Well, I like making comics, and something always gets me: I don't know if I want to make a comic that looks good or is funny. Funny comics can's look really nice. It takes away from the humor. You can color them and make them look decent, but you can't get too complex. Story driven comics use better art, but I'm not good at writing stories, just jokes. There just doesn't seem to be a place for gag-a-day comics with great art.

Anyone else have a hard time with choosing which side to go on, or is this just all in my head?

Well, it seems you can't draw either, so that choice has been made for you.

I don't agree with the idea that humour comics can't have nice art. Comics like Perry Bible Fellowship and Truck Bearing Kibble have great art and they're hilarious. I've even seen decent story comics with terrible art, they still worked.

Well, I think Custard is being his usual snarky self, and being unnecessarily crass with that first comment, but he is right about the rest. Why should a humor comic, or any comics for that matter, but pressed into a category of how it looks just because of its content?

Just do it how you want to do it, and don't worry so much about trying to fit into what you think is an established "format". :)

I go on arts side, even more so with humor comics. Humor comics have got to be the most abundant things in the webcomics world-with so many to pick from why should i pick a stick figure comic over comics with beautiful art like SUBNORMALITY, perry bible fellowship, girly(though lately girly is unfunny as hell) etc.

Even Kate beaton who does the comic in pencil has nice art and hilarious expressions. Another art thing would be consistency- like in SMBC and horriblleville(that's recently not funny at all get your act together KC) I can read it knowing the art wont change. And penny arcade, though unfunny, has great artwork and consistency.


On a slightly related note i avoid 4 panel joke strips like the plague. It's the same goddamn formula over and over:
Panel 1: *friend one asks friend 2 a question*
Panel 2: *friend emotionally rants about something*
Panel 3: *the thing friend was ranting about happens right then*
Panel 4: *extreme face reaction shot*

Next strip:
Panel 1: *friend one asks friend 2 a question*
Panel 2: *Friend refuses/says no*
Panel 3: *pregnant pause*
Panel 4: *friend one violently hits or attacks friend 2*

Hilarious.

Sinfest is one of the funniest webcomics and has totally classy art. Cartoony? Sure. But cartoony just seems simple, in reality it's as difficult to master as any other style. Perhaps less time consuming once you achieve a certain level of quality, but it can be as hard to get there.

On the other hand if it's very funny (or has a very engaging story), the art can take the backseat, but you'll have a harder job convincing people to read your stuff than if it was well drawn.

Man... here we go again with the "drawing good" argument...
Okay, let's go:

That's narrow-minded and shallow. Just because somebody's able to draw every friggin' muscle of the human body doesn't mean he's an artist. It means that he's able to draw the human body in all its complexity. PERIOD!

Sure, the Webcomics nowadays seem to say something different, but quite honestly: there are countless of them, and most of them are horrible.
I can tell you exactly why they are horrible, too:
because all the creators of those comic care about is that they look beautiful.
They waste hundreds of hours for the trilliards of different t-shirts their protagonist could wear during the story, how often he or she could change his or her hairdo and what not.
Do they spend time on their protagonists background story, which would explain why they are the way they are?
Do they try to let a story advance like a story instead of just making ten pages of needless conversation, showing their protagoist in various poses to let the readers understand how awesome he or she is?
Do they try to make a layout that supports the events happening in the page?
Do they try to make the reader identify himself with the character?
Do they work on their dialogues / punchlines?
Do they use backgrounds and/or colors to support the dialogues or their characters emotions?

No they don't. If they did, they actually had solid comics. (I'm not saying there aren't any out there, there are a lot, but compared to the horrible ones, they're in the minority. And what a minority that is...)

But they have readers, too. Why? Because the readers are as superficial as the artist is! They care about the appearance. If it looks good, it must be an ace-comic!!!
Or, also: if it contains my favorite fandom, it must be an ace-comic!!! (and if it contains the fandom, it doesn't even have to look good either.)
But in 4 years, nobody will give a damn about it anymore.

