Comics are no longer a visual medium

[Scott C.]

So what artists working at Marvel and DC, in terms of popularity, are on par with Gaiman, Bendis or Morrison?  Are there any true superstar artists working at the big two?  Anyone whose name could sell a book?

The more I think about it, this shift is nothing new.  It's been going on for about 10 years or greater.  As comics get greater and greater exposure to the outside world, that outside world latches on to authors.  Everyone knows Alan Moore by this point.  How many people know Dave Gibbons, David Lloyd or Eddie Campbell even though they really defined the look and feel of movies like Watchmen, V for Vendetta and From Hell.  How many artists has Entertainment Weekly spotlighted in it's annual "Most Powerful People in Entertainment" issues?  

Could Marvel be leery of giving artists that much credit again, fearing another Image-like mass exodus?  Honestly, I think the talent pool at the big 2 isn't there.  It's been diluted horribly until the point where we're left with a bunch of guys who learned to draw from Cyberforce comics.  There's not enough great artists working Marvel or DC to really make the artist a focus anymore sadly.  If the Image crew taught us anything it's that you can be slow as hell, not work on any regularly produced book and still be a superstar.  That's how we got John Cassaday and Bryan Hitch now, isn't it?  The body of work just isn't there in some of these cases to really define the artists name beyond those of us who really care?  Like John Cassaday, you're going to buy Astonishing X-Men, Planetary and...  Like Jeph Loeb and we've got a ton of other books you can buy.  Ed McGuinness?  There's some Hulk stuff?  The biggest artist at Marvel could be John Romita Jr in terms of body of work but does his art really identify with those works?  Who do you think of as the Daredevil artist?

[steve bryant]

I think my big problem with the initial argument is this.  The artists are still getting credit for drawing the book.  There name is on and in the book, they just aren't being advertised.  The artists name isn't being used as a selling point for the book.  This isn't a slight against artists, it's marketing pure and simple.  To take any sort of marketing as a slight against the artist is IMO erroneous.  The credit comes from doing the work, not from the size font they use when they broadcast your name.

My contention is that this marketing tactic is symptomatic of a pervading ignorance of how comics are made; specifically, that the writer orchestrates and stages everything and that the artists are merely interchangeable wrists.

This comes from someone who has done graphic design for marketing, drawn comics, and written comics I haven't drawn. I like to think that I have a bit of perspective on all of the aspects of this debate.

[JimN]

I think my big problem with the initial argument is this.  The artists are still getting credit for drawing the book.  There name is on and in the book, they just aren't being advertised.  The artists name isn't being used as a selling point for the book.  This isn't a slight against artists, it's marketing pure and simple.  To take any sort of marketing as a slight against the artist is IMO erroneous. The credit comes from doing the work, not from the size font they use when they broadcast your name.

That's true to a certain extent but the two aren't quite that separate and there are clear implications to a cover design like this:



or this:



On the former cover, Romita Jr.'s name is considerably smaller than Gaiman's and he's listed as an illustrator, which is an inaccurate description of his contribution to the work. There's nothing wrong with illustration (it's how I make my living) but comic art isn't illustration. There's more storytelling involved in comic art. Romita Jr. is essentially a co-author but the cover credit strongly implies otherwise. That may be the result of marketing but it's implications extend to the content of the book and could easily influence a reader's views and understanding of the artist's contribution to the work.

The Vertigo crime cover above simply emphasizes Rankin as author over Delledera, again sending a misleading message to readers since the artist is essentially a co-author of the work.

You're correct that the artist isn't being used as a selling point for these books but that's part of the problem. Why shouldn't these artists be given an equal opportunity to become selling points for work? De-emphasizing their contribution on the cover, even if it's for marketing reasons, is a disservice to them. Among other things, it hurts their chances to develop into the same kind of selling point as the author.

Jim

[David]

So what artists working at Marvel and DC, in terms of popularity, are on par with Gaiman, Bendis or Morrison?

Who says they have to be on par?  What is so wrong about giving equal billing?

[deadcowaroma]

So no Pekar, Brubaker, Vaughan, Ellis, Ennis, Rucka or Moore?  I love me some Writer-Artists, especially some of them right here on the forums, but there's lots of great writer/artist pairings as well. 

I definitely don't strongly prefer one to the other

Hahah...yea, you're right, I love those guys too. It'd be nice though to see the big books have more writer-artists working on them.

[Scott C.]

Who says they have to be on par?  What is so wrong about giving equal billing?

It's a business.  Aren't they going to put on the covers the names that sell?

[steve bryant]

The more I think about it, this shift is nothing new.  It's been going on for about 10 years or greater.  As comics get greater and greater exposure to the outside world, that outside world latches on to authors.  Everyone knows Alan Moore by this point.  How many people know Dave Gibbons, David Lloyd or Eddie Campbell even though they really defined the look and feel of movies like Watchmen, V for Vendetta and From Hell.  How many artists has Entertainment Weekly spotlighted in it's annual "Most Powerful People in Entertainment" issues?  

