i cannot read comics with bad art.... anyone else get like this?

[rooibos]

i feel like the art is basically the #1 reason you're reading a comic.
i can't follow the action, don't care about what's going on and just glaze over the text.
sure, sometimes new artists halfway through a series take some time to adjust to and that's fine. but after a few issues and you still aren't absorbing the content, it feels lost.
so i'm halfway through Fear Agent, loved the artwork from #1 - #10, and now i'm at 12 and it just bugs me. tony's pencils are good but everything else, the ink and colour just seems off- like i can't be bothered to finish reading it. The opena/madesn combo is just killer.

I plowed through the first 2 hellboy TPBs, but found issues afterwards weren't worth reading- i didn't like the non-mignola, mignola-esque work.

Maybe i'm too picky?

Does anyone else feel like this?

[Jeff Brady]

Some do, some don't.

A lot of people read comics for the story. Some read for both story and art.

If the story is crap, the art doesn't matter, and I won't read it. If the art is crap, then I'll work through the story begrudgingly. If the story is good, but the art is intolerable (Liefeld, for example), I'll read it and regret it immediately.

[zryson]

i feel like the art is basically the #1 reason you're reading a comic.
i can't follow the action, don't care about what's going on and just glaze over the text.
sure, sometimes new artists halfway through a series take some time to adjust to and that's fine. but after a few issues and you still aren't absorbing the content, it feels lost.
so i'm halfway through Fear Agent, loved the artwork from #1 - #10, and now i'm at 12 and it just bugs me. tony's pencils are good but everything else, the ink and colour just seems off- like i can't be bothered to finish reading it. The opena/madesn combo is just killer.

I plowed through the first 2 hellboy TPBs, but found issues afterwards weren't worth reading- i didn't like the non-mignola, mignola-esque work.

Maybe i'm too picky?

Does anyone else feel like this?


absolutely! and no i dont think you're being too picky. art/the look plays a huge role in if i like a particular issue. sometimes the art is just a mess of lines and i find it distracting. other times the art is so bad i just flip through the comic and chuck it in the bin afterwards.

[rooibos]

well it looks like vol 4 and 5 get better, so i'm gonna stick with fear agent.

i think tony moore's style just needs a really good ink and colorist, otherwise it falls on the "shit i don't care about" side.

i figure, if i wanted a good story, i'd read a book.
comics are not the best method of literary exposition, that's for sure. The art needs to come first and foremost for me. If the story is enthralling, bonus.

[dupont2005]

It all depends on what's going on. An action based comic has to have good art for me to get into it. Some slower paced comics can get away with shoddy artwork if the story is good.

[PsychoGoatee]

I can read comics with bad art, but since art is a big part of the enjoyment it's naturally much better with good art.

Take Judge Dredd for example, he's been drawn by so many artists over the years, sometimes you get one with terrible art. I read it none the less, as the writing is more important. Luckily, more often than not the art is great.


i figure, if i wanted a good story, i'd read a book.
comics are not the best method of literary exposition, that's for sure.

Call me old fashioned, when i read comics I'd like a good story.

[thesuicideking]

i love good art but for me the story is primary believe me there are lots of old comics id like to see completely redrawn with todays artists

[FanboyStranger]

I plowed through the first 2 hellboy TPBs, but found issues afterwards weren't worth reading- i didn't like the non-mignola, mignola-esque work.

Maybe i'm too picky?

Does anyone else feel like this?

To each his own, I guess, but you don't like the work of P.Craig Russell, Rich Corben, or Duncan Fegredo? Russell and Corben are legends in the industry, and Fegredo is among the best in the business currently. I guess I get not liking Corben-- his work is very stylized and certainly not for everyone-- but both Russell and Corben are working in the same vein as Mignola with their own personal touches.

[Ronald Bryan]

I agreed with you, until you said the post-Mignola Hellboy art was bad. That's just... wrong.

[Gary_B]

I plowed through the first 2 hellboy TPBs, but found issues afterwards weren't worth reading- i didn't like the non-mignola, mignola-esque work.

Maybe you just don't like Mignola's style. He did the art on the first seven TPBs.