GOOD COMICS, however, don't care about that sh*t.
Look at Art Spiegelmans "Maus". Where are the overly detailed characters? Where are the astonishing perspectives?
Well, there aren't any. Spiegelman used a disturbing, caricatured style to describe one of the most gruesome events of the human history.
His disturbing way to display settings and backgrounds let the readers feel as if they were there themselves.
His caricatured characters let the readers identify themselves with them and go through what they had to.
His narration, slightly kafkaesque imho (but if you beg to differ, I don't have a problem with that) actually allowed the readers to see the true horror.
And those are only some details, I could go on all day...

He won the Pulitzer Price for a reason. Maus was exhibited in the NY Museum of Modern Arts for a reason. It is considered one of the top comics of our (and perhaps all) times - AND ART! - for a reason. Great comic artists from all over the world look up to Spiegelman for a reason.
And that reason isn't "he draws so super-detailed stuff!"

Get that in your head once and for all:
For a Comic Book, it's not only the "art" that counts!
And for a Comic Strip, it's not only the punchline!
Comics aren't that simple and onesided. Truth be told: nothing ever is.

I can't add anymore to this, it looks as if loam has hit it on the head, and I agree especially with "Look at Art Spiegelmans "Maus". Where are the overly detailed characters? Where are the astonishing perspectives?"

Comic books are a discipline and an art unto themselves. It is a medium of storytelling, just like a joke is. It's about timing, visual punch, and the right set of printed word.

One of my big issues I have with the idea that something can't be detailed and funny is that it harks to the belief that the simplicity of cartooning or comic strip work is an easy thing to pull off. It's a study in abstraction and consistency in style that has to be attained and referenced consistently to let the reader enjoy the story and the art in a unified motion of interaction.

Metalbender... Umm hello did you not know that I exist?

Loam: I think you are confusing the terms "good art" and "detailed art"

Good art means that the forms are easily identifiable, there is consistency or shape, size, etc. There can be a lot of styles, some minimalist, some extravagant/detailed. Extravagant does not equal good, and minimalist does not equal good. They are two different spectrums.

This Spiegelman you mentioned (I had to look him up) has very good art. So I don't understand why he shows that you don't need good art.

If you mean it isn't an oil painting the likes of Monet or Cezanne, well, this is true. But those are a different style of art. Neither is better or worse. Each artist had to develop a style and use that to comunicate.


As for the topic at hand... I have to admit that most of the 'funny' comics I have seen are minimalist, or close to it. And that is fine. That does not make their art bad.

I for one am trying to increase my art quality on my 'funny' comic, AND have a less minimalist feel. I think that you can have a great funny comic with lots of detailed artwork. Part of the reason I think we don't see more highly detailed gag a day stuff, is because of the time constraint that the level of detail adds to the creation process. If I were to make my comic a daily comic, I would have to simply (ie minimalist) the art quite a bit to be able to crank out the volume art needed.

Most story comics are not a once a day thing, but have more spread out update schedule which allows for more detail oriented comics. (Except for Usedbooks who outputs hers EVERY day! I don't know how she does it! holy cow! That is amazing.)

Most funny comics have derived their style and tone from newspaper comics (which are also mostly funny, and mostly minimalist) because of their update nature :)

I think it all boils down to how much effort (not talent) it takes to do an extravagant comic. There is an equal amount of talent required for a good minimalist comic as for a good detailed comic.

Thanks for the comment and I understand your point - I wholeheartedly agree with you as well. However, I think you got me wrong here (understandable, I'm not a native speaker after all, must've written it down badly - sorry for that)
Let me get something clear: I see the difference between good art and detailed art - and I know/believe that good art doesn't necessarily have to be detailed and vice versa.

However, it was actually Metalbender who confused those terms, since he wrote - I quote:
"I don't know if I want to make a comic that looks good or is funny."
Funny comics can's look really nice. It takes away from the humor. you can't get too complex."
"Story driven comics use better art "
"There just doesn't seem to be a place for gag-a-day comics with great art."

