Would you read a comic with crappy art?

personally, I mostly read webcomics for the art, and would rather they had good art than a bad story. I know im in the minority here though as Ive seen from past discussions so i can confirm that most people are willing to look past it as long as theres a good story and possibly some gradual improvement which is almost inevitable (almost, ive seen people say the same for years but rarely and its from like their unwillingness to practice and improve by drawing in new ways) anyways i hope my insight helped

Honestly no. One of the reasons I love webcomics is the lovely artwork some of them have, when a comic has "crappy" art I usually will just skim a few pages and not read far enough to get invested in the story.

That said, you shouldn't let any insecurities about the quality of your art stop you from making comics! Drawing comics is a great way to improve your art, as long as you constantly try to improve your work. Comics provide you with opportunities to draw things you wouldn't normally draw, like backgrounds, scenes, and strange angles and poses. Just having to draw a whole page of characters a few times a week can be good practice. While some people may overlook your comic because they aren't fond of the art, you'll know that your art is getting better if you put in the time and effort to improve as you draw your comic.

Honestly? No. It's not like I can't just read a plain webnovel instead of a graphic novel. Sometimes I prefer a novel version of something because the art just gets in the way of my enjoyment. I have my standards in art skill, and if it kills my enjoyment of a story, I might as well enjoy a story without any art at all = novel.

I hate to say it, but I can be a little bias toward good art (or a style that catches my attention). I mean I'm not an art expert you can read my work as proof of that, but I like to see some effort put into their work. The writing has to be VERY strong for me to ignore the poor art. Don't get me wrong I've seen works with great art, but trash story

Absolutely. I always read a few pages of a comic, even if I'm not super impressed by the artwork. Occasionally you hit a gem where even though the artist still is learning (aren't we all, though?) the dialogue/story/sense of humor and emotional draw is absolute perfection.

Nope, appealing art direction is very important to me.
If one can't effectively tell a story through their drawings their storytelling will be way less effective than the person who's comic looks like Samurai Jack, and has a great story to match.
Comics are a visual medium after all, the pretty pictures inside of the panels are the hook; color, character design, and shot composition all help to tell and sell the story being presented on the page.
If I simply wanted to read a great story, I'd go pick up a book or look for a web novel.

The only exception that I make regarding this topic are comedy comics., mostly because they're usually not supposed to have any "believability" or be taken seriously. Often an awkwardly drawn facial expression or poorly crafted staging can grant a lot of appeal to a punchline.

If it's in my interest, sure Since art is subjective, I don't really consider anything as "crappy" art. Different tastes and all that

the story and characters would have to really hook me with a reason to keep reading, from the word go; usually with webcomics, because of how many there are and limited time, i dont read it if i dont fancy the art, unless its for like a review thing.

but that could be just me. comics i have read with art i dont really like ive grown to really enjoy - and there are definitely successful comics with awful art. dunno if thats a synonymous with good kinda successful tho.

the thing with comics is so much relies on the art being good - you need to have varying angles and shots to be interesting, you need to communicate whats happening, down sometimes to subtle emotions and 'crappy' art makes that a lot harder.

I won't read a comic with art that doesn't work.

So like, for example, if your lines are amateurish and unconfident and your colours are bright and weird, but your expressions are ON POINT and your weird poses don't detract from the humour of the strip, then the places where the art is weak or simple or amateurish aren't going to 100% keep me out of it (That said, it might be tougher to get me to click on it in the first place).

Like, Hyperbole and a Half39 is EXTREMELY GOOD -- but does it have "crappy art?" that's tough to say. I don't think it's "intentionally crappy," either; it's very carefully drawn to get the precise feeling the author wants, and I think the author is successful. You could say the art is wobbly or amateurish, but ultimately it's well crafted despite a lack of any apparent technical skill.