[The Black Guardian]

Art has to be really, really, really bad for it to bother me enough to not read.

[cliffhanger]

Yeah if the art doesn't grab me i dont even pick it up. Unless it's so bad then i take notice.. like damn this is really bad how did this guy get hired? But Richard Corben's Hellboy was pretty good i thought.

[Genocide]

If the story is great but the art is sub-par, I'll still read the book.

If the story is bad, it doesn't matter what the art is like.

If the story isn't that great, and the art sucks, I will probably try reading it and quit like 20 pages in.

The art has to be really, really bad for me to quit reading based solely on that aspect.

[rooibos]

what?? first 7 tpbs??? was i that wrong??? gonna have to pick up the rest of those tpbs then
damn
haha

[thehod]

It depends on what you mean by "bad art." I've read comics with art that is technically lacking, artistically deficient and downright ugly to look at, but the art has served the story, so I had no trouble reading it.

I've tried to read comics with gorgeous art, but it didn't serve the story in anyway whatsoever, and as a consequence I had no idea as to what was going on.

A good example would be Clint Langley's work on ABC Warriors. Clint's work is stunning, especially when it comes to the sort of art you need on a book like ABC Warriors.

http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2010/1676/abc-warriors.jpg

But he cannot tell a story with his art. There is no flow to the work, no reader engagement, no narrative. Its just a series of seperate (albeit stunning looking) images. Mind you, I don't think Pat Mills writing helps him half the time. As much as I like Mills's work (Charley's War being the prime example), sometimes he doesn't half write some weird ass rubbish.

[rooibos]

If the story is great but the art is sub-par, I'll still read the book.

If the story is bad, it doesn't matter what the art is like.

If the story isn't that great, and the art sucks, I will probably try reading it and quit like 20 pages in.

The art has to be really, really bad for me to quit reading based solely on that aspect.

that's weird man, i'm so opposite.
i read comics and was 'into' them as a kid, but never really 'into comics' because i was never drawn into them by the visual
it was until just recently that i rediscovered hellboy and came across invincible that i was wooed by artwork.

i've read alot of "good" comics that if i hadn't heard of them from friends/reviews i would have just rejected. i was bored by the watchmen, never finishes fables or Ys and really couldn't give a shit about what was going on in the marvel or dc universes.

yeah, story is great, but to me, the medium in which the story is told is still one which is visual.

for the life of me i've never been able to read more than 2 pages of those god awful "indie" comics about some boring guy's sad life or some menstruating high school girls. Although, huge props to chris ware for his style. I've never read much of his, but i constantly flip through anything i can find of his at comic stores and hipster hangouts. And that really defines how i feel. No matter how well written, witty or emotionally involving, those dry, talking head cartoons, or weird 4am post-it-note chicken scratch doodles just turn me off. How do the lessons that calvin and hobbes taught us about framing, use of space and visual style within a very simple, specific space get lost?

I dunno, now i'm just ranting

[thehod]

How do the lessons that calvin and hobbes taught us about framing, use of space and visual style within a very simple, specific space get lost?

In my opinion, many "mainstream" superhero books seem to have missed these lessons far more than indie books.

[Jeff Brady]

that's weird man, i'm so opposite....

I dunno, now i'm just ranting

You should read more non-fiction.

[rooibos]

You should read more non-fiction.

non fiction made up the bulk of my reading the past 5 years. it's good to take a break from reverse transcriptase and f-plasmid cloning vectors.

:S

[dupont2005]

for the life of me i've never been able to read more than 2 pages of those god awful "indie" comics about some boring guy's sad life or some menstruating high school girls.

Add lasers, tits, and claws and you just described the X-Men, Avengers, Fantastic Four, and Justice League. :tongue:

[Jeff Brady]

There's more to it than that, but I take your point.

[Paradox]

rooibos reads the manual:

non fiction made up the bulk of my reading the past 5 years. it's good to take a break from reverse transcriptase and f-plasmid cloning vectors.