Which was what pissed me off in the first place - amongst the question whether or not to pick a comic or a strip because of the drawings. Sure, gag-a-day strips are usually less detailed for the reasons you've already mentioned. Still, that doesn't mean their art was worse. If you want to draw something cartoony that looks solid, you'll still have to learn about human anatomy, light & shadows / volume, composition, dynamic poses, color theory and how they're all called - you'll have to know how to draw realistically first.
Funny comics aren't a cheap way of getting around those things. Just because they're less detailed doesn't mean they were less good - and it also doesn't mean that the artist wasn't able to draw a reaslitic comic.

I used Spiegelman to show this difference. His art isn't detailed, but it is GOOD art - more than that, it's glorious art -, that's what I wanted to say.
I could also use Bill Watterson as an example.

Okay, I hope I wrote it down more understandable this time O_o If there's still confusion, feel free to point it out ;) And sorry for confusing you in the first place.

Knowing how much detail to use is a subject worth studying in itself. Humor naturally benefits from subtlety but you have to understand that comics are a story telling medium. The art serves the story; without the story you just have directionless, wordless pictures.

But whatever you do, don't think "style" and "bad art" are synonymous. Peanuts had really childish art but the simplistic and expressive faces helped serve the offbeat (and often depressing) humor.

Atland
The Dreggs
Pinkerton
Faults

Look at Calvin and Hobbes. The art isn't the best thing in the world, but there's both a small storyline and humor.

Look at The Peanuts. The art definitely isn't the best on the market, but it doesn't stop the comic (and whatever else from The Peanuts) to shine.

I don't think I need to go into great detail with this post.

I don't know. I thought the art in Calvin & Hobbes was extraordinary. It's one of the few news paper comics that I found really exciting, because of the art and expression. Some of the funniest things in that comic came from the artwork, because Watterson could emote very, very well without letting the dialogue control everything.

First, I concur that simple does NOT equal bad. If the question is whether gag-a-days better when they have bad art, the answer is no. "Bad" art is, by definition, never better. Bad art can be simple or complex. (Complex bad art is often far worse than simple bad art.) Is simple art better than complex art for gag-a-days? In my opinion, yes.

I find the best art in any comic strikes a balance. Super detailed art can be very distracting for me when I'm reading. I find simplified characters with exaggerated expressions easier to empathize with for some strange reason. I think that's one reason I prefer a lot of the Japanese styles over the detailed American ones.

However, a story requires a bit more detail than a gag-a-day, particularly when it comes to setting and "props." Stories have to have some atmosphere and you need to know where people are and see the things around them. They also tend to have more complex characters (and more of them), so require more than stick people -- especially when conveying some sense of realism and evoking empathy from readers. Gag-a-days, on the other hand, often require no setting. They are most effective when the world is stripped down to the joke at hand -- often just a couple simple characters with facial expressions. Maybe a prop or two. Sometimes an item in the background to suggest the location. Never any object that doesn't relate to the joke. (Garfield, The Far Side, etc. show this minimal setting approach.)

Actually, art is more important than text. :)
But not more than humour or whatever story you're trying to convey...

The reason is that comics are a way of conveying stuff though images mainly, with some accompanying text. But they're always conveying something. Without images of some kind or images that do most of the work, all you've got is a story or joke with some illustrations, NOT a comic. You don't need ANY text at all in a comic to tell a story or joke, but it still needs to be "written" well. :)

The art doesn't have to be colourful, detailed or anything special, as long as it's there and does the job of conveying what the comic's meant to be about.

True that! It's been my philosophy that you should never say something that you could draw. The art is the most important component it's what makes this medium we call comics.

Neilsama
I don't know. I thought the art in Calvin & Hobbes was extraordinary. It's one of the few news paper comics that I found really exciting, because of the art and expression. Some of the funniest things in that comic came from the artwork, because Watterson could emote very, very well without letting the dialogue control everything.

Watterson was a genius. Period.
He knew exactly where to draw the line between text and image, and exactly how much detail was needed to express the emotional 'feel' of an image without distracting from it or slowing down the 'punch'.
He was also a master of 'drawing things by not drawing them', a rare gift displayed by only the best in the trade.
If you asked me if Calvin and Hobbes is detailed artwork, I would respond emphatically... YES! But if you study the economy of line in this work, it is extremely efficient with very little detail.
(And likewise the text)