I can't say I agree with anything this person said

[SaintRidley]

Art in Webcomics (http://www.comicrelated.com/news/3964/art-in-webcomics)

Apologies in advance if this has been posted before. I gave a cursory check and didn't notice anything.

[Raging Gene Ray]

A professional artist comes to the conclusion that you should hire a professional artist to draw your webcomic or you'll look lazy.

Biased much?

[Nimrod's Son]

Aspiring (hack) webcomic artist in "I am better than the competition" shocker!

The art style of OotS was one of the main reasons I started reading it in the first place. This guy's own artwork is technically fairly impressive but also hopelessly generic. I read a couple of pages and that's more than enough for me, thank you very much.

Maybe he should hire a professional writer to come up with something a bit more gripping, instead of taking the lazy way out and writing it himself. :smallamused:

[Hardcore]

well, I can only agree with Rich on this one; it would detract from the comics appeal to draw the OotS realistically. I can add the same applies to the other stick figure comics he used as example.
What the fool fail to realise is that which often start as inability or laziness (using paper and pen is far easier than to learn use a complex program:P. I wouldn't dream of doing the later) is improved over time by their creators. The comics evolve. And in a direction that is suited to their creators individual style of telling his story.
The author clearly is quite inept him/herself to failing to understand this.
Good art, bad art? How can you tell? The answer is that you can't. There is only that which is interesting to you and that which makes you yawn.
Perhaps one could replace his/her nonsensical idea with succesful vs unsuccesful attempts?

Note; it is possible to use a style not really suited for your comic because of your preferences. (Not every story is best told in the Manga style).
That would then perhaps be called an unsuccesful attempt.

[Ellye]

XKCD made me cry once. No other comic ever achieved something like that. Stick figures can be great, when the artist knows what he's doing.

[RobotPerfomance]

My response to this person’s clearly wrong opinion is that art in a web comic is like special affects in a movie or graphics in a video game: It is only useful if it serves the product as a whole.

In the end it can't make something bad good. Things are generally better served by a sense of style and use of things like story and creativity.

This is why stick figure comics like The Order of the Stick and XKCD are on my short list of great stuff on the web and a load of comics with more complex styles have been deleted from my favorites.

[Freshmeat]

I disagree with that assessment as well. Some styles just work better for certain genres. Sprite and 'simplistic' stick figure comics have an inherently comic appeal that goes well with their purposes. Sure, OOTS may prioritize the storyline more than it does its jokes now, but I've grown rather fond of the art and am often amazed at how much expression and beautiful landscapes Rich can get out of a few circles and lines. Some of the art on the Arts & Crafts forum also qualifies as 'highly impressive' - to put it lightly.

So I'd argue that the 'simplistic' style actually complements the humorous aspect. It's the same reason why cartoons are rarely drawn in a highly-detailed fashion. It's more reserved for serious works. Or, failing that, works which at least take themselves very seriously.

Then there's, how shall I put it, a certain "flow". OOTS is pleasing to look at. It's clear, it's structured. There are many comics that get so engrossed in the little details that the overall picture just becomes messy. This is also why it's often a good idea not to add too much details to, say, an avatar unless you know what you're doing. It detracts from the whole image.

There's more, but I've forgotten most of what I was going to say.
Good art does not a good comic make. The video game industry is coming to realize this, so why not webcomics?

I agree that Riviera's artwork is pretty good. Generic? Perhaps a bit. At the risk of going off-topic, I personally find that El Goonish Shive has the kind of artwork you pretty much see all over the internet. But though a good artist Riviera may be, his conclusions just seem way off-base.

Also, XKCD is one of the greatest webcomics around. And it's drawn even "lazier" than OOTS.

[TreesOfDeath]

Uh oh, someone better tell Scott Adams!
Theirs no way this "Dilbert" thing can catch on!

[Yiuel]

Ellye : OotS has provided us with many tear jerkers. Mine is Roy's little brother's introduction. :)

Otherwise, more generally, if an artist needs to show all the details to pass on a single emotion, I think he failed to understand how emotions pass. You can show that two people like each other just by having them hand in hand; you don't need more than an eyebrow to show snarkiness. And other stuff like that. The fluffiness of detail is all fun, put passing on the emotions is ten times better.

[CapedLuigiYoshi]

He manages to insult Order of the Stick, xkcd, and Irregular Webcomic. That... this guy does not know enough about art works, does he?:smallannoyed:

[Thorcrest]

I also disagree with this man's conclusions, however he does mention that he is "greedy and self-interested", therefore making his opinions biased and not really worth looking into anyways. He's just trying to get people to look at his art and hire him.

[Silverraptor]

The only problem I can see here is that we all disagree with the guy. How are we going to tell him he's wrong?:smallsigh:

[Green&Submarine]

I like the line: "Hire An Artist: This is my favorite method because it produces the most genuine results, and it gets me work." (emphasis added)

Biased much?

[Conuly]

Ah, of course, the "art is hard, guys" view of the world. These people are the ones who riff on Mo Willems for not drawing backgrounds in his picture books and who visit modern art museums just to stand around criticizing Pollock.

They think there's nothing more to art - or even art like comics where you need not just pictures but words and stories! - than technical skill. And then, it has to be technical skill in the style THEY prefer. (And I'm sure it's better to make a boring, unknown webcomic that is stylistically excellent according to his high standards than to make one that many readers enjoy, eagerly anticipate, and will happily talk for hours about.)

[potatocubed]

Ha. Ha ha ha.

If he thinks OotS style is 'lazy' I recommend he hops on over to the Arts and Crafts forums and starts filling some avatar requests. There's no quicker way to learn just how complex and subtle you can make stick figure art.

[T-O-E]

xkcd, however, is unabashed laziness, never even having established a regular cast

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

And this is coming from a guy who hates xkcd.

[Zanaril]

That article made me laugh.

It's just so wonderfully and obviously biased. I could almost believe that it's a troll.

[Optimystik]

The only problem I can see here is that we all disagree with the guy. How are we going to tell him he's wrong?:smallsigh:

We'll have to focus our rage across the interwebz.

Through our peepees.

RAEG

[AceOfFools]

My response to this person’s clearly wrong opinion is that art in a web comic is like special affects in a movie or graphics in a video game: It is only useful if it serves the product as a whole.

In the end it can't make something bad good. Things are generally better served by a sense of style and use of things like story and creativity.

...
Now I'm not sure I'd go that far.

I think Drow Tales is terribly written, planed and paced, but still enjoy reading it every so often precisely because it's art is so very well done. Meanwhile about half the time I have no clue what's going on, and the other half I'm cringing at how badly handled the whole thing is.

Another example is Punch & Pie vs. Queen of Wands. Same writer, same humor, different artists. I don't really enjoy the former, but enjoyed the latter a great deal.

So I do think art quality makes a huge difference in overall comic quality. I also really like OotS (own a copy of all 6 books) and xkcd, so I'd probably disagree with the article if I actually read it.

[Raging Gene Ray]

If he thinks OotS style is 'lazy' I recommend he hops on over to the Arts and Crafts forums and starts filling some avatar requests. There's no quicker way to learn just how complex and subtle you can make stick figure art.

He'd probably say: "They fulfill requests for strangers? For FREE?!?!?!?!? How unprofessional. You get what you pay for. I guess I could stoop to your level, but you would have to compensate me for forcing me to commit crimes against TRUE CREATIVITY."


We'll have to focus our rage across the interwebz.

Through our peepees.

RAEG

LOL! You said "peepees!"

[Darakonis]

Well, I'll be the first to say it, but the author of that article does have a point.

Now before you start throwing flaming poo at me, hear me out.

Buried within that narcissistic, needlessly insulting article is a more important issue. If he had written the article with more tact, I don't think people would be so quick to send hate-waves his way.


We live in a world that is focused on eye candy. The ratio of "beautiful people" to "average-looking people" on TV is far out of proportion to reality. Big video game companies pump millions into better graphics engines to render their horrible plots in glorious, anti-aliased detail. The Michael Bays of the world pack their movies with so many explosive special effects that you don't have time to pick apart the plot. It's the sad truth.