:S

Heh, well, there's a slight difference between non-fiction and technical. Technical is a subset of non-fiction, but generally not what's referred to when using the broader term. :wink:

[rooibos]

ugh don't even get me started on indie comics. now there's an example where the media is entirely irrelevant or at least unutilized for the purpose of story telling.

buncha people talking.
more people talking
oh now there' talking in the john
now they're at the park
...talking...
ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Jeff Brady]

ugh don't even get me started on indie comics. now there's an example where the media is entirely irrelevant or at least unutilized for the purpose of story telling.

buncha people talking.
more people talking
oh now there' talking in the john
now they're at the park
...talking...
ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

It can be the case, but it isn't the rule.

Have you read Understanding Comics? Or Making Comics?

[thehod]

buncha people talking.
more people talking
oh now there' talking in the john
now they're at the park
...talking...
ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

If you replaced "talking" with "punching" you'd have just describe a large number of superhero comics.

Whilst we're throwing outlandish generalisations around, that is.

[Paradox]

Heck, leave it as "talking" and you've described (as has been reported to me, unseen myself) a bunch of Bendis' Avengers books.

[Pól Rua]

It depends on what you mean by "bad art." I've read comics with art that is technically lacking, artistically deficient and downright ugly to look at, but the art has served the story, so I had no trouble reading it.

I've tried to read comics with gorgeous art, but it didn't serve the story in anyway whatsoever, and as a consequence I had no idea as to what was going on.

A good example would be Clint Langley's work on ABC Warriors. Clint's work is stunning, especially when it comes to the sort of art you need on a book like ABC Warriors.

But he cannot tell a story with his art. There is no flow to the work, no reader engagement, no narrative. Its just a series of seperate (albeit stunning looking) images. Mind you, I don't think Pat Mills writing helps him half the time. As much as I like Mills's work (Charley's War being the prime example), sometimes he doesn't half write some weird ass rubbish.
Spot on.
Far too many creators are hung up on doing static posed pin-ups they've forgotten that they're storytellers, not illustrators.


ugh don't even get me started on indie comics. now there's an example where the media is entirely irrelevant or at least unutilized for the purpose of story telling.

buncha people talking.
more people talking
oh now there' talking in the john
now they're at the park
...talking...
ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu
Seriously, man. You're coming across like someone who once skimmed an issue of 'Optic Nerve' here.

Yes, some indie comics are more wordy than the average superhero comic.
In the same way a dramatic or comedic film is going to have more dialogue than an action film where you can just show an hour and a half of tits, guns and explosions.

[Typo Lad]

It depends. For me a comic needs to be a gestalt, where the art serves the story and the story the art. It's why I couldn't get into Morrison's JLA with Porter's art. Gen13's art once actually made my gorge rise, and allthough I enjoy Macfarlance's art on a case-by-case basis, the "story" in the early Spawn and adjectivless Spider-Man books was just so damn bad it ruined it.

[Charles RB]

Mind you, I don't think Pat Mills writing helps him half the time.

With ABC Warriors, I've found it's Clint's art that keeps me reading the strip rather than the script!

[FanboyStranger]

It depends on what you mean by "bad art." I've read comics with art that is technically lacking, artistically deficient and downright ugly to look at, but the art has served the story, so I had no trouble reading it.

I've tried to read comics with gorgeous art, but it didn't serve the story in anyway whatsoever, and as a consequence I had no idea as to what was going on.

A good example would be Clint Langley's work on ABC Warriors. Clint's work is stunning, especially when it comes to the sort of art you need on a book like ABC Warriors.

http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2010/1676/abc-warriors.jpg

But he cannot tell a story with his art. There is no flow to the work, no reader engagement, no narrative. Its just a series of seperate (albeit stunning looking) images. Mind you, I don't think Pat Mills writing helps him half the time. As much as I like Mills's work (Charley's War being the prime example), sometimes he doesn't half write some weird ass rubbish.

I agree with you on ABC Warriors as far as Langley's work, but I found it worked well on Slaine. Maybe because Slaine is written as more of a chronicle/history it doesn't require the same 'in-the-now' action?

[Jeremi]

ugh don't even get me started on indie comics. now there's an example where the media is entirely irrelevant or at least unutilized for the purpose of story telling.

buncha people talking.
more people talking
oh now there' talking in the john
now they're at the park
...talking...
ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

You just described every issue of New Avengers ever.

