Art vs. Writing

[wordmonkey]

Which is more important?

Obviously as a writer we have a certain bias, but it always seems the superstars are the artists. At a con, do they have a Writers' Row? No, just am Artists' Alley.

What do you think?

[InfinityGoddess]

I have to go with both. I can't stand bad art or bad writing.

And seeing as I'm both a writer and an artist, it makes sense. :D

[Ali B]

Both. The whole point of a comic, imo, is to bring together a great story with great art.

[JoNightshade]

I am more likely to buy a comic for the writing, and I will buy good writing even if it has bad art, although I'll be a little miffed. However there are rare times when I will buy something just for the art. I pick up the Batman titles regularly and there was a story recently I just found confusing (the one where Batman and Robin go to that island for the reunion of second rate heroes and get trapped, if you know what I'm talking about), but some of the spreads were just WAY cool. It wasn't just the style, it was the layout. You could see that the artist had actually utilized the form to tell the story and had really given a great deal of thought about how to highlight certain elements. I suck at describing stuff like this, but it was cool.

Also, I will buy anything that involves Todd Nuack drawing Impulse. Yes, I realize Impulse's time is over, but a girl can hope. :)

[joetrain]

1 outsider's pov: if a comic has stunning art, i might not read it before buying. if it looks like crap i wouldn't care to read it.

i have no connections with the scenes, and i am generally ignorant about comic book technicalities, but i love the good ones i've seen.

[JoNightshade]

Summation: I pay attention to writers, and I know the writers I like. I do not pay attention to artists, although if it's good I'll definitely notice.

[OmenSpirits.com]

Specify.

Artists get noticed because It's a visual medium. Writers are important and just as necessary to the book.

Now, There are artists that tell a story without words and just pure sequential.

Now, we're comparing the importance of writers w/dialogue etc. or are we also including straight sequential?

I've seen some great writing & art so pretty that it looked like shit. Very pretty, very well drawn, but it did NOTHING to the story & or dialogue to portray what was going on.

So both are important, depending on the content.

[PeeDee]

I need a good writer over a good artist. Ultimate X-Men is a good example. Sometimes the writing is just awful, awful but the art is stunning. well, that's nice, but it's so painful to read that it doesn't matter.

There was a piece in there where the artwork looked like some sort of weird cel-shading animation and the writing was pretty good, and I enjoy that arc despite the art. (And I grow to appreciate the art.)

THat said, confusing art can break a story too.

But then you get something like Superman for All Seasons where the art and story compliment each other perfectly, and then I'm happy.

[AceTachyon]

But then you get something like Superman for All Seasons where the art and story compliment each other perfectly, and then I'm happy.
Loeb and Sale pretty much hit all the right chords whenever they work together.

But that's just my opinion.

[Shadow_Ferret]

My choice would have been, "If I love the writer and it had lousy art I would buy it, and equally, if I love the artist I'd buy it if it had a bad writer."

[jst5150]

It has been my experience that the people buy the books for the art. If they hear about a good story, that CAN sell a book.

[Stormhawk]

I have a problem buying a comic if the art is bad, even if I love the writer.

The guest art they had on Runaways wasn't up to scratch, and that sucks, because I love the stories in those issues.

[Axler]

Well, having been a comics writer for quite some time, it's axiomatic that the art brings in the reader and the writing holds them.

I've never picked up a comic with poor art and exclaimed, "Hey, this writing looks terrific!"

[Shadow_Ferret]

I've never picked up a comic with poor art and exclaimed, "Hey, this writing looks terrific!"
Actually, when Barry Smith first hit the scene with Conan the Barbarian #1 many people roundly criticized his artwork. It was the character's popularity and Roy Thomas' stories that kept that series going until Barry Smith finally hit his stride as an artist, stopped imitating Jack Kirby, and came into his own as a very detail-oriented illustrator.

[Axler]

Actually, having been a fan of the Lancer Conan editions, I thought Roy's scripting left a great deal to be desired in those early Marvel issues. His first two scripts were flat-out awful. Amateurish compared to his work on the super-hero books.

The third issue was slightly better, both in art and story, but in my opinion neither Roy nor Barry even began to hit their stride until issue six.

If the book had been about any other barbarian character, I wouldn't have bothered with it past the second issue.

So, in the instance of the Conan comic, it was my fondness for RE Howard's character, not the writing or the artwork that made me hang on until the book improved.

[Shadow_Ferret]

You are probably correct. It's been years since I re-read those and I'm probably thinking of Roy's later work.

[Crosshatcher]

While I am always interested in great artwork it is not why I buy comic books. The writing and the pacing are what get me to come back for more. How many comic books have lost sales when a favorite writer has left the title? It happens all the time.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Now that I've had time to think back on things, it has always been the artist that brought me in. Jack Kirby. Jim Sterenko. Neal Adams. Jim Starlin. Mike Kaluta. These were artists that the writing didn't matter. I'd pick up anything by these guys. And in fact, as I'm trying to recollect my youthful collection of comics, these are the artists I'm seeking out.

In fact, I believe I can name a ton of artists I've admired over the years and can only think of one or two writers.

[slcboston]

The art might hook me in, but it's the writing that keeps me hooked. Though I confess there have been titles I've read where, when they changed the artists (often taking it in radical new directions) I've been sufficiently put off by the sudden and drastic changes to quit reading the books.

(DC's Green Arrow revival comes to mind.)

Some books, however, actually benefit from a changing line-up of artists. I'm thinking here of Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, where the effort there seemed to be to find a way to match the artists to the storylines.

[ddgryphon]

Now, having voted for the team as a whole, I must confess that I've continued to buy titles through bad artists or bad writers if I'm particularly a fan of a series, but I've rarely started one that was a lopsided collaboration. A good comic is a perfect storm of writer, artist, inker, Editor and to a lesser degree colorist and letterer.