I consider myself a much better writer than artist, and every-so-often I get someone who tells me a should get someone else to do my "art" for me. But I don't. Early 'Peanuts' looked nothing like it does today, yet it evolved into a mainstream comic. Ditto for Cathy, Farside, Foxtrot, even Calvin and Hobbes to a degree. By looking back at my older work, anyone can see how much I've improved as an artist. I think comics should be judged more on the quality of their writing than how 'artistically accurate' they are.

But, in comics you are not writing. You are communicating with images.

Think of it this way: being a writer of screenplays. A great screenplay a great movie does not make, not by itself. The actors must do thier job well, the Director must do his job well, the camera directors must do their job well, the soundtrack must be on point, the special effects had better not look stupid, the editor had better splice a tight movie together that's well paced and coherant..etc.

So, when you are wring a comic, you are like a writer of a screenplay. When you are drawing a comic, you are the actors, the director, the camera directors, the special effects guru and the story editor.

But the best art in the world won't help you if you have no story to tell.

Both things work together. Neither is ascendant. As Mykill says, you’re telling a story with pictures, -you’re not writing a novel ^_^

If art is important, sprite comics wouldn't get anywhere, yet people still like them. Comics are a different way to tell a story, the writing is more important. (I'm probably just saying that cos I'm crap at art)

Well there are different scopes of work. If, for example, your craft consisted of creating funny captions for found photography, your wit would be the key factor in if the project is worthy or not.

So, okay writing can be more important than art if all you're about is eliciting a laugh.

But if what you're after is to elicit fear, sympathy, suspense, excitement ... that's a scope for which sprite art is likely going to be insufficient.

But there is a third element to comic creating. there's writing, art and... CONCEPT! Limitations in artistic prowess can be overcome with concept. How? That hard part is up to you, the creator to figure out.

Jesus

Dubba G
If art is important, sprite comics wouldn't get anywhere, yet people still like them. Comics are a different way to tell a story, the writing is more important. (I'm probably just saying that cos I'm crap at art)

This is because a lot of people are idiots and actually like those gay jokes and stupid penis humour that sprite comics typically employ.

I find your avatar's lack of pants.... disturbing....



But back on topic, comics are a visual medium, and as such artwork is very important. That's not to say that it has to be masterfully done but it can't be totally ignored. The artwork is what snags the readers. The story will keep them. Fail on either, and you won't have the person there for very long.

A good example is one of the recently reviewed comics (name escapes me at the moment). One of the biggest complaints was that it was too wordy. Much of what was written could be, and should have been, shown visually.

In the end, a comic doesn't have to be artistically "accurate", but it does have to be visually appealing for it to work. What is appealing is, of course, subjective, but that is exactly why some people hate sprite comics and others don't :)

I've had this discussion a few times before. Art is far more important. It's a visual medium. That doesn't mean you have to be a great artist but your art has to complement your story-style. At least that's my 2cs.

Oops, I feel like I'm quoting Sam here.

Is that a bad thing? :)

Now now now - comics are NARRATIVE ART. If you suggest the art is MORE important guess what? Your work is damned to mediocrity!

How? Because the art is completely wasted if the narrative sucks.

There's nothing more important than the narrative, the writing - when that's what you're doing.

There's nothing more important than the art - when that's what you're doing.

Otherwise, YOU SUCK!

I'm inclined to say they are both important.

But

I would much rather read a comic with great writing but crappy art
than a comic with great art and crappy writing.

Then again if there's no art at all I probably wouldn't read it at all no matter how great it is (I'm aliterate when it comes to books)


I myself am not a good writer and maybe a decent artist so writing is something I definitely intend to improve on. I sort of wish it wasn't so important.

No-one but the comic's creator can dictate which is more important. It's all about the context.

If you're a great writer but can't draw, you may end up being a success through making the best of your writing abilities like Brian Clevinger of 8-bit Theatre fame... or you might partner up with a great artist such as the pair from Penny-Arcade.

Alternatively if you're a great artist but can't write well, you could try to rely on that alone, or once again, pair up with a writer like Ian McConnville from Machall did. :-D

Writing is most important a comic can be good looking but be completly worthless if its not well written or atleast OK written, Art can be crappy as hell and a comic can still be good if its well written.