I used to run a webcomic. Only last a couple years, and I only got about ~350,000 views. It still gets ~300 views a day, even though I stopped updating over a year ago. What did I notice? The eye candy is what made people give the comic a chance. I'm an average artist at best, but I tried to make my style unique, and added in small animations and Flash interactivity.

The art is the "hook." It is a potential reader's first impression of a comic. If they are immediately turned off by the art, they won't even bother reading your speech bubbles. You can have a New York Time's best-selling plot -- but if you don't have the right visual package, no one will read it.

As a webcomic artist, you need to make your comic visually stand apart from the thousands upon thousands of comics out there. Order of the Stick did that -- Rich knew exactly what he was doing. OotS stick-figure style was groundbreaking. At the time, there was no other comic that looked like OotS; and apart from that, the art style is very pleasant on the eyes.

But in today's day and age, you'll be hard pressed to find a new stick-figure comic, or sprite comic, or Poser-rendered comic become famous, because it's been done before, and it's been done better.

Sure, it's possible for an otherwise great webcomic with "poor" art quality to become famous. But this is the exception, not the rule. They are the Susan Boyles of the webcomic business.


I believe if the author of the article had made his thesis: "Webcomic creators need visually distinct and appealing artwork to make it big" rather than "Webcomic artists without Marvel-quality artwork are lazy hacks," more people would be agreeing with him.


Peace
-Darakonis

[spectralphoenix]

I'm given to understand that the third-to-last panel in this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html) was specifically aimed at the "The Giant does stick figures because he can't draw" crowd.

[spectralphoenix]

I believe if the author of the article had made his thesis: "Webcomic creators need visually distinct and appealing artwork to make it big" rather than "Webcomic artists without Marvel-quality artwork are lazy hacks," more people would be agreeing with him.


Peace
-Darakonis

The important difference is his conclusion - the idea that failing to provide quality artwork makes you lazy/a hack/whatever. He never frames his argument in terms of "you'll get noticed more" or "your writing will be enchanced by better artwork." The author just claims that not being or paying a professional artist to draw your comic makes you a bad person.

[Neopolis]

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

And this is coming from a guy who hates xkcd.
Yeah, I was thinking that. Why would xkcd even need a regular cast?

[Raging Gene Ray]

I believe if the author of the article had made his thesis: "Webcomic creators need visually distinct and appealing artwork to make it big" rather than "Webcomic artists without Marvel-quality artwork are lazy hacks," more people would be agreeing with him.


Yes...but he didn't make that his thesis. He almost admits that stick figure comics and photo comics CAN have a distinct style, but it comes off as more of a backhanded compliment, like "You're not QUITE as bad as the rest of them."

More disgustingly, his suggestion is HIRE a professional artist. Not try to come up with your own flourishes to turn a generic stick-figure/manga/photoshop style into your own. Distinct and professional are two different things. Even professional artists may fall into a trap of churning out art "according to standards," exhibiting technical skill but still coming off as very non-distinct. He implies that if someone's not getting paid, they're not skilled, uncreative, and must be lazy.

By the way, could you post a link to your webcomic...or at least mention the title?

[Bavarian itP]

You know, drawing a stick figure webcomic doesn't make you cool like a real artist. Guys? Didn't you hear me? Stop having fun! (http://www.xkcd.com/359/)

[BRC]

His perspective seems to be based on the assumption that a comic is, first and foremost, an image (like a painting or photograph). That's it's primary purpose is to be aesthetically pleasing. If you take that to be true, then yes, he is correct, you should get a professional artist, or be a skilled artist yourself, and using things like stick figures or pixelart is a copout.

This is not so.

A comic is first and foremost a storytelling device, even if the story is just 3 lines of dialouge with a punchline. The artwork is merely a method with which to tell that story. Now, Artwork should be aesthetically pleasing, but provided it is not actually ugly, it doesn't detract from the comic, and it should fit the comic's focus.

Let's start with XKCD. In XKCD the focus is on the dialouge, the humor. As such, a simplistic style works very well, it is a very efficient method with which to present the jokes. You can tell what actions are being taken and the simplistic style lets the focus be on the, sometimes rather complex, humor.

Next, we'll move to Order of the Stick, where the focus is on the Story. In that regard, Burlew's style works very well to combine both drama and comedy. If OOTS was a more serious comic, with less fourth wall breaking and rules jokes and lampshade hangings, a more realistic style would fit better. As it is however, a more realistic style wouldn't work. When you see abunch of stick-figures talking about how they can't remember the AoO Rules while fighting stick figure goblins, you laugh, it's funny. However, if rich was drawing it in a more serious style, the discrepancy would detract from the humor, you'd be picturing the scene in a more realistic manner, and so the jokes about Rules or stories simply wouldn't synch up.


The point is, many webcomic creators are writers first, artists second. And comics are stories first, pictures second. The purpose of the picture is simply to help tell the story, to judge it independently would be like judging a sandwich just by only eating the bread.

[Inkling]

Wow. Jules Rivera? I read her webcomic.

She definitely seems to be very biased, if the only way to draw a webcomic is to hire an artist. Some of us don't have that kind of money. I have a webcomic, and I draw it in stick figures, but that's the whole point of the comic. Stick figures are versatile things, you can do whatever you want with them. It's also a fresh change from overly-complicatedly drawn comics.



Yes, there are writers out there who do the artwork the old fashioned way and simply pay someone else more qualified to do it.

What about the ones who draw them comic themselves, and write it? /sarcasm Oooh, that must forbidden! It must be taboo! /end sarcasm

[Rad]

Hey, he used the Giant's art!
and used it to call him lazy
Just saying...

you know, leaving alone the fact that he took a very early strip instead of any of the other more mature and rich ones

[Silverraptor]

I drew comics when I was in elementary school and they were very simple forms of Sentrets and Ghastlys. (Setrets are the heros and they usually beat up the pathetic bad guy ghastlys) As I look back at them, the artwork sucks. Does that mean I was lazy back then? No, I was a kid experimenting with art. It didn't matter if the artwork sucked, I had alot of people reading what I drew. Some of which were high school students how would come to our school periodically to hang out after school. They saw me one time showing my art to my friends, and they wanted to read it. They started laughing and wanting to read more. I remember for months they would always come and ask if I completed the next part for them to read.

Also, having a webcomic on here, sophicticated stick figure webcomics aren't that easy.

[maxon]

Aha - so drawing stick figures is lazy (not confusing style with technique, no sir) but not checking your grammar and spelling is not? Amirite?

[Darklord Bright]

All I can say after reading this, and the comments it received...

Oh wow. This 'Jules' got absolutely ripped apart. :smallbiggrin:

[HandofShadows]

The guy who wrote the article is arrogant, elitist, self rightouse, self serving and most of all dead wrong.

[Bavarian itP]

you know, leaving alone the fact that he took a very early strip instead of any of the other more mature and rich ones

I don't think he read more than this one strip.

[Silverraptor]

The guy who wrote the article is arrogant, elitist, self rightouse, self serving and most of all dead wrong.

I know. And if you read past it, you'll see a whole bunch of hate mail to her.:smallamused:

[Wolfram]

It's VERY hard to agree when he gets a fudamental fact wrong. DAZ doesn't make Poser. Smith Micro is its current producer. DAZ makes wonderful Poser goodies, including Victoria and Michael (not to mention quasi competing software, like Bryce and Carrara).

[NYYanks6083]

This was my response that I posted on the article:

"To the Author,

As a frequent reader of OOTS, I can tell you that you pretty much embarrass yourself by typing this unbelievably biased, poorly researched, condescending garbage. The author of OOTS actually DOES have artistic skills; he draws the comic in this fashion intentionally. Why? Because the name of the comic is ORDER OF THE STICK, its part of the joke. The characters often comment on it as part of the humor. What you've naturally managed to ignore in your sweeping judgments is the solid writing, great character development, and overall well-thought-out story, which obviously took plenty of time and effort to devise. But no, he didn't do it your way, so he's a lazy hack.

And who exactly are you to pass such sweeping judgments anyway? If someone has a story to tell, they have the right to tell it however they want, and the online community at large will be the judge as to whether the artwork and story are good enough, by either reading it or not. Not everyone can afford to hire a professional artist, nor should they have to.

Oh and FYI, I'm a graphic designer, so from one artist to another, stop being so judgmental, you make us all look bad."

