How does one define crappy artwork in comics?

[General Blaze]

How DOES one actually define crappy artwork in comics?

Is it the articulation? Is it the drawing style? Is it the colour they use?

Also, does it really matter how the comic is drawn? Does "shitty artwork" in comics really exist or is it just merely just a scapegoat to despise a certain drawing style? Or is it because "anime" dominates all? (Which I disgaree)

Anyone care to discuss?

[n0z3k1ll3r]

You basically only need decent artwork. After enough time the artwork evolves. Some classic examples from It's Walky!

Starting quality:

http://www.itswalky.com/d/19970908.html


By the end:

http://www.itswalky.com/d/20040627.html

[General Blaze]

You 've made some good points, n0z3. Anyone else agree or disagree?

[Mr Tyranny]

It just depends on how its presented and the context its used in..

This popular series has some preeety basic artwork but the storyline (eternal search for pie..) and piebald humor make it appropriate.. Granted its a flash animation and not a traditional pane by pane strip but I still think it qualifys..

http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/parallel.htm

Check out the next six episodes for a rather humerous look at the passing of the ages and what it was really all about..

[Slashco]

For me, good artwork would consist of how clean the lines are, how 'polished' the overall coloring and lighting (if applicable) looks, how distinctive the style is, and how well the drawings convey whatever the author intended. For another interesting 'evolution', you can go over to Penny Arcade's Archive (www.penny-arcade.com) and look at their first comics compared to today's look.

[Illuminatus]

I love how ctrl-alt-del parodied the evolution of comics by distincly announcing every change during the early days of the comic... like when the characters were first shaded they all found each other far more attractive etc

the SA forums are a great place to go for a topic like this, they have a whole forum devoted to comics

[Shin]

I don't know if there's an encompassing definition of crappy, but I do know from the last time that I bought comics (around 8 years ago) that what was popular during those times was actually rather crappy.

For example. In spite of the rather fancy coloring and inking, Jim Lee's artwork which tended to depict every single guy and gal as visions of adonis and aphrodite was rather preposterous. There's also Rob Liefeld's all-encompassing visual style that everyone and everything is constipated.

With what I've been reading and revisiting lately. An example of good art would be any of the works of Miyazaki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyazaki_Hayao

[Retroboy]

Shameless bump, there, Blaze.

To me, it consists of three measurables. It either has style, or it has accuracy. And, in both cases, it must have consistency. If it's missing both of the first two, or missing the latter, it's crap. There's other elements like composure, shading, lighting, and camera angles, but those all constitute the comic's style when they're not photo-accurate.

Mike Mignola's work is quite highly stylistic but not very accurate to the human anatomy, for example. But it's always consistent. Win. Arioch's work (he hasn't been around lately, but check well-of-souls.com) is more accurate to the anatomy, but again has the consistency that's required. Win.

-- Retro

[The5thElephant]

What Retro said. It should be distinct and consistent.