You can make a comic with no writing at all!
Hey, just to prove writing isn't more important; I've read through a few Spanish, Italian, Chinese, and Japanese comics and I've enjoyed them, even though I couldn't understand the writing at all!
Sure the writing still counts in the structure and order of the images, but only in the abstract.

Anyway, I still say that the two things work together. I mean, it's obvious! Comics aren't books full of pin-ups and they're not picturless novels. Asking weather the art or the writing is more important is like asking which is the more important feature on a telephone: Being able to talk or listen?
A phone needs both.

If art is important, sprite comics wouldn't get anywhere, yet people still like them. Comics are a different way to tell a story, the writing is more important. (I'm probably just saying that cos I'm crap at art)

Well, there's actually more to it than that though, if you ask me - putting aside all questions of sprite comic legality etc, a sprite comic can be done well. Just because a comic uses sprites, doesn't mean that there is no 'art' to it - the way the comic is composed, the way the sprites are used, are all going to play a part in determining how effective a sprite comic is.

Neither is more important and comics can become popular by focusing on one more than the other. What's more, a comic with bad art AND bad writing can still become popular if it has the right content to appeal to a particular subculture. What it really boils down to is the type of content the target audience enjoys. Some people prefer something that is well drawn, even if the story is lacking or even nonexistant. Others prefer a wordy dialog driven comic with poorly drawn recycled images. Then you'll get the people who don't care whether something has an engaging story or art as long as it features two guys making out.

.: isukun :.

There are comics with no 'words' at all (Japanese GON is a good one, for example) - they are still written! That's the POINT. Comic writing is visual, not verbal - only dialog is necessarily verbal!

There have been MANY great books without a single illustration.

But a writer of comics has to think visually, and an artist of comics has to think in terms of narrative. If the artist is only thinking art - the comic will suck! If the writer thinks only in words, the comic will blow chunks.

Artist/writers create comics. All comic creators are both writer and artist - they HAVE to be, it's a hybrid artform. The jobs get separated according to strength. The writer/artist who is the better illustrator, will draw. The writer/artist who is better with story and language will 'write'.

The writer who is not also an artist, who doesn't think visually, HAS NO BUSINESS TRYING TO MAKE A COMIC. They should stick to short stories and novels.

The artist who is not also a storyteller, who doesn't think in terms of plot, character, mood, theme -HAS NO BUSNINESS TRYING TO MAKE A COMIC. They should stick to abstract expressionism of some other kind of 'fine art'.

mykill
The writer who is not also an artist, who doesn't think visually, HAS NO BUSINESS TRYING TO MAKE A COMIC. They should stick to short stories and novels.

Oops. Ah well, at least I'm having fun.

blackaby

mykill
The writer who is not also an artist, who doesn't think visually, HAS NO BUSINESS TRYING TO MAKE A COMIC. They should stick to short stories and novels.

Oops. Ah well, at least I'm having fun.

Let's put it this way, if you don't think visually and think you're writing a comic, you're mistaken. You're only doing HALF of the writing. What, in fact, you are doing is collaberating with the artist on the writing - you need to share writing credit with the artist who is doing all of the work of figuring out of how to interpret your words as visual narrative.

The best comic writers DESCRIBE WHAT EACH PANEL NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE VISUALLY. Often they actually draw the comic out very roughly, with stik figures. Even if you're not doing the drawing, you must imagine the work as a visual product or you arn't even writing a comic.

But, then again, you won't get far as a writer either. Someone who is simply writing prose still has to evoke mental images of scenes and action in the mind's eye.

The difference between prose and comics is the nuts and bolts of storytelling. In prose, very often the interior monologue of the main character is the vehicle of storytelling. In comics there's a virtual objectivity - we SEE what is happening without a specific POV.

When writing a comic the golden rule is to NOT write anything you can SHOW. The more you show and the less "copy", the better. Tell the story WITH the pictures, words are an accent.

There's the theory people think in language. I Don't buy it. Language is only symbols for something else. More basic are IMAGES. Before you find your word, there's an emotion or an image. Step back, with comics you tell the story with images and emotions first, words second.

