I confess that during my previous efforts at DD site cartooning I spent huge amounts of time on the artwork in comparison to the writing. As a result I had a small fan base and was doing okay.

But this time around I am definitely giving the artwork second place in the scheme of things and am really working hard on the writing, specifically making those gags of mine work for the reader. Ahem! I am clawing my way up the rankings in jig time. Yeah, yeah, as likely as not I'm going to hit a plateau soon and level out. I know how these things generally work out. But the differences in ranking elevation between this effort and my previous DD effort is startling.

So what do you think? Is the artwork or the writing more important to the success of a gag strip . . . or even a ongoing story type of work for that matter?

I think they go hand in hand. The artwork if executed very well can keep a lasting draw for previous readers and also be a harkening for new readers to jump onboard.

I never tire of re-reading old Calvin and Hobbes or Scrooge McDuck stuff, but it's because the artwork was handled with effortless beauty. Both Bill Watterson and Carl Barks knew how to make worlds that visually melded with your head, yet supported the wonderful writing in both examples.

And I don't care how good the visuals could be. If the story isn't up to snuff, then it won't hold the attention or interest necessary to provide anything for readers to want to care about the characters. That goes for serial storylines or one off gags.

Good points Druchii. I think about such icons as Breathed and Trudeau. Now the art work in Bloom County was great from the standpoint of hitting all the cartooning marks. From exaggeration to nuanced subtitles it was all there. Gary Trudeau's Doonesbury, on the other hand was, always far more about the writing than the artwork. Breathed, in contrast I think, struck the balance point perfectly.

My point being that today I will reread my collection of Doonesbury or Bloom County before I will open up one of my Watterson books. Bill was an even better artist than Breathed, I believe, but Breathed was the better writer -- or he simply wrote in a way that interested me more. Of course that's my subjective opinion and I acknowledge that I haven't any proof.

But rather than compare and contrast the greats I think the better illustration is on the DD level. Consider Inkmonkey and his fantastic run on Elijah and Azuu. Frankly his artwork was not all that great and yet his writing generally rocked. Now, under the category of writing I am including all the elements from plotting to characterization to the delivery of gags. Inkmonkey deserved to stay on top for his entire run of Elijah and Azuu because the man was one hell of a good storyteller.

If you care more about story go read a novel.

If you care more about go art go look at an art book.

This is COMICS AND SEQUENTIAL STORYTELLING. You cant have one without the other. If one flops, the whole thing flops. thats why comics is the hardest artform to be good at.

I think the received wisdom is that the artwork is more important for attracting readers in the first place, but that the writing is more important for keeping them. This is, however, a generalisation and there are exceptions.

Many of the fantasy comics on the web, for example, are very, very poorly written with cliched characters, recycled plot lines and mind-numbingly unrealistic dialogue ... but readers continue to flock to them because they look so damn gorgeous! Fantasy comics on the web have some of the best artwork anywhere, online or in print, and it does seem as if - in that genre at least - the quality of the eye candy on display can be far more important than the writing.

At the other end of the extreme, there are some very successful gag-strips which seem to have legions of fans in spite of having artwork that looks like it's been drawn by a five year old. With a crayon. Held between their teeth. Maybe this is because, typically, gag-strips are designed to be read in short bursts so that readers won't be staring at the artwork for any length of time. Whatever the reason, the success of a gag-strip is more likely to be determined by how funny the gags are, not by how well drawn the characters are. (Which is as it should be, I guess!)

Breathed is almost above perfect in writing in my book as well for me, so I do understand where you are going with your views. :)

I do think that if it's based on first impressions and even attempting to pull in a wider spectrum of readers, then like DAJB mentioned, artwork will always be the first to do that. And I will admit, I often "read" some stuff in stuff online just because the art is phenomenal. But I do find myself often drifting away from it after a while if I don't have the long term catalyst of a good storyline, or the premise of one to get me pulled in.

See, for me personally, there are many times I wrestle with the story and the art so intimately, because a look on a character's face or a positioning of figure or an establishing shot for locale can push the writing into a whole new level. And using myself as an example, I am first and foremost an illustrator (with a fair amount of storyboarding time that influences me to this day), it's what I went to school for. I have little to no ability in writing, and often look at my art as hollow if I can't get the dialog to click.

LOL!, I don't know, it's hard for me to say one is more important than the other, but in looking back at all the comics I have faved, the predominant reason was the artwork being good.

It's fascinating DAJB and Druchii, the relationship between visual art and writing. For myself, while I definitely appreciate the quality of the visual art, if the writing isn't there I don't keep coming back.

On a side note, it's been really difficult for me to keep my art on a very rudimentary basis with this new strip. My natural inclination and training is to go for realistic detail and plenty of it. Looking at my stuff, I feel as if I am walking around half clothed.

But as DAJB indicated, it's subjective and the element of 'taste' is dependent on the nature of the partucular audience members.

Druchii, I spent decades trying to become a novelist, and so that's possibly why the quality of the writing is my foremost consideration . . . well, this time around, that is.

NickGuy . . . I dunno. Consider that some people are massively successful using static photos with killer captions for accompaniment.

