I mean, most comics are not masterpieces, and some comics(including print ones) the characters are so wierdly/badly drawn that its hard to recognize who they are or supposed to be. And in regards to artwork, people with a cartoony style can have less effort put into it than a realistic style of drawing, and yet the realistic style can be branded as "bad artwork" while the cartoon can be branded as "good artwork".

My drawings aren't the best, but they certainly not the worst, and details that I just let go justifying it with it being my style, a person complained saying its "a bad drawing." Granted, that particular person would complain even if I drew a masterpiece, but that just brought up the question in my mind.

So where does the line get drawn on style vs just plain bad?

Most modern professional or near pro cartoonists DO know how to draw realistically. Take Calvin and Hobbes, for example. It's mostly cartoony, but then every so often you got a really detailed, realistic strip (the ones where Calvin and Susie are playing grownups comes to mind).

However if people try to dismiss you for not 'understanding' their 'style' go tell them to show you a piece of work they did which is anatomically/proportionatly correct. Usually, however, your eye can tell if someone's work is refined or not. When someone knows what they're doing, even if they draw cartoony it LOOKS refined to a certain point. Just like if someone really knows perspective then they can twist perspective to do what they want and still make it look good.

I think ccs1989 said it all right.

One of my teachers has been a professional working in the animation industry for years. He's just got done working on Spiderman 3. He's an incredible artist, by the way, so I trust him.

I was a stupid fledgling wiener artist trying to develop my own style before my time. He told me it's worthless to be some inexperienced artist and try and create your own style. According to him, the artists who get the best results learn to draw realisticly, so they understand the human body and all its nuances. Then they know what to bend, stretch, and deform and make it look good. As ccs1989 mentioned, Bill Watterson is an excellent example.

The best thing you can do for improving your artistic skill is to take figure drawing classes or at least practice drawing actual human beings from life or photos. Get good at drawing the human figure and you can draw anything.

One other thought:
An artist once told me that our style is essetially the sum of all our mistakes in drawing. I believe that is true, with the exception that some elements of a person's style are deliberately done.

Your art style will remain consistent as long as you keep making the same mistakes. If you gradually iron out your mistakes, you'll eventually be left with a style that is very deliberate and well under your control. And probably a lot better looking.

Well, the two guys said it all.

but I do have something to add. it's also a matter of personal taste..

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", as that saying goes. What seems like really beautiful artwork to one person might seem hideously ugly to others.

There will always be a certain style that attracts some people, but totally repels others.

some people may not even be fans of the realistic style, and be more fans of the cartoony look because they feel that look is more entertaining, etc. They might feel that the realistic look seems to demand that the story needs respect, even if it's like a funny comic book or something. then of course they wouldn't know what to make of it.

or maybe they may not even like the realistic look because they want to escape from reality into the world of comics for a short while, and the characters looking like real people kinda defeats that purpose, because then they are reminded of their mundane everyday lives...

Anyway, that's just what I think.

personally, I like most styles.. expect for that "Sketchy" look. that look is just way too way messy for my tastes, even if the story and characters are well done.

Hawk is 100% right.

Speaking from personal experience, I don't think I ever accomplished my own style til I took some life drawing and learned how to actually draw in the first place. Before that I was just... emulating influences instead of knowing what to do on my own.

It's totally boring and totally lacks any style or polish so you can't show it off, but training first gives you the tools to play better.

However, I still can't draw mega-realistic faces for the life of me. ;P

I think in the end it all comes down to what looks good.

I"m a big fan of the saying "You have the know the rules in order to break them proprly." It's usualy pretty easy to tell who's got a grasp on basic design and who dosen't. I tend to be pretty wary of anyone who's hiding behind 'it's just my style.' There's a diffrence between styalization and sill needing figure drawing practace.

Yeah, I agree with the 'You have to know the rules to break them.' thing.

Although I'm a hypocrit when it comes to this...

Ohh, GREAT. When you read TEO, you're getting what I consider rather good stuff from me. Meaning that, since it's not realistic, and I'm not exactly experienced enough to have the cred to back my weird, angular style up, then I'm obviously not a very good comic artist. (I mean, I haven't gone through all the classes and everything. I have a basic sense of proportions and stuff, but that's kind of it.)

Am I right in that?

~IJ

From country to country? I doubt bad artwork changes once you go beyond an imaginary border line. Art transends those borderlines. Good art should be immediatly apparent to the trained eye, while bad art should also be apparent to those trained to see the problems with it.

The way I see it is that any style is good, as long as it effectively creates the emotional atmosphere that it's supposed to. It has to coincide with both the plot and the authors indended perspective. Originality is a neccesity, but the style actually has to work.

