Art vs. Narrative

It is my opinion that a good story can save a bad art. However, if the story is bad, it doesn't matter how well it's drawn, it's still crap. Take Inifinite Crisis, for example. The art in there is great, but the writing is lacking. I could never see myself buying something strictly for the art. But, if the story is only somewhat appealing, I might be influenced to buy it if the art inside will be great.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I feel like posting in here again, maybe to better explain my opinion. This is just such an interesting topic, albeit argued since the earliest of comics.

I don't know how many artists are doing comics right now, but I do know that a large chunk of them aren't good. However, if there's a decent story, the comic drawn by one of those such "artists" can be saved. The only problem with writing a decent story is that you have to make sure that the company doesn't reveal too little about the plot (like some comics that basically sell it on stuff like "Spider-Man is in this issue!") or too much, taking away from the impact the story probably should have. More often than not, comics don't even tell you about what's going on under the cover. The cover is usually just a portrait shot of the main character or a guest star or something, and such a shot is not screaming, "Buy me! This is a good book!" It screams, "Buy me! There's pretty pictures inside!" I'm not a five-year-old. And, more importantly, as already stated, the art inside is rarely by the same artist of the cover.

I go for narrative. If the story is decent enough, all the art has to do is at least make it clear what's going on, not necessarily be brilliant, though that would be nice. The ideal form is where the writing and the art seem to mesh, with the artist's style fitting the tone and the wrtier's work lending itself to being drawn accurately.

There's nowhere I can't reach.