:smallbiggrin:

[Alysar]

I'll put this idiotic opinion right up there with George F Will's opinion of blue jeans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html).

[TheSummoner]

I love how his example picture was from the first comic... you know, before Rich had a fraction of the practice hes had by this point and before his art style had a chance to evolve. Oh no, couldn't have used an example from one of the Battle for Azure City strips, that would've made stick figures look too good.

[Yiuel]

This was my response that I posted on the article:

"To the Author,

As a frequent reader of OOTS, I can tell you that you pretty much embarrass yourself by typing this unbelievably biased, poorly researched, condescending garbage. The author of OOTS actually DOES have artistic skills; he draws the comic in this fashion intentionally. Why? Because the name of the comic is ORDER OF THE STICK, its part of the joke. The characters often comment on it as part of the humor. What you've naturally managed to ignore in your sweeping judgments is the solid writing, great character development, and overall well-thought-out story, which obviously took plenty of time and effort to devise. But no, he didn't do it your way, so he's a lazy hack.

And who exactly are you to pass such sweeping judgments anyway? If someone has a story to tell, they have the right to tell it however they want, and the online community at large will be the judge as to whether the artwork and story are good enough, by either reading it or not. Not everyone can afford to hire a professional artist, nor should they have to.

Oh and FYI, I'm a graphic designer, so from one artist to another, stop being so judgmental, you make us all look bad."

:smallbiggrin:

You're my hero now. :smallbiggrin:

[BatRobin]

He just insulted 3 of my 4 fave comics. And both of my fave comic genres (stick fig and LEGO). :smallannoyed:


It's sad, though. He took the first strip of both OOTS and IWC, and rated the entire comic on that.


He.
Deserves.
To.
Die.

[Darakonis]

Yes...but he didn't make that his thesis. He almost admits that stick figure comics and photo comics CAN have a distinct style, but it comes off as more of a backhanded compliment, like "You're not QUITE as bad as the rest of them."

More disgustingly, his suggestion is HIRE a professional artist. Not try to come up with your own flourishes to turn a generic stick-figure/manga/photoshop style into your own. Distinct and professional are two different things. Even professional artists may fall into a trap of churning out art "according to standards," exhibiting technical skill but still coming off as very non-distinct. He implies that if someone's not getting paid, they're not skilled, uncreative, and must be lazy.

By the way, could you post a link to your webcomic...or at least mention the title?
Exactly why I refuse, on principle, to look up any of the author's work. She could have made a valid argument intended to help budding comic creators; instead, she chose to write a self-serving rant.

Regarding my comic, I'm sure you've never heard of it. I'll PM you a link -- I didn't want to come across as shamelessly promoting my work.

[multilis]

I remember Master of Orion 3, how they bragged about the art and realism before the game came out... they wasted so much time and money on these that the whole game was a disaster, ruined one of best game franchises.

Suggest the ranter make something better before ranting, similar applies to other places where endless ranting by people who so far seem to do worse than the ones they rant about.

[SaintRidley]

Suggest the ranter make something better before ranting, similar applies to other places where endless ranting by people who so far seem to do worse than the ones they rant about.

I would not, as expertise is not a prerequisite to making a correct judgement. Just because one is not an expert or hasn't done better does not mean that what they say is wrong.

For example, the terrible writing in the Twilight stories are often pointed out by people who have not produced a more successful book. Just because they have not been published or have not sold as many books does not make them wrong. Their nonexpertise is not to be held as proof of their wrongness because it is unrelated.

[Cizak]

Wonder what the author of this post feels when he looks down at his/her comments :smalltongue:

The comments speaks the truth. He/She doesn't :smallannoyed:

[veti]

Exactly why I refuse, on principle, to look up any of the author's work. She could have made a valid argument intended to help budding comic creators; instead, she chose to write a self-serving rant.

She wrote it the way she did to get exactly this kind of response. Now she's had, what, 30 hits from people in this thread who would otherwise never have heard of her. Score 1 for her.

As for her point: it's just silly to talk as if only one type of art were "valid". People have been drawing highly simplified pictures since - well, forever. They're called "cartoons". Look at Garfield, look at Peanuts, look at Gary Larson or Scott Adams - are these the work and names of lazy talentless hacks? Hell no, every one of them has touched more lives - and made more money - than Jules Rivera ever will.

Move along now, nothing to see here, just some random blogger spouting off.

[zql]

laziness gallery:

http://www.waakao.com/images/stories/articles/van-gogh-chair.jpg
http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/551/Max-Ernst-The-Sea-1928.jpg
http://afiches.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mondrian.jpg
http://peculiarvelocity.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/painting_jackson_pollock.jpg
http://snuffalupigus.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/m_duchamps.jpg
http://blackinkblots.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/duchamp_fountain1.jpg

[Ted The Bug]

I think it's pretty ridiculous. LICD (which I read) is very funny and impressively drawn, but doesn't have much depth. OOTS is equally funny, if not more so, and combines and intelligent plot with deep and complex characters. XKCD, on the other hand, has no plot at all, combined with some pretty bad artwork, and yet it retains a huge following.
So, yeah. The notion that 'realistic' art makes or breaks a comic is insane. With enough imagination, any form of art can be made 'epic', and even if a comic is drawn beautifully, without decent jokes, characters, or plot, it will undoubtedly fail.

[Logalmier]

Oh, really? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0463.html) I guess (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html) that means (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html) Rich (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) is a lazy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html) artist. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0690.html)

:smallannoyed:

[multilis]

"the terrible writing in the Twilight stories are often pointed out by people who have not produced a more successful book."

Haven't read Twilight or Harry Potter... There are people who find Harry Potter as marginal kiddy fiction.

Different people have different tastes, obviously Twilight appeals to millions of people. Twilight apparently taps into an older style of romance not so based on sex.

One could "rant" for days on the "low quality" of heavy metal, country music, etc, using similar words that people rant about "simplistic" "Twilight".

[Flyingfox]

Yes because drawing a stick figure comic is so much more lazy than having someone do it for you.

[Umael]

All I can say after reading this, and the comments it received...

Oh wow. This 'Jules' got absolutely ripped apart. :smallbiggrin:

*nod*

If the article upset you - read the comments that followed.

Normally, I have something to say, that I would say, after someone like Jules (perhaps inadvertantly) insulted OotS, but after reading the comments... no. No need, it's all been said.

Mind you, if Jules has said something like:

If you are thinking about doing a stick-figure comic, then you run the risk of being seen as lazy in your artwork. Some comics are stick-figure comics and are largely popular and successful, but I find they are more the exception than the norm.

...then I would have been more accepting of the message. But the way the message was delivered alienated many of the very people Jules was trying to reach.

[mistformsquirrl]

... I can't believe someone who even lays claim to the term 'artist' would have such an utterly stupid viewpoint <x.x>

I will admit upfront that I am biased of course; but nevertheless...

Has this person never, ever considered that the entire purpose of art for comics (and a few other forms too) is not just 'to be pretty'; but rather to - as with text - convey an emotion, message, texture or mood?

OOTS works in part BECAUSE of it's style. Yes, it's just stick figures - but they're stick figures with personality outsized beyond all reason for what they actually are. Could you make a really detailed OOTS strip? Sure. Would it be the same? No. You might still be able to turn it into something reading in it's own right, but you'd never catch the same mood.

Likewise with Erfworld - which IS very well drawn - you'd never be able to make it work with a radically different style. The cutsey-boop artstyle that pervades it sets the tone. Without it... it loses a chunk of personality.

Heck, there's a reason why people do things like, for instance, 8-bit "demakes" of modern games; and it's not just nostalgia. There's a charm there - something that no amount of mind-blowing motion-blurring eye-burning bloom can beat.

None of that's to say there's no room for improvement of course either. The Giant's backgrounds and perspective have grown LOT since day 1; and he's working with stick figures! Most other webcomics have their art grow and mutate over time. However with a few exceptions (usually where the style they become known for doesn't occur until later) it's recognizably similar and the 'new' art is merely a shining up of the old style. Basically a refinement of the technique.

Heck, look at Schlock Mercenary - tons of art evolution, and then he hired a colorist to go where he himself didn't think he could take it. However despite the new shinies, it's still recognizably similar to Howard's work when he first hit his stride with Schlock.

