The Bullpen

[David]

Story or Art?

From his Shelf Life column:

Obviously, you need both story and art. A comic is not a comic without both. Story and art are inextricably intertwined, or at least they should be, each aspect supporting the other to create a greater whole. That's the magic of comics distilled -- words and pictures together. Take the pictures away, you've got prose. Take the words away, you've got a gallery show. The best comics are a synthesis of both. That said, though, I'll give you the real answer, coming from a guy who has spent two decades writing comic stories: the art is more important.

The traditional wisdom holds that the art gets people in the door, and the story keeps them coming back. I think that's generally true, though in today's calcified market, I think familiar characters probably get more people through the door than anything.

. . .

This is a visual medium. So if I have to pick only one -- story or art -- give me the art every time. I'd rather write a Squirrel Girl story and have Kevin Nowlan draw it, than write a Batman vs. Captain America extravaganza and have it drawn by some guy just putting lines on paper.

. . .

As a writer, you have to come to grips with the fact that your story will be judged to great extent on how well the art is executed, and how well it fits the story. That's one of the reasons I tend to be picky about what artists I work with.

. . .

A big part of my job is to give the artist something interesting to draw on every page. I might not be successful every time, but I damn sure try, because I should be giving the artist a reason to go to the drawing board every morning. It's common sense: the success of the story depends greatly on the art, so you should be doing everything you can to make the art successful.

. . .

This is not a one-size-fits-all medium. Sometimes a scene of talking heads is the perfect choice. But it's about the necessary balance again. That talking-heads scene needs to be contrasted to something spectacularly visual, something exciting to draw, because the art is more important. And chances are, if you put a smile on the artist's face, you're going to put one on the reader's face as well.

Full column can be found here.

[leafinsectman (Dan)]

Nice article. I think I'd agree with him. And I like the quote below:

"And chances are, if you put a smile on the artist's face, you're going to put one on the reader's face as well."

I love it when the writer makes sure that the artist has a fun time. As much as people may shit on Jeph Loeb, I feel as though he's great at this. I bet his artists love working with him which is why he's able to get the big guns. Did you guys see his artist lineup on Hulk 23 alone?

Ed McGuinness w/ Mark Farmer, Morry Hollowell & Jason Keith
Sal Buscema w/ Brad Anderson
Ian Churchill w/ Edgar Delgado
Mike Deodato w/ Rain Beredo
Dale Keown
John Romita Jr. w/ Klaus Janson, Emily Warren & Dean White
Tim Sale w/ Dave Stewart
Herb Trimpe w/ Dave McCaig
Leinil Yu w/ Gerry Alanguilan & Marte Garcia

Fucking insane!

EDIT: Adam Kubert did a variant too.

[David]

As much as people may shit on Jeph Loeb, I feel as though he's great at this.

As do I.

It's one reason why I'm loving Butcher Baker so much.  Even without Casey's backmatter, I just know he and Huddleston are having fun.

[Julian Lytle]

I have an issue with him calling the Words "story". You can tell a story without words and there is still a story. That's like saying Chaplin isn't in a film because there was no sound. A story without words on the page is still written.

[Jeppe]

I have an issue with him calling the Words "story". You can tell a story without words and there is still a story. That's like saying Chaplin isn't in a film because there was no sound. A story without words on the page is still written.

I get what you're saying, and I agree, but I think what Marz is refering to is the script moreso than the words themselves. I imagine that even if there are no words on the actual page, most comics being created as a collaborative project would still have a script of some sort, outlying the story and the images.

[legion of daves]

I get what you're saying, and I agree, but I think what Marz is refering to is the script moreso than the words themselves. I imagine that even if there are no words on the actual page, most comics being created as a collaborative project would still have a script of some sort, outlying the story and the images.

this is true.  "story" isn't referring to the dialog, it's referring to the story.   i mostly agree with what marz is saying here.  for me, i can read a terribly written book if it's gorgeous(mostly just skip the words and focus on the art), but i have a harder time with a fantastically written book that's hideous(the visuals become distracting).

[Julian Lytle]

I get what you're saying, and I agree, but I think what Marz is refering to is the script moreso than the words themselves. I imagine that even if there are no words on the actual page, most comics being created as a collaborative project would still have a script of some sort, outlying the story and the images.

Yeah I like what you are saying but that is not what I'm reading from him.

[miraclemet]

I was thinking about something along these lines as one of the EOC guys started talking about "Paying for it" by Chester Brown... as (who ever it was) started reviewing the book it was all about the story, nothing about the art (well he did talk about it being sparse/simple 4 square style), so it led me to the question:

whats the point of the art if it isnt adding to the story?

Good art doesnt have to be complex, but if the story isnt making use of the medium isnt it a waste? Isnt it just a text story that got fleshed out with pictures (however basic they may be) instead of more words?

I love when creators use the medium to the fullest potential, and a good Graphic Novel doesnt have to have "refined" art to make good use of the illustrated medium....

so along those lines, if the art isnt "important" to the storytelling whats the point of making it a graphic novel? (unless the point is it gets it published).

