Now obviously, both are important -- I'm not asking "all or nothing" here.

But when you find yourself thinking about your favorite comic artists, do you feel you like them more for their art styles or their storytelling skills?

And by style, I mean rendering anatomy, shading and rendering techniques, etc. And by storytelling, I mean layouts, framing, choosing angles, etc.

Some, like Neal Adams, art style over storytelling. But it has to be pretty awe inspiring art. I was blown away by Toddler's art on Spider-Man at one time, but the terrible storytelling takes away from it (and his art doesn't stand the test of time like Adams). Conversely, I think JRjr is a gifted storyteller, but his art doesn't impress me at all. Somewhere between Adams and JRjr lies artists such as Jim Aparo and Alan Davis, the best of both worlds.

Storytelling. Ditko is one of my favorite artists, but I wouldn't hold up many of his drawings as a showpiece. But I've enjoyed almost every comic book he's ever done. Same with Kirby, really.

(The exception to this example is Ditko's "drapery." I love they way he draws clothing on people. It's a lost art).

I want to say art style, but if the artist is bad at storytelling and isn't reined in by a good editor, the art style suffers as well (Neal Adams).

Visual storytelling is the core of comics. If you don't have storytelling chops, then it doesn't matter how cool your style is, IMO.

For example, I like this:



a lot more than I like this:

Geez, that Tarzan page could give Joe Shuster's art a run for its money!

Storytelling first. You have to be able to read and follow the comics.

There's two artists out there that have some measure of popularity and are actually pretty solid, but I just can't seem to feel anything more than lukewarm for -- Ron Lim and Market Bagley. I can't even really put my finger on why I find them so unappealing -- they don't really do anything "wrong" or whatever. They just both seem to generic to me.

Again -- I'm not talking "all or nothing" here. I'm not saying you're choosing attractive art styles over incomprehensible storytelling -- just which you favor more.

Let's say for yourself -- if God offered you one or the other, would you rather have him give you John Buscema/Alan Davis drawing skills or Steve Ditko/Will Eisner storytelling ability? It's not that Davis or Buscema aren't good storytellers and it's not like Ditko or Eisner have unattractive styles -- they're all very good -- but which skill set you value more personally.

Well, it's really a combo of the two. I suppose it would be the Davis/Buscema but i don't think they are worse at storytelling than Ditko. Eisner just about created the storytelling language and that sets him apart.

I like the "Market Bagley" typo as a play on his speed as an artist.

Whose work would you consider showpieces?

Uh, I believe that's his full name, Jeff.

I feel the same way about Lim and Bagley as you do.

I think they are good storytellers, but Ditko is a step above.

Not speaking for Jay, but: Carmine Infantino in his prime; Neal Adams; John Buscema. Will Eisner, Alan Davis too.

I was taught by Eisner, so I'm biased and think he is the best. As for the storytelling, itself, I'm thinking is the panel to panel flow of the work. Will always said that that was the most important part of storytelling not the the cool pages designs. Since this was the 80s, he use Howard Chaykin as an artist who was more of a slave to page design than actual storytelling.

I love Chaykin, but that's probably fair. I think he's alright as a storyteller, though.



I also think Eisner's the best, the top of my personal pyramid. (The next level is Caniff, Foster, Kubert and Kirby.)

My comic tastes were formed a long time ago and cemented in my adolescence. I now think, intellectually, that people like Ditko are better comic book artists than people like Adams or Steranko - but when comic art thrills me, it's the latter two men that do it for me. I admit completely that it's a bit ( a lot ) style over substance, but it is where my personal preference lies. I love the art on GL/GA for example, but find the stories excruciatingly dull. I loved the art on the Kree/Skrull war but the story is uneven, confusing, disjointed and has a laughably abrupt/disappointing ending. Nonetheless I would rather own those comics - stare at the art in those comics, than any number by master storytellers like Ditko and (yesI'mgonnasayit) Byrne. If you say I'm wrong for feeling that way I might even agree with you, but feel that way I do.

Nowadays, I think many artists draw pages so that they're attractive to sell as original art. What might have once been a balanced page now is now a page where the artist has drawn an awesome shot of a hero or villain that takes up much of the space and then crams in the rest of the story around it.

Or it's not even an economical concern -- they just might like drawing cool shots of the heroes and hate drawing the other stuff.

John Buscema, Alan Davis, Gil Kane, Steve Rude, Brent Anderson, John Cassaday. Something very "correct" about their drawing and line work. They are the "pretty" artists to me. Kirby and Ditko are all-time masters in a different way, based more on their layouts and the way the motion pops out, crackles, or moves from panel to panel.

Some of the "prettiest" artists don't even vary the distance of view much -- Kirby will do a panel where the people look tiny, and it works great.

I've mentioned this before, but my daily reading of Terry and the Pirates has shown me how much Milton Caniff is the granddaddy of them all. He combined expert draftsmanship with expert storytelling -- pioneering how it was done. Guys like Eisner and Kirby got their inspiration from Caniff about what it was possible to do with comic books.