It’s an age old question.  Some suggest it’s on the same level as the chicken or the egg.  Shaken or stirred.  And Abbot or Costello?  So what’s this question?

Does art make a comic book / cartoon good, or is it the story?

I’ve always viewed this as a bit of a false choice.  Just like Abbott and Costello you can’t have one with out the other.  For me the cartoons or comics I’ve enjoyed the most have blended appealing art with brilliant story telling.  Will I watch a show with bad art and a good story?  Probably.  But I’ll find it difficult.  Will I read a well drawn comic book with a bad story?  Probably.  At least for a while.

But what I can’t stand is when art changes in mid-story.  Good art becomes part of a story, and when you change it, it’s as if you remove part of a character or plot element.  You see this all the time in comic books.  Comic books are just a medium where artists and writers come and go, sometimes within a few issues.

But it’s a lot less common in TV shows.  Which is why it makes Naruto so shocking.

In many ways it was a show built around bright, vibrant colors, and sharp, hard edges with lots of depth.  But somewhere along the way (and I can’t find out for sure which episode because I can’t read about the show without revealing plot elements*) the art changed.  Now we see muted tones, blurry edges, and “wiggly” lines.

To make matters worse, the art actually changes the tone of the story.

In my mind this is a “worst case” scenario.  Artists and writers need to consider how their work impacts the other.  Ideally they should compliment one another’s craft.  But they should never, ever, reduce the quality of the work.

*Part of the issue with Naruto is that it’s moved away from “Canon”.  These new episodes are not part of the manga series and are considered “filler” material.  This partly explains the change in style.

Post your comments in the Forum!