>>5798833The art needs to be readable. His was not. It's that simple.
The artwork in the first chapter, though riddled with flaws and generally unimpressive, was readable. You can look at it and understand what's happening. That is the bare minimum for comics. The art in a comic doesn't need to be flashy or perfect, it simply needs to be readable. This is a common element in all the "shit art but good story" examples anybody can list: even if ONE's mspaint scribbles are wonky and flat, you can still tell what they're trying to convey. There are much better artists out there who don't quite get it, they'll draw something detailed and flashy but it's completely unclear what it's meant to actually be conveying. I see this a lot (sorry to bring up a tired comparison) in western comics, even the good ones: the characters will be well drawn, but the expression is unclear... are they frowning? Just staring? Completely neutral? Sometimes it's a mix, because the penciller drew a frown, the inker drew a skeptical expression and the colorist couldn't tell the difference between the two and the result is unclear.
Just remember if your goal is to make comics then the art's primary function is to express the idea clearly to the reader. Whatever the idea is, it needs to be understood from the visuals. Everything else is gravy, and gravy is tasty but gravy on its own lacks substance.
