Art vs. Narrative

Maybe it's because I just got into comics, but I really only buy them for the art. I've found most of the stories to be stupid as hell, and I can't figure out why anyone would buy comics for any reason other than the fantastic artwork.

Is there anything that is honestly exceptional.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

for some it's like reading a book, well written stories are better then well drawn boobs. But i admit that i will read anything as long as it got good artists (like Jim Lee).

no homo

Just get Alex Ross and everything will look awesome. ;-)

Most amazing jew boots

As long as the art really suits the story like Ethan Van Sciver on Green Lantern Rebirth and Dave McKean on Neil Gaiman's Sandman. But to me, when it comes to a good story, I put the art on second place.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I go on and off on both. Stuff like the The Punisher, I read for story (I love most of the stuff Mr. Ennis writes but they can pick some terrible artists sometimes =( ) but some of the Ultimate series, i only check out for the art.

I was speaking idiomatically.

There should be both, and both of quality, to make a good comic. A comic without art (or good art, that is consistant with what is being told) is garbage; you may as well just have a book. Same with a comic without story...you may as well just paint a single picture.

A comic needs both art and story to make it a good comic book.

That said, I feel that most comics nowadays generally are terrible. The mainstream comics (produced by the big two) are nothing new. Plus for the most part, very inconsistant. Switching artists and writers every few issues leads to the comic degrading because noone can agree on anything from one story to the next.

For the most part, the art is terrible, barring a few exceptions, and storylines are atrocious. The Ultimate comics are a great example of terrible stories. If Marvel (or any of them really...I'm just picking one right now)would actually hire people with talent, or who would actually produce with talent, maybe comics could turn around.

Sure, there are well drawn comics out there. Look at most Top Cow comics. However, when your mainstream comics are crap, it doesn't help promote the business.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

I bought Image comics (still do, as a matter of fact), back when they were released. Most people generally look at them as being "crap". I like the stories, find them fun, but most of all the art was amazing, light-years ahead of anything in the big two. The writing was lacking, but the art was great, and is what sold the books.

It is true that either one can save the other if it's lacking in one area or another, but I do believe that both are needed for a comic book. To make a good comic, both are needed in spades. For art to be good, it has to show talent (proper proportions, perspective, technique), it has to make sense and be easily identifyable (look at the Ultimate Sinister Six mini. Terrible! If you looked at the villains faces, they were all virtually identical. You couldn't tell them apart in the flurry of dialogue without careful consideration, barring immediately identifyable features like Doc Oc's goggles. Those should not be needed to tell one person from another!), and it has to be consistant (a comic should not be started by one person, let's say Mark Texiera, who can do a wicked Ghost Rider or Union, then switch off to, say Carlos Pacheco or even worse, switch to different artists within a single issue). It makes the comic as a series far worse. Some art also looks good depending on the series it's being done for. A cartoony, anime-style Ghost Rider would definately just not look right. The art would suit the mood of the comic at all, whether it was good art in and of itself.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh

For the most part, the art is terrible, barring a few exceptions, and storylines are atrocious. The Ultimate comics are a great example of terrible stories. If Marvel (or any of them really...I'm just picking one right now)would actually hire people with talent, or who would actually produce with talent, maybe comics could turn around.

Ultimate Spider-Man is still fan-fucking-tastic after 90 issues. And Ultimates 2 is easily one of the best comic arcs I've read in years.

Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh

I bought Image comics (still do, as a matter of fact), back when they were released. Most people generally look at them as being "crap". I like the stories, find them fun, but most of all the art was amazing, light-years ahead of anything in the big two. The writing was lacking, but the art was great, and is what sold the books.

Yeah. That Rob Liefeld. He sure was a great artist.




I mean really. What the fuck is that supposed to be. Captain America has shoe boxes for pecs and the girl on the left has a torso that is 8 miles long and a waist that is 4 inches around.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by acid

Ultimate Spider-Man is still fan-fucking-tastic after 90 issues. And Ultimates 2 is easily one of the best comic arcs I've read in years.

And I find both generally to be as boring as shit. Just not exciting nor fun to read, taking forever to draw any sort of conclusion to any story. Sure, Image was overwhelming in it's "Xtreme action all the time", but you don't need to go to the polar opposite of that to tell a good story. Spidey I never could get into. It's simply telling the same old stories over again, but making Spidey far worse as a character than he has ever been (let alone killing off any semblance of a good Spiderman in the New Avengers...ugh). Ultimates would be alright if it were released as a TPB, rather than a single issue comic. I wouldn't mind nearly so much if it were released once every 3-4 months as a large volume.

Originally Posted by acid

Yeah. That Rob Liefeld. He sure was a great artist.

Ah, forever Liefeld to haunt our days. I don't mind him that much. He simply overexaggerated everything, but at least he was consistant...He does do nice detail, that's about all I can really give him...he's not near my favorite artist, that's for sure. I much prefer Texiera on Union, or Booth on Backlash, Finch on Ascension, Jim Lee on Gen 13/WildCATs/Divine Right, Portacio on Wetworks , Turner on almost everything he has done, McFarlane on Spawn, Campbell on Danger Girl, Silvestri on Hunter Killer/Cyberforce, Madureira on Battle Chasers, Kirkham on Strykeforce/Vice, Manapul on Necromancer, these are just a small sampling, and any of these destroy pretty much all of the artists working for the big two combined.