I'm not really drawing comics right now, but my style pretty much sucked. I had no skill to begin with though.

When does bad artwork turn into 'style'?
When their style doesn't improve.
If you've been drawing the same way since you were six you should stop hurting my brain and take you crap home.
If you happen to be a good writer of crappy drawn comics stick to writing and leave the drawing to those who are better than you.

Bad art is bad art.

Luckily, comics are not really 'art' - they are a hybrid art form of narrative and art - yielding something new.

SO, if your narrative is REALLY REALLY good, and you convey the narrative CLEARLY - the comic will be good, and the art, no matter how bad as long as it does its job - will become "style".

Generally the only way you can fuck up personal style, is by slavishly imitating another's artwork. If you don't do that, whatever you do for art, you're the best person in the world at doing what it is that you do.

Although I agree that having a good grasp on realism is a definate advantage, I don't think it is a prerequisite to being a great cartoonist.

Gart Larson for one.

Dosen't have to be great art, style is enough sometimes.

But Gary Larson is a great artist. He can simplify a drawing down to it's core elements and add detail that adds to the joke.

Gary Larson is a "simple" artist, but not a bad one by any stretch.

Lesse - I think Cathy is a terribly drawn - but is a decent comic that regularly is funny.

Gary Larson is a terrible artist to anyone that doesn't appreciate it. That's the worderful thing about opinions, we all get to be 'right' about what our opinion is.

if it looks good, its a style.

Ronson
But Gary Larson is a great artist. He can simplify a drawing down to it's core elements and add detail that adds to the joke.

Gary Larson is a "simple" artist, but not a bad one by any stretch.

The point about Gary Larson is that he can't draw anything other than what you see in his comics, and he's admitted it. He tried to draw, that's what he was capable of doing, so that's what he did.

And that's the point of this whole thread. He's not bad, per se, but he certainly can't draw realistically like most people will tell you is a must. Gary Larson is an example of a successful cartoony style in someone that didn't learn how to realistically. It's not necessary to do so.

It's a good idea to do so, as knowing the rules makes breaking them easier, but being able to draw realistically is definitely not a prerequisite to having a good style for a cartoony sort of strip.

Sam_Charette
The point about Gary Larson is that he can't draw anything other than what you see in his comics, and he's admitted it. He tried to draw, that's what he was capable of doing, so that's what he did.

And that's the point of this whole thread. He's not bad, per se, but he certainly can't draw realistically like most people will tell you is a must. Gary Larson is an example of a successful cartoony style in someone that didn't learn how to realistically. It's not necessary to do so.

It's a good idea to do so, as knowing the rules makes breaking them easier, but being able to draw realistically is definitely not a prerequisite to having a good style for a cartoony sort of strip.

You're right in the last paragraph... Studying realistic drawing isn't completely necessary to have an appealing cartoon style. But it's the best way to get there. And it will always look better if you do. People who study the human figure learn more than just how to draw people. They learn about lighting, line quality, composition, contrast, and more. This knowlege can go right into your own original style easily... even if your personal style only involves ducks or aliens.

Art-wise, Bill Watterson could run circles around Gary Larson. What saves Larson is his great sense of humor. If Far Side wasn't so dang funny, we probably wouldn't be so forgiving on the art. Dilbert might be another example. The art is simple and even derivative, but it works enough to get the point across. It's another comic strip saved by the jokes. A lot of comics don't even have good humor going for them.

mykill
Bad art is bad art.

Luckily, comics are not really 'art' - they are a hybrid art form of narrative and art - yielding something new.

If we consider the only element in this equation that is art to be 'visual' art then your argument stands, however if we think of comics as a hybrid of literature and visual art, then comics are still art. They're just combined art forms. Mixed media, if you will.

Of course then it gets doubly hard to get 'high level' comics which satisfy both the visual art and literature high level means. A good deal of Alan Moore's work and possibly Art Spegleman's Maus (and Maus II) might fit into the high level group because both the writing and art is very refined.

Comics are still an enigma in the art world for sure, though.

I agree. I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art today and-- get this-- no comic books or books on comics in the gift shop at ALL. It's like we don't even exist to them. I mean, maybe there might be some mention in MoMA, but not in the highfalutin' old Met.

By the by, the best insight on this topic that I've heard so far is:

kYuPoL
if it looks good, its a style.

Because it's true. You go with what works best. Sometimes it's realistic, but not always.

~IJ

Interesting, MoMA had an exhibit on anime and manga (and I'm still upset I missed it. ;_; I was in the city damnit!) and Roy Lichtenstein has been known to produce comic-ish pop art (I think you can find Drowning Girl in MoMA.)

Given that I can bubble wrap a staircase and call that art, I don't see why I can't call comic art. :)

.: Black Kitty :.

