BobBretall wrote:I try really hard to not use the word "bad" related to art, since art is very subjective.
Normally I don't like to use value judgements with regards to art either, I try to say "I like it", or something similar. I feel comics are a special case because the artist needs to convey a story. If they can't do that, then they've failed and therefore the art is 'bad'. If the art doesn't convey a story (sequential or otherwise) then it's no longer a comic and is now a bound collection of thematically similar art. I liked the art, but since it failed in properly telling the story I call it bad.
BobBretall wrote:The art didn't particularly impress me at any point and seemed to flip between 2 different core styles.
I was impressed with the 2 different core styles, since it made a clear delineation between current events, and past events. The gritty, dark artwork of the present created a wonderful dichotomy with the cartoony, happy, shiny flashback panels. But there wasn't so much of a difference between styles that I was jarred from the story by the abrupt change. The difference really helped underscore how badly things were going for the protagonist, and how great things used to be.
BobBretall wrote:That said, I didn't really notice the ambiguity in the scene you mentioned while reading the issue and would attribute that ambiguity as much to the writing as the art (e.g. a verbal accompaniment could have been there to reinforce the action).
I have to blame the artist on that one. Mainly because I can't come up with something the writer could have supplied the artist that would have caused them to draw it like this. I imagine that particular panel being written one of three ways:
1. Nothing was said beyond the most vague statements like "person a is beat up by person b", maybe it was as specific as stating the victim had glass embedded in his face
2. The glass was to be removed by the assaulter - this could be conveyed by a skilled artist
3. The glass was to be inserted by the assaulter - again, a straightforward action that could be illustrated clearly
The way it was drawn the only way I could blame the writer is if it said "have the assaulter touch a piece of glass embedded in the victim's face", or some variation of that.
Admittedly, this is an argument from ignorance (I can't conceive of the writer being to blame for this, therefore it must be the artist's fault).