I'm not saying that you don't need good art of course - I'm redefining what good art is in relation to the medium. Good is art that fits the work and is iconic to it.

[ZerglingOne]

I sure hope he got Rich's explicit consent to use that panel from the comic. Otherwise it's copyright infringement. Personally, I love Rich's style, and he is a -MASTER- of the style. It hurts my brain trying to create characters like Rich's using Illustrator. I can almost guarantee this guy has -NEVER- in his life attempted to draw characters in Rich's style.

Edit: Besides, Rich is actually a really good artist, he draws stick figures because he wants to draw stick figures.

[CoffeeIncluded]

This person is an idiot.

[Woodsman]

The dude doesn't get the fact that xkcd was never about the art, it's about the jokes. It's much for Mr. Munroe easier to convey his comedic ideas through some sort of visual medium. He does stick figures, but it doesn't detract from the comic's purpose, which is more intellectual.

Hell, he even makes fun of his stick figure style!

I rest my case (http://xkcd.com/157/).

I find it a similar case with OotS. It's not necessarily the actual art, it's conveying your comedy through the best medium you can. If stick figures are what you can do, you do it.

Besides, I've never really considered them stick figures.

Edit: After fulling reading the article, I stand firm with my argument. The author seems to think attractiveness comes from the art, which it doesn't. Not 100%, at least.

[Yiuel]

It hurts my brain trying to create characters like Rich's using Illustrator. I can almost guarantee this guy has -NEVER- in his life attempted to draw characters in Rich's style.

That too.

It took me some time (read around 6 months) to get used to the proportions and all to make the little stuff I have. It's not that easy.

Just look at the official fillers that were made by fellow webcartooner. The few that have attempted to get Rich's style failed (or at least, didn't reach the style), even if they're good.

[Trixie]

Good art, bad art? How can you tell? The answer is that you can't. There is only that which is interesting to you and that which makes you yawn.
Perhaps one could replace his/her nonsensical idea with succesful vs unsuccesful attempts?

If someone can't tell good art from bad, well, this means he never paid attention, he has seen only good art (extremely unlikely), bad art (far more likely) or has no taste at all.

I can tell when something is extremely well done, even when I hate the style or method artist used, and me DeviantArt account is more a repository art of artists I've seen and stared in wonder for a few minutes, even if I disliked the pictures.

The there's no good/bad art, only effort is a fallacy used by hacks who can't draw at all, just as bad drivers complain how bad driver everyone else is, how bad writers describe people trying to help them, etc. You can put the exact same amount of time and effort into something as someone else, and still your skill and experience will decide who will make a better end product.

And about OP - well, the guy missed the point a bit, but he is right in a few things. Still, expecting something drawn as hobby to have paid-for quality (or hiring someone who can do one) is... well, not that wise.

[Brendan]

you know, we have seen versions of various oots strips, drawn by very talented artists, such as in the guest writer sections, or in the arts and crafts section, and none of them get the idea across of the story and the personality as the original stick figure art.
That said, that Jules person likely wrote this after a fairly severe concussion, as that is the only justification for the blatant numbskull-ness.
Jules needs to think before clicking "post".

Also, this quote of hers:

With enough people using this tool, the result would be a crop of comics that all look the same, and I wouldn't be a very responsible comic artist if I advised that, now would I?

Well, With enough people using your method, the result would be a crop of comics that all look the same, and I wouldn't be a very responsible comic artist human beingif I advised that, now would I?

You even contradict yourself, Blagosphere Person!

[Lissou]

I think the author (can't tell if it's a male or a female) sees comics are "pictures that happen to tell a story".

In my opinion, it's a story that happens to be told through pictures. Between story and art, art is secondary. But what's more, realistic doesn't mean good in comics. I certainly have never thought the Giant was lazy, you can tell by looking at his comic that he's got an artistic background.

Art in webcomics isn't just style. It's also angles, what you put in the picture and what you don't. Saying "stick figures are bad because they're stick figures" is ridiculous.

I think I get the point though. I re-read the article and it seems it's saying "don't do it like that, even if you do it well you'd only look like you're copying the others who succeeded doing it". I still disagree: even if the person decides to do stick figures, they can create their own stick-style. xkcd and oots are vastly different, yet they're both stick figure comics.

What gets to me is the "hire someone to draw for you". Not "find an artist willing to work on the project with you and share the benefits if any". But "pay someone else to do the drawing part of your webcomic, even though you'll probably never make money out of it, because artists deserve to be paid while writers can just wait to see if their story will attract enough fans".

I find the idea incredibly insulting. Not only would I never hire someone to do my art, since they'd be motivated by money rather than the story itself, but the idea that this writer-artist team, instead of being a cooperation where each gets 50% of whatever is gained (fame, revenue, debt), it being something were the writer pays to be allowed to work, and the artist gets paid to work.
Why not the other way around? Why shouldn't it be the artist paying the writer who writes the story?

Obviously, to Jules, writers are nothing without artists, and artists are more important than writers. That annoys me. In a comic, both are important, because both tell the story. I would more easily read a comic with great story and bad artwork than the other way around, and I'm sure some people are the opposite. But ultimately it's supposed to be a team were everyone is equal. So that really, really pisses me off, that (s)he's basically telling people "you go ahead and have a good idea for a story, then pay me for drawing it while you don't get anything".

[Brendan]

well, the idea is that writers shouldn't need the money, as all they want is their moment of fame, but the wonderful illustrators deserve the $$$ because they are the ones who do all of the work.
if you look at it from a pixel use side, the illustrator uses almost all of the space making the big bright things, but the writer uses only a fraction making the text.
the word for her is probably one that gets stars instead of vowels. maybe a bunch of those sorts of words strung together.

[Devixer]

I would say that we've met the Hitler of webcomics, but that would make Hitler look bad.

[Maximum Zersk]

I would say that we've met the Hitler of webcomics, but that would make Hitler look bad.

DUDE. GODWIN"S LAW.

Thank you. We just lost all of our argument up till this point. I hope your happy. :smallannoyed::smalltongue:


But honestly. Idiot Alert.

[JoshuaZ]

He has a point in that quality and style matter. But others have already pointed out well in this thread that that doesn't mean people who don't do high quality pseudo-realistic images are somehow lazy hacks.

If I ever started a webcomic I'd likely try to rope someone in to do the drawings for me. But I understand that I can't draw well. But no way in heck I'd pay for someone to do it. Don't have the money for that. Moreover, most people don't have the money for that. Part of the nice thing about the modern web is the low threshold. Everyone can do their own amateur thing.

[ThePhantasm]

I disagree with the guy...

b-b-b-but those babes at the top!!!

[Dairun Cates]

Quick. Someone alert Scott McCloud. He needs to stop writing those amazing books on sequential art, because he's TOTALLY WRONG.

Either that, or we're dealing with a hack, but hey, it's not like I constantly work with creative artists and can judge... Oh wait.

But yeah. I just get the feeling that someone's jealous because good writers don't hire snobby generic artists that learned their art style out of books and copying the works of others and never developed a real style.

[SaintRidley]

"the terrible writing in the Twilight stories are often pointed out by people who have not produced a more successful book."

Haven't read Twilight or Harry Potter... There are people who find Harry Potter as marginal kiddy fiction.

Different people have different tastes, obviously Twilight appeals to millions of people. Twilight apparently taps into an older style of romance not so based on sex.

One could "rant" for days on the "low quality" of heavy metal, country music, etc, using similar words that people rant about "simplistic" "Twilight".

I completely respect that people can find things to be low quality that others find quite entertaining and worthwhile. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of thinking that one must be an expert or have done better in order to offer criticism.

[Lord Thurlvin]

I've noticed that there has been an explosion in the number of comments on that page in the last thirteen hours. Does this thread have anything to do with that? Also, I can't find any example of the writer's work. Where is it?

[SaintRidley]

I've noticed that there has been an explosion in the number of comments on that page in the last thirteen hours. Does this thread have anything to do with that? Also, I can't find any example of the writer's work. Where is it?

A little bit does, probably. However, the bulk is almost certainly because Dante of Surviving the World posted a response to it as his comic today and linked it in his comments section.

At the end of the piece before the comments section is an advertisement for the author's comic. There's a link there.

