Why did Fiona Staples win so many awards for Saga? It's not that her art is overrated, that would be bad enough, but she's unironically very bad at drawing.
>>143370107Probably because she's a girl.
>>143370107she's fine
The art is the least of Saga's problems.It's fine. Not award-winning good, I agree, but calling it bad just outs you as a retard.
>>143370107Women prefer this kind of art. Technicalprowess gives them the ick.
>>143370363this isn't the soft noodley cartoony art women prefer at all
>>143370107>she's unironically very bad at drawing.Name some technical flaws in that image.
>>143370353Calling something "fine" outs you as a faggot. It's like an admission that you lack the courage to call something what it is or tell how you really feel about it.
>>143370436well she's not incrediblebut she's not terribleshe's fine
>>143370436Maybe anon just means it's fine.
>>143370400Sloppy digital inking/shading, shades of piss color palette, scrambled nothing background, her thinking this is good enough for a splash page. You'll probably say these aren't technical flaws but they're enough to show she shouldn't be drawing comics
It's not great but it also has more life to it than typical capeshit art. That particular example isn't really good, it does look better in other areas, and the object-head people were fairly interesting new designs for western comics in 2012(which is to say, not new but American comics lag in trends)
>>143370107Because it’s popular and not a standard cape comic so it means automatically good to the average person.
>>143370469>muh capeshit>muh americansObsessed
>>143370462>You'll probably say these aren't technical flawsYes, because they aren't. Her construction is technically solid. What you're griping about are aesthetic choices. Learning the difference is the same as learning the difference between "this is bad" and "this just isn't for me".
>>143370462>I don't like the coloring>this is an objective technical flaw
>>143370400A woman drew it
>>143370107Is this what Jshlatt was up to back in the 90s?
>>143370400The background angle is atrocious as is but it’s also barely even finished at all. To say nothing of the fact that it doesn’t match, or compliment, the art style she uses when drawing people.
>>143370469>It's not great but it also has more life to it than typical capeshit artThis isn’t just a matter of preference it simply isn’t true unless compared to tracers who do the same lazy, ugly, boring, stock image inspired shit she does.
>>143370107because its woke trash
>>143370462I've noticed a lot of oldfags get really pissy over sloppier/scratchier linework, both in comics and manga.
>>143370494>>143370521I didn't bring up the term 'technical flaws', that anon did. OP said she sucks at drawing and I gave reasons why he's right
>>143370665>The background angle is atrociousThis is a more substantial comment, but the getting things right in the background is of secondary importance. What really matters is what's going on in the foreground.
>>143370705Again, there's a difference between "this is bad" and "this isn't for me". If you can't fault an artist on the technical level, the artist doesn't "suck", they just don't do it for you.
>>143370456It's more of a gradient, not two extremes and some pussy-ass term to describe everything in between.>>143370461Not likely.
>>143370707It actively detracts from the art and the overall page looks fucking terrible. I’m sorry but you can’t just “art is just a matter of personal preference, it’s all subjective mannnn” this shit. In that case no art is good and no art is bad and that’s just absurd. This looks atrocious. And to act like the foreground is well drawn enough to ignore the wekanesses is being remarkably generous as is. But when it clashes so much with the lazy ass, poorly angled background that he looks like he’s standing in front of a green screen for a student project film it’s bad art. You liking it doesn’t change that.
>>143372073>I’m sorry but you can’t just “art is just a matter of personal preference, it’s all subjective mannnn” this shit.Not what I said.
>>143372095Tell me you aren’t thinking it, by all means. That’s exactly where this discussion is headed. I’ve explained in depth why the art is objectively bad. Not just “not to my taste” but bad.
>>143370436But it's literally what it is.Is it boring? no, i enjoy itis it memorable? no, it's nothing to write home aboutIs it good or bad art? Neither, It's serviceable cape house styleIs it visually interesting? Somewhat, but it's too shallow to be remembered.Is it a good or bad story? it's decently written YA stuff, good enough to stand out but not on part with the greatsIt's something you read once a month because you have nothing else going on and occasionally read 3 issues in a month for no other reason that you forgot it existed.Saga is the most perfectly middle of the line comic out there.Why did it get so popular?Because Staples had friends in comics the that clique that's behind the eisners and harveys, and that network has MASSIVE promotional power.
>>143372132>Tell me you aren’t thinking it, by all means.I wasn't thinking it either. But if you've decided you know what my words mean better than I do *and* that you have direct access to my thoughts, there's really no point in continuing this exchange, because you'll just turn anything I say into something it isn't. It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation under those conditions.Good day to you.
>>143372248>you’re right it’s bad art I accept your concession
>>143372216>Because Staples had friends in comics the that clique that's behind the eisners and harveys, and that network has MASSIVE promotional power.And nothing to do with who the writer is?
>>143370107The award is for the handful of pages where they decide to make the art interesting. Like the spaceship that’s a house in a jellyfish.
>>143370107When did Scout grow horns? Is that a new hat? Also that new flavor of Bonk Punch doesn't look very appetizing.
>>143372216The Portland gang has ruined comics more than capeshit ever could
Something tells me this thread isn't actually about the artwork.
>>143370107>>143370321edgy trash
>>143370462>>143370665based
>>143372487cope
>>143372409Interesting name but I don't think anyone's aware of that network even being a thing.
>>143370564Beat me to it
>>143372818You'd have to be really ignorant of creators to not be aware, but that's par for the course for /co/
>>143373505>Of course, you have to follow creators political leanings and their private life.>Comics? What comics?You know, it'd be great if you could take your culture clash somewhere else.
>>143373760Who said anything about politics? It’s a networking thing. When comics were made in studios in house in NYC, most comic creators were from NYC. Now you have a ton of writers coming from Portland who helped their friends get jobs.
>>143372573It's true, Ashley Cope is a much better artist.
>>143373505>You'd have to be really ignorant of creators to not be aware, but that's par for the course for /co/How the workings behind award orgs work is generally not of public interest. You either hang with people who interact with them or you don't./co/ has talked shit about just any clique that exists but this one, simply because they keep a low profile.