While I can understand why people are saying both are important, I'm going to not be like my mom and pick only ONE of the two options. :wink:

I personally believe that the plot and the writing are more important to a comic than art, but not by an extreme percent. Let me give the best examples I can think of right now...

I happen to be a fan of action/horror movies, which are PERFECT for this. You can have the best CG effects, biggest blood spatters, coolest baddies and biggest explosions (equivalent to our art factor in comics) but you can still end up with a movie like Vampires Vs. Zombies, which had no plot and wholly unloved (like a colorful comic with no purpose present).

On the other hand, some of the oldest (and best) movies ever were filmed in black-and-white, everything was jerky, the backgrounds were obviously cardboards and the acting wasn't the best, but it was the plot that kept you clinging on, the intrigue of finding out what happened next that made you not eject the video and burn it! (Gosh, i can't remember the name of the movie I'm thinking of, but it involved 1950's stereotype white guys landing on a planet with a crazy guy and his daughter and there was a cartoon-drawn monster on the planet and a robot that made booze for people, which was actually a lot better than I summed it up as!)

Another example is that I love writing stories. I love reading stories! Short stories, long stories, novels, series, everything! I want to love all the characters so I can be sad when they die. Literature is a lot like comics in that your adjectives are your art. You have to paint a mental image for the reader of what's going on, but we can't forget ol' Plotty! Last year I wrote a 36-page story by hand, and it seemed good at the time! People who read it admitted they were shocked at the way I worked my wordomancy! Then I went back and read it, and realized that it was garbage that should never have been exposed to the eyes of anyone! The plot was thin and the character development was lacking! On the flipside, I'm reading the War of the Worlds book for a book report because I felt I was lacking in the sci-fi book department and it tied well with my comic, Alpocalypse. It's got a cool plot, and it develops one character well, but the pictures it gives me are thin and disappointing, yet I love reading it! I really don't care that there's too many repeated words to describe something; I want to hear what happens to Narrator and how the world overcomes the aliens!

Though there is a point where bad art inflicts with the plot because reader can't tell what's going on, but that's a whole nother story!

Wow, sorry I wrote so much, folks! I guess I got sucked in by the whirlpool of debate! All you really need to read are the first two skinny paragraphs.
:-D


Wait, I can sum up this whole question!

For some people, Writing is to Art as Food is to Water. One is debatably more important in certain peoples' viewpoints than the other. But for some people, Writing is to Art as Ninjas are to Pirates. We really can't tell which one is more vital to existance, and they may both be equally important to a comic, but you need to balance your Ninjas and your Pirates or you're gonna have a problem.

All this is true.
The greatest comic writers are those that write with the final message in mind, and use images and words to find the best way to do this. Look at examples from Alan Moore, the best I can find being this:

http://www.enginecomics.co.uk/interviews/jan05/bignum_lrg.htm [enginecomics.co.uk]

The writer is encouraged to think with art in mind, as the writer must complete his/her job first. The writer must set up the foundation for the artisit to excell.

This all said, it had been shown in practice that in WEBcomics at least, the writing is simply more important than the art.
Compare cyanide and happiness's popularity with any number of awfully written, yet beautifully drawn manga. Sorry, in this world it's sadly the case. In comic theory, they are magnificent partners.

I'm a big believer that the art is supposed to take a back seat to the writing in a comic. If you're trying to show off how well you can draw, then submit the peice to an art gallery.. There's a comic in a lot of the papers here in Britain called "the Wizard of Id" The artwork is horrible by most standards.. But it remains really popular because it's really well written.. If you've got good writing, the art can be forgiven and eventually brought up to scratch, if you've got pretty art and bad writing, people will lose the point of the comic too quickly..

Having said that, having good art is a nice bonus, it's just not as necessary

If the writing is more important, grab a novel. :wink:
That way you don't have to worry about those pesky pictures at all.

Perhaps in comics were the writing is supreme, that's only because the comic writer just isn't brave enough to ditch the feeble crutch that their art has become and embark into the wild and crazy world of novel writing...
I'm with KC3T LV, it's the creative approach.

