L4D: Comics

[ThePain]

First off Plague, I've read your other posts where you've specifically stated you don't actually care about what you say, you just like playing Devil's Advocate. I respect that, but put more effort into it next time.

Secondly. First one is ok, the second one is great, third one is utter shit, fourth one is so-so, and the fifth one is Penny Arcade, which isn't trying to be art so I wouldn't hold it to the same standards.

The first one is ok as while it has lots of details, I don't have any idea what's going on. The elite is angry and has a sword... that's about all the story I've got. It's also incredibly bland despite the detail. Purple purple and off-purple. I had to look a couple times before I even noticed there was a second elite in the picture as at first he just looked like a pile of purple crap against a purple wall.

The second one is great because they've used line depth, light and shadow, blur and depth to show action. It's easy to follow, easy to tell what's going on without any words or background story. A lot of effort was put into every aspect of the panels.

The third one has not even made an attempt at line depth, is flat and boring. Boring pose, boring colors, boring action. If you don't understand why that pose is boring, I highly recommend this book. http://www.amazon.com/How-Draw-Comics-M ... 0671530771 Also it looks like someone drew Master Chief in MS paint atop a picture they took of the desert.

The fourth one is a nice attempt at Noir, but they left Mario flat and lifeless. Where Peach has lots of shadows to her, it looks like she's kissing a card-board cut out of Mario, that or there's a spotlight just off camera that only effects Mario.

An artist having their own style is one thing, but the word "Stylized" has been and always will be the whimpering call of a terrible artist explaining why his art is "purposefully" terrible to the nay-sayers.

[Plague]

I said I "like" bringing in another opinion, not that I do it for enjoyment.

I do agree that there can be "bad" attempts at art.
But when you criticize, in this case the l4d comic, of being "bad" art you are just saying so because of the style.

Imo this is a purposely stylized comic meant to be messy and inaccurate.
Your logic is that just because of the way its done its "bad" art.

The third pic? That was actually a nice comic, again though, it was very stylized taking on much flatter style.
(If you can find the whole comic I would suggest reading it, although you might regret it, I would also suggest getting the Halo: Graphic Novel)

And the comment on Penny Arcade is imo poor tasted, any picture you draw could be art.
(I do agree Penny Arcade cares more on dialogue then aesthetics.)



what I'm trying to say is that, Sometimes its not about portraying something accurately but portraying it in a unique style.
Would you have preferred it if Valve hired Marvel to get their artists on it?

The only reason I defend it like this is because I myself often find my self liking art thats styled in unique ways.
Not because it is less detailed/accurate/blah, but because It paints things in a new look for you.
I thought this comic did fine, While I agree sometimes the faces were more funny then serious in a lot of panels.

Now did Valve have someone internally do this? Or did they hire outside of Valve?
For all we know this was done by some Valve coder who knew how to draw XD.

[ThePain]

Would you have preferred it if Valve hired Marvel to get their artists on it?

I don't think there's a person on the planet who wouldn't say yes to this.

any picture you draw could be art.

This is the political correct no hurting anyone's feelings crap that took off in the 90s, but has existed long since before then. No, just because you drew something and you consider art does it actually make it art. This was best seen with Post-Modernism. Some of the artists understood that Post Modern art was to artist what "The Aristocrats" joke is to Humorists. It's supposed to connect with artists. The four blue squares being an example of using white space to enhance a picture, using organization with grids without showing the grid, letting it be implied.

Then of course you have the people who think that throwing paint at a canvas for 6 hours because they were pissed think they made modern art, and people who think that if anyone at all likes their drawing then it's art, despite the well known "Just because your mom says it's good doesn't mean it is" art clause.

[Hypey[UG]]

I will admit, over here in the UK, comic books are no where near as big as across the pond (In my local city, there is literally one tiny shop that sells comic books).
Yet, I think plague is completely in the right with what he's saying.
Yes, there are super realistic artists, but not everyone draws the male anatomy the exact same way as da vinci did.
For example, Ben Templesmith. Besides being an amazing guy to chat with, he also has the best drawing style imho


But ofcourse, according to your theory, he shouldn't even be doodling.

