Artist or writer?

[CliffHanger2]

If art is so unimportant why read comics? Why not just read prose? To me the art is the story, it atleast has to be likeable to me.

[dzub]

a good writer with an average artist over average writer with a good artist

[MRP]

I'll defer to the master....

“Comics deal with two fundamental communicating devices: words and images. Admittedly this is an arbitrary separation. But, since in the modern world of communication they are treated as independent disciplines, it seems valid. Actually, the are derivatives of a single origin and in the skillful employment of words and images lies the expressive potential of the medium.”
― Will Eisner, Comics and Sequential Art

A good story requires good writing and good art or its not good comics.

Form and content must never apologize for each other.
Scott McCloud

Trying to categorize the division as writing vs. art misses the point of comics, it's a false dichotomy-

Comics, which are really best described as an arrangement of images in a sequence that tell a story - an idea - is a very old form of graphic communication. It began with the hieroglyphics in Egypt, it first appeared in a recognizable form in the Medieval times as copper plates produced by the Catholic church to tell morality stories.
Will Eisner

it doesn't mater how good the story is if the images can't tell it well, it doesn't matter how good the images are if they don't tell a story. If both don't do their job, you get bad comics no matter how strong one or the other is, it takes both to make comics good and worth reading.

If you settle for one or the other, you get bad comics, and if bad comics sell well enough, you get more bad comics because buying patterns define the market. Don't settle for inferior product that have either bad art or bad story. Demand both be good and use your money to make your demands known.

-M

[Kusanagi]

Writing trumps art for me. That's not to say I'll read a book if I hate the art, even great writing can't save a book with terrible art, but I'm far more likely to tolerate meh artwork with good writing than good artwork with meh writing.

[kalorama]

On the increeasingly rare occasions when I still buy/read comics, my choices are generally driven by the art. Superior art can elevate the entertainment value of a mediocre story, but bad art seriously undermines a story, no matter how good it is.

[Shawn Hopkins]

What's "bad" art, though? There's no objective standard. Many of my favorite comics feature what could be described as Ugly Art. Jimbo's Inferno is an amazing comic, but also an extremely ugly one, visually.

[kalorama]

What's "bad" art, though? There's no objective standard. Many of my favorite comics feature what could be described as Ugly Art. Jimbo's Inferno is an amazing comic, but also an extremely ugly one, visually.

The question is about what works for each individual. There doesn't have to be an objective standard.

[MRP]

The question is about what works for each individual. There doesn't have to be an "objective standard."

But there is an abjective standard in comic art-and it's not about style, or looks, it's about the ability to tell a story visually, about the narrative storytelling ability of the artist. It can be a pretty illustration that appeals to you aesthetically, but if it doesn't tell the story effectively, it is bad comic art. It can be ugly art as someone used, and may not aesthetically appeal to you, but if it tells the story well, it is good comic art.

Panel to panel, page to page storytelling, not the appeal of each drawing individually but how they work as a whole to tell the story. That is the objective of comic art and the objective standard it should be held to.

-M

[kalorama]

But there is an abjective standard in comic art

I agree, in general, that there are objective standards for good comic art. But those standards aren't necessarily relevant to the question asked by the OP. In this instance, it's more about what the respondent likes/doesn't like than any adherence to an "objective standard."

It can be ugly art as someone used, and may not aesthetically appeal to you, but if it tells the story well, it is good comic art.

I disagree thoroughly with this. While ability to tell the story is definitely one component of good comic book art, so are good draftsmanship and rendering. It's all part of the package. Art that fails badly in any of those components is sub par. A 4-panel grid with stick figures can effectively tell a story, but that doesn't make it good art.

EDIT: Now, that doesn't mean that all art has to be beautifully, "classically" rendered to be good. Of course good comic art can be highly stylized, distorted, or exaggerated. But, even within the parameters of that stylization, their are still benchmarks that determine whether the images are well or poorly drawn. In other words, even art that isn't clean and "beautiful" still needs to be well rendered and executed.

[t hedge coke]

Right. Art doesn't have to be pretty, it doesn't have to be anatomically correct or cartooned in some strict specific fashion, but it should achieve its goals. It has to be competent.

I do think, unfortunately, we tend - as a fandom - to downplay how much storytelling is done by - and perhaps originates with - the visual artists on a comic, and focus on arbitrary, and not very functional judging point for the art, like whether or not the vanishing points all line up. We get more concerned with adherence to strict real world anatomy than we do with what exaggerating or distorting the human form does in a story or to characterization, which, to me, is a lot more significant both in a comic and in how it affects us as readers/a collective.

[kalorama]

Right. Art doesn't have to be pretty, it doesn't have to be anatomically correct or cartooned in some strict specific fashion, but it should achieve its goals. It has to be competent.

Well, ideally, it should be more than competent. That's where the theory that telling the story is the only benchmark that matters for "good comic art" really falls short, because how skillfully the drawing itself is rendered has a significant effect on how well the story is communicated (regardless of whether the end result is "pretty" or not). An artist who competently tells the story, but does so in a fashion that's lacking in drama, emotion, mood, or character has, in my view, produced bad comic book art, no matter how clearly the writer's intent is communicated. Simply fulfilling the basic requirements of telling the story doesn't automatically qualify as good art any more than fulfilling the basic daily nutritional requirements automatically qualifies as a good meal. It might be functional and effective, but that's not the same as good.

I do think, unfortunately, we tend - as a fandom - to downplay how much storytelling is done by - and perhaps originates with - the visual artists on a comic, and focus on arbitrary, and not very functional judging point for the art, like whether or not the vanishing points all line up. We get more concerned with adherence to strict real world anatomy than we do with what exaggerating or distorting the human form does in a story or to characterization, which, to me, is a lot more significant both in a comic and in how it affects us as readers/a collective.

Agreed

[tib2d2]

I'd love to vote Artist, being that comics are a visual artform, but as others have said, I'll drop a book for not being interesting even with stunning artwork.

[John Ossie]

That's a tough one. I think I'd give the edge to the good writer though but only just.

[dancj]

Comics is a storytelling medium first and foremost for me. Great art will massively enhance a story and bad storytelling can kill a story, but the story needs to be good.

[chongjasmine]

For me, I choose good writing over good art.