[Wood]

What he's saying is almost a truism. I don't really see how someone could argue against it. The real question for most people though is which side of the spectrum they're more lenient with. I know comic book fans who routinely buy comic books because they love the artist, but don't care much for the stories. I know just as many that stick with stories even though the art isn't what they would consider top notch. But to have GREAT comics? Yeah, you need the synthesis of the scripted narrative AND the visuals.

[Jeppe]

What he's saying is almost a truism. I don't really see how someone could argue against it. The real question for most people though is which side of the spectrum they're more lenient with. I know comic book fans who routinely buy comic books because they love the artist, but don't care much for the stories. I know just as many that stick with stories even though the art isn't what they would consider top notch. But to have GREAT comics? Yeah, you need the synthesis of the scripted narrative AND the visuals.

I agree that the basic sentiment is a truism, but I tend to disagree on the more subjective part of Marz' argument. I hate to admit it, especially on this board with so many active and talented artists, but I tend to fall towards the latter end of the spectrum you described above, in that I am more tolerant of mediocre art than I am of a mediocre story (in the sense of story, characterization, and plot, not just written words). It's not that I don't appreciate amazing art, I definitely do, but I'd rather get that from a pure art book than from a comic book where I basically have to skip through the word balloons.

[Wood]

I agree that the basic sentiment is a truism, but I tend to disagree on the more subjective part of Marz' argument. I hate to admit it, especially on this board with so many active and talented artists, but I tend to fall towards the latter end of the spectrum you described above, in that I am more tolerant of mediocre art than I am of a mediocre story (in the sense of story, characterization, and plot, not just written words). It's not that I don't appreciate amazing art, I definitely do, but I'd rather get that from a pure art book than from a comic book where I basically have to skip through the word balloons.

I fall onto both sides, mainly because there are characters/books I have such a strong history with that I tolerate the bad with the good. Sometimes that's less-than-stellar art, sometimes it's suboptimal storylines.

[jacobi]

I was thinking about something along these lines as one of the EOC guys started talking about "Paying for it" by Chester Brown... as (who ever it was) started reviewing the book it was all about the story, nothing about the art (well he did talk about it being sparse/simple 4 square style), so it led me to the question:

whats the point of the art if it isnt adding to the story?

Good art doesnt have to be complex, but if the story isnt making use of the medium isnt it a waste? Isnt it just a text story that got fleshed out with pictures (however basic they may be) instead of more words?

Who says the art in Paying For It didn't make use of the medium? Even if the art is the draw, and the story is the more interesting aspect of that book (and the art doesn't get all intricate and funky like Chris Ware), if you can read that book and get information from both the text and the art to gleam a complete story -- I would say the art definitely added to the story, and that Chester Brown served the medium.

[miraclemet]

Who says the art in Paying For It didn't make use of the medium? Even if the art is the draw, and the story is the more interesting aspect of that book (and the art doesn't get all intricate and funky like Chris Ware), if you can read that book and get information from both the text and the art to gleam a complete story -- I would say the art definitely added to the story, and that Chester Brown served the medium.

If you say the art added to the story then good. I was just making the point that the recent EOC discussion of Paying really didnt give me any feeling that the art added to the story, and I think thats a crucial question when reading a graphic novel.

To the main point of the thread, I am more of a story first person, giving a book a pass if there is good art/bad story, but sticking with a book if it is good story/bad art... ok maybe not bad, but mediocre art can be tolerated for a good story...

[JasonF]

I generally find the question "Which is more important for a comic: the art or the writing?" to be about as useful as "Which is more important for a car: the accelerator or the steering wheel?"

[Wood]

If you say the art added to the story then good. I was just making the point that the recent EOC discussion of Paying really didnt give me any feeling that the art added to the story, and I think thats a crucial question when reading a graphic novel.

To the main point of the thread, I am more of a story first person, giving a book a pass if there is good art/bad story, but sticking with a book if it is good story/bad art... ok maybe not bad, but mediocre art can be tolerated for a good story...

I was the one talking about Paying for It, and think that the art served the story well, but it didn't elevate it. But that's a bit of a different beast b/c it's all from one creator. No matter what the art style was, it was unquestionably a synthesis of the two because Chester Brown wrote and drew the story.

[Dean S.]

Kinda like Wood, I have a few properties where I'm more tolerant of mediocrity (X-Men and Greg Land).

But, I would generally say that I more tolerant of great art + mediocre plot/dialog  than I am of great plot/dialog + uninspired art. 

Herc is a great example.  I can't even tell you if I enjoy Van Lente's story because I really don't care for Neil Edwards' art.  Same thing with Iron Man 2.0. 

At the same time, great art makes me overlook deficiencies in the script.

My general feeling is that if I just want great stories (meaning the script), I'd be better off reading prose.

[Dotanuki]

I generally find the question "Which is more important for a comic: the art or the writing?" to be about as useful as "Which is more important for a car: the accelerator or the steering wheel?"

 I get unique experiences from art albums/sketchbooks, prose novels, poetry volumes (illustrated or unillustrated) and comics/manga/"graphic novels". The last of this group can, and as far as I'm concerned, must contain varying amounts of the former and becomes something else entirely as a result of the synthesis.