Pat Mills

[Fungus]

I disagree, but I buy 80% of my comics for the art.

Likewise. Found it interesting in the recent thread on Story v Art that caring more about the art put me in a small minority. I don't require 'epics' or characters to go through psychological 'arcs' or any of that gubbins. It's nice when you're tickled or wrong-footed by a story but what I really remember and enjoy is the telling, the artistry, the splash page. D'Israeli's bent-double Stickleback. Bolland's page-turn intro to the Dark Judges. Maybe I'm shallow 

[von Boom]

For me the story has to engage me first. I used to buy many more comics, but dropped them as the stories failed to interest me any more. I couldn't buy them simply because I liked the art, which I often marvelled at. I'm down to the Prog and the Meg now as they're the only ones I find that the stories catch me on a consistent basis.

That isn't to say that the art in those mags isn't always great as well, we all know it is.

[sheridan]

Writers and artists are equally important in making comics - it's only letterers that are disposable! 

I realise that was a joke, but one instance that jumped out at me was the last episode of The Dead.  Annoyingly Barney doesn't say who the lettering droid was, but I'm sure it changed drastically in that episode.

[13school]

Writers and artists are equally important in making comics - it's only letterers that are disposable! 

I realise that was a joke, but one instance that jumped out at me was the last episode of The Dead.  Annoyingly Barney doesn't say who the lettering droid was, but I'm sure it changed drastically in that episode.

For some irrational reason the re-done lettering in one of the Button Man trades really puts me off.

[JoFox2108]

Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now 

IMO a series hangs together as a complete thing based on the overall direction set by the writer (and ok yes the editor makes a contribution as well),

Take Nikolai Dante as an example. I view it as a complete story. It would not be if someone other than Robbie Morrison had written it and taken it in a different direction. Having had multiple artists doesn't change that.

And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

I don't have a problem with the artist or the writer being changed on IP that's corporate owned. I do have a problem with the idea that changing the artist is OK but changing the writer isn't because some how the writer is more creatively important to a strip then the artist. Stan Lee claimed to be sole creator of his characters on the grounds that he came up with them and if the artist that did hadn't drawn them another one would have. I don't agree with Stan Lee.

as for how long I would wait, I would wait as long as it took if that's the creative model being used.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I see writers and artists as equally responsible for the finished product, even though, for me, the art gets me to buy many more comics than the story. 

Recently I got into reading 'The Walking Dead'.  Robert Kirkman has always been the writer but, for the first 6 issues Tony Moore did the pencils.  After that though Charlie Adlard took over.  I so much prefer Moore's art to Adlard that I keep losing interest in the whole series now, whereas when Moore was drawing I couldn't put it down. 

I get a similar but opposite effect with Defoe where I don't yet understand what's happening in the story (I'm going to reread the whole thing when it's finished so I can really get it) but Colin MacNeil's art draws me in anyway.

I do get that the artwork takes more time, but I too would be more than willing to wait for an artist I love.

[TordelBack]

The Moore WD issues are great, but I'd be sure that a big part of the book's widespread success is its insane reliability and regularity: the collections come out more frequently than some other 'monthly' books!  Whetever reservations I may have about WD, Adlards'sent is incredible, 250-odd pages a year for 13 years: he's well past the demi-Cerebus mark already, and he's not even insane yet.

[JoFox2108]

The Moore WD issues are great, but I'd be sure that a big part of the book's widespread success is its insane reliability and regularity: the collections come out more frequently than some other 'monthly' books!  Whetever reservations I may have about WD, Adlards'sent is incredible, 250-odd pages a year for 13 years: he's well past the demi-Cerebus mark already, and he's not even insane yet.

I totally agree about Adlard's workrate and reliability as an artist.  From what I read, I got the idea that it was this skill set particularly which made Adlard a better choice for Kirkman as well as his excellent artistic skills.  I do still have a strong personal preference for Moore's art but it's doesn't stop me recognising Adlard's excellence.

[Jim_Campbell]

I totally agree about Adlard's workrate and reliability as an artist.  From what I read, I got the idea that it was this skill set particularly which made Adlard a better choice for Kirkman as well as his excellent artistic skills.  I do still have a strong personal preference for Moore's art but it's doesn't stop me recognising Adlard's excellence.

There's something slightly comedic in tone to Moore's style that made it seem like an odd fit for Walking Dead, if I'm honest.

[JoFox2108]

There's something slightly comedic in tone to Moore's style that made it seem like an odd fit for Walking Dead, if I'm honest.

I know what you mean, I think that's partly why I liked it.  I really enjoyed the serious story with a lighter style of art.  It stood out as a bit odd in an enjoyable way for me.  I can see why Adlard's art, being more gritty and adult styled might be a better fit, it's just not my favourite style.  I still like it but it doesn't get to me like Moore's art does.  Just a personal taste.