[rooibos]

Heh, well, there's a slight difference between non-fiction and technical. Technical is a subset of non-fiction, but generally not what's referred to when using the broader term. :wink:

okay so i read alot of history and politics books too.
i guess i'm coming off abit aspy.
I DONT CARE I DONT CARE I DONT SEE YOU LOOKING AT ME NOT CARING


It can be the case, but it isn't the rule.

Have you read Understanding Comics? Or Making Comics?

i basically had a permanent hold on understanding comics from the local library as a kid, it was one of my formative pieces of literature next to the hobbit and the dharma bums.




Yes, some indie comics are more wordy than the average superhero comic.
In the same way a dramatic or comedic film is going to have more dialogue than an action film where you can just show an hour and a half of tits, guns and explosions.

and frankly, i'd still rather watch a mindless action movie than some boring indie flick. i've attended my share of sundance festivals and been bored to tears. I'll probably catch flak for it but i really enjoy wes anderson because he enjoys good dialogue and characters with something really unique and watchable. Frankly, i'd rather watch life aquatic again than watch another don mckellar or guy maddin flick... even though i enjoyed monkey warfare and my winnipeg.

I was really attracted to Nextwave Squad because it sort of reminded me of that style of film. Quirky, interesting to look at, fun, and cleverly written- but did not compromise good visual story telling (excellent panelling and framing)





Seriously, man. You're coming across like someone who once skimmed an issue of 'Optic Nerve' here.



that's the stlye i was generalizing with. ;)
There are lots of decent indie comics i dig like mouse guard. I just can't touch strangers in paradise or anything of that ilk.







Also, someone touched on golden/silver age comics.

Which i love by the way. They're just so goofy. I love reading an xmen or spiderman comic which reads more like an Archie than anything of today's.

[keilthetarheel]

It can be the case, but it isn't the rule.

Have you read Understanding Comics? Or Making Comics?

if he doesn't have the attention span for one issue of an indy comic, what makes you think he can read prose??

[rooibos]

if he doesn't have the attention span for one issue of an indy comic, what makes you think he can read prose??

yeah, because indie comics are sooo well written
:facepalm:
francine and katchoo is our generations phillip carey and miss price

...

[jesse_custer]

A good example would be Clint Langley's work on ABC Warriors. Clint's work is stunning, especially when it comes to the sort of art you need on a book like ABC Warriors.

http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2010/1676/abc-warriors.jpg

But he cannot tell a story with his art. There is no flow to the work, no reader engagement, no narrative. Its just a series of seperate (albeit stunning looking) images. Mind you, I don't think Pat Mills writing helps him half the time. As much as I like Mills's work (Charley's War being the prime example), sometimes he doesn't half write some weird ass rubbish.

I don't know, that looks like garbage all the way to me.

[Michael P]

if he doesn't have the attention span for one issue of an indy comic, what makes you think he can read prose??

Neither of those books is prose.

[rooibos]

yeah it looks like the cover for a warhammer manual or something
def not good sequential art

[Michael P]

yeah, because indie comics are sooo well written
:facepalm:
francine and katchoo is our generations phillip carey and miss price

...

Some of them aren't. Some of them are. You didn't like SiP, fine. I didn't like it either. But it's silly to paint all indie comics, or even all indie comics in the slice-of-life genre, with the same brush.

[Charles RB]

I don't know, that looks like garbage all the way to me.

That's not the best example of his work, but he's done some pretty stunning pages and covers. As Hod says though, they don't always flow very well.

[Aziz Abbasi]

I feel I can't, but if it's in a Spidey comic (a character I'm so geeky about I enjoy the bad things involving him after a while) I ease up to the art, and I stay eased up to it even seeing it in other titles

[Jeff Brady]

if he doesn't have the attention span for one issue of an indy comic, what makes you think he can read prose??

That's some huge ignorance you're showing.

