Art or Writing?

[mathew101281]

I feel that story is the most important thing in comics. If I just wanted to look at pretty pictures I would go to a museum. The art to me serves the story not the other way around. To me that's how I determine if the art is good.

A comic book is a story that uses pictures.

[FanboyStranger]

I feel that story is the most important thing in comics. If I just wanted to look at pretty pictures I would go to a museum. The art to me serves the story not the other way around. To me that's how I determine if the art is good.

A comic book is a story that uses pictures.

But, again, it is the art, more often than not, that actually tells the story in comics. Otherwise, you'd have disconnected narrative exposition and dialogue. If a writer is going to tell a whole story without the art, it's no longer a comic. You can- and probably have-- read a comic that doesn't have any words. Even if the plot was solely the writer's, it's the artist who actually brings it to life.

[ImprobableQuestion]

This has turned out to be the longest Thread I've ever started here. Cheers.

Has anyone mentioned yet comics without any words, like the Requiem issue of Batman and Robin?

[Melv]

But, again, it is the art, more often than not, that actually tells the story in comics. Otherwise, you'd have disconnected narrative exposition and dialogue. If a writer is going to tell a whole story without the art, it's no longer a comic. You can- and probably have-- read a comic that doesn't have any words. Even if the plot was solely the writer's, it's the artist who actually brings it to life.

Surely though the art is informed purely by the writing? Without the writer's instruction there would be nothing to draw. I think writing is entirely more important than the art.

A comic is bought for the story, the story is told by the writer and enacted by the artist. When watching a film or play I praise the writer or director, not the actor.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

Writing first, art second
I'm reading Justice League Europe at the moment, the art is not appealing to me

Of course, there is a limit to how much I can tolerate bad sketching

[dancj]

Has anyone mentioned yet comics without any words, like the Requiem issue of Batman and Robin?

Even those stories have a writer.

[FanboyStranger]

Surely though the art is informed purely by the writing? Without the writer's instruction there would be nothing to draw. I think writing is entirely more important than the art.

A comic is bought for the story, the story is told by the writer and enacted by the artist. When watching a film or play I praise the writer or director, not the actor.

Not necessarily. Obviously, it's a combination of both the writer and artist's efforts. The fact that the Marvel style of loose plots leading to completed artwork then dialogue and story changes belies is still used that the writer is solely responsible for the story. Someone like Matt Wagner, who is both a fantastic writer and artist, still prefers to work in this method because the work of the artist on his plot reveals things he had not considered when writing that plot.

Most writers in the medium do tend to credit the artist with the heavy lifting as far as storytelling. Even guys you wouldn't expect like Warren Ellis. (For a time, he advocated that the writer and artist be grouped together as "Storytellers").

[thetrellan]

Patently untrue. If I sit down to read a Batman comic and he's making a fart joke to Alfred, then I know he is a bad writer (or at the very least not the kind of writer I would be interested in for Batman comics).

All that tells you is that the story is a spoof and, no offense intended, perhaps that you are judgmental. You still must read it to give a fair assessment.

Additionally, art can be just as malleable as writing, even within a single issue. One simply has to look at some of the amorphous blob faces in Batman Eternal #5 to see what I am talking about.

Do not presume I know nothing of art. In fact, you should presume everyone here knows at least a little about art, if not a great deal. In fact, you should probably not phrase sentences like that at all, as they are provocative (i.e. so-called "Fightin' Words"). To assume a stranger is stupid or ignorant is just wrong.

If you choose to infer that I was accusing you of ignorance, I'd say that's your issue. I wasn't really implying such a thing, only that you hadn't considered that sequential art alone has value which bad writing cannot touch, while bad artwork can render a story unreadable. Apologies if I got your dander up.

I too have issues with poorly drawn faces (now why does that phrase seem familiar?), but the nature of sequential art means that the pages should be considered as a whole, not simply individual panels. Otherwise why would anyone like Kirby? That said, I cannot speak of your example because I'm not getting B.E.

