Art & Story 34 – The Big Branding

Comments

1. Shawn Robare says:

   April 17, 2008 at 12:03 pm

   Just wanted to take a moment and say that episode 34 was another great show guys. It was cool getting a chance to hear Scott talk up comics and music. I had a few thoughts on the topic…

   What is required to brand an artist?

   Though I’m not strictly and artist per-se, I do have some thoughts on this, though it’s mostly influenced by years of collecting and reading comics. Everything that immediately came to mind was pretty much touched on in the show, but I had some notes that I jotted down while listening.

   1). A distinct artistic voice/style. I think the artist is better off with a more singular style, but I bet it could be done more varied, though it seems like it would be a harder road to hoe. I think that if the audience can name the artist after a glance at the artwork than it’s being effective.
   -You guys mention it having to be original or exceptional, but I think the former matters more than the latter. When I think of stuff like Greg Hyland’s Lethargic Lad or Drew Hayes’ Poison Elves, neither are exceptional, but both are original and memorable.
   -I totally agree with the idea that the artist’s style has to be something that you can’t get anyplace else. If not, and if the artist is working in a particular style, that style trumps the artist in a branding sense. (e.g. a great manga artist is making manga a more recofnizable brand.)
   -Scott brought up a good point about the difference between comic writers and artists and how it’s much harder to pinpoint why we like writers as opposed to artists. I think art is just more visceral and easier to attribute to a particular person.
   -As far as prose writers go and their sticking to a genre or series, there is a bit of a trap as these writers get stuck in these genres. Even when an author does a series with a particular character, they still have to stick to the same genre if they break from the series.
   -As far as the characters taking center stage over the creator (e.g. Spiderman over McFarlane), I think this is generally the way it goes, especially for writers. I think this is overcome when what the artist/writer brings to the characters trumps everything that’s every come before, including the concept of the character. Frank Miller seems to have done this with Batman (in the writing) by redefining what a vigilante is in the Dark Knight Returns.

   2). A tone or direction to take the style in.
   -Example, Sam Keith or Erik Larsen. When I think of Sam Keith, I immediately think of personal stories that are a weird mixture between fantasy, heroics, darkness and whimsy. He’s a lot like Neil Gaiman in that way. I guess this is connected to the idea of sticking to a genre.

   3). A decent body of work.

   4). A story or character which that artist is particularly known for.
   -Like you mentioned in the podcast, I think it really helps if there is a mainstream character that they’ve worked on because it gives a great reference point for the audience to compare their work to.

   5). The willingness to buck the system a little (think McFarlane’s take on Spiderman or Miller’s take on Batman.)

   6). Drama. (Again, think McFarlane, Jim Lee, and Liefeld ditching their regular gigs on books like Amazing Spiderman, Uncanny X-Men and New Mutants, to reinvent those same gigs in their own way more or less.) Anyway that an artist can create a sense of drama around their work, be it the story, the behind the scenes aspect, or what-have-you. Dave Sim is a great example with his dramatic independent struggle, his huge 300-issue goal.
   -Jerzy, you brought up the idea of an artist’s persona, and I think this is very valid. Anyway to generate drama.

   I also thought Scott brought up an excellent point about the commerce of comics in terms of retailers being a huge boost for artists and writers. In terms of serialized strip comics, this comes in the form of syndication. I think this is one of the main things that webcomics artists/writers have been avoiding/resisting, any type of one-stop shopping/syndication that would provide in a web forum the same experience that a shopper gets in a comic store, or a reader of a newspaper gets. Instead they focus on personal branding, which isn’t a bad thing, far from it, but it increases the struggle. Of course this isn’t to say that getting a syndicated gig is easy, just that without it, it becomes much harder to build that cult of personality.

   -This points to the idea of validation again. A potential reader will be more likely to read or follow your work if some sort of popular/mainstream source pushes/backs it. People came to McFarlane, Lee, et al, because Marvel pushed them. Look how long it took and how hard it must have been for Dave Sim to get Cerebus to where it ended up in the 80s/90s. Same with Jeff Smith and Bone. Sure Bone was popular before he brought it to Image, but Image really helped put it on the map. Same with his Scholastic deal now. This has to be a thousand times harder on the internet because of the glut of content. When you Google for webcomics you’re only going to hit the huge ones, and everything else is just a whisper in the cacophony. Even if your comic is very distinctive, and would be found easier using that distinction’s search terms, how are people going to know to be that distinctive. I think the general audience would rather search based on simpler terms.

   Anyway, really dug the episode, and I think I should end this here before it becomes a book…