[SeqArtMark]

i feel like the art is basically the #1 reason you're reading a comic.
i can't follow the action, don't care about what's going on and just glaze over the text.
sure, sometimes new artists halfway through a series take some time to adjust to and that's fine. but after a few issues and you still aren't absorbing the content, it feels lost.
so i'm halfway through Fear Agent, loved the artwork from #1 - #10, and now i'm at 12 and it just bugs me. tony's pencils are good but everything else, the ink and colour just seems off- like i can't be bothered to finish reading it. The opena/madesn combo is just killer.

I plowed through the first 2 hellboy TPBs, but found issues afterwards weren't worth reading- i didn't like the non-mignola, mignola-esque work.

Maybe i'm too picky?

Does anyone else feel like this?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. For me, the art is what sets comic books apart from everything else.

Personally, I read comics because I enjoy artwork and visual storytelling, not because they have these amazing stories. A good storyline is great, but there have been plenty of books that I have bought solely for the artwork. If the art is going to be terrible, why not just read a book or watch TV?

[Xiroteus]

I would prefer to have both, a comic with just amazing art is an art book while a comic with poor art and an amazing story might as well just be a mini novel. Comics are based on visual storytelling and I want that to be appealing when I buy my comics. I cannot enjoy a comic if the art is hard to look at no matter how good it is, I do not buy comics for the story alone I read comics for the art and the story.


i love good art but for me the story is primary believe me there are lots of old comics id like to see completely redrawn with todays artists

I have thought that for years, I am not really a fan of older art or the coloring of comics passed, yes, I just said that. oO

[Cam63]

Bad art hurts my eyes.

[El Sombrero]

The art is extremely important to me in comics. The #1 reason why I'll drop a title that I think is otherwise pretty good is that the art doesn't really grab me that much; it doesn't even have to be bad, just average. Similarly, when I'm looking through my collection at stuff I can get rid of, an average comic with great art will always beat out an average comic with average art.

I also spend WAY more time reading a comic if I like the art. If I think the art is bad or otherwise meh I'll read an issue in about 10-20 minutes. If I really love the art in something I can spend like 45 minutes reading a single issue because I like to look at each panel for so long.

[Genocide]

for the life of me i've never been able to read more than 2 pages of those god awful "indie" comics....

buncha people talking.
more people talking
oh now there' talking in the john
now they're at the park
...talking...
ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

Indie is not a synonym for shitty. Hellboy, Madman, The Goon, Sin City, Kick-Ass and many other great comics are independent books. Just because you don't know how to find good reading material doesn't mean you need to rag on the whole sector of the industry.

How anyone could say they could read technical material and non-fiction and then find indie comics insanely boring is really beyond me.

[The Batman]

ugh don't even get me started on indie comics. now there's an example where the media is entirely irrelevant or at least unutilized for the purpose of story telling.

buncha people talking.
more people talking
oh now there' talking in the john
now they're at the park
...talking...
ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

Okay, but what is it they're talking about?

[Duy]

I am most definitely an "art before story" person. The art carries the story. If the story is good, and the art is bad, the story quality gets bogged down. Supreme could've been great; Judgment Day could've been great, but the people drawing the present-day sequences really dropped the ball. Good thing "great" can be brought down to "really good."

However, if the story sucks but the art is great, what the hell. I'll just look at the pictures.

[dupont2005]

Indie is not a synonym for shitty. Hellboy, Madman, The Goon, Sin City, Kick-Ass and many other great comics are independent books. Just because you don't know how to find good reading material doesn't mean you need to rag on the whole sector of the industry.

How anyone could say they could read technical material and non-fiction and then find indie comics insanely boring is really beyond me.

I quit reading Mouseguard because there wasn't enough talking:biggrin:

[dupersuper]

i feel like the art is basically the #1 reason you're reading a comic.
i can't follow the action, don't care about what's going on and just glaze over the text.
sure, sometimes new artists halfway through a series take some time to adjust to and that's fine. but after a few issues and you still aren't absorbing the content, it feels lost.
so i'm halfway through Fear Agent, loved the artwork from #1 - #10, and now i'm at 12 and it just bugs me. tony's pencils are good but everything else, the ink and colour just seems off- like i can't be bothered to finish reading it. The opena/madesn combo is just killer.

