The process of making any piece of art for a specific medium has an absolute affect on the work itself. A sculptor working with steel thinks about the work completely differently than a scultpor working in marble – or even a sculptor working in brass!

Similarly, and a closer analogy, painters working with oils produce noticably different work than those working with acrylics or water colors.

Also, on the nature of syndication. Chris Baldwin’s Bruno and Little Dee are fundamental illustrations of the difference in work that trying for syndication makes. They’re both *really good*, but Little Dee is significantly less experimental in theme and story line.

Charles- No it’s not This Modern World. Oh the suspense!

Max- You didn’t happen to work on the North High newspaper the North Star did you?

Yep, I did.

On the pro-collaboration side, Alexander Danner debunked the idea of pure artistic vision, and wrote, “And taking it a step further – there’s no such thing as “pure artistic visionâ€? anyway. The ideas of the writer always get filtered through the abilities of the artist, even when the writer and the artist are the same person.”

And on the anti-collaboration side, William G wrote, “The main problem I’m facing in writing this counterpoint is that I don’t really believe in “pure artistic vision” myself. I know that no vision is pure.”

As for your main thesis, I certainly think the context of a work is important. When comics make the transition from web to print or vice versa, they change signifigantly. I don’t know which “hysterical” discussions you were referring to, but I know of many very sensible discussions of this issue.

Comics are comics are comics

Couldn’t have said it better. I live in Omaha also so I know exactly how you feel.