I dunno, it's just a thing. I mean think about it, there were plenty of bad comics in the 1990s and there are plenty today ... even though no one would do the things we think of as bad for the 1960s (Stan's patois, for example), creators have different bad tropes and writer's crutches that have come into vogue.

_________________

Yep, art plays into it. The Art Adams X-Men and the Sterenko Strange Tales all got extra points for me for great art. I judge it as how does the art compare against the other art of the time. Does it stand out.

I haven't seen any art that was sub-par that took away from stars except for a few of the early stories with sub-Mariner because of how he is drawn. And I am coming up on a period of Hulk comics where I know they are going to get penalized stars for the way the draw the hulk.

_________________

For me the art makes the difference between a 2 and a 3 a lot of times, and very occasionally between a 3 and a 4 (probably mostly Kirby's FF; you can tell it was his baby, Joe Sinnott's amazing inks have a lot to do with it, but he really seems to have put a lot of extra TLC into FF).

_________________

If the art or inking is really, really good, I may add a star, but I don't let it effect me too much. I'm no art expert or critic, so I don't want to be too critical of it.

_________________
'The soul knows no greater anguish than to take a breath that begins with love and ends with grief.'- Steven Erikson

The art issuse can work both ways. I like "realistic" pencillers - Lee, McFarlane, Byrne. That's why I would give less stars for the perfectly good stories peniclled for example by Bill Sienkiewicz (great art, I know, just not my favourite) or Eric Larsen. Also there are (later) storylines made in several different titles made by severall different artists. How can You star the whole story arc? There are also issues with multiple artists making 2-3 pages each. What's then?
That's why I've decided not to take art under consideration (consciously that is - everybody knows art affects reception of the story whether we like it or not).
But it's like zweineuf said: this system only works if You do it by Yourself with Your own rating criteria (not his exact words but i hope that's what he meant)

_________________

Art is very important to me when it comes to modern comics, but it's not really doing much to my ratings where I am at the moment because I find most of the 60s stuff unappealing. And yeah, once it starts to count, it'll be in a completely subjective way, because there are just some styles that I really can't stand, to the point of stopping buying titles when the artist changes. But hey - it's all subjective anyway

_________________

Like Venom #1. Where it starts out at a snow bound army base. I read that the other day (it was free on the marvel comic app so I got it), and the art was a very sharp, angled style. I simply hated it. Made the book unreadable for me.

_________________

Yeah, I'm the same. I'm honestly dreading the '90s because all the art seems to be big, butch and muscly guys. That style just doesn't work for me. I think it's one of the things that really put me off Ultimates 3 immediately, although I suspect I wouldn't have liked it too much anyway. I found myself pre-judging it straight from the cover.

_________________

Kez, I hate the 80's the most.

Aggripina, I find myself judging art more than 60's art (which is where I'm at in the order)

_________________
'The soul knows no greater anguish than to take a breath that begins with love and ends with grief.'- Steven Erikson

Also, don't you have to take it Into consideration when you it art that is so cleary better then it's contemporaries. I am not the best judge of good or bad art, but when I hit the Adams x-men run I was like wow, this is really really good.

_________________