I plowed through the first 2 hellboy TPBs, but found issues afterwards weren't worth reading- i didn't like the non-mignola, mignola-esque work.

Maybe i'm too picky?

Does anyone else feel like this?

I obviously don't enjoy the books with crappy art nearly as much as I could otherwise, but if the story's good enough (or if it has Superman in it, insane completist that I am), I'll put up with it.

[Ned McDodd]

i normally have more problems if the art is inconsistent. Means during a story arc they change the artists all the time. Makes it hard for me to get a connection to the mood and style of the comic and this way also can't enjoy the story even when it might be a good one.

[Dizzy D]

I'm a bit in the middle, I lean more towards writing than art, but there are more than enough comics I have bought, only because I like the artist.

Basically it goes like this:
- good writing+ good art (of course, I'm getting this.)
- good writing +bad art (still getting it. But I have the feeling this is rather rare, good writers hardly seem to get paired with bad artists these days.)
- bad writing + good art (only if the artist is somebody I really love.)
- bad writing + bad art (not getting it.)

[Kees_L]

I'll be a difficult costumer, because I'll want everything about the art and writing to be seeming astute and perfectly my kind of thing. I'll even want all the creativity to be seeming to be flourishing. A comic has to seem enthralling from beginning to end as a result of astute graphical storytelling.

Which is why I usually seek out most of my entertainment, be it for reading or art or music or movies.

For comics I don't mean to buy just everything and I keep re-reading lots of stuff. I don't merely collect. I follow favorite artists and creators their work.

[JayPhonomancer]

I honestly don't get this debate which seems to pop up a lot amongst comic readers. Comics are a story-telling medium. Therefore I buy them to read stories.

The art and the writing should complement each other and work in tandem as best they can to tell a story. If a comic is full of great art dressing up a lousy story then it's a glorified art book. That's fine, I have no problem with admiring good art but like I said I read comics, books and watch films and TV to be entertained, surprised, stimulated, challenged and maybe even inspired.

A lot of the time I find people's definition of "good art" is based on very realistic detailed stuff but that doesn't always fit the tone of the story and can lead to awkward stiff artwork that might be technically very good but just doesn't flow well. I'd have to agree that Clint Langley doesn't really do much for me.

Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics does a great job of explaining how this works I think. When I was younger I was more dismissive of what I saw as simple cartoony art but now I see it's a much more delicate art than it might at first seem and can be much more expressive than more realistic stuff.

[rooibos]

I honestly don't get this debate which seems to pop up a lot amongst comic readers. Comics are a story-telling medium. Therefore I buy them to read stories.

The art and the writing should complement each other and work in tandem as best they can to tell a story. If a comic is full of great art dressing up a lousy story then it's a glorified art book. That's fine, I have no problem with admiring good art but like I said I read comics, books and watch films and TV to be entertained, surprised, stimulated, challenged and maybe even inspired.

A lot of the time I find people's definition of "good art" is based on very realistic detailed stuff but that doesn't always fit the tone of the story and can lead to awkward stiff artwork that might be technically very good but just doesn't flow well. I'd have to agree that Clint Langley doesn't really do much for me.

Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics does a great job of explaining how this works I think. When I was younger I was more dismissive of what I saw as simple cartoony art but now I see it's a much more delicate art than it might at first seem and can be much more expressive than more realistic stuff.

i stated invincible as one of my favourites
sometimes i feel like i even prefer cory's artwork for its simplicity

[Duy]

Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics does a great job of explaining how this works I think. When I was younger I was more dismissive of what I saw as simple cartoony art but now I see it's a much more delicate art than it might at first seem and can be much more expressive than more realistic stuff.

When I was doing my list of influential artists (http://comicscube.blogspot.com/2010/05/top-ten-most-influential-comics-artists.html), I was trying to figure out why Neal Adams' "realism" worked while I don't like most photorealistic artists of today. It pretty much all came down to Neal knowing what to exaggerate and when to exaggerate it. Adherence to photorealism has really killed the art of gesture and expression.