Link (http://www.marsh-rocket.com/Pages.aspx?Pg_ID=0)for convenience.

[Lord Thurlvin]

A little bit does, probably. However, the bulk is almost certainly because Dante of Surviving the World posted a response to it as his comic today and linked it in his comments section.

At the end of the piece before the comments section is an advertisement for the author's comic. There's a link there.

Link (http://www.marsh-rocket.com/Pages.aspx?Pg_ID=0)for convenience.

... Whoa. Major eye failure on my part.

[Silverraptor]

Before this thread, I had no knowledge of XKCD. But many people say it's good, so I'm going to give it a shot. Would someone be so kind as to post a link for quick easy access for me?

[Maximum Zersk]

Here yah go!

http://xkcd.com/202/

Not the newest one, but on of the really good ones, in my opinion.

[Silverraptor]

Here yah go!

http://xkcd.com/202/

Not the newest one, but on of the really good ones, in my opinion.

Thank you.:smallsmile:

[Nimrod's Son]

Sweet, just noticed you can comment on her article.


Hello Ms Rivera,

Firstly, let me congratulate you on achieving your objective - you've certainly got a lot more people's attention than usual! Also the artwork in your comic is rather pretty, albeit in a rather generic style.

However, there are a lot of webcomics out there, and for me to continue reading one for more than about ten pages means it has to have something incredibly special about it from the get-go. It doesn't matter too much whether that "something" is unique and interesting artwork, charming whimsy, snappy dialogue, a gripping story, an eerie atmosphere or simple laugh-out-loud humour. Better yet it'd be a combination of the above. However, I'm afraid that yours just doesn't meet any of my criteria.

No matter though! I can always go read The Order of the Stick for the ninety-third time, instead. Enjoy your fifteen minutes, as some famous lazy chap might say.
That's mine, but my personal favourite has to be this one by "ZetaZeta":

XKCD has an air of minimalism and intelligence you can't get with anything other than its current simplicity. It's more-often-than-not a comic about Physics, Computer Science, Calculus, etc.etc.etc. It's style also lends itself a bit to its scientific nature (at least *I* draw stick figures and random sketches in class).
Order of the stick is parodying dungeon role-playing games whose art *IS* commissioned. o_O

XKCD also has a regular cast, which drives me to believe you heard about something that was more popular than you and you were enraged that it took less of your kind of skill (albeit much higher intelligence). derp.

Also you kind of spat in the face of all of photography.

Finally, webcomics seem to be a way for individuals to convey ideas, appeal to the emotions, etc. even though they might lack the overall skill to draw for Marvel or paint for Wizards of the Coast.

Final Note:

"Hire an Artist...This is my favorite method because it produces the most genuine results, and it gets me work. Commissioned artwork looks like the real deal because it IS the real deal."

Oh ho ho! I considered commissioned work the product of an ILLUSTRATOR, not an ARTIST. Nice try.


* * *


Look at Garfield, look at Peanuts, look at Gary Larson or Scott Adams - are these the work and names of lazy talentless hacks?
Garfield is, yeah. :smalltongue:

[The Extinguisher]

Counterpoint: Dinosaur Comics (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php) is the funniest thing on the internet, I can can probably count the number of times the art has changed on one hand.

[Shadowbane]

I'm cracking up as I read this. The author comes off as arrogant and unaware of the point of the comics they are critiquing. XKCD, for example. Why the hell would it need an established cast?

Wow.

[Lissou]

well, the idea is that writers shouldn't need the money, as all they want is their moment of fame, but the wonderful illustrators deserve the $$$ because they are the ones who do all of the work.
if you look at it from a pixel use side, the illustrator uses almost all of the space making the big bright things, but the writer uses only a fraction making the text.

I'm not 100% sure if you're sacrastic, but either way... That's just not true.
The writer doesn't just contribute "the words". Without the writer, the artist has nothing to draw. Who decides what actually happens? What the characters look like? What emotion they're experiencing as they're saying the words?
The artist does hard work, yes, but that work is some form of translation of the script given by the writer. It's not as though the artist drew everything and then the writer added two words.
Some things are put there by the artist only. Probably some details, the backgrounds, maybe the types of clothing... Depends on what wasn't defined by the writer. Depending on how the artist-writer team works, the artist might also take care of the "cutting" part (not sure of the English name, when you decide how many panels there are and what exactly happens in each panel), but the writer might, and the writer might even do rough sketches showing the angles they want.

Of course as I said, it depends. The script can be as vague as being just dialogue, and having the artist decide of the angle, number and size of panels and so on, or it can be a detailed description of everything with a rough sketch of the panels, or anything in between.

Anyway, I can't think of ever hiring someone. If I'm not working on a project alone, I need someone who believes in the project as much as I do. Not someone who does it for a paycheque, someone who does it because they can't imagine a life where they wouldn't do it.
But most likely, I'd want to do it all by myself, anyways. Trying to share your vision is hard enough, if it has to go through someone else... Unless we had the idea together, I don't think I'd trust anyone enough.

[Dr.Epic]

Comics are made up of several elements:

Story: the actually plot and all the elements that go on in that
Story-telling: communicating the plot in the best way that suits the story
Art: the quality of the drawings

OotS has a good story and stick figures may or may not help the story-telling experience, but the art is, well, that's up for debate. As good as Rich may be at drawing stick figures it's unlikely he's ever going to get praised based entirely on the art quality in oots. And as for him earning respect of other artists, it all depends on which arts you talk and and what their specific line of work is.

[TheBST]

Counterpoint: the article mentions three comics with 'hired artists', and all three of them are god-damn-awful.

[Pronounceable]

I'll put this idiotic opinion right up there with George F Will's opinion of blue jeans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html).
I despise blue jeans too, for some of the "reasons" he "stated". But that guy probably smoked something which didn't agree with him. Or is trolling.
...
As for OP, I'm amused. Such a desperate cry for attention, it makes you smile.

[Roderick_BR]

Heh. Not the first time OotS was mentioned in some artist's opinion that "stick figures suck, therefore the comic sucks" review. The other time it was that guy from the Wendy/Girly, telling what a stick figure SHOULD be (by drawing a retarded-looking spagethi-limbed stick figure guy).
Rich's style is rich (heh) and detailed, and drives it home. I wouldn't take it any other way (even with the beautiful comic and manga adaptations you see around).
It's funny how only "professional artists" find other people's styles bad.

[Brendan]

Lissou: I wasn't exactly being sarcastic, but speaking from Jules' derranged and unaware point of view, sorry for the confusion.

[@gmail.com]

xkcd DOES have a cast. Black hat guy, black hat guy's girlfriend, some of black hat guy's friends...

[RecklessFable]

I think we're all relatively on the same page here. Art is part of the storytelling. In fact, the author completely missed the point on that. You can do a comic purely with slight facial expressions and if you get them right, it all works.

That being said, the author wrote a poorly thought out, but inflammatory, article that attacked several popular web comics. The result? Fanrage yielding tone of traffic for his site.

Good job that. I'm sure the ad revenue has spiked for the site.

[Cizak]

Am I the only one who can't see the comments anymore? Maybye the author turned them off :smalltongue:

[Kome]

Meh. It is things like this that make me cringe when people say, "I have a right to my opinion."

"Yea, but you have a responsibility to not have a stupid opinion."

Art is more than how something looks.

[Fish]

Jules said: "Stick figure art, to me, represents an unfinished piece. Stick figures are things that professionals use in place of final art when in the planning stages of their work."

And comics are, to a filmmaker, "an unfinished piece. Comics, called storyboards, are things that professionals use in place of final art when in the planning stages of their work."

Therefore, Jules is a hack who is too lazy to make a real film.

[B. Dandelion]

A person said something stupid and offensive? On the internet? I never!

[Zanaril]

Jules said: "Stick figure art, to me, represents an unfinished piece. Stick figures are things that professionals use in place of final art when in the planning stages of their work."

And comics are, to a filmmaker, "an unfinished piece. Comics, called storyboards, are things that professionals use in place of final art when in the planning stages of their work."

Therefore, Jules is a hack who is too lazy to make a real film.

PWN'd!

*cough*

TBH, I agree that art is important. But what is important isn't that it's top quality, but that it's eye-catching and memorable. I tend to get bogged down and give up reading webcomics if they're not... well, readable.

