My good friend and I have been discussing over the past couple of weeks, why many comics that are drawn badly have such enormous followings. After the artist gets enough followers, they self publish their work in a book and ask for donations so they can go to one convention or another. They can ask for top dollar on their ad space because they get 5,000 pageviews a day. It ends up making the artist enough money to quit their day job.
Autobiographical comics or webcomics doodled on people's napkins but get 1,000 fans. Their art becomes a record of their growth as an artist but it’s still “bad” art. Don’t get me wrong. I freaking LOVE them. The art may be not up to par but the storylines are super witty. Other autobiographical comics are so honest and they produce SO MUCH that as a whole it just seems to WORK (for some odd reason). My professors used to say to us in class, “This would work…if you did 50 of them.”
Does quantity make up for quality? Does the wit and writing make up for the slightly poor anatomy? Where’s the line between good bad art and just bad art? Why do I love them so much even though I can draw better than them? Why are they so much more successful?
Consistency. The frequency which they produce work adds to their success. Their styles do not require hours and hours of work (or they shouldn't). They don’t strive for perfection in every corner so there’s an immediacy and honesty to the lines even if they aren't aesthetically pleasing as a comic from DC. Therefore, they can consistently give their audience a weekly update and maintain the level of quality.
The reason I struggle with this is ultimately pretty simple: I’M JEALOUS.
No comments:
Post a Comment