A Problem at the Eisners

The announcement of Eisner Award nominees drew the normally anticipated rounds of commentary, discussion, and controversy as comics creators, fans, and critics all dug into what artists and works were selected as being the best examples of the field for 2017. Something about the conversation moved beyond the expected talk of surprises and snubs though; something that points to a flaw in the Eisner Awards themselves.

The best coloring category included a total of six nominees this year, but only one of the nominated artists is a dedicated colorist. Five nominees worked on elements of their nominated comics beyond the coloring, and all of them were nominated in other categories. Emil Ferris received a total of five nominations, including best writer/artist and best lettering. Both Mitch Gerads and David Rubín received nominations in the penciller/inker category. Ed Piskor and Rosemary Valero-O'Connell had works nominated in the best limited series and best single issue/one-shot, respectively. Dave Stewart, who has already received nine prior Eisner Awards, was the only nominated colorist whose primary focus lies in that aspect of comics.

In the past that dynamic has been radically different with three of the 2017 nominees known best for their work as colorists in comics. The change and controversy surrounding who ought to be recognized raises important questions about the nature of the Eisner Awards and their purpose. They're questions we want to, at the very least, begin interrogating here.

Coloring Outside the Lines

The essential question in discussing this specific issue is: What is the nature of the "Best [Creator]" categories? Looking at the nominees for this and previous years, every nominated individual is paired with their various works throughout the corresponding year. This normally provides writers, colorists, and letterers with extensive nominated bibliographies, while artists, cartoonists, and others engaged with more time-intensive forms of production are limited to a single title. This creates a disparity between distinct but similar categories, as well as the individuals within categories like this years colorist awards.

The overall effect of this disparity is that the nature of nominations do not seem similar to one another. A writer nominated for working on five series is being judged on a relatively massive body of work compared to an artist who managed to complete even 12 issues over the course of a single year. That becomes even more noticeable when comparing the work of a single volume like Emil Ferris' My Favorite Thing Is Monsters with the frankly astonishing amount of output colored by Dave Stewart in any given year.

None of this is to place a value judgment on the works themselves. Stewart is not a better colorist than Ferris for having created more issues, and Ferris is not better than Stewart for having a more cohesive work to judge. It is a matter of comparing apples and oranges, which is not fair to anyone involved. The larger bodies lead voters to seek a sense of average quality, impacted by the impressiveness of total output, while specific works emphasize unique traits of a single piece. The only thing that is clear is that it is entirely unclear what exactly is being judged in any of these artist categories.

Emphasizing the Best Work

For this problem there is a solution. The Eisner Awards are unique in major American artistic industry awards for honoring an individual for all of their output during a specific period of time. Looking at the flaws expressed and lack of clarity about what criteria and what exactly is being honored makes it clear why they are the exception and not the rule.

Pencillers, inkers, colorists, letterers, and every other form of recognized artistry in comics deserves to be acknowledged for specific achievements. Rather than nominating an artist for their body of work, they should be matched with a specific series or volume that merits an award highlighting as the best in the medium. This serves to benefit the artists who work on large-scale bodies most. Judges and voters are still aware of their awesome output, but would be able to honor a specific achievement, rather than providing an accolade for general excellence. These sorts of craftsmen can often go overlooked in comics, even when awarded, due to the sense that they are generally good. Providing a colorist like Dave Stewart or Jordie Bellaire an award for a specific work helps highlight exactly why readers should seek out and admire their artistry.

There might have been a time in the comics industry where this broad-based recognition made more sense. When comics creators consistently worked on titles for long runs and artists of all stripes were capable of maintaining a varied body of work, the idea of honoring general output might have made a better fit. Even looking backward to the earliest days of the Eisner Awards this concept of artists as mass producers is exaggerated, and still values output over achievement. In 2018, more than ever, it's clear that this is a flaw and one that needs to be addressed.

A Broader Problem With Recognition

This change would evoke another problem, one that exists in the comics industry itself rather than its awards shows. Nominating specific works rather than bodies of work risks overlooking the creators who regularly rotate between series. Artists that provide interior work to a half dozen superhero comics over the course of a year or letterers that work primarily within a publisher instead of a specific set of series would have less extensive works to submit and are more likely to be forgotten.

This devaluation is caused by publishers though. Treating an artist of any stripe, from penciller to letterer, as an interchangeable cog rather than an integral part of a creative team is a choice made in the production of a serialized comic. While that sort of treatment might allow for increased publication schedules, it also de-emphasizes the contributions of artists, often to the primacy of writers. That decision is not hidden; both publishers and creators enter into contracts aware of how their work is to be treated. While it is unfortunate, it should not diminish earnest attempts to acknowledge excellence in the medium.

All of the Eisner nominees this year are immensely talented and they collectively represent a booming era for comics. The awards themselves still serve an important purpose in highlight great work and those who make it. Yet good enough does not mean great, much less best. If the Eisners are to continue to serve as the prime honor in comics, then they need to become more purposeful in their nature and intentions. That means honoring artists for specific achievements.