The museum of modern art does have comic art sometimes up on display, but the Metropolitan Museum of Art doesn't.

Comics have not yet entered into the annals of history as a well recieved 'art' genre. I've had many a debate about comics being art with a certain snooty girl in my art class. The funny thing is she has no depth perception. I guess that leads to not being able to read between the lines of artistic expression to see that comics are indeed art.

Anyway the argument usually ends with explitives on her part and definitions of art and examples of exhibits at the MoMA on mine.

The exact momement your start a webcomic, bad art becomes style.

Comics are art. Don't ever be bamboozled by some art enthusiast that gives you a distinction between "low art" and "high art", or something like that. If "Fine art" is the nut you want to crack... Making a comic into Fine Art is easy, as css1989 says, you've got Maus as a good example. Fine Art is all about its justification for being art, expressing some kind of theme other than the surface meaning...: an artist’s statement. But mainly it becomes Fine Art if you can convince enough critics, gallery owners and buyers; then you've got it made. :-D

And skill doesn't really matter with Fine Art. Skill is just something you use to help you produce the work you want to.

But back to the topic at hand... Bad art becomes a "style" when you want it to. You can always stick with a certain look if that's what you prefer, or you can make yourself improve so that you're able to choose from a range of looks. If you stick with one for whatever reason, that's your style. Viewers aren't to know weather you normally draw like Leonardo da’Vinci or not in your other work, what they see is what they get.
Acquiring more skills is preferable though if you want to be able to do more things with your art.

I actually use many different styles for my comics. Some are very very cartoony. Then I'll wip out a semi-realistic comic. And sometimes I fall inbetween.

A lot of the time, my most cartoonish comics have been critiqued the hardest, People seemed to think I was being lazy or had settld for a really bad comic. But when I post comics that are semi=-realsic I recieve comments of praise and that, " Your art is really improving." Indeed it is. Working with many styles lets me expand my abilities and cater to my readers taste.

Style and bad art are really a matter of perspective.

To each his own.

Some may say my stuff is bad. But others say its not it's really all a matter of opinion. And if it's a matter of the artist not putting forth their best work you have to ask why?
Why didn't you do your best?
Why didn't your new page look like your last?
Sometimes dead lines and outsides pressures can effect ones art. Especially in comic booking. :?

jasonspringer
Sometimes dead lines and outsides pressures can effect ones art. Especially in comic booking. :?

Well, many other comic artists seem to manage it just fine. Not critiquing you; I'm just sayin'.

~IJ

deadline pressures: This is why comic art is a higher artform than any other. The comic artist draws forth images spontaneously from their very soul - instead of working the heart out of an image the way a fine artist does.

It's a zen thing - the very best you are capable of being exists in spontaneity, wherein you are absent.

Moma is full of commercial hacks! Comics are the true high art! Remember that! All other artists are like shit compared to you!

mykill
deadline pressures: This is why comic art is a higher artform than any other. The comic artist draws forth images spontaneously from their very soul - instead of working the heart out of an image the way a fine artist does.

Oooooo, there are times. Many a time the fine artist is madly rushing to produce enough work for an exhibition or gallery showing- missing sleep and meals…

A comic artist's strength is in the requirement that their work must be understood by their audience, they can't afford quite the same arrogance as a fine artist. Comic artists are much better at getting their meaning across and connecting with people.

mykill
deadline pressures: This is why comic art is a higher artform than any other. The comic artist draws forth images spontaneously from their very soul - instead of working the heart out of an image the way a fine artist does.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or intentionally provocative (for lack of a better word) like you usually are but there are fine artists who deal with the spontaneous as well. Best examples that comes to mind are the dadaists and Jackson Pollock.

Fine artists also have deadlines too. Sometimes the deadlines may seem ridiculously long but if you think about some of the things that fine artists do, it sometimes doesn't really seem that ridiculous.

As a side note, I've done cartoony stuff for my art classes occasionally and I've never really gotten into any trouble for it. Similarly, I know this guy who always does comics no matter what the assignment is. I've never seen him do anything else and it never became an issue in any of the art classes I had with him.

For me, the only difference between comics and art is intent and categorization. There's also a certain level of expectations that people have of art and comics. People expect comics to be entertaining and art to be cultural and an example of technical skills. This is why people get upset when they see DuChamp's urinal and how was I suppose to know that it's about the 2 year moratorium that the Canadian government placed on cod fishing in 1992? I only knew that after I read the explaination found on the website.

The response I usually get is that there will always be things that people won't understand OR that they don't want to be creating work for stupid people anyway.

This is why for some fine artists, kittens in hammocks and cottages by the river will always be more desirable then their work. :?

.: Black Kitty :.