[ThePain]

That's weird, I don't remember saying that any deviation from exact human proportions meant that an artist was terrible, In fact I'm pretty sure if you read my posts you'll see you can't put my opinions on this matter into a quick bumper-sticker style phrase. Reread my posts please, you also will notice why I keep putting pictures in my post as well.



*edit*

Also- Try reading my posts in Colbert's voice.

[Armageddon]

This is the political correct no hurting anyone's feelings crap that took off in the 90s, but has existed long since before then. No, just because you drew something and you consider art does it actually make it art.

This is the quote of the week.

[source-maps]

just like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder

[ThePain]

This is the quote of the week.

I was actually pretty partial to

We found one of the Joker's bombs. It was full of marzipan and kittens.

myself.

[Plague]

This is the ever constant thing with Interlopers when it comes to "Opinions".

"I'm right, Your wrong."

Need I stress words with bold and underlined letters with quote marks?

any picture you draw "could" be "art".

This has nothing to do with the

politically correct no hurting anyone's feelings crap that took off in the 90s

Art can't be defined by an attitude like yours.
If a company makes a logo thats simplistic, By your definition its just a simple logo.
But could it not be a simplistic piece of art representing the Company?

Your begining to sound like the "Elite" in Hollywood when it comes to games.
While I agree, As I have already said before, I believe there is a limit to whats "art" and whats simply just a picture.

But is a movie that to you beautiful and brings emotion to your soul not art?
Is that song that invokes an emotion in you not art?
Is the book that made you cry or laugh not art?
Is the game that engaged you in its story even with the burdens it might carry art?



I personally don't care for Abstract Sculptures.
(Having seen one made literally just out of a pile of rugs....)

Does this give me the right to say its not art?
(Hint: Its an opinionated question)

Absolutely not! The man who thought of such a thing, got it into the museum and had it declared as art did so at his own behest!

Before I end this comment, I thought I would bring up something from your past post.

The third one has not even made an attempt at line depth, is flat and boring. Boring pose, boring colors, boring action.

This is what I am talking about, you list valid artistic points but fail to understand the KEY thing in art its self.
Art is whatever you define it as, you can't have something being factually "Non-Art".
When you draw/map/paint/sketch/ect. do you think about whats "art"? I know the answer is probably "yes".
(The mention of pose was ignored, that was only one panel of the comic and as such is not intended to be the sole show of "action")




But I think this is all a little too opinionated to really get into on the internet :\
It was nice having this "argument" over what constitutes art or not.
(not taking the last word, I'll gladly read your response just wont respond )

[ad_hominem]

Let's not go off on some bloated and ultimately meaningless argument about what is or isn't art. Stay on topic please.

Though it is my belief that if you're going to argue that nobody has the right to claim something isn't art, then you should also be of the opinion that nobody can claim it is art either.

[Gradius]

I think they intentionally look "rape face"ey, it's a goddamn zombie apocoylpse. True, they don't look much like their characters but none of the well-drawn level posters do either (I suspect they're copied off of reference photos considering how much their facial structures tend to change). Francis does take the piss considering his hair is quite a big different to how it appears in the game, that's my biggest gripe.

[Text_Fish]

Personally I think the reason this comic strip lacked 'style' is that it was inconsistent. It seems the 'artist' put a lot more thought and effort in to some frames than others. Most of it was, as ThePain pointed out, very derpish. If all of it looked so ridiculous one could claim that it's the artists style, but a style needs to be coherent. Instead, the whole thing felt rushed and lazy.

Oh, and I do think that anything can be called art. Whether it's good art or not is another matter entirely. Case in point, I think the L4D comic was crap art; poorly illustrated, poorly written and poorly conceived.

That said, I don't really like comics that try to be 'serious' anyway. It always just feels a bit embarrassing, like watching someone who genuinely believes they can sing standing up in front of thousands of people and wailing like a wet cat.