Originally Posted by acid

I mean really. What the fuck is that supposed to be. Captain America has shoe boxes for pecs and the girl on the left has a torso that is 8 miles long and a waist that is 4 inches around.

Like I said, I don't mind him, but definately not my favorite (and I had hoped to forget about the Cap image forever, heh). The women...nothing like exaggerating the breasts and butt so horney fan-boys will buy it...he just did it more than nearly all artists do in comics. Too bad really.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

There are quite a few books which stand out due to their narrative.
I still have to read a work by Alan Moore that leaves me unimpressed, Jeph Loeb's take on Batman usually turns out great, same goes for Frank Miller (though DK2 was kinda overdone). And let's not forget Neil Gaiman's stories about the Endless and "Blankets" by Craig Thompson.
But of course, there are some very gifted artists at the drawing boards and I happen to read Ultimate Spider-Man for both, story and artwork.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

For me, it's all about the story. Art comes last. I'll buy a book for the story, and if it has good art, great. But not the other way around. Take Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. I don't find the art to be particularly good, but it tells one hell of a story.

As for the Ultimate Universe, I am enjoying it, but I can see why it has so much criticism. Whether or not you like it, one thing is true: Marvel and DC are telling the same stories over and over and over again, just with different artists and writers, Ultimate or not. Something's going to have to change.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'm much more interested in the story than I am in the art. I will not read a book based on good art alone, however I will read one with bad art so long as the story is good. However, I still appreciate good art - such as that done by Jim Lee and Brian Hitch.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I was thinking and i must say for me art is more important then story... I remember reading Millers Batman the dark knight thing, been praised to death, best story ever etc etc and i found it incredibly boring and ugly, the layout, the art itself is shit and the second volume is too horrible. So yeah sorry but art > story.

no homo

I weigh them both. I read a book if the story and art are mixed appropriately, that's what makes a good book, a good book. I used to think that I should get books just because it's done by a good artist/penciller, since I'm an "artist" too, and neglect the story of the book as long as it's pretty. Well, guess what? I might as well browse the internet for pictures instead of getting the comics. Some people find some book's art ugly, and don't bother reading it, like Powers, Hellboy, Goon, BPRD. They don't know they're missing such a good read. I guess they're happy with just looking at the 'art' from The Gift, since they consider it 'overwhelming'.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by vemp

I weigh them both. I read a book if the story and art are mixed appropriately, that's what makes a good book, a good book. I used to think that I should get books just because it's done by a good artist/penciller, since I'm an "artist" too, and neglect the story of the book as long as it's pretty. Well, guess what? I might as well browse the internet for pictures instead of getting the comics.

I agree, comics need both good art and good story to be a worthy comic. Of course, art is subjective, and what one person finds good, another may hate, but there are degrees of it. I do find that the mainstream comics nowadays have very bland art. There is just nothing that stands out from it, as well, a lot of it does not suit the subject matter. It's like having Braveheart, but instead of Mel Gibson, you use Dave Chapelle...

Originally Posted by vemp

Some people find some book's art ugly, and don't bother reading it, like Powers, Hellboy, Goon, BPRD. They don't know they're missing such a good read. I guess they're happy with just looking at the 'art' from The Gift, since they consider it 'overwhelming'.

With Hellboy/BPRD and Goon, I find that the art suits the comic style completely, and most importantly, the art does not change from issue to issue. Not only that, the covers are done by the same artists. What I hate most is getting a comic that has a cover done by, say Turner, and yet the inside is filled with some hack artist that looks like he has the experience of a 12 year old. It doesn't matter how well it's written, that just turns me off the book completely.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh

What I hate most is getting a comic that has a cover done by, say Turner, and yet the inside is filled with some hack artist that looks like he has the experience of a 12 year old. It doesn't matter how well it's written, that just turns me off the book completely.

Quote for the truth, man.

Although I wouldn't considered Hellboy's art to be "ugly". Its very well developed, and very consistent from what I have seem. However, I think art is vital, but good art depends on how it works with the story, since the point is to tell a story through visual medium, and if the art doesn't work or suck really bad, it essentially have no narrative value, you might as well read the novel.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Mike Mignola preferred the traditional way of coloring his Hellboy comics, just flats, no fancy gradients and highlight. I thinks its wonderful...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

As an artist, I tend to take a shine to comics with fantastic art over the story -- at first. One of the big mistakes I made with this line of thought was the comic "Ascension." The story was utter crap, but the art and character designs were awesome. I should know better than to buy most Top Cow comics, though.

However, there are some comics that don't have great art, but I still really like them. Mignola and Miller both have a kind of rough but direct style that, while not polished and lush like Alex Ross, is still good art. I know many people who would not agree with me, though. Min-woo Hyung, the artist of the Korean comic 'Priest' (who is heavily influenced by Mignola's art), is one illustrator who gets a bit of flack from the asian-comics fans for not having 'good artwork' - but I really think it's some of the best, and most unique in the asian comic-dom. It has a lot of flair and energy that sometimes isn't captured in really refined, detailed comic art. Same can be said for my opinion on Douglas TenNapel's actual comic art (like Earthboy Jacobus and Gear). It just fits the story.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

If you go outside the "Superhero" genre, then you'll find plenty of comic books that are notable for an outstanding story. Even if you just stray to the fringes of that genre, and look for a book that tries to do something different, you'll see a higher standard of writing than is typical of the normal spandex/angst/powers fare.

The best example I can think of right now is probably Sandman, by Neil Gaiman.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.