What do you look for the most in the comics you read, the artistic quality or the story? Would you read a comic if you like the characters, plot, setting, etc, but the visuals weren't the greatest?

Story, the art can be nothing at all as long as the writing is great. Look at that one web comic with the Two Dinosaurs, I can't think of the name. It uses the same panels every time but through writing has manage to become one of the most popular comics online.

Both.
It's true that a comic is nothing without a good story. But without decent visuals to carry that story the comic also fails epically.

I mean think about it. If there was a fantastically gripping storyline, how much of the emotion and suspense would come though if it was just stick figures all from the same angle with crudely drawn speech bubbles taking up half the panels?

It's finding some sort of balance between the two. Maybe leaning slightly or moderately towards one more than the other depending on which would work best for the kind of feeling you want the readers to have when they read your comic.


It's TEXTBOOK!

Neither one is more important than the other.

Comics are a usually perfect blend of art, and storytelling. If one was without the other, then it's not a comic. It would either be pictures, or writing. That's it.

Comics are one of the most unique art forms, because it combines two different art forms into one. Art helps the reader to see what the writer wanted the story to look like, including characters, setting, etc...

So both are really, really important.

I think they're equally important.
If someone is great at writing stories but horrible at drawing, they should stick to what they're good at and write novels or find an artist. And vice-versa.
Slightly off-topic, but what also turns me off of webcomics is when there are tons of spelling mistakes or it's handwritten and illegible. If someone is taking the trouble to make a comic, they might as well take the time to put their dialogue through a spell checker.

Both? I mean, comics = visual story-telling. I won't keep reading a comic with art I don't like, unless the story is amazing from panel one. It just won't hold my attention. Nor will I read one with amazing art that has a crap story.

Of course Both are important, but it seems to me that good writing can carry a badly drawn comic better than good art can cary a badly written comic.

Achewood, Order of the Stick and Dinosaur comics have art that's functional at best but all three are well regarded and incredibly popular.

I can't think of a single counter example.

We had a thread for this in comic discussion...

I agree with Hyena, Art is the most important. It's like an incentive to get through a story, even if it's mediocre.

This will be morved to comic discussion...
And maybe locked because we already have that in a thread topic there. :(

But I know how hard it is for newcommers, and this is a forum on a comic website afterall so people logically think they should be able to talk comics in the main forum. :)
-----------------
So I'll leave it without moving it myself for now. ^__^

-----------------
The answer is that comics are about narative art. Without art all you have is a story. Without a story all you have is a picture. Niether is more important because they're one and the same as long as it's a comic, no matter how good or bad the art or how good or bad the story or joke. -But you have no need of text as long as your art still tells the story...
But the story is always there nonetheless.

Story. As long as the art gets the point across, I'm fine with it. I've left webcomics for being too much the opposite of this after a while.

I agree with Ozone on this. To add my few nearly worthless pennies; if you concentrate on story you might as well write a narrative novel and forget the pictures. Conversely, pretty pictures might as well be in an art gallery rather than narrating a story.

A lot of comic writing is knowing when to shut up and let the pictures carry it and knowing when to add narration and conversation. I'm still learning that and damn if it isn't a steep curve.

Story, art is just the way of telling a story, it really doesn't matter much at all. Too many comics have awesome art but shit stories. I don't mind if it's the other way around.

Although I agree with what most of you say, I feel that in the end it is important to have artwork that is at least decent. After all, even though people say "don't judge a book by it's cover" I'm sure many people first click on a comic (or pick one up in the bookstore) because they notice the artwork.

Without decent artwork, you won't get noticed!

BffSatan
Story, art is just the way of telling a story, it really doesn't matter much at all. Too many comics have awesome art but shit stories. I don't mind if it's the other way around.

Ditto.

I guess the real answer to the question is "it depends on who's reading it"

Phillby
Achewood, Order of the Stick and Dinosaur comics have art that's functional at best but all three are well regarded and incredibly popular.

See, that's where you're missing the point. Those comics are stronger because the style of the art enhances the nature of the writing. None of those comics would be "better" if the art were more elaborate, because that would clash the writing style employed.

The best example I can think of is the Perry Bible Fellowship . The comic dips and dives wildly between very simple art , very complex art , and, well, pretty much whatever else the artist feels like .

The thing is, he alters the art based on what matches the joke best. The second page I linked to is a lot funnier because of the intensity given to the subject matter, whereas the first one is funny in simpler, cartoonish form, but would be distractingly grotesque (instead of delightfully macabre) if it had been rendered more realistically.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that simple art isn't the same as bad art.

I'd say more of the story with some nice art cause it wouldn't be a comic with out a story.

I think a lot of people here say story because they can't draw, and think that means that they can write.

I'd actually contribute, but Inkmonkey said exactly what I was going to say, so I'll leave it at that.

Inkmonkey

Phillby
Achewood, Order of the Stick and Dinosaur comics have art that's functional at best but all three are well regarded and incredibly popular.

See, that's where you're missing the point. Those comics are stronger because the style of the art enhances the nature of the writing. None of those comics would be "better" if the art were more elaborate, because that would clash the writing style employed.

