Last edited by Iron Maiden; 07-14-2019 at 12:59 PM.
Yeah, I've never been a fan of Allred's work either so any book with his art in would spoil the story for me personally too.
The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
“It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe
Yes. I loved Nightwing Year One as a story but the art was just so bad it took me out of it. I collected the Smallville comic and the art was a really mixed bag. There are all kinds of books that had multiple artists on them where some were excellent and others were terrible. The "bad" art chapters made it harder to read the rest of it. Or at least take them seriously.
Assassinate Putin!
If art or storytelling is bad enough that I can't tell what's going on, then it can easily kill a story.
Beyond that though, no. It can detract, but if the story is engaging and I can tell what's going on then I don't think the art can completely kill a story for me.
It does with me. The artist in question can be a dealbreaker for a comic book, despite being a big fan of the writer. Some artists I didn't like can grow on me, like Igor Kordej (not sure whether that's his name) who was on Grant Morrison's X-men run. Now I'm perfectly ok with his work, unlike someone like Rob Liefeld.
If you're proposing that the term "bad art" is totally useless--because no two people can agree on what's bad--then I'd agree with that proposition. So let's stop calling it bad art, because such words are meaningless. How about we say that there's art we don't like? So the question is then, "If you don't like the art does it kill the story?"
I don't like John Romita, Jr.'s new art but I loved his old art (on IRON MAN with Bob Layton). Has JR Jr. lost his skill as an artist? Of course not! What I disagree with is his decision to follow certain stylistic trends and throw out his old art style. This bugs me so much that it's distracting when I try to read the story.
But I do think when you know why an artist is doing a certain style, it can help you get over that irritation. At least, it sometimes helps me.
I went through different phases with the "Bob Kane" art in the 1960s Batman comics. When I was a kid, I loved it, even if I knew it was kind of childish (but kids like childish things). Then when I was a teen, I struggled with it and thought the artist must not have talent. Then when I learned it was Sheldon Moldoff doing his version of the "Bob Kane" style, I grew to love it again and appreciate it all the more.
Now, it's hard to say if Bob Kane himself was all that skilled as an artist--he may have had a talent for doing cartoon style art, but trying to ape someone like Alex Raymond was too much work. In any case, the challenge of doing Batman in a somewhat realistic style produced these odd compositions in his art. Ghosts like Sheldon Moldoff and Dick Sprang adapted that style and made it a motif.
One of the things I value in an artist is consistency. Moldoff did a good job of being consistent with the Bob Kane style. Although, one of the features of Kane's style was his inconsistency. So Moldoff was wonderfully consistent in being inconsistent, just like Bob would have been if he had drawn the work.
The difference between Moldoff and Sprang is that Sheldon disappeared into the "Bob Kane" style--which is a bit of magic that impresses me. On the other hand, Dick skillfully adapted those motifs and made them work in a way that was unmistakably Sprang.
Last edited by Jim Kelly; 07-15-2019 at 09:41 AM.
Yes, but...
- I don't have enough taste to say what's bad art, I can only say what I don't like.
- Some artists (IMO) are great, but not on some characters (two of my faves do a Batman I can't stand).
- What I don't don't like has changed. I never liked Colan as a kid, but realized in the last few years how well suited his dark, moody style is to Batman, Daredevil and Dracula.