All of my faves are about the writing, be it good jokes or a compelling story. Most of the art in my favorites is on a "developing" level, and I like watching the artists develop. I have once or twice looked a comics with pretty artwork, but usually, I will just look at their latest page and think "fantastic artwork" and then leave and never return -- or drop in sporadically to appreciate another fine piece of art without commenting or committing. (I wonder if it's partly because I have no art ability myself, so I feel intimidated to leave comments and interact with the talented artists here.)

I'm not a typical "comic reader," though. Maybe it's because I'm not an artist myself. I guess my brain is wired differently. I can go to a gallery and look at art and be happy, but if I'm following a story, I want to empathize with characters and be into the story. The only comics I read as a kid were the newspaper funnies, and (not to dis the creators) few of those were shining examples of good artwork... I do the same things with TV and movies. With couple series I love, I actually found the art style distracting at first because of how weird it was, but I was so into the characters and plot that I didn't notice after a few episodes.

Now, the art has to be good enough to actually convey the story. I don't want to have to decipher which character is which, where they are and what objects they are using or actions they are doing. And the art can't be completely repulsive either (bright magenta and neon green as predominant colors, characters with anatomy distorted beyond any semblance of human, etc.) Aside from that, I'm happy reading any good story where the creator puts in the effort.

I think we are on the same page here Vickie. If the story or gags are great I can tolerate a great deal of mediocre visual art, but not the reverse.

As for the color scheme issues, yes, I recall several years ago when one of the DD forum regulars was on a rant about color wheels and the usage thereof where artwork was concerned. He made several good points. But then there is always room for improvement, eh?

CharleyHorse
As for the color scheme issues, yes, I recall several years ago when one of the DD forum regulars was on a rant about color wheels and the usage thereof where artwork was concerned. He made several good points. But then there is always room for improvement, eh?

That's one reason I hesitate switching to color. Coloring often hides flawed perspective/anatomy/art (people have to be really *good* to pull off professional-looking B&W or grayscale work). But when people who aren't the best artists to begin with start adding color, they almost always neglect to consider color theory and all the extra "art" things that go along with it.

Still, I notice that people are more likely to "get away" with (lots of readers, etc.) mediocre art skills if they use color -- regardless of whether they use it well.

usedbooks
I have once or twice looked a comics with pretty artwork, but usually, I will just look at their latest page and think "fantastic artwork" and then leave and never return -- or drop in sporadically to appreciate another fine piece of art without commenting or committing. (I wonder if it's partly because I have no art ability myself, so I feel intimidated to leave comments and interact with the talented artists here.)

I've had a few people tell me that before, and to be honest, no matter how good the artist or writer is, there is always room for improvement and growth. I so often like to hear creative criticism or what didn't work in my work than otherwise. And I am far far far from being as good as I'd like to be both in writing and in art. But now that I think about it, I guess the aspect I like the best is when people begin to care about the story.

I try to hit a random comic per week and spend one to two hours going through it for a lot of the reasons you mentioned, seeing the growth of the artist, to see how the story develops, etc.

Man, this topic really has been stuck in my head since I first replied to it. :D

DAJB
I think the received wisdom is that the artwork is more important for attracting readers in the first place, but that the writing is more important for keeping them.

I think that's a pretty good way of putting it.

Hawk

DAJB
I think the received wisdom is that the artwork is more important for attracting readers in the first place, but that the writing is more important for keeping them.

I think that's a pretty good way of putting it.

That's totally what I was gonna say.

That being said, a good story with bad art is more forgivable than a bad story with beautiful art.
Case in point: XKCD. Stick figures. Brilliant anecdotes. Sensational.

I was going to give an example of a bad story with good art, but I realized I never bookmark those, because they're boring.

So I would say writing is slightly more important. There's a reason we say we're "reading" comics, rather than looking at them. The art might draw us in, but we do come for the good story, too.

We've had this topic about 4 or 5 times...

There IS no separation, the art and story in a comic is the same thing.
These are comics we're talking about, not illustrated stories.

Most of the story or gag can be expressed in the image, ALL of it can be in the image with no text there at all. Basically, in a comic, the art IS the writing. If your art isn't expressing the story properly (or the gag or whatever), then your art isn't up to scratch. It doesn't have to be pretty, it just has to do the work of carrying the narrative or joke.

Your art expresses the writing in the way you want it to. (abstract, simple, detailed, whatever).
-If your story is crap or your gags aren't funny, but your art is still pretty, then you're failing... You have to sync those two up, put more effort into the aspect you're doing badly at.

ozoneocean
There IS no separation, the art and story in a comic is the same thing.
These are comics we're talking about, not illustrated stories.

You're right of course, Ozone. That is pretty much the definition of a comic. I'm firmly of the view, for example, that many of the stories in Neil Gaiman's Sandman are not comics at all, but illustrated stories. The words and pictures do not work together; the one simply duplicates the other and either could be removed completely without affecting the narrative.

The original question, however, was which is more important for success. Without getting into a heavy debate on what constitutes "success" (because we've had that discussion a few times, too!), in readership terms, it does seem to be the case that good writing will help to grow an audience over time but that, if the artwork doesn't draw people in to start with, no-one will ever get to appreciate that writing.

