journalists have to follow a certain writing style--so do comic book writers and artists. Journalists have strict rules to follow. Comic books have it easier. It's more lenient and there's much more room for creativity and freedom. But there are still rules. You can't just make a 3-D comic book. I mean you could--but at least put some effort.

I don't want to turn this into a Batman #663 debate, I just wanted to voice my opinion.

 

[Joker]

Very important, except for on prose stories like 663 (it wasnt about the art, therefore the art doesnt matter...it could have had no art and worked just as well)...I'll read stuff I dont like just for good art, and will not read stuff I do like because of bad art.

 

[SpideyInATree]

Art is extremely important. A comic book is a collaboration between writer and artist. They have GOT to have a flow. An artist doesn't necessarily have to be a GREAT artist but he/she may have a certain style that meshes well with a certain style of story. It's all about putting together an overall product in this business. Would we have had such great Batman runs without these combinations? O;Neill/Adams, Miller/Mazzuchelli, Loeb/Sale etc.

But artwork is just as important as the story being told itself. Without a solid artist a really, really good story could be tarnished by the terrible visuals. And we've ALL seen some good stories with terrible visuals!!!

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Art that tells the story well is vital.

Steve Ditko is a perfect case of art that isn't flashy, but tells the story perfectly. Even though Jim Lee draws fantastically cool looking stuff, Ditko is a better comic artist because he tells the story better.

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

The art is the most important to me whether the writer is bad or not, there are exceptions of course with DKR and The Long Halloween, yeah sorry guys but Tim Sale's art is nice but in small doses.

And All-Star B&R is complete garbage but Jim Lee delivers the goods.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The art is the most important to me whether the writer is bad or not, there are exceptions of course with DKR and The Long Halloween, yeah sorry guys but Tim Sale's art is nice but in small doses.

And All-Star B&R is complete garbage but Jim Lee delivers the goods.

Yeah, All-Star looks great but it's not even worth reading.

 

[BubbaGump]

Sale's art is the kind that grows on you.

I love Jim Lee on All Star, but I've noticed a bit of decrease in quality in #5, mostly with Wonder Woman's face and the backgrounds. She looks different in All-Star than in For Tomorrow, and the Gotham skyline looks hastily done. I can't quite explain it, but #1-4 were drawn better (that gorgeous 6 page spread of the Batcave *drool*). I mean #5 still blows every other current Batman comic out of the water (in terms of art), but you might think me crazy for this--but it wasn't on par with 1-4.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Extremely important... I absolutely hate the overly glossy comic book art that seems to be in every comic released after 2002. It seems like it's all the same sh** shoveled out by the same artist.

I like my art to have some character to it, whether it's Tim Sale or Dave McKean or whatever. I can't stand that overly stylized cookie cutter crap we get today. There is no variety or flavor at all.

 

[Joker]

Sale's art is the kind that grows on you.

I love Jim Lee on All Star, but I've noticed a bit of decrease in quality in #5, mostly with Wonder Woman's face and the backgrounds. She looks different in All-Star than in For Tomorrow, and the Gotham skyline looks hastily done. I can't quite explain it, but #1-4 were drawn better (that gorgeous 6 page spread of the Batcave *drool*). I mean #5 still blows every other current Batman comic out of the water (in terms of art), but you might think me crazy for this--but it wasn't on par with 1-4.

WW probably looks different because all the characters do...Superman doesnt look like For Tomorrow Superman, Batman doesnt look like Hush Batman, etc.

 

[BubbaGump]

WW probably looks different because all the characters do...Superman doesnt look like For Tomorrow Superman, Batman doesnt look like Hush Batman, etc.

Of course he'd draw Batman and Superman differently (he's trying to adapt Miller's style). But I thought he'd have some consistency with Wonder Woman...but now that I look at it, it does kinda look like WW in DKSA.

 

[mystory64]

Yeah, All-Star looks great but it's not even worth reading.

