What do you value more - good art with a sub-par story or terrible art with an amazing story?

[Afrofairy96]

I'm asking this because one of my big inspirations ONE the creator of One punch man and Mob psycho 100 is considered a terrible artist and at the bottom of the totem poll when it comes to his artistic abilities compared to other mangakas but still managed to achieve major success despite constantly being told how terrible his art was. Do you gut think that ONE's case is just an extreme oddity or do you think a good story can always shine through despite limited art?

[graveweaver]

A good story will always, always, always shine through for me. Homestuck is another example of really basic art with a massive fanbase. Though I don't think his art was /bad/, it's definitely very basic. I'd say Attack on Titan might be another since the art is REALLY... Weird, but I think the anime popularized it mostly.

I think the fact that people constantly read/repost XKCD when it's just stick figures is a monument to the value of text.

[joannekwan]

I'd rather an amazing story with sub-par art. I can get over amateur art, I can't get over an amateur story.

I find that if a comic has really amazing art, but sub-par story, I would rather them focus their attention on making illustrations or an art book, or design like, tarot cards or something. It would be a more profitable choice (low-key me wanting said items).

Or if the story goes on I'll not even engage anymore and just admire the art.

[mrtoontastic]

For me, it often depends since a lot of cartoons that I've seen through the years have always strived for the former but had an amazing (or at least great) story tagged along. I think a story with good art can equally make a terrible story as much as a series with terrible art makes an amazing story. But even still, you can say the same the other way around where great art helps impact a great story, but terrible art will add to a terrible story. A series with bad, not-so-detailed, or less impactful art can create stories that are good to most (and sometimes not as good to others), just look at Adventure Time and the series that spun-off from it, as well as Over the Garden Wall. While I'm not a fan of the art for either show, they tell (from what I've heard from others) a good dark story.

Personally, I always felt something like Disney's Gargoyles, or even Ducktales (classic and new) told a good story as well as had good art (but that can be attributed to the fact that Disney poured effort into those TV creations, almost like they do their movies).

For the most part, the art you see is pretty subjective. Some will find it better than others, while others will want something more. Mostly, I don't mind, especially when its a one-off. Other times, you'll have to do me some good convincing if you want me to watch.

[Raven_C]

Yeah, I'm also on the “sub-par art with great story” camp. Storytelling is really important to me since I, too, want to create something that will stay with people. I don’t want to have something that looks aesthetically amazing but has a mediocre storyline. Though keep in mind, it doesn’t need to be the most memorable or even groundbreaking story ever. It just needs to be pretty good.

[Coati]

I think if a comic have a crappy art, it has to have an REALLY GOOD story
If a comic have a crappy story, it has to have an REALLY GOOD art

Balance is the best, a decent art with a decent story, make a decent comic
Decent art and amazing story, make a awesome comic
Amazing art and decent story make a awesome comic

[spicy_sweets]

Story more than art. Idc how pretty the art is, if the story's shit I'm dropping it. Prime example for me would be Angry Max Fury Street―the art was hard to get used to at first, there were even moments where whiteout was used to fix dialogue, but the story was so damn good I couldn't stop. There was so much character development and great scenes I would've missed out on if I dropped it solely for taste.

Ahh, and A.L.I.C.E., too, omg. that anthology had so much going for it, but it's not looked at much. Each story was a unique and surprisingly philosophical experience. ;;;

[jensrichard77]

Exactly what I will say:

I think if a comic have a crappy art, it has to have an REALLY GOOD story If a comic have a crappy story, it has to have an REALLY GOOD art

[punkarsenic]

i mean, this begs the question of what makes 'good' art.

is this good art?

how bout this?

this?

which of these cartoonists is the better artist?

the middle one was gonna be romita jr's spiderman but then i realised i had a mouse thing going so i switched it lol

the answer, imo, is 'theyre all doing different things!'

similarly, is ONE's art bad, or is it just only utilising the elements of art that it needs to tell the story? i mean, yeah, ones art is janky as fuuuuck but if it serves to tell the story, does it need to be visually stunning??

this is a very long winded way to say i think story is king and the art should be adapted to serve the story. amateurish art can make a bad first impression on me, and when it struggles to communicate the story thats a bit of a dealbreaker, but whats the point of gorgeously rendered images if theyre not in service of anything?

[Hexigate]

I think that when it REALLY comes down to it, the art and visuals of a comic are only there to supplement the story. The same can be said for books, movies, video games, and all that: They're just ways to get a story across.
Good art is good because they convey the story and emotions well; through action, movement, lighting, tone, style, and all that stuff. The rest is kinda superficial.
So yeah, story is the soul behind the art; so it makes sense that we're all putting story above art.