On the other hand, if the art has some technical skill but the expressions or poses fall flat, or hinder my ability to relate to and get invested in these characters, then it doesn't matter if I would or wouldn't technically call the art "crappy" -- it doesn't work, and that'll be a dealbreaker. So, quality of the art does matter, but in a less obvious way.

Shazzbaa makes a great point about Hyperbole and a Half: That it doesn't look like Rembrandt doesn't mean it's bad. The illustrations are clear in intention and emotion, we understand at once what's going on, and the slightly unsettling style supports the slightly unsettling content. It's all clearly intentional, and it works.

I also think everyone has different criteria for "good art" in comics. Some don't mind stiffness if the faces are pretty, others want motion and action more than pretty faces, for example. Same goes for what "repels" people: I don't mind if the legs are a bit too long in one panel, or even if the artist goofed up and put the thumb on the wrong side in a tricky pose, but murky shadows made with a black airbrush/soft edge brush is something that turns me off instantly. (Use color in your shadows, people! And some shadows have hard edges! Ahem. Back on topic.) Meanwhile, someone else might like the "gritty" look of black airbrush shadows, but thinks that spot-on anatomy is everything. Meanwhile a third person is annoyed by wonky perspective, while they don't mind scribbly lines. It's so subjective.

So basically, do your best, you'll improve, and at every point in your comic-making career, there will people who like it, and people who dislike it. (Also artists are rarely satisfied with their own art it seems, so don't beat yourself up over that either haha)

As others have pointed out though, the most universal criteria seems to be clarity. What's the point of drawing images if nobody can tell what's going on? Make that your primary focus!

Art needs to be at least somewhat appealing to me to want to continue reading a comic.
If I can't find anything about I like, I don't see the point of not reading a book instead (as there are a lot I plan to read anyway).

If the style shows that the person puts in a lot of effort (artist tries difficult stuff, adds variety, interesting visual choices, high amount of detail...), even if the result isn't clean, that can help a lot to keep me reading!

If you'd like feedback on your art style, feel free to post an example pic. =)

I've read comics where the art isnt the best- but the story was good.

But there is also a point where the artist/creator should work to improve their work each and every page. Improvement isnt going to show overnight, but over a period of time...that's what most readers like seeing.

Depends on what you mean by crappy --- Someone who clearly just started drawing is very hard for me to read, and I hardly ever give them a chance. I refer to like 90% of published manga to having 'crappy' art. I'm forgiving to different styles, or if I can atleast figure out what's happening and the story is decent ( my favourite mangaka has actually an art style I refer to as 'crappy' --- but the characters are expressive and the writing is phenomenal) but the honest answer is no.

No of course not. Comics are a visual medium that requires the art and story to be equally as good or else it doesn't work and fails at what it does. I've read dramatic well written autobiographies that would be good if they were just stories but they end up being shitty and not worth finishing because of the half ass artwork.

Nope, I'm very fragile at this point, I see every mistake almost immediately as I like to analyse art. I couldn't read a comic made with woobly lines in ms paint, or stick figures. There is nothing wrong with that if you start your adventure with drawing, my first drawings also were made with ms paint till I bought proper tablet. The story can be a masterpiece but "stick figure" art definitely breaks the immersion for me. With all that said though, different people have different definitions of crappy art.

Depends on how crappy.

I've read my fair share of comics with crap art (mine included39), but as long as it's not an eyesore with shaky lines and guidelines that haven't been erased and such, I'll read it if it has a good storyline. As for what I've seen, there's definitely people out there willing to look past some crap art.

If the art is good enough where every panel makes sense and i'm not staring at a sequence wondering what the heck's going on, yes. As long as the writing's good and I understand what i'm looking at. I'm not gonna write off a good story because the art is a bit lacking.

For me it depends on genre. If it's a comic strip meant for humor and the art is still expressive and the writing is still funny/relatable, I'll give it a shot because I don't need to feel immersed in it to enjoy it.

But if you're trying to do a serious or dark long form comic and you don't have the skills yet to sell the atmosphere, I probably would put it down almost immediately.