Amen to that, tried to read it.... WOW I sort of lost respect for Millers Batman after the Dark Knight Strikes Back, thought it had the coolest name.... my god was that an weird ass comic.

I personally like the paper they used to use in the 90's that stuff the original issues of Spawn was printed on, dark, kind of gritty. It made the really bright colors "pop" better, last comic I saw it on was Fantastic Four Heroes Reborn issue #1, by issue #2 it went to glossy stock, I questioned Jim Lee at comic con after 6 hours in line and said it was cause he thought issue 1 was "too dark" I disagree.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Sale's art is the kind that grows on you.

I love Jim Lee on All Star, but I've noticed a bit of decrease in quality in #5, mostly with Wonder Woman's face and the backgrounds. She looks different in All-Star than in For Tomorrow, and the Gotham skyline looks hastily done. I can't quite explain it, but #1-4 were drawn better (that gorgeous 6 page spread of the Batcave *drool*). I mean #5 still blows every other current Batman comic out of the water (in terms of art), but you might think me crazy for this--but it wasn't on par with 1-4.

That's because the characters in All-Star Batman and Robin are based on Frank Miller's versions of the characters, not the actual ones.

 

[Rynan]

As much as I appreciate comic art, I'm getting the vibe from the comic industry that they don't think so. It's easier to write than to draw. A writer can churn out a comic story in a day, but the artist, it takes much longer. Because it takes so long, I see that the industry is moving to more cheaper and more quickly produced art. How often have you picked up a modern comic and was sorely disappointed with the work? I bet quite often. These weekly events don't help much either(I personally think they fry artists).

Where is the creativity? Where is the beauty? Where are those who are exploiting comics are an art form? Not in DC.

I blame the editors.

 

[BubbaGump]

It's easier to write than to draw. A writer can churn out a comic story in a day, but the artist, it takes much longer.

Agree agree agree. Jeph Loeb and Miller can write a splash page off the top of their heads (Every inch of me is ALIVE), but it will take the artists much longer to draw, then have someone ink, then color the page. Artists are underrated, they do the most work.

 

[mystory64]

As much as I appreciate comic art, I'm getting the vibe from the comic industry that they don't think so. It's easier to write than to draw. A writer can churn out a comic story in a day, but the artist, it takes much longer. Because it takes so long, I see that the industry is moving to more cheaper and more quickly produced art. How often have you picked up a modern comic and was sorely disappointed with the work? I bet quite often. These weekly events don't help much either(I personally think they fry artists).

Where is the creativity? Where is the beauty? Where are those who are exploiting comics are an art form? Not in DC.

I blame the editors.

As an artist currently facing this problem I commend you whole heartedly, I've already had one project postponed indefinably because publishers don't want to wait for art, or the ones that do go bankrupt during the development process. So you have to either crank it out quick/cheaply or put the time in and develop a 4-6 issue mini-series complete before they will even look at it, which means long hours of no pay... Believe me I get 3-4 hours of sleep a day due to this.... but I cant stand bad art... God bless ya brutha GREAT POST!

 

[Spider-Bat]

Art is very important, it is a visual medium after all, but yes story is equally important, but it's also up to the artist to give you something worth looking at, and to do panels that tell a story without words at times which does happen, and I've seen it done very well, but it can also be screwed up and leave the reader going, wait I'm not too sure if I got that.

I hate scratchy, scritchy artwork, or garbage like that Joker story in Batman not too far back, or that horrible look that that Arkham book had.

Batman should look good, he deserves the best as he's had like, Neal Adams, Jim Aparo, and now Andy Kubert. But in the last few years he's had some clunkers except for Jim Lee. I stopped reading Bats around the time of No Man's Land, and man am I glad I stopped for a bit, I returned to Batman a little bit ago and I saw some of the crap stories and art that happened to my favorite comic book character, what a shame. I'm ignoring most of these last few years, haven't seen anything good in Batman in this new millenium till now with Kubert.