I think looking neat and purposeful is one of the defining features. Sloppy rendering is hard on the eyes; give me a the crisp, clean lines of vector stick figure limbs any day.

(And for the record, I find things like YAFGC and XKCD fine)

[Raging Gene Ray]

A person said something stupid and offensive? On the internet? I never!

Rather! The outrage has caused my monocle to fall from my face!

[SaintRidley]

Rather! The outrage has caused my monocle to fall from my face!

Forsooth, the appalling nature of this event has aroused in me an aching in my pineal gland! I will be most insomniac in my doing as a result!

[B. Dandelion]

Forsooth, the appalling nature of this event has aroused in me an aching in my pineal gland! I will be most insomniac in my doing as a result!

Oh, come now. You can't tell me you didn't expect the likely reaction you'd provoke by linking to this. Not that it makes the individual in question any less of a douche, but really.

[SaintRidley]

Oh, come now. You can't tell me you didn't expect the likely reaction you'd provoke by linking to this. Not that it makes the individual in question any less of a douche, but really.

Actually, I was just playing along. Not actually showing any shock or surprise.

I posted it because it seemed relevant. I also knew most here would not be terribly appreciative of it. That is no reason not to post it, though.

I honestly did not expect a comment campaign, though. And combined with the effect of Surviving the World responding and posting the link on their page on the same day, the comment campaign was quite large.

[Silverraptor]

Am I the only one who can't see the comments anymore? Maybye the author turned them off :smalltongue:

No. They're still there.

[Optimystik]

I still haven't clicked that link. This guy doesn't deserve my traffic to his website, unless it's a DDoS attack or something.

[Kome]

I still haven't clicked that link. This guy doesn't deserve my traffic to his website, unless it's a DDoS attack or something.

The link provided by OP isn't to the author's website, so she won't be getting any traffic from clicking it. It's to an article she wrote for another site. Still, it's mostly a bunch of whargarble anyway so there's not much reason to read it in the first place.

[Shatteredtower]

Wait. Jules (male name, variant of Julius) suggested that David Morgan Mar is lazy?

Heh.

Haha.

Gwahahahahahahahahahahahaha... ho, my...

Look, there are merits to hiring a professional for the parts you can't do on work you value. That is what ethical professionals do.

None of the cited creators have that problem.

[Morithias]

*sighs* I'll just be repeating what everyone else probably said in the last 4 pages, but I'll try to put my 2 cents in.

1. XKCD

a. The stick figure is a 'tabrula rasa' (sp?) or a blank slate. When you read that comic and can react to it, you react to it because you realize that the person there could very easily be YOU. It's not some fictional character, it's you. You're looking at an experience of your life from the outside, which come to think of it, is similar to the definition of "enlightened".

b. Writing over Drawing. Writing over Drawing. I cannot say this enough. I do not care and neither should anyone else about how good your drawing is if your writing is not good. If a person was the best drawer in the world, but every day just posted a drawing of a man beating his wife, but with a different man and/or wife each day. I would not read it. XKCD I read because I relate to it, and it creates a reaction.

2. OOTS

a. Ok, seriously, he's making a webcomic based off a game. Sounds like something that would normally screw up. It didn't. Said game is a game that LITERALLY HAS NO GRAPHICS. It sounds like that would screw up. It didn't.

One of the things every Dnd player loves about it, is that there ARE no graphics. You see the world as you imagine it. You're not restricted to what the art is drawn, you're only restricted to the past events. Which...ironically sounds a lot like real life.

b. Please read b. of XKCD. Same thing applies. If you can get over 400 pages of forum posts talking about relationships between characters in your comic, you've clearly created an emotional reaction.

3. "Real Art"

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-52028260.html

This is a thing about a painting taken by the government of Russia because it has "high cultural value."

The painting is of a black square. NOTHING MORE.

:mitd: <- You see this?

Imagine it with no eyes, and no personality, literally a black square, and yet it has 'high cultural value'. As far as I'm concerned if that painting can have high value so can OOTS and XKCD. Hell as far as I'm concerned that they're more valuable culturally. Anyone who does not know the history of the black square, will not give a crap about it, and even then it's iffy.

Someone who reads these comics? Even if they don't like them, they'll still get SOME kind of reaction, rather than looking at a BLACK SQUARE.

Oh and one more thing?

"famous painting of a plain black square that was expected to fetch millions of dollars at auction Saturday was snatched up by Russia' s Culture Ministry, which deemed it too precious to sell."

Millions of dollars? I could draw a blue square for you. How about a red square? Brown Square? Give me a million dollars and I'll draw any color square you want. It doesn't take any talent.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Millions of dollars? I could draw a blue square for you. How about a red square? Brown Square? Give me a million dollars and I'll draw any color square you want. It doesn't take any talent.

:smallsigh: You just don't understand. Art isn't just the product of the artist...it's what the viewer EXPERIENCES through the product. This is not JUST a black square...it is a symbol of the raw emotion the artist must have felt and left for his viewer to try and feel.

What emotion you ask? Why the sheer audacity it takes to say "I'm going to slap a multi-million dollar price tag on this black square. I have a better chance of selling it than winning the lottery, so why not?"

[Lord Thurlvin]

I would like to point out that the author has recently apologized for some of the things she said in the article.

[Fish]

She should've hired a writer for that article, I tried to warn her.

[Maximum Zersk]

I would like to point out that the author has recently apologized for some of the things she said in the article.

That might cause more flame, though.

If the person wants to make a point, think it out first before fuming at stick figure comics, poser comics, and photo comics.

[Raging Gene Ray]

That might cause more flame, though.

If the person wants to make a point, think it out first before fuming at stick figure comics, poser comics, and photo comics.

I think she's honest about her apology. It was just a case of poor communication on her part, and sometimes you make broad, sweeping, unfair generalizations because that seems to be the only way to be heard on the internet.

I don't have any problem with her anymore. Might even read her comic.

[Dr.Epic]

At the risk of getting everyone on this thread against me, the person does make sense. The art quality in OotS is not great. People read it for the story and characters. And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself if people spend this much time talking about cyanide and happiness or XKCD.

[Harr]

The art quality in OotS is not great.

It is great in what it sets out to be: the representation of RPG player's imaginations of their game world.

Actually, it is not only great at that specific thing, it is the best representation of that specific part of human experience that there is. And that is what "art" is all about, which is something that this "artist", you, and most other young, naive, and inexperienced "critics" seem to have forgotten all about (or never learned in the first place).


And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself if people spend this much time talking about cyanide and happiness or XKCD.

More, actually.

Protip: What you imagine to be true in your head, is not necessarily actually true in the real world :smallwink:

[Dr.Epic]

It is great in what it sets out to be: the representation of RPG player's imaginations of their game world.

Actually, it is not only great at that specific thing, it is the best representation of that specific part of human experience that there is. And that is what "art" is all about, which is something that this "artist", you, and most other young, naive, and inexperienced "critics" seem to have forgotten all about (or never learned in the first place).[/spoiler]

Rich could have done a more cartoony look for his characters. Look at the art work for Bone: it's fantasy, adventure, an epic story, and humor (all of what OotS is) but it's done in more detail than stick figures. The fact that Rich uses stick figures makes him look like a bad artist (no offense Mr. Burlew).



[spoiler]More, actually.

Protip: What you imagine to be true in your head, is not necessarily actually true in the real world :smallwink:

Look at all the threads started over all the tiny things that happen in OotS. How many threads are there for a single strip in XKCD?

[Nimrod's Son]

I would like to point out that the author has recently apologized for some of the things she said in the article.
Well, she apologised to Dante Shepherd, but that's about it. But according to her Twitter page, she took that apology back almost immediately. Doesn't seem to me like she's taken in much of what people said to her. :smallsigh:

[EyethatBinds]

Here's how Scott McCloud puts this sort of discussion,
http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~decarlo/readings/mccloud-ch1.pdf
He's got several other things to talk about in the world of comics, which he does in comic format, and mentions webcomics in a later chapter in detail.

I do think the writer of the article was just saying things for the sake of her own voice but I can agree that some webcomics come off as a little lazy. With others that's the friggin' point though and sequential art is about experimentation.

I've made my opinion on this particular comic very clear before, so I won't do a retread.

