Art or writing?

[Lycra]

Didn't they do that on Robot Chicken once?

Well, damn. I guess there really are no original thoughts.

(...was it hawt?)

[Guyford]

I agree with the idea that both art and writing are both important. But when it comes down to it for me, art wins out in the context of this poll. For a webcomic, a good portion of the storytelling is in the art (gag-a-day comics aside--they're not my thing, so I don't read those in general). Even if the writing is bad, I find that I can appreciate the pictures themselves.

If a comic ever got to the point where the visuals were secondary to the dialog (I think both are equally important though), I'd rather read a book.

[Eric Theriault]

Really good looking comic strips are few and far between these days, and they don't necessarily rise to the top....
Meanwhile professionally done stuff like this (I'm not talking about my fanart, look back in the archives) sits at about page 5 in the guide.

So yeah...writing is more important.

Well, thanks for the plug !
I say: look at the fan art too ! It's a very good piece !

My opinion on the debate is that it's not really how good (perspective, anatomy, details) the art is, but how effective. If it serve the story right, however defective it can be, that's a good comic.
But the story has to bring you in, even if it's not a very original one.

[McDuffies]

I'd read it.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

I dunno. That awful dialogue box cheapens the art.

[Prisoner]

I agree with the idea that both art and writing are both important. But when it comes down to it for me, art wins out in the context of this poll. For a webcomic, a good portion of the storytelling is in the art (gag-a-day comics aside--they're not my thing, so I don't read those in general). Even if the writing is bad, I find that I can appreciate the pictures themselves.

If a comic ever got to the point where the visuals were secondary to the dialog (I think both are equally important though), I'd rather read a book.

Crappy art can support a good story and the overall experience would still be great. It does not work vice versa. You probably draw real good and are more concerned with visuals than substance.

[Jim North]

if the panels and balloons are arranged so that you're never quite sure what's going on, or if the font used is totally illegible,

Those things are part of the writing, however. If they're bad, then the writing is bad. The reason that your second example is so much worse than the first is that it is illegible, making it bad art and bad writing.

[Guyford]

Crappy art can support a good story and the overall experience would still be great. It does not work vice versa. You probably draw real good and are more concerned with visuals than substance.

I disagree there. I'm not saying that art has to be perfect or professional on a technical level at all times, but it does need to adequately support the story that is to be conveyed. For me, crappy art cannot support a good story when it comes to webcomics. Comics are a visual medium, so visuals are substance too in my opinion. The art doesn't have to be flawless, but for the type of comics I like to read (the story driven stuff), a good portion of the narrative is in the visuals in addition to the writing. If the art is so detrimental to the point where it detracts from the writing, I'll stop reading.

But that's just my opinion, so I guess we can only agree to disagree on that point.

[McDuffies]

Crappy art can support a good story and the overall experience would still be great. It does not work vice versa.

No and no.

[Prisoner]

Crappy art can support a good story and the overall experience would still be great. It does not work vice versa. You probably draw real good and are more concerned with visuals than substance.

I disagree there. I'm not saying that art has to be perfect or professional on a technical level at all times, but it does need to adequately support the story that is to be conveyed. For me, crappy art cannot support a good story when it comes to webcomics. Comics are a visual medium, so visuals are substance too in my opinion. The art doesn't have to be flawless, but for the type of comics I like to read (the story driven stuff), a good portion of the narrative is in the visuals in addition to the writing. If the art is so detrimental to the point where it detracts from the writing, I'll stop reading.

But that's just my opinion, so I guess we can only agree to disagree on that point.

True Dat. Web comics wise, Art is more important. Was thinking more along the lines of print comics where truly, you can have crappy art and good story, but not vice versa. Damn Noob didn't read the question right...

[Lycra]

I dunno. That awful dialogue box cheapens the art.

Yeah, DaVinci was crap at dialogue boxes. Odd, really.

Those things are part of the writing, however. If they're bad, then the writing is bad. The reason that your second example is so much worse than the first is that it is illegible, making it bad art and bad writing.

You've got a point, I think. Well, either that, or things like legibility fall outside the realm of either art or writing and into their own separate category - common courtesy, maybe?

I was mainly thinking of something I clicked on recently that was just so scribbly and confusing and hard to read that I have no idea how good the writing even was. (By which I mean the writing with the words on the paper and the Jell-O pud-ding.)

[Thereforeiam]

Given that I am soley the artist, i'd like to think my contribution is at least half the battle. After all, a comic without pictures isn' t a comic, it's a story.

Also, I still read MT, but I freakin' hate the pansy-ass story. And the art isn't all that hot.....I think it's out of habit rather than anything else....

I don't really read any comics with *bad* art, although certain ones have definitely improved vastly since the beginning. I have started reading some with truly bad art, but I just can't read it after a while. The same goes for story, though.

I think there is a minimum story and minimum art requirement. And good enough of one will support a weakness in the other.

I will vote art, though, because I like to feel important. And there would be no Therefore I Am without me.

[Yeahduff]

The correct answer is, "yes."

[Ataraxia]

It seems to me there's still some confusion over the separation between "art" and "writing" in comics. Some people here are taking "writing" to mean just what is in the speech bubbles and "art" to mean everything else. Others take "writing" to mean the conceptual work and "art" to mean the polish. It's hard to separate the two because in the best comics they are insepatable.

That said, I voted for writing because 1) I'm a writer, and 2) In print comics I follow certain writers and writer/artists, but don't particularly follow any artists.

[Tafkas]

As an Artist I say writing. There must be an idea before there can be an image. Unfortunately few writers know how to write for a visual medium. The writing should concern that which cannot be drawn. I recall a fantasy comic being pitched here that was generally awful but the worst aspect of it was that nearly every panel had a caption describing what was happening in the drawing. Don't write that the boots are red, we should be able to see that. But we can't see that the boots are too tight and squeaky, etc.
The drawings may be skillfull, but do they serve the story?

[ShineDog]

Im gonna say art.

Because im a snob.


If its ugly, i wont read it get to the writing. its that simple.


that said, i dont think you need to be particularly talented to make good art.

For example : Dilbert, its really simple, the artist is clearly pretty poor, but hes defined an art style that fits the writing and is attractive.

its not ugly.


if a comic is ugly, chances are i wont touch it.

(Ive seen many comics drawn by skilled artists that i consider fugly too, so its not a matter of skill at all.)

[Sketchywallflowr]

First want to say- McDuffies, that is the sexiest cat I have ever seen. Me-OW.

Secondly, I'm a better storyteller than artist, so if everyone thinks writing is more important than score one for me. But I think the art has to tell some of the story because if it doesn't, then it's just a picture with words. Like Mona Lisa boning your mom. What does one have to do with the other, you may ask. Though it might explain ths smile...

Anyway, think of Tile as en example. Tile is very simple, but she is elegant and her actions tell the story as much as the narration. Very beautiful comic.

[McDuffies]

First want to say- McDuffies, that is the sexiest cat I have ever seen. Me-OW.

All credits go to Nervous Spy.

[VinnieD]

Both. You in fact can't have one without the other.

Unless you're drawing still life, there's some sort of story behind your drawing. You're conveying thoughts and emotions in your imagery. If you're drawing you're creating a story.

If you're writing you're weaving imagery. No matter how simplistic your writing, if you put together a noun and a verb you've created imagery.

So to do one, the other is unavoidable.

[Mo]

Both. You in fact can't have one without the other.

Ahem.

Art and writing, art and writing
Go together like teeth and biting
This I tell you brother
You cant have one without the other