[Xiroteus]

A lot of the time I find people's definition of "good art" is based on very realistic detailed stuff but that doesn't always fit the tone of the story and can lead to awkward stiff artwork that might be technically very good but just doesn't flow well. I'd have to agree that Clint Langley doesn't really do much for me.


I like simple animated style art to detailed, personally I do not want super realistic art in all of the comics I read.

[StoneGold]

That's not the problem, it's just... I CAN'T READ!!!!! My shameful secret of illiteracy, finally revealed!

[Mikey]

i stated invincible as one of my favourites
sometimes i feel like i even prefer cory's artwork for its simplicity

I prefer Ryan, although I must admit I never even noticed a change in the artist when it happened. Both are good at getting the point across and having dynamism without a lot of detail. I miss Ryan Crabtree as the colorist. He had a nice way of complimenting the inks of Ottley and having a bright, graphic look to the book that's been lost (in my opinion) since he left.

I fall into the camp of art is important. I'll still read through it if I'm invested in the story. The best example I can think of is when Igor Kordey jumped onto the New X-men title. He had muddy colors and fugly characters. While I was reading it I couldn't believe that art like that was published on a main title by Marvel. I had the inclination to want to throw it away, but it's only part of the TPB I have. It looks worse in comparison when there's a sprinkling of Van Sciver or Quitely in the book.

But there's even great artwork that just sucks at the storytelling aspect of the medium. While reading Batman The Black Glove with J H Williams doing the artwork, there would be creative layouts with an outstretched arm or bat symbol running through it (usually monochromatic) and it took me several minutes to make sense of it. His art is great, but when he uses creative license on what should be straight forward it's counterproductive.

There's also great detailed artwork that I wish had more energy to it. Alex Ross's stuff and Bryan Hitch's fall into this category for me. I get very little sense of motion or action when I go through their stories. And Ross's characters look like 40-year-olds halfway out of shape.

I like Frank Quitely, (old) Frank Miller, Paul Pope, Jeff Smith, Jon Bogdanov, Dan Jurgens, Ryan Ottley, Ashley Wood, and Coipel.

[rooibos]

I get very little sense of motion or action when I go through their stories. And Ross's characters look like 40-year-olds halfway out of shape.

.

i like this about alex ross
they all look like golden age characters

i've never really bought into the uber-muscled super hero. i've always thought it a little silly that every single character is bristling with huge chorded muscles. i like the animated batman and superman, they're just big dudes. thick chests, broad shoulders- not super cut with sinewy muscle. i like spiderman being wiry and cut, and there's a few other characters i can understand being highly defined, but when you see guys like magneto and such looking like body builders or swimmers, it comes off as a little silly to me.

[JayPhonomancer]

i stated invincible as one of my favourites
sometimes i feel like i even prefer cory's artwork for its simplicity

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was saying you only like realistic art. I was just saying how people's opinions of good art can change. I'll admit I first encountered Frank Quitely's art on Morrison's New X-Men and didn't care much for it. Now he's one of my absolute favourite artists. And I'd agree with the guy who said Kordey's art was off-putting but it didn't stop me buying the books cos the story was fantastic.

Sometimes a book can look uninviting but if I hear good things about it or if I like the writer I'll want to check it out.

[Mikey]

i like this about alex ross
they all look like golden age characters

i've never really bought into the uber-muscled super hero. i've always thought it a little silly that every single character is bristling with huge chorded muscles. i like the animated batman and superman, they're just big dudes. thick chests, broad shoulders- not super cut with sinewy muscle. i like spiderman being wiry and cut, and there's a few other characters i can understand being highly defined, but when you see guys like magneto and such looking like body builders or swimmers, it comes off as a little silly to me.

I'm not a big fan of the roided out look, especially when it's a static pose but it looks like they're in full flex. I can't stand Ed McGuinness's stuff when all his heroes and villains have the same body type. I wish comic book artists would take the time to really put in more diverse body types that would suit their characters.

But with Alex Ross I feel like I'm looking at a comic con cosplay theater or something. But I understand what you mean, different tastes.

[HartyPotter]

i'm definitely the same way.

