soapbox: Comic Book "Artist"

Maybe I'm the only person bothered by this, but the designation of "artist" is applied far too liberally in comic book credits. This isn't to say that the people who create comics are not real artists, which I firmly believe they are, but that the "artist" credit is unduly applied to anybody who just pencils and inks an issue, thus completely downplaying the contribution of the comic book colorist.

Twenty of thirty years ago, that would have been a reasonable slight. Back then, with the low-quality newsprint, coarse printing methods, and limited color palette, coloring was a mostly mechanical, rather than artistic, aspect of comic book production. But with today's printing technology, the colorist's toolbox has become practically limitless, leading to most comic books being, in essence, fully painted.

Not only is this painterly quality artistic in its own right, but in many cases, coloring has become the method of portraying volume and light in the finished art. I'm thinking of very outline-based drawings, like those of Michael Turner, Steve McNiven, and Scott Kolins. Here the colorist has replaced much of the shading (fills, hatching, stippling, etc.) formerly done in ink, as well as adding the usual color. In some cases, I think it could be argued that more of the finished art is attributable to the colorist than to the penciller or inker.

I don't know what we should call the combined penciller/inker -- drawer? drafter? lineman? -- but I think "artist" should be reserved for the much more rare individual who does all of the pencils, inks, and colors on a book. Colorists play far too vital a role in today's comic books to no longer receive equal billing.