But I will say that I don't think the art is particularly lazy and occasionally I even get impressed by splash pages.

[Sholos]

:smallsigh: You just don't understand. Art isn't just the product of the artist...it's what the viewer EXPERIENCES through the product. This is not JUST a black square...it is a symbol of the raw emotion the artist must have felt and left for his viewer to try and feel.

What emotion you ask? Why the sheer audacity it takes to say "I'm going to slap a multi-million dollar price tag on this black square. I have a better chance of selling it than winning the lottery, so why not?"

Please tell me you're being sarcastic and forgot the tags. A black square is not art, no matter how "outrageous" it is. I could charge a trillion dollars for a line I drew. Does that make it art? No, it does not. All it means is that there are some very silly people out there who will pay large sums of money to try to feel good about themselves.

OT: Case in point, today's xkcd (http://xkcd.com/695/) does a wonderful job of making you feel sad for a robot. A robot. Something specifically designed to be expendable should the need arise.

[Squeejee]

Maybe he should hire a professional writer to come up with something a bit more gripping, instead of taking the lazy way out and writing it himself. :smallamused:

And while he's at it, work on that somewhat overbearing attitude he seems to have. I got no respect for art critics that dont pause to consider the alternative, the point of view of the fans who enjoy what they're bashing.

I found the article variously offending, and as a Sprite artist myself, I'm here to say that it's definitely not easy. At all. Sprites are especially difficult because every single pixel matters, and if you get into sprite art with anything less than perfection in mind, you will be forever dissapointed by your final product.

Or you'll be shameless, and throw out more Bob and George references. Good for you.

[TriForce]

concerning that apology:


@Josh_Finney I wasn't trying to make enemies with that article, but I'm not really backing down on my opinions either.
11:23 PM Jan 27th from Twitterrific in reply to Josh_Finney

@danteshepherd I'm sorry if I offended you with the article. I do enjoy your work, it just strays from the traditional def of webcomic.
about 22 hours ago from Twitterrific in reply to danteshepherd

@danteshepherd if youre going to act like a child about this (as you clearly have) I rescind my offer and my apology. You are a lazy bastard
about 10 hours ago from Twitterrific



now, i dont know about danteshepherd, but either he is a complete *******, or jules is, and if i have to base my judgement on previous knowledge, i vote jules :smallbiggrin:

[Raging Gene Ray]

All it means is that there are some very silly people out there who will pay large sums of money to try to feel good about themselves.

I know! Isn't it great? (And yes, it is sarcasm).



now, i dont know about danteshepherd, but either he is a complete *******, or jules is, and if i have to base my judgement on previous knowledge, i vote jules :smallbiggrin:

Well...I doubt Dante is lazy...whether Jules thinks Surviving the World is lazy or not, he (if I go by the name) or she (if I go by other posters' comments) has no right to judge whether somebody is lazy or not solely from their webcomic. I wonder how good shi (I've decided Jules is an elf. Certainly arrogant enough) would be if she had to balance her comic with a full time job that requires a Ph. D?

[Darakonis]

What gets to me is the "hire someone to draw for you". Not "find an artist willing to work on the project with you and share the benefits if any". But "pay someone else to do the drawing part of your webcomic, even though you'll probably never make money out of it, because artists deserve to be paid while writers can just wait to see if their story will attract enough fans".

I find the idea incredibly insulting. Not only would I never hire someone to do my art, since they'd be motivated by money rather than the story itself, but the idea that this writer-artist team, instead of being a cooperation where each gets 50% of whatever is gained (fame, revenue, debt), it being something were the writer pays to be allowed to work, and the artist gets paid to work.
Why not the other way around? Why shouldn't it be the artist paying the writer who writes the story?

Obviously, to Jules, writers are nothing without artists, and artists are more important than writers. That annoys me. In a comic, both are important, because both tell the story. I would more easily read a comic with great story and bad artwork than the other way around, and I'm sure some people are the opposite. But ultimately it's supposed to be a team were everyone is equal. So that really, really pisses me off, that (s)he's basically telling people "you go ahead and have a good idea for a story, then pay me for drawing it while you don't get anything".
I think this is drawing some unfair conclusions. Jules made some insulting claims, but I do not believe this to be one of them.

Some (many?) writers are not looking for an equal partnership. They want the project to be theirs. They don't want to have to compromise their vision. If you hire an artist, that artist does what you tell him to do -- or you don't pay him. With a partner, you are forfeiting a great amount of control.

It's not an issue of writers not deserving to be paid. Substitute the writer with the owner of a Dollar Store, and the artist with a clerk. The owner pays the clerk to work for him -- but he doesn't make any money if no one buys his product. Doesn't the clerk still deserve to be paid? Do you ever see an owner say, "I'll only pay you if I make some money"?


But ultimately it's supposed to be a team were everyone is equal.
Says who? That's your opinion -- the world, for the most part, does not work that way. In general, it is the person who came up with the idea that is in charge. Whether he chooses to have a partner or an employee is up to him, but we see more employees than partners. That's how capitalism works.


So that really, really pisses me off, that (s)he's basically telling people "you go ahead and have a good idea for a story, then pay me for drawing it while you don't get anything"
99% of webcomics don't make money. Jules is clearly speaking to the 1% that do. Obviously 14-year-old Johnny won't hire a professional artist for his "totally lollerz" webcomic; but people who are determined to make money off a webcomic have to accept that they will have to invest some money into it at some point -- be it advertising money, web-hosting money, or paying-an-artist money.


Why not the other way around? Why shouldn't it be the artist paying the writer who writes the story?

Obviously, to Jules, writers are nothing without artists, and artists are more important than writers.
That is completely the wrong conclusion to draw from what Jules said. The very fact that Jules said that writers should hire artists implies that the artist is subordinate to the writer. Artists illustrate -- writers come up with the ideas. Without ideas, there is nothing to illustrate.

As for the artist paying the writer -- this does sometimes happen, but Jules was not making a point about bad writing in comics, which is another issue entirely (we see bad writing in everything -- movies, video games, comics, etc. because we live in a world focused on visuals).

It's not fair to extrapolate a person's entire worldview based on one article. Jules made a few inflammatory claims -- and those are what deserve to be addressed. Given no length restrictions, sure, Jules could have gone into the possibility of partnerships, etc. but we cannot assume Jules' position on the matter simply because it was not included.

Peace
-Darakonis

[Snails]

Skipping to the end...

The author of the opinion piece should read the classic Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art by Scott McCloud.

If he were to bother to understand something about his own medium deeper than "I likes whats I likes", he would recognize that Rich made an extreme choice that is justifiable in the context of the genre and tone Rich is attempting to achieve. In fact, I find that comics about RPGs with "better art" often leave me cold -- the extra details are as often a distraction at odds with my personal experiences on the topic.

Rich writing plays directly on an intrinsic irony of RPGs: while we play in a world with nominally big moral stakes, in fact, our PCs (and even our campaigns worlds) are often rather two dimensional or one dimensional when put under a microscope for serious philosophical consideration.

[bluewind95]

I think I'd really love to see Rich reply to this.

Honestly... his art isn't lazy. It's made to look "lazy" because it's what he felt works best for his story. His decision. If he truly were lazy, there would be absolutely no improvement over the years. And he has improved. He has refined it. So it's an art style, not something he did out of being lazy.

[Raging Gene Ray]

I think I'd really love to see Rich reply to this.

He's probably too busy creating one of the best webcomics around and/or working on other projects to care.

Rich might feel his work is lazy. I don't have any evidence for that other than he's a good artist, and nearly every good artist I've met tends to be their own worst critic.

[Maximum Zersk]

Look at all the threads started over all the tiny things that happen in OotS. How many threads are there for a single strip in XKCD?

Go to the XKCD forums. There's an entire sub-forum for individual comic strips in XKCD.

[Harr]

Look at all the threads started over all the tiny things that happen in OotS. How many threads are there for a single strip in XKCD?

Both XKCD and Cyanide and Happiness frequently get their strips re-posted on MANY other websites and online magazines with related content (technical and academic related websites for XKCD, dark humor for C&H). They also have a free and unlimited embed and sharing approach, so that they also get reposted on any WordPress, Blogger, Facebook, MySpace, LiveJournal, etc, etc, as well as any personal homepage that wants to.

