I try not to get to huffy about what constitutes a good artist in comics these days and realise what others like is not always going to be what I like however some times I do think that the people who are paid to draw comics these days are just not technically up to the job. This has nothing to do with style or even story telling ability but basic training and ability.

My default sign of a bad artist is when they are unable to draw a character holding and aiming a rifle correctly. I have noticed lately that a lot of the newer artists are unable to get the hands in the right place. Often they will even make it look like a hunting style rifle has a pistol grip just to make it a little easier to draw.

Do any of you guys notice certain things that always cry out to you when it comes to comic art?

When the facial expressions (or lack, thereof) in no way match the scene that's being drawn.

A total lack of understanding of the understructure of something -- that is, they learned to draw by looking at other comic artists, rather than learning to draw by looking at the real world (Rob Liefeld comes to mind immediately, as are all those artists who can only draw in the "Image" or "Anime" styles -- particularly when those styles are inappropriate to the story they're telling).

Also, someone who doesn't understand narrative flow in their layout.

Someone who relies too much on stock poses. Someone who relies too much on photo reference (tracing or copying photos exactly rather than looking at a photo to help work out things like how hands are situated or how shadows are falling, for instance).

Someone whose layouts don't tell a story, or don't inspire you to turn the page.

Someone who doesn't understand basic anatomy.

Someone who relies on flash and sparkle to obfuscate their lack of knowledge of basic drawing (you don't see much of this anymore from the Big Two, but you used to. Boy, you used to).

I fit most of those.

Rich Buckler.

That's right. The talentless hack.

I could make a snarky comment and say, "Yeah, you tosser", but the fact is, Matt, you're showing improvement. You understand that objects function in three dimensions and try to evoke that in your drawings. You're learning more and more, and it shows. It helps that you draw a lot and you do so by looking not at how other cartoonists do things, but instead by looking at the actual things. It shows, man. It definitely shows.

Thanks, John.

You two go get a room.

Workin' on it. *bow chicka BOW bow*...

Many of today's top artists can't draw normal looking women (they can draw emaciated women with huge chests); many of the top writers can't write believable female dialogue (they can write angry, obnoxious or ditzy but little else). Too many of the "stars" suffer from these blindspots, something you rarely ever find in the work of the big names of the Golden and Silver Ages ~ if you compare the fashions and morés of those eras to how women were generally depicted in comics, it was closer to reality than are found in today's supposedly enlightened books.

Dunno that I'd call them "bad" artists because of this alone, but I doubt they would be considered great if they tried working in other fields such as advertising.

I do not approve of this course of action.

Curious as to which one of 'em you're jealous of....

You too, huh?

Too many fingers.

Comic art can't be boring or detract from the reader's understanding of the story.

Computer keyboards with just a 5x15 grid instead of a real keyboard layout.

When every single character looks like a professional fitness model. None of the characters look 'lifelike'.

I don't really analyze it.

I look at it and if I like it, than it's good.

That's all there is to it.

Is it pleasing to my eye

and can I tell what is happening.

That's all I care about.

Third thing would be is it cool? which would be an extra, not necessary.

Sometimes that means I even like Liefeld. Sometimes not because I can't always tell what's going on.


It's why I liked McFarlane so much back in the day. Like the way it looked? yes. Tell what is happening? Yes. Cool? Yes-like nothing else on the stands, and awesome.

I don't see the way women are drawn today as any more ridiculous than the men. I think people just notice it more because it's women and they are supposed to.

I also think more women look like that today than in the past. There are many very skinny women with huge boobs-both because boobs have gotten bigger, and also, a good number of women have fake or lifted boobs

As far as annoyances, I don't know. Have to think about it.

If all of the characters have the same face... bad sign.

And I don't mean giving Bruce Wayne a squarer chin and Clark Kent glasses.

Obvious errors in the art that have to be covered in dialogue.

I agree (I think). Aparo gave every male character the same face, but he was a good enough artist to make it work.