Costumed Superhero vs Costumed Superhero? Writer vs Artist?

jabbathehurt

Costumed Superhero vs Costumed Superhero? Writer vs Artist?

I usually go for Non-Superhero stuff as I cant take the Costumed stuff seriously, the ever changing, overlapping and contradictory story lines.
outdated or ever changing origin stories the list goes on and on

Anyone reading any good non-costumed superhero stuff?
Y the last man is a current favorite
100 bullets, Transmetropolitan, DMZ, The Walking dead are all good

As regards Artist vs Writer im all for the writers,
Moore, Arazello , Kirkman, Pope
but I do think that artists are important as they bring their own interpretation to the writers work.
A balance between the two is fine but I never buy anything based on its look.

To me without a good writer its got no soul

What do others thinks?

Wacka Wacka :pac:*************

Fysh

There's a long-standing "What are you reading?" thread that you should look through, at least the last few pages.

I'm generally more of a writer person myself, but the right comic can be carried by a good artist even if the art's feeble. In the words of Bill Watterson, good art carries a mediocre joke more often than a good joke carries mediocre art.

subedei

jabbathehurt wrote: »

As regards Artist vs Writer im all for the writers,
Moore, Arazello , Kirkman, Pope
but I do think that artists are important as they bring their own interpretation to the writers work.
A balance between the two is fine but I never buy anything based on its look.

To me without a good writer its got no soul

What do others thinks?

Wacka Wacka :pac:*************

Its a strange argument I find, this writers versus art, if writing is the most important then surely it is a book you want not a comic. It is the art, especially how it is controlled, that makes a "comic". I wonder if this current craze over writers has more to do with the literary world accepting comics more than the fine art world does. And of course being seen as literature would put the focus more on the writer. It doesnt make alot of sense though, unless your talking about the writer being the director of the comic, like alan moore. Otherwise it is like saying you dont care about directors of a movie just the screenwriters.

Personally I prefer when the writer and artist are the same person. As this allows them to have full control and understanding of all its elements and create something unique to comics. If we are just talking about the big two; DC & marvel. Then I much prefer art over writing, but the arguement is 99% of the time null in void as great artists normally work with great writers, while great writers dont always work with great artists. So if you pick up a book with great art it normally has a great story too.

Though after saying that, this only really applies to the big two, I love alot of comics outside of these two that arent great artistically but make up for it with their clever use of the medium and/or unique stories or artstyles that can only be done in comics.

jabbathehurt

subedei wrote: »

Its a strange argument I find, this writers versus art, if writing is the most important then surely it is a book you want not a comic. It is the art, especially how it is controlled, that makes a "comic". I wonder if this current craze over writers has more to do with the literary world accepting comics more than the fine art world does. And of course being seen as literature would put the focus more on the writer. It doesnt make alot of sense though, unless your talking about the writer being the director of the comic, like alan moore. Otherwise it is like saying you dont care about directors of a movie just the screenwriters.

Personally I prefer when the writer and artist are the same person. As this allows them to have full control and understanding of all its elements and create something unique to comics. If we are just talking about the big two; DC & marvel. Then I much prefer art over writing, but the arguement is 99% of the time null in void as great artists normally work with great writers, while great writers dont always work with great artists. So if you pick up a book with great art it normally has a great story too.

Though after saying that, this only really applies to the big two, I love alot of comics outside of these two that arent great artistically but make up for it with their clever use of the medium and/or unique stories or artstyles that can only be done in comics.

Hmmm, i agree with you on that point im a hugh fan of writer+artist
(Frank Miller's Sin City) as the vision and story are uncompromised, albeit even Frank has being quoted as saying he's not a fan of his own drawing style.
Personally I almost make it a point to read outside of the big two and even read outside of the costumed superhero stuff, there has been a change in the last number of years for example
(the walking dead and 30 days of night)
moving away from the comics costumed superhero.
Sure there has always been alternatives to the comic norm but these have been huge sucesses.

On Great Artist's point I disagree, why is it then that there are highly paid artists, obviously they are talented, it has been recognised but they are employed to draw for the big publishers flagship titles regardless of quality of the writing.
Im sure no writer has set out to right a bad title but inevitably some do case in point being recent Spawn everyone knows its been poor of late fans and critics alike.

My Previous statement was aimed at at the big two as I have grown tired of them pumping out their cash cow's ie; batman, x-men, spider-man etc. In the world of comics they make up most what is sold mainly, I think due to the nostaligia and iconography associated with them. I recently picked up an issue of spider man I can't remember what it was (one of the many)
It was awful! dire stuff but there is obviously a market for it.

Personally I don't see the writer as the main factor in comics take Batman Year One for example Frank Miller can be a bit hit or miss for me at times.
But David Mazzucchelli's art gives Year One a different spin, maybe even making the story better.

But to be honest I will always do my research first before picking up a title. I think it its common for a lot of people to say to themselves:

"Oh look spider-man... I like spider-man.... Therefore this comic will be good!"

A quick search on T'internet will give you an idea of what good and what's not.
Still puzzles me how Marvel DC have such a hold over the comics industry.
Fight the power people support independent artists, writers and publishers!