So comparing the front page of their respective forum boards is a singularly and spectacularly poor way of measuring how much "discussion" they generate, since while the Giant keeps a tight grip on any of his intellectual property ever leaving this site, those other two comics have their presence well established and dispersed all over the internet.

XKCD in particular, even after having an *extremely* active discussion board of is own, also has several fan/anti-fan run blogs dedicated exclusively to telling the world how much it rules or sucks respectively, and to analyzing every single strip and chart to excruciating detail.

So yeah, like I said, big difference between what you spontaneously imagine in your head and fancy to be true, and what actually is true.

[Amarsir]

Although I can't say I agree, I do see the author's point. Everyone here certainly agrees that writing is more important than art, but I could understand if someone felt the opposite. And surely excellent art that accompanied top-notch writing should be preferable to all, no?

OOTS of course we all love and couldn't imagine any other way. But didn't we also love it before the art upgrades of 198? Then the art improved so that wasn't a bad thing. If Rich wanted to upgrade his method again (or vary as with the crayon pages) it would certainly be welcome. So let's not reject the idea that art could be improved on.

The important thing - and I think this is the point the author failed to acknowledge - is that the art plus the writing contribute to a final package and that is what we ultimately judge. I personally think that Questionable Content is inane and whiny and never every (ever) funny. So no quality of art will pick that up. By contrast, OOTS is consistently funny and has a compelling story so any art that conveys it will do.

But there is a mid-range. For example, Ryan North seems like he'd be a fun guy to converse with, and Dinosaur Comics is entertaining more than average. But using the fixed-image isn't actually improving the comic. It's a gimmick he can get away with. But there are times when it actually detracts, and he has to draw odd lines off-panel to convey conversations with characters that aren't there, ignore someone who is, or pickup midstream between Dromiciomimus and Utahraptor as if having the same conversation. So he's able to overcome the art, but it isn't helping him.

XKCD on the other hand, sometimes the lack of effort on the art just detracts too much. Ever find yourself wondering why heads are detached from bodies so often? It's not the point, we're not supposed to be wowed by the figures, but then there's no reason not to do it right either. Or why have a recurring character, like the guy in the beret, if you're not going to give him some definable personality. (Black Hat Guy does have one, which is good.)

Look at XKCD 659 for example. Enough people have wondered, or not wondered but been 100% convinced on polar opposite sides, what's happening there. It could have been done more clearly, and that's why the artwork is worthy of critique.

The lastly, look at what Shamus Young is currently doing over on Escapist Magazine. He has a twice-weekly webcomic (Stolen Pixels) made of screencaps with captions. And has recently started a Let's Play serious about LOTRO. (Following his 15-part series on Champions Online.) Now whether you like the comic or not, I think I can make a reasonable case that he just gets more jokes, more effective points, and more entertainment value out of the Let's Play, which is not a comic. (And to further separate them, consider the LP even without embedded screen grabs.)

What I'm getting at is that an interesting writer is sometimes limited by the comic format, and instead of trying to make art to justify the writing they'd be better off with a format that better serves it. Like Randall Monroe changes XKCD from comic strip to poster when it suits him, it doesn't make sense to hold to an art-based format and then make art that doesn't contribute. Make it a poster, or a picto-blog, or a Tweet, or whatever format fits best. So the author was right in that no author should start circumventing useful art just because their goal is a comic.

However, coming back to OOTS I think it just works. Rich has enough detail to create distinctive, lovable characters and shows enough to portray hidden jokes alongside the needs of the story. And really for a comic tale like this, that's what matters.

[Maximum Zersk]

@ Above:

First of all, XKCD's recurring characters DO have some personality. The dark-haired girl's [Megan] Nihilism, The beret-man's childishness and innocence, and, as you've mentioned, the black hat man's sociopathy and cl*******-ish nature.

Second, I doubt the 659 confusion wasn't about the art, per se, but about the general concept not being explained in it. It had nothing to do with the artwork.

Nothing wrong with what you said, just those little things right there.

[deuxhero]

Yeah, I was thinking that. Why would xkcd even need a regular cast?

And it has "Black Hat Guy", "Black Hat Guy's girlfriend" and "Beret Guy". That's 3 regulars off the top of my head.



I would say that we've met the Hitler of webcomics, but that would make Hitler look bad.

Come on, Hitler's paintings weren't THAT bad >_>

[salinan]

99% of webcomics don't make money. Jules is clearly speaking to the 1% that do.
That's not how I read it. Jules seems to be saying that you can't hope to become successful unless your art meets certain Jules-defined standards.


]Obviously 14-year-old Johnny won't hire a professional artist for his "totally lollerz" webcomic; but people who are determined to make money off a webcomic have to accept that they will have to invest some money into it at some point -- be it advertising money, web-hosting money, or paying-an-artist money.
Eh? I don't know of anyone who has started a webcomic with the aim of making money. I humbly suggest that anyone with that aim from the outset is likely doomed to disappointment (not to mention being considerably out of pocket, if Jules' advice is followed.) And for anyone who has found success, well - why change a winning formula?


OOTS of course we all love and couldn't imagine any other way. But didn't we also love it before the art upgrades of 198? Then the art improved so that wasn't a bad thing.
Agreed, but by Jules' definition, OoTS is 'stick art' whether it's improved or not, and thus unacceptable. My opinion about that little piece of snobbery is unprintable.

[SaintRidley]

XKCD 659 confused people? I thought it was perfectly clear.

[derfenrirwolv]

Come on, Hitler's paintings weren't THAT bad >_>

I don't see why they're considered bad at all. They look pretty good to me, and this is someone that wasn't IN art school yet. You really don't expect people to perfect scale and perspective and THEN teach them art do you?

[Agamemnon582bc]

concerning that apology:


now, i dont know about danteshepherd, but either he is a complete *******, or jules is, and if i have to base my judgement on previous knowledge, i vote jules :smallbiggrin:
She apparently blamed him for his readers saying rather "bad" things about her, so she blames him. Considering her attitude on the whole situation:

http://twitter.com/julesrivera/status/8314764863

"@Katapult That's the Internet for you. You don't agree with the masses, suddenly you're an idiot-moron who is also very stupid."

http://twitter.com/julesrivera/status/8316118120

"@Eldoniousrex yeah, that was my problem with it too. That everyone defends it by saying "hurr hurr it's hot pretty pictures" is annoying."

I would say it's her. Curiously I wonder this is how other narrow-minded elitists in the world have the same mindset when human beings find their terrible opinions; "Omigosh, since I don't agree with 'the masses blah blah blah...' " Her word choice in embarrassing. Well, she's embarrassing altogether as well, especially to the art world, but I guess that's a different issue (or is it?).

[Tricksy Hobbits]

If the webcomic makes money would the author be a professional artist?

[Mystic Muse]

If the webcomic makes money would the author be a professional artist?

If webcomics are your profession then yes you are a professional.

However, Just because you're a professional doesn't mean you know what you're doing. Why just look at the good folks at WOTC!:smalltongue:

[Capullanas]

That guy's comic sucks. I think he's just trying to compensate for the fact that OotS and xkcd both have some things that his doesn't: originality and personality. Sure his comic is more complex graphically, but it doesn't touch people in the way that oots and xkcd do. And that's what art is really about.

[lothos]

XKCD made me cry once. No other comic ever achieved something like that. Stick figures can be great, when the artist knows what he's doing.

If it's not too personal a question, which Strip ? If I had to guess, I'd guess one of Strip; 104 (http://xkcd.com/104/), 128 (http://xkcd.com/128/), 162 (http://xkcd.com/162) or 289 (http://xkcd.com/289/).

They didn't make me cry, but they made me really appreciate my wife and realise how lucky I am to have someone in my life who understands me. They are the sort of thing that could make me cry.

[Neopolis]

Jules said: "Stick figure art, to me, represents an unfinished piece. Stick figures are things that professionals use in place of final art when in the planning stages of their work."

And comics are, to a filmmaker, "an unfinished piece. Comics, called storyboards, are things that professionals use in place of final art when in the planning stages of their work."

Therefore, Jules is a hack who is too lazy to make a real film.
I'm skipping half the thread here, but... Bravo. You deserve an internet. :D

[NYYanks6083]

agreed :smallamused: