It is a difficult question to answer, as I would generally say both. One of the reasons that Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams made such a great team is that you had a great writer and a great artist working together! That having been said, if I were forced to choose between the two, I would go with the story. If there is a great story, I can overlook the quality of the artwork. If the story is bad, though, even the best art really won’t make it up for me!
6 Likes
Story/character development.
I’ve read books with art I thought detracted from the story (distractingly busy, awkward poses or faces, lack of movement), but I don’t recall ‘bad’ art causing me to cast the book aside and want to curse… 
On the other hand, no matter how gorgeous the art, if the story/character does something I hate, then I have been completely disgusted with the issue or even storyarc/line and cast it aside (sometimes for years).
2 Likes
Story, hands down
3 Likes
I lean towards art as I love great artwork. It adds so much to the story. Example: Detective Comics #469 - 476 one of the definitive Batman runs.
Steve Englehart wrote the entire run, but the first two issues were drawn by Walt Simonson & Al Milgrom with the remainder issues drawn by Marshall Rogers & Terry Austin. Most people forget about the first two issues with Dr. Phosphorus, but the Rogers & Austin issues with Dr. Hugo Strange, the redesigned Deadshot, and the Joker’s Laughing Fish are all classics.
I love Walt & Al, but those issues were not their finest work and the stories just seemed mediocre. Rogers & Austin made the stories so much better bringing the rest of the run to epic proportions.
3 Likes
I would say art. For me a bad story can be saved by good art (All Star Batman & Robin, The Boy Wonder) but if it has bad art I probably won’t even look at it.
It’s the story for me. I often find that art overwhelms the story. Comic book art is there to serve the story. If it doesn’t support the story it’s just a bunch of pictures that have no purpose.
Also “clever artists”, that are more enamored of their style than supporting the story I can very much do without. Their obsession with “showing off” their style often detracts from the story.
Every once in a while you get a truly symbiotic relationship such as O’Neill/Adams or Wolfman/Perez. Over time they develop a shorthand and trust and it shows because you don’t know, see or care which parts of the story are the writer and which are the artist.
Truly great comic book art is the art you don’t notice. It just is right. It enhances the story without the art getting in the way. The art is just there. It just “feels” right. This makes the first read spot on. Sure you can go back later and look at a panel and dissect what it is about that artwork that makes the story. Or looking at the form and style of the art. How is it that Adams art dovetails so well into O’Neill’s story. Adams anatomy plays a big part. The characters have a flow to the story. Mike Mignola does this in Gotham by Gaslight. He uses the art to enhance the story. He gives it a Victorian flair that fits the story. It immerses the reader into the story.If I read a book and I think “dang, the art was fabulous“, the artist has failed to do their job properly.
I’m not a fan of Jim Lee or Alex Ross. They try to hard and try to overshadow the story with there art. Sure, they have technique, but they don’t integrate as well as they could. Which is a shame. If they focused more on the story and less on their ego, their art would be better integrated the medium.
3 Likes
A comic book story is written for artists. It’s a script, itS not really intended to stand on its own. In the same way, at least the layout and penciling is done, largely, taking direction from the script. So one doesn’t make an illustrated story on its own.
I stress “illustrates story” because sometimes highly publicized and anticipated comics turn out to be an empty story that’s just enough to show off the art. I can flip through full page Alex Ross drawings and it’s awesome, but if the art is the only good part of a comic book, it’s missing something.
Like many people have said already, a great story is still good with mediocre art. Great art with no story is just great art. And great art is awesome on its own too, actually, so I don’t know.
2 Likes
I look at it this way. A building cannot stand without a foundation & structure; it will crumble and fall under its own weight. It’s also not really a building without walls, windows, doors, etc… just an imposing construct.
I look at the story/script as the foundation & structure of any given comic and the pencilling, inking, coloring, etc as the elements that give it definition. One doesn’t cancel the necessity of the other, and neither is more important, in my opinion, in making a comic what it is.
4 Likes
Well said.
2 Likes
Thank you 
2 Likes
I would have said story, but I have a hard time enjoying the story when the art is really bad. I can at least enjoy the art if the story is bad, but because comics are so visual it’s difficult when it’s the opposite. When the art is bad, I end up making fun of it with my friends instead. Would that mean I prefer art?
1 Like
To be honest, I like both. If I’m really interested in exploring a certain character, I will read every story I can and the art doesn’t matter to me. I gravitate towards weird or dark images, so when I see something like The Batman Who Laughs, I’m automatically drawn to it just for the art, the story is just an awesome bonus!
2 Likes
I think maybe you answered your own question 
.
2 Likes
Honestly yeah, but I was distracted because the whole time I was just thinking of super ugly baby Sam from one of the Supernatural comics.
2 Likes
Well just like people, I like story rather than just something nice to look at!
1 Like