But the real reason I care more about the art in comics than the writing is that, superheroes aside, sequential art is the only thing comic books have that other mediums don't. If you like the written word, you're probably better off picking up a novel than a comic book. If a visual tale, turn on your TV or go out and take in a movie. But sequential art is unique to comics, whether they are made in America, Japan, or anywhere else. The story is important, sure, but it's sequential art that defines comics. Whether or not I personally produce that art won't change this basic fact.

Furthermore, I think it's terrific that writers are getting so much attention these days, but I fear that results from polls like this one might lead the powers that be to conclude that they don't really need quality artwork at all, and to spend less attention and money in that area. Already there are artists out of work in the field who by rights should be mainstays. Steve Rude, for one.

[Melv]

But the real reason I care more about the art in comics than the writing is that, superheroes aside, sequential art is the only thing comic books have that other mediums don't. If you like the written word, you're probably better off picking up a novel than a comic book. If a visual tale, turn on your TV or go out and take in a movie. But sequential art is unique to comics, whether they are made in America, Japan, or anywhere else. The story is important, sure, but it's sequential art that defines comics. Whether or not I personally produce that art won't change this basic fact.

Yes, but the point is that it's the writer that tells the artist what goes in the panel. The writer designs the sequence and the artist fleshes it out. Obviously both are important but without the writer there'd be no comic, just some pretty pictures.

[TheScarletSpeedster]

I think they both go hand and hand, you can have a well written story and if the art is really bad it's harder to read, then if you have a story with just art and a horrible story it's just looking at pictures so..It's hard to pick just one.

[thetrellan]

Yes, but the point is that it's the writer that tells the artist what goes in the panel. The writer designs the sequence and the artist fleshes it out. Obviously both are important but without the writer there'd be no comic, just some pretty pictures.

Exactly. And the pictures would be pretty regardless of the quality of writing. I'm usually willing to give any writer a chance if the art is up to snuff, but that's purely a personal preference. I just love how dynamic comic book art is, and that is a consequence of the demands of sequential art. It's the reason I collect comics at all.

There are exceptions, of course. Some writers I actively avoid. Jim Shooter, Brian Bendis (depending on the title), Chris Claremont (brilliant on X-Men once upon a time, he eventually lost his touch). But the fact that I don't for the most part is an indication of how far comics have come since the 70s. Writing in general is good enough that I usually don't concern myself with it.

Speaking of the 70s, quality of writing was the main reason I once avoided most DC titles. As that improved, I began to collect more and more DC titles. So clearly writing is important and vital.

[Hawkman]

50/50.

I read a lot of novels, too, but the pictures are what make comic books special. Great art will make me pick up a comic book in spite of the writing, and vice versa. I'm not ashamed to admit that, either. This is a very visual medium, after all.

[Carabas]

Yes, but the point is that it's the writer that tells the artist what goes in the panel. The writer designs the sequence and the artist fleshes it out. Obviously both are important but without the writer there'd be no comic, just some pretty pictures.

This is not always true.
Look up the 'Marvel Method'. In Jack Kirby/Stan Lee collaborations it was not uncommon for the artist to do 90% of theewriting (pacing, structrure, fight choreography, character dsign etcetera) with the writer not doing a lot more than slapping on some text balloons.

[thetrellan]

This is not always true.
Look up the 'Marvel Method'. In Jack Kirby/Stan Lee collaborations it was not uncommon for the artist to do 90% of theewriting (pacing, structrure, fight choreography, character dsign etcetera) with the writer not doing a lot more than slapping on some text balloons.

I thought about that also. It's even said that Ditko at one point was unofficially doing all the writing on Amazing Spider-Man. But even though the Marvel method persists, modern writers don't take advantage- that is, credit- the way Lee did, right?

[Melv]

This is not always true.
Look up the 'Marvel Method'. In Jack Kirby/Stan Lee collaborations it was not uncommon for the artist to do 90% of theewriting (pacing, structrure, fight choreography, character dsign etcetera) with the writer not doing a lot more than slapping on some text balloons.

Which just means someone other than the credited writer is writing it before drawing it and they happen to be the artist. Either way, the writing is more important to the storytelling.