Too Cartoon-y? Or not too cartoon-y?

That is the question.

I have a theory I just came up with. There are two types of comics readers when it comes to the appreciation of art.

The first type is not adverse to any particular style. They appreciate someone who is cartoony as much as they like someone who draws very realistically. They might have a preference one way or other, but not too strong of one.

The second type ONLY likes realistic artwork. Any attempt at stylism or cartoon-iness ruins the experience for them.

I don't think there are hardly any comic readers at all who ONLY like cartoony art styles.

As an addendum to this theory, I propose that the ones who only like a realistic art style, well they aren't too into the art anyways. They just don't want the art to interfere with their enjoyment of reading the story.

So let's try this to either prove or disprove my theory. Let's all post whether you like either a cartoony or realistic art style exclusively, or if you don't have a preference. Feel free to say why.

Then post whether you care about comic art passionately or if it's just a means to an end for you.

For example here is mine.

1. I Like both styles - realistic and cartoony
2. I care about the art in my comics as much as the story.

Also feel free to post whether you agree with me or think full of it. Obviously everyone has their own preferences, and we're all individuals. But I think coming up with a theory like this could be important knowledge for artists to have.

PS: I use the word "cartoony" in an effort not to confuse folks. But I could as easily use a word like "stylized" or "representative" or "abstract" - although I feel these terms all have certain connotations. Let's just settle on cartoony to mean "not realism".

Edited by Anna Raven - 19-Jun-2012 at 5:11am

I can think of quite a few "non-realistic" artists though who do gritty quite well. Bachallo to some extent, but also Michael Avon Oeming, Phil Hester, Mike Mignola to name a few.

I understand what you mean Ring Otaku, but I again think there is merit to many different styles regardless of the tone of the book.

Edited by Anna Raven - 19-Jun-2012 at 5:52am

That's interesting BC, because I think of Michael Lark and Deodato as almost the epitome of a "realistic" style. I think that implies this will be a difficult topic to cover, because even opinions of how to categorize different artists must be considered.

Edited by Anna Raven - 19-Jun-2012 at 6:02am

Originally posted by Blackcyclops Originally posted by Anna Raven That's interesting BC, because I think of Michael Lark and Deodato as almost the epitome of a "realistic" style. I think that implies this will be a difficult topic to cover, because even opinions of how to categorize different artists must be considered. Its moreso an error on my part. Deodato was a name I realized later I didn't mean to add...I do love his art but I didn't think he fit the criteria. As for Michael Lark, he does the Winter Soldier book right? He reminds me of Guice (also an artist I like) and Epting. I don't consider them realistic but I could be wrong. "Realistic" to me are artist who go to extremes to intimate real life looks and keep their layouts "normal".

I'm not reading Winter Solder, but it probably is. Lark ends to do a lot of stuff with Brubaker. I particularly think of him from Daredevil.

But yeah, clearly we have a difference of opinion here because Epting is another guy I think of of as pretty darn realistic. Here's my reasoning:

Those guys tend to draw figures, read "people", with almost exact to life proportions. Likewise their environments. Nothing is exaggerated at all. You could almost replace their panels with still photographs of people and the proportions and perspective would not change at all.

Now, I'm not saying those guys don't draw with a lot of mood. Both Lark and Epting are extremely moody. Their darks and shadows really create a sense of drama. But to me, that doesn't an abstract artist make.

In fact I recall an article I read once that detailed how close Lark's panels were to viewing a movie or flipping through a book of still photos. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT: Well I can't find the article, but now that I think about it it might have been about Alex Maleev. But he's another one I think that is really similar to Lark and Epting.

Edited by Anna Raven - 19-Jun-2012 at 6:31am

I like both cartoony and realistic, but it al depend on the story:

• If the story is good, the art style becomes less important:
  • but bad art can make you feel this story deserved better art
  • good art just makes it more exciting and worth your money
• If the story is bad, art style can make it even worse:
  • good art can annoy you because you think this art deserved a better story
  • bad art can make you really feel it's not worth my money

What about crossovers?

Edited by Flapflop - 19-Jun-2012 at 11:19am

I guess I prefer realistic, but stylised isn't a problem for me if it doesn't intefere with the story. I'd say art is fundamental to the comics media, if it was 'bad' art, then for me, the story is bad. The art conveys the plot as much as the words do. I think realistic art, bizarelly, has more leeways in potential flaws. Sure, there can be strange anatomical mistakes, but the important stuff, who is who, their emotional situation, their physical situation, is portrayed in a more meaningful way to me. Cartoony styles can do this better, but the flaws can be so much more offensive if this goes wrong.

