Style Versus Substance

[Black Vespa]

The highly publicized debate between Todd McFarlane and Peter David during the 90's. (The results were in Peter David's Favor)

"McFarlane's assertion was that comic writers were secondary in importance to artwork in terms of commercial success."



1) What do you think? what's more important for commercial success? - the artwork, or the writing?

2) Judging by his work in the 00's, - do you think his philosophy has changed or remains the same?

3) What is Image's present day modus operandi ? has it changed, evolved, devolved, remained the same?

4) What happens when the quality of the writing is better then the art?...what happens when the quality of the art is better than the writing?...in extremes, you're reading a monthly publication...You can either be reading a comic that had solid writing w/ bad art... or a comic with bad writing but with aesthetically pleasing art?

[bushboy]

1. Writing. I'm much more tolerable of "bad" art
2. *shrugs*
3. Evolved
4. See #1

[Schmakt]

1. Commercial success: Short Term = art; Long Term = writing

2. Todd's work? I didn't really know he did much of anything in the 00's... if he was still doing Spawn, I would probably still be reading it.

3. Evolved and is now MUCH better... top talent, top art, top stories. When it started, there was definitely a "universe" feel (at least to me), but that's almost completely gone now and creators can focus on their creations and what they want to say.

4. If I'm reading two comics, one with bad art and good story and the other vice-versa... and I have to drop one... I will always drop the bad story first. If I'm picking up 2 comics I don't know anything about, I will probably pick up the good art. (hence my long-term vs. short-term answer above) Which is not to say that I wouldn't do the opposite on occasion... I dropped Wolverine: Origins after issue 2 b/c I just can't stand to look at that guy's drawings. (and the story wasn't THAT great) I dropped ASM halfway through OMD b/c the story was f'in terrible. I like Quesada's art a lot, but it's not keeping me reading a crappy story.

Only Todd McFarlane on art would get me reading bad Spider-Man stories. :)

Trying to think of an example of something that I currently buy where I don't like both art and story... I don't usually have a lot of extra cash tho, so I need to like both. PAD's She-Hulk and X-Factor are so close to getting dropped... but I think it's a combination of both story and art being bad, and they only get to stay for now b/c they used to be good.

Oh well... no example...



EDIT: bushboy, I love your "thought I was joking" image almost as much as I hate our current President!

[GRANT!]

1) What do you think? what's more important for commercial success? - the artwork, or the writing?

Not sure. But comics were selling a lot better during the superstar artist days then the superstar writer days. There may be other factors.

But I think eye catching visuals are a major draw for a new and younger readers.

I'll skip number 2.

3) What is Image's present day modus operandi ? has it changed, evolved, devolved, remained the same?

They publish some of my favorite books. But... they aren't being talked about much. I prefer Jack Staff and Godland over Bloodstrike and Strykeforce. But it's not drawing that many readers.

4) What happens when the quality of the writing is better then the art?...what happens when the quality of the art is better than the writing?...in extremes, you're reading a monthly publication...You can either be reading a comic that had solid writing w/ bad art... or a comic with bad writing but with aesthetically pleasing art?

It goes hand in hand. It's no accident that some of our best writers know how to work with an artist. Grant Morrison, Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Warren Ellis and many others try to write stuff that plays to their artists strengths and pushes them to discover new ones.

But I like I said before eye catching visuals help a book stand out. It's why I picked up an issue of a Spawn when I was 12 over some Valiant book. After a while the eye catching visuals got boring and there wasn't much in the story to keep me interested but it got my interest.

[Libaax]

I can only say it has changed. There arent many superstart artist ala 90s.

Today it seems the superstar writers sell the comics more than a famous artist.

Examples Brubaker,Ennis,Ellis,Morrison etc

Seeing Garth Ennis,Ellis comics in avatar,Dynamite,Image etc sell in good numbers is because of their fanbase. Not because of the art of Jacen Burrows or other artist like that.

If you are talking about the best selling comics of the big two their artist are not Mcfarlane,Jim Lee fame in the 90s.


Personally i thought the superstar artist era of early 90s is overrated because Spider-Man,X-men etc will always sell the best because of their fanbase not because of a famous artist....

[suttercain]

1) What do you think? what's more important for commercial success? - the artwork, or the writing?

Without a doubt the writing is more important. You can have a great story with bad art and still enjoy it. On the other hand I find it impossible to enjoy a story with bad writing just because the art was nice.


2) Judging by his work in the 00's, - do you think his philosophy has changed or remains the same?

Don't follow his stuff unless it's an action figure.


3) What is Image's present day modus operandi ? has it changed, evolved, devolved, remained the same?

I find both to be true with image. Some stories have not so great art but ar well written. Some have both great art and great stories. Some bad writing and great art (Bomb Queen anyone?)



4) What happens when the quality of the writing is better then the art?...what happens when the quality of the art is better than the writing?...in extremes, you're reading a monthly publication...You can either be reading a comic that had solid writing w/ bad art... or a comic with bad writing but with aesthetically pleasing art?
See response to question 1.

[michaeljsmith]

The highly publicized debate between Todd McFarlane and Peter David during the 90's. (The results were in Peter David's Favor)

"McFarlane's assertion was that comic writers were secondary in importance to artwork in terms of commercial success."



1) What do you think? what's more important for commercial success? - the artwork, or the writing?

2) Judging by his work in the 00's, - do you think his philosophy has changed or remains the same?

3) What is Image's present day modus operandi ? has it changed, evolved, devolved, remained the same?

4) What happens when the quality of the writing is better then the art?...what happens when the quality of the art is better than the writing?...in extremes, you're reading a monthly publication...You can either be reading a comic that had solid writing w/ bad art... or a comic with bad writing but with aesthetically pleasing art?

I am a snob - I want both :biggrin: I prefer to read a good story with average art than the other way around. You have some great books listed in your pull list but you need to check out Proof (based on your BPRD and Hellboy listings) and then you can be a snob for good writing and great art.

[flashdisk]

The highly publicized debate between Todd McFarlane and Peter David during the 90's. (The results were in Peter David's Favor)

"McFarlane's assertion was that comic writers were secondary in importance to artwork in terms of commercial success."



1) What do you think? what's more important for commercial success? - the artwork, or the writing?

2) Judging by his work in the 00's, - do you think his philosophy has changed or remains the same?

3) What is Image's present day modus operandi ? has it changed, evolved, devolved, remained the same?

4) What happens when the quality of the writing is better then the art?...what happens when the quality of the art is better than the writing?...in extremes, you're reading a monthly publication...You can either be reading a comic that had solid writing w/ bad art... or a comic with bad writing but with aesthetically pleasing art?

In my opinion the two are equally important. The art is usually meant to help attract new readers, for example the cover art, while the writing makes the readers continue on reading.

But another thing that I think we have to remember is that the art is there to convey the story that the writer is telling. If for example the panel is supposed to show the main character crying or sad and the art looks like the person is cheerful and smiling then, then the the story is ruined. The style is also important depending on what type of story you're telling. If the writer is telling a horror story but the characters look the muppets I don't think its going to do well.


So in this case the art/style and story go hand in hand in comics since you cant really tell the story with bad art and you can't make art without meaning (or a story to tell).

That's how I see it any way.

[flashdisk]

Just to update the discussion, it seems even Todd McFarlane changed his stand on style over subtance.

Here is a quote from Jin Han:

Todd, like any other artist, has grown and evolved over the years, so it will most definitely be a shock when fans see something that is not reminiscent of his work on Spider-Man or Spawn. These days, Todd just wants to tell great stories, and get his point across very quickly with the art. He is not so interested in hyper-detail, and fancy Photoshop coloring. All of that is nice to look at, but we are trying to tell great stories, with artwork that will immediately convey the mood of the script. In fact, I could have gotten away with simplifying the colors and coloring style on all Spawn-related work even MORE than what was shown.




So I guess he has decided that story is important too.

By the way wasn't this debate between Peter David and Todd McFarlane made public. If that's the case then I might have suspicion that this was some sort of mock battle or mock debate just some extravagant publicity stunt to attract attention. If it is, it seems to have worked granted that people remember it up to now.