I'm wondering about this "dated" opinion, and I generally dismiss it as some spoiled brat raised on the "Hollywood scriptwriter" version of Marvel and DC superheroes venting his inner Abby Hoffman ("Never trust anyone over 30!") and dissing the old men who made it possible for him to enjoy his comics in the digital age.  I've long since given up on his version of the comics.

     Being somewhat old-fashioned for my age has its perks.  Amongst those is an appreciation for the things that people used to do so well, even though they might've been considered "junk" in their time.  The new generation doesn't create anything; they just keep tearing things down.

••

Ah, but I DO! I'm just not OBVIOUS about it!

••

Your comment reminds me of an old riddle:

Q: How mayn MicroSoft technicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. MicroSoft is redefining DARKNESS™ as the new industry standard.

That very much refelects what has been happening in American comics for several decades now.

Any recent JB work would have been good and succesful 25 years ago too.

But... what about the current issues of Amazing Spider-Man or Fantastic Four. Were those 80's reader eyes prepared for this computerized world of comic-books we got now?

••

They would not have known what the heck they were looking at!

But that should not be a consideration in producing new comics. While it would doubtless be wise for the Companies to look backward when contemplating business models, when it comes to the art they should look forward. That's what I have been doing most of my career, constantly chasing new and better ways to achieve the same results. That's why I use the computer in a lot of what I do these days -- making 3D models to serve as reference for vehicles, sets and props, for example. I was actually one of the first to do that, but I did it in a way -- and this is important! -- that it folded seamlessly into the surrounding artwork.

Too much of what is done in modern comics, be it the coloring, the lettering, the use of photo reference, draws attention to itself. "Hey! Look at me! I am something COOL!!" That's not the way it's supposed to work. The reader should be drawn into the world the comic presents, and once in there, should not be constantly jogged out of it by some bit of bling.

Too much of what is done in modern comics, be it the coloring, the lettering, the use of photo reference, draws attention to itself. "Hey! Look at me! I am something COOL!!" That's not the way it's supposed to work. The reader should be drawn into the world the comic presents, and once in there, should not be constantly jogged out of it by some bit of bling.

***

Very well said, JB.

When i tried to get back into reading comics after a decade away, I found that the style of art and storytelling in most Marvel and DC comics no longer made it feel like I was entering a consistent world. I, as a reader, was no longer pulled completely into the story. I could no longer get lost in that world of wonder, because too many cracks were showing in the facade. Little things kept pulling me out of the story because it was very apparent that they were written and drawn by people. Now obviously I always knew they were written and drawn rather than just springing into existence, but it was now a case of it seeming like I was reading a piece of work rather than a story.

In the past, I might pick up an issue because it was written by Writer A and drawn by Artist B, but by the time I actually read it, the story took control and I let go of the awareness that somebody sat there and put those lines on the paper. In too many instances now, things show up that wipe away that solidity and make it feel like it's not another world which I'm entering for the span of the issue. For example, a few years ago I tried to read a then-current issue of one of the Avengers titles. Dr. Strange was in that issue and the experience of reading it was completely ruined when Strange suddenly, just for one panel, had the exact same face as Sean Penn!

This has never, ever been a problem with your work, JB. Whether it's Fantastic Four or Next Men or Star Trek or anything else, the world of the story exists consistently and free of any examples of that annoying "bling."

Is that "dated?" Who cares? It still works as magically as ever!   

••

Yet, I have never heard any of those gentlemen described in that way.

+++

It's the pejorative quality of the comment by the reviewer that is the issue, in the end, and not the quality of the artwork. "It's good art, but it's dated looking"? Where is that even an issue? Couldn't the same be said of Darwyn Cook?

••

This is why I get somewhat peeved by these comments. I seem to have demolished the "all his faces look the same", "he never draws backgrounds", and "his old stuff was better" nonsense, but there is, apparently some almost pathological need among some quarters of fandom to find SOMETHING negative to say about my work.

And, as noted in my first post in this thread, those who use this phrase don't ever seem to want to bother themselves with telling us WHY it looks "dated".

As to Cook, he was almost immediately elected as "cool". And I agree, his art is a lot of fun. But I suspect most fans who think it so have no idea that he's drawing (literally) from Ad Art styles of the early Sixties. It looks kinda like Bruce Timm, so instant pass.