The best example I can think of is the Perry Bible Fellowship . The comic dips and dives wildly between very simple art , very complex art , and, well, pretty much whatever else the artist feels like .

The thing is, he alters the art based on what matches the joke best. The second page I linked to is a lot funnier because of the intensity given to the subject matter, whereas the first one is funny in simpler, cartoonish form, but would be distractingly grotesque (instead of delightfully macabre) if it had been rendered more realistically.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that simple art isn't the same as bad art.

I'll accept your point in the case of Dinosaur Comics (The unchanging clip-art is pretty much the point of the thing), however:

Simple art shouldn't be immune to crtique. Your PBF example is an example of a simple art style drawn competently by a skilled artist. This does not describe the art in OOTS or Achewood.

I don't think that OOTS or Achewood would suffer from having better art.

OOTS' stick figures are stiff. The only part of their bodies that ever bends is their limbs. Compare them to the stick figures in Raymondo Person . The figures are identical in construction, yet RP's are livelier and more expresive.

Both OOTS and Achewood have shown less evoloution in their art than Ctrl Alt Del. This brings be back to my original point, that these strips are well written so people are willing to defend art that is entirely functional. I.E. good writing can save an ugly strip.

dragodraconis
I'd say more of the story with some nice art cause it wouldn't be a comic with out a story.

it wouldnt be a comic without art either.

i agree with Ink and Custard.

remember, a good story keeps readers reading, but good art makes them pick it up in the first palace.

Jonko
Although I agree with what most of you say, I feel that in the end it is important to have artwork that is at least decent. After all, even though people say "don't judge a book by it's cover" I'm sure many people first click on a comic (or pick one up in the bookstore) because they notice the artwork.

Without decent artwork, you won't get noticed!

So true.

PIT_FACE
remember, a good story keeps readers reading, but good art makes them pick it up in the first palace.

Also true. But... "palace"? Heh. I go to the first palace for all my comic needs, too. ;)

The art doesn't have to be overly complicated, or what can be considered as traditionally "professional" quality; just competent, unique, and eye-catching.

I will say there are a few exceptions- xkcd is the first one that comes to mind. I hate looking at it, but I think it's frickin' brilliant.

haha, shit!that was supposed to be a SECRET palace too!crap....

PIT_FACE
haha, shit!that was supposed to be a SECRET palace too!crap....

I think we should upgrade it to castle.

One of those evil, decrepit castles on top of some craggy mountain. With inexplicable fire columns shooting out of random cracks and crevices. And possibly zombie wolves, patrolling the vicinity.

Custard Trout
I think a lot of people here say story because they can't draw, and think that means that they can write.

That is a two way street. Just because you can draw doesn't mean you can write.

Inkmonkey
See, that's where you're missing the point. Those comics are stronger because the style of the art enhances the nature of the writing. None of those comics would be "better" if the art were more elaborate, because that would clash the writing style employed.

I completely agree! And based on that I'd say that if the art facilitates or lets the story shine through and lets the reader relax and be absorbed, I'm good :) The story is pivotal- the art necessary to the above level.

Hyena H_ll

PIT_FACE
haha, shit!that was supposed to be a SECRET palace too!crap....

I think we should upgrade it to castle.

One of those evil, decrepit castles on top of some craggy mountain. With inexplicable fire columns shooting out of random cracks and crevices. And possibly zombie wolves, patrolling the vicinity.

hell yes!and it'll all be bought with a form of currency that only we know about and if anyone says we cant we'll just call em racist!

Chernobog
Story. As long as the art gets the point across, I'm fine with it. I've left webcomics for being too much the opposite of this after a while.

i agree that the story has to be engaging (in a story based book) and the jokes funny (in a strip based piece).

i have stopped reading, altogether, one VERY popular webcomic some years ago because the story just seemed to go nowhere (like "LOST") while the art was pretty good and very detailed (even if it was just photoshopped "contrast" enhanced pencils).

i read a lot of comics with artists who are just starting out in the realm, who have original ideas and fun stories.

you could have a REALLY awesome, full color, photoshopped, 40+ hour time spent per page, comic about "World of Warcraft" and i could care less.

I would say both. But that I find art most important.

Tho I must say, if they story isnt good, I wont keep track of it much and eventually Ill totally forget about it.
Even if the art is amazing.

Actually prefer reading comics with decent art(not at pro level) with the same decent story.

But I really wouldnt read a story with really really awful art (or art where there is no whatsoever backgrounds other than the chair the character is sitting on or whatever) even if the person can draw humans oh so beautifully, even if it has a great story to it.

But then again, I'm very picky..

The most important is... both! Or, to be more precise, the cooperation between the art and story is the most important. Whether it uses captions, thought balloons or dialogues, whether it's stick figures or photorealism or manga, it's not important. As long as both blend together (or work through contrast) everything is fine.

i think none is more important than the other, but sometimes they can make up for what the other area lacks, some great writing/story may help lesser art, and so inversely, but i think there is nothing like balance.