Perhaps they would be known if they had been marketed as equal partners in the creation of their collaborative works?

Maybe I just don't have an eye for comic art, but V for Vendetta looks nothing like Watchmen, which looks nothing like From Hell. Those projects all have very different identities—which are not solely defined by Alan Moore—and yet he receives sole authorship?

So what artists working at Marvel and DC, in terms of popularity, are on par with Gaiman, Bendis or Morrison?  Are there any true superstar artists working at the big two?  Anyone whose name could sell a book?

None. You yourself said that this marketing practice is nothing new and that publishers have perpetuated it for well over a decade.

[JimN]

The more I think about it, this shift is nothing new.  It's been going on for about 10 years or greater.  As comics get greater and greater exposure to the outside world, that outside world latches on to authors.

That's partly because writers are emphasized to them.

My contention is that this marketing tactic is symptomatic of a pervading ignorance of how comics are made; specifically, that the writer orchestrates and stages everything and that the artists are merely interchangeable wrists.

Perfectly said, Steve. That's my contention as well (one of them anyway!) and a good description of why it upsets me.

It's a business.  Aren't they going to put on the covers the names that sell?

Yes, but keep in mind nobody is suggesting those names be removed from the covers (so it's odd that this point keeps coming up).

Jim

[KW!!]

It's a business.  Aren't they going to put on the covers the names that sell?

Does this create a vicious cycle though? Obviously, yeah, Gaiman is way more famous than JRJR. I get it. But say I go into that Eternals collection completely cold. If Neil Gaiman's name is 72 points larger than JRJR's name on the cover, whose name am I more likely to remember? And as a result whose work am I more likely to seek out in the future?

Wouldn't it behoove Marvel to hype up JRJR a bit, given how many of their other trades his name appears on? You know, actually build a brand around ALL their talent?

[Scott C.]

Maybe I just don't have an eye for comic art, but V for Vendetta looks nothing like Watchmen, which looks nothing like From Hell. Those projects all have very different identities—which are not solely defined by Alan Moore—and yet he receives sole authorship?

I'm not saying that you don't.  I'm saying that the general public, who we're supposedly trying to reach out to who doesn't have the eye or understanding for comic art.  Which is also the same problem that we're going around in circles in right now.

None. You yourself said that this marketing practice is nothing new and that publishers have perpetuated it for well over a decade.

I think this is one of those points where we agree but are coming at it from different angles.  I think it's safe to say that we both come from the days of Claremont/Byrne, Wolfman/Perez and Baron/Rude.  Honestly, those are books where I can't imagine one without the other.  Look at what happened to any of those books when the artist left them?  They're no where near as memorable as they were with the team.  We're grew up with the artist being an integral part of the story.  

I also wonder if part of the DC and Marvel problem that leads to this is that most of their art teams are so interchangeable.  That leads to the switching in and out of artists almost on a whim and leads to their own devalued perceived contribution.

Understand, I agree with you mostly.  I think the best comics are an equal collaboration between writer and artist to create a single comic book.  Those are the books that I want to see and read. I just wish those were the comics that Marvel and DC could produce.

[steve bryant]

"I have always been strongly of the opinion that the writer and artist should be in one person. Failing that, and in the absence of any prior agreement between artist and writer, then I come down in favor of the dominance of the artist. This is not to free him from the obligation to work in the service of the story originated by the writer. Rather, I expect him to shoulder this burden with the understanding that with the so-called "freedom" will come a greater challenge—that of employing or devising a wider range of visual devices and composition innovation. He should contribute to the "writing."

—Will Eisner (he knew a little about comics)
Comics and Sequential Art

[Just Bill]

Again, as I said a few times at the beginning of this thread, "Your mileage may vary."

This is a concern that I have. There's no need to dismiss the people that agree with my sentiment as "group think" any more than dismissing those who disagree as subscribing to their own "group think."

If you don't agree, that's fine. Just in case you don't understand the context, the statement "Your mileage may vary," in this instance means, "You may not feel the same way."
But this is my concern and I believe very strongly about it.

I understand what the phrase means. I also thought by posting on a public forum that you were inviting dialogue on the matter, not just looking for people who agree with you.  My bad.

[steve bryant]

I'm not saying that you don't.  I'm saying that the general public, who we're supposedly trying to reach out to who doesn't have the eye or understanding for comic art.  Which is also the same problem that we're going around in circles in right now.

Exactly. Which is why publishers need to educate readers that the way a comic story is told is largely the product of of two people functioning as author.

And I don't care where we agree or disagree...just don't throw douchey terms like "group-think" around (which I know you didn't) and we're fine!  

[Just Bill]

Exactly. Which is why publishers need to educate readers that the way a comic story is told is largely the product of of two people functioning as author.

And I don't care where we agree or disagree...just don't throw douchey terms like "group-think" around and we're fine!   