:pac:

Fysh

I think it's important to distinguish between work created by a team where different individuals handle the writing and art chores, and work created by a single individual. I'd certainly agree that the latter work tends to make up for deficiencies in the artwork with cleverness either in the writing or in the styles.

That being said, the relative importance of art or writing to a given work depends on what's intended by the creative team. Sin City wouldn't work with a normal art style, for instance, because it's as much about style as it is story. On another level, most of Adrian Tomine's work is in theory focused on writing (in that it is about small character moments rather than plot or action) but that is excellently realised through his artwork and mastery of facial expressions. On the other hand, a significant portion of franchise comics (be they Big Two material or otherwise) have journeyman art which is adequate but unexceptional, although the writing involved in such stories does not tend to be overly concerned with artistic flair.

shenanigans1982

It's hard to try and make a call on which is the most important to a comic. Currently it all seems to be about the writers and within the comic world guys like Bendis, Johns, Millar, Morrison etc are the big stars but I think that is just down to the current trend. Not that long ago all the attention was on the artists and guy's like McFarlane, Lee, Liefeld etc were getting all the plaudits. But I think Marvel and DC milked it for all they could and put out too many books with substandard writing because they felt the artist could carry it, but the fans just got sick of it.

I reckon we will see a return to the artists getting all the credit for a book being successful but not until someone within the mainstream breaks through with a new style and not the current photorealistic sh*t every book features.

I also think the internet has diminshed the importance of the artist somewhat. When I first started collecting comics regularly about 13 years ago I had no access to the internet so if I was going to decide which comics to buy they needed to stand out on the shelf. Now I know months in advance about any upcoming 'events' and what the cover of each issue will look like and I can get a detailed synopsis of the issue before it hits the stand. So now the emphasis is on the writer to keep you around.

Fysh

I was thinking about the "writer vs artist" split this morning and it dawned on me that it's not the writing specifically that I look for in a comic, but storytelling. Which is as much the artist's province as the writer's. Take Criminal, for example - the dialogue, storyline and pacing may be all Ed Brubaker's work, but without the artistic direction Sean Phillips brought to the table it wouldn't be what it is.

Part of my issue with artist-focused comics is that for me, that brings to mind the horrible Liefeldian excesses of the 90's - page after page of "cool" art, with a style that was definitely of its time but little or no effort made to engage in proper storytelling. (Not saying all artist-focused comics are like this, obviously - just that this is what the phrase makes me think of).

How about a few more suggestions of one-man-band comics that demonstrate good art and good storytelling? Bob Byrne's Mister Amperduke is a fine example, and homegrown to boot

shenanigans1982

Two that come to mind are Bone and strangers in paradise.

subedei

jabbathehurt wrote: »

On Great Artist's point I disagree, why is it then that there are highly paid artists, obviously they are talented, it has been recognised but they are employed to draw for the big publishers flagship titles regardless of quality of the writing.
Im sure no writer has set out to right a bad title but inevitably some do case in point being recent Spawn everyone knows its been poor of late fans and critics alike.

Actually that raises a good question, anyone know how much artists make compares to writers now? But I aggree with you, Spawn recent releases have been terrible both with art and writing. Sometimes the art goes up an issue or two, or the writing, but its pretty unstable at the moment.

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

I reckon we will see a return to the artists getting all the credit for a book being successful but not until someone within the mainstream breaks through with a new style and not the current photorealistic sh*t every book features.

I just hope what happens next, is that both artists and writers get equal credit, since both have now had their time in the spotlight.

Fysh wrote: »

Part of my issue with artist-focused comics is that for me, that brings to mind the horrible Liefeldian excesses of the 90's - page after page of "cool" art, with a style that was definitely of its time but little or no effort made to engage in proper storytelling. (Not saying all artist-focused comics are like this, obviously - just that this is what the phrase makes me think of).

Well it is bad when there is no decent writing, but I am an artist, so I still get alot of enjoyment looking at the art without any writing, while I wont get the same vice versa. Though I should clarify here, I mean dialogue and the written word, not plot or story. Like you can have a great comic without any writing, just art and the story (same with picturebooks, The Arrival is a good example) but you cant have a comic without art, ie just writing, otherwise thats a book.

Though some comics have great writing, deadpool is often an example of this, but often I find the writing to get in the way of the art, so instead of reading the images, I am just reading the writing and briefly glancing at the art. Which takes away from the comic experience, and makes it more like just reading a magazine. I would often much prefer to spend my time deciphering what an image is saying, and get it subtly than have writing say it plainly or have so much writing that the image is just background. This of course depends on the kind of story, some need writing, especially comedy. Think a good balance between the two is best but then again it might just be a matter of taste.

jabbathehurt

I think its fair to say, we are all in or around the same place, when it comes to what we look for in comics. The reason why we buy them is for both art and storytelling. It seems like anyone interested in comics looks for both requirements when buying one. Each persons taste vary in writing and art. I guess I should have taken into account the recent emphasis on writers, indeed artist's style may again become the main comics talking point. Starting the thread I thought there would be a divide between the two, I was wrong, any self respecting comic book fan does their research when buying comics. Thats not to say all comics are great there are as many bad ones as good ones, but its the same in all forms of entertainment.