When you get right down to it, comics are just narrative art, like Mykill says. The pictures tell a story, you don't even need to actually write the story out, as long as the pictures tell it, the comic doesn't NEED any dialogue or captions to still be a comic. But a comic without the right amount of art becomes a picture book, with less art it becomes a book with illustrations, with even less art it becomes a book with a cover.

Remember that :P

Maybe we need to define what we mean by "writing".

A lot of us, myself included, are referring to writing as narrative or speech, but really, even though the story is told visually, it's still a story.

I think if we broaden the definition of writing we'll find that the writing is, indeed, more important because it includes the visual images. Comics are visual storytelling, yes, but even though it is visual, we are telling a story after all.

Even if you can't read it, the story has to be "written". A well "written" comic may not include any words at all.

Well the fact that you've got a story to tell goes without saying Sam...

Still though, the writing can not be more important, because without enough art, it's not a comic. Could it be more simple?
ie: you need both the same.

On definitions; we're talking about the two elements that make up a comic, we're making a distinction between the art and the writing. Redifining the art as writing ignores the argument. I could just as well redifine writing as art...

Have to disagree with mykill. If you're a writer working on something with an artist, you don't necessarily have to have any visual skills. All you need is to be able to write a script and characters - either creating the characters yourself, or fleshing them out from what the artist draws. In the end you can both call yourself collaborators or co-creators rather than running with the writer/artist distinction - that said, usually, in the most clear terms, someone is doing all the writing and someone is doing all the arting.

But do you really think that any great writer of comics, such as Frank Miller or Alan Moore (although Miller does draw comics too, so he's not a good example) doesn't imagine what the pages will look like? They probably spend a long time describing the scenes to the artists so that the artists can draw it the way that the writer imagines. So they're still communicating with descriptions of images, even if they themselves don't draw them.

I'm not saying this for every case. But dependent on the writer's relationship with the artist, they could well let them go on ahead and do their own thing. :D

I think if we broaden the definition of writing we'll find that the writing is, indeed, more important because it includes the visual images. Comics are visual storytelling, yes, but even though it is visual, we are telling a story after all.

Even if you can't read it, the story has to be "written". A well "written" comic may not include any words at all.

POW! That's what I think too! :D Art just facilitates the story, story is EVERYTHING. Bad art will tell a story that isn't as good as it could have been, good art will tell a story as well as it can be told. A well written comic with art that tells the story well enough is a good comic. Good art with bad writing is a shit comic. XD

As for writing visually, I don't think you NEED to, but the best writers do. I see a writer as kinda like the writer & director of a film, with the artist as the cameraman/actors. Thinking in terms of visuals gives you more power. I love stuff like in Watchmen, where the first page of the first issue eerirly mirrors the last page of that issue, and I bet that was Alan Moore putting that in the script. Thematic stuff like putting people in shadow, or framing a certain character in doorways all the time and stuff is also visual stuff that a writer can put in that the artist probably wouldn't think of. Also, thinking visually will help keep your story from "Oh no! If I can just jump out the window then I might survive.. whew! Made it! Now if I can just reach the death laser before the bomb in my shoe goes off.." type overexplanation. Eew! We don't want that! XD

*scratches head*
And all this time I thought it was about coherence.
The art is necessary, but it has to match the writing, and the style and the age group and the level of morality. It has to appeal to the audience and the storyteller and the story itself. For instance, a children's style writing that is obviously meant for children and goes along with the sort of art you could find in a museum won't appeal as much to the age group the creator intended-- though the opposite of this can be achieved if it's meant to be funny, ironic, satirical, etc. If the art looks adultish but the writing was obviously meant for a vocabulary-restricted nine year old, well then that brings it down if it's supposed to be adultish and serious. It's all on circumstance and coherence.
Neither one is more important than the other, it's the way everything about the comic is executed.

dogtopus
POW! That's what I think too! :D Art just facilitates the story, story is EVERYTHING. Bad art will tell a story that isn't as good as it could have been, good art will tell a story as well as it can be told. A well written comic with art that tells the story well enough is a good comic. Good art with bad writing is a shit comic. XD

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, with no art at all, it's still not a comic... and you can still have a comic without text, the images can tell the (writen) story on their own. :wink:

You need both writing and art equally, although not in equal balance.