Problem is -- as my sarcastic tone no doubt indicates -- there's something WRONG with this appraisal of my work. Not that it's inaccurate. It may be, for all I know -- but I don't get to know very much, in this case, since I have yet to see a review that tells the reader WHY my "art is a little dated".

What does that MEAN, exactly? In all honesty, it reads a whole lot like people who are not allowing themselves to "review" the work without finding SOMETHING negative to say about it. And, much like "his old stuff was better", "his art is a little dated" is a SAFE comment to make. Just "in the know" enough to be KEWL, but also just vague enough that no one can really call them on it. It's also a bit limp wristed, since "a little dated" kind of approaches the criticism and backs away from it at the same time. Dated, you know, but only a LITTLE dated. . .

Mind you, in one of the reviews in which I came across a variant of this line this morning, I also found my work being called "rushed", which, as we have seen so many times before, is an instant indicator that the writer has no idea what s/he is talking about! It is, after all, absolutely impossible to look at a finished page and know how long it took to produce.

Another term I hear is "old school." I am heavily influenced by artists like George Perez, John Buscema, and especially you, JB, and on my drawing videos on YouTube, I often get comments that describe my style as "old school."

Your work looks dated because you were working professionally in the 1970s, and you still are today.  There are really not many people left to keep you company in that accomplishment.  I can think of a few artists from that vintage who put out stuff sporadically (Perez, Kubert Sr., Simonson, Miller) but I cannot name one who publishes monthly like you do.  Do they ever ask you why you keep working so hard?

And your work looks rushed by comparison with today's typical fare because you aren't labouring for 3 days on each page to draw in all the outrageous level of detail seen in the work of artists like Finch or Deodato.  I understand such effort causes the price of the original artowrk to increase substantially.  Of course, it has nothing to do with good story telling, which I think has always been your goal.  Something I observed in art history courses is that most artists progress to less fine detail in their work as the years go on.  When artists start out, they lack confidence in their basic composition and anatomy, so they try to wow the viewer with tons of finicky details.  You are obviously well past that.