Again, there are always exceptions.

No matter how pretty the art, I absolutely will not read something that is poorly-written. Completely ruins it for me.

On the other hand, I'm willing to tolerate a style I dislike or slightly sub-par artwork for great writing.

Of course, a union of the two aspects is always best, in the case of comics.

Yes, when the visual art and the writing both pop then the strip or comic book tends to rise toward the top and stay there. But considering that not everybody can master even one of the necessary skills sets, not to mention both, greater weight must be given to the writing; which as I stated, includes everything from plotting to characterization to timing in setting up and then delivering the comedic or emotional payoff.

Good art draws me in but story makes me stay, like DAJB said, it shalt be quoted one billioneth times for truth.

As far as webcomics go which is more important; Art is. Here me out, webcomics are in a way entertainment fluff, you show me a webcomic that has a meaning behind its great writing(like published comics such as 'maus', watchmen, neil gaimen's work, etc) and I'll be thoroughly impressed.

My definition of great writing is writing with a purpose in mind. Yeah the purpose of webcomics is to entertain,they all seem to do that, but not much more. That's completely fine! But in the end the comic is forgettable. It won't make a lasting impact on your readers mind as it would have if you wrote with purpose.
I'm having trouble putting this eloquently so read scott mcClouds 'Understanding comics'. You'll probably think; 'I already do understand comics hmmph' but not the level of what this book can teach you. It's really made me look at how frivolous my writing is, and how i can change it for the better.

-White Oprah Jr.

Skullbie
As far as webcomics go which is more important; Art is.

As I look through the list of comics I love and frequently read, I've noticed that they all have pretty good art. I think I also prioritize art in my webcomic choices.

But I also think that a lot of times, those artists who have put in the time and practice to make really good art are also a little smarter and more experienced than those who haven't. They've probably been making comics longer. And because of this, I think good stories tend to accompany good artwork more frequently.

CharleyHorse
NickGuy . . . I dunno. Consider that some people are massively successful using static photos with killer captions for accompaniment.

but thats not comics.

What's more important? The STORY being told... the writing and art are just materials used to build the story from.

Wordless comics still have some sort of writing behind them, the story must be written down (even if it is one's memory) before it can be transferred onto the paper. Likewise, very experimental nearly artless comics that operate from very minimalistic or perhaps even basic geometric figures (I even saw something that was only word balloons and captions), even then there's SOME art involved. Can't really have comics without both. And both should be in the service of the story.

Of course that's not a "there is only one path" medium we're talking about and one of my favorite creators is Philippe Druillet, and his art ALWAYS dominates the story (at times even looking like he just did some sequential pages to simply connect a bunch of unrelated pieces of art).

i think alot of people are misinterpreting what exactly the importance of art in a comic means.

it doesnt necessarily mean how "good" the art is, or how well it is technically drawn...The art needs to be clear and concise and able to tell the story. Look at james kochalka's stuff. The art needs to tell the story.

Neither one is more important. They are both equal in determining the success of a comic.

ozoneocean
We've had this topic about 4 or 5 times...

There IS no separation, the art and story in a comic is the same thing.
These are comics we're talking about, not illustrated stories.

Most of the story or gag can be expressed in the image, ALL of it can be in the image with no text there at all. Basically, in a comic, the art IS the writing. If your art isn't expressing the story properly (or the gag or whatever), then your art isn't up to scratch. It doesn't have to be pretty, it just has to do the work of carrying the narrative or joke.

Your art expresses the writing in the way you want it to. (abstract, simple, detailed, whatever).
-If your story is crap or your gags aren't funny, but your art is still pretty, then you're failing... You have to sync those two up, put more effort into the aspect you're doing badly at.

this is a very good point and it inspires me to return to making stories that have zero text

A mix of both, Scott McCloud has some good points in his: Making Comics book, it's a worthwhile read for anyone.

I think of the "writing" as the plan for the story, the entire plotline, jokes, etc., and the "art" as the execution of that plan (not just the pictures but the panel layout, lettering, and entire visual presentation).

So, it's sort of like asking what is more important in film, the script or the production?

You can't have a movie without a script. You can't make a good movie from a lousy script. -- But bad production (actors, sets, cinematography) can ruin a good script, and a script by itself is not a movie.

If you have a good writer who can sum lots of things up in fewer words it allows the art to flow and tell the rest. That is great combo.

It hit me earlier today... art and writing is like eating and drinking (and by drinking I mean water/tea/coffee/juice... NOT boozing up :P ). Can't live without both.

Edit: I'm a moron sometimes, fixed. lol

If you had to choose which half of your body is more important, would it be the left half or the right half?

False comparison freefall_drift . Some artists use the same photograph of the same figure and manage to create popular strips based simply on the writing. Granted, the ability to do this is rare indeed and such strips have a limited appeal. As has been pointed out quite frequently in this thread, however, it is not rare at all for beautifully rendered strips or comics to go belly up simply because of bad writing.

Still, as has also been pointed out the best of all usually have a decent blending of both elements.