[Clint Barton]

I know that some view Frank Ross as an icon of older comics, but his stint on Captain America and The Falcon during my teen years made me quit reading one of my favorite comics. It wasn't until Jack Kirby came along in the original volume that I began reading Captain America and The Falcon again. I, too, feel your pain.

[rooibos]

But with Alex Ross I feel like I'm looking at a comic con cosplay theater or something. But I understand what you mean, different tastes.

haha that's what i like about it. It feels hokey and 1950s. Like that old school superman tv show in b&w, where the dude had shoulder pads and shit


(googled, it was kirk alyn)

http://superman.nu/sites/thescreen/returns/KirkAlynSuperman.jpg

it adds this weird extra sense of wonder to it for me. because instead of it being a mulleted- super ripped superman as it was when i grew up (i think i was 10 or something maybe younger, but that was when i was reading comics most, during the time of the death of superman)
it's this kind of classic pipe-smoking father figure. almost like a norman rockwell image.
almost like you could see him reading the paper and sipping an ice cold coca-cola or something.
it's kitschy, just like norman rockwell is REALLY kitschy. but it's kitschy in a way that's sort of heartwarming (which don't get me wrong, i love the pscyhedelic 60s batman) because it has that weird air of americana, just like classic baseball (i hate baseball) and old ford trucks and ice cream floats.
and that to me is a more appealing fantasy than whatever the more modern inceptions of superman are, with it's essentially "alot like real earth... except with cosmic beings and monsters and dimensions"

[Paul Render]

I am more likely to read a comic with bad art and a good story, then a bad story and great art. The early Image comics for instance, for the time it was good looking stuff, but there wasn't a story to be found.

Same goes for all early Marvel books and Jack Kirby's books at DC which he wrote and drew himself. I find myself skim reading the dialogue but studying the art religiously.

[dupersuper]

haha that's what i like about it. It feels hokey and 1950s. Like that old school superman tv show in b&w, where the dude had shoulder pads and shit


(googled, it was kirk alyn)

http://superman.nu/sites/thescreen/returns/KirkAlynSuperman.jpg

it adds this weird extra sense of wonder to it for me. because instead of it being a mulleted- super ripped superman as it was when i grew up (i think i was 10 or something maybe younger, but that was when i was reading comics most, during the time of the death of superman)
it's this kind of classic pipe-smoking father figure. almost like a norman rockwell image.
almost like you could see him reading the paper and sipping an ice cold coca-cola or something.
it's kitschy, just like norman rockwell is REALLY kitschy. but it's kitschy in a way that's sort of heartwarming (which don't get me wrong, i love the pscyhedelic 60s batman) because it has that weird air of americana, just like classic baseball (i hate baseball) and old ford trucks and ice cream floats.
and that to me is a more appealing fantasy than whatever the more modern inceptions of superman are, with it's essentially "alot like real earth... except with cosmic beings and monsters and dimensions"

Kirk Allen was in the 1st 2 serials, George Reeves was in the tv show.

[Gilda Dent]

I read comics for the story. The artwork is a big part of the storytelling process in comics, so I find making a distinction between "story" and "art" to be somewhat problematic.

That said, terrible writing or terrible artwork either one will turn me off. I will, however, read a comic with good writing and mediocre artwork or good artwork and mediocre writing because in either case, the combination is still capable of producing a good story.

As for indy comics that feature little more than people talking, I'm fine with those so long as the people have interesting things to say and/or are saying them in interesting ways. Even in those, it's nice when the artwork serves the purpose of telling the story.

There are artists who produce great looking artwork that I don't really care for most of the time. Alex Ross is one of those. The man produces great looking photo-realistic pinups, but demonstrates little skill in having one frame flow into another to produce a sense of movement. This is a type of artwork that can work. The treasury books he did with Paul Dini that are collected in World's Greatest Superheroes are Ross at his best, but those aren't really comics so much as illustrated superhero stories, the final Justice League story being the exception. Most of the time, however, Ross leaves me cold because his artwork generally seems to be about the individual static image more than the flow of images, and it's this latter quality that differentiates greats like Kirby from those like, say, Jim Lee, who produced nicely detailed individual images without the same sense of movement and energy.