[keii4ii]

OPM is definitely an oddity; you know it because he's the one that keeps getting brought up again and again every time this becomes a topic. It means there aren't many other examples.

With that out of the way, for me it depends on what kind of terrible we're talking. If it's visually confusing in a way that makes it hard to see what's going on, then I won't be able to discover the awesome story within. If it also clashes badly with the vibe of the story, that's also an issue that I can't overlook. Which brings me to...

similarly, is ONE's art bad, or is it just only utilising the elements of art that it needs to tell the story? i mean, yeah, ones art is janky as fuuuuck but if it serves to tell the story, does it need to be visually stunning??

Exactly! It's janky, but the jankiness goes pretty well with the parody genre. It also helps a ton that it's very visually clear.

Overall, I'm usually 'why not both.' I already read a good number of comics, so for me to pick up a new read, it has to appeal to me very strongly.

[SleepingPoppy]

It's always going to be about effective communication through the marriage of story and art. Comics are the craft of telling a story through art, and you cannot divorce one from the other. However I think it's important to make the distinction that for comics "sub par art" should be art the doesn't support the communication of the story to the reader in visuals, not stick figures verses realistic figures.

The art isn't that different from the prose? Like yes we always need as good a story as possible, but we also have to effectively communicate that story or it'll be moot.

[LordLacroix]

That is easy to answer, story of course. Remember The Sandman? That was not at all an state of art or masterpiece art style but Gaiman made us never want to lose a single number. Another example Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the art was so bad that the creators when they achieved success they paid to have their comics well done finally. But the story arc with the kidnaping of Splinter and all the Shreder's plans that worked out beautifully. So of course story will keep people following. Good art may work for a while but won't make the viewers stay.

[silverraven0]

For me, even if the art is horrible, I can put up with anything as long as the story got me.

[IdiotWithPencil]

OPM is definitely an oddity; you know it because he's the one that keeps getting brought up again and again every time this becomes a topic. It means there aren't many other examples.

it's just the most popular since it got an anime adaptation but if I remember correctly most if not all of the great comedic webcomics are stick figures 4 panel shlups
do we count those or are they just not valid?
=P

Overall, I'm usually 'why not both.' I already read a good number of comics, so for me to pick up a new read, it has to appeal to me very strongly.

agreed, though if one has to be lacking I would prefer an ugly looking good story than a bad one

[keii4ii]

if I remember correctly most if not all of the great comedic webcomics are stick figures 4 panel shlups

The only example along that description that I can think of is xkcd. And xkcd is also an extraordinary, non-representative example. I think I would actually like it less if I could see their facial expressions.

[IdiotWithPencil]

what about cyanide and happiness? they even have an indie animation studio =P

[keii4ii]

Oh, forgot about that one since I don't personally like it XD But I wouldn't call the art in that one (nor xkcd) "terrible." It reads clearly, and the vibes of the art and writing create such synergy together.

It's also more difficult to pull off than it may seem at a glance. I mean, sure, it takes more skills to be able to do triple A game concept art stuff than Cyanide and Happiness kinda stuff, but if you asked a total beginner/layman to make a drawing in C&H style, chances are the result will be lacking in multiple areas. The lack will be even more prominent if they were to do a comic in that style, even if given a script.

[IdiotWithPencil]

It's also more difficult to pull off than it may seem at a glance. I mean, sure, it takes more skills to be able to do triple A game concept art stuff than Cyanide and Happiness kinda stuff, but if you asked a total beginner/layman to make a drawing in C&H style, chances are the result will be lacking in multiple areas.

well yeah but that's also true of the creators themselves since this is how they were drawing at the beginning

I mean this is what makes webcomics fun right the evolution of the artist who starts drawing like a beginner with arthritis to someone decent

like tom from gunnerkrigg

I'm sorry but triangle face looks weird, almost made me drop it in some places, but the story was gripping enough that people stuck with him and it's one of the biggest webcomics out there

just so people see how he draws now

[keii4ii]

I mean this is what makes webcomics fun right the evolution of the artist who starts drawing like a beginner with arthritis to someone decent

I'm not so sure about that. If the art is truly terrible -- visually confusing, doesn't fit the tone of the story -- then someone like me wouldn't stick around.

A lot of people use Gunnerkrigg Court as amazing art improvement example, but I actually am not super impressed by its newer art, nor terribly turned off by its old art. X'D I mean yeah, the old art isn't good if it's meant to be anything even remotely realistic, but when I looked at it, I thought the anatomy distortion was intentional, stylistic and whimsical. And the environment art is very competent, not to mention the palette.

(No disrespect meant to those who love GC's new art. I'm just not personally into it.)