It would also be great if people stopped saying some of us don't understand, or are unable to see trends, and hosts of other insulting sentiments that are freely thrown around when people simply don't agree.  Not saying this is all coming from you either.   But lately it's really started to get my blood boiling when people decide I need to be "educated" on comics because I don't agree with them.

[Scott C.]

That's partly because writers are emphasized to them.

But I also think it's how we're taught and there's no system in place to really teach you how a comic book is produced.  You "read" a comic book.  When I think of reading, I think of the writing so I think of the writer.  I don't watch a comic book.   I don't read drawings and paintings?  There's no real term to describe how a comic book is absorbed so I think we fall back on the easiest analog, which is reading and stuff you read has authors.

To bring movies back in, the large amount of people look at the actors in a movie.  Did Inception do great because it had Christopher Nolan in it or because it had Leonardo DiCaprio in it?  Watching movies, we're trained to watch who's on screen not what's on screen.  And again, there it's a collaboration, a blending of parts but is that what most people see?

Yes, but keep in mind nobody is suggesting those names be removed from the covers (so it's odd that this point keeps coming up).

It's advertising space.  I hate to phrase it this way but where are you going to get a bigger return on investment from?  And yes, it's sad that I truly believe that people will pass over John Cassaday or John Romita Jr's name on a book but will stop on Joss Whedon and Neil Gaiman.  

[steve bryant]

But I also think it's how we're taught and there's no system in place to really teach you how a comic book is produced.  You "read" a comic book.  When I think of reading, I think of the writing so I think of the writer.  I don't watch a comic book.   I don't read drawings and paintings?  There's no real term to describe how a comic book is absorbed so I think we fall back on the easiest analog, which is reading and stuff you read has authors.

Exactly. That's why I use the word "educate"—especially when we're referring to new readers. Comics aren't prose and they're not movies, or illustrated books, or poster art or whatever. They are their own unique medium and trying to portray them as an analogue to another artform doesn't work.

It's better to help new readers understand what they're reading.

To bring movies back in, the large amount of people look at the actors in a movie.  Did Inception do great because it had Christopher Nolan in it or because it had Leonardo DiCaprio in it?  Watching movies, we're trained to watch who's on screen not what's on screen.  And again, there it's a collaboration, a blending of parts but is that what most people see?

But there's also a reason why you get marketing like "From the Director of The Dark Knight..." etc. The public certainly knows who James Cameron is, without being on screen.

[Just Bill]

 
It's advertising space.  I hate to phrase it this way but where are you going to get a bigger return on investment from?  And yes, it's sad that I truly believe that people will pass over John Cassaday or John Romita Jr's name on a book but will stop on Joss Whedon and Neil Gaiman.  

These days I buy JRJR work in spite of him, not because of him.  

I just read THE LOSERS and then was listening to a podcast talk about the art changes in the book, when I realized I hadn't even noticed, or if I did notice I had already forgotten about the change, because it was the story that I was wrapped up in, the story that I remember.  This isn't meant to marginalize the contributions of artists.  I just want to point out that not everyone reads comics the same way, or for the same reasons.  Therefore comics shouldn't be marketed the same way either, certainly not by targeting the tastes of one group of readership over another.  

 

[Jon O]

My contention is that this marketing tactic is symptomatic of a pervading ignorance of how comics are made

That is entirely true.  Should the responsibility of educating the masses fall on the cover designer?  I'm sure that it would help raise the awareness of the artist if their names were larger, but the artists could also be promoted in the floppies, or in more interviews, more convention exposure, etc.

I guess I feel like you're picking at a symptom, not the problem.

[Scott C.]

Who am I to argue with Eisner?    And of course he'd say that since he's an artist/writer.  

I think there's room for both the single cartoonist voice to exist in comics as well as the collaborations.  At least from Marvel and DC, I think some of the best stories we've gotten have been through collaboration.   Personally, I'd prefer not to have to make the distinction between great books created by a single voice and a great work created through multiple voices.  Which is greater-- Baron/Rude Nexus or Rude's The Moth?  (and yes, there are plenty of examples the other way as well.)  

[KW!!]

Exactly. Which is why publishers need to educate readers that the way a comic story is told is largely the product of of two people functioning as author.

Not only is it a 'teachable moment', but it's also an opportunity to create a whole new stable of super stars that thousands of readers never even knew existed! Comics, especially those in Barnes & Noble or formatted for mobile devices, are still new enough a frontier that publishers should try and push as much talent as possible to the forefront to see what sticks. People will always have their own individual biases, but at least try to level the playing field a bit. It may turn out that people will follow artists just as enthusiastically as they follow writers, but they need that initial push to let them know that the artists are in fact important to the comics they're reading.

Although it's also worth considering that because writers can work on multiple titles at a time, and artists not so much, that it's smarter to create a brand around the former. You'll get more bang for your marketing buck that way, as loathe as I am to admit it.

That said... DOWN WITH THIS OPPRESSIVE COVER TYPOGRAPHIC DISPARITY!