I can see what you're saying, Erik, and I agree with it to a certain extent: When you're raw, making mistakes, making compromises, finding innovative ways of doing something because you don't know the right way, that can add a level of energy to the art itself. And the energy is what draws someone to a piece of art, the visceral reaction to the piece.

The component I think you haven't explored in your post is that it is also 'When' a new reader finds an artist that leads them to love that artist. There have been artists that struggled for years to get in the door, getting small jobs here and there but nothing major, until finally they hit it big (Bryan Hitch comes to mind). And that becomes the standard that people mean when they say; "Your old stuff is better". When THEY first discovered that artist. When THEY were first exposed to his or her work. That becomes the defacto 'best' period. And those artists are fully formed, they've done enough work that they're no longer making mistakes and figuring it out on the fly; they already have a broad base of knowledge.

Familiarity breeds contempt? Someone who's been working for years and who you've followed for years, might be someone whose ticks you can't HELP but see.

People have long said the same thing about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes work, essentially that the work before Holmes died was much better than the work after. But there was a hell of a lot of great stories upon his return and when I read the complete stories in one go I was unaware of the fact that the death was meant to be for real. I had no affinity for either the earlier or later works, because I did not know that there was a clear point of dilineation between the two. Perhaps Doyle's heart had gone out of it, but as a reader completely new to it (and maybe ten years old) I could not detect that change.

The ultimate experiment I suppose would be to take the new art, time travel back and show the new to the same audience that is about to exposed to the old art for the first time and then see what that audience prefers. I don't think it'll be a clear cut win for either, but I have a feeling those fans would still get their 'Wow' moment from seeing that artist's work for the first time.

I have to be honest.... most of the artists I like, I seem to like their "old stuff" better.... granted, I am not looking from a technical aspect or anything, so much of it is probably nostalgia.

JB's FF and X-men looks "better" than the Atom and Demon to me.

Savage Dragon #1-50 look infinitely better than #100-150 to me.

The same is true (TO ME) of the other artists I grew up with: Jurgens, Grummett, Perez, etc.

From a technical/competency standpoint, I am sure the newer stuff is more proficient, but I guess I can't help but look at the art from the perspective of my 14 year old eyes!

although, honeslty, I think the art of Savage Dragon became sketchy, undetailed and a bit half-assed about 9 years ago.... probably coinciding with DC/Marvel projects and the stint as publisher.