Realistic art vs Animated art

===========================================================

In Pre-52 animated art style was more frequent, while in the New-52 the art is a lot more realistic. Which one do you like more ?

In my opinion there should be a balance between realistic and animated art style...

In my opinion, realistic is far and away superior.

As always, it depends on the story.

Realistic art for a more comedic story tends to disappoint for instance.

Both.

If it was animated art, the art would be actually moving.

BB

Depends on how good the art is.

Depends on the artist.

Depends on the story. If it's gritty or serious I would prefer the realistic art, but for something more upbeat I think the animated art is more suited for it.

Hester and similar tropes have always sucked. Charles Burns versus Colan inked by Palmer always sucks. Bagley versus Gil Kane always sucks. The graffitti punk who ruined Nova versus Finch always sucks. Jill Thompson always is garbage compared to P. Craig Russell. J. H. Williams is always worlds better than craptastica like (almost everything) on this page:

http://www.comicbookbrain.com/harley-quinn.php

It really depends.

But if you're going to post a pic of Sorrentio's art like in the OP, then I'm going to have to choose that 9/10.

depends on story, but i will aways prefer realistic

bask in the glory of lee bermejo

Gallery

I think it really depends on the artist. I can really appreciate something like kingdom come but at the same time i am a GIANT fan of ivan reis and ethan van sciver.

Animated, more fluid and dynamic

It 100% depends on the series, writer and ,of course, competence of the artist.

There are also styles that fall somewhere in between like Jim Lee, Todd Mcfarlane, John Romita JR, Frank Miller etc...

One of my favorite series: Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol had pretty terrible, cartoony art. It was terrible not because it was cartoony...but because it just sucked.

But then you can look at NextWave Agents of Hate...and that cartoony style is great.

Then again you have some of the best illustrators in history who aren't that realistic at all...Moebius, Bilal...Kim Jung Gi...

But then you got Sergio Toppi......

Depends on a lot of factors, JonnytheWolf summed it up pretty well.

Oh and that, that's true too.

Realistic.

I've seen both work well. Realistic art is beautiful to look at, but it might take away from the sense of each artist's freedom of expression, or rather, particular style. Like Bachalo and Samnee.

I do think it's becoming more popular although from my own experience, it takes a lot more time to draw realistically which would be an issue I think in the comics industry.

That's pretty obvious isn't it?

In general, I prefer more realistic art but not every time.

animated

It clearly depends on thestory. If there is action and the animation is well done, it's really cool. Other way, forget about it.

Cave drawing FTW

Both.

Animated. Realistic is too static and kinda boring for me.

It depends. If the story is serious i prefer realistic, if the story is humurous i prefer animated. Although, in general i prefer realistic. But it depends on how realistic...

This one is fine by me. I like it. It's kinda realistic but not much.

This one is lame. It's to realistic for me. I really hate that kind of realistic.

So, in general it depends on what kind of realistic. But usualy i prefer realistic over animated

BTW - has someone tried a Visionbooks and what is the reaction?