Primarily, I want to understand what is going on. Particularly in today decompressed style, where third person narration no longer exists. Sometimes that means heavily styled art can be used to great effect if narration (any or all) is used to fill in the gaps. When there's a spread with minimal text and a heavily stylised (almost abstract) style, it's a page of clutter. It doesn't move the story for me.

I don't have a hard preference although I do somewhat favor a stylized look. But the art isn't the main draw for me anymore. I adore Scottie Young's art but I wouldn't buy a book just because he's drawing it I don't think. I did that a couple times over the years; once with Jim Lee on Batman and another time with Ramos on a Spider-Man. I realized that I couldn't really afford that and that a disinterest in the character and storyline makes the experience less enjoyable.

Yeah, I have much love for Bachalo and Skottie Young, but also hate Ramos. I can tolerate some artists styles just as long as they're reliable and consistent. I love Carlos Pacheco's art in UXM, but am irritated that he can't complete more than one issue without needing fill-in help. Reliabilty and consistency go along way in my artist appreciation. At least Bachalo and Bradshaw can complete 3 to 4 issues without  fill-ins. Come to think of it Marvel artists have grown quite lazy if you ask me. If you look at DC New 52 titles you'll notice some artists haven't had a fill-in for them in 10 issues. 

In general, I don't care of something looks "cartoony", or "realistic", as long as there's a sense of balance. I like Adi Granov because while his art seems realistic, in many ways, the way that he renders the face is distinctively his style of drawing faces. I like Larocca for a similar reason. I like the Dodson's because of the way that they render certain characters, but get exhausted with their hair / pallete swapping sometimes. I like Bachalo a lot, but hate Humberto Ramos; Bachalo's "cartoony" work seems more stylized and intentional. Ramos just draws that way. Bradshaw represents kind of an anomaly for me in that his style seems very intentional, but his lines are just too bold for me and all of his figure drawing looks as if he relies on "boxes" to draw the human figure and then fills them in with details, hair, etc. Everything looks so rigid and amateurish to me, although he is a good artist from a more objective point of view.

I tend to favor stylized realism, I guess, and consistency, and I tend to really care about figure drawing. If the human figures being rendered by an artist look consistently "off" all the time, it really pulls me out of the story.

Ramos's characters all look like they could have jumped out of a pokéball. I begrudgingly bought an issue of Runaways he drew, and aside from the AWFUL story telling, Molly, Chase and Old Lace all looked like Pokémon. At least Land traces from porn.

I think the problem is that there are some artists who aren't BAD, but who just don't fit the tone of the book for whatever reason, and it detracts from the writing. Bachallo's WATXM is just astounding to me, but I don't think it would be a good match for a title like X-Factor, or Legacy. Land's bad art just made Fraction's average at best writing seem so much worse than it was.

I am talking post relaunch in this argument. I'm not saying DC is better than Marvel in any way, I'm saying they've seemingly whipped their artists into shape (at least on the Bat-books). Patrick Gleason penciled 10 straight issues of Batman And Robin, Greg Capullo has penciled 10 straight issues of Batman for example. I don't know of much of the other DC artists because I only read the Bat-books. I don't see that kind of commitment from that many Marvel artists (with the exception of JRJR, site me some examples if I'm wrong). I like Carlos Pachecos art but he really shouldn't be placed on any monthly books if he can't pencil more than 1 issue at a time (no matter the reason).      

See, I told you that you would have been a good defense attorney. I will concede defeat on this argument. *Bows to BC*

When I was younger I used to be a big fan of the "realistic" pencilers who rendered everything really tight and demanded idealized proportions. As I get older I'm more interested in creative use of the line and story telling abilities. I like artists who view their drawing habits as fungible and will go off on odd tangents to see what works (and sometimes what doesn't). As of right now, my favorite comic book cartoonists are Jack Kirby, Walt Simonson, Erik Larsen, Cory Walker, Mike Mignola, Frank Miller,and Ryan Ottley. Revisiting my old Marvel issues, I have also developed a real fondness for Rick Leonardi.

As for pencilers being lazy, some guys just work damn slow (usually the Neal Adams type rendering guys). Art Adams was a superstar in the late 80's/early 90's but didn't work on a regular monthly because he knew his pace was too slow for the page rate. As a result, we had an era of annuals that were actually worth flipping through.

I love a good yarn, but sequential art is the primary reason I read comics. Great art wed to a bad story might not be worth the price of admission, but I'll pick up that style of book from a back issue bin. Good writing with poor art is a no-go. If I want good prose without passable art I'll just read a book, which is infinitely more rewarding (and much cheaper).